From the Broadcast Booth

Sports Can't Escape Life

2007-11-27T21:51:00.000-08:00

I'm stunned and saddened by the loss of Sean Taylor earlier today.

Not because I knew the Washington Redskins safety personally -- I didn't -- and not because as a Redskins fan, he was one of my favorite players (though he most certainly was). No, what gets me is how in one instant, the very fabric of sports and one of the reasons I enjoy them was invaded by the harshest, most cruel entity known to mankind:

Life.

For many, myself included, sports is an escape from the rigors and stresses of daily life. When I tune in to a football game or a show about college basketball on ESPN, I want to hear about the coaches, the players, the on-the-field action. I don't want to stare the harsh realities of life and death in the face when I'm trying to enjoy a simple game. When I'm having a bad day or things aren't quite going the way I'd like them to, I use sports to help me feel better. Watching a baseball game or listening to experts break down the big NFL game of the week helps me forget about my problems for a little while, escape to a world of fun and games.

Taylor's premature death is but another tragic interruption upon our daily retreat. Instead of focusing on a Pro Bowl safety coming into his own and trying to rehab his knee to get back on the field for a Redskins team that's suffered three straight tough losses, we're talking about his checkered past, mourning the fact that his 18-month-old daughter will grow up without her father.

Which is probably the most tragic reality of the whole ordeal.

When I made the decision seven years ago to become a journalist, I decided to write about sports so I could avoid these harsh realities. I'm well aware of how bad life can be, how violent people can be toward one another. I didn't want to make my living writing about such dreary subjects as murder, robbery, politics and police corruption. And sports was my sanctuary; instead of writing daily about police looking for an armed robber or interviewing a crying grandmother about how her beloved grandson was killed by a drunk driver, I wanted to make my living writing about the games we all love.

The plays they make, the championships they win and how, often, sports can bring out some of the best in humanity. I'm reminded of a story I did for HRVarsity.com back in September, writing about how the Granby High School field hockey team was wearing pink uniforms throughout the season to benefit breast cancer. It was the positive, uplifting tale you might not get while browsing through the national or local section of your newspaper, a story made possible solely by the presence of sports.

But sometimes, life barges into the sanctity of sports and reminds all of us that no one's immune from the cruel reality. Not players, not coaches ... no one. Life doesn't care what you do for a living, or who you are. Nor does it care how many home runs you hit or whether you're among the league leaders in interceptions. Life doesn't give a damn about a 24-year-old football player changing his life and trying to provide for his young family while performing at a high level on the football field.

But the fans did care. Taylor's death is tragic, as is the reminder that not even our daily escapes are safe from the cruel hand of fate.

Remember When ...?

2007-11-15T20:55:00.000-08:00

Anyone else here recall a time when ESPN didn't need a legal analyst?

It wasn't really that long ago; used to be I could tune into the Worldwide Leader and get all the scores, highlights and analysis I needed. Sure, there were tales of athletes getting arrested or finding themselves knee-deep in scandal, but aside from the news itself and the sport in question's analyst weighing in with a field-related opinion, that was it.

Not anymore.

I don't know when the legal analyst first appeared on ESPN's airwaves. The first time I saw one was during the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case, and the trend seems to have snowballed since then. These days, the legal analysts get almost as much airtime as all the other analysts, what with all the athletes (and in some instances, coaches) getting into trouble with the law.

Pacman makes it rain in a Vegas strip club. There's Roger Cossack.

Michael Vick made some dogs tear each other to bits? Say hi to Lester Munson.

O.J. went all psycho on some guy who stole his memorabilia (who would want that stuff, anyway?)? There's that Cossack guy again!

And let's not forget Thursday night; when news broke that the federal government would indict Barry Bonds on perjury and obstruction of justice charges for his testimony in the BALCO steroids case, SportsCenter's Jay Harris and Cris McKendry spoke with not one ... not two ... but 'THREE people with the title "ESPN Legal Analyst."

There was Cossack, there was Munson. And then some other guy who's name escapes me at this point.

I could understand having one legal analyst on-hand for when athletes get in trouble with the law. Hell, I can even get by with two being on the corporate payroll. But the Walt Disney Corp. pays three guys to be ESPN's legal gurus? Is this so commonplace these days the Worldwide Leader has to go through legal analysts the way Britney Spears goes through Social Services workers?

Or the way Phil Jackson goes through gay jokes when talking about his team?

I won't hold the legal analysts' presence against ESPN; it's clearly a sign of the way the sports culture has changed. When the athletes we watch and write about aren't performing on the field anymore, it seems as if they're being handcuffed, lined up and made to stand and turn to the right (No, your other right) in front of a camera. Our favorite althetes hit 450-foot home runs, throw game-winning touchdowns and throw down monster dunks -- but they also make it rain in strip clubs, shoot firearms at the dead of night and take illegal performance-enhancers.

So when they stand before a judge with some high-priced attorney at their side, we have a right to know what they're dealing with. Because chances are, the vast majority of us will never find ourselves in that position.

It's just a shame, because I remember when ESPN had no need for the legal analyst. Just proof that not all evolution is necessarily good.

Fan vs. Writer: the Eternal Struggle

2007-10-14T22:44:00.001-07:00

One of the first things I learned six years ago when I started studying journalism was "Leave your fandom at the door."

It was a simple enough concept; someone professionally credentialed to cover an athletic event, on any level, with the purpose of later relaying the game's events to an audience should, upon entering with press pass in hand, leave all allegiances and feelings at the door. The only rooting one need do when a sports writer is for good storylines and quick games (we all have deadlines, you know).

At first, I wasn't sure I could do it. I got my start covering sports for the campus newspaper at Old Dominion University, ''The Mace & Crown''. So here I was, someone intimately passionate about the school I was attending, embarking on a profession in which I would have to train without rooting for my favorite athletic teams.

No sitting courtside drung basketball games and hollering over a tie-breaking 3-pointer.

Oddly enough, though ... it happened. I quickly learned to shelf my emotions and just focus on the action on the field (or court, or diamond, or track ...). Whatever I felt was gone when I was working; instead, all I did was write what happened, use quotes where appropriate and become familiar with the idea of using statistics to help make arguments.

And over the years, the fan-writer conflict has bled over into the sports I don't cover, but merely watch as a fan. Baseball, football ... it doesn't matter. My highly-opinionated fan's eye has been clouded by the non-judgemental lens of the sports writer.

The Baltimore Orioles suffered through their 10th straight losing season, in the process firing manager and pitch coach (after the fact). Rather than throw my black-and-orange Orioles cap to the ground in disgust and booing the on-field product (or even the owner signing the checks from his skybox), I tried looking for hows, whys and ways to fix things.

Washington grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory Sunday at Green Bay, blowing a winnable game against the Packers. But while my friend Kenny cursed and groaned and threw his Redskins hat at the TV, I just ... watched.

This isn't to say I no longer love sports; it's obvious I still do (as often as I visit this site and I've chosen to make my living in sports). But my outward passion has been subdued over the years, replaced by a stoic professionalism I learned in the press box and now can't get rid of. My enjoyment of sports hasn't dwindled, it's just ... changed.

Well, for the most part. I still get pretty riled up at a NASCAR race.

I don't know if it's the adrenaline or the sheer passion I have for and against certain drivers, but I cannot be stoic during a NASCAR race. That is, I can't just sit there and watch things unfold without letting an emotional reaction or two take me over. I cheer loudly for the drivers I like, I boo mercilessly for those I hate.

Saturday night at the Bank of America 500 at Lowe's Motor Speedway, any and all professionalism I felt left the minute the ticket lady took my stub. When Matt Kenseth had problems, I cheered. When Tony Stewart ran into Kasey Kahne on pit road, I hollered and screamed at him as if he could hear me. I rallied and cried for Clint Bowyer as he surged to the front and I can't even repeat some of the things I shouted when Ryan Newman shot to the lead late, only to spin out and not win.

It seems NASCAR is my fandom's last reserve.

I want to cheer on my Redskins, feel confident that at 3-2, they have a shot at not stinking '''quite''' so bad this year. But the sports writer in me tempers that, leaving me to watch the games, feel a twinge of emotion over what goes on, but ultimately analyze and break down the hows and the whats, not the "Woohoo!" and the "Here we go, boys!"

I love sports; always have, always will. And there are still times where I have a strong opinion that I have to deliver, regardless of my professional standing or what my job might be doing to the rest of my sporting life. I still cheer, I still boo, just not as ... adamantly as before.

Unless we're talking cars driving fast in circles. Then I'm as passionate and animated as Jenna Jameson.

Only my passion's real.

Memo to Cubs Fans

2007-10-02T18:01:00.001-07:00

So the Chicago Cubs made the playoffs this year. Well, whoop-dee-f*@#ing doo; has Hell frozen over yet?

Oh, that's if they win the World Series, never mind.

I've made my hatred for the New York Yankees no secret on this site, but I haven't made so much noise about my other least favorite team, the (for some reason) beloved Cubbies. And that was mostly because I thought they were irrelavant, not likely to challenge for October baseball, let alone actually be taking part in it.

But since they are, I have a message for those who inexplicably follow the North-Siders:

LEAVE BARTMAN ALONE!!!

Before I explain the above, let me say that I don't hate Cubs players or coaches. I think Lou Piniella has done a fine job getting that team into contention and some of those players are really All-Star caliber -- I'm talking mostly Alfonso Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee and Carlos Zambrano. So my problem isn't with the on-field unit, the 25 guys who suit up and day in and day out to play this game I grew up loving.

No, my problem lies with the fans. The overzealous Cubs fanatic who sees everything through perpetually-negative, Harry Caray-sized glasses and places blame where blame need not be placed.

Like Bartman.

Everyone and their grandmother knows who Steve Bartman is and what he did. The Cubs five outs away from beating the Florida Marlins and advancing to the 2003 World Series, and then the foul ball was hit down the left-field line and Bartman got in Moises Alou's way and voila!

Instant scapegoat!

Please. Enough with these curses and billy goats and excuses as to why your team time and time again gags away the postseason. Did Mitch Williams and the Phillies make excuses when he gave up the World Series-winning home run to Joe Carter in 1993? No, he manned up. Did Trevor Hoffman make excuses when he allowed Colorado to score three runs Monday night to win and advance to the NLDS? No, he took the blame and said it was his fault.

So why can't Cubs fans just acknowledge that not winning the World Series in almost a century is the team's fault?

Okay, Bartman got in the way of what you thought would be a sure out, but what if Alou doesn't catch that ball anyway? Or what about that routine grounder that Alex Gonzalez booted later in the inning? Or the bullpen, which gagged away the rest of Game 5, or the starters who pitched so poorly in Games 6 and 7?

You gonna blame those on Bartman, too? Cause if the answer is yes, then words cannot describe how freakin' retarded I think you people are.

Let me ask this: if the Cubs don't win the Series this year, who are you gonna blame? The players, the manager? Or Bill Belicheck for illegally filming the team on defense? Are you going to accuse A-Rod of receiving an HGH treatment from an Orlando pharmacy, or will you just look at the players who didn't perform and put the blame on them?

You don't see Mets fans doing this; they're blaming the people who deserve it for their September collapse: manager Willie Randolph and the players. No goats, no curses, no headphone-wearing fans who like their souvenir baseballs a little too much ... Mets fans understand it's all about what happens on the field, nothing else.

Was Bartman stupid for reaching for that foul ball? Yes, and so was Jeffrey Maier when he reached for a home run in the 1997 playoffs that helped New York beat the Orioles. But did Baltimore ever blame their postseason demise -- or the following decade of futility -- on that 10-year-old from the Bronx? No, because unlike those Cub fans, they weren't morons.

The Red Sox were not cursed, and neither were the White Sox. But then, that's what this is all about, isn't it? For so long, you Cubs had the Red Sox to keep you company in the misery of never winning it all, and Boston left you hanging in 2004. That had to sting, didn't it -- losing your lifelong roommate because he decided he was too good for you and moved out.

Or the White Sox, a clearly superior team with a clearly superior manager sharing a city with you, winning it all. It stinks, doesn't it? You have the fans, you have all the money and clout in that city, yet loudmouth Ozzy Guillen's the one with a World Series ring.

That billy goat curse is nothing but a bunch of horse crap, and you know it. Bartman is an excuse, and you know it. As you root for your bastions of mediocrity this postseason, please ... let the old ghosts go. Stop blaming the blameless. If the Cubs lose, blame the players -- you know, the ones who actually lose the game.

I mean, what does it take to make you Cub fans happy? Ditka managing the team?

Nah, you'd probably find something crazy to blame him for too.

Coach's tirade needless, embarrassing

2007-09-27T00:26:00.000-07:00

By now I'm sure you've seen Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy's tirade toward columnist Jenni Carlson after Saturday's 49-45 win over Texas Tech.

By now I'm sure you've also formed an opinion on the rant.

I'm a tad confused as to the timing of the rant; I've covered sports long enough to know what to expect in a press conference following a game like Saturday's: coach comes in, makes an opening remark about how great the opposing team is, how gratifying the win was and how much harder the team will have to work the coming week. Coach then takes questions from the assembled media, largely repeating the earlier statement for his answers.

But Gundy didn't do this. No ... he entered the press room and immediately laid into Carlson for her column in the Daily Oklahoman -- a column in which she opined about why quarterback Bobby Reid was benched. For those who haven't read the article, she basically questioned Reid's mental toughness and, without actually saying so, called the young man a wuss.

That's when Gundy went off.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Oh, here's a sports writer jumping to the defense of one of his brethren." Which ... okay, you're not entirely wrong there. But I have serveal problems with Gundy's actions ... most notably, the public forum with which he defended Reid.

I'm all for a coach backing one of his players; it shows a camaraderie not every team -- regardless of the level -- has. I have no problem with a coach standing beside his player and showing unflinching support. What I have a problem with is when a coach, like Gundy, publicly undresses another individual to do so. If Gundy had a problem with Carlson's article, then he should've found a time to pull Carlson aside and talked to her one-on-one about it. He had no business using a post-game press conference -- when other writers who had nothing to do with this article and his reaction to it have a job of their own to do -- to challenge her in front of television cameras and many of her colleagues.

I'm sure Carlson has thick skin -- you kind of have to in this line of work. And she stands by her article, as well she should. Gundy said, "three-fourths of this article is inaccurate," which is all fine and dandy. But there's one problem with his statement; he has to prove the inaccuracies. It's not up to Carlson to stand up and prove why what she wrote was accurate -- this takes us back to the journalists-revealing-sources debate -- it's up to Gundy to point to the inaccuracies and prove to Carlson and her readers why she's wrong.

It is also worth noting this was a column, not a news article. So Carlson was expressing an opinion, one Gundy clearly disagreed with.

Gundy berated Carlson for degrading a young student-athlete who was doing things the right way. He moaned about how Reid was an ameteur, and shouldn't have been subject to this kind of criticism. Because after all, Reid was just a kid, a kid who was working hard and doing things the right way. But what I wanna know is ... if Reid was working hard and doing things the right way, then why was he benched?!

Not only that, but both Gundy and Reid need to understand that when you play major Division I college football in one of the six BCS conferences -- and particularly in a town like Stillwater where your sport and your team are king -- you practically are a pro athlete. The revenue and exposure these kids bring to the schools and conferences warrant this kind of exposure and everything that comes with it -- including media scrutiny.

You don't want media scrutiny as a college football player? There's always Division III.

I read Carlson's article. Nothing Pultizer-worthy, but it was a readable piece. It was also your typical column in the sense of the style and flow it had. Though Carlson does attack Reid's character to a degree, there is nothing in that article worthy of such a meltdown from the coach.

A coach who hadn't seen the article until Reid's mother showed it to him.

But Gundy doesn't read the papers, or so he says. If he didn't read the papers, he wouldn't have paid this column -- or Carlson -- any mind. Generally, when someone publicly says, "I don't do this," they almost always do. And, as far as I'm concerned, if Reid himself doesn't have a problem with the article (and I haven't seen anything publicly to tell me he does), then what's the big deal?

Gundy showed incredibly thin skin in his tirade. His Cowboys had just completed a thrilling, emotional win over a conference rival and all he could think about was some column about his benched quarterback? This shows me a coach who's priorities are a little off-kilter and a fuse that's much too short. I think Gundy needs to re-examine things and concentrate on the thing Oklahoma State hired him to concentrate on:

His football team.

Campbell Coming Along Nicely

2007-09-18T21:31:00.000-07:00

In many ways, Washington Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell is still an unknown commodity, a young singal-caller walking around the nation's capital with a large question mark over his head.

Not totally unlike the ones you'd see when a guard hears a noise in the PlayStation game Metal Gear Solid.

That's not say Campbell isn't talented -- he did lead an Auburn team that went undefeated and got snubbed out of a shot at a national title by the ultra-genius BCS and was the No. 25 overall pick in the 2005 NFL Draft -- but he's so unproven. Monday night's NFC East road game against Philadelphia was just his ninth career starts, and to call the Redskins offense of being explosive might be grounds for making one Rosie O'Donnell's replacement on The View.

Since apparently, you have to be insane to have that job.

Two seasons ago, Joe Gibbs found the playoffs thanks to a solid -- if not aging and immobile -- Mark Brunell, but last year it was clear Brunell's days had passed. Getting Campbell in for the first six games of 2006 was not only a smart move, it was the only move. A first-round pick, Campbell was eating a lot of salary, and if he was to be the Redskins' quarterback of the future, he needed as much experience as he could get, as soon as possible.

That experience is already paying dividends, as Monday's 20-12 win over the Eagles showed.

Campbell isn't a fantasy player's dream -- I don't see 300-yard, 4-touchdown games in his immediate future -- but he does what Gibbs asks him to: hand the ball to backs Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts and make smart decisions on passing plays. Campbell's mobile enough to escape the pocket when it collapses (which Brunell couldn't in later years), but he's not a running quarterback. He's got a canon of an arm, yet one of his favorite targets is tight end Chris Cooley.

Who caught that TD before the end of the first half Monday night? Cooley.

Like most young singal-callers, Campbell is still prone to mistakes -- that interception in the first half to James Williams was a late throw after Campbell stared down his intended receiver -- but he gets better every time the Redskins play. And the offensive line has done a wonderful job protecting him, even with injuries (the biggest being Jon Jansen, who's out for the year with a broken and dislocated ankle). The two-headed beast, Portis-Betts, gives a solid rushing attack that gives Campbell more leeway in the passing game, a reality that will only prove itself more as the weeks go by and he gets more experience.

The defense has helped, back to playing to its potential -- just 25 points in the first two games, one offensive touchdown allowed -- and held Donovan McNabb and the Iggles to nothing but field goals whenever they sniffed the red zone. And how about that 2007 first-round pick Laron Landry, laying that big hit on 4th and 6 to save the game?

But Monday's game was Campbell's coming-out party. He's young, talented, smart and as long as the team keeps playing him the way it does -- not giving him more than he can handle, slightly increasing his workload week after week, this guy's going to wind up being a nice starter in the NFL, maybe even a Pro Bowler.

I'm not sure if he'll be another Doug Williams -- a similar-style QB Gibbs won the Super Bowl with -- or if he'll wind up being a legend, but Campbell is, in many ways, the quarterback the Redskins have needed ever since Mark Rypien left:

A winning one.

NASCAR Goes Global

2007-09-12T21:26:00.000-07:00

Used to be, the NASCAR Nextel -- back then, Winston -- Cup Series was as exclusive a club as you could find. Drivers -- white males predominently from the southeastern U.S. wrestling 3,400-pound machines around bullrings and speedways for everyone to watch and appreciate -- and, okay, get liquored up on.

Petty, Earnhardt, Yarborough, Johnson, Allison, Elliott, Pearson, Parsons ... easily a Good Ol' Boys Club if ever there was one.

But once the 1990s came, that started to change. Ernie Ervan swooped in from California; 1992 series champion Alan Kulwicki from Wisconsin. Then came Jeff Gordon -- born in California, grew up in Indiana. Robby Gordon, Jimmie Johnson and Kevin Harvick -- from California. Ryan Newman, Tony Stewart ... Indiana. Kasey Kahne and Greg Biffle, the state of Washington. NASCAR has grown nationally in terms of driver talent in the past two decades, which while irksome to some fans -- you'd be amazed how many fans hate Jeff Gordon simply because he's not Southern -- was a undeniable fact.

These guys were good, sponsors loved them ... so they raced

But thanks to a little guy by the name of Juan Pablo Montoya, a new trend has taken over the Nextel Cup Series -- international drivers. It's not enough to say there's an open-wheel influx anymore -- Jeff and Robby Gordon, Stewart, Newman and Kahne all come from open-wheel backgrounds -- now, it's a matter of racers from other countries coming to a sport that was once exclusively American.

And it's no coincidence this movement coincides with Toyota's inclusion in the sport.

Montoya, a former Indianapolis 500 champion and Monaco Grand Prix winner in Formula One, has more than held his own on the Nextel Cup circuit, competing week in and week out. He won his first Cup race at the road course at Sonoma, and any day now we could see him in Victory Lane on an oval. Yes, he's been too aggressive at times and has feuded with a couple guys -- Harvick, mainly -- but make no mistake: Montoya is a NASCAR star, and he's signaling a change.

Consider:

--Australian Marcos Ambrose is in the running for Busch Series Rookie of the Year, and nearly won his first career race last month in Montreal.

--Former CART and Formula One driver Jacques Villeneuve, a Frenchman, will make his NASCAR debut this season with Bill Davis Racing in the Craftsman Truck Series. Undoubtedly, the goal will be to eventually have Villeneuve run Cup races.

--CART veteran Patrick Carpentier of Canada ran his first NASCAR Busch Series race last month in Montreal, finishing second before making his Nextel Cup debut at Watkins Glen. Some speculate he'll run the full Busch schedule next season.

--IndyCar Series champion Dario Franchitti of Scotland is in negotiations with Chip Ganassi to drive full-time in the Nextel Cup Series next year, driving the No. 40 Dodge made famous by "Good Ol' Boy" Sterling Marlin. Franchitti, who also won this year's Indy 500, cites money, exposure and safety as a reason for considering the move.

--According to ESPN.com's Terry Blount, English-born IRL driver -- and former Indy 500 champion -- Dan Wheldon wanted Ganassi to put him in the full-time Cup ride, but the car owner decided to keep him in the IRL for at least another year.

--Blount also says three-time defending Champ Car Series champ Sebastian Bourdais, from France, considered NASCAR offers before ultimately deciding to race for Toro Rosso in Formula One.

