My American League All-Stars

Yesterday I unveiled who I think should be selected to this year's National League All-Star team.  Today, it's the American League's turn. 

But first I have to rant a little bit.  Everyone who posts comments on MLB.com message boards complaining about the number of Yankees and Red Sox leading the voting or how the fans shouldn't pick the starters, please do us all a favor and stop it!  The game is for the fans, thus the fan vote.  If they were to take the fan vote away, you wouldn't like that either, so just shut up.  (In fact the way they do it now with the fans picking the starters and the players picking some reserves and pitchers before the manager picks the rest of the team might be the best system they've ever used.)  And the Yankees and Red Sox are popular.  Sorry your team isn't.  But, this just in, along with the Phillies, the Yankees and Red Sox are two of the three best teams in baseball.  They're both going to have a lot of All-Stars anyway, starting or not.  Do I think five starters from one team is excessive?  Yes.  But that's not really my point.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, it's time to unveil my selections.  I followed the same rules that I used yesterday for the National League.  I'm not picking a replacement for Jeter at shortstop, though.  Even though he's still on the DL, the All-Star Game isn't for another two weeks, so there's still a chance he'll play.

Starting Lineup
C: Russell Martin, Yankees
1B: Adrian Gonzalez, Red Sox
2B: Robinson Cano, Yankees
SS: Derek Jeter, Yankees
3B: Alex Rodrigues, Yankees
OF: Jose Bautista, Blue Jays; Curtis Granderson, Yankees; Josh Hamilton, Rangers
DH: David Ortiz, Red Sox

I can say with pride that I haven't cast a single vote for the incredibly overrated Jose Bautista (seriously, why is it so hard to figure out that the guy can only hit fastballs?) or, as per personal policy, any member of the Boston Red Sux.  Nor have I voted exclusively Yankees for those of you who think I'm just a homer.  (I'll have you know that I vote for Ichiro on every ballot I fill out.)

Pitchers: Starters-Jake Arrieta, Orioles; Josh Beckett, Red Sox; Jon Lester, Red Sox; Justin Verlander, Tigers; Jered Weaver, Angels; CC Sabathia, Yankees; Gio Gonzalez, Athletics; Felix Hernandez, Mariners; James Shields, Rays; Relievers-Jonathan Papelbon, Red Sox; Carlos Perez, Indians; Joakim Soria, Royals; Mariano Rivera, Yankees
Catcher: Alex Avila, Tigers
1st Base: Mark Teixeira, Yankees
2nd Base: Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox
Shortstop: Asdrubal Cabrera, Indians (if Jeter can't play, the injury replacement would be Jhonny Peralta, Tigers)
3rd Base: Adrian Beltre, Rangers
Outfield: Jacoby Ellsbury, Red Sox; Carlos Quentin, White Sox; Michael Cuddyer, Twins; Ichiro Suzuki, Mariners
DH: Victor Martinez, Tigers; Michael Young, Rangers

Final Vote: Adam Jones (OF), Orioles; Paul Konerko (1B), White Sox; Alex Gordon (OF), Royals; Ben Zobrist (2B), Rays; Nelson Cruz (OF), Rangers

And here's the lineup that's going to go out and secure World Series home field:
Jeter-SS, Granderson-CF, Bautista-RF, Gonzalez-1B, Rodriguez-3B, Hamilton-LF, Ortiz-DH, Cano-2B, Martin-C, Beckett-P

There are a ton of guys who could've made the cut but didn't, especially pitchers (Max Scherzer, Alexi Ogando, Michael Pineda, Josh Tomlin), but I think I was fair in my assessment.  There are only so many spots to go around, and you've got to have someone from every team (I'm in the minority as a supporter of that rule).  Yes, 15 of the 33 players are Yankees and Red Sox.  That's what happens when two teams are far and away better than the rest.  To the people who don't like that, I have one word for you.  Tough!

My National League All-Stars

This is one of my favorite times of year.  The All-Star Game is a little more than two weeks away, and they announce the teams on Sunday.  Polls close on Thursday, so this week's ballot updates (and the endless array of people complaining on MLB.com message boards) are the final ones before the teams are chosen.  Everybody has their opinion about who deserves to be All-Stars, and I'm no different.  So, over the next two days, I'll give you my selections, starting with the National League.

*For the starters, I'm going with the eight players currently leading the voting.  Since Albert can't play, I'll also be picking an extra first baseman as an injury replacement.

Starting Lineup
C: Brian McCann, Braves
1B: *Albert Pujols, Cardinals
2B: Rickie Weeks, Brewers
SS: Troy Tulowitzki, Rockies
3B: Placido Polanco, Phillies
OF: Ryan Braun, Brewers; Lance Berkman, Cardinals; Matt Holliday, Cardinals

I really need somebody to explain to me why Rickie Weeks and Placido Polanco are so popular.  (I don't get the whole Ryan Braun thing either, but tonight's game against the Yankees will also mark the first time I've seen the Brewers play in about three years, so that might have something to do with it.)

The rules state that whoever finishes first on the player ballot (or second if it's the same person) gets to start if the elected starter is injured.  That means either Joey Votto or Prince Fielder will likely replace Albert in the starting lineup.  I don't really think it matters which one, though.  The other will probably start anyway as the DH (first time they're using one in an NL park).

Anyway, now it's time to move on to the pitchers and reserves.  I'm following the same rules they use while actually picking the team.

Pitchers: Starters-Ian Kennedy, Diamondbacks; Jair Jurrjens, Braves; Anibal Sanchez, Marlins; Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers; Yovani Gallardo, Brewers; Roy Halladay, Phillies; Cole Hamels, Phillies; Jaime Garcia, Cardinals; Relievers-John Axford, Brewers; Joel Hanrahan, Pirates; Mike Adams, Padres; Brian Wilson, Giants; Drew Storen, Nationals
Catcher: Miguel Montero, Diamondbacks
1st Base: Joey Votto, Reds (starting for Pujols); Prince Fielder, Brewers (starting DH); Gaby Sanchez, Marlins (injury replacement)
2nd Base: Brandon Phillips, Reds
Shortstop: Starlin Castro, Cubs; Jose Reyes, Mets
3rd Base: Aramis Ramirez, Cubs
Outfield: Justin Upton, Diamondbacks; Hunter Pence, Astros; Andre Ethier, Dodgers; Matt Kemp, Dodgers; Carlos Beltran, Mets

Final Vote: Carlos Gonzalez (OF), Rockies; Michael Bourn (OF), Astros; Ryan Howard (1B), Phillies; Andrew McCutchen (OF), Pirates; Michael Morse (1B), Nationals

As for the lineup, it would look something like this:
Weeks-2B, Berkman-RF, Votto-1B, Braun-CF, Fielder-DH, Holliday-LF, McCann-C, Tulowitzki-SS, Polanco-3B, Halladay-P

I'm sure there are some selections here that people don't agree with.  To be honest, I'd be surprised if there weren't.  Tomorrow we'll do the American League, which I know a lot better than the NL.

Women's World Cup Preview

The Women's World Cup began today.  I think it's so funny how people who don't even really give a crap get all amped up for the men's World Cup every four years, but even most soccer fans seemingly don't care about the Women's World Cup.  I wonder how many people even realize that it's going on right now.

Anyway, seeing as last year's World Cup was the inspiration for the name "Joe Brackets," I think it's only fitting that I give the women the same respect.  I don't pretend to be any sort of expert about the world of international women's soccer, but I'll give it a shot.

