Top 10 Games Of 2010

Well, here it is.  The long-promised Top 10 Games of 2010 list.  Now, there are a couple of rules that I used in compiling this list, the main one being that only one game per sport can be on the list.  So, that means all the great World Cup games were narrowed down to the one best.  Same thing with the Olympics.  Just one Olympic event is on the list.  And in the sake of fairness, I threw aside my personal biases and included the NBA and college football (if enough people care, I've gotta listen to the masses or this list couldn't be considered complete).  With all that being said, without further ado, here are my Top 10 Games of 2010:

10. Ford 400-Miami, November 21
In a tight race with the Breeder's Cup Classic, Zenyatta is edged out by a nose once again.  Carl Edwards won NASCAR's season finale, but that had nothing to do with why the race was so great.  Denny Hamlin entered the race leading the points standings by 15 points over four-time defending champion Jimmie Johnson, with Kevin Harvick still in contention for the title.  The points lead went back-and-forth between the three throughout the race, with Johnson eventually finishing second to earn his fifth straight Sprint Cup championship, 39 points ahead of Hamlin and 41 in front of Harvick, who finished third in the race.

9. Nevada 34, Boise State 31 (OT)-Reno, Nev., November 26
As I've told you before, I don't watch college football.  But my dad is a Boise State fan, so this game was on when I got home that night.  And from what I understand, it was a pretty good game.  Boise State led 24-7 at halftime, but Nevada came storming back and tied the score at 31-31 with 13 seconds left.  Amazingly, Boise State got to the Nevada nine with two seconds left, but missed the winning field goal.  Boise State got the ball first in overtime and missed another field goal attempt before Nevada kicker Anthony Martinez nailed a 33-yarder to end the Broncos' 24-game winning streak.

8. Phillies 4, Reds 0-Philadelphia, October 6 (National League Division Series, Game 1)
In his first career postseason start, Roy Halladay threw the second no-hitter in MLB postseason history (and the first since Don Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series).  The only Cincinnati baserunner was Jay Bruce, who walked in the fifth inning.  It was also Halladay's second no-hitter of the year, following a perfect game against the Marlins on May 29.

7. Connecticut 65, Baylor 64-Hartford, Conn., November 16
UConn's winning streak was stopped at 90 by Stanford, but it probably should've been halted at 79 by Baylor.  In a matchup of No. 1 vs. No. 2, Maya Moore had 30 points to lead UConn to its 80th straight victory.  With UConn up one with seven seconds left, Moore missed a jumper and Baylor grabbed the rebound.  However, the Bears couldn't get a shot off and UConn held on.

6. Lakers 83, Celtics 79-Los Angeles, June 17 (NBA Finals, Game 7)
Again, I didn't watch it.  But from what I understand, it was a pretty great game.  The Celtics led at halftime and led by as many as 13 in the second half, but the Lakers went on a fourth-quarter run to take the lead, then used good free throw shooting to pull away down the stretch and win their second straight NBA title.  28.2 million people watched this game.  I was not one of them.

5. USA 1, Algeria 0-Pretoria, South Africa, June 23 (World Cup, Group C)
In a World Cup that could've produced a Top 10 list all its own, the top choice is the USA-Algeria classic.  We all know the story.  The USA tied England and Slovenia, and just needed a win to advance to the second round.  After a scoreless 90 minutes, it looked like the USA would go home empty-handed and incredibly disappointed.  Then Landon Donovan scored one of the most exhilirating goals I've ever seen (I seriously didn't think there'd ever be a point in my life where I got this excited while watching a soccer game), and the Americans went from eliminated to group winners.  Honorable mention goes to the tremendous Spain-Netherlands final.

4. Duke 61, Butler 59-Indianapolis, April 5 (NCAA Championship Game)
Little mid-major Butler had been adopted by everybody in America, and almost pulled off the most unlikeliest of NCAA titles.  Butler had the ball down one with 36 seconds left, but had to use both of its remaining timeouts before Gordon Hayward missed a jumper.  Brian Zoubek hit a free throw for Duke, then missed the second on purpose with 3.6 seconds left.  Hayward was forced to take a half-court heave, which clanged off the backboard, then the rim, giving Duke its fourth National Championship.

3. Saints 31, Colts 17-Miami, February 7 (Super Bowl XLIV)
The Colts led 10-6 at halftime, but the Saints successfully executed an onsides kick to start the second half, completely changing the momentum of the game.  New Orleans scored to take the lead, but Indy came right back and led 17-16 after three.  The Saints went in front 24-17 with 5:42 left, but Peyton had the Colts marching down the field for the tying score.  However, he threw a pass that was intercepted by Tracy Porter, and 74 yards later, New Orleans sealed the first Super Bowl title in franchise history.

2. Canada 3, USA 2 (OT)-Vancouver, February 28 (Olympic Gold Medal Game)
This doubles as both our hockey game and our Olympic event.  The USA won the group play game against its archrivals, but Canada wouldn't be denied the only gold medal it wanted at the Vancouver Games.  The Canadians led 2-1 after two, but Zach Parise scored with 25 seconds left to tie the game.  Then, 7:40 into sudden death overtime, Sidney Crosby scored, sending the sellout crowd into delerium and igniting a national celebration north of the border.  It was the most-watched television broadcast in Canadian history, and 27.6 million people watched it on NBC on a Sunday afternoon.

1. John Isner def. Nicolas Mahut 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68-Wimbledon, England, June 22-24 (Wimbledon First Round)
I know what you're thinking.  "Tennis is his No. 1?  Really?"  But the sheer novelty of this match made it a classic.  It took three days to complete this first round match, which isn't unusual at Wimbledon, but this time there wasn't a drop of rain.  Isner was seeded 27th and Mahut was a qualifier, but their names are forever bound because of this historic match.  They played four sets on June 22 before the match was suspended due to darkness.  They played another seven hours the next day, but neither man could break serve (Wimbledon doesn't use a tiebreak in the deciding set), and it was suspended again at 59-59.  Finally, on the third day of the match, Isner hit a backhand winner to finally break Mahut's serve and end the match.  The match time was a record 11 hours, 5 minutes (the fifth set alone took 8:11, 90 minutes longer than the previous longest match).  Both players also shattered the old record for service aces (Isner had 113, Mahut 103), and they combined to hold serve 168 straight times.  Mahut also held serve to stay in the match 63 consecutive times before Isner finally broke on the 64th.  Predictibly, Isner had nothing left, and he lost in straight sets the next day in the second round.  But the match that wouldn't end will forever define both of their careers, as well as Wimbledon 2010.  And that's why it was the greatest game of the year.

UConn Is the Best Ever

I know I promised you a Top 10 Games of 2010 entry, but that's coming your way tomorrow.  Today I want to talk about the UConn-Stanford women's basketball showdown.  The Huskies put their NCAA-record 90-game winning streak on the line tonight against the #8 Cardinal, the last team to beat them (in the 2008 Final Four).  (Stanford is only ranked #8 because of losses to DePaul and Tennessee last week, but should move up regardless of the UConn result after an 89-52 thumping of #4 Xavier.)

I've got news for all the people who want to downplay UConn's streak and insist that the UCLA men's teams from 1971-74 that held the previous record of 88 were better: You're wrong!  Even if UConn had lost to Baylor earlier this season (which they probably should've), ending the streak nine game short, this team is better than those UCLA squads.  A quick look at the stats will show you why it's not even close:

Average margin of victory: UConn-33.4, UCLA-23.4
One-point wins: UCLA-2, UConn-1
30-point wins: UConn-51, UCLA-28
Wins by 10 or less: UCLA-15, UConn-4

I don't have the specifics for every team's ranking during UCLA's streak, but UConn is not only playing Top 10 teams, they're beating them by 30!  Sure UConn's schedule includes gimme home games against schools like Holy Cross and Sacred Heart, but the Huskies repeatedly play one of the most competitive schedules in the country (and goes on the road!), which is more than I can say about those UCLA squads.  UConn has already played Baylor and Ohio State, takes on Stanford tonight, and still has games against Top 10 teams North Carolina, Duke and Oklahoma.  Not to mention conference games against quality teams like Notre Dame and West Virginia.  And the only reason UConn hasn't played Tennessee during the streak is because the Lady Vols terminated their agreement to play annually in 2007, and they haven't met in the NCAA Tournament since the 2004 National Championship Game.  (The last time the two teams played, Tennessee won at UConn, 70-64, on Jan. 6, 2007.)

My point is UConn is taking on anyone, anywhere and beating them all by ridiculous margins.  UCLA barely had to leave LA during its streak, even during the NCAA Tournament.  The Bruins also played the same teams over and over again, beating each of the other seven Pac-8 schools (Arizona and Arizona State didn't join the Pac-10 until the mid-70s) six times each!  During its streak, UConn has beaten Louisville four times (including the 2009 National Championship Game) and Stanford three times (once in the Final Four, once in the National Championship Game).

Now, Geno Auriemma never should've said that people only care because UConn broke a men's record, but his basic thesis is that the Huskies deserve their due regardless.  It's like the '72 Dolphins cracking the champagne when the last undefeated NFL team loses because they know their record won't be broken.  UConn has broken the record, and doesn't look like it's going to stop winning anytime soon.  Junior Tiffany Hayes is 90-0 in her collegiate career.  Maya Moore, the best player in women's basketball, has a career record of 126-2 (UConn went 36-2 in Moore's freshman year).  Teams like this don't come around very often, so let's just celebrate UConn's greatness instead of constantly comparing them to UCLA. 

Tuesday Night Football

I finally made it out of snowbound Long Island and back to the Bronx in time to watch a little "Tuesday Night Football," which I suspect the NFL might try to make a regular thing if the ratings are high enough.  It was a big day in the NFL.  Not only did the Vikings and Eagles play the first Tuesday night game since 1946, the rosters for the 2011 Pro Bowl were announced. 

