Game 7's Are Awesome

In honor of William and Kate, I was going to do a blog about great sports marriages today.  But ESPN.com beat me to it.  And Jim Caple did a much better job than I would've.  So, that's out.  (Wedding sidebar, think there's any chance Pippa Middleton is single?)

Left looking for a subject, I'm going with the one that I would've done yesterday if the hypocricy of the NFL lockout (which is back in place, by the way) wasn't screaming out at me!  Playoff hockey is awesome!  The first two weeks of this year's Stanley Cup Playoffs only served to prove that.  There were four game sevens in the first round, and six of the eight series went at least six games.

There's nothing like a game seven.  Win and advance.  Lose and go home.  It looked like the Canucks would sweep the defending champion Blackhawks before Chicago woke up and Vancouver tried to piss away the series.  But top-seeded Vancouver won game seven in overtime to continue what I think might be an inevitable march to the Finals.

In the East, the only series that didn't go seven was Capitals-Rangers, which was hardly a surprise.  The Rangers tried their hardest to avoid playing for the extra week and a half, and after Washington won two games where it got outplayed, you knew the Capitals were going to win the series in five.  It looked like the Penguins would win their series against the Lightning in five, too, but Tampa Bay shockingly dropped an eight-spot in game five in Pittsburgh, then won game six 4-2 to set up a deciding matchup.  Dwayne Roloson (who I think found the Fountain of Youth once he got to Florida) made 36 saves in a 1-0 victory to complete the Lightning's comeback from 3-1 down.  I wasn't surprised Tampa Bay won the series, but I didn't think it would be because of the play of their goaltender.

It wasn't a surprise at all that the other two series went seven.  I think everyone knew that Bruins-Canadiens was going seven.  But how was a little bit of a surprise.  Montreal won the first two games in Boston, then the Bruins evened the series with two wins in Montreal.  After the Bruins won game five in double overtime, Lady Gaga made them play games six and seven back-to-back.  When it went back to Boston, the Bruins won in overtime for the third time in the series to move on.  I knew that the Sabres would have a chance against the Flyers because of Ryan Miller, and he single-handedly won two games.  The Sabres won in overtime in Philadelphia in game five and had the lead midway through the third period at home in game six.  But Philly pulled it out in overtime, 5-4, then won game seven 5-2 to somehow win the series despite using three different starting goalies.  The Flyers think they can get back to the Finals, but they need to figure out their goalie situation in order to do that.

Now on to predictions for round two (yes, I'm aware that three of the four series have already started).  I can't remember a time when all six division winners actually all advanced to the second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, which creates some really intriguing matchups.  Flyers-Bruins and Sharks-Red Wings could easily both go seven, and the Capitals-Lightning series is made even more unpredictable by the fact that they're division rivals who know each other so well.  The only one that I think has the potential to be a dud is Vancouver-Nashville, although let's give the Predators credit for winning a playoff series for the first time in franchise history.

Of course, I go into that series thinking that, and Nashville makes it a game.  However, Roberto Luongo looked like Roberto Luongo for the first time all playoffs and the Canucks won game one 1-0.  Vancouver's the better team, and my guess is that the Canucks will eventually let the Predators know who's boss.  If Vancouver wants to win the Stanley Cup, they need to win this series quickly and get some rest, because the Western Conference Finals will be a dogfight against whoever wins that Sharks-Red Wings series. 

Like me, the San Jose Sharks are probably tired of the Detroit Red Wings winning the Western Conference every year.  Like the Canucks, San Jose is a team that has traditionally underachieved in the playoffs.  I don't think the Sharks are as good this year as they have been in the past, and the Red Wings are the Red Wings.  This series really could go either way.  The offensive stars on both teams are really good.  It could come down to goaltending, which probably favors San Jose.

The bigwigs at NBC were probably rooting desperately for the Penguins to knock off the Lightning and set up the Washington-Pittsburgh series that would be their "dream" matchup.  But alas, the Capitals are playing Tampa Bay.  For Washington, that's a good thing.  The Lightning see them six times a year in the Southeast Division, but Pittsburgh is deep, talented and experienced.  That would've been a much tougher matchup for the Capitals.  Both teams can score, so it might come down to goaltending once again.  I'm not sure the Dwayne Roloson of old is going to stand on his head two series in a row, so I'm giving the edge to Washington. 

Now, the Boston-Philadelphia matchup is intriguing on several levels.  Led by Zdeno Chara and goalie Tim Thomas, the Bruins have the defense to stop the Flyers' scoring machine, but can Boston score itself?  Those three overtime wins over the Canadiens can only serve to benefit the Bruins, who were outplayed in that series and probably should've lost it.  Likewise, the Flyers could've lost to the Sabres, but found a way to pull the series out.  And don't forget these two played in the same round last year, when Red Sux fans learned what it feels like to lose a series after leading 3-0.  The Bruins will be out for revenge, while the Flyers used that comeback to fuel a Finals run.  It could easily go seven again.  Boston better hope not, though, because they won't win a decisive game in Philadelphia.  For the Bruins to win this series, they need to finish it off in six.

Hypocricy 101

The NFL Draft is currently on TV.  I'm currently not watching it, which I'm sure doesn't surprise any of you.  I don't watch college football, and I'm not sure how you can take something that should take two hours and extend it into three days worth of television.  Seriously, how much analysis of each pick do you need (both before and after its made)?  And why do you need 15 minutes in the first round?!  The Panthers have known they have the No. 1 pick since January!  They should know who they want by now.  (In 2002, the Texans used their entire time to draft David Carr, who they'd already signed!)

Anyway, my rant about the NFL Draft is just part of a larger point.  The draft is designed to help teams get better by selecting a player that they hope will fill a certain need.  Usually, they know what those needs are.  But that's not the case this season.  Because of the lockout, free agency, which usually starts in the beginning of March, has yet to begin, and teams aren't allowed to make trades either.  Normally you'll also use trades and free agency to improve your team, leaving a couple holes left to fill in the draft.

But my favorite part about this year's NFL Draft is that they proudly have "more prospects than ever before" attending.  Why?  These guys are going to get drafted by a team, but won't be allowed to sign or do anything.  So what exactly is the point then?  Because it was already scheduled and the NFL wants to keep acting as if everything is functioning as normal?

Let me see if I've got all this straight...the owners lock out the players, the players go to court for the right to play, are given that right back by a judge, then start going back to team facilities, where they aren't allowed to do anything.  And the owners want us to believe that this is all somehow the players' fault? 

Mr. Brilliant Commissioner summed up the potential "dangerous ramifications" of the players winning the labor battle in an opinion piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal on Monday.  Ignoring the sheer idiocy of arguing your case in a newspaper that 95 percent of sports fans don't read (unless they're also checking their stock quotes), everything he wrote completely contradicts everything that the owners claim to want.  He paints a doomsday scenario that is completely far-fetched and utterly ridiculous.  I especially love the bullet points.  Yes, all that stuff is clearly going to happen.

Our boy Roger (or, should I say, the owners' boy) has rightfully been trashed by just about everyone for his contribution to American journalism.  And all of those criticisms are correct about a couple key points.  For starters, he says "there has been a work stoppage as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with the players."  Evidently even the NFL owners don't know the difference between a strike and a lockout.  The reason there's a work stoppage is because the owners aren't letting the players come to work!  He also cries about the lockout being lifted and saying it "may endanger the NFL."  No, I'm pretty sure playing football will NOT endanger the future of the National Football League.  Not playing for an entire season worked for the NHL, which had a broken system that needed fixing.  Hey Rog, if it ain't broke don't fix it.  It's broke now, though.  Because the owners threw it on the floor and smashed it into a million pieces.

In a nutshell, Baddell argues that the pre-March status quo is the best thing for the league, even though the owners decided they didn't like that status quo, which is the reason why we even had a lockout in the first place.  So, I'm still not sure I've got this...the old CBA didn't work for the owners when they signed it, when they opted out of it, or when they initiated the lockout, but now that they're completely getting their asses kicked by the players they think it's OK and want to go back to it?  Am I the only person who's confused here?