Group A: Germany, Canada, France, Nigeria
Germany is the two-time defending champions, top-ranked team in the world, and tournament hosts.  So I don't really think I'm going out on much of a limb to take the Germans in this group.  The Germans also have Birgit Prinz, the all-time leading goal scorer in Women's World Cup play.  It's by no means a lock that they'll win the World Cup again, but this group shouldn't be a problem.  The second-place spot is up for grabs, though.  Canada always has a good team, and they made the semifinals in 2003.  A lot of the Canadian players attended college in the U.S. and play in the WPS, which means they go against the Americans all the time.  They also won the CONCACAF qualifying tournament.  France is an up-and-coming team that has finally broken through to reach the World Cup.  They could be dangerous, but probably need a little more experience.  Nigeria is the best team in Africa and could definitely make some noise.

Group B: Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, England
Evidently Japan's women's soccer team is very good.  They're the seeded team in the weakest of the four groups.  But make no mistake, Japan is nowhere near as talented as Germany, Brazil and the United States.  I do have to give credit where it's due, though.  Japan's here while its Asian rival, traditional power China, isn't.  And with a weak group, the Japanese will probably advance without any problems.  The knockout phase should be a reality check, though.  Just like Group A, the second spot is up for grabs.  Of the other three teams, I think England is probably the best.  (Sidebar, FIFA has reached an aggreement with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish federations to allow for a completely British team at the London Olympics, but the other three aren't sure they want to do that, which means it could essentially be this English team that's playing in Germany that we see next summer, as well.)  Mexico was a surprise qualifier, beating the U.S. and finishing second behind Canada in CONCACAF (the U.S. had to win a home-and-home against Italy to get in), and this group could definitely help them.  New Zealand's problem is that it comes out of the weak Oceania federation.

Group C: United States, Sweden, North Korea, Colombia
I think it's one of the rules of the Women's World Cup that the United States, Sweden and North Korea are drawn into the same group.  This marks the third straight World Cup where those three teams are in the same group, and the United States and North Korea were also in the same group in 1999.  So, needless to say, those three nations are familiar with each other.  This is easily the "Group of Death."  The United States won the last major international tournament (the 2008 Olympics) and has to be considered the group favorite, but Sweden has already beaten the Americans this year and North Korea played them to a 2-2 tie in the opening game four years ago.  Just like 2003 and 2007, that North Korea-Sweden game is probably going to determine the other team that advances.  Sweden won it in 2003 (en route to the finals), while North Korea won in 2007.  In each of the past two World Cups, Nigeria was the unfortunate team that was also drawn into this group.  The Nigerians got a reprieve this year.  Instead it's Colombia, which is a much weaker foe and will likely go 0-3.  Although, Colombia did qualify ahead of Argentina.

Group D: Brazil, Australia, Norway, Equatorial Guinea
Brazil is the second-best team in the world.  They've won silver at each of the last three major international tournaments (2004 Olympics, 2007 World Cup, 2008 Olympics), but have never won the gold.  Led by the incomprabale Marta, the best player in the world, the Brazilians are talented, dynamic and fun to watch.  Just like the Brazilian men's team, they show why soccer is called the "Beautiful Game."  Brazil is going to break through eventually, and it very well could be here.  Norway was one of the early dynasties in the sport and is one of just three nations ever to win the World Cup (Germany and the United States are the others).  They took some lumps in the early 2000s, but they beat the eventual gold-medalist Americans in the opening game of the Beijing Olympics and are definitely on their way back.  Australia left Oceania for the more competitive Asian federation a few years ago, and that move has helped the women's team as much as the men's Socceroos.  The Aussies got in, while China didn't.  That tells you something about both the quality of the Asian teams and the Australian side in particular.  I know absolutely nothing about Equatorial Guinea other than that the country is in Africa and, I'm assuming, near the Equator.

I'm going to take Germany and Canada (the 2015 hosts) in Group A, England and Japan in Group B, the United States and Sweden in Group C, and Brazil and Norway in Group D.  In the quarters it's A vs. B and C vs. D, so I'll go with Germany over Japan, Canada over England, the United States over Norway and Brazil over Sweden.  Brazil should get by Canada easily in one semifinal, while the other is a showdown between Germany and the U.S.  That could easily be the game of the tournament.  Germany beat the U.S. on American soil in the 2003 semis, and the Americans would certainly love to return the favor on German soil.  But I'm not sure that's going to happen.  I'm going with Germany and a rematch of the 2007 final against Brazil.  That's where things change.  Germany won't become the second host nation to win the Women's World Cup.  I think Brazil finally wins its first major international women's championship.

NHL Back In Winnipeg

I know that this technically qualifies as old news, but the sale and relocation of the Atlanta Thrashers to Winnipeg was only approved by the NHL owners on Wednesday, so it's only new official.  The former Thrashers still don't have a name, but that's obviously just a matter of time.  "Winnipeg Jets," the name of the city's former franchise that eventually became the Phoenix Coyotes has been mentioned as a possibility, but I don't think that's what they should name the team.  Before Atlanta relocated, the Coyotes had been talking about moving back to Winnipeg.  If they had, I'd be all for reincarnating the Jets (frankly, they never should've moved to Phoenix in the first place).  But since this is a completely different franchise, a new name is in order.  One of the other possibilites that's been mentioned that I'm a real fan of is "Manitoba Falcons."  I vote for that.

Anyway, the NHL schedule was also announced yesterday.  (Sidebar, why is the NFL schedule the only one that gets fanfare when it's released?)  When the Thrashers announced that they were moving to Winnipeg, Gary Bettman immediately said that they would remain in the Southeast Division this season before realignment next year.  I figured that the schedule was the reason.  The fact that they announced it already proves my suspicion was right.  It's much easier to have Winnipeg play one season in the Eastern Conference than it would've been to try to completely redo the schedule.  Besides, uncertainty about the Coyotes' ownership situation (they're currently owned by the NHL) and possible move means you might have aanother team playing in a different city in 2012-13.

For the NHL, the best-case scenario is the Coyotes staying in Phoenix.  That's makes moving Winnipeg to the Western Conference much easier.  I would imagine they want to put Winnipeg in the Northwest Division with the other three Canadian teams.  The only team that can possibly be moved to the Southeast Division is Nashville, so the Predators will likely be the other team to switch conferences (and, in the process, create an ultra-competitive division that already includes Washington, Tampa Bay and Carolina).  So, with Winnipeg in the Northwest and Nashville in the Southeast, that means a Northwest Division team has to take Nashville's place in the Central.  Since Minnesota's actually near where the Centntral Division teams play and Colorado isn't, the Wild move instead of the Avalance.

So, if the Coyotes stay in Phoenix, my proposed NHL divisional alignment looks like this:
Atlantic-New Jersey, N.Y. Islanders, N.Y. Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
Northeast-Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
Southeast-Carolina, Florida, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Washington
Central-Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Minnesota, St. Louis
Northwest-Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Vancouver
Pacific-Anaheim, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose

Now, if Phoenix moves to Quebec City, that creates a whole new bunch of problems.  While Quebec City also deserves to get another team (although the Nordiques moving to Denver was completely different than the Jets moving to Phoenix, and the people in Colorado actually realize they have a hockey team and want it there), I don't even want to think about the nightmare that would create for the NHL trying to figure out divisions.  You'd obviously have to put Quebec in the same division as Montreal and Ottawa, which would probably boot either the Sabres or Maple Leafs to the West.  And, even though Vancouver is about as far west as you can go on the North American continent, keeping the Canadian teams together is the smart thing to do, which means somebody not on the West Coast (Colorado?) would have to join the Pacific Divison.  This is all hypothetical and a long way off, but it sounds like the NHL will NOT be taking geography lessons from the NFL when it comes to establishing its divisions.

Anyway, this is the rare franchise shift from large market to small market, rather than the other way around.  Atlanta is one of the 10 largest markets in the U.S., while Winnipeg will be the league's smallest market playing in the league's smallest arena.  So what?  The big difference is that Winnipeg wants a hockey team, while Atlanta had one and didn't care.  That's why this is a smart move.  Winnipeg never should've lost the Jets.  But that's irrelevant now.  They sold 13,000 season tickets in a matter of a few hours when they went on sale.  13,000 people in a 15,000-seat arena looks a lot more full than 12,000 people in a 19,000-seat arena like the team had in Atlanta.