Ignoring the fact that these guys are all open-wheel stars -- because then we'd have to add American Sam Hornish Jr. to the equation -- it's clear that NASCAR, at least competition-wise, is going international. Some of the traditional die-hards might not like it, but the fact remains: NASCAR touts itself as the 43 best drivers in the world firing up the engines every weekend and fighting for the checkered flag.

Note the phrase in the world -- that's not just PR talk anymore, it's coming true.

And let's be perfectly honest: in America, no form of motorsport is more popular than NASCAR. Not the Champ Car Series (formerly CART), not the IndyCar Series ... NASCAR. A lot of that has to do with the CART/IRL split of 1995; before then, open-wheel racing was king in America.

Worldwide, nothing tops Formula One ... but like soccer, it's almost irrelavent here in the States. That's likely because live TV coverage is on at odd hours on this side of the Atlantic, the racing isn't deemed as "exciting," and without a marquee American star, there's no real reason for U.S. gearheads to take notice.

In America, we like the NFL and NASCAR. Everywhere else likes soccer and F1.

So naturally, NASCAR has the money and the exposure. Money isn't a question for Formula One drivers -- I recall two years ago where Michael Shumacher outgrossed Tiger Woods in total earnings that year -- nor is exposure. But notice the names I listed above. Aside from Montoya and Villeneuve, they're all former CART and IRL drivers. With American open-wheel racing waning in popularity and NASCAR on a constant rise, it's no wonder the big stars are flocking to cars with roofs.

The safety factor is also important, as Franchitti noted. NASCAR will run the Car of Tomorrow full-time in 2008, which will mean slower speeds, more crash-friendly bodies. All Nextel Cup tracks are equipped with energy-absorbing SAFER barriers and since speeds are lower in stock cars, crashes won't be quite as hard. Not only that, but -- and Franchitti will love this -- a stock car is much harder to flip end-over-end than an open-wheel car.

So lots of money, tons of exposure and safer race cars ... who wouldn't want to make the switch?

I'll tell you who won't like it, though: a lot of NASCAR fans, and CART and IRL.

The IRL seems to be on the cusp of national prominence, but still fights for attention whenever Danica Patrick isn't on the verge of winning of throwing a tantrum. For the IRL to keep growing, it can't have its champions and stars flocking to NASCAR. Franchitti leaving, and Wheldon wanting to leave, does nothing to help the IndyCar Series.

Likewise, CART suffers. Canadian Paul Tracy tried NASCAR for a bit, only to find he couldn't handle it. But the fact is, he tried ... and last year, young phenom A.J. Allmendinger won three straight Champ Car races. This year, he's running for Team Red Bull in the Nextel Cup Series, and though he's struggling, he's still getting more money and more exposure than he did as a winner and contender in the open-wheel ranks.

Now, the fans ... remember earlier when I said fans would boo Jeff Gordon for simply not being Southern? Sounded pretty retarded, didn't it? Well, take that logic, and throw an international driver into the mix. If stereotypical redneck NASCAR fan don't like no Indiana boy knockin' paint with Dale Earnhardt Jr., what do you think they'll think of a Frenchman doing the same? They're not going to like it. I know it's stupid, you know it's stupid, but that's the way it is. NASCAR has gone corporate and in many ways shook loose of its Southern roots, but a lot of the Southern fan base remains and most of them are ... let's just say unsophisticated.

Personally, I say let the international drivers come. If they can learn the cars and be competitive and successful, then that's great. NASCAR grows even more, these drivers have another viable outlet for their careers and everyone benefits. NASCAR stands for the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing.

Notice it doesn't say which nation.

Cars Go Fast, Drivers Go Boom

2007-08-14T21:30:00.001-07:00

Can a NASCAR team spontaneously combust?

I don't know, but we might get our answer next season. Joe Gibbs Racing announced Tuesday that Kyle Busch will drive the No. 18 car in 2008, joining two-time Nextel Cup champion Tony Stewart and reigning Rookie of the Year Denny Hamlin in the Super Bowl-winning coach's three-car stable.

Which is all fine and dandy ... Stewart and Hamlin are both stellar wheelmen, and many in the Nextel Cup garage feel Kyle Busch -- or as I call him, Shrub (he's Kurt Busch's younger brother) -- is one of the elite talents in the series, if not THE elite talent.

But, as important as driving the wheels off a racecar is, there's one fundamental reason this deal could blow up in Gibbs' face: the personalities.

Stewart is ... shall we say ... petulant. He often winds up scuffling on and off the track with drivers, partly because of his aggressiveness behind the wheel and partly because of his refusal to ever take any blame when he finds himself in an incident. Example: at Daytona last month, Stewart and teammate Hamlin wrecked after Stewart hit the back of Hamlin's car. Rather than saying he hit Hamlin and started the fray, Stewart decided to throw Hamlin under the bus and blame him for the accident.

Nice teammate, huh? That's like Derek Jeter screaming at Alex Rodriguez for missing a screaming line drive down the third-base line.

Hamiln, for his part, is immature at times. Though that's not totally unexpected ... he's only in his 20s and this is just his second full season in Nextel Cup. It wasn't too long ago this guy was watching Cup races at Richmond International Raceway and driving Late Models at Langley Speedway in Hampton, Va. But his rift with Stewart last month was enough to bring Gibbs out from vacation and preparing for the Redskins' season to hold a meeting.

Now, enter Busch, a ripe youngster at just 22. A stellar talent, no doubt -- already a four-time Nextel Cup winner -- but the attitude just isn't right with the boy. Ever since Hendrick Motorsports announced that Dale Earnhardt Jr. would drive the No. 5 (or whatever number it's going to be) in 2008, Busch has acted like the odd man out, complaining his teammated Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson didn't draft with him at Daytona and wondering publicly if maybe the organization had already kicked him out the door.

And we're not even talking about Shrub's on-track incidents -- many of which have involved Stewart. What's gonna happen the first time they tangle on the asphalt as teammates? Is Gibbs gonna have to leave Washington for another impromptu team meeting?

Even Gibbs himself can't ignore the potential pitfalls of pairing Busch with Stewart and Hamlin. At the news conference Tuesday, Gibbs addressed everyone over a vide screen, saying:

"I got to thinking about this: We've got Tony, and the way that Tony acts sometimes," Gibbs said. "And we've found that Denny is no piece of cake. And now we've got Kyle Busch? J.D., good luck!"

J.D., Gibbs' son, handles the day-to-day operations of Joe Gibbs Racing ... mostly because Gibbs himself is busy trying to turn the Washington Redskins into a Super Bowl winner again. Gibbs has three Super Bowl rings with the 'Skins and three Nextel Cup championships -- one with Bobby Labonte and two with Stewart -- so one would think that if any organization could make this explosive combination work, it would be this one. But Stewart and Busch are so volatile individually that combining them will, at some point, spell disaster. Add Hamlin to the mix and things could get interesting.

If nothing else, this threesome of drivers should make for great theatre. The big story in NASCAR in 2008 will be how Earnhardt Jr. fares at Hendrick -- arguably NASCAR's best team -- whether he wins races and contends for championships, or if he suffers more of the on-again, off-again success he's had over the years at Dale Earnhardt, Inc. But let's not forget the marriage of Shrub, Stewart and Hamlin ... because if everyone's not careful (and let's face it, these guys drive 200 mph weekly for a living ... how careful can they be?), this could get quite explosive.

And entertaining. I always did love a good explosion every now and again ...

What Took So Long?

2007-08-14T21:10:00.001-07:00

The Associated Press is reporting that Rutgers women's basketball junior Kia Vaughn has filed a defamation lawsuit against radio host Don Imus and CBS Radio over comments Imus made shortly after the team's run to the NCAA championship game against Tennessee. On April 4, Imus referred to the Rutgers players as a bunch of "nappy-headed hos," sparking a national controversy and resulting in Imus' firing.

Imus is reported to have resurfaced, signing a deal with WABC Radio.

Before I launch into my spiel here, let me make one thing abundantly clear: in no way do I condone what Imus said. I supported CBS Radio in firing him and feel sad that someone would see fit to make such a comment about young women and college athletes. In jest or not, those comments were in poor taste and horribly immature. I've been a long-time supporter of women's college basketball, and my work over the years with the Old Dominion team has shown me how good these players are, both on and off the court -- so for Imus to pull a race and sex card for the sake of a cheap laugh was one of the most despicable things a radio host could do.

Aside from eating popcorn on the air while calling a basketball game.

All that said, I can't get behind this lawsuit. Why? Well, for one thing ... what took so long? Why is Vaughn just now filing a defamation suit? Why not file one within a month of Imus' comments? I won't pretend to understand legal procedures, but if I'm going to file a defamation suit against someone and claim their comments had an adverse effect on my reputation, I'd be filing that lawsuit ASAP.

Imus' comments were made in April; Vaughn's suit is just now coming in August. Why the delay?

Granted, from what I know, defamation law suits are tricky; in filing one, you claim that not only have someone's comments impaired your reputation, but that they're also false. And it's on you to prove the defendant's comments were false. That's often easier said than done.

I also don't know what life has been like for these young women since the comments were made. I grant that on the surface, it would appear that Imus' comments had no effect on them; the comments were made, the players reacted in a press conference and met with Imus at the New Jersey governor's mansion ... and that was that.

The players go back to their lives, taking classes and preparing for another NCAA title run in 2007-08 Coach C. Vivien Stringer goes about the business of recruiting, travelling to Virginia for an AAU basketball tournament, miles away from any mention on Imus and his comments. Just life and basketball.

Right? Not necessarily.

But still, I have a hard time believing Imus' comments really tarnished the players' images -- I'd like to think that, if they did, more players would've filed suits. And, near as the AP and the Rutgers womens basketball program can tell, Vaughn's the first player to file such a suit.

Not only that, but I'd like to think most sports fans would be level-headed enough to realize Imus' comments were deplorable and not that bright; I'd like to think they realize he was just a crusty old shock jock looking for some ratings and publicity. Then again, I've often been accused of giving people too much credit, so it's possible there are people out there who heard what Imus said about the Rutgers players and actually thought they were "nappy-headed hos."

But even so, people of that mindset should be the least of the Rutgers players' concern. The best thing they can all do is move on and concentrate on their studies and their games. This is a team returning all five of its starters from last year, a team many feel has a legitimate shot at winning the national title ... why hold onto something like this?

I long ago criticized the likes of Rafael Palmeiro and Barry Bonds for not filing defamation suits -- Palmeiro when Jose Canseco's book Juiced alleged that Palmeiro had used steroids, Bonds when Game of Shadows came out. I felt that if someone made a claim about you and you knew it was false, you sue their butt off before they even know what hit them. You don't sue, that's like an underhanded, implied admission of guilt.

And I realize this case is different. Imus didn't accuse Vaughn or her teammates of steroid use; he simply called them a name. And, though my communication law is a bit off in the years since my education, I'm not sure if name-calling exactly fits under the definitions of slander and libel.

'Cause if it is, I might need to start looking into hiring a lawyer.

Feeder System Needs Tweaking

2007-08-12T21:19:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the best way to describe the NASCAR Busch Series is to call it stock car racing’s version of the minor leagues – that is, the Busch Series is to Nextel Cup as the AAA-level Norfolk Tides are to the Baltimore Orioles.

The series is a feeder system of sorts for America’s most popular motorsport – despite sagging TV ratings and empty seats at the track every week. Many of today’s Nextel Cup stars cut their teeth in the Busch Series.

Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson were competitive. Mark Martin holds the all-time mark for Busch Series wins. Kevin Harvick, Greg Biffle and Dale Earnhardt Jr. have each hoisted the Busch Series championship trophy – Harvick and Earnhardt twice each.

And when NASCAR negotiates television deals for the Nextel Cup Series, the Busch Series is part of the deal. When FOX got in on Cup racing, the Busch Series tagged along, either on FOX or FX. TNT and NBC used to split Cup and Busch duties and now ESPN puts all Busch races on ESPN2.

Most Busch Series race take place on the same tracks as the Cup races, sometimes referred to in racing circles as “companion events.” Much like your short track might use a series of 25- or 50-lap features to lead up to the big-ticket 75- or 100-lapper, NASCAR often uses the Busch race to “lead in” to the Cup race.

But the Busch Series finds itself in a bit of a quandary right now. Cup drivers have always raced in the Busch Series, but in recent years the presence of “Buschwhackers” has threatened the health and integrity of the series. Stephen Leicht’s win at Kentucky and Jason Leffler’s win at O’Reilly this year notwithstanding, Nextel Cup regulars have won every Busch race this season.

How can the Busch Series serve as a development series for the Nextel Cup Series if Nextel Cup drivers are constantly barging in and taking checkered flags and valuable purse money?

Carl Edwards has won four times and is running away with the Busch Series this year, holding 787-point lead over David Reutimann. The highest-placing Busch regular? Leffler in fourth, 935 points behind Edwards.

Does that sound to you like a series conducive to developing young talent for the next level?

To put it simply, no. To put it not so simply, the Busch Series is now a glorified test session for Cup drivers. The big, multi-car operations in Nextel Cup form multi-car teams in the Busch Series, place their star drivers in the cars and watch as the Cup drivers dominate the Busch drivers, undoubtedly stunting the growth of a young guy – like, say, Aric Almirola – looking to eventually work his way to Cup.

Example: on June 23, the Busch Series ran at the Milwaukee Mile, while the Cup guys were at Infineon Raceway. Joe Gibbs put Almirola in his Busch car to qualify for Cup driver Denny Hamlin. But since Hamlin didn’t get to the track before the start of the race, Almirola – who won the pole for the Busch race – ran the race.

He ran well, leading laps and appearing to be the car to beat. But, once Hamlin finally got to the track, Gibbs made Almirola come into the pits and climb out of the race car. Hamlin got in, went back out and took the checkered flag. While Almirola gets the trophy and the check and the credit for winning the race, we all know – Hamlin won the race, and in the process Gibbs showed just how unimportant developing young talent in the Busch Series is.

Don’t get me wrong; I understand completely why Cup drivers run Busch races. It helps the track boost ticket sales; fans are more likely to put down money to watch a Busch race if they know they’ll get to see Harvick and Earnhardt Jr. And given how strict NASCAR’s testing rules are for the Cup teams, the Busch races can be valuable bastions of information.

But something needs to be done to let the series be what it once was; an exciting series that showcases the up-and-coming NASCAR talent.

And with Anheiser-Busch opting out of its deal to sponsor the Busch Series after this season, NASCAR is at a crossroads. I see this as an opportunity, a chance for NASCAR to take the Busch Series and turn into something new and exciting, fresh and competitive.

Something young drivers can use as a springboard to the Nextel Cup Series.

So here’s what I suggest: With the Cup Series running the Car of Tomorrow exclusively next season, make a similar change in the Busch Series. Turn the Busch Series into a Sports Car series; instead of running Monte Carlos and Fusions and Chargers and Camrys, let these guys run Corvettes and Mustangs and Vipers and Supras.

Doing so serves several purposes:

1) Running the Busch Series with sports cars will give the series an identity of its own, something to distinguish itself from the Nextel Cup Series. Keep running the same tracks, but by running sports cars, the Busch Series becomes unique.

2) The sports cars will also lessen the advantages Cup drivers have over the Busch regulars, and will negate the “test session” approach most Cup teams take to Busch races. If the cars are so different a Cup driver or crew chief can’t take information to apply to the Cup car, they might be less likely to run the race, letting Busch regulars fight it out amongst themselves.

3) Which would you, as a fan, rather see – a Monte Carlo and a Camry go at it, or a Corvette and a Viper? This could go hand-in-hand with the identity argument, but considering the various other cars NASCAR sanctions – stock cars, open-wheel modifieds, trucks – a sports car series makes perfect sense.

The Busch Series is in trouble right now, what with Cup drivers dominating the series, race purses being so small and a change in series sponsorship on the horizon. NASCAR has to do something to protect and keep the Busch Series alive, because if the series is allowed to serve its original purpose – get young drivers ready for the rigors and competition of Nextel Cup racing – it can be almost as big an asset to stock car racing as Nextel Cup is.

The true racing fans – not just NASCAR fans, but racing fans in general – will flock to the Busch Series regardless, but a switch to sports cars will infuse the series with an identity, a sense of uniqueness and a competition not seen since the Cup drivers began invading en mass nearly every weekend.

If car owners want young drivers to develop into Cup stars, they need the Busch Series. More importantly, they need a Busch Series in which they feel like they have a shot to win and be competitive every weekend.

Right now, they don’t have that.

A Much-Needed Feel-Good

2007-08-10T09:00:00.000-07:00

Let's face it, this is a pretty depressing time in sports right now. If we're not arguing about steroids and home run records in baseball, we're pontificating about all the legal issues the NFL has to deal with or betting scandals in an already pointless game -- the NBA.

Then there's that overpaid British guy who, until last night, decided he was too pansy to go running around a wide-open field (oh, I'm sorry ... pitch) with a slightly sprained ankle. Mr. Beckham, there was a guy the other day who pitched five innings for the Colorado Rockies with a broken leg. Get with it, ya ponce.

Where's a feel-good story when we need one? Something we can look at and smile about and feel good about being sports fans again?

Well, look no further than St. Louis, where last night Rick Ankiel made his return to the Major Leagues. Not as the highly-touted pitcher he was prior to going 11-7 in his rookie year of 2000 with a 3.50 ERA, but as an outfielder.

Anyone who follows baseball knows that Ankiel, for all his pitching talent, imploded in the 2000 playoffs, at one point throwing nine wild pitches in one game and completely losing command of the strike zone. It's happened to some of the best -- Atlanta's Mark Wohlers comes to mind -- and although it looked a few times in the minors Ankiel would get it back, he never quite did.

So in 2005, he announced he'd become a full-time outfielder. And despite my reservations about this move, I hoped it would work out, because I never like to see a guy completely lose it the way Ankiel did.

Thirty-two home runs this year in AAA ... yeah, that's all fine and dandy, but it's AAA.

Last night Ankiel got his call-up to the Cardinals, receiving the standing ovation he so richly deserved after years of struggle and perseverance. Most guys would've folded after the meltdown he had in the playoffs, but Ankiel kept at it. He worked and worked and worked, and once he found that pitching was no longer his calling, he found a new outlet and he worked and worked at that, too.

Things started off innocently enough -- a pop out in the first, a strikeout in the third and again in the fifth -- but in the seventh, Ankiel gave the Busch Stadium crowd -- and I have to admit, me -- goosebumps. Taking a hack at a pitch so low and outside I'm still not quite sure how he hit it, Ankiel took the ball over the right field fence.

Home run. To borrow a famous line, I don't believe what I just saw.

It wasn't Ankiel's first big-league blast -- he had two as a pitcher in 2000 -- but still ... for him to have the struggles he did and to come back like this is a tremendous story. Manager Tony LaRussa strikes me as a stoic man, but seeing him getting excited and even bordering on emotional over Ankiel's return only served to hammer home the moment even more.

I'm not sure how Ankiel's career will unfold from here, but the simple fact that he rose from the proverbial baseball ashes and tweaked his game to better suit -- and keep alive -- his career tells me this is a guy who could be successful. I don't know it he'll ever be a .300, 35 HR, 90 RBI kinda guy, but whatever he can give the Cardinals at this point is a bonus -- both for them and for him.

Cause six, seven years ago, this looked like a career that had flamed out.

It's nice to see stories like Ankiel's pop up in the midst of the scandal and controversy. We've seen in the past couple months everything wrong with sports, and here's a shining example of what can be right with them.

What I Know

2007-08-07T22:41:00.001-07:00

I wasn't watching the Giants-Nationals game when Barry Bonds hit career home run No. 756 to become the all-time home run leader, surpassing Hank Aaron. It wasn't a protest of Bonds' pursuit, nor was it some statement against the steroid era of baseball.

To put it simply, I was working. These high school football previews aren't gonna write themselves, after all.

But now that I've heard about it, and read about it, and seen a few articles and even a poem on ArmchairGM.com about it -- and finally seen the blast itself thanks to Yahoo! and ESPN.com -- I've come up with some thoughts I feel need sharing.

Do I think Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs? Yes. Do I know Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs? No.

Is Bonds the only player to find himself under suspicion of steroid use? No -- just ask anyone who's tested positive under Major League Baseball's tough -- if not late -- policy. I'm sure a Mr. Rafael Palmeiro would be quite forthcoming.

Is Bonds the face of the so-called "Steroid Era?" Yes. Is it unfair? You bet your lucky glove it is. What about the suspicion for other players? Why aren't we suspecting, say, Albert Pujols or Hideki Matsui? Why don't we suspect Roger Clemens, despite the changes in his physique, his performance in recent years and the fact that he was named in a federal steroids affidavit?

Make no mistake -- I am no Barry Bonds apologist. I think he's an unsavory person and he often lashes out at the media -- colleagues of mine, in a sense -- when all they're doing is their job. Ask a question, get your head torn off ... I don't remember learning that one in college.

But here's one thing I do know amid all this uncertainty: Barry Lamar Bonds has never -- I repeat, NEVER -- tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs.

Everything we know -- or, perhaps more accurately, everything we think we know -- is circumstantial at best. Everything revealed in the bestseller Book of Shadows is based on grand jury testimony we should've never been privy to in the first place ... so that right there hits a notch or two on my Skepto-Meter.

The body changes, while suspicious, do not indict or convict Bonds. Nor do the rumors or the innuendo or the former mistress who's suddenly decided bearing all for Playboy will better her life -- or at least her bank account.

The only thing we know for 100 percent sure right now is that Bonds has hit 756 home runs in his career, one more than the legendary Hank Aaron. Let commissioner Bud Selig and everyone else think and do what they want; unless and until I have solid, irrefutable proof that Bonds took illegal drugs (like, say, a drug test), I will -- albeit begrudgingly -- acknowledge this record and give Bonds his congratulations.

Innocent until proven guilty. Everyone --regardless of occupation or personality -- deserves that much. The record is what it is ... no amount of griping or moaning or pontificating is going to change that.

756 is 756. And Barry Bonds, for better or for worse, is forever attached to that number.

Quite the Sordid Affair ...

2007-07-28T23:27:00.001-07:00

You know, if I were a less talented writer, I’d be tempted to start this column with either a famous soap opera quote involving an hourglass or I’d make a sick joke only fans of Family Guy would be proud of.