Now, I used to be one of the 11 people who still watched the Pro Bowl, but that changed last year when Roger Goddell decided to move the game, both the date and the location.  It's back where it belongs in Hawaii this season, but the date change Mr. Brilliant Commissioner enacted last year is still in effect.  So, we once again have the Pro Bowl the week before the Super Bowl, meaning Super Bowl players will be replaced on the Pro Bowl rosters.  Or, in other words, the all-star game won't include any players from the two best teams in the league.  Want to see Tom Brady in the Pro Bowl?  You can't if the Patriots are in the Super Bowl.  Why would you want to see the likely MVP in the all-star game anyway?  Crazy talk.  The brilliance of Roger Goddell on full display once again.

The other lingering question I have about the Pro Bowl is: How come the rosters are so small?  The game day rosters for a normal NFL game are 53 per team, but it's only 44 per team in the Pro Bowl.  Why?  Each team only has three safeties, meaning there's only one backup for the two positions.  Likewise, there are only four wide receivers per side.  (Each coach will add a long snapper.  I'm not sure why that position isn't named when all the others are, but it's not.)  I know that a lot of guys in the NFL play strictly on special teams, but having the smaller roster in the Pro Bowl means you're making the all-stars play special teams (which they don't do all year).  It just doesn't make any sense.  Is there any harm in having an additional five guys on each Pro Bowl roster?  There's going to be at least that many players replaced due to injury, being in the Super Bowl, etc.  Or is that the point?  You'll run out of alternates if enough players are selected to the Pro Bowl right off the bat.  After all, last year's Pro Bowl MVP was Texans quarterback Matt Schaub, the third alternate (read: sixth-best QB in the AFC).

With all that being said, I don't really have that much of an issue with the Pro Bowl rosters that were announced on Tuesday.  28 of the 32 teams had at least one player selected, even the Panthers somehow (Buffalo, Cincinnati, Seattle and Tampa Bay are the four teams that didn't have any Pro Bowlers).  Everybody knew Michael Vick and Tom Brady would be named the starting quarterbacks, and the four backups are having good years as well (Rivers and Manning in the AFC, Ryan and Brees in the NFC).  I think fantasy football has been a great thing in terms of Pro Bowl voting, since it makes fans much more knowledgeable about the skill-position guys.  Of course us fans know very little about the fullbacks, offensive linemen and special teamers, which makes the combined fan/player/coach selection process necessary. 

And I think that the selections which were announced on Tuesday do represent the best players in their respective conferences.  There are a number of deserving fresh faces (Packers LB Clay Matthews, Lions DT Ndamukong Suh) to go along with Pro Bowl veterans like Brady, Manning, Troy Polamalu and Ray Lewis.  There are a few too many Dallas Cowboys, but whatever.  The bottom line is there is very little argument that can be made with this year's Pro Bowl rosters based on the silly roster limitations that are in place.  Can you name an additional two running backs or another wide receiver in each conference that's deserving?  Of course.  Which is why they should increase the number of selections for the skill positions.  Are plane tickets to Hawaii that expensive?  Maybe they should bring it up during the CBA talks.  Because the Pro Bowl could be great.  They just need to make some changes (like moving it back to the week after the Super Bowl).

We'll Miss You Bud Greenspan

I'm aware of the fact that most of you have no idea who Bud Greenspan is.  But to us Olympic nuts, his name is as familiar as those of Carl Lewis, Jesse Owens and Michael Phelps.  I was never able to move from one Olympics to the next until Greenspan's documentary premiered a few months later, officially closing the book on that Games.  Sadly, the Vancouver 2010 documentary will be his last.  Greenspan passed away on Sunday.

Greenspan made more than 30 documentaries during his long career, most about the Olympics, including a "recap" film about every Games from Los Angeles 1984 until Vancouver 2010, which isn't out yet but will be released soon.  He also produced several Olympic specials like "100 Years of Olympic Glory" prior to the 1996 Atlanta Games and "The 1972 Munich Olympic Games: Bud Greenspan Remembers." 

The thing that made these films so special is that he looked at the Olympics in a completely different perspective as most other people.  For example, the 1994 Lillehammer Games were about the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan saga for most.  The only figure skating story in Greenspan's film, though, was about Torvill and Dean returning to the Olympic arena after 10 years and winning the bronze medal.  The 2008 Games were all about Michael Phelps.  Greenspan didn't even feature swimming in his Beijing documentary.  Instead, he had stories about water polo player Brenda Villa and the rivalry between hurdlers Dawn Harper and Lolo Jones.

When a non-sports event became an important part of an Olympics (like the Israeli hostage crisis in Munich), Greenspan did his job as a reporter and included it in his documentary about that Games.  But he never included the scandalous stories that took over all of the media attention at a given Olympics, but were really an insignificant story in the grand scope of the Games.  (He never touched on the pairs skating controversy in Salt Lake City or the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing, and the 1980-84 boycotts are only mentioned to provide context.)

Instead, Greenspan focused on the human stories that are at the heart of any Olympics.  Like marathoner Joaish Thugwane, who in Atlanta became the first black South African ever to win an Olympic gold medal, or the heartwarming story of Tanzanian marathoner John Stephen Ahkwari in Mexico City in 1968.  Ahkwari finished last, more than an hour after the gold medalist.  When asked why he didn't quit, Ahkwari said, "My country didn't send me 10,000 miles to start a race.  They sent me 10,000 miles to finish one."  Greenspan always said that was one of his favorite stories throughout his more than 60 years of covering the Olympics.  Those are the stories that made Bud Greenspan's work stand out, and what made it so brilliant.

I can't wait to see what's in store for his final work, the stories of Vancouver 2010.  I also can't believe that there will never be another Bud Greenspan Olympic documentary after that one. 

Juan Antonio Samarach and now Bud Greenspan.  The Olympic movement lost two great men in 2010.

My Hall of Fame Ballot

Like most people, I don't have a Baseball Hall of Fame ballot.  Mr. Jim is the only person I know who actually does.  (Which probably means I know one more Hall of Fame voter than most other people.)  But that doesn't stop me from knowing who I think belongs in Cooperstown.  They won't announce the new inductees until January 5, but Mr. Jim and the other voters have to postmark their ballots by New Year's Eve.  There are 34 players on the ballot, of which voters can vote for a maximum of 10.  I believe that if you get 10 votes, you should use them all (especially since only one our two guys is going to reach the 75 percent needed for election anyway).  With that being said, here is my 2011 Hall of Fame ballot:

Bert Blyleven-This will be the year he finally gets in.  The fact that he isn't yet is a travesty, and his induction will be long overdue.  Blyleven retired after the 1992 season, meaning this is his 14th year on the ballot.  He almost got in last year, but fell five votes short.  Anyway, he finished with 287 career wins and 3,701 strikeouts in 23 seasons.  He also had 60 shutouts, a number not heard of in this day and age.  He's the only eligible member of the 3,000-strikeout club not in the Hall of Fame.

Roberto Alomar-He didn't get in last year, his first year on the ballot, mainly because some writers make a distinction between "Hall of Famer" and "first-ballot Hall of Famer."  I'm fine with that, since I can see their point.  Alomar's definitely a Hall of Famer, though.  I don't think anybody would dispute that.  Alomar may have been the greatest second baseman in history, winning 10 Gold Gloves and four Silver Slugger Awards.  A 12-time All-Star (in 12 consecutive years), he hit over .300 nine times and finished with a career batting average of .300 on the nose.  He was also an integral piece on every team he played for, including the 1992-93 Blue Jays teams that won the World Series.

Jack Morris-The best pitcher of the 1980s, I don't know why Jack Morris doesn't get more support.  He won more games in the 80s than anybody and finished with 254 career victories.  The ace of every team he ever pitched for, Morris started on Opening Day in 14 straight seasons, and he led three teams (1984 Tigers, 1991 Twins, 1992-93 Blue Jays) to four World Series championships.  Not to mention, the 10-inning 1-0 masterpiece against the Braves in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series for the Twins.  If that game was still going on, he'd still be mowing down Braves.

Mark McGwire-If not for the steroid allegations, he'd be in already.  I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think it's fair to make us judge and jury for the "Steroid Era" players 10 years after the fact when nothing was being done to stop it while it was happening.  With that being said, his numbers have to be judged against others in his era, and McGwire was one of the most dominant players in the game during his prime.  The 1987 AL Rookie of the Year, he hit 49 home runs for the A's that season.  And of course, there was the amazing 70 in 1998.  Overall, a pure power hitter, he finished with 583 career bombs, which is currently ninth all-time and more than anybody else who's eligible that isn't in the Hall of Fame.  Seeing as his vote total has remained pretty much the same throughout his eligible years, he's not going to get in.  I know that.  Doesn't change the fact I think he should.

Jeff Bagwell-He's not going to get in this year, but I think he will eventually.  As everybody knows, he spent his entire 15-year career with the Astros after being traded by the Red Sux for Larry Andersen in 1990.  The 1991 NL Rookie of the Year and 1994 NL MVP, he's easily the greatest player in Astros history.  He's Houston's all-time leader in home runs (449) and RBIs (1,529), and both of those numbers would've been higher had he not been injured for the last five years of his career.  Craig Biggio's going to get in.  It would be nice if they go in together like Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine will.

That's my top five.  The rest of my ballot is:
Barry Larkin-A guy who I never considered a Hall of Famer, but was convinced he's a borderline candidate by all the writers who said they were going to vote for him last year.
Tim Raines-He's not Rickey Henderson, but he's pretty damn close.  Possibly the second-best leadoff hitter in history, he's definitely one of the best base stealers in history, finishing with 880.  I'm not sure if he'll ever get in, but if he does, he'll be the last person ever to be inducted as a Montreal Expo (and, for the sake of that franchise not being forgotten, I hope he gets in eventually).
Edgar Martinez-The greatest DH in history.  It's a position, people.  Deal with it.  It's not his fault his knees prevented him from playing the field.  And you can't dispute his offensive numbers.  He's one of eight players in history with 300 homers, 500 doubles (didn't it seem like he got a double every time he was up?), a career .300 average, a .400 on-base percentage and a .500 slugging percentage.  Plus, his double in Game 5 of the 1995 AL Division Series saved a franchise for its city.
Larry Walker-I'm curious to see how he'll do in his first year on the ballot.  Walker was a great player for a lot of years, but his prime was spent playing for the Colorado Rockies.  His home/road splits were incredible, so some might think his stats were a product of Coors Field, which would be fair.  But I can't ingore the .313/383/1,311 career line, and I think enough voters won't either.
Don Mattingly-He's never going to get in, but I reserve the right to save a vote for a personal favorite from my childhood.  Regardless of the era, being the face of the New York Yankees means something.  And he was consistently one of the best players in the American League throughout the '80s, so this vote isn't completely without merit.