Hockey in Atlanta was never going to work.  The Flames played there in the late 70s and early 80s before moving to Calgary, but the NHL decided to try again with the expansion Thrashers in 2000.  That didn't work either, and 11 years later Atlanta became the first city to lose two different NHL franchises (both to Canadian cities).  Sure the Thrashers were never any good (they only made the playoffs once, when they got swept by the Rangers), but I'm not sure that would've mattered.  By the end of the Braves' run of 13 straight division titles, people didn't even come to their games.  Not only does Atlanta have the Braves, Falcons and Hawks, it's also the home of Georgia Tech and a hotbed for college sports.  People simply didn't care about the Thrashers.  That wouldn't have changed even if they were good.  And the Thrashers' owners knew it.  They'd been trying to sell the team with the purpose of relocation since at least 2004.

Despite the NHL's repeated attempts to make the American South hockey fans, the sport IS Canada.  Hockey belongs in Winnipeg a lot more than it does in Atlanta.  When the Jets made their ill-advised move to Phoenix in 1996, it had nothing to do with attendance.  It had more to do with the fact that playing without a salary cap, in the league's smallest market, while having to pay all expenses in American funds (while only collecting revenue in Canadian money, with an exchange rate of roughly $1.40 Canadian to $1.00 American) made them unable to make things work financially.  But Winnipegers never stopped loving hockey, and the AHL's Manitoba Moose always had high attendance numbers.

Now those fans in Winnipeg get what they've wanted and deserved for the last 15 years.  Welcome back to the NHL.  It's going to work this time.

Give It Up McCourt

This just in: Bud Selig doesn't want Frank McCourt to own the Los Angeles Dodgers.  This has been a well-known fact to a lot of people for a long time.  Now McCourt has finally gotten the memo.

I'm sure you all know the story by now, so here's the abridged version of the McCourt saga.  Frank and Jamie McCourt bought the Dodgers in 2004 and proceeded to use the team's finances as their own personal expense accounts.  Instead of actually using that money for baseball-related purposes (like putting a competitive team on the field), the McCourts took out more than $100 million in "loans" from the team to support a ridiculously lavish lifestyle. 

Well, now the McCourts are getting divorced, and all this dirty laundry has come out in court.  The divorce trial has dragged on for two years now, and one of the points of contention is who actually owns the team.  Frank claims he's the outright owner, while Jamie contends that the Dodgers are community property.  If the judge agrees with Jamie, the team has to be sold, since Frank fired her from the organization and she wants nothing to do with it.  They need to figure that out before they can do anything else.  Meanwhile, the Dodgers don't have any money.  The McCourts spent it all, either on themselves or on their divorce trial.

In April, Selig appointed former Rangers president Tom Schieffer to run the team, mainly because he was "concerned" about the team's organization and finances.  There was concern that the Dodgers wouldn't meet payroll in May.  Somehow they did, but now they've run into that same problem again.  I don't need to tell you that not having the money to pay your employees is a bad thing.  If the Dodgers don't meet their June payroll, Major League Baseball has the right to take over operation of the team, which seems inevitable.

In an effort to bring some much-needed money into the organization, Frank McCourt reached a $3 billion TV deal with FOX that would pay him $385 million upfront, enough to cover payroll and other Dodgers-related obligations (at least for a while).  However, Selig rejected the deal.  While on the surface, it seems like his obvious desire to get rid of McCourt was the main reason why the Commissioner vetoed the deal, his reasoning does make sense.  Their current deal doesn't expire until 2013 and FOX was the only bidder for the new contract.  Since Selig doesn't know who's going to own the Dodgers, he doesn't want them to get stuck with a TV contract that pays the team less than market value.  Furthermore, a large portion of the $385 million WOULDN'T go to the team.  Only $235 million would be used for the Dodgers, while the other $150 million would be spent on lawyer fees and other uses.

Not surprisingly, Frank McCourt is now suing Major League Baseball, claiming that there was no good-faith reason for Selig to reject the TV contract (as if that's going to earn him any brownie points with the commissioner's office).  McCourt's lawyer said that he'll fight any attempt by Major League Baseball to take over the team and questioned Selig's intentions.  He said that there seems to be a "predetermined result," which is to force McCourt to sell the Dodgers.  While nobody can say that for certain except for Selig, most people agree that the lawyer is probably right.  And like most "predetermined" results, it doesn't seem likely to change.  Frank McCourt needs to come to grips with reality and sell the team of his own volition before the Commissioner makes him.

While Mets owner Fred Wilpon has had similar problems recently, the situations are completely different.  For starters, Wilpon's only out of money because of Bernie Madoff.  You can't blame that entirely on him.  And if not for the $1 billion lawsuit by that guy who invested with Madoff, Wilpon would probably have been able to survive that hit.  But he took another step in the right direction by selling a minority share of the team, which (when approved) will bring in much-needed capital.

Who knows how the Mets situation is going to pan out?  Wilpon might end up having to sell the team.  But that's not the point here.  This is about Frank McCourt.  Actually, no, scratch that.  This is about the Los Angeles Dodgers.  The Dodgers are one of the most storied franchises in the sport.  What Frank McCourt's doing to them is sad, as well as embarrassing.  Not to mention selfish.  Walter O'Malley, probably one of only two owners in Dodgers history that anybody is actually going to remember (and the other guy put his name on Ebbets Field), moved the team cross-country because it was in the best interest of the franchise. 

What has Frank McCourt done in the last two years that was in the best interest of the Los Angeles Dodgers?  Not a thing.  They play in the second-largest media market in the country and had a $103 million payroll last season, yet finished fourth in the NL West with an 80-82 record.  This year they're even worse, currently 33-41.  The only way things are going to change and the Dodgers are going to be the Dodgers again is for Frank McCourt to actually do something that's in the best interest of the franchise for once.  He needs to accept the inevitable and sell the team.

ESPNLosAngeles.com's Tony Jackson agrees with me.  Check out his blog.

Wimbledon Preview

Those wacky Brits sure have a sick sense of humor, don't they?  One year after their epic three-day, 11-hour first round match, John Isner and Nicolas Mahut are scheduled to meet in the first round again.  Last year's match will forever define both of their careers, but neither player has been the same since.  I know the draw is done at random, but the Isner-Mahut rematch is simply a cruel twist of fate.  I wonder if they'll put it on Court 18, the scene of the crime, or if they'll go with one of the show courts?  The only thing I know is that it's not possible for this year's match to take on the same epic qualities as last year's.  Can it?

But that's not the only potential rematch on tap for Wimbledon 2011.  Last year's final between Rafael Nadal and Tomas Berdych is a potential quarterfinal, as is the "Battle of the Andys," Murray vs. Roddick.  It was two years ago that the Andys played each other in the semis, with Roddick winning before losing a classic final to Roger Federer.  Third-seeded Federer also ended up on the opposite side of the draw as top-seeded Nadal, which creates another opportunity for those two great rivals to end up meeting in a Wimbledon final.

Looking at the men's draw, it certainly looks like there's no reason why the guys who've dominated Wimbledon in the past won't do so again this year.  At the French Open, the top four seeds all made the semifinals.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen again in London.  But there are potential pitfalls for each of them.  Nadal shouldn't have any issues in the first week, but he could face 2009 U.S. Open champ Juan Martin Del Potro in the round of 16 before taking on Berdych or Mardy Fish in the quarters.  Then he'd get an Andy in the semis.  The Andys are in a brutal section, though.  Murray would have to beat Ivan Ljubicic, while Roddick might have to face Rainer Schuettler, then either Gael Monfils or the big-serving Ivo Karlovic, who's always tough at Wimbledon.  Federer might have the easiest road to the semifinals.  Other than former finalist David Nalbandian and Isner, there isn't really anybody who can challenge him in that section of the draw.  I can't say the same about Novak Djokovic, who might have to get by fifth-seeded Robin Soderling, who's always tough against other top players in Slams, before a semifinal against Roger.