The NFL owners are afraid of a free market system that seems to work pretty well for the rest of America.  That's not even what the players want!  And now that the owners aren't getting their way, it's somehow the players' fault that they didn't like the last deal, which is now suddenly the greatest thing since sliced bread?  Maybe they don't understand what "hypocricy" means either.

If the Dodgers Never Left Brooklyn

That whole Fred Wilpon trying to make Citi Field look like Ebbets Field thing got me thinking, "What would it be like if the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn?"  For starters, the Mets wouldn't exist.  But all the other franchise moves since probably wouldn't have happened either (at least not to the same cities).  With all that in mind, it's time for a little revisionist history.

Since the three franchise shifts that preceded the Dodgers and Giants going to California had already happened, I'm not going to pretend they didn't.  So, it's 1957, the Orioles have already moved to Baltimore, the A's have packed up and left Philadelphia for Kansas City, and the Braves have set up shop in Milwaukee.  Here's where we start to change things.  Walter O'Malley gets what he was asking for, Robert Moses stops blocking his every move, and the Dodgers stay in Brooklyn.  However, the Giants already had one foot out the door.  They were gone.  They were all set to move to Minneapolis before O'Malley convinced them to go to San Francisco instead.  Let's say they do move to Minnesota.

Now it's 1961 and the first round of expansion is set to begin.  Four years earlier, the original Washington Senators were the other team in discussions to move to L.A.  The Dodgers aren't there, so the Senators are the team that moves to L.A., becoming the Angels, which means the Angels are no longer an expansion team.  The new Senators, the ones that became the Rangers, still join the American League, but they're joined by a companion team in San Francisco.  The 1962 National League expansion still includes the Houston Astros, but with no need for a replacement team in New York, an expansion team in Atlanta joins them.

As a result, the Braves can't move to Atlanta and stay in Milwaukee.  Likewise, with an American League team already in the Bay Area, the A's never leave Kansas City.  The National League sees the success of the two American League teams in California, so instead of San Diego, the NL adds its own in L.A. to join Montreal.  The AL still expands to Seattle, but the A's are still in Kansas City, which means the Royals never come into existence.  With San Diego available as an expansion target, the Padres become an American League team instead.  And the Braves are still in Milwaukee, which means the Pilots don't bolt the Pacific Northwest after just one season.

The Senators becoming the Rangers in 1972 still happens, but Washington doesn't have to wait 34 years for a replacement team.  Instead, the new Senators join the American League with the Blue Jays in 1977.  The four expansion teams in the '90s (Colorado, Florida, Arizona and Tampa Bay) aren't affected at all.  The Brewers switched leagues when the Diamondbacks and Rays began play, so we'll move the same franchise. 

The only remaining issue is what happens with the Expos.  I'm not sure the National League would necessarily be dying to have a team in Oakland, especially with that stadium.  But since they were able to figure out the stadium situation (and the Orioles' objections) to move them to Washington, we'll go ahead and put the Nationals in Oakland.

So, we still have all 30 teams in their current cities, but the division alignment is slightly different, as are (probably) some of the team names.

AL East: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Tampa Bay Rays, Washington Senators
AL Central: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Athletics, Toronto Blue Jays
AL West: Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Seals, Texas Rangers
NL East: Atlanta Crackers, Brooklyn Dodgers, Florida Marlins, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates
NL Central: Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati Reds, Houston Astros, Milwaukee Braves, Minnesota Giants, St. Louis Cardinals
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Los Angeles Stars, Oakland Klondikes, Seattle Pilots

There you have it.  My vision of what the baseball landscape would look like if the Dodgers had stayed in Brooklyn.  It's safe to say that things would've been a little different if Walter O'Malley hadn't moved his team cross country 50 years ago.

My Visit to Citi Field

Thanks to Coach Slingbox, I went to the Mets-Diamondbacks game last night.  It was my first game at Citi Field this season and just the second time I've ever been there.  I didn't go to any Mets games last year (other than one Subway Series game at Yankee Stadium), but I made it a point to go to Citi Field when it opened in 2009. 

Two years ago, I wasn't impressed with the place.  The Mets desperately needed a new ballpark, and it was certainly a drastic improvement over Shea Stadium, but I thought it was really weird that the stadium in Queens where the New York Mets play paid homage to the Brooklyn Dodgers, a different franchise that played in a different borough.  (It was made even weirder by the fact that the Mets' opponent that night was the Dodgers).  I'm not a Mets fan, but I don't dislike the Mets either.  Even still, that really bothered me and left a sour taste in my mouth.  The Mets have won two World Championships and have plenty of their own history.

I was pleased to find out that after Citi Field opened, a lot of Mets fans had the same criticisms/complaints about the ballpark as I did.  And I give Fred Wilpon a certain level of credit for listening to them, even if it was a year too late.  Fred, you own the New York Mets, NOT the Brooklyn Dodgers.  You were a Dodgers fan growing up.  Good for you.  That has nothing to do with the Mets or their fans, many of whom are too young to know the Dodgers ever played somewhere other than Los Angeles.  They were rightfully confused as to why the stadium honored Jackie Robinson basically everywhere you looked (the big 42 in the main entrance is completely ridiculous), but had nothing recognizing Tom Seaver or Dwight Gooden or Gary Carter, let alone current players like David Wright.

So it was a really pleasant surprise to visit Citi Field and see the changes that have been made, which are all definite improvements.  The Mets Hall of Fame is what I really wanted to check out, and it lived up to the billing.  The Mets obviously don't have as much history as their American League counterparts in the Bronx, so the Mets Hall of Fame and the Yankees Museum are completely different.  That's the point.  The Mets aren't the Yankees, just like they aren't the Brooklyn Dodgers.  They're the New York Mets, and they've done a lot of stuff and had some really great players in their 50 years.  The Mets Hall of Fame appropriately recognizes those 50 years.

When you walk in, you're greeted by the Mets' version of Monument Park, bronze plaques honoring the members of the Mets Hall of Fame.  They also have the 1969 and 1986 World Series trophies and championship rings on display.  Other stuff includes a display of all the awards won by Tom Seaver, the greatest player in franchise history, a pair of those awesome ugly orange seats from Shea Stadium, and tickets stubs from both the first home game in franchise history and the first game at Shea.  My favorite part, though, was the two gigantic display cases celebrating the 25th anniversary of the 1986 Mets, one of the most talented, most entertaining baseball teams ever.  Among the items included were Jesse Orosco's hat and glove (the one he threw up in the air after the final out of the World Series), Gary Carter's catching gear (can you tell Carter was my favorite player growing up?), ticket stubs from all seven games, and autographed jerseys from virtually anybody on the team you can think of.  The Brooklyn Dodgers jerseys and t-shirts were in the gift shop, which is where they belong.

The Mets also get bonus points for keeping the museum open after the game, which the Yankees don't.  They also get bonus points for having much more reasonable concessions prices (my $6 slices of pizza notwithstanding) and ticket prices that are generally cheaper (and much easier to get).  Subway access is also a lot easier than it was at Shea.

Now, don't get me wrong, I still like Yankee Stadium better and there are still plenty of flaws with Citi Field (including the team on the field).  We were sitting along the first base line and there was no scoreboard anywhere in left field.  I also still don't understand why the right field wall is 15 feet further back than it should be or why they have seats in there when the people with those tickets can't really see anything.  But my overall impression of Citi Field is much higher now than it was after my first visit.  I didn't get a chance to explore all of the other features that Mets fans rave about, but I know I'll make it back there at some point.  And who knows, maybe the Mets will make it worth my while at some point, too.

The 1986 World Series trophy

Tom Seaver's awards

Gary Carter's catching gear

Jesse Orosco's glove from the 1986 World Series

Expanded Playoffs=Bad Idea

Before I get going with today's post, you have to check out the video of the guy from Real Madrid dropping the Copa del Rey (the cup that goes to the Spanish league champion) and the trophy then getting run over by the team bus.

That video has nothing to do with the post, I just find it hilarious.  Don't worry, the Spanish soccer federation said that the trophy can be fixed...and the company that makes the trophies gave them a replica for the time being. 

