Jimmer or Sullinger?

With March Madness right around the corner, conference tournaments are about to begin and some all-conference teams have already been announced (the MAAC went today).  That means it's time to start thinking about who's going to be named All-American.  There are two obvious choices (Jimmer Fredette and Jared Sullinger), but there are still three spots that need to be given out.  Assuming that either Jimmer or Sullinger will be the Player of the Year, who's going to fill the other three spots on the All-America team?  I think that the other three First Team All-Americans are also pretty easy to pick.

Let's start with the two obvious choices.  Jimmer's averaging 27.3 points (the most in the nation), 3.4 rebounds and 4.3 assists per game as 27-2 BYU (which is a football school, by the way) has risen to No. 3 in the AP poll.  Everybody knew what Jimmer's capable of after that NCAA Tournament game against Florida last season, which is why his numbers this year are so remarkable.  It's like the year after Stephen Curry's breakout.  When you're essentially a one-man team and still able to put up crazy numbers, that says everything you need to know.  Jimmer's ridiculous.  He's one of the few players in the college game I'd pay to see.  Plus his name's Jimmer.

But Jimmer's not my Player of the Year.  That goes to Jared Sullinger.  Now, when the Preseason All-Americans were announced, I was all up in arms because North Carolina's Harrison Barnes was selected.  Barnes is a freshman.  So is Sulligner.  But the difference is Sullinger has actually played collegiate games.  John Wall was the Player of the Year as a freshman last season, when he was clearly the best player in the nation.  Sullinger's a finalist for all the big national Player of the Year awards, and he deserves to be.  17.4 points, 9.8 rebounds and .558 shooting while starting every game for the No. 1-ranked team in the nation.  As a freshman.  Ohio State wouldn't be this good if Jared Sullinger wasn't this good.

Now, like I said, the remainder of the All-American team is a toss-up.  But I think UConn's Kemba Walker is an easy choice.  The probable Big East Player of the Year, he averages 22.8 points, 5.3 rebounds, 4.5 assists and 1.9 steals per game.  UConn's in the middle of the pack in the Big East, but Walker's the best player in the best league in the country.  And he's got the ability to go off for 30 any given night.

For choice number four, I'm going with Duke's Nolan Smith.  It really is kind a toss up between the Duke guys (Smith and Kyle Singler), but Smith's numbers trump Singler's.  He leads Duke in scoring (21.4 ppg), and also averages 4.9 boards and 5.3 assists per game.  Singler averages 17.2 points and 6.3 rebounds, but that's probably about what you expected from Kyle Singler this season.  Singler was expected to be the guy for the Blue Devils as they attempted to defend their national title, but Smith turned out to be that guy.  Just as importantly, he moved to the point after Kyrie Irving got hurt.  And Duke got along just fine.  That's why Smith gets the nod over Singler.

My final selection is Jordan Hamilton of Texas.  Now, I don't watch that many Big 12 games, so I haven't seen that much of Jordan Hamilton, but the little bit I've seen of him has been impressive.  Talent-wise, there are probably a couple guys just in the Big 12 that are better (Baylor's LaceDarius Dunn, Kansas State's Jacob Pullen, the Morris brothers at Kansas), but Hamilton certainly gets an awful lot out of what he's got.  Plus, his supporting cast isn't as good.  Yet Texas is 24-5 and will likely get either a 1 or 2 seed in the Tournament.  Hamilton's numbers: 18.8 points and 7.5 rebounds per game.  He might get the nod for Big 12 Player of the Year.

There are so many great players in college basketball that I can easily see one of these guys dropping to the second or third team, and there are too many names to mention that picking 10 more would be so difficult I'm not even really going to try.  I'll just throw some of those names out there.  Obviously there's Kyle Singler, but how about Notre Dame's Ben Hansbrough, Purdue's JaJuan Johnson, Georgia's Trey Thompkins, John Leuer of Wisconsin, Tennessee's Scotty Hopson? 

I think you get my drift.  Just know that Jimmer, Sullinger, Walker, Smith and Hamilton are the five best players in the nation.  They deserve to be First Team All-Americans.

And The Bracket Goes To...

For the most part, it seems sports movies (unless they're about boxing) usually get overlooked when it comes to Oscar nominations.  Sure, every once in a while you get a Sandra Bullock winning for The Blind Side, but how many sports movies have been just flat ignored by the Academy?  So, in honor of Hollywood's annual party (aka the Academy Awards) tomorrow night, I've decided to rectify that problem.  I'm proud to present the "Brackets" for the best in sports movies.

Best Actor

• Gary Cooper, The Pride of the Yankees-The original gold standard in sports movies, The Pride of the Yankees is still one of my favorites, as well as an all-time classic.  Gary Cooper's portrayal of Lou Gehrig was brilliant.
• John Cusack, Eight Men Out-This is one of the most underrated movies ever.  It's even underrated among sports movies.  Regardless of your thoughts on the Black Sox Scandal, John Cusack makes Buck Weaver a sympathetic, tragic figure.
• Robert DeNiro, Raging Bull-Robert DeNiro's a brilliant actor, and this might be the best role of his career.  He won an Oscar for this movie.
• Morgan Freeman, Invictus-If you've actually seen it, you'd probably agree that Invictus is really more of a political movie, but sports is the backdrop, so it counts.  And Freeman's Nelson Mandela was so convincing I forgot it was actually Morgan Freeman halfway through the movie.
• Kurt Russell, Miracle-Possibly one of the most underrated sports roles ever, Kurt Russell was amazing as Herb Brooks.  Easily the most realistic portrayal of a real-life coach ever in film (beaten only by Dan Lauria in the Broadway play Lombardi).

And the Bracket goes to...Robert DeNiro

Best Supporting Actor

• Christian Bale, The Fighter-Yes, The Fighter is a good movie.  Yes, Mark Wahlberg was great in it.  But Christian Bale was better.  I think it's possible he'll win the Oscar.
• Charles S. Dutton, Rudy-This might seem like a pretty random nomination, but the scene where Fortune convinces Rudy not to quit and promises to come to his first game explains why Dutton's nominated.  If you haven't seen Rudy, what's wrong with you?
• Tom Hanks, A League of Their Own-Seriously, how great was Tom Hanks in this movie?  "There's no crying in baseball!"
• Dennis Hopper, Hoosiers-I consider Hoosiers the greatest sports movie of all-time, and Hopper shines as Shooter.  He was so good, he got an Oscar nomination.
• James Earl Jones, Field of Dreams-It still blows my mind that he didn't receive an Oscar nomination for this role.  Terence Mann doesn't make you cry (the final scene does), but he's the movie's conscience.