But I’m better than that, so in theory, I should be able to come up with something more intelligent and witty. But … I can’t, so in order to not subject myself (or you guys) to the groan-worthy corniness that would be the above options, I’ll simply tell it like it is:

Erin Crocker and Ray Evernham did something bad. Something that just so happens to rhyme with “duck.”

For those who have no clue who the aforementioned are, here’s a primer:

Evernham currently owns a three-car Nextel Cup operation that houses drivers Kasey Kahne, Elliott Sadler and Scott Riggs. He was in front of Dodge’s return to NASCAR in 1999, and though he’s yet to win a championship as a car owner, he has visited Victory Lane numerous times.

Just not as often as he did in his old gig. From 1992 to 1999, Evernham was Jeff Gordon’s crew chief with Hendrick Motorsports. In that time, they won 47 races and three Cup championships.

Crocker is the first woman to win a World of Outlaws sprint car race, and was signed in 2004 by Evernham to compete in ARCA, Craftsman Truck, NASCAR Busch and NASCAR Nextel Cup Series races. On top of developing her skills as a driver – and partially cashing in on the hype surrounded by Danica Patrick in the IndyCar Series – Evernham began growing closer to his new driver.

They started dating. Evernham is 50; Crocker 26. She’s just one year older than me … and her boyfriend is old enough to be her father.

Let that sink in for a minute.

…

Right, moving on … when Evernham fired Cup driver Jeremy Mayfield last year for a “lack of performance,” I’m not convinced he was lying – Mayfield was indeed performing poorly in the No. 19 Dodge. But Mayfield was vocally against Evernham’s relationship with Crocker and said it would hurt both the team and Crocker’s career.

I didn’t believe Mayfield at the time, but after Evernham acknowledged the relationship publicly for the first time on Friday, I saw what was really going on … and how screwed up this whole thing was.

Is it any coincidence Evernham Motorsports is struggling this year? That Riggs needs to qualify on time every week, and Kahne and Sadler can’t run well or finish races this season? How about Crocker’s consistent inability to perform to expectations? She finished a measly 25 th in the Craftsman Truck points standings last season, and her performance had bumped her to the ARCA series while she splits time with PRN Radio and looking for a new team.

Both Evernham and Crocker realize how big a mistake the relationship was. They both say that for Crocker to have the kind of stock car career she wants, she needs to find a new team. In essence, it becomes a credibility issue. Evernham can talk her up to sponsors all he wants, but the fact that she’s his girlfriend is going to give a potential sponsor pause.

And the longer Crocker stays with Evernham – be it business or otherwise – the more her credibility suffers. People would wonder … does she have a ride because of her talent, or because she’s sleeping in boss man’s bed?

Oh, and did I mention Evernham’s old enough to be her father?!

Mayfield was right in saying what he did about the relationship Evernham and Crocker had; Evernham’s team is suffering, and in the process, he might’ve inadvertently ruined a promising – and pioneering – NASCAR career. The best thing for both parties is to split – professionally and personally – and go about their business. Evernham can work on getting his Dodges back to what they’re capable of – Kahne won five races last year – and Crocker can go about finding another ride and proving herself on the race track.

But they have to do this alone … together obviously hasn’t worked.

As if the battle for women on the race track isn’t hard enough, this sordid affair certainly can’t help matters.

Silver Lining in the Vick Case?

2007-07-28T13:48:00.000-07:00

On the one hand, I'm not down with a Long Beach, Calif. minor-league baseball team's promotional campaign tomorrow. The campaign, called "Michael Vick Animal Awareness Day," seems to be taking advantage of a heartless act and turning a profit off of it.

But then I read what the promotion's all about, and I think it's one of the funniest and most creative promotional ideas ever.

For those too lazy to click the above link, fans who turn in Vick jerseys or t-shirts will get in for free on Sunday. Those jerseys will be used as pooper-scoopers for the dogs the fans can bring to the game.

In addition, there will be a ceremonial doggie first pitch, a doggie beatury contest, a weiner dog race, skateboarding bulldogs and doggie washes. And fans who donate toys or treats or abandoned and abused dogs will receive tickets to future Long Beach Armada games.

Considering what Vick's accused of doing -- running a dogfighting ring and killing dogs who either lost or weren't fit to fight -- this promotion fits perfectly. It shows support for opposing animal cruelty, it shows just what normal-thinking people think of Vick's alleged actions and it puts a nice twist on what would normally be a simple "Bring Your Dog to the Park" day.

My favorite part? Using Vick's jersey as a pooper-scooper. That right there makes this promotion a winner.

Dan Shannon, a assistant director of campaigns for PETA, calls the promotion "creative." When PETA -- an organization that once launched a "Got Beer?" campaign to claim that milking cows was cruel -- calls your move creative, you know you're on to something.

It's just another in a long line of protests against Vick and his alleged actions. PETA and the Humane Society are protesting; Nike and Reebok have pulled Vick products, as has NLFShop.com. Falcons fans are even turning their back on the embattled QB, and I can't help but wonder how Virginia Tech supporters feel about their beloved son now. Yeah, he made Hokie football nationally relavent, but what about now?

Kudos to the Long Beach Armada of Los Angeles of California of the United States of North America including Barrow, Alaska (no lie, that's the team's official name). The team with such promotional deals as mother-in-law night and bald-guy night have come up with a creative -- if not somewhat in poor taste -- gig to raise awareness.

And just think, even if this is in poor taste, it's still better than electrocuting and drowning your pooch.

Allegedly.

Taking a Moment

2007-07-26T21:29:00.001-07:00

Wake Forest men’s basketball coach Skip Prossel died Thursday afternoon, collapsing from an apparent heart attack after jogging. It’s possible this is the first some of you have heard about it, since today was Michael Vick’s arraignment and I’m fairly certain that dominated the headlines on ESPN through much of the afternoon and evening.

But Prossel’s death proves sudden and tragic – he was just 56, and ESPN.com’s Andy Katz instantly recalls talking to the man just 24 hours earlier … about their families, of all things.

I never knew Prossel personally; hell, until today, I wasn’t 100 percent certain how to spell his name. While Wake Forest has been on the college basketball map since I began following the sport a little over six years ago – undoubtedly a by-product of being in the ACC – I can’t say he was as prominent or visible as a Roy Williams or a Mike Krzyzewski, but Prossel was someone I saw quite often on the sidelines.

My first thought was back to Army women’s coach Maggie Dixon, who died suddenly just weeks after taking her team to its first NCAA tournament appearance. I thought of how her death shocked everyone in the college basketball world, and how I’d spoken to her just weeks earlier, seen first-hand that infectious smile of hers.

My second thought was that I have no personal stories to share of Prossel; just that I feel for his family and his team and his coaches and the entire Wake Forest community. So often colleges and universities are intertwined with their athletic programs – especially a school as small as Wake Forest. Just look at the football team’s run to an ACC title last season; the way that gripped the school was amazing.

So in that regard, I feel for Wake Forest. I think about how I would feel if one of Old Dominion’s coaches were to suddenly pass away. How it would feel to lose a member of the Monarch family, how it would feel to possibly lose someone I once dealt with on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

Considering how it hit a few years back when ODU athletics legend Bud Metheny died, I shudder to think of what it would be like. Much like I shudder to think what the Demon Deacon faithful are feeling today.

For today, power conference vs. mid-major conference doesn’t matter. We aren’t arguing over which team in the ACC is the best, or how many bids the league deserves in the tournament. We’re probably not even worried about what recruits are coming in and who might be the next to commit … because this is something that goes so much deeper than the sport Prossel coached.

If Prossel was anything like the other big-time college basketball coaches I’ve dealt with over the years – namely Williams, C. Vivien Stringer and Pat Summit – then I’m sure he was a delight, someone who’d just as gladly talk to you about your family as he would about hoops. I’m sorry I won’t get to meet him someday, and I feel for his team and those who follow it so closely.

Amid all the scandal and controversy, I say we pause for a moment to remember someone who was successful at his profession, someone who undoubtedly shaped lives and affected others for the better.

Rest in peace, Skip. I’ll be pulling for your Demon Deacons this year.

DEI still DEI -- even with merger

2007-07-25T14:26:00.001-07:00

On the surface, Dale Earnhardt, Inc’s merger with Ginn Racing appears to be a move poised to help both organizations – Ginn with its financial troubles and giving DEI a direction to move in once its flagship driver, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., leaves at the end of the season.

But will it really make that big a difference? I’m not so sure.

Okay, so Mark Martin is competitive – sometimes stellar – when he runs in the Ginn-owned No. 01 Chevrolet, right? Sure, but what of Regan Smith, the rookie with whom Martin’s been splitting time? Or Aric Amirola, who Ginn signed away from Joe Gibbs Racing before the merger?

And since the company had to let go of Sterling Marlin and Joe Nemechek – two competitive if not underwhelming guys on the wrong side of 40 – in lieu of Paul Menard … suffice it to say, the situation barely looks any better than it did before.

Granted, Ginn is now in a better financial situation; DEI has three teams that are fully funded and sponsored. But competitively? DEI merged with Ginn partly to give Menard the owner points standing necessary to make the Nextel Cup field every week. NASCAR locks the top 35 in owner points in the field, leaving the remaining seven slots to be qualified for. Menard, in the DEI No. 15, struggled to make and finish races, and I’m not convinced that was all crew and equipment. So while he now makes the show every week – by virtue of him now occupying Nemechek’s owner points spot – I don’t see him performing any better.

Performance-wise, look for Earnhardt and Martin Truex, Jr. to be about where they are now. Earnhardt is 12 th in Nextel Cup standings, just in the Chase field. He needs to be consistent and competitive from here on out, which he has been, but he needs to shake the bad luck that’s befallen him since crew chief Tony Eury, Jr. returned from a six-race suspension.

Truex has come into his own this season, picking up his first Cup win at Dover and running consistently well ever since. Which is good, since he’ll probably be DEI’s flagship boy next season once Earnhardt moves to Hendrick Motorsports. But Truex isn’t experienced enough to run up front week in and week out among the more talented and dominant teams in the garage, and I’m not sure how he’ll handle being top dog.

We’re talking about a guy who’s been playing second-fiddle to Earnhardt since his Busch Series days.

Then there’s the whole issue of who drives the No. 8 – or whatever the number is – next season. We know it won’t be Earnhardt, but who will it be? Kyle Busch, who is unceremoniously being left in the cold by Hendrick – a guy who’s only purpose now is to keep the seat warm for Junior? Kasey Kahne, who’s shown flashes of being a premiere Nextel Cup talent but is mired in bad luck and horrible finishes this year? Greg Biffle, who’s almost as synonymous with Roush-Fenway Racing as Matt Kenseth?

Whoever it is, I still think DEI’s behind the proverbial eight ball, simply because competition-wise, the team is behind the big boys. While Hendrick, Roush, Gibbs and Richard Childress all work feverishly to run up front and acclimate themselves to the Car of Tomorrow, DEI is competitive at best. Even with Truex’s Dover win, DEI is a top-10 organization at best, and anyone thinking either Truex or Earnhardt has a legitimate shot at a championship this year is the definition of blind.

Unless and until DEI puts in the same money and resources the Hendricks and Gibbs of the world do – and unless owner Teresa Earnhardt starts acting like an actual owner, that’s not going to happen – that team is always going to be second-tier. And I don’t see this merger turning things around, because all this is … is a B-level team buying out a C-level team. Last I checked, averaging a B with a C doesn’t get you an A.

And I was in college for seven years, so I should know when it comes to grades.

Houston, You Have a Legend

2007-07-24T14:29:00.001-07:00

Were it not for Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell, I might not know what the Houston Astros are. And at the end of this season, there might be a generation of baseball fans to suffer that very feat.

Biggio announced today that after this season, he will retire. Biggio has played 20 seasons, all with the Astros, and earlier this season collected his 3,000 th career hit.

He currently sits on 3,014, six shy of Rafael Palmeiro for 23 rd all time.

But for me, Biggio’s (and Bagwell’s) impact isn’t about the numbers or the career accomplishments. For me, it’s how they took a small-market franchise and made it relevant outside of the Houston area. Sure, one could argue Nolan Ryan did the same, but as young as I am, I only remember him as a Texas Ranger.

I’m a diehard Baltimore Orioles fan – have been since I was old enough to know what baseball was. I remember staying up late with my grandmother as a kid, watching Cal and Billy Ripken turn double plays. I should’ve been in bed, but instead I’d watch Eddie Murray and Mickey Tettleton belt home runs out of Memorial Stadium. I was wide-eyed as Mike Mussina, Jimmy Key and Scott Erickson tore up the American League en route to back-to-back ALCS appearances.

So for me, most of my baseball heroes are Orioles. But there are the rare few from other teams, players so good, so transcendent that a die-hard black-and-orange guy like me has to stop and go, “Wow, that’s just … wow.”

Ken Griffey, Jr. Kirby Puckett. Tony Gwynn. Frank Thomas.

Jeff Bagwell. Craig Biggio.

I’m not an Astros fan (if I had to pick a National League team, it would be the Nationals followed by the Braves), but I’ve long been a Biggio fan. His versatility – going from catcher to second base to center field then back to second base. When Enron Field/Minute Maid Park opened, everyone crowed about the hill in center, but Biggio navigated it like no one else. He could play wherever the manager asked him to, I’m convinced of this, and boy could he hit.

3,014 and counting.

But Biggio’s work ethic, more than anything, is what I admire. I remember fondly when Cal broke Lou Gehrig’s consecutive games played streak. 2,632 is a mark that will forever stand, because guys just don’t go out there and play every single day anymore. They come out in late innings of blowouts, they take off day games after night games. They rest for sore ankles, tired arms.

But not Biggio. The only way he missed a game was if he was truly, genuinely hurt, and every time he was on the field he gave it everything he had. Hit No. 3,000 was a perfect example; yeah, he was gunned down trying to stretch a single into a double, but the hustle and give-100-percent cliché we lament in sports was there, like it had been the first 19 years of this man’s career.

If I had a vote for the Hall of Fame, I’d put Biggio in. First ballot, without a second thought. He was just that good, but more importantly, he represented everything that was good about baseball. And in an era where we’re so fixated on what’s wrong with baseball, it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to put in a guy who epitomized the best of the game.

Let everyone argue and bicker over Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds. I’ll take guys like Ripken and Craig Biggio.

So You Want to be a Professional Sports League Commissioner

2007-07-24T13:57:00.000-07:00

How pathetic is it that Gary Bettman looks pretty good right now?

Think about it: over the past week or two, the national sports world hasn’t even so much as whispered the NHL commissioner’s name, but everywhere we turn, there sit Bud Selig, Roger Goodell and David Stern.

Granted, the NHL hasn’t had a huge scandalous story unfold in the past week – the most hockey’s had to deal with since the Stanley Cup finals wrapped up was Jeremy Roenick’s retirement-only-not-so-much. But if I’m Bettman, I’m relishing in the obscurity, because ever since the lockout started, I’ve been beaten and berated and made fun of.

Bettman’s been more of a punchline than the MLS.

For the two or three that have been vacationing in Antarctica, let’s examine what makes Selig, Goodell and Stern’s lives living hell right now.

Selig is, by all accounts, still undecided about being present when Barry Bonds hits career home runs No. 755 and 756. Part of it’s probably his loyalty to close friend Hank Aaron, who just so happens to hold what many consider sports’ most prestigious record. Part of it could also be the fact that Bonds is an unsavory person (polite sports writing term for “bastard”).

But mostly it’s the accusations surrounding Bonds. Performance enhancers, a grand jury trying to indict him on perjury charges. Do I think Bonds took steroids? Most likely, but he sure as hell wasn’t the only one. In fact, how many juiced-up pitchers did Bonds hit homers off of? Baseball has been testing for steroids for about two years now, and most of the guys who’ve been caught so far have been pitchers.

And this doesn’t even count HGH, which baseball doesn’t test for.

Regardless of whether Bonds cheated to get his home runs, Selig has a responsibility – to his position as commissioner and to the game of baseball – to be there. I’m not saying you throw confetti and do a little dance as Bonds crosses home plate, but you go to the game, you watch the historic feat and you acknowledge it. Because as guilty as the players are for juicing, the owners and you, Selig, are just as culpable because you sat there and let it happen.

To not be present when Bonds hits No. 756 is hypocritical and it ranks right up there with the All-Star Game tie as the worst decision has ever made.

(In the interest of fairness ... ESPN. com just reported Selig will be in attendance for the Giants game tonight against the Braves and will try to be in attendance for future games. "Out of respect for the tradition of this game, the magnitude of the record, and the fact that all citizens in this country are innocent until proven guilty, I will attend Barry Bonds' next games to observe his potential tying and breaking of the home run record, subject to my commitments to the Hall of Fame this weekend. I will make an additional statement when the record is tied," Selig said in a statement.

So he's not such a moron after all ... at least, not in this instance. Good to know.)

Goodell has taken a hard line against problem players since taking over for Paul Tagliabue – just ask Pacman Jones, Chris Henry and Tank Johnson. But when a federal grand jury indicted Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick last week on dogfighting allegations, Goodell was put in a pickle.

Keep with the precedent already set and suspend one of the league’s most visible players, or let Vick have his due process because legally, he wasn’t the perpetual offender Jones, Henry and Johnson were?

Not a decision I’d want to make, that’s for sure.

Goodell didn’t suspend Vick, but he did tell him not to attend training camp (the first day of which just so happens to coincide with Vick’s arraignment hearing in a Richmond, Va. courthouse). That sort of thing is usually a breach of contract, but since Goodell told him to do it, Vick is not in breach of his agreement with the Falcons and he’ll still get paid.

I agree with this move; it lets Vick have his due process (I’m sure as hell not about to sit here, go through the charges and pronounce whether or not I think he’s guilty) while alleviating the media circus the Falcons would be subjected to if Vick were allowed with the team.

Think about it: if Vick were to go to camp, everything else is immediately on the backburner; new coach Bobby Petrino has to answer dogfighting questions instead of talking about the offense he’s installing. Rather than talk about trying to find another team and a fresh start, Joey Harrington has to talk about whether Vick’s troubles mean he’ll be the starter come Week One. Granted, they’ll be talking about Vick regardless, but it would be 100 times worse if the star were there.

That’s not the way to start an NFL campaign. Let Vick have his money, and let him deal with the problems he’s facing – away from the team. That way both Vick and the Atlanta Falcons can do what they need to do.

But Stern by far faces the worst scenario of the three. Whereas Selig and Goodell have to worry about one issue facing one guy, Stern could find his entire league in question. Which kinda happens when the FBI starts looking at one of your referees about gambling and possible point shaving.

Conspiracy theorists already gripe about NBA officiating, convinced refs are on the take and the on-court results are manipulated just right so the NBA can get the best postseason matchups it can. But after the revelation that Tim Donaghy resigned his post as NBA referee amid these allegations threatens to rock the foundation of Stern’s league.

Stern is serious about his league’s public image – so much so he instituted an asinine and unnecessary dress code (what is this, high school all over again?). So much so he called these allegations “the worst scenario” his league has ever faced in a press conference early Tuesday. So imagine how he feels about an official possibly making calls on the floor to affect point spreads so he could cash in on his bets and – perhaps most disturbing of all – pay his debt to the mob.

And what if Donaghy’s not the only one? If he is, then maybe the NBA can eventually get past this and we’ll all just chalk it up to one bad egg in the basket. But if a few refs are involved, or worse, players? The NBA is potentially doomed.

Selig only has to deal with Bonds and the unfortunate reality that a perceived cheater is going to own his sport’s most hallowed record. Goodell only has to deal with a star player who’s being accused of horrible, disgusting acts of animal cruelty. Stern is dealing with a situation that could crawl through the roots of the league, and leave everyone wondering for the next couple years, “Was that call legit, or is the ref on the take with someone somewhere?”

It’s a horrible situation to be in, and if I’m Stern, I’m hoping against all odds that Donaghy is the only one doing this. But if Donaghy is prepared to name names – as rumors are suggesting he might – I’m not convinced he’s alone in this.

First Joey Crawford, now Tim Donaghy. I don’t envy Stern right now. Not one bit.

Now Bettman, on the other hand …

Blame the NHL

2007-06-02T21:14:00.000-07:00

Most of the major newspapers in the U.S. aren't covering the Stanley Cup finals between the Anaheim Ducks and Ottawa Senators.

Why, you ask? Well, the NHL hasn't exactly been near the pulse of the American sporting landscape for the past couple years, and that can easily be attributed to the way the game's higher-ups -- commissioner Gary Bettman, specifically -- have handled their on-ice product.

So when newspaper after newspaper decides not to staff the finals, who's to blame? The newspapers for not staffing? The readers for not caring the newspaper didn't staff?

No ... it's the NHL's fault.

I won't sit here and say hockey's a bad sport, because it's really not. Sure, the on-ice action can at times be hard to follow on television, and I find it almost impossible to listen to a hockey radio broadcast (just too much going on), but it's one of the fastest, most exciting sports there is.

But nobody cares, and that's a product of the NHL's upper offices and the NHLPA. The lockout, and the fallout from it, have hit the sport so hard not even the most famous trophy in all of sports generates that much excitement anymore.

Consider first the fact that the lockout took away an entire season. Not a partial season, not just the playoffs ... the entire season.

Sure, Major League Baseball suffered when it went on strike and took out the 1994 World Series. But the game never went away for the full 162-game tilt. Neither have the NBA or the NFL -- hell, the NFL's last work stoppage saw the advent of replacement players so the games would continue and the sport wouldn't fade from the national consciousness.

But the NHL? It lost the playoffs, the Stanley Cup finals and the 82-game schedule, thus making it irrelevant and unreported for over a full calendar year. Which meant no one was talking about hockey ... because there was nothing to talk about.

People always get mad at work stoppages in professional sports -- millionaires bickering with billionaires over money never engenders public sympathy -- but most of the time, the shortage is short enough to thrust the sport back into the national spotlight before public memory of the games fades. But with the NHL, that memory was long gone; the NHL didn't play a game for nearly two years, so is it any wonder hardly anyone remembered what hockey was like when it finally came back?

Then there's the TV deal the league struck upon its return. Rather than sign a deal with ESPN for far less, the NHL went with a split deal with NBC and Versus (formerly OLN, the official home of the Tour de Lance). There was a lot of money in the deal, but a lot of cable providers nationwide don't carry Versus ... and for a lot of the cable subscribers who do have it, they can't find it on their dial.