They've all got potentially tough matchups, but, again, the top men always find a way to get it done at Wimbledon.  Nadal's won each of the last two times he's played (and made the final in each of his last four Wimbledon appearances).  Federer's won six times.  Roddick would've won Wimbledon by now if he didn't get stuck playing Federer in the final every time he's gotten there (2004, 2005, 2009).  Murray has the extra pressure as the British hope, but he actually has the talent to become the first native son to win Wimbledon since 1936.  In my opinion, the only one who's chances are somewhat questionable is Djokovic.  He's made it as far as the semifinals, but he's also lost in the second round at Wimbledon before.

As for my men's predicition?  Last year was the first time since 2003 that the final was something other than Federer-Roddick (2004-05, 2009) or Federer-Nadal (2006-08).  I think we'll make it Roger vs. one of those guys for the seventh time in eight years.  I've got Nadal over Roddick in one semifinal and Federer over Soderling in the other.  So, once again, it's Federer vs. Nadal in a Grand Slam final.  Rafa's certainly had Roger's number lately, but I think the French Open final actually served to give Roger confidence.  Problem is, he played that well and still lost.  But grass is his best surface.  If we get that final and Roger plays as well as he did against Nadal in Paris, he'll finally get that monkey off his back and win a Grand Slam title for the first time since 2009 Wimbledon.  (It seems hard to believe that we've gone seven straight without him winning one, doesn't it?)

On the women's side, it could be as wide open as the French Open ended up.  The Williams sisters are back, and they could end up being the wild cards in this whole equation.  At Wimbledon, they aren't required to seed players according to their world ranking.  As a result, Serena is seeded seventh and Venus is No. 23.  Between them, they've won nine of the last 11 Wimbledon titles (Venus five, Serena four), and they've played each other in the final four times.  But they've both been out so long I don't even remember the last time either one played.  Serena's been out almost an entire year since cutting her foot on a glass table after winning Wimbledon last year.  The health of the Williams sisters is the big question mark going into the tournament.  If they're both healthy, beating them will be tough.

But the Williams sisters aren't the only ones capable of winning Wimbledon.  Maria Sharapova's the only other former champ in the field (she beat Serena in 2004), and she might be playing the best tennis of her career right now, reaching the semis of the French Open on her worst surface.  The same can be said for surprise French Open champion Li Na, who's seeded third here.  Then there's No. 2 seed Vera Zvonareva, last year's finalist, and No. 9 Marion Bartoli, the finalist in 2007.  And don't forget about Agnieszka Radwaska, Daniela Hantuchova, Victoria Azarenka and Svetlana Kuznetsova.  (I said it's wide open, didn't I?)  Top-ranked Caroline Wozniacki is still in search of her first Grand Slam title, but I don't think it happens here.  I'm officially going to say that's also the case for Jelena Jankovic, who I've now officially given up on as a potential Grand Slam champion.

With Kim Clijsters missing Wimbledon due to injury, I'd have to install Serena as the favorite, followed by Venus and Sharapova.  However, I'm taking Maria over Serena in the semis.  I think 25th-seeded Hantuchova continues her solid run from Paris and reaches the other semifinal, where she'll lose to Venus.  And in the final, I'll take Sharapova to win her second Wimbledon title.

Interleague Intrigue

We've reached mid-June, which means one thing to baseball fans: interleague play.  Sure they play that one random interleague series in May, but we've got five in a row now, so for all intents and purposes, this is when it starts.  I know that, in general, feelings are mixed about interleague play, but, as I've gone on record saying before and will again, I've always been a fan.  For those of you who don't like it, we're in the 15th season of interleague play and it isn't going anywhere, so suck it up and deal with it.

The marquee matchup of this weekend is clearly Yankees-Cubs at Wrigley.  Two of the iconic franchises of the game meeting in one of the game's iconic venues.  This is only made possible because of interleague play.  And that's the whole point.  Every year, you get one or two series that's so delicious it validates the entire thing.  In addition to playing the Yankees at Wrigley, the Cubs already played the Red Sox at Fenway this year.  Those are the best two matchups on the interleague agenda this year, but there are plenty of other good ones: Red Sox at Phillies, Rangers at Braves, Cardinals at Rays, Giants at Tigers. 

Of course for all of those you also get series like Diamondbacks at Royals, Orioles at Pirates, Marlins at A's or Mariners at Nationals as a tradeoff.  These are the series that critics site as reasons why interleague play is stupid.  But, this just in, the good teams can't play everybody.  The bad teams have to play someone, so they might as well play each other.  And Diamondbacks-Royals is really no different than Diamondbacks-Nationals in the grand scheme of things.

The only "problem" that people bring up about interleague play where I can somewhat see their point is the argument that teams in the same division don't play the same opponents.  Case in point, the National League Central.  The first-place Brewers visit both the Yankees and Red Sox this year, while the second-place Cardinals don't play either one at all.  And even though the division pairings are predetermined, teams don't necessarily play only teams from that division.  It's AL East vs. NL Central this year, yet the Yankees play the Rockies, the Orioles play the Braves and the Red Sox play the Padres.  Some of this is the result of the natural rivalries (Yankees-Mets, Cubs-White Sox, Dodgers-Angels, Rays-Marlins, etc.).  There are six interleague series, and the Yankees play the Mets twice.  The NL Central has six teams, so that's automatically two they're not going to play anyway. 

But even the natural rivalries create the strength of schedule issues that the interleague critics love.  For example, the Rangers get to play the lowly Astros six times, while the A's have two series against their natural rival, which just happens to be the World Champion Giants.  In that situation, it's obviously advantage Texas.  Then there are the teams that don't have natural rivals (Arizona, Colorado, Toronto and a few others).  They make up for it by not playing anyone twice.

Part of the beauty of interleague play is getting to see teams and players you wouldn't normally see in your home ballpark.  That's my favorite part of interleague play.  Yet somehow, there are still a handful of matchup that have NEVER happened in the regular season.  The Dodgers have never played in Yankee Stadium or hosted the Rays, yet this season they're hosting the Tigers for the second year in a row.  We're 15 years in.  There shouldn't be any matchups left that haven't happened before.  But there are 11.  In addition to the two involving the Dodgers, we've never had Twins at Braves, A's at Brewers, White Sox at Mets, Rangers at Cardinals, Braves at Royals, Cardinals at Angels, Cubs at A's, Brewers at Mariners or Padres at Blue Jays.  That's where they need to fix the imbalance of interleague play.  Seriously, how come the Dodgers have never played a regular season game in Yankee Stadium?

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's a way to have every team in a division play the same interleague schedule.  In fact, it's virtually impossible because of the natural rivalries.  I don't know why so many people think this is a problem, though.  The schedule's already unbalanced.  And the National League has two extra teams, so some of them don't even play the same number of interleague games.  But even with all that being said, I still don't advocate realignment.  Interleague play is a fun little distraction in June.  You shouldn't be playing interleague games in September, which you'd have to if there were 15 teams in each league.

With all that being said, despite some of its perceived "flaws," there isn't a thing I would change about interleague play.  I would make sure that the only team you see in consecutive years is your natural rival, and I'd make sure those 11 teams that haven't been to a given stadium yet get there, but that's about it.  It's fun to watch the American League pitchers hit in National League parks.  (I'm not getting into the merits of the designated hitter, which, not surprisingly, I'm in favor of and, not surprisingly, isn't going anywhere either.)  Actually, that's the only other thing I would modify a little.  I wouldn't make an AL team play nine consecutive interleague road games (Boston, Cleveland, the Angels and Toronto all have to this season).  For a team that's used to having a DH to suddenly not have one for more than a week isn't fair.