Anyway, on to today's topic: the proposed expanded baseball playoffs.  Bud Selig said it's going to happen, and with the CBA set to expire in December, it looks like the 2012 MLB playoffs will consist of 10 teams, not eight.  As a die-hard baseball fan, you think I'd be all about this.  But I'm not.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And the MLB Postseason ain't broke (well, it kind of is, but that's a whole other subject).

The way I understand it, the three division winners would get a couple days off (since that's what these teams need, more off days in October) while the two wild cards play either a single game or a three-game series.  I would imagine the winner would then play the division winner with the best record and the other two division winners would play, with the rule that you can't play a team from your own division in the Division Series eliminated.  But I'm not really sure what kind of format they want to use.

Again, you'd think I'd be on board with this, and there are some elements of the proposed new format that I like, but I'm ultimately not sure baseball needs a second wild card team in each league.  After 162 games, the top four teams in each league should be pretty clear.  I know some people are shocked to think that there can be a playoff year without both the Yankees and Red Sux, but last year turned out to be one of those years.  It wouldn't have if there were two wild cards, though.  In fact, it would've meant that the Yankees and Red Sux played each other again for the AL Wild Card even though the Yankees finished SIX GAMES ahead of Boston and were fighting with Tampa Bay and Minnesota for home field advantage until the last game.  That great NL West race between the Giants and Padres would've been meaningless, too.  In 2009, Boston won the AL wild card by eight games over Texas and Colorado won the NL wild card by four games over San Francisco (the Giants and Rangers of course, coincidentally, played each other in the World Series the next season).  When the Yankees missed the playoffs in 2008, they would've gotten in as the second wild card despite finishing six games out in that race, while the Mets' collapse that season wouldn't have been anywhere near as historic (they would've clinched the second wild card by 2 1/2 games).  And that 2007 NL Wild Card Game between the Rockies and the Padres (the one where Matt Holliday still hasn't touched home) never would've happened, since they both would've been in the playoffs anyway.  And lest we forget that the freakin' Diamondbacks had the best record in the National League that season, a stellar 90-72!

My point is, this isn't the NBA or NHL.  You don't have half the league making the playoffs.  And that's a good thing.  From 1903-68, only two teams made the playoffs.  That's 12.5 percent during the 16-team days and 10 percent after both leagues expanded to 10 teams in 1961 (AL) and '62 (NL).  When they added four teams and the LCSes in 1969, the percentage of teams that made the playoffs increased to 16.7 percent.  That number fluctuated with further expansion, then they added the Rockies and Marlins in 1993 and split into three divisions the following year.  With the addition of the wild card, the number of playoff teams increased to 28.6 percent.  After the Rays and Diamondbacks came into existence in 1998, that number became the current 26.7 percent, which is the lowest among the four major sports.  But baseball's regular season is also the longest.  162 games is plenty to separate the haves from the have-nots.  If teams finished tied, that's one thing.  But let's use the 2009 Rangers as an example.  Even if they'd made the playoffs, would anybody have been under the delusion they were going to the World Series?  No.

ESPN.com did a point-counterpoint thing about this with a couple of its bloggers, and another very good point that I hadn't really thought about was made.  We'll pretend this is last season, when the Yankees and Rays were separated by a game for the AL East and best record.  Both teams were already in the playoffs, so neither one really cared which won the division (I still believe that the Yankees wanted to play the Twins anyway).  For argument's sake, say they both go all out to win the division, so CC Sabathia and David Price both pitch the last game.  Whichever one ends up in the Wild Card Game now doesn't have its ace available in a potential do-or-die matchup with an inferior opponent, which may or may not have been able to set up its ace to pitch in that game.  When a one-game playoff happens, both teams are usually in similar situations.  That wouldn't necessarily be the case if you have two wild card teams. 

It also creates the potential for a third-place team to win the World Series, which I'm sure the purists would love.  And, if you think about it, football used to have three wild card teams in each conference, but dropped that number to two when they went to four divisions and nobody said a word.  There's no need for 16 teams to make the playoffs in both the NHL and NBA, but that's not really the point.

A lot of purists still haven't gotten over the fact that there are wild cards in the first place.  I can't even imagine what their reaction to a second one in each league would be!  The wild card has proven its worth and achieved its purpose, which is to make sure that the best teams are in the playoffs, even if they don't win their division.  At least one wild card team made the World Series every season from 2002-07 and four wild card teams have won it all.  But that still doesn't make me sure you need a second wild card team.  There's a big difference between the 2004 Red Sux and the 2010 Red Sux.

Some might argue that having two wild cards eliminates the possibility of a better team getting upset by one or two pitchers in a short series.  But that's what makes the current format so great.  That's exactly why wild card teams are able to make so much noise in the playoffs.  Why handicap them simply because they didn't win their division?  If you're a better team, go out and prove it on the field.  It shouldn't matter who's pitching.  And if Major League Baseball wants to take a step to eliminate that, make the Division Series best-of-seven instead of best-of-five.  That would also get rid of most of Bud's unnecessary off days.

This looks inevitable, so I'm going to have to accept it at some point.  But I don't have to embrace it, and right now I'm choosing not to.  I probably won't be coming around on the "First Four" anytime soon either.

Beyond the NHL

There are a number of different topics that I could've blogged about today (MLB taking over control of the Dodgers, the baseball playoffs likely expanding to 10 teams, the NFL claiming it can still get the whole season in), but we'll touch on those another day.  Instead I want to talk about something that most likely flew under most people's radar.  Seeing as it involves the NHL, that's probably a pretty safe bet.

The piece of news that you missed out on was the announcement that the NHL will be staying on NBC and Versus for the next 10 years.  Of course, there weren't really any other bidders (ESPN allegedly was interested, but I don't buy it, since that means they would've had to scale back their obssesion with the NBA and actually show some hockey), but that's not really the point.  This is a very good business move for all involved.

When the lockout ended, nobody wanted the NHL.  Versus was looking to establish itself as a legitimate player in the competition for the TV deals in all four major leagues and was willing to give the NHL something nobody else would give (guaranteed money), so the marriage was a perfect fit for both.  NBC signed on as the broadcast partner, mainly because NBC had just lost the NBA and NBC Sports at the time consisted of the Olympics and NASCAR.  That was the perfect marriage, too, since nobody watches NBC and nobody watches the NHL.

The Versus-NBC thing worked out well for everybody, and all three partners wanted to renew the deal.  (The fact that Comcast, which owns Versus, recently bought a majority share of NBC certainly helped, too.)  But no one could've expected that the new agreement would be for 10 years, keeping the NHL on NBC and Versus through the 2020-21 season.  Here's the catch: NBC will give the NHL a rights fee, which it didn't do in the previous deal, and the deal is going to be worth nearly $2 billion during the life of the contract.

There are also some other little perks in the deal.  Versus keeps the All-Star Game, Heritage Classic and two games of the Finals.  The number of regular season games on the network will increase from 50 to 90, and all playoff games are exculsive after the first round.  NBC keeps the Winter Classic, the national "Game of the Week" on Sunday afternoons after football season ends, and most of the Finals.  They also get an increased number of games in the earlier rounds of the playoffs and a new national game on the day after Thanksgiving, presumably in the afternoon (once again, going against college football and nothing else).  In short, the NHL's new TV deal is win-win-win for NBC, Versus and hockey fans.

But the NBC-Comcast merger goes beyond the NHL.  NBC's Olympic rights are up for renewal, and FOX and ESPN are expected to present competing bids.  There's some speculation that Comcast might not want to commit the same amount of money for Olympic rights as GE did, but the Olympics have become such a part of NBC Sports' identity (not to mention the only thing on NBC that people watch), I just don't think that will be the case.  (More on this as we get closer to the IOC choosing a U.S. rights holder.) 

Anyway, back to the point.  Versus is going to rebranded sometime soon to reflect its place in the NBC Universal family.  Think about next year's London Olympics for a minute.  There's obviously going to be a ton of coverage on the broadcast network, but now you're adding Versus to the ridiculous number of cable channels at NBC's disposal.  In addition to the coverage on NBC itself, the London Olympics will probably be on FIVE! cable networks (if not more).  CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo and USA have already been utilized to cover the team sports and less marquee events, and that's likely to expand even more if they're smart enough to also use Versus in London (and I know for a fact that Dick Ebersol IS that smart).