I only found my Versus only because it was a channel before Comcast SportsNet, which until this year broadcast Baltimore Orioles games. So I saw bicycle racing or fishing or a rodeo every time I flipped over to the game.

The NHL should've signed on with ESPN. Sure, the Worldwide Leader wasn't offering nearly as much, but it's called the Worldwide Leader for a reason; when ESPN gives a sport a significant amount of air time, said sport is viewed more favorably in the public sports consciousness. By broadcasting NHL games, ESPN would've essentially told the public, "The NHL is a viable product and a sport that's worth your -- and our -- attention."

Versus and NBC don't do the same.

So between the lockout and the asanine TV deal, Bettman has shut a good deal of the country off of his sport. And it's a shame, because the games are exciting and some of the young talent throughout the league is really something ot be proud of and get pumped for. But when Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin grow on the ice, hardly anyone gets to see them, because the NHL is run by mindless simpletons who seem determined to derail their sport.

Bud Selig looks at these guys and shakes his head.

So I have no issue with the country's major newspapers thumbing their nose at the Stanley Cup finals. Because I get the impression the NHL thumbed its nose at us a long time ago.

NASCAR Spelling Bee

2007-05-11T09:09:00.001-07:00

How do you spell the word dead? Or doomed, for that matter?

Despite what the conventions of the English language might tell you, after Thursday morning, the two words can be spelled in exactly the same way:

D.E.I.

Whether Dale Earnhardt, Jr's announcement Thursday that he'll be leaving Dale Earnhardt, Inc. at the end of the Nextel Cup season is a shocker or not remains debatable, but one thing is for certain: the company bearing his late father's name will never be the same.

Junior says he hopes DEI finds success without him. Owner -- and stepmonster supreme -- Teresa Earnhardt says she's confident DEI will find its way and compete in the future for Cup races and titles.

I have no problem with Junior saying that; he's taking the high road, despite the obvious bad blood between himself and Teresa, his stepmother. That distaste, which actually goes back several years, permeated the entire negotiation process, and I think it was one of the top three reasons Dale's going elsewhere next season.

Meanwhile, what of DEI? Let's assume when Junior leaves, he takes Budweiser -- one of NASCAR's richest and most visible spnosors -- with him. That leaves Teresa with the option of finding other sponsorship for the No. 8 car, or downsizing DEI into a two-car operation.

Those two cars? The No. 1 of Martin Truex and the No. 15 of Paul Menard.

Yeah, have fun with that.

Truex isn't a bad driver -- he does have two Busch Series titles -- but for the most part his transition into Nextel Cup has been rocky. And Menard? He doesn't even qualify for the race half the time; as pathetic as it sounds now, Michael Waltrip performed better in that ride.

A few weeks ago, reports circulated that Robert Yates' team was looking to merge with DEI. I can't speak to the validity of these reports, but I think it would make sense now that Junior's bolting elsewhere. In my mind, that's the only way DEI can stay afloat without the sport's most popular driver -- and the guy who just so happens to share the company name. If Teresa wants to go it alone the way she has the past several years, DEI's not long for the NASCAR world. But if she decides to suck up her pride and merge her resources with that of another team, then DEI might find its way again.

But I doubt it. DEI is about to lose not only its biggest driver, it's losing the sport's most popular driver. Go to any Nextel Cup race, and 80 percent of the grandstands are decked out in Junior red. Budweiser is the beer of choice in the seats (and, if Jeff Gordon wins a race, on the track), and Junior's merchandise sales trump everyone who isn't his late father.

Go to Charlotte or Martinsville. While other drivers have one -- maybe two -- souvenir trailers, Junior has four.

Where will Junior go? Nobody knows at this point, but there's a lot of speculation. Hendrick Motorsports and Richard Childress Racing seem to be the frontrunners, but I really don't see either option making much sense. Hendrick is the most dominant organization in NASCAR right now, what with Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson and Kyle Busch. Why would Hendrick mess with that, and more importantly, who would he kick to the curb to make room for Junior? Sure, Casey Mears is struggling, but he just got there this season.

Childress is probably a frontrunner just because of the Earnhardt connection. Dale Sr. won six of his seven titles while driving for Childress, and a lot of people would love to see the No. 3 back on the track -- and Childress has long said the only way that number returns to the track is if Junior drives it. But again, this makes no sense; Childress isn't kicking Kevin Harvick, Jeff Burton or Clint Bowyer to the curb.

But what about Joe Gibbs Racing? Junior's good friends with Tony Stewart, so there's that. And while Stewart and Denny Hamiln are strong week in and week out, J.J. Yeley struggles to keep the car off the wall nine races out of ten. If I'm in charge of that team, I bounce Yeley after the season and make a strong push for Junior. The exposure it will give to Joe Gibbs Racing would be immense, and I think Junior would have a much better shot at a Cup title with Joe Gibbs than he does right now at DEI.

Let's face it: DEI titles? None. Joe Gibbs titles? Three (Bobby Labonte in 2000, Stewart in 2002 and 2005).

Regardless of where Junior goes, I don't see DEI holding on much longer. The team is already middle-of-the-pack with Junior on board, and I don't see it improving once he leaves. That's exposure and money that'll be going elsewhere, and the public backlash awaiting Teresa could become too much to bear. For the well-being of DEI, Teresa had to retain Junior, and she failed.

So in the coming years, she'll have to go about her day knowing she killed off one of her late husband's greatest legacies. I can't help but wonder how many times Senior's spun in his grave over the past 24 hours, because I guarantee you this isn't what he had in mind when Junior first came into the Cup Series.

Dale Earnhardt, Inc. without an Earnhardt behind the wheel? Congratulations, Teresa. I hope you feel really good about yourself.

NASCAR's Drinking Problem?

2007-04-29T22:37:00.001-07:00

Jeff Gordon passed the late Dale Earnhardt Sunday when he won the Aaron's 499 NASCAR Nextel Cup race at Talladega Superspeedway. The checkered flag gave Gordon 77 career victories, sixth on the all-time list, while Earnhardt ended his career -- and his life -- with 76.

The story to me, however, isn't Gordon's accomplishment. The debate isn't whether Gordon is better than Earnhardt. What bothers me is how some of the 180,000 fans on-hand at Talladega treated the accomplishment. Gordon wins the race and fans toss beer cans -- some empty, others not so much -- onto the racing surface.

Just despicable.

Let me just say first and foremost that I have, over the years, been a Gordon fan. I've been a fan of his since he won his first Brickyard 400 in 1994 and I've continued to follow and root for him even as a good portion of my NASCAR allegiance has shifted to the red No. 8. I'm a proud member of the Junior Nation, but I still have a spot in my racing heart for Gordon.

But regardless of allegiance, what the fans at Talladega did Sunday was disgusting and humiliating. NASCAR has seen tremendous growth in the past 15 years -- so much so, ESPN forked over a ton of money to start broadcasting races again starting this season. National opinion of NASCAR as a sport might be up for debate, but chances are if ESPN says it's a sport, the sporting nation will, eventually, follow suit.

But if NASCAR is intent on continuing to grow, if the top motorsports series in America wants to be seen in the same light as the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball, things like this have to stop. NASCAR's image is largely still one of the south; a lot of people see NASCAR as nothing more than a good ol' boy southern thing, something only simple, mindless rednecks indulge in.

And scenes like Sunday's at Talladega will do little to change that opinion. As a NASCAR fan, I am embarrassed by the display at Talladega. I'll defend NASCAR -- as a sport and as a sanctioning body -- but I cannot back the actions committed Sunday. It's embarrassing, it's disgusting and if NASCAR doesn't do something about it soon, all that growth the sport has enjoyed might start to go away.

I can speak from personal experience how passionate NASCAR fans are about their drivers. Every fan has that one driver they love, and that one driver they can't stand. For me, the hated driver is Tony Stewart. But for the majority of NASCAR fans, the hated is Gordon.

And I get that; I'm used to going to a Nextel Cup race at Richmond or Charlotte or Martinsville and hearing three-quarters of the grandstands boo Gordon at driver introductions. I'm used to the crowd cheering whenever Gordon wrecks or has a mechanical problem. In many ways, it's comical to see.

I've also heard some of the things NASCAR fans say when a driver they hate (namely Gordon and Jimmie Johnson, from what I've seen) wins a race. I won't repeat any of them in the interest of cleanliness, but suffice it to say a lot of homophobic slurs and the like are screamed. Often loud enough for children to hear.

But this? Chucking beer cans onto the race track? I hate Tony Stewart, but not once have I ever thrown something at him after he won a race. I'm all for booing, mocking and taunting ... but there has to be a line. And for me, that line stops at potentially endangering the drivers and other fans.

For every beer can that made it onto the track, how many didn't? How many half-empty cans of beer went sailing into the air for Gordon's car, only to wind up in some fan's lap -- or worse, off the back of some fan's head? How many more times do we have to see embarrassing displays like this before someone gets hurt?

I can't help but wonder how many fans went to Talladega Sunday for their first Cup race, only to see what the drunken minority did and think to themselves, "I'll never come back to one of these." The racing's great, the pageantry in-person for a NASCAR race is unlike anything else, but if fans fear for their safety, they're going to stop coming to the races.

And that's going to cost NASCAR and its sponsors money.

It's not the first time this has happened. Just last week, when Gordon won at Phoenix to tie Earnhardt and he paraded around the track with a flag bearing the Intimidator's famous No. 3, fans pelted him and the track with beer cans. Three years ago, Gordon found himself the target for wasted beer at Talladega after NASCAR declared he beat Dale Earnhardt, Jr. to the lead before a race-ending caution.

So we have three instances of fans chucking things onto the track, and they all come after Gordon wins a race. Is this going to happen every time Gordon wins a race from now on? If he keeps winning, he'll pass the likes of Cale Yarborough, Darrell Waltrip and Bobby Allison. Those three aren't quite the legends Earnhardt is, but a lot of fans still hold those drivers dear.

If clownish acts such as this continue, NASCAR could be looking at a huge problem, especially if Gordon keeps running the way he has so far this season. What's more ... what if Gordon wins the championship this year? Does that mean he gets pelted after the last race at Homestead?

When will NASCAR do something about this? Granted, Talladega warned before the race Sunday that anyone who threw something onto the track would be arrested. And with beefed-up security, I know some of the offenders were. But how do you pick out so many guilty parties out of a crowd of 180,000 or more?

You don't. But here's a novel thought -- one that will probably never be put in place. Stop selling beer after the halfway point of the race. And on top of that, stop letting fans bring their own beer in. The NFL did that a couple years ago after a couple incidents of fans throwing objects and snow onto the field, most notably at a Cleveland Browns game. If the NFL can enact such a measure and survive, so can NASCAR.

And if any fan refuses to come to a NASCAR race because they can't truck in a huge cooler full of whatever beer their favorite driver sponsors, then they're not a real NASCAR fan and have no business being at a Nextel Cup race in first place.

Gordon should be congratulated for his accomplishment; Earnhardt is one of the sport's all-time greats and Gordon has surpassed him in terms of the numbers. I realize in the eyes of many fans, Gordon will never truly urpass Earnhardt, and I respect that. I get what Earnhardt meant and still means to NASCAR, and I realize the rivalry these two had meant Gordon fans hated Earnhardt and vice versa. I'm not telling NASCAR fans to stop hating Gordon; I'm telling them to stop acting like fools and recognize the accomplishment of a legend.

I won't argue who's better: Gordon or Earnhardt. That's an argument I'll never make, because it's near impossible and I realize looking at it analytically would be lost on most NASCAR fans. Because according to most of them, Earnhardt is God and Gordon is Satan.

Nothing will ever change that.

But enough with the beer-throwing. It makes you look stupid and immature and it's potentially dangerous. You're not happy with Gordon winning the race and surpassing Earnhardt at his track on what would've been his 56th birthday? Fine; boo the guy. Refuse to clap or acknowledge it. But the minute you get a brain freeze and you decide to chuck a piece of metal onto the race track, you put people in danger and you give the sport you claim to love a bad name.

To the fans: Stop it.

To NASCAR: Do something about it.

To Jeff Gordon: Congratulations on a career milestone. It's not your fault some NASCAR fans are morons.

And lastly, to Dale Earnhardt: You're still missed, Big E. And I wanna apologize for some of your fans. I wish you were still around to set them straight.

NFL Draft Thoughts and Musings

2007-04-29T22:36:00.001-07:00

I have to admit; I'm not a huge NFL Draft geek. I don't really like paying attention to the months upon months of pre-draft hype and I'm not one to sit at my computer trying to figure out who's going where in the field of 255. I have neither the time nor the energy to sift through an army of college football players to determine who goes where -- partly because of my distaste for college football (have I perhaps mentioned that before?).

Now, if you're asking me to project the 65 teams to make the NCAA tournament, sit me down in front of a television with a buttload of tape and stacks of RPI numbers and conference standings and season schedules. Then leave me alone for 48-72 hours as I sift through it all and give you my projected field.

I do, however, watch the first round of the NFL Draft and follow enough of the other six rounds to get a general feel for what the new blood of the league will look like in the coming season ... and to see how badly Daniel Snyder's going to screw up the Redskins this year.

So, in lieu of today's happenings, I present some thoughts and musings on day one of the NFL Draft.

-Oakland had no choice but to take JaMarcus Russell. I realize Calvin Johnson from Georgia Tech was the best overall player in the draft according to most experts, but imagine this scenario: Randy Moss lined up on one side, Johnson lined up on the other and ... Andrew Walter bent over center?

Look up wasted talent in the dictionary and you'd probably see that very scenario.

Things would've been different had Kansas City and Miami agreed to trade Trent Green. If Green had gone to the Dolphins, that would've likely meant the cutting of Daunte Culpepper. Culpepper could then go to Oakland, reunite with Moss and leave the Raiders free to get Johnson. But with no Culpepper, and no other free agent option (unless you count Tim Rattay, which ... I don't), the Raiders had no choice but to take Russell No. 1.

The Raiders then did a smart thing in picking up Arizona State tight end Zach Miller in the second round (No. 38 overall). He wasn't the best TE on the board, but picking up an offensive weapon to help out Russell is a good move. Now all the Raiders need is an offensive line (the Raiders picked up offensive tackle Mario Henderson from Florida State in the third round).

-Cleveland's move to get Quinn wasn't genius ... it was dumb luck. Seriously, who could've seen Miami taking Ted Ginn, Jr. over Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn at No. 9 overall? I'm no Mel Kiper, Jr. (not enough hair), but even I was shocked by that pick. Ginn wasn't projected as anything better than a mid- to late first-round pick, and that was without the ankle injury he suffered in the national championship game. And with the Dolphins' QB situation up in the air, all I can say to this is ... what?!

I have no problem with Cleveland taking big Joe Thomas out of Wisconsin No. 3 overall -- if they feel they need to boost the offensive line, I won't argue the point. In fact, based on how infrequently I saw the Browns last year, I happen to agree; Charlie Frye and Derek Anderson need protecting.

But let's not pat Cleveland on the back for geniusly trading with Dallas to get the No. 22 overall pick to snag Quinn. There was no way of knowing he'd fall that far.

-Washington doesn't implode the 2007 NFL Draft. I've heard some Internet rumblings about the Redskins' pick of LSU's LaRon Landry at No. 6 overall. What are the Redskins thinking? some ask. Why didn't they take Brady Quinn? others argue.

Well, while I can certainly appreciate the "take the best player available" mentality, I'm not keen on taking a quarterback in the first round for the second time in three years. Jason Campbell did show signs of progress toward the end of last season, and who knows what he'll be able to do with a backfield of Ladell Betts and a healthy Clinton Portis. So I have no problem with Washington not taking Quinn.

I'm also fine with who the Redskins did pick. Landry is quick and has good hands; he'll fit in perfectly beside Sean Taylor in the secondary. He was the best defensive player available for many teams in this year's draft, and Washington got him.

Even more importantly, they didn't trade him. I nearly vomited when I heard they were shopping the No. 6 pick several weeks ago to Chicago for the No. 31 and Lance Briggs. Washington needs to stop pursuing every high-priced, big-name free agent out there and start focusing on the draft again. Every consistently successful playoff team focuses on the draft and uses free agency to supplement. Washington's been doing it the other way around with Snyder calling the shots.

But I like this pick. I don't like Washington not having another pick until the fifth round, but hey; baby steps. ...

-Buffalo might come out of letting Willis McGahee go without much damage. At least, if all the projections on running back -- and Buffalo's pick at No. 12 overall -- Marshawn Lynch out of Cal pan out. I'd heard him going later in the first round, likely to Green Bay (who lost Ahmad Green not that long ago to the Houston Texans), but I like that Buffalo went for him first.

I don't think the Bills should've let McGahee go to begin with -- not if he was as productive as he was -- but if Lynch is everything scouts and experts say he can be, he'll be a productive back as well, and he'll go a long way to helping that offense, specifically up-and-coming quarterback J.P. Losman.

-Speaking of Green Bay ... what were they thinking going defense with the No. 16 overall pick? I realize the Packers weren't that great defensively last season, but shouldn't they have tried a little harder to get Brett Favre some help? I'm hard-pressed to name a wide receiver for the Packers right now, they just lost their feature back in Ahmad Green, and tight end Bubba Franks is a shadow of his former self.

The Packers needed offense. Take one of the wide receivers who were still available at the time -- like LSU's Dwayne Bowe or Tennessee's Robert Meachem -- or a tight end (Greg Olsen out of Miami, the best available TE, was still on the board).

No offense to Justin Harrell -- he might be a fine player in the NFL -- but I think defensive tackle could've been addressed in later rounds. If the Packers hope to contend in a weak NFC this coming year, they needed to go offense in the first round.

-Something seems backwards here ... So let me get this straight: Cincinnati takes Michigan cornerback Leon Hall -- by all accounts I've seen, a really good class guy -- at No. 18, while New England takes Miami safety Brandon Mariweather -- whom I last saw doing the Boot Scootin' Boogie on a Florida International player's head -- at No. 24?

I get Cincy taking a character pick -- after the past two years of arrests and commissioner Roger Goodell's tougher conduct policy -- they were bound to get a good guy. But since when do the Patriots start taking guys with questionable character?

I mean, first this and then they trade for Randy Moss? Has Hell frozen over or something?

March Madness Blurbs and Observations

2007-03-12T20:20:00.000-07:00

1) Since 1989, a No. 12 seed has upset a No. 5 seed every year expect one. The 12-5 matchups this year are: Butler (5)-Old Dominion (12), USC (5)-Arkansas (12), Virginia Tech (5)-Illinois (12) and Tennessee (5)-Long Beach State (12). The best bet for an upset in this seed matchup this year? Call me a homer, but I'm going with the Monarchs of ODU over Butler. While this might be an upset in terms of seeding only (since the committee thought it'd be fun to pit two mid-majors against each other in the first round), these are essentially two teams headed in opposite directions. Butler got off to that great start, winning the preseason NIT and beating the likes of Tennessee and Gonzaga, but have lost four of its last eight, including the Horizon League tournament final against Wright State. ODU, meanwhile, had won 12 in a row before bowing out to George Mason in the CAA semis -- including six on the road.

2) Since I'm fond of tooting ODU's (and by extension, the CAA's) horn on this site, let me take time out to congratulate the Lady Monarchs on their 16th consecutive CAA title (an NCAA record). ODU beat James Madison Sunday 78-70 to take the crown, and the automatic bid, and will face Florida State in the first round of the NCAA tournament. The Lady Monarchs haven't won an NCAA tournament game since 2002, when they advanced to the Elite Eight before falling to eventual national champion Connecticut. Meanwhile, James Madison and Delaware give the CAA three bids for the first time in the history of the conference. ODU may still be the class of CAA women's basketball, but the conference as a whole is getting better each year.

3) I'm still trying to figure out how Arkansas and Stanford got in, while Syracuse and Drexel didn't. Sure, the Razorbacks fought their way to the SEC tournament final, but they got destroyed by Florida. Granted, that in and of itself might not be much to keep Arkansas out, but how about a 7-9 record in the weak SEC West? I could never give an at-large bid to a team that can't finish .500 in-conference, regardless of the league. If you can't win half your league games, you have no business being in the tournament. Now...as for Stanford. 18-12 overall, 10-8 in the Pac-10; well, at least the Cardinal meet the .500 in league play criteria. BUT ... this is a team that got bounced early from its conference tournament, and didn't even win 20 games. Meanwhile, teams that did win 20 games -- Drexel (23), Syracuse (22), Akron (26), Appalachian State (25) -- got snubbed. You can argue RPI and SOS all you want, but I have a hard time letting an 18-win team gobble up an at-large in lieu of a team with anywhere from 22 to 26 wins.

4) Speaking of Drexel ... the Dragons did everything the committee asked teams to do. They scheduled tough road games and won a fair bit of them. They beat: Syracuse at Syracuse, Villanova at Villanova and Creighton at Creighton. I realize Drexel finished fourth in the CAA, two spots behind ODU, and wound up 1-5 against the conference's best teams (ODU went 4-2 against the CAA's best), but how do you leave a team out after it did everything you, the committee, asked them to do?

5) I already said Duke didn't belong in the tournament, though I knew all along they'd get in. Being a No. 6 seed is a joke, though; the Blue Devils really should've been anywhere from a No. 9 to a No. 11 seed. Their gift? A first-round tilt in Buffalo, N.Y. against CAA champion Virginia Commonwealth. I love this match-up for the Rams; though Duke has the edge in the paint with Josh McRoberts, VCU has a three-headed monster in the backcourt, led by CAA tournament MVP Eric Maynor. He's much too fast and athletic for Greg Paulus, and I think VCU's all-game full-court press will give the Dookies fits. Don't be surprised if VCU continues the CAA's run of postseason success and sends Duke home early.

6) I feel really bad for Akron. Not only did the Zips lose out on an NCAA tournament bid, despite a 26-7 overall record (13-3 Mid-American Conference), but they couldn't secure an NIT bid, either. Joke all you want about how the NIT means nothing and how it really stands for N ot I nvited T ournament, but how does a team with 26 wins -- who was a buzzer-beating 3-pointer away from going to the Big Dance -- NOT see postseason play?! I feel really bad for the Zips; they are the biggest snub in all of March.

7) Will Florida repeat its national title? It's possible, especially since the Gators finally woke up when the games started to matter again. Everyone wondered what was wrong with Florida when it lost three out of its last four in the regular season, but I never thought anything was wrong -- this team was just bored. They'd locked up the SEC regular-season title, and pretty much knew it was getting a high NCAA seed no matter what. I'd be pretty bored too...