Great Two-Word Sports Terms

Game 7.  Tonight we had one in the Stanley Cup Finals (even if the wrong team won).  When put together, "Game 7" is one of the greatest single expressions any sports fan can hear.  You intstantly know what it means.  It doesn't matter the sport.  But it's not the only great two-word sports term out there.  Here are a few others:

• "Home Run"-Ever since Babe Ruth changed the game of baseball in the 1920s, there's always been something magical about the home run.  Almost 100 years later that still hasn't changed.
• "Perfect Game"-Any no-hitter is special, but a perfect game is something different entirely.  27 up, 27 down.  The hardest thing to do in baseball.  There have only been 20 in Major League history.  And each one has defined the pitcher's career.  Just ask Don Larsen.
• "Opening Day"-The birth of a new season when hope springs eternal.  Everyone is tied for first place at 0-0 and everyone (in theory at least) has an equal opportunity to win a championship.  Maybe this will be the year.
• "Major Leaguer"-It's the dream of every boy who grows up playing baseball in America.  It takes years to get there (if at all), but once you do, you're a Major League ballplayer forever.
• "World Series"-Baseball is the National Pastime.  It's obviously lost some of its luster over the years, but those two words "World Series" (or the alternate, "Fall Classic") will always mean something special to the true baseball fan.
• "Stanley Cup"-Not only is it the most beautiful championship trophy among the "Big Four," it's also the hardest to win.  Then there's the historical element.  It's the same trophy that they've used since 1893, and you get your name on it if your team wins it.
• "Super Bowl"-Only in football can one game become a national event.  Who doesn't watch the Super Bowl, whether they care about football or not?
• "Derby Day"-Along with the aforementioned football game, the Kentucky Derby is one of the greatest single-day events in sports.  All the tradition is part of it, but there's so much more.  It's pretty incredible, seeing as the race itself lasts barely two minutes.
• "Triple Crown"-We also go into the Kentucky Derby with 20 horses having a chance to finally become the next "Triple Crown" winner, but leave with only one.  Only 11 horses have won the Triple Crown (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont Stakes), and none since Affirmed in 1978.  Yeah, it's pretty rare.  And pretty special.  (Baseball also has a "Triple Crown," which hasn't been won since Carl Yastrzemski in 1967.)
• "Grand Slam"-Yes, it's a home run with the bases loaded, but I'm referring to "Grand Slam" as it applies to tennis.  Winning the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open all in the same year.  Winning one is special.  Four in a row is virtually impossible.  Just five have done it (Rod Laver somehow did it TWICE!).
• "Number 1"-This refers to a world ranking.  The sport doesn't matter.  If you're Number 1, it means you're the best, even if it's only for a short period of time.
• "Final Four"-College basketball's ultimate stage.  Perhaps rivals the Super Bowl as the most well-known sports championship in the U.S.  The Final Four is what every college basketball player hopes to play in.  And where every Cinderella mid-major team wants to go before the clock strikes midnight.
• "National Champion"-Once again, it doesn't matter the sport.  Just like it doesn't matter the year.  If you win a national championship, that means you're the best.  For athletes in individual sports, it's one of the greatest feats you can achieve.
• "World Champion"-Ditto on the sport and the year not making a difference.  World Champion trumps National Champion because it means you're not only the best in your country.  It means you went up against the best the rest of the world had to offer and came out on top.
• "Olympic Gold"-It's every athlete's dream.  Winning one is the realization of life's ultimate goal and a reward for the sacrifice and dedication that goes into that pursuit.  The best part?  Unless you take it away from yourself, they can NEVER take it away from you.  For the rest of your life, you'll be an Olympic Champion.
• "National Anthem"-Yes, you hear it at the beginning of every game.  But there's something completely different about it when it's being played for an athlete that just had an Olympic gold medal put around their neck.

"Game 7" has so much meaning, but so do all of these.  And this is just a sampling of 15.  There are so many more two-word sports expressions that could've been on this list.  All of them are great.

My Realignment Plan

This ridiculous talk of baseball realignment just won't die.  In fact, new details of the stupid plan are coming out everyday.  The latest was today's announcement of how they would set up the schedule.  84 games against your league, 78 against the other league.  Only 84 games against your own league?!  Seriously?  That's six per opponent.  Or, one series at home and one series on the road.  That's simply unacceptable.

Anyway, even after writing last night's post, I got to thinking about a way to do this where it actually made some semblance of sense.  And I kept coming back to expansion rather than simply realignment.  Add two teams to the American League.  That gives you 16 in each.  Then you can go to four divisions of four, just like football.  And you get your unnecessary fifth playoff team by keeping the wild card.  The top three division winners are the top three seeds in the playoffs, while the fourth division winner plays the wild card.  It doesn't matter if they're in the same division or not.

The two teams that I'm adding are in Montreal and Indianapolis.  I know what you're thinking.  "Why Montreal?"  Well, ever since the Mets were created to replace the Giants and Dodgers in New York, every city that's lost its team eventually got a new one.  Since this is my hypothetical expansion, I'm following that same principle and putting a team back in Montreal.  Indy gets the other team because it's the largest market in the country that doesn't have a Major League team (Orlando doesn't count, since it technically has the Rays).  Indianapolis would also have a nice little built-in natural rivalry with the White Sox.

The division breakdown would look something like this:

AMERICAN LEAGUE
East-Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sux, New York Yankees, Tampa Bay Rays
North-Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Montreal Saints, Toronto Blue Jays
Central-Chicago White Sox, Indianapolis Racers, Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins
West-Los Angeles Angels, Oakland Athletics, Seattle Mariners, Texas Rangers

NATIONAL LEAGUE
East-New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Washington Nationals
Central-Chicago Cubs, Colorado Rockies, Milwaukee Brewers, St. Louis Cardinals
South-Atlanta Braves, Cincinnati Reds, Florida Marlins, Houston Astros
West-Arizona Diamondbacks, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants

My schedule even makes a lot more sense than the one they're proposing.  Instead of 18, now you play 19 games against everybody else in your division (57 games).  Interleague play is still 18 games.  Like now, you play six against your natural rival (Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, Dodgers-Angels, etc.).  If you don't have a natural rival, you're assigned one for the purpose of scheduling.  The other 12 interleague games are one series against each of the four teams in a predetermined division (if it's your rival's division, you play one team from a different division).  The other 90 games are against the other 12 teams in your league.  You play four of them (one division) nine times and the other eight teams either six (five teams) or seven times (three teams).  Those matchups obviously rotate every year.

Now, doesn't my system make a whole lot more sense than everything Bud and Co. are proposing?  I'm just saying.

Another Dumb Idea

He's at it again.  For some reason, Bud Selig seems determined to screw up the great game of baseball by over-commissioner-ing (yes, I just made up that word, what's your point?).  His latest great idea?  No divisions.  Seriously, Bud?  This is even dumber than your two wild card idea.  You floated this idea of rotating divisions last year and nobody liked it, so what makes you think this is any better?

First, let's get into the specifics of this "brilliant" plan.  The Astros move to the American League, giving each league 15 teams (evidently he thinks this makes more sense than adding two expansion teams to the AL).  Then, the three divisions go away, meaning each league is one massive 15-team division.  And the expanded playoff thing (another stupid idea) seems to be a done deal according to this scenario, since it calls for the top five teams in each league to make the playoffs.  I'm not going to get into the expanded playoffs.  You already know my feelings on that.  But, believe it or not, they've found something worse to get me going.