And the Bracket goes to...Dennis Hopper

Best Actress

• Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side-I'll be honest, I've still never seen The Blind Side.  But if the Academy thinks she was good enough to give her an Oscar, that's good enough for me.
• Susan Sarandon, Bull Durham-Nuke and Crash were completely whipped by Annie.  If you've seen the movie, you know why.
• Talia Shire, Rocky-Sly Stallone can't really act, but Talia Shire certainly can.  Rocky was the first sports movie to actually get some Oscar love, and she got one of the nominations.  She is NOT nominated for all other Rocky movies.
• Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby-This movie earned Swank her second Oscar.  She was better in Boys Don't Cry, but she was pretty damn good in Million Dollar Baby, too.  A brilliant casting choice is what helped make that movie so amazing.
• Teresa Wright, The Pride of the Yankees-It came down to her or Geena Davis for A League of Their Own, but Wright received one of her two Oscar nominations that year (yes, two Oscar nominations for one actress in the same year) as Eleanor Gehrig, so she gets the nod.

And the Bracket goes to...Hilary Swank

Best Supporting Actress

• Patricia Clarkson, Miracle-Kurt Russell's performance in Miracle is underrated.  So is Patricia Clarkson's.  Watch the movie again and you'll see what I mean.
• Glenn Close, The Natural-The acting in this movie was so brilliant, Robert Redford and Kim Basinger could easily have been nominated too.  But Close got an Oscar nomination, so she's the one that gets nominated for a Bracket.
• Barbara Hershey, Hoosiers-No, she wasn't as good as Dennis Hopper.  Yes, she was better than Gene Hackman.
• Melissa Leo, The Fighter-I easily could've gone with Amy Adams, but if I'm only picking one of the supporting actresses in The Fighter (which I am), I'm going with Melissa Leo as Alice.  I think she's your likely Oscar winner.
• Madonna, A League of Their Own-Madonna's acting career sometimes borders on ridiculous, but not because of A League of Their Own.  She and Tom Hanks make this movie.

And the bracket goes to...Madonna

Best Performance by Athlete Playing An Athlete

• Ray Allen, He Got Game-He'd never acted before, but you couldn't tell.  Working with Denzel Washington and Spike Lee probably helped.
• Shaquille O'Neal, Blue Chips-The only movie Shaq's ever been in that didn't cast him just because he's Shaq.  And it's also the only movie he's ever done where his acting wasn't so bad you couldn't help but laugh.
• Lawrence Taylor, Any Given Sunday-Yes, this movie is long.  But the football scenes are great.  And LT is as scary in them as he was during his Hall of Fame career as a New York Football Giant.
• Babe Ruth, The Pride of the Yankees-The only person ever to convincingly play Babe Ruth in a movie was the Babe himself.
• Carl Weathers, Rocky-Little known fact: Apollo Creed played seven games for the Raiders in 1970-71 and 18 for the CFL's BC Lions in 1973 before retiring to become an actor.

And the Bracket goes to...Shaquille O'Neal

Best Director

• John G. Avildsen, Rocky-Among the film's 10 Oscar nominations was one for directing.
• Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby-Eastwood's acting in this movie was great, but his directing was brilliant.  It won him a second directing Oscar.
• Hugh Hudson, Chariots of Fire-Honestly, I had no clue who the director of Chariots of Fire was, but he was nominated for an Oscar.
• Penny Marshall, A League of Their Own-She gets all the credit not just for her direction, but for being the brains behind the entire movie that has become a beloved classic.
• Martin Scorsese, Raging Bull-One of the most brilliant directors in Hollywood, Scorsese made the genius decision to film Raging Bull in black & white, and it's one of his greatest films.

And the Bracket goes to...Clint Eastwood

Best Picture

• The Blind Side-Got a Best Picture nomination after they changed the rules to allow for 10 nominees last year.  And Sandra Bullock won.
• Chariots of Fire-Won four Oscars in 1981, including Best Picture.  Subtle in its brilliance.
• Field of Dreams-One of my all-time favorite movies, I still cry every time I watch the final scene.  Best Picture was one of its three Oscar nominations.
• The Fighter-A Best Picture nominee this year, one of seven nominations.  I can't believe it took this long to get it made.
• Hoosiers-I think it's the greatest sports movie ever.  It's the standard that all other sports movies are held to.
• Million Dollar Baby-Not just a great sports movie, one of the best movies of all-time.  Won Best Picture and three other Oscars in 2004.
• The Natural-Received four Oscar nominations.  As a bouns, it was filmed at old War Memorial Stadium in Buffalo and my college advisor was an extra in the movie.
• The Pride of the Yankees-The movie that proved sports movies can not just be profitable, but beloved.  It received 11 Oscar nominations in 1942.
• Raging Bull-My favorite Scorsese movie and my favorite DeNiro movie.  A true film classic, not just a classic sports movie.  Nominated for Best Picture in 1980, but lost to the equally brilliant Ordinary People.
• Rocky-The first sports movie to win Best Picture (in 1976), it inspired six crappy sequels.  But the original is the only one that's a classic.

And the Bracket goes to...Rocky

My Women's Bracket

Yesterday I did the men's bracket and today it's the women's turn.  The women's bracket was a little easier in one regard.  The top seven teams are very clear.  There are three great teams (UConn, Baylor and Stanford), two really good teams (Tennessee and Duke), and two very good teams (Texas A&M and Xavier).  The National Champion will likely be one of these seven.  That makes the one seeds easy and three of the two seeds easy.  Things are a little less clear at the bottom of the bracket (especially since there are a lot of good teams that are theoretically on the bubble), but I don't think there will be that many surprises once the actual field is announced.  And frankly, for the rest of the teams, it doesn't really matter if they're a #3 seed or a #16 seed, because the women's game is so top-heavy this year.  Also, one quick note, teams that are hosting (those with an asterisk) automatically get to play at home if they make the field, which sucks for some higher-seeded teams that would have to play a road game.  With that being said and without further ado, I present my 2011 Women's NCAA Tournament bracket:

PHILADELPHIA
Storrs: 1-*Connecticut (1) vs. 16-Oakland, 8-Houston vs. 9-Arkansas
University Park: 4-*Penn State vs. 13-Appalachian State, 5-Oklahoma vs. 12-TCU
Albuquerque: 3-UCLA vs. 14-Lamar, 6-Georgia vs. 11-Charlotte
Durham: 2-*Duke vs. 15-American, 7-Michigan vs. 10-Syracuse

DAYTON
Knoxville: 1-*Tennessee (4) vs. 16-Hampton, 8-West Virginia vs. 9-Texas Tech
Charlottesville: 4-North Carolina vs. 13-Liberty, 5-Green Bay vs. 12-Old Dominion
Shreveport: 3-DePaul vs. 14-Middle Tennessee, 6-Georgia Tech vs. 11-*Louisiana Tech
Wichita: 7-Vanderbilt vs. 10-Arizona State, 2-Texas A&M vs. 15-Creighton