There are other deserving guys (and Rafael Palmeiro), but that's the 10 I would vote for.  We'll see how the vote actually turns out on Jan. 5.  Merry Christmas to all!

What the Hell Happened to the New York Football Giants?!

Well kids, it's been a few days, so we've got a lot to talk about.  One of the things we won't be discussing today is Sunday's Giants-Eagles "game."  That's still a little too painful.  And I completely blame that loss on my sister and my mother.  My sister's baby shower was on Sunday, so I met up with my brother-in-law and we went to a bar to watch the game during the shower.  She called him about midway through the third quarter to tell him that the shower was over and she wanted to go home, so we had to get up from where we were.  The Giants were winning 24-3 at the time. 

Since my mom was at the shower, she DVR'd the game.  My parents have a combined record of about 2-30 all-time when they record a game involving either the Giants, Yankees or Rangers (thanks to YES showing about four replays of every Yankee game, they fortunately don't record those anymore).  So, the combined forces of my being made to move from where I was and my mom deciding to DVR the game turned a nice, easy win into one of the most miserable football viewing experiences of my life.  In my complete shock, I just kept repeating "How do you lose that game?", which is a sentiment I continue to hold.  Then later on Sunday, I found out that my oldest sister hates Peyton Manning, only to then be told (by me) that he's my favorite player.  I'm no longer sure that we're related.

After the Giants "game" we watched Jets-Steelers, and I'm not exactly sure how Pittsburgh lost but still clinched a playoff spot.  Seeing as the Steelers were going to make the playoffs anyway, that's not really a concern, though.  What is a concern is the position the Giants have now put themselves in.  Fortunately for them, everybody else in the NFC wild card race lost on Sunday, too, so they actually still control their own destiny.  The Saints will be the first NFC wild card.  The winner of Sunday's Giants-Packers game at Lambeau will probably be the other.  The Giants are 9-5 and the Packers are 8-6, so I Giants win obviously eliminates Green Bay.  If the Packers win, the Giants then need to beat the Redskins in Washington and have the Packers lose to the Bears in the last game in order to get in.  (Side note, the six seed plays the Eagles in Philly in the wild card game.  Giants-Eagles III.  That'll be fun.)

The ridiculous thing about the NFC is that the NFC West winner could end up 7-9, yet host the defending champion Saints in the wild card game.  I'm hoping that the Seahawks and Rams both win this week, which means that one of them will have to be 8-8 since they play each other in Week 17.  I still have no problem with the playoff system, but a 7-9 division winner does just seem wrong.  Things are so crazy that the 5-9 49ers can still win the division if they beat the Rams and Cardinals.  And will the 8-8/7-9 Rams/Seahawks have any chance against the 13-3/12-4 Saints?  The answer is "No."

Over in the AFC, I can't wait for the Patriots to get their asses kicked in the playoffs!  Since the Super Bowl's on FOX, I realize they'll probably be in it (the Patriots have played in four of the five Super Bowls that have been on FOX), but it's going to be so awesome to see the NFC champion knock Pretty Boy Brady into the Cowboys Stadium turf.  (In case you haven't already realized, I hate all things Boston, mainly because of the Red Sux and Patriots.)  Although, the Ravens and/or Steelers certainly have a good chance of making sure I won't have to deal with the Patriots and their annoying fans in the Super Bowl anyway.  And as I said a couple of weeks ago, we already know all six AFC playoff teams, and I don't think anybody doubts it now that Peyton and the Colts are going to get it done.  Somehow San Diego is still mathematically eligible to be a wild card, but the Jets and Ravens both clinch playoff spots with a win in one of their last two games.

My prediction is that the Rams beat the 49ers and Seahawks to win the NFC West, which sets up wild card weekend like this:
Saturday: Saints-Rams at 4:30, Ravens-Colts at 8
Sunday: Jets-Chiefs at 1, Giants-Eagles at 4:30

You're welcome for giving you the Wild Card Weekend matchups and schedule three weeks ahead of time.  You can make your picks accordingly.

30 for 30

I didn't expect to enjoy ESPN's "30 for 30" series as much as I did, but I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of some of the documentaries.  Now, I didn't watch all of them (I do actually have a life), but among the ones that I did watch, two in particular stand out. 

The first one is "June 17, 1994," which aired, obviously, in June.  That has to go down as one of the craziest days in the history of sports.  Here's a list of things that happened on that day: the World Cup began in Chicago, Arnold Palmer played the final round of his U.S. Open career, Ken Griffey Jr. hit a home run in Kansas City that traveled about 600 feet, the Rangers held their first Stanley Cup parade in 54 years, then the Knicks hosted the Rockets in Game 5 of the NBA Finals.  But O.J. Simpson overshadowed them all.  Of course, everybody knows the O.J. story by now, so there's no need for me to retell the details.  The truly remarkable part is that more people wanted to watch O.J.'s low-speed chase down the Santa Monica Freeway than the NBA Finals, so much so that NBC cut away from the basketball game to stay with O.J. n You could even argue that reality TV was born that day.

The thing that made this documentary so cool was that there was no narration whatsoever.  There was simply raw video and TV footage.  That's it.  But that's all that was needed to tell the story.  At the end, they did put up graphics to describe how each of the events ended up (Brazil won the World Cup, the Rockets won the NBA Finals, O.J. was acquitted, etc.), but the only standard documentary-type interviews you saw were with the director to introduce the show, then one coming out of commercial.  I thought this would be the most brilliant piece in the series, but I was wrong.  It was trumped by the "30 for 30" finale on Saturday night.

Saturday night's show was possibly the best in the entire series (again, I only saw a few, but it was the best of the ones I saw).  Entitled "Pony Exce$$," it was the story of the SMU football program leading up to its receiving the "death penalty" from the NCAA in 1987. 

I was interested in seeing this one because I obviously knew about the penalty, which is the harshest punishment the NCAA has ever handed down, but I wanted to know the backstory.  The backstory wasn't pretty.  SMU, a program with a rich history, got good again in the late 70s, then became a powerhouse in the early 80s when Hall of Fame running back Eric Dickerson was the team's star.  Of course, the reason they got good again was because boosters started paying high school players to come to SMU, then kept paying them throughout their college careers.  I don't need to tell you that's bad.  Inevitably, the NCAA eventually found out and put SMU on probation, banning them from TV and a bowl game in 1984.  Normally that would be enough to scare a program straight, but SMU's boosters weren't really the sharpest knives in the drawer and kept up the payments.  A Dallas TV station talked to a disgruntled former player who admitted everything, then did some digging.  They aired an interview with SMU's head coach, AD and "administrative assistant to the AD" that made the three of them look guilty as sin, which brought the NCAA back.  SMU clearly didn't get the message, so the NCAA had to do something drastic, which was shutting the program down entirely in 1987.

After seeing this, I can now say that SMU was asking for it.  One of the people interviewed compared the SMU "death penalty" to the U.S. dropping the atomic bomb and predicted the "death penalty" will never be used again.  I agree with him, but only because I don't think a school will be stupid enough to cheat so blatantly for so long (including after the NCAA tells them to stop) ever again.  But the final 20 minutes of the show, which chronicles SMU's struggles after restoring the program in 1989 until today, when they've literally risen from the ashes to reach bowl games in back-to-back years for the first time since the Pony Express era.  (SMU beat Nevada in last year's Hawai'i Bowl and plays Army in the Armed Forces Bowl on Dec. 30.)

If you haven't seen either one of these documentaries, you should.  Both of them are saved on my DVR (for whatever that's worth).

Free Agent Frenzy

So, did anyone else see this whole Cliff Lee to the Phillies thing coming?  No?  I'm not the only one?  Good.  I just can't help but wonder if this was some sort of master plan that Lee worked out with Pat Gillick and Ruben Amaro, Jr. before they traded him to the Mariners last offseason and none of us were the wiser.  The Phillies outsmarted everybody!  I could go on about how much this screws up the Yankees' plans for this offseason (and I will in a minute), but it's seriously unfair to think about just how good the Phillies might be next year.  First off, they've got a rotation that includes Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels and Roy Oswalt.  That's mid-90's Braves unfair.  Then you add in a lineup that includes Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, Shane Victorino, etc.  Seriously, who's going to beat them?  I'm predicting something in the 110-win range for the 2011 Phillies.

And what about the 2011 Yankees?  That's a different story.  I'm not saying I think the Yankees will suck next season (because they certainly won't), but building your whole winter on getting one guy, then having to conjure up some sort of Plan B doesn't exactly mean you had the best offseason.  The rotation of Sabathia, Lee, Pettitte, Burnett, Hughes certainly looks a lot better than Sabathia, Burnett, Hughes, (hopefully) Pettitte and some random schmo not named Javy Vazquez.  Just saying.  They did make a slight upgrade at DH, swapping the useless waste of space known as Nick Johnson for Russell Martin, who isn't as good as he was a couple years ago, but at least won't be on the DL for the entire season.  OK, technically, they didn't swap Johnson for Martin, since Posada's probably going to be the primary DH next year (and Johnson never played despite Brian Cashman's man crush on him).  It probably means that Jesus Montero isn't going to be just handed the catching job after all, which makes me think Montero is back to being trade bait.