Where do I start with the flaws in this plan?  How about the uneven number of teams in each league?  When baseball last expanded in 1998, the Diamondbacks were placed in the NL West and the Rays in the AL East.  That gave both leagues 15 teams, so the Brewers switched from the AL to the NL in order to keep both leagues balanced.  Otherwise, there would either have to be an interleague series every day or two teams (one in each league) would have to be off.  Since neither one of those things would work, moving Milwaukee was a good and necessary move.  (Sidebar: If they promised to put Arizona in the NL West, why didn't they just put Tampa Bay in the National League?  Then, the Brewers wouldn't have had to switch.)

What next?  How about scheduling?  As it is now, teams play an unbalanced schedule.  They play the teams in their division 18 times each (the NL Central doesn't since it has the extra team), 18 interleague games (in the NL, they play either 18 or 15) and a random number (anywhere between 6 and 10) against the rest of their league.  Until 2001, they didn't play an unbalanced schedule, which I'm guessing is what they would want to go back to.  But if you want to have interleague play (which you'd have to), the schedule still has to be unbalanced anyway.  Teams play 52 series a year (26 at home, 26 away).  If there are 15 teams in each league, you already can't play two at home and two on the road against everybody else.  Add in interleague play and you're trying to divide 23 by 14.  That obviously doesn't work.  So who are you more likely to play the extra games against?  Probably the teams that are currently in your division.  If that's the case, what's the point of dropping divisions?

Now let's get into the whole reason divisions exist in the first place.  Of course, baseball didn't have divisions until 1969.  But from 1901-61, there were only 16 teams total.  Now they want 15 in each league!  The divisions were created in 1969 when four expansion teams came into existence, giving each league 12 teams.  In 1994, they added the wild card and went from two divisions to three.  Divisions exist to limit travel, foster rivalries and (theoretically, at least) increase late-season excitement by keeping more teams in the race until September.  All of those elements would be lost if the divisions went away.  (Using the Red Sux as the example is too easy, so I'll use Tampa Bay.  I only care if the Rays win or lose because they're in the AL East.  That's the same reason why I don't give a crap about a random Wednesday night game between the Tigers and Royals in May.  Now you're telling me that I'm supposed to dislike 14 teams equally?  Not gonna happen.)

It seems to me that the four people other than Bud's braintrust who actually think this is a good idea haven't really thought the whole thing through.  Right now, you go into the season knowing that you only need to finish with a better record than four other teams to make the playoffs.  No divisions means you have to finish better than at least 10 other teams.  Sure, Blue Jays fans like it because they know they won't need to beat both the Yankees and Red Sux to make the playoffs, but what about fans of teams in the other five divisions?  How long until you get four (or five) playoff teams from what used to be the same division?  That's not as unlikely a scenario as you might think.

And what about the playoff races?  They would be all but nonexistent.  The top three teams in each league would be pretty clear, and those teams would have absolutely nothing to play for down the stretch.  (Does it really matter who has home field in a best-of-five 2 vs. 3 series?)  Likewise, the bottom three or four teams would also be pretty clear, and they'd all be out of it by the end of August.  Thus, you'd have about five or six mediocre teams fighting to see who can be the least mediocre and reach the playoffs.  Instead of what we have now, which is good teams fighting each other to win the six divisions while simultaneously also in a wild card race that one of the non-division winners is going to win.  September baseball is pretty damn exciting.  You wouldn't be increasing excitement.  You'd all but take it away.

In baseball and football, there's actually value to winning your division.  So why would you eliminate them?  In basketball or hockey, where everybody makes the playoffs and all winning your division does is help your seeding, this would somewhat make sense.  European soccer leagues are the only thing I can think of that doesn't have divisions.  The English Premier League has 20 teams, all in one "division."  The top four teams advance to the next season's Champions League.  But the English Premier League also has a system of promotion and relegation with the second division.  The bottom three teams are demoted each season. 

If we're going to drop divisons, why not go all the way?  The last-place team in each league is relegated to Triple-A, while the winners of the International and Pacific Coast Leagues get to become Major League teams the next season.  That could actually be fun.  And it's only slightly more stupid than dropping the divisional format that's worked just fine for 40 years.

Rating the Yankees Announcers

A few weeks ago, my aunt suggested doing a blog rating the YES Network broadcasters from best to worst.  I'm not one to shy away from taking suggestions, and frankly, that was a better idea than anything I can come up with on my own, so I've decided to give my reading audience what they want.

These rankings only reflect those who do games on YES, as well as the Yankees' radio team of John Sterling and Suzyn Waldmann.  It doesn't include any national broadcasters (who are we kidding, Tim McCarver would rank first on any list of "Worst Broadcasters," so I've decided to give him a break for some reason).  Nancy Newman, Kim Jones and Jack Curry also get a break, since none of them actually call any game action.  (Although, if they were included in the list, Nancy and Kim wouldn't rank too high.)  Besides, I think anyone who's ever played for the Yankees, is retired, and doesn't have some sort of other baseball-related job is a YES analyst, so I had to draw the line somewhere.  With all that being said, it's time for the rankings (in reverse order).

9. Suzyn Waldmann-Suzyn Waldmann made history when she became the first female to become a regular in a Major League Baseball team's radio booth.  Why?  She isn't good.  Her "analysis" is about equal to the insight provided by our friend Tim McCarver, and she essentially just agrees with everything John Sterling says.  In other words, she lends nothing to the broadcast.  Well, that's not entirely true.  She does the out-of-town scoreboard!

8. Bob Lorenz-I've got nothing against Bob Lorenz.  In fact, I think he's a tremendous studio host.  But for the West Coast games that Michael Kay doesn't want to do and Ken Singleton isn't scheduled for (as well as every game in Toronto, which is wierd.  Is Kay not allowed to leave the country or something?), they put Lorenz in the booth, usually with John Flaherty.  He tries, but he's just not the best play-by-play guy.  His style is too dry, which is why it lends itself to the studio.

7. Michael Kay-Yes, Michael Kay gets annoying.  I don't deny that.  The games that he takes off are usually a welcome treat.  He relies too much on shitck and often gets waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too poetic, but when you push all that stuff aside, he actually becomes tolerable (in small doses).  Even if he doesn't always know what's going on.  And it's absolutely hilarious when he's in the booth with O'Neill or Flaherty and they just make fun of each other the whole time!  Besides, it's not possible for any regular Yankee broadcaster to rank lower than Suzyn Waldmann.

6. Paul O'Neill-To be fair, Paul O'Neill was one of my favorite Yankees when he played, and I think No. 21 should be put on the wall in Monument Park.  To be fair, I think the Kay-O'Neill-Leiter team lends to some of the most entertaining YES broadcasts (mainly because they're only home games and they usually include one of those awesome weekday afternoon games).  But other than serving as Michael Kay's punchline, he isn't really a great analyst.  At least he's funny.

5. David Cone-Coney comes in slighlty ahead of Paulie because he's never dragged down by Michael Kay.  Of course, I can't really hold the fact that YES schedules him to work with Singleton instead of Kay against O'Neill, but there are other reasons why he gets the nod.  Mainly, the perspective he gives as a former pitcher and his overall baseball knowledge.

4. John Sterling-I know most of you probably think that John Sterling's ranking is a little too high.  Well, part of it is because of how nicely he treated me when I got to be a guest in the booth during a game in Baltimore a couple years ago, but that's beside the point.  Yes he makes things up.  Yes his style can get incredibly obnoxious.  But remember the days when the radio announcer WAS the team to a lot of people?  OK, I don't, but the point remains.  John Sterling IS the Yankees for a lot of people.  And the catchphrases that you know ("It is high.  It is far.  It is gone.") ("Yankees win!  Theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Yankees win!") are all his.

3. John Flaherty-Flash has a promising future.  For somebody who's still a broadcasting novice, he's got all the tools.  Other than the Kay-O'Neill-Leiter games, the Singleton-Flaherty games are the best ones.  In fact, those are probably the best ones if you're looking for a set of broadcasters who are straight-forward, fair, honest and knowledgeable, as well as both extremely talented.  Flaherty even gives play-by-play a whirl.  He's not there yet as a play-by-play guy, but he is as an analyst.  Bringing on Flash was one of the best moves YES ever made.