SPOKANE
Stanford: 1-*Stanford (2) vs. 16-UC Santa Barbara, 8-Iowa State vs. 9-Purdue
College Park: 4-Georgetown vs. 13-Bowling Green, 5-*Maryland vs. 12-Princeton
Spokane: 3-Florida State vs. 14-Montana, 6-Iowa vs. 11-*Gonzaga
Cincinnati: 7-Marquette vs. 10-Marist, 2-*Xavier vs. 15-Monmouth

DALLAS
Waco: 1-*Baylor (3) vs. 16-Southern, 8-St. John's vs. 9-USC
Salt Lake City: 4-Michigan State vs. 13-East Tennessee State, 5-Kentucky vs. 12-BYU
Auburn: 3-Miami vs. 14-Boston University, 6-Temple vs. 11-Kansas State
Columbus: 7-*Ohio State vs. 10-LSU, 2-Notre Dame vs. 15-Eastern Illinois

Final Four: Philadelphia vs. Dayton, Spokane vs. Dallas

There you go.  I think I did it justice.  Things are, of course, subject to change based on the end of the regular season and the conference tournaments.  Before you go, check out "Sports and Other Neuroses," a new blog by my man Drew.

My Bracket

I've been asked when I would put up my bracket projections, so I decided that with just about three weeks to go until Selection Sunday, today would be the day.  Tomorrow we'll do the women's bracket.  Now, this season has been so unpredictable I admittedly have no idea who's going to get into the field or where they'll be seeded.  And this whole 68-team thing is throwing me off a bit, too!  So, the Joe Brackets projections look nothing like those of Bracketology (I think that was trademarked by another Joe, otherwise I'd stake a claim at "Joe Bracektology").  The only things that I can tell you is that I think the top four teams are pretty clear, which made determining the #1 seeds pretty easy, and that some of the unusual seedings and selections reflect some of my projections for the craziness that usually ensues during the conference tournaments.  So, here we go:

EAST
(Charlotte) 1-Duke (1) vs. 16-Furman/Jackson State, 8-Kansas State vs. 9-George Mason
(Tucson) 4-UCLA vs. 13-Kent State, 5-Villanova vs. 12-Butler
(Cleveland) 3-Purdue vs. 14-Fairfield, 6-Kentucky vs. 11-Baylor
(Washington) 2-Pittsburgh vs. 15-Vermont, 7-Xavier vs. 10-St. Mary's

WEST
(Tulsa) 1-Texas (4) vs. 16-Hampton/Cal Poly, 8-Florida State vs. 9-Cincinnati
(Washington) 4-St. John's vs. 13-Belmont, 5-Temple vs. 12-Georgia
(Denver) 3-Arizona vs. 14-Oakland, 6-Louisville vs. 11-Michigan State
(Denver) 2-BYU vs. 15-Northern Colorado, 7-Alabama vs. 10-Virginia Tech

MIDWEST
(Tulsa) 1-Kansas (2) vs. 16-Northwestern State, 8-UTEP vs. 9-Illinois
(Tampa) 4-Florida vs. 13-Wichita State, 5-Connecticut vs. 12-Clemson/Southern Miss
(Tampa) 3-Georgetown vs. 14-Harvard, 6-Minnesota vs. 11-Utah State
(Chicago) 2-Wisconsin vs. 15-Murray State, 7-Syracuse vs. 10-Tennessee

SOUTH
(Cleveland) 1-Ohio State (3) vs. 16-Long Island, 8-West Virginia vs. 9-Washington
(Charlotte) 4-North Carolina vs. 13-Coastal Carolina, 5-Missouri vs. 12-UNLV/Richmond
(Tucson) 3-San Diego State vs. 14-Bucknell, 6-Texas A&M vs. 11-Gonzaga
(Chicago) 2-Notre Dame vs. 15-Florida Atlantic, 7-Vanderbilt vs. 10-Old Dominion

Final Four: East vs. West, Midwest vs. South

Of course, I'm a college basketball fan, not expert, which could be another reason why my bracket might seem a bit weird to some of you.  I will explain some of my thought process, though.  I don't see the Big East getting 11 teams in, and since Cincinnati is a better team than Marquette, I put the Bearcats in and the Golden Eagles out.  And that #4 seed for St. John's might seem a bit high, but St. John's doesn't lose at the Garden, so I have them winning the Big East Tournament, and the conference champion in the best league in the country gets a top-four seed. 

Southern Miss gets the last at-large over Dayton.  The Atlantic 10 is slightly better than Conference USA, but I also think it's highly unlikely Conference USA only gets one bid.  Thus, Southern Miss gets in if they win the regular season.  Tough keeping Nebraska out, but same philosophy with putting UNLV in.  The Mountain West is too good to get only BYU and San Diego State.  That meant I could only pick one of the Big 12 teams (Baylor or Nebraska), and Baylor's the better team right now. 

Feel free to disagree.  That's kind of the point.  My bracket probably won't even look remotely like this on Selection Sunday.

NASCAR's Changes Nothing But Good

I've been wanting to touch on this topic for a couple weeks, and with the Daytona 500 right around the corner, now seems as good a time as any to talk about the changes NASCAR officials instituted during the offseason.  There are two major changes.  One is to the points system.  The other involves Sprint Cup drivers in Nationwide Series races.  My reaction to both changes is exactly the same: It's about time.  They'll both make NASCAR a better, more fan-friendly sport.

The new Nationwide Series rule is something NASCAR has needed for a long time.  The Nationwide Series was started in 1982 as a training ground for younger drivers, many of whom would eventually make their way into the Cup Series.  In other words, it's NASCAR's Triple-A.  Most of the time, the Nationwide and Sprint Cup races are held on the same weekend at the same track.  As a result, almost from the start, regular Cup drivers regularly entered Nationwide races.  Eventually, there were more and more Cup guys in Nationwide races.  Once upon a time, these guys were called "Buschwhackers," but they've been without a name since Budweiser stopped sponsoring the series in 2007.

Now, Buschwhackers have been a problem for a long time.  Not only do Cup drivers win Nationwide races regularly, they collect the prize money and points that go with those victories.  At the expense of the guys who only drive in the Nationwide Series.  Basically, NASCAR would let the New York Yankees take on the Durham Bulls one day, then the Boston Red Sox the next.  It was the only sport where you could compete in the majors and the minors at the same time.  The last FIVE! Nationwide Series champions have been Sprint Cup regulars.  Pretty much as a direct result, there's not a single rookie with a full-time ride in the Sprint Cup Series this season.

NASCAR has finally realized this is a problem.  Starting this season, drivers will only be able to compete for ONE championship.  Sprint Cup drivers can still enter Nationwide races, but now can only go for wins.  The Nationwide Series has gone back to what it's supposed to be: a training ground for younger drivers.