I know most of you don't care about the Olympics anywhere near as much as I do.  I also know that there aren't really that many of you that care enough about the NHL either.  But as a fan of both, I'm excited about the NBC-Comcast merger and the possibilities it has created.

Schedule Release Day

Now we officially know which NFL games will be cancelled when/if the lockout drags on into the start of the season.  I find it incredibly interesting how the NFL had its annual schedule release show and the analysts on ESPN acted like there's no question all 256 games will be played, even though that seems extremely unlikely right now.  Anyway, the schedule is out.  We knew as soon as the season ended who would be playing who and where, but now then when has been added to the equation.  "If" is still up in the air, but for the sake of argument, we'll act like the analysts and assume every game is going to get played and there won't be any interruptions in the season.

Week 1: As always, the defending Super Bowl champ starts the season with a home game on Thursday night.  This year, we get the last two Super Bowl champions, as the Packers host the Saints.  The Colts visit the Texans, who beat them in Week 1 last year.  Falcons at Bears, the top two seeds in last year's NFC playoffs, and Steelers at Ravens, the best rivalry in the AFC.  The Giants visit the Redskins, an appropriate matchup on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.  The Cowboys visit the Jets on Sunday night, and the now annual Monday night doubleheader is Patriots-Dolphins and Raiders-Broncos (I predict no one will watch this game).

Week 2: The best game of Week 2 is Michael Vick vs. the Falcons on Sunday night.  The Monday night game is Giants-Rams, although I'm not exactly sure why that's the Monday night game.  The best afternoon games are probably Bears at Saints and Chargers at Patriots, which I'm guessing will be the doubleheader game.

Week 3: Week 3's got some good ones.  Giants-Eagles, Chiefs-Chargers, Falcons-Bucs, Packers at Bears in the NFC Championship Game rematch.  The Sunday night game is a beauty: Steelers at Colts.  On Monday night, we've got one of the required six NFC East primetime games when the Redskins play the Cowboys in Dallas.

Week 4: The afternoon games aren't really that exciting.  The best matchup is probably Vikings at Chiefs, but there's also a showdown between NFC division winners Atlanta and Seattle.  Dolphins-Chargers is probably going to be the national late game and, come to think of it, 49ers-Eagles doesn't look that bad.  The night games make up for it.  Jets-Ravens on Sunday night, Colts-Bucs on Monday night (the last time they played, it was a Monday night in 2003, and the game was fantastic!).

Week 5: Byes finally start in Week 5, which seems kind of late.  CBS has a phenomenal doubleheader with Chiefs-Colts and Jets-Patriots.  Seahawks-Giants is probably the best FOX game.  Sunday night is a good one between the Packers and Falcons, and Ford Field hosts a Monday night game for the second time, and this time the Lions will actually be one of the teams playing in it (against the Bears).

Week 6: Nothing really exciting in the afternoon except for Cowboys-Patriots, which is good, since that'll give me the chance to watch the baseball playoffs without feeling like I'm missing something.  The night games are good division matchups: Vikings-Bears on Sunday, Dolphins-Jets on Monday.

Week 7: The London game is Bucs-Bears.  It's the second time the Bucs are playing in the London game.  Some people might wonder why, but I think the fact that the Bucs' owner also owns Manchester United might have something to do with it.  (If the lockout continues until August 1, they'll move this game to Tampa.)  Back Stateside, the Chargers play the Jets and there'll be a Favre-less Packers-Vikings game.  There's a Sunday night game going against the World Series for the second straight year, as the Colts play the Saints.  Monday night it's Ravens-Jaguars.

Week 8: The NFL continues its annual venture into foreign lands, as the Bills play their annual Toronto game against the Redskins.  (The couldn't have held it this early last year, but I don't think they would've had to worry about the Blue Jays playing in the World Series either way.)  Dolphins-Giants in a yummy interconference matchup and Patriots-Steelers in the doubleheader game.  Cowboys-Eagles on Sunday night and Chargers-Chiefs on Monday night.

Week 9: Halfway there!  The marquee matchup at the midway point is obviously Giants-Patriots in Foxboro.  But there's good games all around: Falcons-Colts, Packers-Chargers, Dolphins-Chiefs, Bucs-Saints.  Ravens-Steelers Round II is the Sunday night game, and the Bears play the Eagles on Monday night.

Week 10: Time for the Thursday night games to start.  (That would excite me more if I got the NFL Network at home.)  Anyway, the first Thursday night game is Raiders-Chargers.  Nothing exciting Sunday afternoon other than Saints-Falcons.  But they make up for it with Patriots-Jets on Sunday night and Vikings-Packers on Monday night.

Week 11: This Thursday night game I'll be able to watch, since the Jets play the Broncos.  And the Giants play the Sunday night game (at home against the Eagles), which means this is the rare week I'll actually get to watch both national games.  The late game is Chargers-Bears.  I have no idea what the early game on CBS will be, but the FOX options are Bucs-Packers and Cowboys-Redskins.  Monday night it's Chiefs-Patriots.

Week 12: No surprise on Thanksgiving.  The Lions play the Packers on Turkey Day a lot, and with Green Bay the defending Super Bowl champions, this one was a no-brainer.  The only choices for the Cowboys game were the Dolphins and Bills, which made that choice incredibly easy.  Thanksgiving night is Niners-Ravens.  They obviously save the good games for Thanksgiving and primetime in Week 12, but they did leave two good ones on Sunday afternoon.  Vikings-Falcons early and Patriots-Eagles late.  Sunday night is Steelers-Chiefs, although I have a feeling that one might get flexed out.  Giants-Saints in New Orleans is one of the better Monday night games of the season.

Week 13: Colts-Patriots is really late this year.  They saved it for Sunday night in Week 13.  Sunday afternoon's highlights are Chiefs-Bears, Jets-Redskins and a dandy between the Packers and Giants.  The Eagles and Seahawks get the week started in Seattle, while the Chargers and Jaguars finish it about as far away from Seattle as you can possibly get (Jacksonville).

Week 14: This is a Thursday night game I wish I could watch: Browns at Steelers.  Colts-Ravens and Chiefs-Jets are both listed as early games right now, but I have a feeling that will change.  FOX gives us Eagles-Dolphins, as well as Jay Cutler's return to Denver.  Your NFC East primetime matchup is Giants at Cowboys on Sunday night, and the Rams and Seahawks play on Monday night.

Week 15: There are two games on NFL Network in Week 15: Jaguars-Falcons on Thursday and Cowboys-Bucs on Saturday.  There's a good lineup on Sunday afternoon with Saints-Vikings, Seahawks-Bears in a playoff rematch, Redskins-Giants, Packers-Chiefs, Patriots-Broncos and Jets-Eagles.  Sunday night's also a good one: Ravens-Chargers.  And I really like that Monday night game between the Steelers and 49ers.

Week 16: Since Christmas is on a Sunday this year, they moved the slate of games that's usually on Sunday afternoon to Saturday.  In the spirit of giving, the NFL lets both the Giants and Jets stay home for Christmas (the Jets are the home team).  And they're evidently hoping that whole "good will towards man" thing is true, since they've got a bunch of games between teams that don't really like each other (Raiders-Cheifs, Dolphins-Patriots, Eagles-Cowboys).  I also highly doubt that there'll be much Christmas Cheer being spread between the Bears and Packers on Christmas night in Lambeau.  The Texans and Colts play on Thursday night in Indy and the Monday night finale is Falcons at Saints.