8) Who's going to Atlanta this year? Well, in my almost-humble, not-quite-professional opinion, it'll be Florida, Kansas, Texas A&M and Georgetown. The Hoyas are possibly the hottest team in the nation right now, and that Princeton-style offense could give the Tar Heels fits. Talk all you want about Brandon Wright and Tyler Hansborough, but I'll take the experience of Roy Hibbert and Jeff Green any day with a ticket to Atlanta on the line. Also, the Aggies could be the one team nobody wants to see, mainly because of Acie Law IV and how Texas A&M can put points on the board.

9) National title? I'll say Florida over Georgetown.

Remembering Another Champion

2007-03-07T22:37:00.001-08:00

Amid the excitement of March Madness and the upcoming NCAA college basketball tournament, I'd be remiss if I didn't pause and reflect on one of the things that touched me most from last season's postseason frenzy.

Not only am I huge fan of the NCAA men's tournament, I'm also a fairly big fan of the women's college game. Part of that could be the school I went to -- Old Dominion, which coach Wendy Larry is guiding to yet another 20-win season and a possible 16th straight CAA title -- but I like the game itself. It's not always as pretty or flashy as the men's game, but it's still basketball.

And come on, watching Candace Parker play is one of the top ten best things to do in sports...in my opinion, anyway.

But what I want to discuss came last year. ODU was one of the host sites for the first round of the NCAA women's tourney, which meant eight teams would flood the Ted Constant Convocation Center for a weekend. I don't remember all eight teams there, but I know ODU, USC, Tennessee, George Washington and Army were there.

George Washington is important because it beat ODU in the first round, but what I want to focus on isn't Tennessee, but the Lady Vols' first round opponent, Army.

More specifically, Army's head coach.

By this point, most everyone already knew the story of Maggie Dixon. Pittsburgh men's basketball coach Jamie Dixon's younger sister, Maggie took the Army job 11 days before the start of the season. Twenty wins and 11 losses later, Army was searching for the first NCAA bid in the program's history. And in winning the Patriot League tournament, the team did just that.

Maggie was taking this team to the NCAA tournament.

Never mind the 15 seed, or the first round beatdown at the hands of Tennessee. Army had made the NCAA tournament, and the general feeling surrounding Maggie and the program was one of elation and hope. I remember talking to an Army cadet in the hospitality room between games at the tournament that weekend, and he was all smiles after the loss, waxing poetic about how wonderful a coach and person Maggie was.

In fact, I distinctly remember him saying, "We have nowhere to go but up so long as Maggie's the coach of this team. We'll be in the tournament for years to come."

Three weeks later, on April 5, 2006, I thought of that cadet. I thought of him and what he said when I found out Maggie had died that day of an "arrhymetic episode of her heart." I thought of him when the autopsy revealed she'd had an enlarged heart and a heart valve problem. I thought of him and the girls who played their hearts out for Maggie just weeks earlier.

I thought of how weeks earlier, in my campus' home arena, I'd seen her coaching. How she'd stood not 60 feet away from me, directing her players and cheering them on, even when Tennessee was wiping the floor with them. I thought of her in the post-game press conference, smiling that infectious smile of hers.

I thought of stopping her after the press conference and talking to her for a few brief moments, discussing her team and what she expected out of the next season. That smile never left her face, and I left that encounter, brief as it was, feeling better. I had a smile the rest of the day that was hard to shake.

I thought of her brother, who had been bounced in the second round of his tourney by Bradley. I thought of how they were the first brother and sister to coach in the NCAA tournament in the same season. He was in the area for the PIT, but flew back up to New York when Maggie was in the hospital. As important as basketball was to the Dixons, family was more so.

I thought of how the players sobbed and mourned at her funeral, and how the general feeling of loss not only hit Army, but all of women's college basketball. I thought of Maggie every time I shook Wendy Larry's hand this year, feeling for the entire Army community.

It might seem odd to outsiders that Maggie was buried at the West Point cemetery, an honor usually reserved for high-ranking officials. A basketball coach next to commanders and lieutenants, but that speaks to just how important Maggie was to the Army community, and how much she captured a nation's attention with her team's Patriot League title. I still get chills every time I see the video of her team hoisting her into the air in celebrating that title, and I suspect we'll see that video again in the coming weeks.

Army won't make a return trip to the tournament this year -- Holy Cross took the Patriot League's automatic bid and Army's not looking good for an at-large despite a 24-6 record -- but the memory of last season's run, and the coach behind it, remains.

I'll root hard in this year's tournament, and I'll fill out a bracket like I always do. But this year, I'll do it with Maggie Dixon in mind, and I'll probably be smiling the whole way through.

Cause you know, she's probably doing the same thing out there somewhere.

My Field of 65

2007-03-06T18:43:00.000-08:00

Okay, pardon me while I try my best Joe Lunardi impression, but the excitement over March Madness, coupled with the disappointment of missing my prediction of Old Dominion over Virginia Commonwealth in the Colonial Athletic Association final last night, has me thinking about the job the Selection Committee has this coming Sunday and who the 65 teams who'll get to fight for a trip to Atlanta will be.

But before I give the conference-by-conference breakdown of this year's NCAA field, I must point out a couple very important details:

#1: I am not giving out seeds or setting up first-round matchups. That's for the highly-paid Lunardi to do. Give me an ESPN salary and I might start doing the same.

#2: Any RPI and SOS numbers I use are taken from collegerpi.com. The list I used was updated as of March 5 at 7:05 AM.

#3: In conferences with more than one bid, the automatic bid winner will be in bold. Teams that have already punched their free ride will also be italicized, while other auto winners are merely my predictions (take them for what they're worth; I did get the CAA champ wrong).

#4: There are not necessarily the 65 teams I think should get in; this is a list of the 65 teams I think will get in. Some editorializing has been done (I have three bids coming out of the CAA and another four out of the Missouri Valley), but there are a few teams on this list I think have no business dancing this year, yet will likely get the nod anyway.

Okay, enough talking...time to unveil the 65 teams I think are going to the NCAA tournament, conference-by-conference.

America East -- Albany

Atlantic 10 -- Xavier

ACC -- North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Duke, Georgia Tech

Atlantic Sun -- Belmont

Big 12 -- Texas, Kansas, Texas A&M

Big East -- Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Notre Dame, Marquette, Syracuse, West Virginia, Villanova

Big Sky -- Weber State

Big South -- Winthrop

Big Ten -- Ohio State, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State

Big West -- Long Beach State

CAA -- Virginia Commonwealth, Old Dominion, Drexel

Conference USA -- Memphis

Horizon -- Butler

Ivy -- Penn

MAAC -- Niagra

Mid-Continent -- Oral Roberts

MAC -- Akron

MEAC -- Delaware State

Missouri Valley -- Creighton, Southern Illinois, Missouri State, Bradley

Mountain West -- UNLV, BYU, Air Force

NEC -- Sacred Heart

Ohio Valley -- Eastern Kentucky

Pac-10 -- UCLA, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona, USC

Patriot -- Bucknell

SEC -- Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

Southern -- Davidson

Southland -- Sam Houston State

SWAC -- Jackson State

Sun Belt -- Arkansas State

WCC -- Gonzaga

WAC -- Nevada

So there you have it; the 65 teams I think will be duking it out for a trip to the Final Four and a shot at the national championship. The Big East leads the way with eight potential bids, while the ACC gets seven (they want nine, but how about showing me nine teams above .500 in league play first) and the Big Ten sends six. The Pac-10 will send five and the SEC will send four -- all from the East Division.

Again, this is not who I think should be in the tournament -- otherwise, Duke, Syracuse and Purdue wouldn't be on this list. Then again, every ranked team is on my list, because despite certain biases and other facts (Duke went a pedestrian 8-8 in-conference this year), I have trouble keeping a ranked team out of the tournament. So, Duke, Air Force and USC will likely get bids.

I gave Georgia Tech a bid, despite its 8-8 ACC record, because of its RPI of 34 and its SOS of 25. The Yellow Jackets do have a few quality wins, including one at Memphis and a season sweep of Clemson. Syracuse gets a bid from me simply because I expect the Orange to make some noise in the Big East tournament. They won't win it, but time and again we see major programs on the bubble secure their spot with a conference tourney win or two. Same goes for iffy Purdue and Michigan State, but not Iowa -- an RPI of 83 won't get you a bid, I don't care who you are.

But what I really want to talk about are the four bids I gave to the Missouri Valley and the three I gave to the CAA. Anyone who saw ESPN last night knows VCU secured its berth (and good thing, too; that 51 RPI and 133 SOS would've made an at-large dicey at best), but what about Old Dominion and Drexel, both of which fell in the semis? Well, let's look at the resumes:

ODU (24-8, 15-3 CAA): The Monarchs are 39th in the RPI after their semifinal drubbing to George Mason, but had won 12 straight to that point -- and the committee likes to see how a team closes out a season. ODU also boasts a huge road win over possible No. 2 seed Georgetown, and has gone 4-2 against the conference's other top teams. ODU split with Hofstra and VCU, while sweeping the season series with Drexel in convincing fashion. None of ODU's nonconference losses -- Marist, Vrigina Tech, Clemson, Winthrop -- look all that bad, and their loss to James Madison (RPI 301) was on the road, and everyone loses to a conference bottom-feeder every once in a while.

Drexel (23-8, 13-5 CAA): Drexel does have 15 true road wins, including some very nice ones at Creighton, Syracuse and Villanova. But the Monarchs are one point better in the RPI and have a better SOS (90 to the Dragons' 96). Also, ODU swept Drexel in the season series and the Dragons finished fourth in the CAA while the Monarchs finished second behind VCU. I think both ODU and Drexel deserve bids, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'd give the nod to ODU because of the head-to-head.

What about Hofstra, you ask? Granted, the Pride finished third in the CAA, ahead of Drexel, but...an RPI of 71 and a SOS of 147 (not to mention a quarterfinal loss in the conference tournament) will not sway the committee. Hofstra got jobbed last year, but the team's NIT trip this year will be well-deserved.

We know Southern Illinois' going to the NCAA tourney despite losing in the MVC final to Creighton. After all, the Salukis are ranked 11th in both polls and that top-10 RPI (sixth, to be exact) will be impossible to ignore. But what about:

Missouri State (22-10, 12-6 MVC): I always give a team that won 20 games at least a glance, and the more I looked at Missouri State, the more I liked the thought of handing out an at-large. Its RPI of 38 is better than ODU and Drexel, so seeing as how I think they both should be in, stands to reason Missouri State should be as well. However, this will be a nervous week for this team; a lot will depend on how many upsets there are in the tournaments to come. Missouri State, ODU and Drexel are all nervously on the bubble, though I think they should all be in.

Bradley (21-12, 10-8 MVC): The Indians have two things to hang their hat on: a nice road win over CAA champion VCU and a SOS of 19. Bradley did lose the season series to both Southern Illinois and Creighton, but none of those losses look that bad (Bradley nearly pulled the road upset over the nationally-ranked Salukis in the season finale, 53-51). This could just be my mid-major bias talking, but I think Bradley deserves a shot at the Big Dance.

I'm fairly certain I left someone out who's deserving, so if you disagree with my predictions, feel free to post your arguments here. One of my favorite parts of March Madness is debating who is and isn't deserving of an NCAA bid, and I would be more than happy to do some friendly debating leading up to Selection Sunday.

Oh, and one more thing: If I'm right, and the CAA gets three and the MVC gets four, will we see Billy Packer's head explode on national television? Jim Nantz might have to get a new suit...

Tournament Time!

2007-03-02T09:58:00.000-08:00

Today, the Colonial Athletic Association begins its annual trek to the Richmond Coliseum for the CAA men's basketball tournament. Twelve teams over four days vying for the conference crown and the automatic bid for the Big Dance (if you're not aware how big such a thing can be, check out my opinion My Favorite Time of Year below...yeah, it's practically a novel, but I think it's worth the read).

This year's tournament will have a different feel, with each of the top four teams in the conference looking at possibilities (remote or otherwise) of an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament should they falter this weekend. George Mason's run last year will undoubtedly weigh heavily on the Selection Committee's mind, and with four CAA teams boasting at least 20 wins -- Virginia Commonwealth, Old Dominion, Hofstra and Drexel -- on the surface it appears as if all four squads have a shot.

But I'll determine each team's at-large chances in the team-by-team breakdowns. Each team is listed in order of seeding, with overall and conference records in parentheses. The top four seeds get a first-round bye, which means they won't play until tomorrow's quarterfinals. No team seeded lower than fourth has won the CAA tournament since No. 7 East Carolina did so in 1993.

East Carolina's no longer in the CAA.

Anywho, enough with the prepatory bibble-babble; onto the team-by-team previews.

VCU (24-6, 16-2 CAA): Given how the Rams nearly ran roughshod over the CAA, it's little surprise first-year coach Anthony Grant won the conference's Coach of the Year honors. Point guard Eric Maynor, a no-brainer CAA First-Team selection, is averaging 13.8 ppg and a confrence-high 6.4 apg, and his assist-to-turnover ratio is 3-to-1. The Rams will be tough from behind the arc, specifically with B.A. Walker (15.3ppg) and Jesse Pellot-Rosa (13.4 ppg).

VCU is probably the most athletic team in the conference, something Grant uses to his advantage when he presses nearly the entire game. The press is very effective when the team's on its game, but the Rams do have occasional defensive lapses, which can result in their opponents finding easy hoops and going on runs. VCU did sort of stumble into the tournament, and with an RPI or 60 and a horridly easy nonconference schedule (they lost to their best OOC foe, Xavier), VCU will need to win the tournament to go dancing.

ODU (23-7, 15-3 CAA): The CAA champions of two years ago are also the conference's hottest team coming into the tournament, having won their last 11 games. If the Monarchs advance to the championship game and flater, they'll have a 13-game winning streak, much like George Mason did a year ago. Senior forward Valdas Vasylius leads ODU with 16 ppg and 6.3 rpg, and Drew Williamson continues to be one of the best point guards in the CAA, averaging nearly 12 points and five assists a contest. Also, look for forward Arnaud Dahi (9.6 ppg) and guard Brandon Johnson to give ODU quality minutes.

ODU has a quality road win against nationally-ranked Georgetown and the 18th toughest nonconference schedule in the country. That, combined with an RPI ranging from the low to mid 30s, should give ODU enough should they advance to the title game and fall. The Monarchs might still get an at-large if they lose in the semifinals, but the best way to ensure an at-large is to advance to Monday's final. Then again, they could just win the tournament and forget the whole thing.

Hofstra (22-8, 14-4 CAA): The Pride will be a factor, if for no other reason than their backcourt. The combination of Loren Stokes, Antoine Agudio and Carlos Rivera has led Hofstra to 73.6 ppg, second-best in the conference, so whoever they're facing should prepare to work on defense. Stokes leads the team with 20.8 ppg, while Agudion parlayed 20.5 ppg to a First-Team selection. Rivera chips in 12.9ppg and 4.0 apg. But the Pride have nothing down low, which can be a problem against teams with strong frontcourts, like ODU and Drexel.

Hofstra has the 123rd toughest OOC schedule in the country, and have an RPI approaching the 70s. With those two details in mind, Hofstra needs to win out in Richmond or face yet another trip to the NIT.

Drexel (22-7, 13-5 CAA): I must say, I didn't expect Drexel to be this good this year, but it was. Frank Elegar (team-high 15.5 ppg) is the best pure center in the CAA, while Chaz Crawford leads the conference with 9.7 rpg and 3.3 bpg. Guard Dominick Mejia averages 11.9 ppg and is deadly from behind the arc, but his defense can make him a liability on the court at times. Point guard Bashir Mason will. be the catalyst for this Dragons team.

Key nonconference wins against Syracuse, Creighton and Villanova help the Dragons' at-large profile, but did little to help them in-conference. A sweep at the hands of ODU and a tough road loss against William & Mary will hurt, despite the team's low-40 RPI. The Dragons are looking at a possible semifinal match against VCU, and if the Dragons can advance to Monday's title game, they're the only team outside of ODU with a realistic at-large shot.

Northeastern (12-18, 9-9 CAA): Another team I really didn't expect anything out of, given the loss of Shawn James and coach Ron Everhart to Duquense. But the Huskies have won five of their last six coming into the tournament, making them the second-hottest team in the CAA behind ODU. One of those wins was a 23-point blowout of George Mason. Bennett Davis leads the team with 14.8 ppg and 6.8 rpg, while Matt Janning (11.8 ppg) and Bobby Kelly (10.9 ppg) give the Huskies a triple-threat. If they beat Delaware in the first round today, Northeastern could give Drexel a tough time in the quarters tomorrow.

George Mason (15-14, 9-9 CAA): The Patriots had a down-year, compared to their Final Four run of a year ago, but that's to be expected when you lose your three seniors from that squad (Tony Skinn, Lamar Butler, Jai Lewis). George Mason lost five of its last seven, including an overtime stunner at home against ODU and a 23-point drubbing at the hands of the Huskies. Will Thomas led the team with 13.7 ppg, but it's obvious he misses Lewis down low. Folarin Campbell is a legitimate threat outside with 46 3-pointers on the year, but the Patriots are stumbling at the wrong time and could lose today against lowly James Madison if they're not careful.

Towson (14-16, 8-10 CAA): Yet another losing season for the Tigers, but coach Pat Kennedy has made progress in Baltimore. Gary Neal not only leads the conference in scoring (25.6 ppg), but he's fifth in then ation in scoring, and prone to Gilbert Arenas-like moments of consciousness. Forward Dennard Abraham averages 11.3 ppg for the Tigers, which will be a tough test for anyone who faces them in the tournament. Towson should dispatch of UNC Wilmington in the first round today, and while ODU should beat the Tigers tomorrow in the quarters, it will be a tough contest.

William & Mary (15-14, 8-10 CAA): Speaking of progress, William & Mary scored its first winning season since 1997-98. Adam Payton leads the team with 13.7 ppg and forward Laimis Kisielius pitches in 11.3 ppg, but the Tribe lack the one thing of utmost importance in this conference: athleticism. They're small and not terribly deep, but the lack of athleticism will hurt the Tribe the most. I expect them to beat Georgia State today, but VCU will have their way with the Tribe in tomorrow's quarterfinal.

Georgia State (10-19, 5-13 CAA): The Panthers lead the CAA with 16 turnovers a game, speaking to not only an inability to take care of the basketball, but a lack of coaching ability as well. The team does have some athletes, namely Lance Perique (15.6 ppg) and Leonard Mendez (13.4 ppg), but when six of your 19 losses are by 25 points or more, there's definite trouble brewing somewhere in Atlanta. I expect a one-and-done for the Panthers this year.

UNC Wilmington (7-21, 4-14 CAA): Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Last year, the Seahawks took the CAA tournament and nearly upended George Washington in the first round. But then they lost John Goldsberry and coach Brad Brownell went to Wright State. First-year head man Benny Moss has done the best he could, but with Tim Soyebo and T.J. Carter either hurt or ineffective, there isn't much cause for celebration in Wilmington. The Seahawks have lost five of their last six (their only win against lowly Delaware), and are on pace for their worst season since 1968-69.

James Madison (7-22, 4-14 CAA): The Dukes have lost 20 games in each of the past four seasons, so this year was really just more of the same. JMU has lost 10 of its last 11, its only win coming against Delaware (those poor Blue Hens...they can't beat anybody). While the team has some good athletes -- sophomore forward Juwann James (13.1 ppg, 5.4 rpg) among them -- the team allows a league-worst 49.4 precent shooting and 73 points a game. You can't win if you can't keep the opposition out of the hoop.

Delaware (5-25, 3-15 CAA): I said in my season preview this team would be lucky to win eight games this season, and it looks like that was a generous prediction. Herb Courtney carries the load for the Blue Hens, averaging 17.9 ppg and 8.1 rpg, but outside of him, there is little, if anything, good to say about this team. Anything outside of a major first-round exit today would be a huge shock; it's almost inexplicable the way this team has fallen over the past couple years.

Okay, enough with the numbers and the waxing poetic about who's been good this year and who, well, hasn't. Who's going to be cutting down the nets on ESPN come Monday night? Well, much like two seasons ago, it's going to come down to the top two seeds: VCU and ODU. And it wouldn't surprise me if this one went into overtime as well. But ODU will pull out its second CAA crown in three seasons, and the Monardchs will end the string of five straight top seeds to win the tournament.

As for at-larges? If the above holds true, VCU and Drexel will be biting their nails all week waiting for Selection Sunday. And if that's the case, VCU gets left out and Drexel might get in. But if VCU beats ODU? Both those teams are locked in, and Drexel still has a shot. But for Drexel to get in, they need to at least advance to the final, and Hofstra just needs to go ahead and win the tournament.

My Favorite TIme of Year

2007-02-27T19:59:00.000-08:00

Used to be, the middle of February was my favorite time of year, when the seemingly endless two-month layoff was over and NASCAR roared back to life with the Daytona 500. Don't get me wrong, I still get a thrill from hearing 43 fast-paced billboards fire up the engines and begin a 10-month trek across the country in search of a Nextel Cup championship and see if we'll one day get into the Guinness Book of World Records for most drunk people in a nation over a one-year period.

But that was before I discovered college basketball.

It was roughly five or six years ago. I had just joined the campus newspaper at Old Dominion University, The Mace & Crown, with the idea of becoming a sports writer. Which was all roses and candy...until I remembered I went to a basketball school. Which meant I would eventually have to cover a basketball game.

I hated basketball. With a fiery passion.

But a funny thing happened when I went to cover my first basketball assignment, the men's team's annual intrasquad scrimmage: I fell in love.

The speed and intensity of the game courtside were nothing like they'd been whenever I flipped past a game on TV. And at that moment, I was hooked. I became an instant college basketball addict.

But what truly cemented my love for the game was two seasons ago. Then serving as the play-by-play voice for Old Dominion basketball on the campus station, WODU Radio, I called every home game and a fair amount of road contests. And it had been fun -- between the annual rivalry with Virginia Commonwealth and the Colonial Athletic Association tournament -- but the 2004-2005 season was the stuff college basketball dreams are made of.

ODU was expected to be good that season, picked to finish first in the CAA and junior Alex Loughton being named preseason Player of the Year. And the Monarchs had held true to form, going 15-3 in conference play and earning the No. 1 seed in the tournament in Richmond. ODU had ended VCU's 10-game winning streak in the rivalry on national television, and everything pointed to a magical season.

