A Reason to End the NBA Lockout

Wow, that's a headline I never thought I'd actually type.  First things first, I think we can all agree that the NBA is going to lose some, if not all, of its regular season games in 2011-12.  The players know this.  The owners know this.  That's why you're seeing guys sign contracts to play in Turkey, Russia, Germany, basically all over Europe.  But the lack of a CBA is proving to be more problematic for the players than anybody thought.

Now, I don't care when NBA games are played once again.  I didn't watch them before, and I won't watch them when they come back.  But that's not the point of this post.  The Olympics are next summer.  That means this summer features Olympic qualifying for every nation except the host country (Great Britain) and the defending World Champion (the United States).  Fortunately, Kevin Durant single-handedly won the World Championship last year in Turkey.  Otherwise, the U.S. could have been staring at playing Olympic qualifiers without NBA players.  While that's the way it always used to be, it hasn't been that way in more than 20 years, and it certainly would've created quite the predicament for USA Basketball.

However, every other country is in that exact situation.  An element of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement that a lot of people don't realize involves insurance.  As part of the owners' agreement with the players union, each player's health insurance is covered by his NBA team.  Without an agreement between the owners and the players in place, the players' health insurance is also in limbo.  Here's why that's a problem: if you don't have any insurance, you're liable for any potential injuries you suffer. 

Normally, NBA players are free to play for their national teams during the offseason without having to worry about health insurance, which is taken care of under the CBA as long as they're on an NBA roster.  That's obviously not the case this summer.  That leaves national federations with two options: either go without the NBA players (who obviously are the best in the country) or pay for their insurance so that they can play.  Neither one of these options is particularly favorable, but I think the one selected is pretty obvious.  Spain would prefer to attempt to qualify with Pau Gasol on the roster.  Ditto for Germany and Dirk Nowitzki.  And Argentina with Manu Ginobili.  That was the right decision.  Who knows if they'd qualify anyway, making this a moot point?  But it's not worth the risk.  And, frankly, can you picture the Olympic tournament NOT including teams like Spain, Germany and Argentina.

In its collective obsession with all things NBA, ESPN is going to show the finals of the European and American qualifying tournaments.  (By the way, there's no word whether or not anybody involved with ESPN is on suicide watch about the potential of no NBA season, but I'd stay away from Bristol on those first couple Friday nights in November just to be safe.)  While I don't have a problem with this (I think the basketball is going to be very good, and it'll certainly be very competitive), I'm left to wonder if ESPN would still be showing it if the NBA guys hadn't been cleared to play.  My guess is no.

And that brings me back to my original point.  The Olympics gives the NBA owners and players a deadline (albeit an unofficial one) to get a new CBA finalized, signed and ratified.  Otherwise we're left with this same nightmare going into the London Olympics.  Only it'll be made worse by the sheer fact that now the U.S. would face the same prospect.  The challenge would be much greater for Mike Krzyzewski and Jerry Colangelo than it might be for a country like Lithuania, which only has a handful of NBA players on its national team and goes without them a lot.  And, let's face it, this is the only international tournament that American NBA guys actually want to play in.

For the sake of the Olympic competition, the NBA lockout needs to be settled sometime before next summer.  The Olympics are the height of athletic competition.  It deserves the best teams that those nations that qualified are capable of putting out there.  And as much as I love college basketball, a team full of college guys representing the U.S. against professionals from other nations would probably be in over their heads.  The NBA was locked out during the 1998 World Championships, so no NBA players were eligible to play for the United States.  USA Basketball held tryouts a few weeks before those World Championships began and a team consisting of CBA players did an admirable job, winning the bronze. 

The world of international basketball has only gotten better since then, as evidence by Argentina winning the Olympic gold in 2004 and Spain winning the World Championship in 2006.  This proves that even an American team consisting of solely NBA players isn't guaranteed anything.  But we, as fans, deserve the best team possible going for Olympic gold, the most prestigious prize in sports.  And that's a team comprised of NBA players.

U.S. Open Time

That was it?  Hurricane Irene certainly didn't do much here in New York, which is certainly a good thing.  And fortunately the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center was unaffected, which means the U.S. Open will start on time on Monday morning. 

Although, I'm going to argue that a little delay at the start of the U.S. Open wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  In each of the last three years, the weather didn't cooperate at the end of the tournament, resulting in the men's final getting pushed to Monday afternoon.  That's just inconvenient for everybody.  Hopefully we can get back to normal this year.  For more than one reason.  The men's final is scheduled on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and I don't think there's any more fitting tribute than a major international sports championship in New York on that day.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody to hear that the U.S. Open is my favorite grand slam.  I try to go every year, but that's not the only reason why.  Blue courts.  Night tennis.  Fan-friendly.  The best tennis players in the world in the greatest city on Earth.  But more importantly, I think the U.S. Open is the one tournament that favors the fittest, most complete players.  The Australian Open's the first tournament of the year, grinders win the French Open, and servers win Wimbledon.  It takes a little bit of all those skills to win the U.S. Open, though.  And with the semis and finals back-to-back, you need to be fit, too.