Week 17: Christmas on a Sunday means New Year's is also a Sunday.  All 65 bowl games move to Monday, as does, presumably, the Winter Classic.  There also aren't any Thursday, Saturday or Monday night games.  Just a Sunday night game, which the NFL will pick the week before, and 15 games on Sunday afternoon.  And for the second straight year, all 16 Week 17 games will be division matchups.  Presumably one of those will be for a division title and get Sunday night treatment, like Rams-Seahawks did last year.  The matchups are: AFC East-Bills at Patriots, Jets at Dolphins; AFC North-Ravens at Bengals, Steelers at Browns; AFC South-Colts at Jaguars, Titans at Texans; AFC West-Chiefs at Broncos, Chargers at Raiders; NFC East-Cowboys at Giants, Redskins at Eagles; NFC North-Bears at Vikings, Lions at Packers; NFC South-Bucs at Falcons, Panthers at Saints; NFC West-49ers at Rams, Seahawks at Cardinals.  There's really no way to predict what'll end up being the Sunday night game, but I'm going to make an early guess of Chargers-Raiders.

The Super Bowl's on NBC in Indianapolis.  It's scheduled for February 5, but the NFL has said that they'll move it back a week if the lockout continues.  No word on the 256 regular season games.  But at least we know when everybody's technically supposed to play.  If they play.

What a Waste Of Money

I normally enjoy Rick Reilly, but I found his most recent column completely unreadable, and not just because it's an NBA playoff preview.  I didn't even get that far.  I stopped reading after the second paragraph, the "Barry Bonds, convicted felon" part.  Yes, he was technically convicted of a felony, but forgive me if I don't consider obstruction of justice to be a particulary heinous crime.  It's not like he killed someone or is actually going to spend time in jail, which is more than Michael Vick or Plaxico Burress can say. 

Even more, does anyone even care about Barry Bonds anymore?  The federal government just wasted a whole bunch of the taxpayers' time and money to tell us all something that we already knew.  Barry Bonds took steriods and most likely lied about it, but there was no way to prove it.  Wow, I'm glad my tax dollars were used so effectively.  It's a good thing they didn't have any rapists or murderers (you know, REAL criminals) to prosecute.  This just in, the Roger Clemens trial is going to go pretty much exactly the same way.

I know I'm in the minority with my general stance on the Steroid Era, which I'll get to in a minute, but I don't think I'm alone in wondering when the government will go back to worrying about things that are actually important.  Barry Bonds took steroids.  So did Roger Clemens.  So what?  Is it really worth all that time and taxpayer money to pretend we still care?  Or that what they did actually matters?  Or that public opinion about either one is actually going to change?

The real shame here is that Bonds and Clemens aren't going to take their rightful places in Cooperstown.  Like I said, I know I'm in the minority about the Steroid Era, but my stance isn't going to change and I'm fine with that.  The 1990s happened.  Major League Baseball ignored the steriod thing while it was happening, and it's not fair for us fans to be made the judge and jury now, 10 years after the fact.  Just like it's not fair that the writers who actually vote for the Hall of Fame are the ones left to decide whose numbers are legitimate and whose aren't.  Some of them hold it against everyone from the era, which is their right, while others take it on a case-by-case basis.  I understand that most of you agree with the writers.  I respect your position, but I disagree with it. 

We don't know who was on steriods, so we can't say "Barry Bonds was, so his numbers aren't legitimate, but Omar Vizquel was clean, so everything he did is valid."  Either everybody's numbers are suspect or you just have to accept the era for what it was.  Major League Baseball considers all statistics put up during that era to be legitimate, which is good enough for me. 

Besides, steroids or not, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were two of the best players of their era.  Which brings me to this question: If the Hall of Fame is a place to recognize the greatest ever to play the game, how do you explain why the all-time hits leader, all-time home runs leader, and the man with more Cy Young Awards than anybody aren't members?  The very good ESPN.com baseball writer Jayson Stark touched on this the day the Bonds verdict came out.  He's right.  Think about how weird it'll be to visit Cooperstown in 10 years and players like Bonds, Clemens, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, etc., don't have plaques, but guys like Bill Mazeroski and Rabbit Maranville (he played for the Braves in the 10's and 20's, look up his stats) do?  (It's here that I need to point out that Ty Cobb, the first person ever elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, was an unabashed racist who may or may not have killed a man.)

The Hall of Fame is a place to recognize the greatest players in baseball history.  The GREATEST players in history.  Using active players as an example to illustrate my point, Brian McCann is a very good catcher, a multiple-time All-Star, and the All-Star MVP last year.  He's a VERY GOOD catcher, not a GREAT catcher.  Joe Mauer is a GREAT catcher on his way to a Hall of Fame career.  Nothing against Brian McCann, but he's not Joe Mauer.  There's nothing wrong with that, but fast forward 15 years and imagine Brian McCann in the Hall of Fame, but not Joe Mauer.  As a person who watches baseball in 2011, you'd sit there and wonder why McCann's in the Hall of Fame over the clearly superior player.

That's, unfortunately, what looks like it might happen with Bonds, Clemens and some others.  Steroids or not, they were the greatest players of the 1990s.  If Major League Baseball can pretend they weren't taking steroids, so can I.  I can't in good conscience say that a bunch of guys who belong in the Hall of Very Good should be given places in the Hall of Fame because the voters don't want to give those spots to the guys who deserve them.  The best players of the 1990s were on steroids.  Deal with it.  If you want the Hall of Fame to continue what it should be, get over yourself and put the best players from that era where they belong.  With the best players from every other era.

Rain, Rain Go Away

Early in this baseball season, one thing has been a constat: rain has already wreaked some major havoc on the schedule.  The Orioles and Rangers played the season's first doubleheader on Saturday, the Mets and Rockies play another one tomorrow, the Rockies had a home game snowed out, and there's been more rain in the Northeast than anyone cares to talk about.

All these rainouts create major problems.  Of course, when they happen early in the season, the good old day-night doubleheader the next time that team visits the city is a possibility, but things are further complicated when the rainout occurs during an opponent's only trip to the city.  When that happens, the easiest thing to do is usually to find a common off day and make up the game then.  But each team only gets 16 off days a season, so finding a common one isn't as easy as you might think.  And sometimes a mutual off day isn't even an option. 

For example, the Yankees and Twins had a game rained out last Wednesday.  They have a couple of common off days, but one is before the Yankees start a West Coast trip.  That means Minnesota would have to fly in for a single day game.  That's not going to happen.  Another Yankees-Twins common off day falls right smack in the midle of a Minnesota homestand, so that one's out too.  The only mutual off day that's even close to doable is September 8.  That sounds simple enough, right?  Problem is...now the Yankees have to make up a home game against the Orioles, too.  They play a three-game series with the Orioles on September 5, 6 and 7.  Making that a four-game set would be really easy, if September 8 wasn't the only available date to play Minnesota.  Fortunately, the Orioles also visit Yankee Stadium on July 29, 30, 31, so a day-night doubleheader on Saturday looks likely.

That just illustrates my point.  Of those 16 off days, it's a rule that no more than 10 can come before the All-Star Break.  But the abundance of off days in April is staggering.  How many teams play their season opener, then have a day off before resuming a three-game series, then have either the following Thursday or Monday off, meaning they play just three games in the first five days of the season?  Going back to the Yankees for another example, they play the Rangers this weekend, have Monday off, play a two-game series in Toronto, then have Thursday off.  There's absolutely no need to have off days on both ends of a two-game series!

All those April off days create so many problems down the road.  For starters, the weather in April sucks in a lot of the country (as we've seen this year).  So, adding scheduled off days to games postponed by weather means some teams are playing as many games in April as they do in October.  But even worse, the rare scheduled off days after the All-Star Break disappear because of April rainouts.  And that's if there are even mutual off days available to reschedule!

The day-night doubleheader is usually the best solution.  That preserves any scheduled off days and doesn't make a team have to travel into a city just to play one game.  But day-night doubleheaders are only possible if the visiting team goes back to that city.  The Rangers don't go back to Baltimore this year, so they had to play a doubleheder in April.  Ditto with the Rockies and Mets.  This is why the Twins-Yankees thing is such a problem. 