Bubble talk surrounded the Monarchs; experts debated whether or not the 25-5 mid-major darling deserved an at-large if it faltered in Richmond (which was possible, given how strong teams like VCU and Hofstra were). But in preparing to call the tournament, I knew one thing: if ODU won three games, the tournament -- and the automatic bid to the Big Dance -- were theirs.

The Monarchs faced William & Mary in their first game, pulling away late for a double-digit win. The next day, ODU faced a tough Hofstra squad in the semifinals. Guard Loren Stokes wasn't much of a factor, thanks to the defense of reserve point guard Brandon Johnson, but CAA Rookie of the Year Antoine Agudio was on fire, and the Pride led at one point by as much as 13.

But conference Coach of the Year Blaine Taylor, so key in turning ODU back into a winning program, rallied his guys around each other and ODU came back to take the win and earn a spot in the CAA championship game to be televised for the whole nation to see on ESPN.

Their opponent? Naturally, the hated Rams of VCU. Duke-North Carolina gets all the headlines when people talk about the great rivalries in college basketball, but to me, ODU-VCU is the biggest rivalry. Not only is it the biggest rivalry in the CAA (sorry, Delaware-Drexel and George Mason-James Madison), it transcends the conference; these two teams hated each other when they played in the Sun Belt Conference over 20 years ago.

You think Duke and UNC fans hate each other? Walk into the Siegel Center wearing an ODU shirt.

As expected, the game was a classic, hard-fought and close the whole way. One of the reasons this rivalry has been so intense over the years is whenever these teams meet, something always seems to be on the line -- conference supremacy, a ticket to the Big Dance, you name it. But more than that, if one team goes on a run, the other always responds in kind.

You'll never see one of these teams beat the other by 20.

Calling the game, I found my heart in my throat as the final seconds of regulation ticked away and VCU had the ball with the game tied. As hot as the Rams had been from behind the arc in the second half -- and really, the entire season -- I just knew they were going to hit a game-winning three. VCU was going to take the automatic bid and Monarch faithful all over the country would sit nervously on Selection Sunday to see if the committee would graciously award the team a rare at-large.

(Before George Mason last season, the CAA had gone 20 years without an at-large...back in the days of Navy and Richmond.)

Jesse Pellot-Rosa takes the shot from the far wing, and time feels like it literally stops. I watch the ball float through the air, silently hoping for something, anything, to keep it from falling through the net. A gust of wind, an unruly fan streaking across the court and leaping to grab the ball-- ANYTHING.

Then, after what seemed like forever, the ball clangs off the back iron and the buzzer sounds. We're going to overtime. ODU and VCU need five more minutes to decide who goes to the NCAA tournament.

Naturally.

Overtime starts, and Loughton takes over. The Player of the Year in the CAA pretty much validates the choice, scoring outside, inside, rebounding and doing just about everything a Player of the Year's expected to do.

Then the big moment comes.

Loughton stands at the baseline, surveying the ful-court press the Rams had installed. Isaiah Hunter, the Monarchs' star guard, notices all five VCU players crowding Loughton and breaks for the other end of the court. Pellot-Rosa, still groggy from hitting his head minutes earlier, tries to chase, but he's no match for Hunter's speed. Loughton sees Hunter and lobs a home-run pass his way. Hunter grabs it, dribbles once, and then...

"He slams it home with one hand and will go to the line! Hunter with the breakaway jam, and he all but punched the Rams right out of the NCAA tournament!"

Yes, I remember my call as vivid as the moment I made it. The buzzer eventually sounds, the Monarchs win the game. Fans flood the court, and I get chills as I scream the words, "And the Monarchs are champions of the Colonial Athletic Association. ODU's going dancing! ODU's going dancing!"

Even as I said it, I couldn't believe it. ODU was going to the NCAA tournament. That was what the conference tournament was all about, getting that bid. Knowing you and your school were going dancing. And in my case, I was broadcasting a small part of the dance, too.

I was no stranger to the NCAA tournament -- I'd covered the last couple women's tournaments by virtue of the ODU women's now-15 straight CAA titles -- but there is a noticeable difference between the women's Big Dance and the men's.

The magic is different, stronger. The excitement, the euphoria that comes with knowing without a doubt you're going. We weren't talking bubbles or at-larges anymore. We punched our ticket; all we needed to know now was what seed and who we'd play in the first round.

But that could wait. There was celebrating to be done.

Once we signed off, I took a seat in the stands at the Richmond Coliseum, merely taking in the sights and sounds. The players and coaches were still on the court, celebrating and embracing with fans. My colleague Ruben Brown took pictures with his camera before stepping onto the court and doing a little jig.

After all, we were dancing.

I eventually made my way to the court as well. I shook every player's hand, congratulating them on a job well done and a memorable ride. Just about all of them knew me, and more than a few -- like reserve center Janko Mrksic, one of the nicest guys I'll probably ever meet, despite his bulking size and menacing tattoos -- sought me out.

I felt especially good for senior Kiah Thomas, Taylor's first recruit. He suffered through two losing seasons and an NIT snub before getting the chance to go to the NCAA tournament. Nobody in the Richmond Coliseum was smiling wider than him that night.

Then I went to shake Taylor's hand. My run in covering the Monarchs began his first season as coach, taking over a struggling program in serious need of direction. He brought the team back to campus, led them to success in the newly-built Ted Constant Convocation Center, and made ODU men's basketball relevant again. Fans had suddenly forgotten who Jeff Capel was...outside of the two or three times a year we faced his son at VCU.

But when I extended by hand, Taylor did something unexpected. He didn't grab my hand; he hugged me. Threw his arms around me, held me in a momentary embrace I thought was merely an expression of his jubilation over winning the conference and going to the tournament.

But the fact that he did that, hugged someone he hardly knew outside of press conferences and interviews set up through the Sports Information office, told me all I needed to know about how important going to the NCAA tournament was, especially for us mid-majors.

Not saying the majors don't get excited over winning their conference tournament and earning the automatic bid, but think about this: most years, if Duke goes down in the quarters or semis of the NCAA tournament, they don't have to sweat too much, because they're still getting an at-large and a high seed. If Ohio State doesn't win the Big Ten tournament this year, it's hopes of dancing aren't squashed.

But in mid-major land -- and the CAA particularly, before last year -- not winning your conference tournament can mean an automatic trip to the NIT. The Not-Invited Tournament, as some people call it. So the conference tournament becomes not only important, but magical in a sense.

And on that Monday night in Richmond, I experienced that magic first-hand. And it was easily one of the best nights of my life.

I get home that night, and not only is the game SportsCenter's lead highlight, but Hunter's breakaway dunk is the night's Top Play. Things get even better Selection Sunday, when we find out ODU is the No. 12 seed and will take on Michigan State in the first round.

I liked that match-up; two teams that like to run, and considering at least one No. 12 seed had advanced every year since the late 1980s had me confident of a possible upset. My colleagues and I load up a car and drive all the way up to Worcester, Mass., where the minute we walk into the DCU Center and see Vermont knock off Syracuse, we knew we'd made the big time.

This was the NCAA tournament!

Calling the game was a thrill in and of itself; ODU led much of the way, playing the same style of ball it had all season. Give the ball to Loughton inside, play good defense, force turnovers and get into the open court in transition. Only problem was, midway through the second half, the Spartans did the same thing, clawing their way back into the game.

A cold Loughton, and an injured Arnaud Dahi missing every 3-point shot he took, led to an 89-81 defeat. The Monarchs' season was over.

But it was still a marvelous season and a memorable ride. And as I get ready for this year's CAA tournament -- which is this weekend -- I think back to that magic of two years ago. ODU is the No. 2 seed this year, behind VCU, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them fighting it out in the final for the automatic bid again. And again, people are talking at-large with ODU, pointing to the team's impressive road win over Georgetown, its RPI in the 30s and a winning streak of 11 games.

George Mason used a 13-game winning streak to close out the season to impress the committee last year, so the Monarchs' case looks strong. Widsom says if ODU advances to the title game, it's in the NCAAs no matter what. I say go out, win the CAA tourney and take the decision out of the commitee's hands. Get that automatic bid and spend a week knowing you're going dancing.

Because I can tell you, that's one of the best feelings in the world.

Outbreak Signals Need for Change

2007-01-31T20:18:00.000-08:00

I read an article on Yahoo! today in which high school wrestling matches in Minnesota were suspended due to an outbreak of herpes among competitors. Now, I'm not sure how much play this is getting nationally--wrestling's not exactly a household name of a sport--but I think the situation underscores a need for some changes.

For the uninitiated, wrestling is a close-quarters sport that is the very definition of contact. You can't be successful in this sport without grabbing, pulling, holding onto and slamming your opponent to the mat, and given the very nature of this sport, there's plenty of skin-on-skin contact.

Go ahead, make all the homoerotic jokes you want...I'll wait until you're all done.

So anyway, with that much contact being an inevitability, it's not terribly surprising for me to read of an outbreak like this. Those in charge of the decision to suspend matches in Minnesota were right to do so, but I think it needs to go a little bit further.

I say we start taking better care of the equipment -- primarily the mats these guys (and girls, in some instances) wrestle on.

I've spent the past month and a half covering high school wrestling for the Daily Press (Newport News, Va.), and seeing as how I'd had little to no exposure to the sport prior to this, I've learned a lot. And one of the things I've learned is there needs to be a more concerted effort when it comes to sanitation.

To illustrate what I mean: at the Virginia Duals earlier this month, all 10 wrestling mats were wiped down and cleaned between meets. With dozens of colleges and high schools throughout the country wrestling over the course of the two-day event, such a thing was necessary, especially given all the contact and spilled blood.

Of all the wrestling meets I've seen this year, that's been the only time I've seen a massive effort to clean the mats. Sure, the trainers will spray down the mat whenever blood's been spilled, but aside from that, I haven't really seen much being done on that end.

And I think that needs to change.

I was at the MatTalk Online Ram Rumble last weekend in Williamsburg, Va., and over the two-day event, 26 high school teams competed on five separate mats. Not once in those two days did I see the mats cleaned, save the aforementioned blood clean-up.

I think the cleaning used at the Duals could've been used here. Maybe not clean the mat after every single match (probably too time-consuming), but after every round would've sufficed. Not only because of the blood and the sweat, but I recall one of the wrestlers becoming ill during his match. Thankfully, he made it to the trash can in time (during the match, anyway...not so much afterward), but I think cleaning the mat after his match would've still been a real good idea.

Every large-scale tournament should enforce mat cleaning at least after every round. There's no telling what gets left on a mat after a combined 28 wrestlers have gone at it.

Focusing on the smaller events -- the dual, tri- and quad-meets specifically -- I think mat cleaning needs to be more prevalent. I've covered several tri- and quad-meets and not once have I seen mats being cleaned between matches.

Again, I'm not saying clean the mat after the 103-pound match, after the 112, after the 119, etc...that would take entirely too long (and considering I'm always on deadline, that would irritate me), but clean the mat, say, after Tabb and Lafayette have wrestled, then again after Lafayette and Poquoson have wrestled.

Also, clean the mat after every match in which one of the competitors had to take an injury or blood timeout. Not just the spot of blood, either--the whole mat.

Given the proximity required by wrestling, the above suggestions won't do away with all outbreaks or infections--that's simply impossible. But I think a lot of problems can be avoided if we start doing a better job of keeping up with and cleaning the wrestling surface.

It's one thing for a wrestler to catch the flu from the guy he wrestled, but if he caught it from a bead of sweat left over from a previous match? That's just unnecessary.

Remembering a Champion

2007-01-22T09:22:00.000-08:00

I just want to take a few moments to say a couple words about former NASCAR champion Benny Parsons, who last week died of lung cancer at 65.

Given my age (I'm 25), I don't remember Benny for his driving days, outside of what I've read and heard other people talk about. Even his later driving years, when I was a child, I never followed because I wasn't a NASCAR fan then. Almost everything I remember of Benny is from his work in the TV booth--first at ESPN and ABC, and then NBC and TNT.

Everyone talks about how gentle and kind Benny was, even on the race track. The story of how he got caught up in a wreck in the 1973 season finale at Rockingham, only have to almost every crew in the garage help him fix the car to get him back out there and take the Wintson Cup title over Cale Yarborough. That kind of thing would never happen today, and it never happened back then, either.

Unless your name was Benny Parsons.

But as gracious as Benny was on the track, what's more impressive was how he was off of it. I can't think of a single moment whn I saw him and he wasn't smiling. Even last season, when he announced he had lung cancer and treatment plagued his body and kept him off-air at times, that smile never once diminished. Benny had a spirit that was inextinguishable, a spirit I often wished I had.

I learned four years ago first-hand just how generous Benny was as a person. Then working as sports editor at The Mace & Crown (Old Dominion University's campus newspaper), I'd taken a trip to Richmond International Raceway to cover a few stories during the big race weekend. We had a few alumns in the Busch Series and seeing as how ODU was a big engineering school, it felt pertinent to do a large piece on the role of engineering in NASCAR.

Now, having covered mostly college basketball in my life, I'm used to a rigid structure when setting up interviews. Contact the Sports Information Director, file the interview request, give dates and times that worked, and wait to hear back. That wasn't the case in NASCAR; for the most part, once you'd received your press credential, getting interviews was pretty much a matter of walking the garage area and grabbing whoever you needed when you saw them.

So imagine me, an ameteur college reporter, standing in the fast-paced world of NASCAr's top series. As good as I was--am--at my job, that was slightly intimidating. Most interviews are done on the move, drivers giving short, quick answers before abruptly cutting the interview short and going about their business. They're not being asses (well, most of them), they just have things to do.

And it took me a while to gather that and calm myself.

But when I saw Benny in the garage area, I saw that smile of his. I wanted his interview, since he drove in the pre-engineering days of NASCAR and had followed the sport through its evolution, but saw him busy talking to crew chiefs and drivers (undoubtedly for his broadcast later that night). He saw me standing there, waiting for him, and with that big grin of his, he walked up to me and asked me my name.

I told him and the smile seemed to widen. He shook my hand and asked me how I was.

It's amazing how a small gesture like that can put a nervous reporter's mind at ease. From there, I explained to him what I was after and that I needed just a few minutes of his time for my story. He happily obliged and five minutes later, I had my interview.

Wanting to return the graciousness Benny had shown me, I allowed him the opportunity to go back to doing his job. We shook hands again--I will never forget such a mighty grip--and that smile just seemed plastered to his face. I thanked him for his time and he told me if I needed anything else, just find him and let him know.

He'd known me five minutes, and already he was offering to help me.

I didn't need his help the rest of the weekend; I'd had it pretty much figured out from there. I got the rest of my interviews and wrote my stories, and that weekend turned out to be pretty damn good. But I will never forget the way Benny Parsons reached out to a young, unknown college reporter and treated him just as well as if he'd been writing for the New York Times.

I quoted Benny in that story, and to this day that is one of my proudest moments as a sports journalist, right there with the year I followed ODU's run to the NCAA tournament.

Benny Parsons was a champion, and a wonderful man. I'll miss hearing him on my TV on Sunday, but more than anything, I'll miss that smile.

Rest well, Benny.

Bilas Bias?

2006-12-13T20:56:00.000-08:00

Browsing through the message boards over at CAAZone today when I came across a thread in which someone posted a portion of ESPN college basketball analyst Jay Bilas' blog.

The topic? A discussion of whether or not to let a certain mid-major coach go. Have a read for yourselves:

Much was expected this season from a hot coach with a fancy resume and pedigree, but so far this year, the Golden Boy is only a mediocre 4-4. Could you blame the boosters at his school if they pulled the plug on him?

This coach was a really good player in college, and was an assistant under one at one of the game's more prominent programs before taking off on his own. Since he left his cushy job as a power conference assistant, the jury may still be out for some on whether he can really make it as a head coach. In today's world of parity, results speak volumes, and it is understandable why some would be uneasy about keeping this coach in place.

Look at the evidence: In 21 years as a head coach, this guy has won only 57 percent of his games, with an uninspiring record of 340-253 for an average of 16 wins per year. In those 21 years, he has guided his team to only seven postseason appearances, with four of them NIT berths, and with the exception of one outstanding year with a record of 28-7, he was never able to win a game in the postseason.

Now, with a middling 4-4 start this season, maybe it is time to make a change. It is understandable, isn't it?

Of course, that coach is Jim Larranaga at George Mason.

Now bear with me for a moment as I try to break this down and wrap it around my admittedly-cluttered head. Bilas, a Duke grad and known power conference supporter, is suggesting George Mason University dispense of Larranaga because he's gone 4-4 or so far this season and has only won 57 percent of his games as a head coach.

I'll give everyone a minute to let the absurdity of that remark sink in.

...

....

.....

Done? Good, we can move on now. I could see this argument working at a national powerhouse school--say, Duke, perhaps? If Coach K had a lifetime winning percentage of .570, took his team to the Final Four last season, only to limp to a 4-4 record here in '06, I could almost get behind the outcry for his head.

But Larranaga? The darling of all the mid-major coaches?

I'm sorry, but did Bilas honestly expect George Mason to replicate the success of a year ago? Did he really think after losing his top three scorers in Lamar Butler, Jai Lewis and Tony Skinn that Larranaga could find the magic again, run rough-shod through the Colonial Athletic Association and barrel his way into contention for another national title?
If so, he's really lost sight of what life is like for mid-major schools.

I recall on numerous occasions Texas Tech head coach Bob Knight calling for two separate national tournaments--one for the power conferences and one for the mid-majors. His reasoning? No mid-major who makes the NCAA tournament has any realistic hope of competing for the national title. Never mind the fact that college basketball's postseason for many schools is set by making the tournament, not necessarily winning it.

And we could argue the Patriots' run to the Final Four last season proves Knight's point wrong, that any team any year can compete and contend. I would imagine there are a few mid-majors this year who have NCAA tournament success on their minds; would anyone be surprised if Wichita State went deep into the tournament?

I wouldn't.

But did Larranaga really raise the bar that high for mid-major programs and coaches? I'd like to think not; otherwise, Old Dominion coach Blaine Taylor might be looking for work this year if his Monarchs only return to the NIT.

In my opinion, Bilas calling for Larranaga's job is as absurd as the outcry for Joe Torre's after the New York Yankees failed to win the World Series for a sixth straight season. If I had a manager in Torre who took my team to the playoffs year in and year out, I'd be begging management to keep him, if not extend his contract with the club, and it's the same way with Larranaga.

If I were in charge of athletics at George Mason, I would give Larranaga a lifetime deal after last season's Final Four magic. And all I would ask in return is for him to keep the Patriots in contention in the CAA every year, making numerous postseason appearances (NCAA or NIT) and winning some games.

Simple as that, because as much as mid-majors have closed the gap in recent years, there's still a noticeable gap, and anyone who thinks we'll see mid-majors getting to the Final Four year in and year out is delusional.

If Bilas wants to criticize Michigan State for not being annual Final Four participants, that's fine; Tom Izzo has set the bar high for the Spartans, who play in the tough (and "big time") Big Ten. But to call for Larranaga's job because his mid-major team is sitting at 4-4?

Please...take off the Blue Devil costume, Jay. You might actually see something for what it is rather than what you want it to be.

A College Basketball Eye Opener

2006-11-21T20:15:00.001-08:00

I've been a huge college basketball fan for the last six years, ever since I began covering Old Dominion for the campus newspaper and radio station, but until tonight, all of my experience and knowledge came from Division I.

Tonight, my bosses at the Daily Press (Newport News, VA.) assigned me to cover the college basketball game between Christopher Newport University and Virginia Wesleyan College.

I was on my way to my first-ever NCAA Division III game.

How much did I know about the two teams playing? I knew Virginia Wesleyan won the Division III national championship last season, and thanks to Google, I had my hands on both teams' rosters. Aside from that? I was pretty much walking into the dark.

My first impressions were of the obvious differences between Division I and Division III from the media's perspective. In Division I, I'm normally surrounded by newspaper writers, radio personalties and television cameras. When I made my way into the Jane P. Batten Student Center, I noticed the scorers' table was also press row--squeezed between the teams' benches.

No cameras, one lonely radio guy. One, maybe two, newspaper writers.

There are no stat monitors for reporters and analysts to stare at. There is no media room filled with free food or media guides or information pamphlets. In fact, there are no media guides. Or press passes; I got in with a ticket, just like everybody else.

There are no press conferences after each game. Rather, reporters hang around while each coach addresses his team before grabbing coaches and players as they file out of the locker room.

Arenas are replaced with gymnasiums, many of them holding no more than 2,000-3,000 people. No pep bands, no dance teams...a small cheerleading squad, but a loud and faithful fan following.

Despite the initially jarring differences--which took a while for me to get used to, having spent the last four college basketball seasons at the 8,600-seat Ted Constant Convocation Center--I noticed the most important thing once the referee tipped the ball and the game got underway.

It's still college basketball. Pure and true.

If anything, Division III basketball might be more pure. Without the constant attention the "big-time" gets, the players are on the court concentrating on just one thing: playing the game. These players aren't highly recruited, not as talented as the guys who tear up brackets in March or make an early jump to the NBA. These guys do not play on a scholarship, and will probably find futures outside of the game after graduating.

But it's still college basketball. There are still 35 seconds on the shot clock, they still play two 20-minute halves. The three-point line is the same distance from the basket, and the same fundamentals that work in Division I work in Division III.

Virginia Wesleyan beat CNU 72-71 on a last-second lay-up from Stephen Fields, despite shooting just 39 percent from the floor (CNU shot 50 percent and actually led for much of the second half). The Marlins won because they hit their free throws at the end, outrebounded the Captains 38-34 and committed just seven turnovers (CNU committed 17).

Virigina Wesleyan can play a suffocating full-court press, and the team runs the same pick-and-roll play Division I Old Dominion does. CNU finds success because of its big man, 6-foot-8 sophomore Mark Blasingame.

Strip away the fancy graphics of TV or the spoiling amenities afforded to the media, and Division I would probably look much like Division III games. The talent gap is obvious--even without seeing a Division I team play a Division III team--but college basketball is college basketball.

I came away from tonight's CNU-Virginia Wesleyan game with the same sense of satisfaction I leave a competitive Division I game with, and I urge anyone with the opportunity to watch a Division III game at some point.

It may not have the pageantry and the glamour of the sport we dub "March Madness," but NCAA Division III college basketball is the same game, stripped down to the very core.