2. Al Leiter-Al Leiter is so good that he does national telecasts in additon to Yankees games.  He's easily the most talented pure analyst on the network.  Leiter showed what he can do early (he was a guest analyst for FOX's ALCS coverage when he was still playing), and he's just as good in the studio (he sometimes does MLB Tonight on MLB Network) as he is in the booth.  Pitchers and catchers tend to make the best broadcasters because of all that goes into what they do on the field, and Leiter is no exception.  In fact, he's among the very best.

1. Ken Singleton-This selection was an easy one.  It's an absolute joy to listen to Ken Singleton call a baseball game.  The best duo/trio YES can put out there is Kay and Singleton, because Kay is the best play-by-play guy they've got and Singleton is their best analyst.  Ken Singleton knows the game and he knows how to talk about it.  He's a seasoned broadcaster, which obviously helps, but that's far from the only thing that makes him good.  It says a lot about how talented a broadcaster is if they're able to transition from calling play-by-play to doing color (which are completely different things).  It's not as easy as it might seem.  Or as easy as Ken Singleton makes it look.  My only complaint about Ken Singleton is that he doesn't do more games.

Olympic Rights and Two Olympic Wrongs

NBC has been America's Olympic Network for 20 years.  It's hard to imagine that ever changing, but that's exactly what ESPN and FOX hope will happen.  Representatives from all three networks are currently at IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland to present their bids for the 2014 and 2016 Games, with the possibility of also bidding for the 2018 and 2020 Olympics.  If Dick Ebersol was still running things at NBC, it would've been virtually impossible for NBC not to retain the rights.  But his sudden resignation last month makes this a whole new ballgame.  Hopefully not enough for the IOC to make the wrong decision.

It probably isn't a shock to any of you that I think the Olympics belong on NBC, but I'll explain why.  For starters, NBC needs the Olympics.  Certainly more than the other two.  Other than me, nobody watches NBC.  Except for Sunday Night Football and the Olympics.  Comcast, NBC's new majority owner, knows that.  Yes, the network suffered significant losses in Vancouver.  But the Beijing Olympics were also the most-watched event in television history.  I'm just playing a hunch here, but I have a feeling that London will be more like Beijing than Vancouver.

More importantly, NBC cares about the Olympics.  If we're being technical here, Dick Ebersol cares about the Olympics.  But even though Ebersol doesn't work for NBC anymore, the Olympics have become such a part of the network's identity that it's hard to ignore the commitment NBC has shown to the Games.  "NBC Olympics" is a brand that's as firmly established for the network as Seinfeld, Friends or The Office.  They've also created Universal Sports, a very good digital channel that covers nothing but Olympic sports.  Among the offerings on Universal Sports are beach volleyball, track & field, cycling, skiing, figure skating, etc.  And now that it's on the Olympic program for 2016, they've begun showing rugby sevens.

Without Universal Sports, where (and when) would these sports going to be shown?  That's right, nowhere!  In addition, NBC wisely utilizes its cable channels CNBC, MSBC, Bravo, USA and now Versus in Olympic coverage.  They also show live streaming of some of the less popular events on NBCOlympics.com.  That's the type of commitment that the IOC likes and that no other network in the U.S. is able (or willing) to offer.  Plus, NBC has covered every Summer Olympics since 1988 and every Winter Olympics since 2002.  They've been a loyal and dedicated partner to the Olympic movement.  Even without Dick Ebersol running the show, I don't see why they'd be stupid enough to let that change.

The favorite criticism of NBC's Olympic coverage is the use of tape delay for marquee events.  ESPN and FOX have both said that they'll show everything live.  Yeah right.  I'll believe that when I see it.  The 2014 Winter Olympics are in Sochi, Russia (9 hours ahead of New York) and the 2018 Games will likely be in Pyeogchang, South Korea (14 hours ahead).  In fact, the only Olympics up for bid in a U.S.-friendly time zone is the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro.  Complain all you want about it, but tape delay is actually the way to go.  By doing it that way, NBC is able to let people see the events they want to watch when they're actually awake and watching TV.  They might tell you otherwise, but ESPN and FOX would do the exact same thing.  Not only that, but some events take place simultaneously, meaning there's no possible way to show them both live.  Knowing the results ahead of time doesn't change the viewing experience at all.  At least not for me.  The people who only want to know who won just don't get it.  There's more to the Olympics than gold, silver and bronze.

ESPN is going to mount a serious bid and has the powerful Disney brand behind it.  The IOC would love adding Disney to its stable of sponsors.  But I think the only reason ESPN wants the Olympics is because they have everything else.  And that's exactly the problem.  ESPN has everything!  I'm not sure they'd even be able to find the room to fit the Olympics into their schedule.  Take Sochi, which would be ESPN's first Olympics, and also happen to fall right smack in the heart of college basketball season.  You want to piss off the college basketball fans by showing the Winter Olympics instead?  ESPN does have the ability to utilize ABC, but how happy would Disney be with pre-empting two weeks of primetime programming on the broadcast network during February sweeps?  In fairness, if ESPN does show the proper commitment, I'm sure they'd do an excellent job.  Their coverage of last year's World Cup was exceptional, and they also do a nice job with Wimbledon.  I'm just not sure ESPN would care enough to give the Olympics the type of coverage they deserve.

The same thing goes for FOX.  I honestly think FOX doesn't have a prayer.  Most people only finally accepted FOX as a legitimate fourth broadcast network when they got the NFL in 1994.  Now FOX is No. 1, thanks largely to American Idol, but also to excellent programs like Glee, House and Bones.  Women between the ages of 18-49 watch FOX.  That's also the largest demographic that watches the Olympics.  Frankly, I think that's the only reason FOX is even bidding.  That's about the only thing that FOX can offer the IOC that's better than the other two.  Don't count on it being enough.

There might've been a little bit of rambling in there (I get like that about the Olympics from time to time), but I think I laid it out nicely.  I also tried to be fair, even though I clearly have a preference.  FOX is only bidding to drive the price up, while ESPN just wants to stick it to NBC and get the only thing it doesn't have yet in the process.  ESPN has a chance, but I'd be incredibly surprised (as well as extremely disappointed) if NBC doesn't retain the Olympic rights.  NBC IS the Olympics in the U.S.  If the IOC awards the rights to ESPN or FOX, they'll quickly realize it was a mistake.  Sadly, this might come down to money.  Comcast has said the NBC bid won't be as high as it was for Vancouver and London (for which NBC greatly overbid, thus the major deficit after Vancouver).  Hopefully it's still the highest.  Even if it isn't, hopefully it's high enough for the IOC to decide its worth it to continue a mutually beneficial relationship.

Give the Guy a Break

Attention America:

Scott Cousins did NOT intentionally injure Buster Posey.  So, please stop with all this ridiculous crap.  The rules don't need to be changed, and Cousins certainly doesn't deserve everything he's had to put up with since the collision happened.  Oh, and by the way, the game was almost two weeks ago!  (May 25 to be exact.)  Seriously, it's time to get over it.

Does it suck that Posey got hurt?  Of course.  He's a great young player and the Giants wouldn't have won the World Series without him last season.  He's already become the post-Bonds face of that franchise, and he was probably going to start the All-Star Game next month.  But Cousins did absolutely nothing wrong, and to think he had any sort of malicious intent is utterly ridiculous (for starters, he's from San Francisco).  This isn't Pete Rose barrelling over Ray Fosse in the All-Star Game.  Cousins was trying to score the go-ahead run in the top of the 12th inning of a tie game.  Posey was blocking the plate.  What was he (Cousins) supposed to do?  Not try to score?  No.  He did what you're supposed to do.  It was a clean play all around.  Even Posey has admitted such.  He's a baseball player who was trying to make a baseball play.  Unfortunately, Posey got hurt.  I'm sure Cousins feels terrible about it.