The Yankees still need to go out and get a starter.  Anybody who has a brain knows that.  Since Cliff Lee picked the Phillies, the best available starter out there is probably Carl Pavano.  We all know how well Pavano worked out the first time.  And the whole bringing Javy Vazquez back thing didn't really work out that well.  So, basically, Pavano's not really an option.  I've also heard Brandon Webb mentioned.  That would work.  But my favorite option is Zack Greinke, last season's Cy Young Award winner.  Greinke's not a free agent, so getting him would require giving the Royals something worthwhile in a trade, which is where Montero comes in.  Now that they have Lee back, the Phillies are looking to unload Joe Blanton, and he'd be a good fit, too.  And it looks like Jerry Hairston (a guy who I'm not really sure why they didn't re-sign him after last season, anyway) might be coming back to be the utility guy that the Yankees needed and didn't have this season.  Once Cashman works his magic and gets another starter (either via trade or free agency, I'll take either, I'm not picky), the Yankees will still set up pretty nicely for 2011.  Of course, this is all assuming that Andy Pettitte agrees to come back for another season.

Now, with all that being said, I'm still not buying this whole "Red Sux are unbeatable" crap that their obnoxious fans love to proclaim every offseason.  OK, so they got Carl Crawford.  Who didn't see that coming?  Not a big deal.  But I've gotta say it, I don't get the whole Adrian Gonzalez signing.  This continues Theo Epstein's obsession with signing only guys who play the same three positions (first base, catcher and starting pitcher) (Theo, only four guys who play those three positions can be on the field at once) while paying no regard for the rest of the field.  I guess this means Kevin Youkilis moves to third next season, but with that team, who the hell really knows?  I'm actually kind of surprised that they didn't make a run at Lee.  But in the end, they're gonna end up where they always end up.  Second place.  Oh wait, that's not where they always end up.  They finished third this year.  (That won't happen again, though, since Tampa Bay's not as good.)

Before I go, respects must be paid to "Rapid Robert," Bob Feller, who passed away on Wednesday night at the age of 92.  Probably the greatest player in Indians history, Feller broke into the Majors in 1936 and won 266 games despite missing four full seasons in his prime serving in the Navy during World War II (after enlisting on December 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor).  He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1962, meaning he was a Hall of Famer for more than half his life.  And he showed up at the induction ceremony every year until the end.  Bob Feller, a Hall of Fame pitcher and a Hall of Fame man.

And loyal blog readers, I've decided that my final blog of the year (or my first of 2011, depending on which day I decide to do it) will be a "Games of the Year" list.  I know you're all excited, but you'll have to wait two weeks for that one.  Gotta keep the fans wanting more, right?

Metrodome Roof Collapse

The Streak Is Over

Forgive me for not actually believing all the speculation that Brett Favre would sit out tonight.  My Facebook status all day today was "Brett Favre's not playing tonight and I'm starting in his place."  So, I was basically saying that there was no way in hell I thought he would sit out.  I half anticipated him starting, handing off to Adrian Peterson three times, then letting Tavaris Jackson take over on the Vikings' second series.  Needless to say, it was a little weird to see Jackson come out on the first series of the game.  But, with all the crazy crap that's gone on with this Giants-Vikings game (in Detroit, where else would they play it?), it's almost fitting that this is the day Favre's streak came to an end.

For starters, the video is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.  If you haven't seen it yet, crawl out from under that rock you've been hiding under for the last two days and check it out.

OK, gotta ask: Who builds a roof out of teflon?  I'm shocked this hasn't happened at the Metrodome before.  Although, the one good thing about it is that this certainly helps the Vikings' case as they look for a new stadium (suddenly the Twins' open-air Target Field doesn't look like such a bad idea).  They're scheduled to host the Monday night game again next week, and I don't see how they can play that game at the Metrodome.  The University of Minnesota has a new on-campus facility that looks like it might be hosting Monday Night Football next week.  Only problem is that the stadium has already been closed down for the winter!  They've said that they need four days to get it ready.  Well Gopher grounds crew, you'd better get started.

This game led to all kinds of quirky things other than Brett Favre not starting.  Or the fact that Joe Webb, the Vikings' third-string quarterback actually got a chance to play.  Who saw that coming?  It was the first game moved from Sunday to Monday night in five years.  Who was the "road" team in that game?  The Giants, who played the Saints at the Meadowlands after Hurricane Katrina.  And Detroit finally gets a Monday night game, but the Lions aren't playing in it!  It was also a very classy move to give away the tickets for free, giving a lot of people a chance to see an NFL game and many others the chance to see an NFL game that didn't involve the Lions!

Now back to Favre.  I was just a wee 10-year-old tyke when he made the first start of his ironman streak, and I don't think I'm the only person who's shocked to see it end.  He unretired three separate times to keep this thing going, and the only reason he kept at it was (probably) to get to 300.  I, for one, wanted him to get there.  I was as sick as anybody else of this constant retirement dance, but I think we can all agree that this is it.  This season was probably actually going to be his last anyway, but it's sad to see it end like this.  Godspeed Brett, we'll miss you.  Now the active leaders in consecutive starts are the brothers Manning.  Peyton has never missed a start in his career (205 regular season, 223 including playoffs, and counting).  Now there's at least a target number out there that won't keep increasing.

In other news, the idiot Jets coach who intentionally tripped that guy on the Dolphins was suspended without pay for the rest of the season (including the playoffs).  Good.  That's the appropriate punishment.  And the Big Ten came up with the names for its divisions, "Legends" and "Leaders."  These are possibly the dumbest division names in the history of division names.  I thought there were so-called "smart schools" in the Big Ten, and this is the best they could come up with!  Not to mention the fact that "East" and "West" would've been too easy.  (I've got an idea, let's put the easternmost school, Penn State, and the westernmost school, Nebraska, in the same division!)

The NFL Playoffs Are Fine

So, it turns out, the Giants-Dolphins practice thing wasn't really that big of a deal at all.  It was simply Craig Carton being a whiny little superfan who was trying to talk crap.  Why is this guy even on the radio?  He's not a sports "expert."  All he is is a fan.  I think the only reason he has a job in sports talk radio is because WFAN decided that since Chris Russo is gone, they still need someone to be annoying and whiny while making "points" simply for the purpose of making them.

Why am I bringing this up?  Because this afternoon I read an ESPN.com story by LZ Granderson (who is normally pretty good) suggesting that the NFL playoff system is "broken" because somebody has to win the NFC West.  This is one of the most ridiculous articles I've ever read on ESPN.com.  His basic argument is that it's "unfair" the Packers/Giants could finish 11-5 and miss the playoffs, while the Rams/Seahawks could finish 8-8 and get a home game.  My response is "So What?"

The NFL playoff system is set up perfectly.  There are eight divisions and eight games in the first two rounds of the playoffs.  If you win your division, getting the opportunity to host a playoff game is your just reward.  That's why you play every team in your division twice.  If you're the best of those four, you go to the playoffs.  Plain and simple.  Two wild cards are added to make sure all of the best teams are in the playoffs.  So what if you have a 9-7 team hosting an 11-5 wild card!  It's happened before, and it'll happen again.  Likewise, although rare, you'll have the occasional 8-8 division champion or 11-5 team that gets left out.  Just because this is one of those years, it doesn't mean the system is broken.  This guy suggests an NBA style format where the six teams get in, but are seeded 1-6 regardless of division.  Yes, let's use the NBA, the league where every team (except the Knicks) make the playoffs, as our example!  And I'm now implored to ask, Why have divisions at all then?

The four best teams in football might be the Patriots, Jets, Steelers and Ravens, who all happen to be in the same two divisions.  Thus, winning those two divisions and getting the home game (and bye) instead of going on the road (and playing the extra game) as a wild card.  This is why the system that's in place puts such a premium on winning your division.  That's the way it should be.  And you're an idiot if you think that being a wild card team makes the Jets or Ravens any less of a Super Bowl contender (the 2005 Steelers and 2007 Giants both won three road games en route to Super Bowl titles as wild card teams).  Along those same lines, the idea that the winner of the "mediocre" division doesn't belong in the playoffs is ludicrous!  Remember the 8-8 Chargers (the AFC West winner) beating the 12-4 Colts in a wild card game two years ago?  And what about those 9-7 Cardinals who won the NFC West that season?  Oh yeah, they came within 20 seconds of winning the Super Bowl!  Man, that team really sucked!

It's also funny that nobody (other than seemingly our friend LZ) has a problem with the fact that the NFC West winner has to make the playoffs.  Everybody knows what they've got to do, and for the Giants and Packers, that means fighting for the other wild card spot (assuming the Bears and Eagles win the divisions).  Oh, and the Giants and Packers play in Week 16.  Look at that!  And even if we did take LZ's suggestion and take the top six teams regardless of division, the one good team in a crappy division still usually ends up among the top six.  Obviously that's not the case with the NFC West winner this year, but the basic point remains.  And he kept dwelling on the fact that the Patriots went 11-5 and missed the playoffs the year the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl.  I'm not really sure what one has to do with the other, seeing as the Patriots are in the AFC and the Cardinals are in the NFC.  Does he propose some sort of stupid CFL-like "cross-over" system where the seventh-best team in one conference replaces the second wild card in the other if they have a better record?  Yeah, that would go over well.

The NFL playoffs are fine.  Now, the new playoff overtime format is a differnet story.  Don't get me started on that one.

The Giants-Dolphins Practice "Situation"

As I was sitting at work today, I asked my boss Steve what he thought I should blog about tonight.  He said that I should blog about the Jets-Dolphins-Giants "situation."  Since he's my boss, I decided to listen to him.

I'm not really sure what the whole story is, but apparently the whiny little bitch known as Jets owner Woody Johnson is crying that the Giants are letting the Dolphins practice at the Giants' facility on Friday.  I'm not exactly sure why this is a problem.  The Jets and Giants share a stadium.  Big deal!  It's not like they're letting them practice IN the stadium!  If they were, then Woody would have a point.  Since they aren't, he doesn't. 

Now, which scenario is more likely?  Scenario 1: the Giants were like "Hey, let's let the Dolphins practice at our facility to screw over the Jets.  It really sucks that they're better than us and people actually care about them now."  Scenario 2: the Dolphins decided that being in 80-degree Miami until Saturday, then going to 30-degree New York to play on Sunday wasn't the best idea, so they asked the Giants if they could practice at their facility in order to better prepare for the weather (although it's apparently supposed to be in the 50s on Sunday).