The other offseason change involves the scoring system.  It makes sense now!  There are 43 cars in a race.  If you finish first, you get 43 points.  If you finish last, you get one point.  Under the old system, nobody knew how many points you got for anything.  If you came into a race trailing another driver by 20 points, it was impossible to do the math and figure out the points during the race.  The increments between places was sometimes five points, sometimes four, sometimes three.  Nobody really knew where they changed, though.  And they arbitrarily gave out bonus points for stupid reasons like leading a lap.  (How many times did a driver stay out when everyone else pitted only to get the lap led bonus points?)

Not only is the new scoring system a hell of a lot easier to follow, one bad day doesn't kill you.  In the past, the gap between first place and last place was so great, that you could lose up to 100 points (or sometimes more) on another driver in one race.  There were way too many situations I can remember where somebody would get into an early accident, spend two hours in the garage, then come back out to complete a few laps and pass other guys who'd been knocked out of the race in the interim, only to salvage as many points as he could.  Now the most ground you can lose in one race is 42 points.  The difference between 36th place and 40th place isn't that great.  Is it worth it to bring a junkyard car that has no business being on the track back out there only to gain four points?  Probably not.

Apparently somebody also told NASCAR officials that wins matter, so they also modified the Chase format.  Instead of the top 12 drivers in points after the first 26 races qualifying for the Chase, now only the top 10 qualify automatically.  The other two spots are wild cards that will be filled by the two drivers in the top 20 with the most wins that aren't already in.  If you win five of the first 26 races, but also have 10 DNFs and are 17th in points, you actually get rewarded for those five wins.  What a concept!

I give them credit for finally figuring these things out.  I think they will only improve NASCAR.  I'm as sick as anybody else of Jimmie Johnson winning the championship every year, but he doesn't really get annoying until about August.  It's only February, and the Daytona 500's tomorrow.  Let's just enjoy it.  And for the record, I'm taking Kyle Busch in the race.

Two Tragic Anniversaries

Sorry, but I'm going to be kind of morbid today.  But there's a good reason for it.  I want to look back at two events that shook the sports world to its core and forever changed their sport.  The first is the 50th anniversary of the crash of Sabena Flight 548, which killed all 72 people aboard, including the entire U.S. figure skating team.  The second anniversary is much more recent, and one many of you probably remember: Dale Earnhardt's death on the final lap of the 2001 Daytona 500.

Now I'll be honest, I didn't really know that many details about Sabena 548 until a few days ago, when various websites and publications put out their tributes to those killed in the crash.  I knew that the entire U.S. figure skating team died in a plane crash in 1961, but that's about all I knew.  So, with the help of my trusty friend Wikipedia (as well as the articles on ESPN.com and in Sports Illustrated), I can now provide some background.  The plane took off from JFK (it obviously wasn't called JFK yet, but that's what I know it as, and I don't like "Idlewild") en route to Brussels on Feb. 15, 1961.  The figure skating team would then eventually make its way to Prague for the World Championships.  Everything was going fine until they were just about to reach the Brussels airport.  While waiting for a clear runway, the plane began to move erratically before crashing into a field, killing everyone aboard instantly, including all 18 members of the U.S. figure skating team and 16 coaches/officials/family members.

The crash was so devastating, the World Championships were cancelled.  The sport also lost an entire generation of athletes.  Most of the 1960 Olympic team retired after the Games, including gold medalist Carol Heiss, so the 1961 World Championships were supposed to be the first showcase of that new generation on the international stage.  Instead, U.S. figure skating was decimated.  Many of the 1960 Olympians were forced to come out of retirement, and a number of junior skaters were rushed into the senior ranks.  After dominating the sport in the 1950s, the U.S. only won one medal in 1964 (a bronze), and didn't win another gold until Peggy Fleming in 1968.  A number of foreign coaches also moved to the U.S., since all of the top coaches died in the crash, as well.

As a result of the crash, the U.S. Figure Skating Association declared that no team traveling to an international competition would ever all travel together again.  That rule is still in effect today.  In addition, a scholarship fund was established.  That fund is also still in existence, and it has helped a number of promising young American figure skaters through the years.  A film about the crash is making its one-night-only debut tonight, and in January, the entire 1961 World Championships team was inducted as a group into the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame.  A fitting tribute.

I wasn't alive in 1961, but the other anniversary I remember very vivdly.  It was Feb. 18, 2001.  As usual, NASCAR opened its season with its premier event: the Daytona 500.  The Intimidator's black #3 was running third late in the race, behind two cars that Earnhardt owned: Michael Waltrip's #15 and the #8 car driven by his son, Dale Earnhardt Jr.  Earnhardt Sr. decided to hold his own position and "block" other drivers attempting to pass, so that Waltrip and Junior could duke it out for the win.  Earnhardt was doing a great job of blocking, but on Turn 3 of the final lap, his car was bumped by fourth-place Sterling Marlin.  As he tried to straighten out, Earnhardt was hit by Ken Schrader and his car slammed into the wall.  He died instantly.

Seconds later, Michael Waltrip won his first career race in his 463rd career start.  But as he was looking for his car owner in the Winner's Circle, he wasn't there.  Earnhardt, one of the popular drivers in NASCAR, was gone.  Of course, nobody told him until hours later.  But even now, it's impossible for Waltrip to celebrate.  Not only did he pick up his first career win, but it came in the Daytona 500.  However, that victory will always be marred.  Nobody remembers Michael Waltrip won the 2001 Daytona 500.  People only remember it as the race where Dale Earnhardt died.

Earnhardt's car owner and friend Richard Childress immediately retired the #3, changing it to #29 when Kevin Harvick took over in the car the following week.  He also reversed the color scheme, going from black with white numbers to white with black numbers.  As far as everybody is concerned, that was the right thing to do.  Nobody has even thought about putting that number on the side of a NASCAR again.  The black #3 will always belong to Dale Earnhardt.  When the NASCAR Hall of Fame opened last May, he was a no-brainer to be included in the inaugural class of five.

Starting the following week, there was no commentary on the third lap during the TV coverage of every NASCAR race for the rest of the season (the tribute was later extended to also honor the memory of those lost on 9/11).  Fans would stand and hold up three fingers during that entire lap.  They'll repeat that tribute on Sunday.  As for the race itself, check back next time for my preview.

Vancouver 2010 Memories-Part II

As promised, here's Part II of my favorite moments from the 2010 Olympics.  Since I only featured Americans and Canadians the other day, this post will only include athletes from other countries.  One again, they're not in any particular order:


China swept the women's short track competition,
including three gold medals for Wang Meng.