Anyway, now it's time to look at the men's and women's fields, starting with the women.  Serena Williams is back to playing like Serena Williams.  She won the U.S. Open series events in Toronto and Stanford to move up to No. 28 in the rankings.  That means she'll be seeded, which a lot of the other top players are very happy about.  Well, probably not No. 4 Victoria Azarenka, the unfortunate one who drew Serena in the third round.  The winner of that ridiculously good third-round match looks good to reach the semifinals, where No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki will probably be waiting.  Wozniacki was anoinited as a grand slam champion in waiting when she made an unexpected run to the finals here two years ago.  We're still waiting for it.  Wozniacki's been No. 1 for over a year, yet still doesn't have that grand slam title on her resume.  But I haven't given up hope on her yet (like certain Serbians).  Wozniacki always plays well at Flushing Meadows and just won the warm-up tournament in New Haven, so her chances are definitely good.

The bottom half of the draw features the other two former U.S. Open champions in the field: Maria Sharapova and Venus Williams, as well as Wimbledon champ Petra Kvitova.  Unlike Serena, Venus is ranked in the 30s and thus unseeded.  But she was unseeded in 1997 when she made the finals of her U.S. Open debut.  Since she wasn't seeded, Venus could've ended up anywhere in the draw.  The top players have to consider themselves lucky that they all avoided her in the early rounds.  Venus is actually in a pretty good position to get to the round of 16, where she could run into No. 2 Vera Zvonareva, who was a finalist last year.  Maria has looked great all summer and is coming off a U.S. Open Series win in Cincinnati.  Her last two grand slam results have been semis (French) and final (Wimbledon), and she's certainly playing well enough to win a second U.S. Open title.  She has a potential quarterfinal matchup with Kvitova, the woman who beat her in the Wimbledon final.

Kim Clijsters, who's won the U.S. Open each of the last three times she's played it, would've been the favorite if she wasn't out with an injury.  In her absence, I'm installing Serena, Wozniacki and Sharapova as tri-favorites.  My semifinal matchups are Wozniacki vs. Serena and a "Battle of the Marias" between Sharapova and Kirilenko (I don't know why I'm taking Maria Kirilenko in a section of the draw that includes Venus, Azarenka and Nadia Petrova, but I am).  Moving on to the final, I'm taking the two that have played the best tennis during the U.S. Open Series: Serena and Sharapova, with Serena claiming the title.

On the men's side, this entire year has been about Novak Djokovic.  Djokovic has lost a grand total of twice all season, once to Roger in the French Open semis and the other last week against Andy Murray in the final of Cincinnati.  But I'm not counting that one because Djokovic retired with a shoulder injury in the second set.  He says the shoulder's going to be fine for the Open, and if that's the case, the Magical Mystery Tour that is Novak Djokovic's 2011 season could feature a third grand slam title.  But, like always, the men's game is still about the Big Three and everybody else.

The way the draw worked out, it was Djokovic who drew Federer in the semis.  This certainly works to Roger's favor more than Novak's.  Of course, Djokovic was going to get one of the two guys who beat him this year (Murray's the No. 4 seed), but I think Federer would rather play Djokovic than Nadal any day.  Of course, it was a win over Federer in that classic semi at last year's U.S. Open that launched Djokovic's pursuit of No. 1.  I see very little stopping either one en route to a semifinal rematch, but I also can't help but feel bad for Mardy Fish.  At No. 8, Fish is the top American seed at the U.S. Open for the first time.  And his "reward" is a quarterfinal matchup with the five-time champion Federer.

The top American seed at the U.S. Open every year has always been Andy Roddick.  Belive it or not, it was eight years ago that Roddick won the title here, and that's still the last grand slam title by an American man (of course, he would've won one of those Wimbledon finals if he didn't always end up having to play Roger, but I digress).  Anyway, for the first time in a while, I don't consider Roddick much of a threat for the title.  He's only seeded 21st and needs to avoid getting upset early (which is never a guarantee with him) to have a chance.  Roddick could make a run and get to the quarters, but that's where he'll run into Nadal.  The other side of the bottom half of the draw is the one with the 31 players lucky enough to avoid the Big Three.  But it's not like getting No. 4 seed Andy Murray is any better.  However, this part of the draw also includes No. 12 seed Juan Martin Del Potro, who won this tournament in 2009 and is finally back in that form after dealing with some injuries.  There's also a potential second-round matchup between American favorites Robby Ginepri and John Isner.

I know it's cliche to go with the chalk, but the top four seeds are my four semifinalists.  Djokovic vs. Feder and Murray vs. Nadal.  Between them, they've won six U.S. Open titles (five for Roger, one for Rafa) and made the final four other times (Djokovic twice, Roger and Murray once each).  They've also split the six grand slam final appearances this year.  Djokovic beat Murray in Australia, it was Rafa over Roger at the French, and Djokovic over Nadal at Wimbledon.  A Federer-Murray final would give them all two grand slam final appearances this year, further cementing men's tennis as these four guys and everybody else. 