It's my thinking that Scenario 2 was more likely.  The Giants play in Minnesota on Sunday, so they'll likely be practicing indoors anyway.  But more importantly, this is just a case of the Dolphins being smart.  New York is the only city where a visiting team can actually get the chance to practice in an NFL facility, so why not take advantage of that opportunity?  If there were two teams in Chicago, and the Falcons were playing the Bears in December, don't you think the Falcons and the hypothetical Chicago AFC team would do the same thing? 

Now, one of the "arguments" against this I heard today is that the Giants wouldn't be happy if the Jets let the Cowboys practice in their facility.  I'm sure they wouldn't.  But they wouldn't be able to do anything about it either.  Same situation here.  The Jets have no control over who the Giants allow to use their practice facility.  And if the Giants did set out to "screw" the Jets by letting the Dolphins practice at their facility, do you really think the Giants care that Woody Johnson's pissed at them?  What's he gonna do?  So, basically what I'm saying here is that Woody Johnson needs to shut up.  It's like the whole thing with the first game at the stadium when he whined that the NFL gave it to the Giants, then gave him a Monday night game (and a Thanksgiving game) to make him happy.  If you have no control over it, stop bitching about it!

And I got a chance to talk to Coach Slingbox about that really confusing World Cup decision today (Qatar?  Really?), and he delivered one of the best lines possible to describe the vote.  I'm paraphrasing here, but the response was basically along the lines of "FIFA's cashing the check as we speak," as if to imply (not really that subtly, I might add) that the Qataris paid off the FIFA voters.  No, that can't be it!  Everyone wants to go to a devoutly Muslim country (have fun Brazilian ladies!) in the Middle East (the safest place on Earth) in the middle of the summer (when it's 130 degrees) where alcohol's illegal (yeah, that'll go over well with 98% of worldwide soccer fans)!

And even though I don't watch college football, Darcy does, and he brillantly breaks down the ridculousless known as the bowl system in his blog.

Baseball Hall of Fame, Part I

Breaking news: Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera have both re-signed with the Yankees.  Is anybody surprised here?  No one?  Didn't think so.  The Jeter negotiations further enhance my belief that I should be the Yankees GM, seeing as I said about a month ago that if they offered him three years at $50 million he'd take it, and he ended up getting $51 million plus incentives for the same three years, with an option for a fourth.

Derek's former boss, the late George Steinbrenner is one of 12 candidates up for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame through the Veterans Committee.  They keep changing the way the Veterans Committe is set up, so I'm not exactly sure what the rules are anymore, but I know that they announce the results tomorrow.  Steinbrenner's up for election as a part of the "Expansion Era" ballot, which basically means "Since 1973."  There are also two other executives, eight players and Steinbrenner's favorite manager Billy Martin up for election.  (I'll now ask the pressing question: If Steinbrenner and Martin both get in, do Hank and Hal get to fire Billy's kids, then re-hire them after the induction?)

You never know who's going to get in through the Veterans Committee, but I think George will get in, as will Marvin Miller (finally!) and Dave Concepcion.  I'm not just saying this because I'm a Yankees fan, but George Steinbrenner should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Complain all you want about Steinbrenner "buying" his team, you can't argue with the fact that he showed other owners how to build a winner in the modern era of baseball.  He was the first owner to embrace free agency, and it got him two World Series titles in the 70s.  And don't forget the dynasty in the late-90s, which was built through a combination of homegrown talent (the Core Four), smart trades (Paul O'Neill) and wise free agent decisions (Tino Martinez, Jimmy Key).  Then there was last year's team, which made it seven titles in 37 years of owning the team.  Plus establishing the YES Network, the new model for regional sports channels, and building the New Yankee Stadium.  Yes, his team played in New York.  So what?  When you own the New York Yankees, your fans expect a certain level of success.  George Steinbrenner expected that same success out of his team as its fans did, and did what he could to make sure the Yankees won.  But again, the model he established is the way you have to do business in baseball in the modern era.  And his teams had the success to prove his system worked.

I also hope this is the year Marvin Miller finally gets in.  It's a travesty that this guy isn't in the Hall of Fame yet, and the only reason he's not is because for many years, the Veterans Committee was made up of owners, most of whom despise Marvin Miller.  For those of you not familiar with the name, he was the first director of the MLB players' union.  Marvin Miller helped the players get free agency (and most of the other benefits they enjoy today), which ushered in baseball's modern era.  He's one of the most influential people in the game over the past 30 years.  The owners of course are still bitter about the strikes of 1981 and 1994, and as the union head, Miller was blamed (although Donald Fehr had taken over by the time of the '94 strike), which is why he isn't in yet.  But if the Hall of Fame is a place to recognize those individuals who've had the greatest impact on the game, you can't give me a valid reason why Marvin Miller doesn't deserve a place in Cooperstown.

Now, I don't think Dave Concepcion is one of the greatest 1% of players in baseball history, but as prior evidence shows, you don't necessarily need to be in order to get in.  You just need friends on the Veterans Committee (Bill Mazeroski, I'm talking to you), which is why I think Concepcion gets in.  His Reds teammates Johnny Bench and Tony Perez are among the voters.  The Big Red Machine's shortstop, Concepcion was a nine-time All-Star and five-time Gold Glove winner.  He was also the MVP of the 1982 All-Star Game.  But he only had 2,326 hits and was a .267 career hitter.  I know the argument is that Concepcion's real value was with his glove, and that lineup was loaded, but in my opinion, Dave Concepcion's numbers don't add up to a Hall of Famer.  I'd vote for Tommy John, Ron Guidry or Steve Garvey before I voted for Concepcion, but I think Concepcion will be the only player to get in (before Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar are voted in by the writers next month).  But, the history of Veterans Committee elections also suggests that it's entirely possible nobody joins Blyleven and Alomar in Cooperstown in July.

Oh, and it turns out that Qatar DOES have a national soccer team.  They're currently ranked 116th in the world.  Now we have 12 years to agree on the pronunciation of the country's name.  (I prefer KUH-tar over CAT-ter; there's no U, so it's not "CUTTER".)

A Soccer Blog

Yes, you read that correctly.  Today's blog is about soccer.  The sport was the inspiration for my name (Joe Brackets), and it also resulted in my getting published in Sports Illustrated over the summer (August 2-9 issue, Letters, page 10).  (Side note, I also found out yesterday that the booklet I wrote while I worked for the Buffalo Bills was referenced in the bibliography of some guy's book, and that's just cool.)  So, soccer gets its own blog with my thoughts on the 2018-22 World Cup bids with the selection due later today.

First up is 2018, which will be in Europe.  The bidders are England and Russia, as well as joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Belgium/Netherlands.  I'm not really sure how long the vote will actually take here, but insiders have been saying that England is going to win for the better part of two years.  I'm not going to disagree with them.  For starters, soccer was invented in England.  And the English Premier League is the absolute top level of the sport.  With that being said, they've got plenty of cities and stadiums that are big enough and capable of hosting, including Manchester United's legendary Old Trafford (the Fenway Park of English soccer), as well as the lesser-known homes of equally well-known clubs like Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal.  Plus, they have the gorgeous new Wembley Stadium in London for the final (they could also probably use Olympic Stadium if they want to).  I'd be very surprised if England doesn't win.

When it got the 2014 Olympics three years ago, Vladimir Putin was the star of Russia's presentation.  He didn't come to Zurich for the World Cup presentation, which doesn't help Russia's case at all (does he know something?).  Anyway, Russia's bid would look pretty good if it wasn't going up against the English buzzsaw.  Coach Slingbox thinks that Spain/Portugal might actually have a chance, but I'm not really a fan of these dual bids.  If Spain was bidding by itself, I could probably get on board, but thumbs down to dual bids.  (Remember the logistical nightmare of Japan/South Korea 2002?  No more dual bids!)  Ditto to Belgium/Netherlands, which has absolutely no shot anyway, so I'm not even going to talk about that bid.

Now, the 2022 bid is where things get interesting.  It's probably between the U.S. and Australia, with Qatar, Japan and South Korea also "in the running."  Slingbox also told me that he thinks Qatar has an outside chance, but I'm not really sure about that.  It's unbearably hot in the Middle East in June/July (which is when the World Cup is normally held), and just incredibly hot the rest of the year, which doesn't realy work in the world soccer calendar (I think they want to have it in October).  Plus, isn't it a requirement that you have to have a national soccer team to host the World Cup?  Just wondering.  Like Belgium/Netherlands, Japan and South Korea have no chance.  They co-hosted in 2002, and giving it to the same country only 20 years apart doesn't really seem fair.  Plus, South Korea should be focusing on its 2018 Winter Olympic bid, which is theirs to lose.

So, the way I see it, 2022 is a two-horse race between the United States in Australia.  Now, this is FIFA voting, not the IOC, which gives us an actual chance (as far as I know, nobody in FIFA hates Americans).  The criticism of the U.S. bid is that it's "too spread out" with games planned at New Meadowlands Stadium and in L.A.  So, they have planes don't they?  And need I remind you the next World Cup is in Brazil, which is gigantic?  That shouldn't be an issue.  Besides, the U.S. bid has two things going for it: diversity and football stadiums.  As Bill Clinton said during the U.S. presentation, every team could play a home game in the U.S. because pick a country, there's a bar in some American city where its fans get together to drink and watch the World Cup.  And in a country chock full of 70,000-plus seat football stadiums, that will all be full for every game, attendance records could be shattered.  The 1994 World Cup was arguably the best in history, in terms of attendance, quality of play, atmosphere, organization, you name it.  That has to work in our favor.

If the U.S. doesn't win, I'd be completely OK with Australia winning.  Australia is an awesome country.  Sydney's beautiful Olympic Stadium is just sitting there not being used, and would be the perfect venue for a World Cup Final.  When Australia is given the opportunity to host major international sporting events (see, 2000 Olympics), they knock it out of the park.  I have no doubt that would be no different with the World Cup.  The only potential problems with Australia are the fact that it's not really near anywhere else, so it would be a bitch for everyone to get there, and the opposite seasons (you could probably still play in Australia in June/July, though).  Even still, I think it's probably worth giving Australia a shot.  It's one of the richest, most powerful, most influential nations in the world (the country's a freakin continent for cryin' out loud).  And their team is called the "Socceroos."  Just not at the expense of the U.S. in 2022.  Give Australia the 2026 World Cup when Europe and the U.S. both won't be able to bid.