South Korea's Kim Yu-Na dominated the ladies'
figure skating competition, setting a world record
and winning the gold medal by more than 20 points.



German Maria Reisch, Lindsey Vonn's best
friend, captured a pair of gold medals.

Dutch speed skater Sven Kramer set an Olympic record
in the 5000 meters, then thought he had a second gold in
the 10,000, but he was disqualified because his coach told
him the wrong lane when he was supposed to change.

Torah Bright, who lives in Utah and competes for Australia,
took the gold medal in women's halfpipe snowboarding.

 

Gratuitous shot of German Magdalena Neuner, who
won three medals in biathlon and made my list of
"Hottest Olympians of 2010."

The married Chinese pair of Shen Xue and Zhao
Hongbo, the bronze medalists at the previous two
Olympics, capped their careers with an Olympic gold.

Switzerland's Simon Ammann, a two-time gold medalist
in Salt Lake City in 2002, won two more in Vancouver to
become the most decorated ski jumper in Olympic history.

Norway's Marit Bjoergen won more medals in Vancouver than
anybody--five, including a gold in the sprint and a silver in the
30K classical, the longest women's event in cross country skiing.


So there you go, my look back at Vancouver 2010 is now complete.  My usual blogging will resume on Thursday with a Daytona 500 preview.

Vancouver 2010-One Year Later

I've had some repeated requests recently to start including more pictures in my posts.  Since I don't normally blog on the weekends, I decided to do this special Sunday night post, where I'll do exactly that.  The next two weeks represent the one-year anniversary of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.  As a means of looking back, here are some of my favorite moments of the Vancouver Games (in no particular order):


The ridiculously hot Lindsey Vonn won two
medals, including a gold in the downhill.



Steve Holcomb and the "Night Train" earned the first
U.S. gold medal in four-man bobsled since 1948.



Tessa Virtue, who I declared the "Hottest Non-American
Olympian of 2010" (she's Canadian), took the gold in
ice dancing.  So did Scott Moir, but who cares?!



Five-time Olympic medalist Bode Miller earned
his first career Olympic gold in the super combined.



Bill DeMong's gold in the large hill competition was the
first ever by an American in the sport of Nordic combined.

Alexandre Bilodeau's gold medal in men's moguls
was the first ever won by a Canadian in a home Olympics.

Sidney Crosby caused delerium north of the border
when he scored in overtime to give Canada the gold
over the U.S. in men's hockey.  (This was No. 2 on my
Top 10 Games of 2010 list.)

Just days after her mother died unexpectedly,
Canadian Joannie Rochette earned an emotional
bronze medal in ladies' figure skating.

Apolo Anton Ohno picked up three medals in short
track speed skating, bringing his career total to eight,
the most in American Winter Olympic history.

There are plenty of other moments from Vancouver that I could've picked, but these nine were my absolute favorites.  Maybe there'll be a Part II of this series in the coming days, where I'll remember my favorite Vancouver memories by people from countries not located in North America.  But that's all for now.

The New and Slightly Improved March Madness Schedule

As a college hoops junkie, I obviously love March Madness.  The NCAA Tournament is one of the greatest events in all of sports.  That's why it was so frustrating last year when they were tossing around this idea of expanding it to 96 teams this season.  They evidently didn't listen to the old mantra," If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Are you listening Roger Baddell?  18 games=bad!)  Either they listened to the outpouring of negative response or were just throwing it out there knowing that they weren't going to do it to see what the reaction would be.  Anyway, they decided to go with the relatively modest three-team expansion to 68.  I'm still not a fan of the expanded tournament, but we'll get into that with another blog as it gets closer.  Today's post is actually designed as one of praise for the new NCAA Tournament TV schedule.

One of the big things that the NCAA wanted in its new TV contract was dropping the regional coverage so that fans would be able to see every game live in its entirety.  CBS obviously isn't able to do that (for obvious reasons), so Turner stepped in as CBS's partner.  Now all 67 games will be aired live nationally on either CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV (I'd never heard of this channel until the deal was announced, and I'm still not sure I get it, but the NHL's on Versus and nobody knows whether or not they get that channel either).  This is a good thing.

They just released the time schedule for the entire tournament, and it's going to be wall-to-wall basketball from noon-midnight on all four days during the first weekend.  I'm guessing they're going to wait until the bracket is set and they know who's playing where before they decide which games will be on which networks, but the general schedule looks pretty good.  They'll still have four noon doubleheaders and four 7:00 doubleheaders on Thursday and Friday (with the time adjusted for the afternoon games on the West Coast), but instead of having them all tip-off at roughly the same time and CBS splitting the games regionally, CBS is only going to be at one of the four sites.  TBS will be at another.  TNT will be at the third, and truTV will be at the fourth.  All four games will still be happening simultaneously, but they'll be a little more staggered, and you can now choose which game you want to watch instead of having CBS decide for you.

The big change is on the weekend, though.  Saturday's quadrupleheader on CBS remains, but the other four games are now on TBS and TNT.  But the big change is on Sunday.  The three Turner networks don't have to worry about new episodes of 60 Minutes and The Amazing Race (one of my favorite shows) on Sunday nights, so there will now be Sunday night NCAA Tournament games!  This is probably the most significant positive change out of the new NCAA Tournament TV deal and schedule.  The Sunday night sports slate is usually pretty barren in March.  ESPN will continue to show the women's tournament on Sunday night, but that's really the only other sports option at that time.  Just imagine the ratings TBS and TNT will get for these Sunday night games! 

In week two, CBS and TBS split the Sweet 16 games, while CBS gets the Elite Eight and Final Four.  The Final Four will stay on CBS until 2015, when it will start alternating with TBS every year.  I'm not really the biggest fan of this part of the plan, though.  The Final Four should be on broadcast television.  It's one of those events that should be available to everyone, even if they don't have cable.  I realize that the number of people who don't have cable is about three in the entire country, but my point remains.  And maybe I'm making a big deal about nothing.  TNT and ESPN/ABC have been splitting the conference finals in the NBA for a couple years, and TBS and FOX split baseball's LCS's, and both of those situations seem to be working out fine without really much of an uproar.  But the difference with those leagues is that the NBA Finals are still always on ABC, and the World Series is still only on FOX.  This is why I don't think ESPN will ever get the U.S. Olympic rights, but that's another blog.

And in a smart move, the NCAA is utilizing the same graphics across the board, no matter which network the game's on.  That makes a ton of sense, seeing as they still need eight different production crews.  The games just won't be split regionally.  They'll be on four different channels.  But the idea of keeping everything consistent is a good idea.  The announcers will also be consistent.  There are a couple of changes to work in the Turner guys (Marv Albert's doing some of the games, which is a very, very good thing), but for the most part, it'll be the same NCAA Tournament coverage we're all used to.