If Major League Baseball wants to give teams so many off days in April, they should make sure that the visiting team returns to the city later in the season.  Four of the six divisions have five teams.  In every division except the NL Central, you play three series in each city against every other team in your division.  That's 12 of your 26 home series.  Throw in Interleague Play and that leaves 11 series to play against the remaining teams in your league.  Let's use the AL East or Central as our example.  That means seven of the remaining nine teams visit once and the other two come to town twice.  Since each league has two five-team divisions, there has to be one non-division series at all times.  Those non-division series should be ones where the visiting team comes back later in the season. 

Or, even better, don't have so many damn off days in April!  It's in the CBA that teams can't be scheduled to play more than 17 days in a row.  But there are so many cases where a team loses its off days because of makeup games and ends up playing everyday for three weeks, sometimes even longer.  In August!  I guess the rationale is that teams are better equipped to play doubleheaders with expanded rosters in September, but you can't make up a May rainout with a doubleheader if you don't play that team in September!  They complain about this with interleague games, but no one says anything when the same problem arises with an AL vs. AL series.  They should.  April rainouts create major scheduling headaches in August and September.

Playoff Time!

After six and a half months, the final two months of the NHL season, known in these parts as the Stanley Cup Playoffs, are upon us.  The Stanley Cup Playoffs are usually the hardest to predict in any of the four major sports.  Hockey's the only sport where one player can single-handedly beat a superior team.  In basketball, the team with the best player is probably going to win.  Football's the ultimate team game.  And a shutdown starting pitcher can only throw twice in a seven-game series, meaning you have to find a way to win the other two games.  But a hockey team can ride a hot goalie all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals, which is why you can't count out the eighth-seeded Rangers or seventh-seeded Sabres in the East or the Coyotes, the West's No. 7 seed.

Despite their best efforts, the Rangers found some way to back into the playoffs as the No. 8 seed in the East when Carolina inexplicably lost its final game to Tampa Bay, which had nothing to play for.  Anyway, that sets up a matchup between the Rangers and the top-seeded Capitals, who the NHL hand-picked as Eastern Conference Champions when Washington was selected as the visiting team in the Winter Classic (the visiting team in the first three Winter Classics lost the Stanley Cup Finals).  But this is actually a pretty compelling matchup.  The Rangers won the season series 2-1-1 and have Henrik Lundqvist.  He's going to be a key because the Capitals are probably the best offensive team in the league.  Washington has a history of underachieving in the playoffs, mainly because their goalie always sucks and they win so many regular season games because the Southeast Division is usually terrible.  This year they were actually the best team in the East.  They were also the No. 1 seed last season and lost in the first round.  Let's see how they do this year.

The Flyers went to the Finals last year and are the No. 2 seed this season.  On paper, Philadelphia has a great chance of going back.  Offensively, the Flyers are loaded.  But Chris Pronger has been in and out of the lineup, and Sergei Bobrovsky has never started a playoff game.  Of course, the Flyers (who barely made the playoffs) were down 3-0 to the Bruins in the Eastern Conference semis last season, then made a goalie change (to Michael Leighton) and won the series en route to the Finals.  This year they're playing the Sabres, Daniel Briere's former team, a team that doesn't like them and they don't like.  Philly's a better team, but Ryan Miller is a stud, and he pretty much single-handedly won the Olympic silver medal for the U.S. last year.  Don't count out the Sabres.

In the 3-6 series, Boston plays Montreal.  The Bruins and Canadiens are both Original Six teams, and they're meeting in the playoffs for the 33rd time.  These teams also don't like each other, and there's no love lost between them, especially after Zdeno Chara's hit on Max Pacioretty (which I still maintain was NOT a dirty play).  The history between these teams makes this matchup so intriguing.  The last time they played, the top-seeded Bruins beat Montreal in the first round in 2009!  Then last year, the Canadiens were the No. 8 seed again and reached the conference finals.

The other East series is between Pittsburgh and Tampa Bay.  Sidney Crosby hasn't played since January and Evgeni Malkin has been out since February, but the Penguins still managed to earn the four-seed.  The Penguins have more playoff experience than any other team in the East, which could help them compensate for the loss of their two best offensive players.  Tampa Bay is in the playoffs for the first time since 2007 and has a dynamic offense led by Steven Stamkos, Vincent Lecavalier and Martin St. Louis.  This is going to be a great matchup.

In the West, the annual playoff meeting between the Canucks and Blackhawks is a round early this year.  Vancouver ran away with the President's Trophy and is by far the best team in the league, while defending champion Chicago backed into the playoffs as the No. 8 seed.  The Blackhawks beat the Canucks 4-2 in the second round last season, but Vancouver is so overdue for playoff success.  Led by Roberto Luongo, Ryan Kesler and the Sedin twins, the Canucks won 54 games during the regular season.  Seriously, the Canucks are loaded.  Chicago might've won the Stanley Cup last year, but this is a completely different Blackhawks team.  The fact that they got blown out by the Red Wings in their final game is really telling.  I think this is the year Vancouver finally gets by Chicago in the playoffs.

Another team that's long overdue for some playoff success is the San Jose Sharks.  They went to the conference finals last season, but were swept by the Blackhawks.  The year before, they won the President's Trophy and lost in the first round.  This year's Sharks won the Pacific Division for the fourth straight year, and will play the Kings in the West quarters.  San Jose is still loaded and balanced.  I'm not sure how LA can stack up.  Kings goalie Jonathan Quick might literally have to stand on his head to keep the likes of Patrick Marleau, Joe Thornton and Dany Heatley from lighting the lamp over and over.  This is probably the most one-sided of the eight first round matchups.

The most consistent team in hockey is the Detroit Red Wings, who qualified for the playoffs for the 20th straight season.  The Red Wings have won four Cups and been to the Finals six times since 1995, so their players know what it takes to win in the playoffs.  All the usual suspects (Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Nicklas Lidstrom, Tomas Holmstrom) are back as the Red Wings try to get back to the Finals for the third time in four years.  This year, they play Phoenix in the first round for the second straight season.  The Coyotes were one of three Western Conference teams to finish with 99 points and Ilya Bryzgalov is a monster in goal.  They're not as good as the Red Wings, but that was also true last year, when the series went seven.

The final series is between the very evenly-matched Ducks and Predators.  Thanks to an incredible late season surge, Anaheim went from watching the playoffs to having home ice in the first round.  (Interesting little tidbit thanks to our friends at Wikipedia, this is the first time the Kings and Ducks both made the playoffs in the same season.)  The Ducks are probably the better team in this matchup, and their offense is very balanced with Corey Perry, Teemu Selanne, Ryan Getzlaf and Bobby Ryan leading the way.  However, this is a better matchup for Anaheim than Phoenix would've been.  Other than Martin Erat and Shea Weber, Nashville doesn't have any superstars, and the goalie matchup (Jonas Hiller vs. Pekka Rinne) favors the Ducks.

Even though the Stanley Cup Playoffs are unpredictable, I'll give it a shot.  Capitals in six, Flyers in seven, Canadiens in six, Lightning in five in the East.  In the West, Canucks in five, Sharks in four, Red Wings in seven and Ducks in five.

New Winter Olympic Events

It's offical.  At long last, Lindsey Van is eligible to make her Olympic debut in Sochi in 2014.  Not Lindsey Vonn.  Lindsey Van, the 2009 world champion in women's ski jumping.  In a long overdue decision, women's ski jumping is one of six new events that has been added to the Winter Olympic program, starting with the 2014 Games.  And it's by far the most noteworthy.

Ski jumping had been one of two remaining men's-only sports (Nordic combined is the other) in the Winter Olympics.  The women first applied for Olympic status for the 2002 Games, but the IOC said no, claiming that there weren't enough elite competitors worldwide.  The application was rejected again prior to the 2006 Torino Games, but with the first World Championships held in 2009, it looked almost certain women's ski jumping would be contested in Vancouver.  However, the IOC and the Vancouver organizers had already determined the Olympic schedule, so women's ski jumping was rejected once again.  This prompted Van and some other ski jumpers to file a lawsuit against the IOC and the Vancouver organizing committee, but the Canadian courts said they had no grounds to force the two organizations to include the sport, so the women had to watch the Olympics at home.