TCU to the Big East?!

I've said it time and again, but after today's news about TCU moving to the Big East, it's time to say it once again: they need to remove the C from BCS.  The only reason all this BS with schools shifting conference has all come about is because of the BS with the C in the middle.  If the greedy, money-grubbing presidents of the BCS schools would agree to a playoff and actually allow for a real national champion, you wouldn't have a Big 17, a Pac-12, or a Mountain West (which is a pretty good conference) that can't keep a member.

Of course, this all started six years ago with the ACC.  The ACC decided it wanted to become a football power (how well did that work out for ya, by the way?), so it tried to destroy the Big East in the process, poaching Miami (which nobody really cared about since they should've been in the ACC anyway), Virginia Tech and Boston College (which is nowhere near any other ACC school).  From there, everything snowballed and the Big East added five schools from Conference USA (Cincinnati, Louisville, DePaul, Marquette and South Florida) to maintain an 8-team football conference and create a 16-team monster in basketball.  After all the dust settled, everybody was happy for a few years until the Big Ten and Pac-10 got greedy.

The Big Ten, which has been sitting with 11 since adding Penn State in 1994, wanted to even itself out (a completely reasonable desire).  Notre Dame wasn't going to happen, so the Big Ten started looking around for takers.  Nebraska volunteered, leaving the Big 12 for the Big Ten (although Nebraska's AD looked like a complete tool at the press conference when he said the Big Ten offered "stability" that the Big 12 didn't, even though it was Nebraska making the Big 12 unstable).  Then Colorado left the Big 12 for the Pac-10.  Just so everybody can keep track: next year the Big Ten will have 12 teams and the Big 12 will have 10 teams.  Got it?  Fortunately Texas (the only school that seems to actually thinking about its student-athletes) stopped the madness by agreeing to stay in the Big 12 rather than create a Pac-16, which settled for only adding Utah to go to 12.

The reason for all this ridiculousness is, of course, the BCS.  Because only six conferences have auto-bids, and those six refuse to let the Mountain West become the seventh, all of the Mountain West schools are trying to get out and join a BCS league.  (I'm not really sure what BYU's master plan was, but that's a whole other story.)  Big East football sucks.  Everybody knows that.  So, what better way to improve Big East football and help out one of the Mountain West schools in the process?  Never mind the fact that there are now 17! teams in the conference, which now extends all the way to Dallas!  (They also asked Villanova to go from FCS to BCS football to get to 10.)  The move actually does make sense (to an extent) and shouldn't effect Big East basketball too badly, but seriously, when will it end?  The whole reason the Mountain West Conference even exists in the first place is because the WAC expanded to 16 and that was too many.  I don't think that will happen here, but this definitely isn't over.  It won't stop until they finally implement a playoff.

Of course, the Mountain West and the WAC are the victims here.  Three schools (Utah, BYU and TCU) are leaving the Mountain West and being replaced by WAC schools Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada.  The WAC is adding Denver and two Texas schools to get back to nine, but Hawaii is talking about leaving because that will increase their travel even more.  The Big 12 survived annihilation, but again, for how long?  You know they'll want to stop confusing people and go back to 12 at some point.  I figured TCU and Arkansas to the Big 12 would make sense, but it doesn't look like that's happening now.  Maybe it'll be Rice and Houston now, but the Big 12 won't be a misnomer for long.  Of course, the Big East is destined to become even more of a misnomer when UNLV and BYU join the league.

The Case for Ray Guy

The Pro Football Hall of Fame unveiled its list of semifinalists today, and of the 26 guys on the list, about 20 of them deserve to be in Canton.  The rules dictate that only between 4 and 7 guys can get in every year, and a maximum of five can be modern-era candidates (although not an official rule, it does seem to be some sort of requirement that both senior nominees get in, even though 99.6 percent of football fans have never heard of them).  Because the Football Hall of Fame also feels the need to induct at least one offensive lineman every year (I'm not really sure why), that leaves four spots for everybody else.  Take out the first-year guys who are locks to make it (this year that's Deion Sanders and Marshall Faulk) and there aren't really many spots left.  With all that being said, it's once again time for me to make the case for somebody who I know won't get in: Ray Guy.

Punter is a position.  In the modern game, it's a very important one.  Yet, there are no punters in the Hall of Fame.  In fact, the only specialist in the Hall of Fame at all is former Chiefs/Saints kicker Jan Stenerud.  Why?  I understand that these guys are in for about 15 plays a game max, but how important can those 15 plays be?  How many games are won on last-second field goals?  That's an argument for another day, but my point remains: Ray Guy should be in the Hall of Fame.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the committee should suddenly start looking at punters the same way they do skill position guys and defensive players, but Ray Guy is NOT your average punter.  Ask anybody who knows a thing about the game (or has watched it in the last 30 years), and they'll all agree: Ray Guy is the best punter in history. 

A quick look at the resume:

• drafted in the 1st round in 1973 (still the only punter ever taken in the 1st round)
• won three Super Bowls with the Raiders (XI, XV, XVIII)
• named to the NFL's 75th Anniversary All-Time Team and All-Decade Team for the 70s
• seven-time Pro Bowler (1973-78, 1980)
• selected First Team All-Pro every year from 1973-78, then Second Team All-Pro in 1979-80
• played in 207 consecutive games
• 1,409 career punts for 44,493 yards (42.4 average)
• never had a punt returned for a touchdown
• once had a streak of 619 consecutive punts without having one blocked
• had 210 punts inside the 20 and just 128 touchbacks
• owner of every major NFL punting record

And I know the popular argument is that kickers and punters aren't that athletic, but Guy's play in Super Bowl XVIII (where the snap was about three feet over his head, but he went up and grabbed it with one hand, then still got the punt off) is one of the most athletic plays I've ever seen.  He's the only punter ever to be even nominated for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and he deserves a bust in Canton.  So do Cris Carter and Shannon Sharpe, but I'll save that discussion for when they announce the list of 15 finalists, which they'll both be on.  Sadly, Ray Guy probably won't.

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving everybody.  As I sit here trying to digest all of yesterday's food and am subjected to nonstop college football by my dad (just can't get excited about it or into it, sorry!), I decided the perfect way to subside some of my boredom would be to write a blog.  I don't really have anything specific I want to talk about, and I'm not going to make one of those stupid "Things I'm Thankful For" lists; I just need something to do.

This seems as good a time as any to make some random observations and the first is a question: If Alabama's nickname is the "Crimson" Tide, how come the shade of red they wear is more of a scarlet?  (Only bringing this up because my dad is currently watching Auburn-Alabama.)  And while I'm on the subject of uniforms, why did only three of the six teams wear throwback jerseys yesterday?  Granted, the Saints have had pretty much the same uniforms during their entire existence, so they get a little bit of a mulligan, but what about the other two?  I was all ready for the 80s-era Jets with the green helmets (although knowing them, they would've gone with the Titans uniforms they insist on wearing as their throwbacks for some reason) and the pre-tiger stripes Bengals with "BENGALS" written on those otherwise blank orange helmets.  But instead, I got nothing.  (It also kind of bothered me that the Patriots wore red and the Lions wore blue, but seeing as everything that New England does is annoying you can just add that to the list.)

Anyway, I digress.  The craziness that is this NFL season is about to enter the stretch run with a bunch of random good teams.  If the playoffs started today, Jacksonville would win the AFC South and the Colts wouldn't make it.  Of course, no one expects this to still be the case at the end of the season, but how did Jacksonville suddenly get good?  The one thing that is almost certain, though, is that the Colts will be stuck playing on Wild Card Weekend, where they'll have to play either the Jets/Patriots or Steelers/Ravens.  And while everyone gushes about how amazing Pretty Boy Brady and his stupid little team are, need I remind you that they're technically in second place right now because they lost to the Jets in Week 2.  Yes, the Jets have gotten lucky a number of times, but they're still both 9-2.  Of course, that'll change next week when they play in one of the better Monday Night matchups of the season.

Over in the NFC, who knows what's going on?  All we know is that somebody in the ridiculously crappy NFC West is going to end up hosting a playoff game at 8-8, while somebody's going to finish 10-6 and not get in.  As it stands, seven teams (the Eagles, Giants, Packers, Bears, Falcons, Saints and Bucs) are fighting for five spots.  Tampa's got the least staying power of the group, so let's just eliminate them now for the sake of argument.  This weekend will help actually clear this thing up a little bit, as FOX has a sweet doubleheader.  First, the two best teams (the Falcons and Packers) play at 1 in Atlanta in what should be the Sunday night game (not that I'm complaining about getting to see Peyton), then the Eagles play the Bears in the late game.  And over on CBS, the Giants need a win against the Jaguars, who I don't consider a first-place team.  Seeing as New Orleans already won this week, and the Bucs are in Baltimore, which you can just chalk up as a loss, there are going to be either three or four teams in the NFC at 8-3 or better (Atlanta will be 9-2 with a win), with the Eagles-Bears loser, Bucs, possibly Giants and possibly Packers all at 7-4. 

If the Packers, Bears and Giants all win, all three divisions will be tied.  Meanwhile, if the Chiefs beat the Seahawks, everybody in the NFC West will be below .500.  Yet one of those teams gets to host a playoff game.  I think the best-case scenario for the Giants will be finishing tied with the Bears, who they beat in Week 4.  With three division games left, both with the Redskins and the home game against the Eagles, who knows how the NFC East will shake out?  The Giants will probably need to win all three and have Philly lose to Dallas at least once (the Eagles and Cowboys haven't played yet either) to win the division, though.  My prediciton is that Chicago will join Tampa Bay on the sidelines in January, while the Saints go to Seattle and the Giants and Eagles play for the third time this season.  And people really need to start talking about Atlanta, who might be the best team in the NFC.