I will miss those awesome NCAA Tournament Thursday afternoons where I'd have one game on the office TV, with another game on my computer, the third on my laptop, and the fourth on another computer in the office.  But I'm sure I'll survive.  While I'm still lukewarm on the idea of a 68-team field, it's a lot easier to deal with than the ridiculous 96-team monstrosity they threatened us with.  But the four-network, live coverage of every game thing is easy to get on board with.  And I give the NCAA credit for listening to the fans and giving us what we want.  Are you listening, Roger?

This One's For Mel

I found out this afternoon that Mel Schroeder, one of my college newspaper advisors, passed away the other day.  I won't be able to put into words how much of an impact Mel had on my life, so I'm not even going to try.  Instead, I'm dedicating today's blog to one of the two men (Tom Joyce is the other) most responsible for my passion for writing.

Our deadline was always Thursday night so that the paper could be delivered around campus first thing Friday morning.  As a result, Wednesday and Thursday nights in the Griffin office provided some of my greatest college memories.  Those late nights often ended at 2 or 3 in the morning!  Sometimes we were actually doing work, but more often than not, we were just down there for the hell of it to hang out with our friends...and Tom and Mel would be down there with us.  In fact, I can remember one time Mel invited the staff to his summer house in the country.  This place was tucked away from everything.  No running water.  And we all had a great time!  As you can see, he was more than just a faculty advisor.  He was a friend.

But there was so much more to Mel Schroeder.  He saw our passion for what we were doing.  And I could tell that he shared it.  I was a communications major, and Mel was an English professor.  While I did take one class with him (only because I needed an English class and he was teaching it), we never would've had any real interaction if not for The Griffin.  I'm so grateful for that.  In fact, it's safe to say that Mel helped mold me into the man I am today. 

He recognized my passion and helped me find a way to express it.  (It's almost 10 years later and I'm still doing it, albeit it a very different form!)  I was a guy who cared about only one thing: sports.  At least that's the way it seemed.  That made me a perfect sports editor.  Part of that job was writing the weekly sports column.  That's where I was let loose to write about just about anything (kind of like Joe Brackets).  And that's where Mel's guidance was most helpful.  My columns went from scattered ramblings in the beginning to pointed commentaries about whatever topic I chose that week.  In other words, I became a better writer.  Mel and Tom were directly responsible for that.  Simply telling them "Thank You" never really seemed like it was enough. 

In the final issue before my graduation, I took a different approach with my final column.  I wanted to express how much my days at Canisius, and especially my time at The Griffin meant to me.  Any good writer has a specific article or two that stays etched in their memory years after they write it.  That's one of mine.  Included among the 1000 or so words in that column was a sentence about Tom and Mel.  I may be paraphrasing myself here, but the basic jist of it was: "I didn't expect to find a surrogate father-figure.  I found two."  As with anyone during college, that was sometimes exactly what I needed.  I was so lucky.

My original plan today was to talk about Mel for a paragraph or two, then segue into sports talk.  I know that's what Mel would've wanted, but I can't think of a sports topic that I consider anywhere near as relevant.  Thanks for indulging me.  Anyone who ever met Mel Schroeder probably feels the same way I do tonight.  He was 50 years older than me.  He loved books; I don't read.  I'm a sports guy; his passion for sports was nonexistent.  Yet none of that mattered.  We were friends.  But he was so much more to me.  Goodbye Mel.  We love you and we'll miss you.

The Mistreatment of Michael Young

I'm not a Texas Rangers fan.  While I am a fan of the Rangers (the hockey team), you know where my baseball allegiances lie.  With that being said, however, I do enjoy watching the Rangers play and like many of their players.  Possibly my favorite of them all is Michael Young.  A six-time All-Star (and the 2006 All-Star MVP), Young is the Rangers' all-time hits leader.  He's been the face of the franchise for a decade.  Which is why the Rangers' treatment of Young this off-season has been disgusting!

This is a guy who's done everything he's been asked and then some for the good of that team.  He came up as a second baseman, but moved to shortstop in 2004 after Texas traded A-Rod to the Yankees for Alfonso Soriano.  Then in 2009, he moved to third so that rookie Elvis Andrus could take over at short.  (It's here where I feel the need to point out that Young has made the All-Star team at all three positions.)  This offseason, the Rangers asked Young to switch positions again.  They want to move him to DH!  The reason?  They signed free agent Adrian Beltre to play third base.

Apparently it took reaching the World Series for the Rangers to finally realize that they play in Dallas.  Dallas is the seventh-largest media market in the country.  On one hand, I give the Rangers credit in that they no longer pretend they're a small-market team and have started acting like the big-market team they are.  However, the Beltre signing is a classic big market move.  The Rangers don't need him and didn't really seem to have a plan for what to do with him.  You'd expect a move like this from the Yankees or Mets or Red Sux (who already overpaid for Beltre), but not the Rangers.  Every offseason there's the one free agent signing that leaves you scratching your head and saying, "Huh?", and this is this year's.

Now, this isn't a diatribe about how overrated I think Adrian Beltre is.  The fact that the guy's had two good seasons in a 13-year career (one of which came in Boston, which doesn't really count, seeing as I could hit in the middle of that lineup, and the other of which was a little, shall we say, "enhanced"), both of which led to ridiculous free agent contracts worth more than the guy deserves is irrelevant.  No, he isn't worth $96 million for six years, but don't blame me when he turns out to be the Rangers' Nick Johnson.  The point is that one of the most underrated and most underappreciated players in baseball has been screwed again!

I'm not saying that the Rangers shouldn't have gotten Beltre.  If they want to waste their money on him, that's their business.  What I am saying is that they could've found a way to add him without alienating Michael Young.  Each time Young switched positions in the past, he did it for the good of the team.  He wasn't happy with the move to third base, especially, but he eventually came to realize that the Rangers would be better if he was at third and Andrus was at short.  (Case in point: 2010, when they both made the All-Star team and Texas reached the World Series.)  They didn't bother asking if Young was OK with a move to DH/utility infielder.  Evidently, Young accepted this at first.  Then about two weeks ago, Texas traded for Mike Napoli, a catcher/first baseman who isn't really the best with the fielding.  Which means Napoli's going to get a majority of his at-bats at DH.  And probably at the expense of Michael Young.  That was enough to push Young over the edge.  He's finally demanded a trade!  I say, "Good for you, Michael.  It's about time."

There are a number of teams that could use a productive veteran third baseman/shortstop.  It seems as if the Rockies are the early front-runners, but other teams that would benefit from his services include the Angels (probably not that likely, since they're in the Rangers' division), Blue Jays (in the AL East, so I wouldn't prefer that), Dodgers (definitely an upgrade over Casey Blake), White Sox (it would be easy to move Gordon Beckham to second), and especially the Cardinals (I don't even know who their projected Opening Day third baseman is).  