Then on Wednesday, the long journey came to an end.  The IOC announced that six new events will be contested in Sochi, headlined by women's ski jumping.  There'll only be one event (as opposed to three for the men), but it's a start.

Of the other five events, the one that sounds as if it'll catch on the quickest is the ski halfpipe competition.  This is exactly the same event as snowboard halfpipe, except on skis.  They did the same thing in Vancouver with ski cross, which followed the successful addition of snowboard cross in 2006.  The IOC has been trying hard to add some Gen-X appeal to the Winter Games, which is why a new snowboarding or freestyle skiing event (or two) joins the program every four years.  This isn't a bad thing, and I think ski halfpipe is going to be a very popular event.  They're also considering adding a "slopestyle" event in both skiing and snowboarding, but I think it's more likely that we'll see those debuts wait until 2018.

Another one of the new events is the mixed relay in biathlon.  They have mixed doubles in a lot of Summer Olympic sports (they just added mixed doubles tennis for London, which will be at Wimbledon), but there aren't any in the Winter Olympics.  (Ice dancing and pairs figure skating don't count.)  I'm surprised it's taken this long to add a mixed event, which is simple enough.  It's your standard four-person relay, but with two men and two women instead of four athletes from the same gender.  I can easily see this same type of event in cross country skiing, biathlon's non-shooting cousin, speed skating, and even curling.

I have to admit that I was kind of confused about the other two new events--team luge and team figure skating--until I did some research.  Now I'm only confused about one of them.  At first I wondered how you can make a "team" event in luge when they already have doubles and you can only go down the track one at a time.  Then I read the event description, and it actually sounds pretty cool.  It's a doubles sled, a woman and a man from each country.  They go down one after the other and the time doesn't stop until the third sled crosses the finish line. 

I'm still confused about team figure skating, though.  Figure skating is the biggest sport in the Winter Olympics.  I get that.  But I don't really know how this team format is going to work.  It's a man, a woman, a pairs team and an ice dancing team, and they all get points.  The highest combined point total wins.  That's it.  How the competition will actually work is a mystery.  Will it be the same skaters that competed in the four regular events, or skaters who go to the Olympics just for the team event?  Is the team competition a separate event, or do they collect team points in the four disciplines?  How exactly is the schedule going to work?  And how does it effect short track speed skating, which uses the same venue on figure skating's off days?  This is the only one of the six that I'm not 100 percent on board with.  This one seems entirely ratings-driven.  I think they're reaching just to add another couple nights of figure skating to the Winter Olympic schedule.

Overall, I think these events are good fits on the Winter Olympic program.  The biathlon mixed relay is the only one that doesn't translate directly to primetime TV, but the other five could be a ratings bonanza for NBC (or whoever ends up getting the U.S. TV deal).  And I'm sure I'll figure out team figure skating by the time the 2018 Olympics come around.

National Champs

It's official, UConn has capped its unlikely run through March-April with a National Championship.  The Huskies, despite finishing ninth in the loaded Big East this season, incredibly won their last 11 games (five in the Big East Tournament, six in the NCAA Tournament) to win the third national title in school history.  The National Championship Game was a bit of a dud, but Kemba and Co. were such a buzzsaw in the postseason that Butler had no chance.  Even if the Bulldogs had actually made a shot, UConn was the better team last night.  And the Huskies had that whole "team of destiny" vibe going on, too.

With the win over Butler, Connecticut won an indisputable National Championship.  That's clear to pretty much everyone.  Except for one of the coaches who votes on the coaches' poll.  The final poll came out this afternoon and UConn got 30 of the 31 first-place votes?!  The other first-place vote went to Ohio State, a team that lost in the Sweet 16.  Did I miss something?

This isn't football with its ridiculous BCS and arbitray champion.  For the last 70 years they've had a tournament to determine the National Champion in basketball.  UConn won that tournament.  End of story.  They've got the trophy to prove it.  Even if you don't think they're the best team, so what!  They're the National Champions.  You can't make any legitimate case for any other team.  But apparently one voter thinks a case can be made for Ohio State.  Is Ohio State a better team than UConn?  Probably.  But guess what?  It doesn't matter!  Voters aren't required to put the National Champion as No. 1 on their final ballot, but they should out of principle.  (It's interesting to note here that votes are public on all of the weekly polls, but not the final one, so we won't get to find out which coach snubbed UConn).  And if you want to pick somebody else, at least pick a team that advanced past the Sweet 16.  (For the record, if I had a vote, my final top five would've been UConn, Butler, Kentucky, VCU, Kansas.) 

Seriously, what is it with people and Ohio State?  My boss Steve worked the East Regional in Newark, and his job was to count the ballots for the all-region team.  He gave me this delightful nugget about our friends from Columbus.  Even though Kentucky won the regional and advanced to the Final Four, some moron picked Jared Sullinger as East Region MVP.  To reiterate, not only did Ohio State lose its first game in Newark, it lost TO KENTUCKY!  I'm sure the guy who did that is from Ohio.  Put your allegiances aside and be a professional.  If your team lost, don't act like they were still the best.

On the women's side, Texas A&M won its first National Championship wearing these uniforms:

on this court:

The uniforms aren't really that bad at first glance until you see the back (look at No. 1 in the picture).  The numbers are way too high and way too small.  And the names on the bottom look incredibly dumb.  The worst part is that Texas A&M isn't the only school that has these uniforms.  In fact, both teams in the National Championship Game wear them.  These uniforms are cut differently at the top, which is why the names have to be at the bottom.  I'm not a fan.

As for the court, I don't understand why so many people are ripping it.  The NCAA has had some bad court designs for the Women's Final Four over the years (see below), and this year's wasn't anywhere near as bad as some of those:

There were no giant arches (2009) or giant guitars (2007), and the three-point area was actually all the same color (unlike 2008 and 2010).  At least they tried.  The whole concept was a retro court design to go with the Final Four logo, that had an old-style basketball as the "O".  I'm even willing to go out on a limb and say that I actually kind of liked this year's Women's Final Four floor design (at least the concept).  At least it wasn't one of those stupid raised floors (with the dumb slogan running from endline to endline) they insist on using for the Men's Final Four.  (Side note, if you can't see a football game from the top row of those domes, how are you going to see a basketball game, raised floor or not?) 

Next year, the Women's Final Four is in Denver, so we can only be left to wonder how they'll incorporate mountains into the floor design.  My guess is that it'll look similar to the St. Louis floor, with the mountains on the bottom instead of the top.

Baseball Pet Peeves

Now that the season is officially upon us (I don't care what the schedule says, the first Monday in April is Opening Day), it's comforting to know that there will be a baseball game or related event on television every day for the next seven months.  Now's also the perfect time for me to air some of my favorite grievances with the grand old game.  If I were to become Baseball Czar (I need a job that has more authority than "Commissioner"), these are the stupid little rules and quirky little situations that would be changed or eliminated.

1. Opening Day is the first Monday in April-I might as well piggyback on my original premise.  Opening Day should be the first Monday in April, not some random Thursday.  It's always been the first Monday in April.  That's what people are used to and have become comfortable with.  It's a lot easier for people to either leave work early or call in sick to go to Opening Day on a Monday than on random days during the middle of the week.

2. Get rid of random off days in the playoffs-The early start this season is a direct result of the World Series going into November in each of the last two years.  But the only reason that happened is because Bud decided that the World Series was going to start on a Wednesday, so he needed to adjust the postseason schedule to make that happen.  And his solution was to insert random unnecessary non-travel off days into the middle of series.  They play every day for six months!  They don't need or want random days off in October, when the games matter the most.  (The lone exception to this rule is if a team clinches early and has to wait for the other series to end.)

3. Pitchers must wear double-digit numbers-This is just awkward to see.  Kyle Drabek of the Blue Jays is No. 4.  It looks weird.  When I become Baseball Czar, I'm establishing a rule that all pitchers can only wear uniform numbers 10 or higher (football has a rule like this for every position and nobody seems to have a problem with it).  I'm not crazy about these guys with numbers in the 60s, either, (I'm talking to you Joba) but one thing at a time.