That's it today.  I'll continue enjoying my little mini-vacation from working while pretty much the entire rest of the athletic department staff is in Florida with the men's basketball team.  But I'm pissed off that I can't watch the Grey Cup this year.  The game's on NFL Network, which Cablevision doesn't get.  Since my original prediciton was way off, I'm going to take Saskatchewan to get revenge for last season's last-second loss and knock off Montreal for the title.

Let the AL MVP Debate Begin

It's now time for the final MLB award, and it's the one that has been the topic of the greatest debate: AL MVP.  Now, I realize that Josh Hamilton is probably going to win.  That doesn't mean I have to like it.  Just like I don't have to like it that Felix Hernandez won more Cy Young votes than he did games.  Hamilton didn't play at all in the most important month of the season.  I don't care what you're numbers are the rest of the year, if you miss September, you're not an MVP in my book.  Especially when the guys you're in competition with played the entire season.  They were contributing for their teams during the most important month of the season while you were sitting on your ass doing nothing.

The "best" argument that I've heard for Hamilton is: "His numbers are just so sick."  So what?  Now, .359, 32 homers and 100 RBIs in five months are solid numbers.  But, as I said yesterday, it's Most Valuable Player, not Best Player and the thesis of my argument remains: he didn't play at all in September.  Granted, the Rangers didn't really need him, seeing as they pretty much wrapped up the AL West in June, but they also did just fine without him in September.  And the people who use the argument that Joe Mauer won while missing a month last year are full of crap.  Mauer missed April.  Anyone who knows a thing about baseball will tell you that missing April and missing September are nowhere near the same thing.  Nobody's in a pennant race in April.  Now, I'm not saying he should be penalized because the Rangers weren't in a pennant race and wanted their best player to be healthy in the playoffs, but the fact that he put up his numbers in five months shouldn't be held against the guys who played all six either.

Now, you're probably expecting me to say that my vote would go to Robinson Cano.  I don't hide my favoritism, nor do I hide the fact that I'm more familiar with Cano than any of the other candidates.  I actually saw some moron on an MLB.com message board say that Cano's only in the discussion because he's a Yankee.  This guy clearly knows his baseball!  People who actually do know something about the sport are all in agreement that Cano is a top 3 MVP candidate.  He hit .319 with 29 homers and 109 RBIs while playing Gold Glove defense at second base.  Obviously the New York writers can't campaign for him, but even the voters in the 13 other cities can't ignore the fact that this guy moved from the bottom of the lineup into the five-hole and turned into an MVP candidate.  And he carried the Yankees offense while A-Rod was on the DL.  Yankees offense or not, he was one of only two guys in the AL with 200 hits, and the other one was Ichiro, who's superhuman and doesn't count.

But, my vote actually wouldn't go to Robinson Cano either.  I know that last statement probably shocks most of you, so I'll say it again.  My choice for AL MVP is NOT Robinson Cano.  It's Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers.  Cabrera was a one-man team for a majority of the season, but still ended up hitting .328 with 38 homers and a league-leading 126 RBIs.  He also slugged .622, scored 111 runs and led the AL in on-base percentage (.420).  And since there was absolutely nobody around him in the lineup, he drew a Barry Bonds-like 32 intentional walks.  When Bonds was a one-man team with the Giants, he was the NL MVP every year.  I don't know how this is any different.  The argument against Cabrera is that the Tigers finished below .500.  True, but how bad would they have been without him?  It's not his fault they sucked. 

Some of you are probably shouting at your computer screens right now because you think I'm contradicting myself and saying that my argument for Miguel Cabrera is the same one I used against Felix Hernandez, but the difference is that Cabrera's an everyday player and Hernandez isn't.  It's apples and oranges.  That's why there's an award just for pitchers (although I do think pitchers often get a raw deal when it comes to MVP voting).  Teams that went against the Tigers had to find a way to stop Miguel Cabrera every single day, and he still managed to drive in 126 runs while playing for a team that had absolutely no offense other than him after Magglio Ordonez got hurt.  (They had Johnny Damon batting third for crying out loud!)  Add in the 111 that he scored and Cabrera was responsible for nearly a quarter of the Tigers' offense.  He's probably not going to win because of the Tigers' record, but I don't have an actual vote anyway, so I can vote for who I want.

Jose Bautista's 54 homers can't be ignored.  Neither can Paul Konerko's .312-39-111 line.  But this is a three-man race.  My 10-man ballot looks as such: 1. Cabrera; 2. Cano; 3. Hamilton; 4. Bautista; 5. Konerko; 6. Adrian Beltre, Red Sox; 7. Felix Hernandez, Mariners (I know, I know, write a comment and call me a hypocrite if you want); 8. Joe Mauer, Twins; 9. Evan Longoria, Rays; 10. Jim Thome, Twins.

And before I go a turn this back into a blog about all things sports, I've gotta wish a Happy 1st Anniversary to the Darcys and Happy Birthday to Drew Kingsley!  Thanks for reading guys.  Now, let the debating begin.

Votto Did a Lotto Stuff to Win NL MVP

OK, you know I'm not happy about how the AL Cy Young vote went.  Rather than dwelling on it, I'll just ask this question:  If King Felix had been 12-13 and not 13-12, would his name have even been in the discussion?  My point exactly.  Anyway, now we move on to the NL MVP, which is cleary defined as Most Valuable Player, not Best Player (evidently that clarification also needs to be made with the Cy Young Award).  That distinction makes it pretty certain that the MVP usually goes to the right guy, although it might not in the AL this season (more on that tomorrow).  The best example I can remember with this is 1998, where Mr. 70 Mark McGwire was the National League's best player, but Sammy Sosa was rightfully named MVP after leading the Cubs to the playoffs.

With that being said, I think the NL MVP debate should be a short one.  Albert Pujols was Albert Pujols again this year.  He's cleary the best player in the National League, if not all of baseball.  Now don't get me wrong, I love Albert Pujols.  I give him a significant number of all-star votes every year.  But simply being Albert Pujols doesn't mean he should just automatically be handed the MVP award every year.  This year is one of those years.  Without Joey Votto, the Cincinnati Reds don't win the NL Central.  That's why our Canadian friend is the 2010 National League MVP.

Now on paper, you could make the argument that Albert's numbers were better than Votto's.  Pujols finished 1st, 2nd or 3rd in six different offensive categories, leading the league in homers (42), RBIs (118) and runs (115).  However, he was only sixth in hitting at .312.  Votto, on the other hand, was only top three in five categories, although he was fourth in runs and sixth in hits.  Votto led the National League in on-base percentage (.424) and slugging percentage (.600) (that obviously means he also led the NL in OPS, but since that's a stupid, insignificant fantasy stat, it doesn't count).  Pujols topped him in both homers and RBIs (37 and 113, both third), but his average was significantly higher (.324, second in the NL).  None of that really matters, though.  Votto's the MVP because he was the heart and soul of a Reds team that no one expected to contend, let alone win 90 games and make the playoffs for the first time in 15 years.  And the Reds are in the same division as the Cardinals, who had won the Central in each of the last two years.  That can't be overlooked, either.  Without Votto leading the way in Cincinnati, St. Louis probably wins that division yet again.

The only other guy even worth talking about is "CarGo," Rockies center fielder Carlos Gonzalez.  Some experts will try to argue that the Rockies have two MVP candidates (Troy Tulowitzki being the other), but they barely  have one.  I'm just including CarGo to be nice (and for the sake of talking about more than just two guys).  Gonzalez does have good enough numbers to legitimately put him into the discussion (league-leading .336 average and 197 hits, second with 117 RBIs and a .598 slugging percentage, not to mention 34 doubles, plus that crazy hitting streak), but he's going to finish third.  Now, he is the best defensively of the three, and his second half was just ridiculous, but overall his numbers just don't measure up.  The Rockies were kept in the race longer than they should've, mainly because of CarGo.  He deserves consideration, but I'd be incredibly surprised if he gets a first-place vote (although, two guys did vote for Gaby Sanchez for Rookie of the Year over Posey and Heyward, so you never know).

So, there's the top three.  Voters get 10 votes, so a lot of guys are going to be named on the ballot.  If I had a vote, this is what mine would look like: 1. Votto, 2. Pujols, 3. Gonzalez, 4. Roy Halladay (I don't get why pitchers are never really considered for MVP), 5. Troy Tulowitzki, 6. Hanley Ramirez, 7. Ryan Howard, 8. Adrian Gonzalez, 9. Brian McCann, 10. Brandon Phillips.  Your vote probably looks different, which is the whole point of putting 10 guys on the ballot in the first place.  Until tomorrow, when I know they'll be some debate about the American League MVP (I'll give you a hint, my vote isn't for Josh Hamilton).

David Price for Cy Young

After the Jaspers' exciting win over Penn in their home opener, I knew I had to hurry home.  I had a blog to write.  I made my first wrong MLB award prediction when Bud Black edged Dusty Baker by a point for NL Manager of the Year, but 4 out of 5 so far ain't bad.  I have a feeling that I might get tomorrow's award wrong too, though.  I have no idea who's going to win the AL Cy Young.  But I know who shouldn't.

Felix Hernandez is a great pitcher.  I'm not going to dispute that.  He might've been the best pitcher in the American League this year.  But being the best pitcher doesn't necessarily mean you should be the Cy Young winner.  Hernandez led the AL with a 2.27 ERA and 249.2 innings pitched, while finishing second with 232 strikeouts.  Impressive numbers no question.  Here's where the problem comes in, he had only 13 wins.  Now I saw how awesome King Felix is after seeing him beat the Yankees three times (including two shutouts), but the fact remains--he won only 13 games (and lost 12 by the way).  Is it his fault the Mariners didn't score any runs?  Of course not.  And yes, he was the only pitcher on the team that anyone actually feared, but the number of wins can't (and shouldn't) be ignored.  I don't understand all the "experts" who say they'd vote for Hernandez because wins are an "overrated" stat.  Huh?  Aren't wins the stat that's used to determine whether or not a team's good (and who makes the playoffs)?  Some would claim that the precedent was set last year when Zack Greinke of the Royals won with just 16 wins for a last-place team, but Greinke was clearly so much better than everybody else last season that it was also clear he should win.  That's not the case this year.  Yes Felix Hernandez put up crazy numbers, but he pitched for the worst team in the American League.  The other two guys in the discussion both pitched for playoff teams in arguably the best division in baseball.  It's not their fault that Seattle sucks, and it shouldn't be held against them.