Michael Young deserves better.  Nolan Ryan and Jon Daniels, I implore you, finally do the right thing where he's concerned.  Give him what he wants.  Trade him.

The Super Bowl Pick

Well, here we are.  I know that many of you have been waiting on pins and needles for two weeks waiting for my Super Bowl pick.  Now that we've reached Super Bowl Eve, the time is right for me to tell you who's going to win and why.

I'll just get down to business right away and give you the pick before I break down why.  The Green Bay Packers will win their fourth Lombardi Trophy by a score of 24-21.  There you have it.  For the gamblers out there (I don't condone illegal activity, but to each his own), that means take the Steelers if you're going against the spread (Packers by 3.5) and take the over (the over/under is 44.5).  I can't help you on the stupid ones like who's going to score first or who's going to win the coin toss, mainly because those don't matter and I don't care.  The only other one where I'm willing to help you is with MVP, where I think Aaron Rodgers is a pretty good bet.

I've tossed this around in my head for pretty much the entire two weeks thinking about which team I thought would win.  Yes, I jumped on the Packers bandwagon in mid-December and said before the playoffs that Green Bay was the best team and was playing the best, which is always a dangerous combination.  But I couldn't just write off the Steelers with their awesome defense and ridiculous amount of experience.  So I went looking for an X-factor, and that's why I'm sticking with the Packers.  I think Rodgers will be that X-factor.

Remember three years ago when Brett Favre retired the first time, only to come back a few months later as a Jet?  I don't think many Packers fans do, either.  Replacing a Hall of Fame quarterback is incredibly tough (ask Jay Feidler or Brian Griese), but Rodgers has thrived since taking over for Favre.  Now he has a chance to join Steve Young (the most successful Hall of Fame replacement ever) in leading his team to a Super Bowl title without that Hall of Famer.  (In fairness, Montana and Young are BOTH in the Hall of Fame, but still.)  At the end of Super Bowl XXIX, where he threw six touchdown passes and was named MVP, Young jokingly asked his 49ers teammates to "take the monkey off his back."  Rodgers has a chance to do just that tomorrow night.  I think he takes the opportunity by the horns and doesn't let go until the Lombardi Trophy goes home to Green Bay.

Both of these teams have great defenses, but the two-week break between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl normally favors the offenses.  I don't think that will be the case this year, though.  Dick LeBeau and Dom Capers are both defensive genuises, so neither one should have a problem developing a defensive game plan that's different than the ones that have been seen and broken down on film over and over and over again duirng the past two weeks.  As a result, I think this game will be more Giants-Patriots than Saints-Colts.  Besides, the defensive playmakers (led by Troy Polamalu and Clay Matthews) are sick.

That's another reason I'm taking the Packers.  Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey won't play.  That creates a big hole in the offensive line that Matthews and B.J. Raji should be able to run right through.  Neither team has much of a running game, and that hole in the line will make it even tougher for Rashad Mendenhall.  In each of their last two Super Bowls, a Steelers wide receiver has been the MVP (Hines Ward in XL, Santonio Holmes in XLIII).  With Mendenhall neutralized, Big Ben will have to throw the ball in order to win once again.  But this time the cornerbacks his receivers are going up against (Charles Woodson and Tramon Williams, plus the safety help from Nick Collins) are significantly better than the cornerbacks that the Seahawks and Cardinals threw at them.  Roethlisberger hasn't been great in either of his Super Bowl wins.  He'll need to be to win a third.  But if he does, and one of the Steelers receivers also has a big day, Pittsburgh might take home a seventh Super Bowl title.

I'm a big fan of Rick Reilly, and he argues that most of America will be rooting for the Packers because the Packers ARE Green Bay.  Since I'm a Giants fan and New York is nothing at all like Green Bay, there's no way for me to possibly utilize this argument as a reason why I think the Packers are going to win.  Instead I'll base it on football.  Both defenses are so good, it's a toss up.  The Steelers have used the big play to win both of their recent titles, but this time I think the Packers make the big plays.  And those big plays will come on offense.  Rodgers has a Pro Bowl receiver in Donald Driver.  I see a long touchdown pass or two coming from this duo.  They're not going to do what they did against the Falcons.  But they don't need to.  One or two big plays will be enough.

But I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Steelers win--for the same reasons why I think the Packers will.  Either way, this could go down as another Super Bowl classic.  And it's going to be mighty entertaining to watch.

The NFL Awards

The NFL has taken a page out of baseball's book and is giving out its postseason awards one by one each day leading up to the Super Bowl, with the MVP being awarded sometime before the game on Sunday (possibly at the game, I don't really know, this is all new).  I like the new way that they're doing it, giving each award its proper due on its own day.  Since I broke down the baseball awards prior to their announcement, I feel inclined to do that for football, as well, even though, I have to admit, I like the way baseball does it better. 

In baseball, you vote for 1, 2 and 3 in order (1-5 for the Cy Young, 1-10 for the MVP) and whoever gets the most points at the end is the winner.  Football's method is much more straight forward.  Everybody gets one vote.  There's no ranking system.  You have to pick one guy.  Whoever gets the most votes wins.  But using the baseball method and giving the writers an opportunity to rank their top three for each award is probably a fairer assessment of the season that just passed.  Seriously, is Tom Brady any more deserving of the MVP than Michael Vick?  Maybe.  But it's certainly not a clear-cut choice in everybody's eyes.  Likewise, how were these guys able to choose between Troy Polamalu and Clay Matthews for Defensive Player of the Year?  Maybe Vick or Matthews wins if a points system is in place instead of a straight votes system.

Now it's time to talk about the awards, starting with Defensive Player of the Year, which was awarded on Monday.  In an extremely close vote, Polamalu edged Matthews 17-15.  The other 18 voters all voted for somebody else, although I'm not really sure why.  This is exactly why I brought up the point about baseball's voting method.  It was basically a flip of the coin between the two.  If those remaining 18 voters had to rank three candidates in order, how many of them would've put Matthews second and Polamalu third or vice-versa?  Would it have been enough to make a difference?  I think it probably would've.  For the record, my vote would've gone to Matthews (although Polamalu might have better hair).

On Tuesday, Tom Brady won Offensive Player of the Year over Michael Vick.  Brady will probably also top Vick for MVP on Sunday, but there's a reason why these are two different awards.  I hate to keep harkening back to baseball when I'm writing a blog about another sport, but the best way to illustrate my point is the McGwire-Sosa home run race of 1998.  Mark McGwire was the best offensive player in baseball that season, but Sammy Sosa was clearly the MVP after leading the Cubs to the playoffs.  The NFL distinguishes between the two, and I think that distinction is important.  Tom Brady had another great season, and I think he deserved Offensive Player of the Year honors.  But you can't tell me he was more valuable to his team than Michael Vick.  Even without Tom Brady, the Patriots are still a playoff team.  They probably still win their division.  Can you say the same about the Eagles without Michael Vick?  Certainly not.  Vick will probably get Comeback Player of the Year as some sort of consolation, but MVP should be about more than just numbers.  Michael Vick made his team better.  Tom Brady did as well, but that's nothing new.  And it's not as significant.