And what a juicy center it is.

A Colelge Basketball Eye Opener

2006-11-21T20:15:00.000-08:00

Packing Pee-Wee Heat

2006-10-24T08:35:00.000-07:00

Not sure if you've heard yet about the Philadelphia, Penn. parent who was arrested for pulling a gun on his son's football coach. If not, you can find the story here.

To summarize, 40-year-old Wayne Derkotch was arguing with the coach of his son's 6- and 7-year-old football team. No shots were fired, but what pray tell would possess a man to draw a weapon on the coach of his son's Pee Wee football team?

Playing time. Apparently, the boy wasn't getting enough of it.

Derkotch was arrested, as was a referee accused of throwing a punch at a man. It's unknown if these two incidents are related, but I just have to wonder...

Just what in the hell has gotten into people these days?

We've all heard horror stories of "little league parents," people who insist on living vicariously through their children on the field. Maybe daddy's dream of being a big-league pitcher fell through, so he's pushing Junior as hard as he can in hopes that someday, his son will be the explosive ball player he never was.

A couple months ago, we saw a parent storm onto the football field and level a 12-year-old for a late hit on his son.

And now this.

I used to scoff at the notion of banning parents from their children's games, thinking that, if I were a child, I'd want my parents in the stands cheering me on as I learn the sport of my choosing. But after this insane, baffling incident, I think it's time to revisit that notion.

Pulling a gun on a coach because your 6- or 7-year-old isn't getting enough playing time? What, are you trying to groom the next Terrell Owens?

When did a win-at-all-costs attitude permeate the little league sports landscape? When did behavior once reserved for big-time college and professional athletics become commonplace for the pre-teen crowd? I always thought little league sports were about learning the game, teaching life lessons through the all-encompassing canvas of sports. Everyone involved is looking to learn and have fun, not win it all, no matter what the cost.

Apparently, that's no longer the case.

When did it come to this? Is it because every summer, ESPN goes all happy-batty over the Little League World Series, shoving prepubescent baseball down our throats? Does it have anything to do with the individualization rampant in sports today?

Get the SportsCenter highlight, upgrade your draft status, hire a flamboyant agent, ask for the biggest contract you can, and don't forget that all-important shoe contract.

Or does it go back to my earlier point of parents wanting to live through their children? Professional athletics is such an exclusive, cut-throat club, thousands with aspirations never even sniff the opportunity to play.

In middle school, I had aspirations of being a Major League pitcher. I was gonna light up the high school ranks with my fastball, baffle college hitters with my changeup, and develop a couple breaking balls to take the majors by storm.

Maybe even start Game 1 of the World Series my rookie year.

Only it never happened. I got to tryouts in high school and quickly realized how little athletic talent I had. But does that make me want to do half the things I hear Little League parents doing?

No...instead, I decided to become a sports writer and a sportscaster in college. That way, sports is still an integral part of my life. I used to joke that God didn't give me athletic talent, just a microphone.

I hope Derkotch gets what's coming to him, because we need to change the current landscape of little league sports. I'm tired of hearing about parents fighting each other, berating officials and threatening coaches. At this level, a game is just that: a game. Things aren't cut-throat until you get to college, maybe high school.

That's how it should be, anyway.

The Big Sports Media Secret

2006-10-10T22:09:00.000-07:00

It seems to me the sports media has taken a lot of heat recently, what with its perceived over-coverage of Terrell Owens' apparent prescription drug overdose and a myriad of other issues ranging from a love affair with anything involving the New York Yankees and/or Boston Red Sox to pundits asking what's wrong with an NFL team after they have the gaul to lose a division game on the road.

Don't mistake what I'm about to say, though; this is not a piece in which I defend the profession I am in the process of making my name in. I'm not here to praise ESPN and the countless other sports media outlets, saying they can do no wrong and if it weren't for today's sports media, we wouldn't be a fan base so connected and knowledgeable we can discuss issues important to us and come to sites like ArmchairGM one to write opinions and debate.

Okay, so the last part's true...my argument of not defending the media still stands.

No, I merely seek to explain how the media (in fact, all mainstream media, not just sports) works. Having spent my undergraduate years studying the mass media and the last five years teetering between sports writing and sportscasting, my eyes have been opened to the reality of news.

And that reality, as it so often is in life, is money. The almighty dollar.

Media outlets today are usually a part of a larger entity, some massive corporation which, by and large, has no interest in the media (or, for the purposes of this piece, sports). CNN is merely a cog in the wheel that is Time-Warner, ESPN is but a limb of the mighty Disney Corp.

Sports Illustrated? Again, see Time-Warner.

These corporations obtain these entities and companies not out of some deeper purpose, some societal need to inform the general populous of the issues pertinent to them. No, they do it to add to the bottom line, fill their bellies with the bastion of American capitalism every way they can.

And if owning a media outlet means higher profits, well...sign Big Business up.

Because of this, the media outlet's content (again, we'll use ESPN as an example, since this is a sports blog) is directly related to sponsorship and, by extension, revenue. Advertisers love large audiences, so the bigger the audience ESPN can offer, the more advertising dollars pour into the Worldwide Leader.

How does ESPN guarantee the audience? By covering what it perceives to be the things we, the audience, want. If that involves as much T.O. news as possible, so be it. If that means all the Yanks-Sox we can stand, then bet your trusty foam finger that's what you'll get.

How do they know whether we want something? We watch it, they look at the ratings. We read the magazine, they look at subscription numbers. We visit the web site, they track the hits. If they see high ratings when covering T.O., they're gonna keep milking the egomaniacal wide receiver until we show them we want no more.

By turning the TV away from ESPN.

In this the age of the 24-hour news channel (and ESPN seems to have become that, even with the advent of ESPNews) and the development of the Internet (thus leading to more up-to-the-minute reporting and blogging), the bottom line has become even more important.

This leads to content that is very similar from one outlet to another. A homogonization of content, I believe one of my journalism professors called it. Corporate media means we're gonna get a lot of the same thing, and we're going to get it over and over again.

Because that's what makes money.

Not only does content correlate with money, so too do personnel decisions. Most newspapers, when consolidating into a corporate entity, lose staff in the interest of the bottom line. We've seen this most recently in the acquisition by the Tribune Company of the Los Angeles Times. Shortly after the acquisition, a number of jobs at the Times were cut.

Not because the people in question couldn't do their jobs; I'm sure they were quite capable. But they weren't cost-effective. It's a sad reality in the mass media, but a reality it is.

(As an aside, the newspaper I currently write for as a high school football correspondent, the Daily Press, is owned by the Tribune Company.)

I've already written about the personnel at ESPN--see "Changes at ESPN?" below. The bottom line dictates not only what ESPN reports or what kind of shows it airs, but who does the reporting and the analyzing. If the network really is looking to get away from the Stuart Scott-"Booya!" style, it's likely because someone in charge of the company's finances has seen...wait a minute, that's not making money anymore.

People are starting to turn off, and they're taking advertising dollars with them.

I wish I had better news; I wish I could report that media outlets are getting away from the 24-hour cycle mentality of reporting first, no matter what. I wish I could say these companies are no longer so concerned with the bottom line and are again starting to concentrate on good, focused reporting--giving us the information we want and need without constantly forcing it down our throats.

I won't be able to say that until it no longer becomes profitable for those companies.

But there is something we can do. For those of us who are either in the sports media business or are looking to break in, try focusing on reporting differently than your colleagues. If that means a different writing or reporting style, then so be it. If that means looking at a story from an angle nobody else thought of or cared to consider, that's great, too.

Blogs are great for this sort of thing, and the Internet has truly been a blessing to the media in this regard.

But for the general audience, I offer this advice: if you don't like something the media's doing, don't pay attention to it. You want less T.O.? Stop watching the stories and press conferences about him. Leave the columns and blogs about him on ESPN.com alone. Don't patronize with sponsors affiliated with anything related to him (that means put down the Dr. Pepper, Redskins fan; Dr. Pepper sponsors the Cowboys).

Once the media starts losing money doing things the way they do them, their tactics--and the things they cover--will change.

Because it all comes back to the almighty dollar.

A-Rod Deserves Criticism

2006-10-06T19:49:00.000-07:00

Imagine my pleasure yesterday as I watched Detroit Tigers stud and Old Dominion alum Justin Verlander break Alex Rodriguez's knees with an 85-mph curve ball, resulting in the first of A-Rod's three strikeouts in a 4-3 loss in Game 2 of the American League Division Series.

It got better later in the game when I saw him whiff helplessly at a 103-mph heater from Joel Zamaya.

But the best part of all? The boos cascading from Yankee Stadium.
This isn't merely because I was raised to abhor everything that is the New York Yankees, and how I feel compelled to not feel sorry for a guy pulling in more money in six months than I'll ever hope to make it my entire life. No, this is because I feel A-Rod deserves all the scrutiny.

Every last bit of it.

I understand all the analysts and current players when they stare into the ESPN camera and tell everyone to lay off the guy, let him play the game that at times seems to come so naturally to him. I understand it, and if it were any other player, or any other team, I would agree.

But this is a guy some call the best ever, on a team that is all too quick to point out its 26 World Series titles...and even quicker to gripe about not winning one in the past five years.

Memo to Yankee fan: go through nine straight losing seasons, then come bitch at me.

A-Rod deserves every boo, every scathing New York headline he gets, and the reasoning is simple: he's playing on the highest-profile team in the majors, and he's making more money than anyone else who's ever picked up a bat or put on a glove.

Do you really think George Steinbrenner is paying A-Rod $25 million a year for sub-.200 postseason batting averages? Is he forking over the big bucks to see the player slap a grounder out of a fielder's hand?

I think not.

A-Rod's talent is unquestioned; he hits over .300 consistently, and he puts up at least 30 and 110 a year. But when it matters, when the calendar turns to October, A-Rod seemingly ships back to Seattle, because he's nowhere to be found. That might slide in a place like Oakland or San Diego, but an October slump is like sin in Yankee Nation.
He's the highest-paid player on a team where anything short of a World Series trophy is a disappointment. He deserves the scrutiny, he deserves the boos and the jeers and the constant hounding by the New York media. Sure, he'll hit a clutch 3-run bomb to take a regular-season win against the Cleveland Indians, but ask him for the big hit against the Red Sox with a trip to the World Series on the line?

Hope you like strikeouts with runners at the corners and two out.

In Yankee Nation, one's legacy is cemented in the playoffs. Just ask Derek Jeter or Reggie Jackson. A-Rod could break the single-season home run record, lead the AL with a .410 batting average and take home a Triple Crown and a Gold Glove...but if he gags it up in the playoffs, none of that is going to matter.

I've heard lately the question, 'Why doesn't Jeter face the same scrutiny?" Well, first of all, he doesn't make nearly as much as his pal over at third base. Jeter makes a ton of money, don't get me wrong, but it's not the biggest contract in the history of professional sports.

Secondly, Jeter has, historically, performed in the playoffs. He's come through in the clutch, even as recently as Game 1, when he had five hits. Sure, he stmubled in Game 2, but Yankee fan can forgive that, because he's a perpetual clutch guy. He's come through before, and they know he'll come through again.

But I think it boils down to this key difference: Jeter was bred a Yankee, came up through the New York farm system. A-Rod, meanwhile, is one of many free agents to come in from elsewhere. But unlike the other free agents the Yankees have signed in recent years, A-Rod was touted as one of the best ever, and the Yankees managed to steal him away from the Red Sox.

That's built-in pressure.

Jeter's the hometown favorite; he's been a Yankee from day one. A-Rod's an outsider, one who came in with a lot of buzz. And in his three years in pinstripes, that buzz has remained just that: buzz.

To be fair, though, I do remember Yankee fan booing Jeter last year. I thought it was asanine, pointless to boo a guy who time and time again came through for your team. It made about as much sense as Oriole fan booing Cal Ripken.

But booing A-Rod? Makes perfect sense, go right ahead.

All because of his $252 million contract. You make the cash, you step into the spotlight, you've gotta perform. And A-Rod doesn't...not when it counts most.

So Yankee fan, boo away...I'm right there with you.

Team-wide or game-wide?

2006-10-02T19:54:00.000-07:00

In looking over the Los Angeles Times report which revealed the six names Jason Grimsley dropped to federal investigators back in June in a performance-enhancing drugs scoop, I noticed a disturbing trend:

Four of the six names were Baltimore Orioles.

Sure, there were the biggies--Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite--but the ones that stuck out to me were Miguel Tejada, Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons and David Segui. Tejada is a former American League MVP (in 2002 with the Oakland A's), while Roberts started in the 2005 All-Star Game. Gibbons, when healthy, is a solid right fielder who gives the Orioles lineup a reliable left-handed bat, and I remember Segui being one of the mainstays of a team fluctuating between success and mediocrity.

This now makes five, possibly six, Orioles allegedly connected to performance-enhancing drugs. For a refresher's course, examine:

August 2005: Rafeal Palmeiro, having recently become just the fourth player ever to hit 500 home runs and collect 3,000 hits in his career, was the highest-profile player to test positive under the league's testing policy. He served his 10 games, and struggled the remainder of the year before disappearing from the game.

His Hall of Fame candidacy all but erased, Palmeiro spent the rest of the '05 season claming he never knowingly took anything (the same defense Barry Bonds used in grand jury testimony). He even threw Tejada under the bus, saying a vitamin B shot he supplied to Palmeiro led to the positive test.

2005: Sammy Sosa was a member of the team. While most of the allegations surround his days as a Chicago Cub, his very presence left an unpleasant taint in the clubhouse. You know, that whole "guilt by association" thing.

June 2006: David Segui, having retired from baseball, admits he's one of the names in Grimsley's affidavit. He says he took human growth hormone on the recommendation of his doctor. While I admire him coming clean and admitting he used, I'm not sure I buy the doctor's note.
This week: We learn Tejada, Roberts and Gibbons were also named in the affidavit (if the report is accurate; some sources close to the investigation have questioned the validity of the Times' report).

So I can't help but wonder...if the allegations are indeed true, is this more an indication of the Baltimore Orioles baseball franchise, or of Major League Baseball as a whole? Were the O's just a perpetual steroid offender, or did every team in the league have multiple juicers?

Self-serving as my feeling might be, I think it was the latter. I happen to think every team, at one point or another, had several players using performance enhancers, be they steroids, HGH, or amphetamines. And, considering the current policy doesn't test for HGH, it's possible several guys on each team are still juicing to this day.

I'm not going to sit here and acquit the Orioles players being accused of juicing, but I'm not going to judge them, either. The fact is, without hard evidence, we don't know for 100 percent, absolute certainty who was or wasn't a user. The best we do is guess, question and speculate.

Maybe Tejada, Roberts and Gibbons used, maybe they didn't. Then again, we can say that about almost everyone in the majors. Some have questioned Albert Pujols this season, I've heard whispers about Ryan Howard of the Phillies. I myself have had my questions about Jason Giambi the past two seasons, since it was leaked that he admitted to juicing in a grand jury hearing.

The only people in baseball I don't question when it comes to steroids are Cal Ripken and Ken Griffey, Jr. Everyone else, as far as I'm concerned, is under suspicion.

No one is guilty, no one is innocent.

Everyone is under suspicion.

And it's a shame that it's come to that. As a baseball fan, I can no longer witness an outstanding feat on the diamond without wondering if the player in question is juicing.

A guy hits 50 or 60 homers in a season? Maybe he used steroids.

Some hotshot hurler just out of AAA hits 100 on the radar gun and baffles the best hitters in the world with a biting curve? Gotta be on HGH.

I hate it. But I also don't see it changing anytime soon, especially if Bud Selig and the MLBPA can't get together and once and for all ratify a policy that really forces juicers to come clean--so to speak.

I don't look at this report as an indictment on the Baltimore Orioles so much as one on baseball as a whole. Sure, the Orioles might've had several players on the juice, but if that's the case, then I guarantee you every other team had the same situation.

This is what our national pastime has become. Sad, isn't it?

T.O. Fiasco Sheds Light on Deeper Issue

2006-09-27T20:02:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-22T09:47:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-09-19T20:30:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-09-15T21:39:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-12T19:42:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-12T19:38:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-04T21:44:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-02T19:06:00.000-07:00

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.

The Jaw Has Spoken

2006-08-15T11:24:00.000-07:00

Former Pittsburgh Steelers running back Jerome Bettis made his debut as an analyst Sunday night during NBC's telecast of the Cincinnati Bengals-Washington Redskins preseason game, and already the black-and-gold legend has found himself in a bit of hot water.

During the broadcast, Bettis disclosed a conversation he said he'd had with Steelers coach Bill Cowher, and he addressed the rumors surrounding the coach's supposed retirement.

"I really think this is the last year for Coach Cowher in Pittsburgh," Bettis said. "I talked to him after the season was over and I really think he was really a different coach, a different guy."

Cowher, for his part, was upset by Bettis' comments. So upset, in fact, I'd wager that jaw of his stuck out like a sore thumb the minute he heard The Bus make the above comments.

So, what was Cowher to do? Throw his former star under the...uhh...bus.

"I was very disappointed in what Jerome said," Cowher said late Monday afternoon. "Jerome and I talked back in March and there was no confidential information shared. There has been a lot of speculation about my future, and that's what it is -- speculation. I have not made a decision about my future beyond this year."

So, Cowher says he hasn't decided yet if he's going to retire. That's fine; just tell the media you haven't decided yet. It won't stop them from asking you about your plans after the coming season, but at least Cowher will have gone on-record as saying he wasn't sure.

Cowher has more important things to worry about than what Bettis said on the set for NBC. He needs to concern himself with trying to repeat a Super Bowl championship season--without Bettis or versatile wide receiver Antwaan Randle-El. He needs to worry about how Ben Roethlisberger is gonna respond to being back on the football field after his horrific motorcycle crash a couple months back.

The regular season is less than a month away; I'd like to think a coach of Cowher's caliber wouldn't care what a member of the football media has to say about his coaching future. I'd like to think he could block that out, focus solely on coaching his team and preparing for a hard season in a much-improved AFC North.

Then again, maybe it was the fact that Bettis said those things that bothered Cowher. I wonder...if Chris Mortensen or Steve Young had made those comments, would he care nearly as much?

As for Bettis, he reportedly said before making those comments that he hoped Cowher would be okay with what he was about to say. Bettis, as a member of the media now, shouldn't be worrying about whether someone would be okay with the things he was saying. As an analyst, it's his job to interject opinions as he sees fit. If it was his opinion Cowher would retire after the season, then he has a job to express as such.

And one thing I've learned in my years as a sports journalist: unless the words "off the record" are uttered, nothing someone says is off-limits to a reporter or an analyst. So whatever conversation Bettis and Cowher had several months back is fair game.

Like I said, if Cowher doesn't think he's going to retire, just say so. There's no need to call out an analyst--one of your best players, no less--simply because he made a statement based on what facts he felt he knew.
Bill Cowher needs to let Jerome Bettis do his job--and focus on doing his own.

Shouldering the Season

2006-08-14T10:58:00.000-07:00

The Cincinnati Bengals beat the Washington Redskins 19-3 Sunday night in both teams' first preseason game--an affair that saw Carson Palmer on the sidelines and the Redskins searching for any sort of rhythm on offense.

Mark Brunell was slow, his passes floating through the air with as much power as a Tim Wakefield knuckleball, back-up Todd Collins (who came from Kansas City to Washington with new offensive coordinator Al Saunders) simply looked awful, and 2005 first-rounder Jason Campbell, while impressive and showing flashes of what he can do, is still playing football at college speed.

The defense looked good, and if the Redskins can get the quarterback situation straightened out, new wideouts Antwaan Randle-El and Brandon Lloyd could prove to be valuable pick-ups. And the loss itself doesn't mean a lot; preseason NFL games are often pointless in their meaningless exhibitionism, nothing more than an excuse for already-rich owners to milk even more money from a football-starved fanbase.
The final score isn't nearly as important as one particular play in the first quarter.

Brunell had just thrown an interception, a case of misreading a route; Lloyd had cut inside, heading up the middle of the field, while Brunell had anticipated him slanting toward the sideline. Instead, he found a Bengals player--and the result was almost six the other way. The only thing saving the day was running back Clinton Portis, who made the tackle.

Only problem was, Portis hurt himself on the play, suffering what team doctors call a left shoulder subluxation. In dummy talk, that means a partially-separated shoulder. Apparently, the bone popped out of its socket, then popped right back in. Portis, naturally, was done for the rest of the night, but thankfully X-rays were negative.

The injury, if it lingers, could decidedly affect the Redskins' season. Considered by some experts as the favorite in the absurdly tough NFC East, the Redskins are coming off their first winning season since 1999, a year that saw Joe Gibbs take the team to the playoffs, winning the Wild Card game against Tampa Bay, despite only 25 passing yards (hence the offseason moves to get Randle-El and Lloyd)...Redskins fans should watch Portis' recovery with keen eyes, because as he goes, so too could go Washington's season.

Portis, who last season rushed for a team-record 1,516 yards, punching into the endzone 11 times, is the backbone of Washington's offensive attack. Though Gibbs is often given credit for winning three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks, the real reason his offenses have worked was a solid running game. If Portis can't contribute for the Skins, all the pressure will fall on the quarterbacks and wideouts...the result of which will more than likely be less than what Redskins fans are expecting.

Portis' back-up, Ladell Betts, is a solid runner in his own right, though he's not as powerful as Portis. Betts had his best game of 2005 against the San Francisco 49ers, rushing for 92 yards on 12 carries. Betts has also shown an ability to catch the ball out of the backfield, which would give Saunders and his offense another dimension...

...if Betts himself weren't banged up, too.

With Portis and Betts both dinged up, that leaves third-stringer Rock Cartwright--all five-foot-seven of him--in charge of Washington's ground game. Not that Cartwright isn't talented, but he's certainly not the back opposing defenses are going to spend hours game-planning for.

I don't expect Portis to play anymore in the preseason, and if he can be ready for the Redskins' season opener against Minnesota, the team should be fine. But without Portis, the Redskins are disturbingly one-dimensional on offense...which will spell trouble in the NFC East.

With a healthy Portis, the Redskins are the most complete, balanced offense in the division. Dallas, despite a good running game and two play-making wideouts, have a weak offensive line--thus potentially spelling doom for Drew Bledsoe. The Eagles, though they no longer have to deal with the antics of one Terrell Owens, no longer have a play-making wide receiver for Donovan McNabb to throw to, and with all the weapons the Giants have, Eli Manning is still a question mark under center.