Now, as a Yankees fan, you probably all expect me to say that I think CC Sabathia should win.  CC was the only 20-game winner in the American League, going 21-7.  And every time the Yankees needed a victory, he pitched like the ace he is.  The only reliable pitcher on the staff in the second half, CC almost single-handedly helped the Yankees make the playoffs.  I know he plays for the Yankees and got crazy run support, but his ERA in his 21 wins was 1.77.  He only gave up more than three runs in a win once, compared to 11 wins where he allowed one run or fewer.  Yes he had 21 wins pitching for the New York Yankees, but the New York Yankees play 18 games a year against Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto.  Seattle plays 18 games a year against Oakland, Texas and the Angels.  The AL East is a better division than the AL West, and CC was pitching pressure-packed games in a pennant race that wasn't decided until the final day of the season.  Advantage, Sabathia.

But my vote actually wouldn't go to CC.  It would go to David Price.  Price started the All-Star Game, which is basically the unofficial half-year Cy Young.  In just his second full Major League season, this guy showed why he was the No. 1 pick in the 2008 Draft.  Price set a Rays record with 19 wins and had the best winning percentage in the AL (.760).  All that's nice, but here's why he should win: Price went 4-0 with a 1.64 ERA in September, as the Rays held off the Yankees for both the AL East and the best record in the American League.  He also went 12-5 against teams that finished above .500.  Price was the best pitcher on the best team, playing in the best division. 

Again, Felix Hernandez couldn't do anything about his run support, just like CC Sabathia couldn't do anything about his, but the quality (not quantity) of the wins for the AL East guys can't be overlooked.  I think that's the big thing in the whole debate.  Yes Sabathia and Price had more wins, but they pitched in big games all season.  Did Hernandez pitch in any big games at all?  Sabathia and Price were the aces of teams that made the playoffs and pitched like it.  Both were at their best against the best teams, and the other top pitchers (remember that 1-0 game they pitched against each other at the Trop in September?).  Would either the Yankees or Rays have made the playoffs without them?  No.  Where would Seattle have been without Felix Hernandez?  Last place.  Where were they with him?  Oh yeah, last place.

Two pitchers in a pennant race in the best division in baseball trump a really good pitcher on a really crappy team.  My vote would be 1. Price, 2. Sabathia, 3. Hernandez, 4. Jon Lester, 5. Clay Buchholz.  I really hope I'm right.

Time for the Managers

After the first three MLB awards went as expected, we now have the AL and NL Managers of the Year, which will both be handed out on Wednesday.  Not only do we get one race for Manager of the Year, we get two.  In the AL, it's between the pair of Rons who manage the former Washington Senators--Minnesota's Ron Gardenhire and Ron Washington of Texas.  Tim McCarver said that he thinks Boston's Terry Francona should receive consideration, but we all know Tim McCarver's an idiot.  When a manager's team is supposed to be good, then finishes third (injuries or not), he NOT the Manager of the Year!  The NL race is even tighter, as Cincinnati's Dusty Baker, Bruce Bochy of the Giants, Bud Black of the Padres and good ol' Bobby Cox are all in the mix.

American League
Ron No. 1 is Ron Gardenhire of the Twins.  He's been a good manager for years, but this year was definitely his best managing job.  Gardy was Minnesota's third base coach under the great Tom Kelly, then took over as manager when Kelly retired after the 2001 season.  The Twins are 803-656 since he took over, finished below .500 just once in nine seasons, won the AL Central six times (losing in the Division Series five times, four of those to the Yankees), and finished second after Game 163 in 2008.  He's finished second in Manager of the Year voting five times, but never won.  Here's why he should this year:  The Twins finished with the second-best record in the American League (94-68), despite losing their second-best player (Justin Morneau) for the season after he got a concussion in Toronto in early July.  Instead of going away (like most people expected), Minnesota only got better, battling the Rays and Yankees for the best record in the AL until the wire.  The Twins lost their closer, Joe Nathan, for the year in Spring Training, then lost Morneau, but still had Joe Mauer and gave Jim Thome the same magic elixir that the Vikings gave to Brett Favre last year.  But, they also didn't have a pitching staff, which is really the most amazing thing about Gardy's managing job.

Ron No. 2 is Ron Washington of the Rangers.  His year started with an admission of cocaine use, but he got a vote of confidence (from both the owners and players), then led Texas to the best season in franchise history.  The Rangers pretty much dominated the AL West from May on, winning 90 games.  He became just the second manager in franchise history to lead them to the playoffs, then won a postseason series for the first time in franchise history (then did it again to reach the World Series).  Of course, all that postseason stuff doesn't count, but Ron Washington's a great manager.  2008 winner Joe Maddon also deserves a look for leading Tampa Bay to the best record in the American League and winning a division that included the Yankees and Red Sox.  With that being said, however, my vote goes to the Ron in Minnesota.

National League
As much as I love Bobby Cox, and as incredible as the Braves' season was (especially when their entire starting lineup got hurt, but they still rallied to win the Wild Card), he's won the award four times and frankly didn't do the best managing job in the National League this year.  Charlie Manuel's Phillies have taken over as the team that wins the NL East every year (four years in a row now), and Philadelphia finished with the best record in baseball (97-65), but, again, he wasn't the National League's best manager in 2010.

The way I see it, Dusty Baker and Bud Black are the two guys in contention.  Bruce Bochy of the Giants probably isn't going to get that much consideration, but I'm not really sure why.  San Francisco wasn't supposed to be good and had absolutely no hitting when the season started.  Then Buster Posey got called up and Bengie Molina got traded, setting the wheels in motion for a surprise NL West title and World Series championship.  Of course, I do see the point that Cincinnati's and San Diego's success was a little more unexpected, but Bochy deserves some love.

Dusty Baker has already been the NL Manager of the Year three times, but this year he could (and probably should) win his fourth.  He took the Reds from fourth place last season to 91 wins and the NL Central title this year.  It was Cincinnati's first playoff berth in 15 years, and the Reds are the third different team Baker has taken to the postseason.  They led the National League in batting average, but, seriously, can you name anybody on the Reds other than Joey Votto?  Didn't think so.  Granted, the NL Central is the division that features the Pirates, Cubs and Astros, but it also includes the Cardinals.  What Dusty Baker did with that team this year can't be overlooked.

Nor can the job Bud Black did with the Padres.  If you can't name anybody on the Reds other than Joey Votto, you really can't name anybody on the Padres other than Adrian Gonzalez (I know they added a bunch of old guys like Miguel Tejada and Ryan Ludwick at the trade deadline, but the point is better made if you just forget about that).  But somehow, San Diego, a team that can't hit at all, managed to lead the NL West for most of the season.  The Padres were supposed to finish last (even below the Diamondbacks), but won 90 games.  However, they faded down the stretch and were caught by the Giants on the last day.  That might be Black's undoing.  If the Padres had held on to win that very good division, I think he'd be the guy, but their fade, coupled with Cincinnati's surprising run gives the advantage to Baker.

Tomorrow we've got AL Cy Young, and the debate over that one should be fun.

NL Cy Young

OK, so the two Miami writers actually thought Gaby Sanchez deserved NL Rookie of the Year over Posey and Heyward, and Feliz and Jackson both got a third-place vote somehow, but the rookie honors went as expected.  Tomorrow's award is another easy one, the NL Cy Young.  For the sake of argument, we'll go through some of the primary "candidates," but this (along with NL MVP) is the easiest award to predict.  If it isn't unanimous, it'll be close.  But it certainly should be unanimous.

At the All-Star break, it looked like Colorado's Ubaldo Jimenez would be the lock, but four months later, he's just another also-ran.  Jimenez was 15-1 with a 2.20 ERA at the break.  And that first half included a no-no against the Braves, the first of six in the Year of the Pitcher.  However, he seriously slowed down after the break, going just 4-7 down the stretch.  Jimenez won't win, but it's very possible he could finish second.  If he doesn't, Adam Wainwright of the Cardinals probably will.  Wainwright was second in the National League in wins (20) and ERA (2.42) while also finishing fourth in strikeouts (213), but like Jimenez, he faded down the stretch.  And the Cardinals getting caught by the Reds in the NL Central will really hurt his chances.  The only guy who actually pitched well down the stretch is a dude in serious need of a haircut--two-time defending Cy Young winner Tim Lincecum of the World Series Champion Giants.  As usual, he led the National League with 231 strikeouts, and he went 5-1 in September to help the Giants win the NL West over the Padres.  But he only won 16 games, had a 3.43 ERA and only threw 212.1 innings.  He'd be the first pitcher since Randy Johnson, who won for in a row from 2001-04, to win three straight Cy Young awards, but Lincecum will have to settle for his World Series ring, which isn't a bad consolation prize.

With all that being said, if Roy Halladay doesn't win the NL Cy Young, they should revoke the BBWAA membership cards of the 32 guys who voted on this thing.  Since voting is done at the end of the regular seaosn, his no-hitter against the Reds in Game 1 of the Division Series (his second of the year, in his first career postseason start) doesn't count, but he had this award clinched long before then.  For starters, Halladay led the league with 21 wins, finished second with 219 strikeouts, and was third with a 2.44 ERA.  Then there's the matter of those 250.2 innings and nine complete games, which included four shutouts.  Oh yeah, and there was that perfect game against the Marlins in May, too.  Do I need to go on?  He was everything the Phillies expected when they traded for him, completely dominating National League hitters after finally getting liberated from the AL East.  This is a no-brainer.  Halladay wins handily.

If I were voting, I'd probably put Wainwright second and Jimenez third, but does that actually matter?  Really?  Up next, the managers.  And unlike the first three MLB awards of the year, there'll actually be competiton for both Manager of the Year awards.