With all that being said, there's absolutely no reason to vilify Scott Cousins.  The guy's receiving death threats.  Seriously, Giants fans?  Do you remember what happened to one of your own on Opening Day?  That was an actual crime, and I sincerely hope Bryan Stow's attackers are found and brought to justice, just like I pray he makes a full recovery.  That senseless action takes place to a Giants fan, yet Giants fans as a whole still lack perspective to the point that they somehow equate that to what Scott Cousins did on the field (legally) in a game as if it's the same thing?  Come on Giants fans, I thought you were better than that.

I also thought Brian Sabean was better than that.  Dude, your the general manager of a Major League Baseball team.  You need to control yourself a little bit better.  For those of you who are unaware, Sabean went on a tirade on a San Francisco radio station saying that he thought the play was malicious and that he wants the Giants to "go after" Cousins the next time they play the Marlins.  He even went so far as to say that he'd be happy if Cousins never plays another game in the Majors.  Uncalled for?  Just a bit.  Unprofessional?  Without a doubt.  Marlins outfielder Logan Morrison said just that when he shot back at Sabean, when he also made the very good point that Sabean would probably feel a little differently if Posey was the base runner in that situation and it was another team's catcher that got hurt.

Now that he's no longer managing, Joe Torre works for Major League Baseball.  I'm not really sure what his actual job is, but he's apparently some sort of baseball principal, since Sabean was called to the principal's office.  As he should've been.  He'll undoubtedly be fined, but that doesn't seem like enough.  In my eyes, unprofessional behavior like that is grounds for a suspension.  If the league doesn't do it, the Giants should.

But don't expect that to happen, either.  Realizing their GM is an idiot, the Giants issued a statement on Friday that didn't really apologize for Sabean's comments.  Instead, I interpreted it as damage control more than anything else.  All it said was that the comments were made "out of frustration" and "weren't meant to vilify Scott Cousins."  The Giants also made Sabean reach out to Cousins to "clarify" his remarks, but, shockingly, Cousins doesn't want to talk to him.  I wonder why.  The Giants' president also called the Marlins' president in an attempt to clear the air.  Yeah, good luck with that. 

Stop acting like Cousins killed Posey and just treat it like it is--a season-ending injury.  When Yankees outfielder Nick Swisher broke Twins second baseman Tsuyoshi Nishioka's leg on a clean takeout slide in April, did anybody overreact like this?  No.  Seriously, move on.  Hopefully, the Giants put an end to it in that "Brian Sabean Is an Idiot" press release.  It said that instead of going after Scott Cousins, Giants fans should show their support for Buster Posey and his recovery.  Wow!  What a concept!  It's not like your team won the World Series last year and has a great chance to get back this season or anything.

My "favorite" part of the whole Posey thing came in the immediate aftermath when GMs of other teams told their catchers not to block the plate.  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.  Your catcher's job is to prevent the base runner from scoring on plays at the plate.  Now you want them not to try to do that just so they don't get hurt?  Doesn't make sense to me.  If it makes sense to any of you, please explain the logic to me.  I've got another plan.  Block the plate correctly!  That way, the runner won't score and the catcher won't get hurt.

Likewise, they don't need to change the rules to "protect" catchers on plays at the plate.  That suggestion is just as asanine as the whole "don't block the plate" thing.  Catchers know what they're getting into when they put all that equipment on.  That's one of the reasons they wear all that equipment.  Baseball's been played the same way for 150 years.  You don't need to change the rules because one catcher got hurt.  Catchers have gotten hurt before, and it seems pretty likely that it'll happen again.  So, please, can we all just get over the fact that Buster Posey is out for the season and stop with all this ridiculous crap?  Thank you. 

P.S.-Who should I vote for as the National League All-Star catcher now?

Stanley Cup Finals Fun Facts

As I post, I'm currently watching Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals.  A couple years ago, the NHL officially changed the name to the singular "Stanley Cup FINAL" for some reason, but since that doesn't make any sense (there's more than one game) and I don't like it, I opt to keep the "S" on there.  Anyway, I gave you a collection of random facts for the World Series and Super Bowl, so now I'll do the same for the Stanley Cup Finals.  The predicition will come at the end of the post.

• After going 11 seasons between Finals appearances for Canadian teams (1994 Canucks-2004 Flames), there have now been four different Canadian teams in the last seven Stanley Cup Finals (2004 Flames, 2006 Oilers, 2007 Senators, 2011 Canucks), and the two Canadian teams that didn't make it just happen to be two of the Original Six, with a combined 37 Stanley Cup titles between them (24 Canadiens, 13 Maple Leafs).  Of the three Finals that didn't include Canadian teams, two featured the Red Wings, so those don't really count since Detroit is basically in Canada.
• The Bruins are the slackers of New England.  They're the only Boston-area team that hasn't won a championship this century (2001-03-04 Patriots, 2004-07 Red Sux, 2008 Celtics).  If they win the Cup, Boston will be the first city to have all of its teams win a title in years that start in 20.  Boston is the second city to have all of its teams make the finals since the turn of the century.  The first was Philadelphia (2001 76ers, 2004 Eagles, 2008-09 Phillies, 2010 Flyers), but only the 2008 Phillies won.
• Boston hasn't won the Stanley Cup since the days of the great Bobby Orr--1972 to be exact.  That 39-year drought is a long one, but it's only the fifth-longest active streak in the NHL.  In fact, the Canucks' streak is longer.  They've never won the Cup, and they started play in 1970-71, the season before Boston's last Cup.
• While the Canucks have never won the Stanley Cup, the city of Vancouver has.  Back in the days when the Stanley Cup was a challenge trophy between the winner of the NHL and the winner of the Pacific Coast Hockey Association, the Vancouver Millionaires beat the NHL champion Ottawa Senators in 1915.  The Millionaires also lost the Finals in 1918, 1921 and 1922.
• Both goaltenders won medals at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics (Roberto Luongo won gold with Canada, Tim Thomas was a silver medalist with Team USA).  Since NHL players started playing in the Olympics (1998), there's never been a Finals matchup where both goalies were already Olympic medalists.
• The trip from Vancouver to Boston (3,250 miles) is easily the longest distance between championship participants in the history of any of the four major sports.  Falling out of the top spot in hockey is the 2,929-mile trek from Montreal to Los Angeles in the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals.  Now you're wondering what was the furthest in each of the other sports, aren't you?  Well, here you go: 3,114 miles between Miami and San Francisco (Super Bowl XIX); 2,988 miles between New York and San Francisco (1962 World Series); 3,149 miles between Boston and San Francisco (1964 NBA Finals).
• Speaking of the NBA, which isn't something I normally do, they've got one fun Finals factoid that I just couldn't ignore.  The Heat and Mavericks have both made the Finals twice in history, and they've only played each other (in non-consecutive years).  The only other team that's ever had that happen is the Cincinnati Bengals, who lost both Super Bowl XVI and Super Bowl XXIII to the San Francisco 49ers.
• I also think this is the first time the NBA Finals started before the Stanley Cup Finals, but it would require a lot more research than I'm willing to do in order to confirm it for sure.

Now for the Stanley Cup Finals pick.  It shouldn't surprise you if you've read this blog at all.  Especially considering where I live, the fact that I love the Olympics, and the fact that the Canucks are the best team in hockey.  The only chance Boston has is to have its defense prevent the Canucks from scoring and hope Luongo has one of those brain farts fans in Vancouver seem to think he has regularly.  Maybe they'll get off his back after he wins a Cup (the year after winning an Olympic gold medal for Canada).  Canucks in six.