Washington's got the defense, the coaching pedigree, and if Portis is healthy, the offense to take the NFC East and possibly make a run at the Super Bowl. But if Portis is shelved for a significant amount of time in the regular season, and the back-ups can't pick up the slack, 2006 could be a struggle for the Redskins. Great defense is a wonderful thing in the NFL, but you still have to put the ball in the endzone if you want to compete.

Just ask the Baltimore Ravens.

Greatest Tiger Ever

2006-07-25T21:02:00.000-07:00

The fact that Tiger Woods won his 11th career major Sunday isn't news. He's been winning majors pretty much from the day he got his Tour card.

The fact that Tiger Woods won his 11th career major after missing the cut at the U.S. Open last month, all the while grieving the loss of his mentor, best friend, and father Earl...now that is news.

This year's British Open wasn't so much about the golf. Nor was it really about how the likes of walking banana Sergio Garcia and Ernie Els choked it away down the stretch. It wasn't even about Phil's unsuccessful attempt to put the hospitality tent at Winged Foot behind him.

No, the 106th Open Championship was about the humanity of the game. How spending a few hours on the links can heal the most broken of hearts. How Chris DiMarco and Tiger Woods can stare grief in the face, laugh and march their way to the top of the leaderboard in one of the world's most prestigious tournaments.

The golf was undoubtedly impressive; Tiger using his driver just once all week, holing out for eagle on 14 on Friday from 200 yards out. The way DiMarco stared Tiger right in the eye on the back nine on Sunday, saving a miraculous 50-foot par before dropping a pair of birds. While others were bowing before the mighty Tiger's shadow, DiMarco stood tall and gave Woods his best shots.

And Woods gave back in kind, birdieing 14, 15, and 16. Tiger and Chris nearly matched each other shot for shot, and not only was it entertaining television, it was a testament to the mental and emotional toughness of these two players.

I doubt I could go out on the course just weeks after someone close to me died, let alone go out and contend for a major. But that's exactly what these two sultans of swing did.

And after Woods tapped in for par on the 72nd hole, he could no longer give us his steely exterior. The emotions broke through his personal dam, flooding the course. We all knew it was coming; it had been well documented, despite Tiger's private demeanor, that his father was the single greatest influence in his life.

But although I knew the tears were coming, though I knew Tiger would break down once the Claret Jug was in hand, it was still incredibly moving. How he latched onto his caddie, then marched over to his wife's arms, finding solace in her where he would once embrace Earl.

I would've liked to have seen the ABC camera back off of Tiger at this point, but it was so moving, so riveting, I let it pass. Heck, I even choked up a bit.

Tiger Woods, arguably the greatest golfer ever, showed for a few brief moments that, like the rest of us, he was human. I'll never bomb a driver 350 yards, nor will I have the touch around the green to chip with a 3-wood and land the ball two feet from the pin, but I know what it's like to lose someone close to you, and for that, Tiger made this British Open memorable.

Tiger was far more dominant at Pebble Beach in 2000, and his 1997 Masters win is the most culturally-significant thing to ever happen in golf, but this is by far his most important major championship. Whether Tiger catches Jack Nicklaus' mark of 18 career majors is irrelevant at this point; right now, this is about a young man grieving the loss of his best friend the only way he knows how: to go out and win on golf's highest stage.

Earl is responsible for just about everything we see out of Tiger Woods today, and as a golf fan, I owe Earl a lifetime of gratitude. But more than that, Earl made Tiger a good man, and I think we saw a glimpse of that Sunday afternoon at Royal Liverpool.

We should all be so lucky to have fathers like Earl Woods.

A Roof Over Her Head

2006-07-17T10:03:00.000-07:00

Anyone who's followed even a smidge of auto racing over the past couple weeks has heard the rumblings of IndyCar Series starlet Danica Patrick considering a move to NASCAR next season, particularly the Nextel Cup Series.

Her contract with Rahal-Letterman Racing expires at the end of this season.

Aside from being a media darling, and the single reason the national media even talks about the IRL, Danica's known for finishing fourth in the 2005 Indianapolis 500 and setting the IRL rookie record for poles in a season (which would be three, for you Trivial Pursuit fans out there).

No wins. No championships.

But she's young and she's hot, so everyone wants her. Including, it would seem, NASCAR. Danica's father T.J. Patrick was a special guest for Roush Racing at the USG Sheetrock 400 at Chicagoland Speedway two Sundays ago, and that got the rumor mill started.

What we do know is this: not only is Rahal-Letterman (who won the Indy 500 a couple years ago with Buddy Rice) trying to negotiate a new deal with Patrick, one other IRL team is in contract discussions (possibly Andretti-Green). We also know of one Nextel Cup team (not sure which one) that has expressed interest in the star.

But the question begs asking: Does NASCAR need Danica Patrick?

Not nearly as much as she might need NASCAR. The racing series is not only by far the most popular motorsport in America, it's also the country's second most popular spectator sport (behind only the National Football League). Hundreds of thousands of fans pack the track every week, and millions more tune in on TV.

And with ABC/ESPN entering the NASCAR television fray next year, said exposure is about to skyrocket even more. ESPN has a lot of say over what the general public thinks is or isn't a sport.

Just look at poker.

So NASCAR doesn't need Danica to bring in more fans and exposure (not to mention money). That's not to say NASCAR won't turn her away; if she decides to jump into a car with a roof over her head, the good ol' boys in the suits and ties will embrace her--and the millions she's going to rake in advertising and television revenues. New fans will come over to NASCAR, if out of nothing else but sheer curiosity.

Danica might not be a successful NASCAR driver, but she would be a rich one.

You know who does need Danica, though? The IndyCar Series. Open-wheel racing has struggled since the highly-publicized CART-IRL split back in 1995, with neither series gathering much, if any, fanfare. These days, the IRL grabs the spotlight only because of its crown jewel, the Indy 500, and because of Danica Patrick.

As for CART? Well, it's now known as the Champ Car World Series, and unless you religiously watch SPEED Channel, you might be under the impression the series no longer exists. SportsCenter's certainly not touching it.

The drivers might not like the attention she gets (which is an awful lot for a driver who's yet to see a checkered flag), but Danica brings the IRL exposure, TV ratings, and money. The last thing Tony George needs is another hotshot open-wheeler to defect to stock car racing (anyone remember Tony Stewart's IRL days?).

If Danica does indeed jump to NASCAR, the IndyCar Series will return to near-complete obscurity. It's a shame, given the quality of the racing in that series, but in American motorsports, NASCAR is king...so much so that even the less successful of drivers can make themselves stars.

So Danica would probably feel right at home.

Sucker Punch

2006-07-16T21:44:00.000-07:00

Sugar Shane Mosley defeated Fernando Vargas Saturday night in six rounds by TKO, marking one of the few times this year boxing has found itself in the national spotlight (read: on SportsCenter).

But here's the rub: I don't care.

This isn't a blog in which I lament the fall in boxing's popularity over the past decade-plus. Nor will I spend this space blaming the sport's downfall on the lunacy of one Mike Tyson. I also won't be longing for the days of Sugar Ray Leonard or even the god himself, Muhammed Ali.

For one, we already know these things to be near-universal truths in the sporting world, so to reiterate them would be utterly pointless.

No...I instead use this blog space to articulate how I never truly enjoyed boxing, even in the days of Foreman and Ali and a pre-rape trial Tyson. A sport long praised by sportswriters and sportscasters for its elegant brutality has never been more to me than some professionally-sanctioned schoolyard brawl.

If I wanted to see two men beating each other to a bloody pulp, I'll go catch a hockey game. Or see if I can find the right frat party at one of the many colleges in southeastern Virginia.

Or, better yet, I'll go back to high school, where it seemed like everybody was trying to pick a fight. The jocks hated the computer nerds, the cheerleaders hated the goth chicks, the grunge kids hated the preppy boys...you get the idea.

I simply have never been able to get behind a sport where the whole point is to punch the other guy in the face. I'm fine with a sport where fully-grown men pummel each other for a ball that's not even round, and I'm more than willing to get behind 43 guys driving around in circles at 200 MPH for hours on end. Hell, catch me in the right mood, and I might even entertain the idea of a bunch of guys running around trying to kick a ball into a net surrounded by fans so passionate and crazy they're willing to kill.

But I just can't get into two men punching each other in their (admittedly shiny) boxers. That sounds like a bad X-rated film waiting to happen.

This isn't about that Ultimate Fighting stuff you're likely to find on Spike TV, either. Yes, it seems more authentic than boxing, but that doesn't mean I like it any more. If I want bloody fighting, I'll play Mortal Kombat. I want more in my sports than mindless bloodshed and fisticuffs.

When two guys drop their mitts in hockey, there's usually a reason: one guy feels the other guy screwed him in some way, so they have at it. And they drop their gloves; in boxing, you have to put gloves on.

Like those gloves are gonna make any difference.

Fights in baseball, laughable as they often are, also serve a purpose, usually the the-pitcher-hit-me-and-I-think-he-did-it-on-purpose variety.

In auto racing, guys'll fight over an alleged wreck...or attempted wreck.

Right, Kurt Busch?

But in boxing, there's no point to the punching...unless you count the punching. Maybe I'm crazy, but I've always looked at fights and thought, "Okay, why are those guys fighting?" And that's why I can never get into boxing; I see no reason for the two guys in the ring to be fighting. Maybe if someone combined the authentic violence of boxing with the over-the-top storylines of the WWE, then I'd watch.

But as it is, boxing is nothing to me but pointless brutality. The kind that was more entertaining in high school.

Take Me Out of the Ballgame

2006-06-09T19:31:00.000-07:00

Jason Grimsley's revelations to federal investigators do not surprise me. Not one bit.

They sadden me. They disgust me. But they do not surprise me.

A lot of baseball experts would have you believe baseball is on its way out of the so-called "Steroid Era," on its way to getting those nasty drugs out of the game and on its way back to integrity and respectability.

As soon as Barry Bonds retires.

But, as I long suspected, this drug scandal goes much, much deeper than Bonds. Bonds might be the biggest name in all this--two books written about him over the past few months and his historic chase of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron--but he is far from the only one allegedly guilty of juicing.

We now know it wasn't just beefed-up sluggers taking their share of steroids, HGH, and whatever else you can conjure up in your head. It was seemingly everyone--journeymen pitchers, utility players, borderline Major Leaguers...nobody can be excluded from the discussion or the suspicion.

It makes perfect sense for borderline big-leaguers and journeymen to be using the stuff; a constant effort to keep up and stay competitive in a game where anyone can be gone with a snap of the fingers and the ring of a telephone. We've known steroids to be an issue on the minor league level, and this is the primary reason for it: players trying to get an edge over everyone else and make it to The Show.

Does that make it right? No, but it makes more sense than a surefire Hall of Famer allegedly beef-roiding himself out of spite for the magical summer Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa brought us back in 1998.

Grimsley's admissions also reveal a problem we should've seen from the very beginning: MLB's steroid testing policy, as good and harsh (and late) as it is, does not test for human growth hormones. It tests for steroids, it tests for amphetamines (which, honestly, I don't see what's so wrong with them)...but it does not test for HGH.

So players can simply change their drug of choice, pass all the random tests and walk around under the specter of "clean player."

Baseball and the World Anti-Doping Agency both say there's no reliable way to test for HGH. Baseball only condusts urine tests, and traces of HGH are only visible in blood tests.

Somehow, I don't buy the "there's no test" argument.

If the Grimsley revelation has shown us one thing, it's that the drug scandal in baseball is much deeper than any of us cared to consider or admit. It's entirely possible that at some point, at least half of the game's players were juicing with something. But, since testing didn't begin until 2003 and tests today don't check for HGH, how can we expect players not to do everything they can to gain an edge?

And make no mistake: though the names Grimsley named were blacked out in the public version of the federal affidavit, those names will become public within the next few weeks. Some intrepid reporter will find out who those names are, and you'll be seeing these names over and over again on SportsCenter. Grimsley will be reviled in the clubhouse, and players all over the league will be shaking in their cleats.

Also, there is no way baseball will ever be completely clean. Even the Olympics, which has arguably the best drug program of any sporting organization, has the occasional positive test. But Bud Selig and Major League Baseball really dropped the ball in the mid- to late 1990s when they turned their back on the scandal, and I'm afraid this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Barry Bonds has been the scapegoat in this scandal--perhaps unfairly--but now there's no doubt: this is deep. This is bad.

So bad, I don't know if the game can recover.

Just a Wie Bit Overgrown

2006-06-06T19:51:00.000-07:00

Unless you've been living under a rock (or Utah) over the past few days, you probably know by now that 16-year-old golf phenom Michelle Wie tried and failed to qualify for the U.S. Open.

The men's U.S. Open, not the LPGA version.

And I have a definite problem with that. Let me preface this argument by saying Wie is a remarkable golfing talent, leaps and bounds over anything I'll ever be able to produce on the golf course (for one thing, she can keep it between the strips of rough). Her talent is extraordinary, and I can't deny her the dream of one day being the best golfer in the world, male or female.

And I have no problem with women's athletics; I've long been a supporter of women's basketball and believe women are athletically capable of the same things men are capable of.

But Wie is 16 years old. Last I checked, that still qualified you as a "kid." Wie's not even old enough to compete full-time on the LPGA Tour; she can't do that until she turns 18.

So in the meantime, she competes off-and-on on the Annika Sorenstam circuit, while trying to cut her teeth on the "men's tour" thanks to a bevy of sponsors' exemptions. Twleve times Wie has tried to make the cut at a PGA Tour event; 11 times she's failed. The one success: a Korean tournament with an arguably watered-down field.

Could Wie be the greatest ever one day? Maybe, maybe not. But 16 years old is not the age to attempt this feat. Sixteen is the age to finish high school, concentrate on competing in the junior circuits. Compete within your age group, learn how to compete, how to win...maybe even how to dominate.

Tiger Woods, the current edition of "the best golfer ever," went about things much the same way. Yes, he tried to compete in PGA Tour events when he was a teenager and an ameteur, but he also cut his teeth in the junior ranks, winning the U.S. Junior four years in a row. He also played collegiate golf at Stanford.

Then, and only then, did he make the move to the PGA Tour. By then, he was ready; Tiger knew what it took to compete, to win. I think the rest of his resume speaks for itself.

Wie should follow the same career path. I'm not saying she should play collegiately--it's obvious she can jump straight into the LPGA once she's old enough to compete full-time--but she should begin by playing at her level. Play her competition, learn how to win, how to finish.

Right now, finishing is Wie's problem; she had three straight bogeys to close out her U.S. Open qualifier Monday, and more than once her play down the stretch has cost her making the cut at a PGA Tour event.

If Wie played against her level of competition, she might learn how to physically and mentally withstand pressure and perform up to her potential. She might dominate the junior circuit--even the LPGA one day--but the lessons she could learn from that would prove immeasurable.

Is Wie good enough to one day play on the PGA Tour? I think so, and I believe that, someday, she will play in the U.S. Open and even The Masters (take that, Hootie Johnson...). But for right now, at age 16, she needs to focus on fine-tuning her skills, playing against level competition and learning how to win.

There is learning in failure, but right now, the talented Wie is in over her head. The PGA can wait another five years. In the meantime, work on proving people like Paula Creamer (who I happen to agree with, by the way) wrong.

Play, compete, win.

Wie isn't even the best women's golfer right now--that honor goes to Annika. I think Wie needs to worry about trying to dethrone her before she thinks about going after the men.

Tiger, Vijay, Phil, and the rest can wait. For now, Michelle, just worry about your game.

The PGA will still be there when you grow up a little; I promise.

Someone Give David Stern a Cookie

2006-05-22T20:56:00.000-07:00

Anyone who's followed my broadcast career with WODU Radio in the past four years knows of my distaste with regards to the NBA. I love college basketball; in fact, from October until April, I practically live the stuff. But by and large, when it comes to the professional game, I just can't seem to care.

I follow closely enough so I can talk about it on-air if need be, but outside of that, the consequences of Kobe Bryant scoring 81 points in a game or whether or not Kevin Garnett is going to stay in Minnesota are really inconsequential to me.

But this year, I find myself amazingly drawn to the NBA playoffs. Not quite enough to actually sit down and watch entire games, but enough to watch portions of games, form opinions on each series, and I've even gone so far as to find teams that I actually want to win in the postseason.

I realize the NBA playoffs take about as long as the NASCAR Nextel Cup season, but for some reason, that doesn't bother me this year.

Maybe it's because the Cleveland Cavaliers made the playoffs this year. Despite my distaste for the Association, I do enjoy being a witness. LeBron James is by far my favorite basketball player--hell, probably my favorite athlete--and I'm sure my interest in this year's NBA postseason has something to do with his inclusion. It's been a joy watching King James mature before us, leading his team past the Wizards in a thrilling first round before flirting with the impossible--eliminating the mighty (and awful cocky) Detroit Pistons in the Eastern Conference Semifinals.

LeBron faced many questions leading into the playoffs, and with two triple-doubles and a playoff scoring average nearly on par with his regular season numbers, I think it's safe to say he delivered on all fronts.

Then again, maybe there's intrigue in said Pistons, how they'll do under first-year head coach Flip Saunders. Larry Brown led this team to back-to-back Finals appearances, and now the Pistons find themselves run by a guy who's done great in the regular season, but Flip has floundered more than once in the postseason.

Just ask Garnett.

Or what about the Miami Heat? Pat Riley, AKA the Oilslick (thank you, Jim Rome), totally overhauled a team that was one Dwyane Wade injury away from playing the Spurs in the Finals last year before taking over as head coach for Ron Jeremy--I mean, Stan Van Gundy. Can Shaq, D-Wade, and the cast of characters get it done, or did Riley implode an already good thing?

Or perhaps it's the fascination that was Mavericks-Spurs. Would San Antonio hold serve and live on to defend its title from a year ago? Would Mark Cuban's boys finally get over that hump and dethrone the champs? Avery Johnson has these boys playing some defense (for once), and it was finally enough to get the Mavericks to the Western Conference Finals for the first time in franchise history (on the night of this posting, Dallas beat San Antonio 119-111 in Game 7).

Simply put, the NBA playoffs this year have drama. Not that it hasn't in years past, but I don't remember the last time the playoffs were dramatic from the very beginning. The first round is usually boring and way too long (seven games in the first round? A bit much, guys; cut it down to five), but the drama more than made up for it this year.

LeBron's emergence. Kobe's dominance and then choke-job. Steve Nash stating his case for his second straight MVP, despite an apparent injury. Shaq looking for his first title without Kobe or Phil. The Mavs finally getting over that hump.

The fact that we're gonna crown a new NBA champion next month.

The excitement built from day one, and it's stayed. It's not quite enough to make me an NBA fan, but it was nice to know that my interest in basketball didn't go into hibernation the moment George Mason lost to Florida in the Final Four.

So kudos to the NBA for not boring me to death this spring. But if I may suggest one thing: next year, try to cut down on the crotch punching and grabbing. I really don't need to see grown men all up in each other's business...

Random Sports Musings #1

2006-05-09T19:41:00.000-07:00

If only Barry could pay my kids' way through college: Despite my distaste for Barry Bonds, I do wish I was at AT&T Park this week to possibly catch his 714th or 715th career home run. Oh, I'd boo; I'd boo until my lungs climbed out of my mouth and fell to the floor. But after that, I'd sell those balls--with or without Bonds' signature--and collect a pretty penny.

I don't buy the argument that the public's general distaste for Bonds outside the Bay Area or the steroid allegations surrounding the Giants slugger would de-value the balls; if anything, Barry's infamy could drive the price up even further. Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball in 1998 eventually went for $3 million; chances are, Barry's home run balls will go for more, most likely because they'll have the name and spirit of the Babe on them.

So if I could sell one, or even both, think of all the money I'd rake in. Pay off my student loans, buy a house and a Mustang...put my kids through college (once I have kids, anyway)...I may hate Barry Bonds, but I would profit off his artificially-induced milestone in a heartbeat.

That doesn't make me a bad person, does it?

Does Ricky know pot's legal in Canada?: I say let suspended Miami Dolphins runningback Ricky Williams play the 2006 season in the CFL for the Toronto Argonauts. He won't be able to play in the NFL--his grand prize for losing the NFL drug-testing game for a fourth time--so why not let him go somewhere else to play football and keep himself in shape for a possible 2007 return?

I realize pot's legal north of the border, which might distract him. I also realize CFL fields are like concrete with endzones, and Ricky could seriously hurt himself. But honestly? The risk of injury is great for any runningback, regardless of where he's playing. Ricky's just as likely to get hurt in the Arena League or NFL Europe as he is in the CFL. So I say let him take that risk; let him play in the CFL next season, keep himself in shape, because it's apparent he still wants to play football.

And if it makes him a better runner in '07, what's the big issue?

Nash Bridges: I have no problem whatsoever with Steve Nash winning his second consecutive NBA MVP award. Although LeBron James is the only thing in the Association I care about, I can't knock Nash for the things he's done this season. Everyone buried the Phoenix Suns once it became obvious they'd be without Amare Stoudamire and management inexplicably let Joe Johnson go to the Atlanta Hawks. But the Suns managed the No. 2 seed in the playoffs this year, and are a good bet to advance to the Western Conference finals for the second straight year.

You could argue that Kobe Bryant has done more with less than Nash, but Nash doesn't have the personal baggage or the intense scrutiny Bryant does. Nash is a stand-up guy who's also a hell of a ball player, and he makes everyone around him better. Give him Smush Parker and Kwame Brown and they're potential All-Stars. With Kobe, Parker and Brown are also-rans, cameos in the one-man opera that is Kobe Bean Bryant.

Steve Nash is the league's MVP, and the kind of player the NBA should be glad to peddle to the masses.

Freak of Nature: This just in: Albert Pujols is a freak of nature.

And I mean that in the best way possible. For all the talk of Barry Bonds and how he's still getting intentionally walked, even with chewing gum and paper clips holding his knee together, I'm baffled as to why anyone is still willingly pitching to Phat Albert. The man's the fastest ever to 16 homers in a season, and he could hit a golf ball into southern Illinois if a pitcher grooved one at him...so why pitch to him?

If we're so intent on looking for someone to challenge Ruth and Aaron once Bonds is retired, I say look no further than the new Busch Stadium. Injuries aside, I see nothing keeping Albert from staying on this power binge and making a play for 700--and perhaps more.