Likewise, will somebody please explain to me how Bill Belichick won Coach of the Year?  The Patriots are always good!  How exactly was this year any different?  They finished with the best record in the NFL at 14-2.  Big deal!  The Chiefs went from nothing into unlikely division champs in the AFC West.  Todd Haley should've been the winner hands down.  Haley didn't even finish second in the voting!  That went to Raheem Morris of the Bucs, although I have less of an issue with Morris.  Tampa Bay was 4-12 last season and was supposed to suck again this year, but ended up 10-6 and just out of the playoffs.  If the Rams had won that last game and won their division, Steve Spagnuolo would've rounded out my top three.  Since they didn't, I'm going with the Falcons' Mike Smith as my bronze medalist.  Honorable mentions to Leslie Frazier and Jason Garrett.  They both took over trainwrecks at midseason and had their teams playing like the playoff contenders they were expected to be by the end of it.

There shouldn't be much controversy when they announce the Offensive and Defensive Rookies of the Year tomorrow.  Sam Bradford and Ndamukong Suh were the top two picks in the draft because the Rams and Lions thought they'd both turn into franchise players.  They were both right.  Bradford almost took St. Louis to the playoffs one year after a 1-15 season, while Suh was one of the best defensive players in all of football, starting the Pro Bowl and being named All-Pro.  He's probably the main reasons why the Lions returned to somewhat relevance this season.  Suh was already named Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Year, which is voted on by the fans.  If Bradford and Suh aren't named the Rookies of the Year, I have to seriously question the football knowledge of the voters.

The last award is Comeback Player of the Year, but that's so clearly going to Michael Vick that it's barely worth even talking about.  The only other guys even worth talking about are LaDainian Tomlinson, who had a nice bounce-back year with the Jets, and Mike Williams, who went from out of football to starting at wide receiver for the Seahawks.  But this vote shouldn't be close.  Neither of those guys was in Michael Vick's league.  Are we talking about Tomlinson as an MVP candidate?  I didn't think so.

Getting Ready For Life Without Andy

It's just two weeks until pitchers and catchers, so it's looking more and more likely that Andy Pettitte will retire.  Ever since the whole Cliff Lee thing went down in December, I've been stressing about what the Yankees' rotation without both Pettitte and Lee would look like.  The possibility of Sergio Mitre and Ivan Nova filling those final two spots in the rotation was definitely scary, but the Yankees have made a couple of moves in the past few days that makes the likelihood of Pettitte retiring a little easier to deal with.  With that, it's time to break down what the 2011 Yankees roster might look like as we head into Spring Training:

Starters-We already knew that regardless of who the other two guys were, CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Phil Hughes are the Yankees' top three starters.  CC's a stud and finished third in Cy Young voting last season, while Hughes made the All-Star team.  Burnett was a disaster from July on, but the amount of money that he makes and the lack of viable alternatives make it pretty obvious that he'll be back in the rotation in 2011.  And let's be honest, when Burnett's on, he's pretty damn good.

Now, if Pettitte and Lee were the other two starters, this rotation would be pretty sick (like the rotation Lee is joining in Philadelphia).  Not so much with Sergio Mitre and Ivan Nova.  Everyone knows that, including (amazingly) Brian Cashman.  So, Cashman went to work and signed established major league starters Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia to minor league contracts.  Both are former All-Stars, and both have had flashes of brilliance against the Yankees at the old Stadium.  I like both signings.  They're exactly what the Yankees needed.

Relievers-For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume they go with 12 pitchers.  That means six relievers, plus Mariano.  They signed former Met Pedro Feliciano as a second lefty to go with Boone Logan.  Damaso Marte is still technically on the roster, but only two leftys will be there against the Tigers on Opening Day.  I wouldn't be surprised if one of the three starts the year on the DL, though.

The decision on the four remaining right-handers should be pretty easy.  Former Rays closer Rafael Soriano was signed to be the eighth-inning guy and Mariano's heir apparent.  He could've signed anywhere else as a closer, but decided he wanted to be the Yankees' set-up man.  He's got lights-out stuff, but he also has the potential to turn into Kyle Farnsworth (although I do need this year's Nick Johnson).  Joba's staying in the bullpen and isn't going to be the regular set-up guy this season.  He did well in that role after they signed Kerry Wood last season, and there's less pressure in the seventh inning.  David Robertson is the utility guy of the pitching staff, and I hope last season's success continues.  I'm assuming they're going with 12 pitchers because Mark Prior is currently on the roster.  Prior and Wood were a dynamic tandem in the early 2000s before the Cubs made both of their right arms fall off.  Prior hasn't pitched in the Majors since 2006, but has such ridiculous stuff I can't see him not making the team.

Catchers-Jorge Posada is going to be the DH this season.  Everyone pretty much just assumed that meant Jesus Montero would be the starting catcher, but then they went out and signed Russell Martin, who was one of the top catchers in the National League for a little while with the Dodgers.  Martin's presence means Montero will spend another season in Scranton.  They've signed another of the Catching Molinas (Gustavo) as a non-roster invitee, but Francisco Cervelli is the backup.  Everyone knows that.  He'll never be a Major League starter, but he's the perfect backup for this team.

Everybody Else-The seven starters are easy.  Teixeira at first.  Cano at second.  Jeter at short.  A-Rod at third.  Gardner, Granderson and Swisher in the outfield.  Ramiro Pena's been the backup infielder for two years and plays good defense at three different positions.  His place on the team is secure.  The other two spots are totally up for grabs, though.  One will obviously be an outfielder, and the other will probably be a utility guy.  Marcus Thames is gone.  With him goes any power options coming off the bench.  Instead, it looks like two of the young guys who came up at various points last year wil make the team.  Figuring out which two it'll be is the hard part.  Do you take Eduardo Nunez, who can play multiple positions, or give him regular at-bats every day at Scranton?  Greg Golson?  I think he makes the team as the fourth outfielder. 

That leaves one spot.  Since Martin can also play third and Swisher can also play first, I think Pena will be the only reserve infielder.  As a result, Nunez and Brandon Laird both start the season in Scranton.  In my opinion, two guys are in the mix for that last spot: Colin Curtis and Kevin Russo.  Curtis is a left-handed batter and has a little more pop, but Russo might have a shot since he can play five different positions.  If I could only choose one of the two, I'm taking Curtis.