4. On Jackie Robinson Day, teams designate one player to wear No. 42-Nothing against Jackie Robinson.  He's one of the most influential and important people in the game's history.  But the whole everybody wears No. 42 on Jackie Robinson Day thing is stupid.  The whole point of numbers is to tell the players apart.  You can't do that if they're all wearing the same number!  Every team designates one player to wear No. 42 (it can be a team vote, manager's decision, whatever), but only he gets to wear it on that day.  Everybody else wears their regular number.

5. Get rid of the hideous patriotic hats that they wear on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day and 9/11-It's a marketing thing.  I get it.  But it looks dumb.  The stars and stripes inside the logos looks stupid (and makes no sense for the Blue Jays, seeing as only Labour Day is a holiday in Canada), and the hats don't match the uniforms for about 27 of the 30 teams, which looks even worse.  The Baltimore Orioles' colors are black and orange, not red, white or blue.  And white hats look disgusting when the team wearing white uniforms also has white hats.  Not to mention the fact that white hats and gray uniforms make absolutely no sense.

Now on to the rules changes involving the actual playing of the game:

6. A runner doesn't need to score for the batter to get a sacrifice fly-I've never understood this quirk of the sacrifice fly rule.  A batter only gets a sac fly if a runner scores.  Why?  How is a fly ball 395 feet to center field that moves a runner from second to third any less effective than a bunt that accomplishes the same thing?  No he isn't trying to do it (he's likely trying to hit a two-run homer), but the out was still productive so he shouldn't get charged an at-bat.

7. If a pitcher commits an error, any runs that score are earned-The whole idea behind unearned runs is to not penalize the pitcher for a fielder's mistake.  I'm fine with that.  But what if the pitcher IS the fielder that commits the error?  Then it's the pitcher's fault that the runner is on base (just like a base hit or walk), so that theory no longer applies.  If he pitches himself out of it, great.  But if three runs score because of a pitcher's error, they're as much his fault as a three-run homer after a pair of walks.  (If there's a subsequent error by another fielder, then any runs that score may or may not be unearned.)

8. Get rid of OPS-OPS is the stupidest stat created by fantasy sports.  It's so annoying to listen to all the analysts on MLB Network and Baseball Tonight use OPS and the even dumber OPS+ to say how good a guy is.  The stat is meaningless, and it's not even figured out correctly.  You can't just add the two numbers.  An on-base percentage of .420 and a slugging percentage of .575 does NOT equal an OPS of .995.  You're counting every hit twice!  In order to figure out the actual number, you need to add walks, hit by pitches and total bases, then divide by walks, hit by pitches and at-bats.  That's the hitter's actual OPS.  That stat is slightly less meaningless.

9. National League pitchers must bat ninth-Tony La Russa is the only manager who violates this rule, so I don't even really know why I'm including it.  Pitchers can't hit, and they shouldn't have to.  Don't try to be sneaky and put your pitcher eighth so you can do the American League double-leadoff thing.  Pitchers can still be moved out of the nine-hole in double switches, since not allowing that would affect strategy.

10. Make holds and blown saves official statistics-Holds are really the only tangible way to tell how successful relievers are in close games.  Likewise, blown saves are sometimes a more important way to figure out if a closer's getting the job done (as great as Mariano Rivera is, it tells you nothing if he has more saves than the Royals' Joakim Soria, other than that the Yankees win more games than Kansas City).  MLB.com box scores include these stats already, so just make them official.  If a reliever comes into what would normally be considered a save situation and comes out having maintained that lead, he gets a hold.  If he blows that lead, he gets a blown save.

So, that's my list.  Some are legitimate pet peeves, others are just suggestions.  Some annoy me more than others, some are just ideas.  But I think you can agree that they'd all make the game better.

Major vs. Mid-Major

With the 2011 Final Four upon us, we have Kentucky and UConn facing off in one semifinal and VCU taking on Butler in the other semi.  Kentucky and UConn have combined for 18 Final Four appearances and nine National Championships, while VCU and Butler have combined for a whopping three Final Four appearances (including each team's apperance this season).  Now, UConn and Kentucky represent the Big East and the SEC, which are two of the six so-called "power conferences," while VCU plays in the Colonial Athletic Association and Butler is a member of the Horizon League.  Butler shocked the world by reaching the final and narrowly losing to Duke last season, and we're guaranteed to have our second straight "mid-major" finalist.  Some people would even argue that the Butler-VCU winner will be the third team from a mid-major league to play in the final in four years (Conference USA's Memphis lost to Kansas in 2008).  I wouldn't be one of them.

While I'm not denying the fact that VCU and Butler are both mid-major programs, I don't put Memphis in that category.  The six BCS conferences are in a different class.  I understand and have no problem with this.  But they aren't the only six "major" conferences.  Even CBS is guilty.  During the Selection Show, CBS broke down the bids by conference, but only had those six leagues and everyone else lumped into the "mid-major" category.  As if the Mountain West and Atlantic 10 are the same as the CAA and Horizon League. 

A quick rundown of the teams in the Mountain West: BYU, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado State, Wyoming, TCU and Air Force.  BYU and San Diego State were both ranked in the Top 10 for most of the year, with San Diego State earning a No. 2 seed and BYU getting a No. 3.  You trying to tell me that those two teams weren't among the best in the nation all season?  Fifteen years ago the WAC was right up there as a "major" league.  Most of these teams were in the WAC back then.  So how do they suddenly go from "major" to "mid-major" status just because their football league doesn't have a BCS berth? 

Likewise, Temple is one of the most consistently successful programs in college basketball history.  But Temple plays in the Atlantic 10 (with the likes of Xavier, Dayton, Rhode Island and Saint Joseph's), so the Owls, too, are stuck with the undeserved "mid-major" label.  The same goes for Memphis and its Conference USA brethren.  Memphis went to the Final Four way back in 1985 and was ranked No. 1 in the nation for most of the season in 2008, when it should've beaten Kansas in the National Championship Game.  The Tigers were the third different Conference USA school to reach the Final Four (Marquette-2003, Louisville-2005), yet that conference, too, is labeled as a "mid-major" league.

When the so-called "Big Six" look for new members, where do you think they look?  The ACC poached Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech from the Big East back in 2003.  The Big East responded by grabbing five Conference USA schools (Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette, South Florida) to replace them.  And just because it lost five of its top six programs, Conference USA suddenly went from a "major" to a "mid-major."  As I said before, the WAC was always considered a "major" conference throughout the 80s and 90s.  Yet the Mountain West, which consists of essentially the same schools, isn't a "major"?  Utah played the 1998 National Championship Game for crying out loud!  (The Utes are leaving the Mountain West for the Pac-10 next season.)  I already made the case about Temple, which is one of SIX Atlantic 10 schools that's been to the Final Four.  Back when the Big East first expanded in the mid-90s, it was Atlantic 10 members Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech (along with Notre Dame) that were asked to join.  (Penn State used to be in the Atlantic 10, too).  To further prove my point, the Atlantic 10 and Mountain West both landed three teams in the Tournament this year, and Conference USA got two.

My point is, there are more than six "major" conferences.  I'm OK with making a distinction between the six BCS conferences and everybody else, but you'll never convince me that the Mountain West, Atlantic 10 and Conference USA belong in the same "mid-major" grouping as the Colonial Athletic Association, Horizon League and Missouri Valley Conference (which boasts NIT champion Wichita State), just as you'll never be able to give me a compelling argument that those leagues are on the same level as conferences like the MEAC, SWAC and Southland.  If you have more than one member regularly in the discussion (and receiving) at-large bids, you aren't a mid-major conference.

I'm OK with a "high major" classification for the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC.  But I would put four conferences into the group "major"--the Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Mountain West and WAC (although the argument for keeping the WAC is admittedly somewhat weak).  I'd even separate leagues like the Horizon League, CAA, West Coast Conference and Missouri Valley into a higher level of mid-majordom, but let's start with getting the BYUs, Memphises and Temples of the world out of that category.  Although, like I said, Butler and VCU are still "mid-majors" no matter how you define it.

As for the picks, I'm taking Butler over VCU, UConn over Kentucky, and UConn over Butler for the title.