But I think it'll be a rematch of the Cincinnati final, instead.  A Djokovic-Federer semi could be considered the rubber match after their meetings at the U.S. Open last year and at this year's French.  And as much as I love Roger, Djokovic is the best player in the world for a reason.  In the other semi, Murray's not afraid of Nadal.  Those two are also looking to complete a trifecta with Murray winning in Australia and Nadal on Murray's home court at Wimbledon.  Murray's beaten Nadal in the U.S. Open before and has been the better player in recent weeks, so I'm taking the Brit.  That sets up a Djokovic-Murray final in which Djokovic will continue his domination of men's tennis in 2011 with his third grand slam title this year.

World Championships Picks-Men

Yesterday I gave you my picks for who'll win each of the 23 events on the women's side at the IAAF World Championships, which begin tomorrow night (U.S. time) in Daegu, South Korea.  Today, it's the 24 events on the men's side (the men have two race walks and the women only have one, I don't know why).

100 m: Usain Bolt, Jamaica-His countryman Asafa Powell was the only man who could challenge Bolt, but Powell withdrew today with an injury.  Tyson Gay is also injured, so Bolt really has no competition.
200 m: Usain Bolt, Jamaica-He dominates this event even more than he dominates the 100.  Whereas I can at least think of someone who might give him a race in the 100, I can't think of anybody that'll actually make the 200 competitive.
400 m: LaShawn Merritt, USA-In his first race after a 21-month doping suspension, the defending champion ran an impressive 44.74 in Stockholm.  Kirani James, the 19-year-old NCAA champion from Grenada, has the fastest time in the world, but I think the long season might catch up with him.
800 m: David Rudisha, Kenya-Since not even making the finals two years ago in Berlin, Rudisha has completely dominated the event.  He's undefeated in 2011, and that won't change at Worlds.  American Nick Symmonds has a chance at a medal.
1500 m: Asbel Kiprop, Kenya-I have no idea who's going to win this wide-open event.  With three capable of winning, the Kenyans have the strongest team, so I'm taking one of them.
5000 m: Mo Farah, Great Britain-The fastest man in the world this year wants to establish himself as a favorite for London, but his success in the 5000 might depend on whether or not he also runs the 10,000 (and how he does).
10,000 m: Mo Farah, Great Britain-Ethiopia's Kenenisa Bekele, perhaps the greatest long-distance runner in history, is looking for his fifth straight World Championship in the event, but he hasn't run 10,000 meters since early 2010.  Bekele's a wild card, but otherwise Farah is the class of the field.
Marathon: Gebre Gebremeriam, Ethiopia-Like I said yesterday, marathons are such a crap shoot, it's impossible to forecast a winner.  But I'm going to go with the reigning New York City Marathon champion.  Interesting sidebar, Russia's only two entries in the men's marathon have the same name: Aleksey Sokolov.
110 m Hurdles: Dayron Robles, Cuba-This will be one of the most competitive events of the entire meet.  It's a three-way battle for the title between Robles, China's Liu Xiang and American David Oliver.  Don't be surprised if any of the three wins.  Be surprised if someone else does.
400 m Hurdles: Bershawn Jackson, USA-The men's 400 hurdles is probably the strongest event for the American track & field team.  The final at the U.S. Nationals might as well have been the final in Daegu.  Not only is a medal sweep possible, Americans Jackson, Jeshua Anderson, Kerron Clement and Angelo Taylor going 1-2-3-4 is possible.
3000 m Steeplechase: Brimin Kiprop Kipruto, Kenya-Fellow Kenyan Ezekiel Kemboi is the defending champion, but Kipruto, who just missed the world record a few weeks ago in Monaco, has vowed to set it in Daegu.
Long Jump: Mitchell Watt, Australia-American Dwight Phillips is the two-time defending champion, but he won't make it three straight.  Watt has clearly been the best in the world this year.  His season best is 15 centimeters further than the No. 2 mark, which belongs to Olympic champion Irving Saladino of Panama.
Triple Jump: Phillips Idowu, Great Britain-An injury to the world leader, France's Teddy Tamgho, opened this event up dramatically.  Idowu is looking for his second straight World Championship, but Romania's Marian Oprea, Ukraine's Sheryf El-Sheryf and NCAA/U.S. champion Christian Taylor are all in the mix, as well.
High Jump: Jesse Williams, USA-The only American gold medal in this event at a World Championships came 20 years ago.  That should change in Daegu.  Williams has consistently proven to be the best in the world this season and is ready for an international breakout.
Pole Vault: Renaud Lavillenie, France-Lavillenie has dominated the event for the better part of two years.  He should become the first-ever French World Champion.
Shot Put: Christian Cantwell, USA-If the 400 hurdles isn't the Americans' best event on the men's side, the shot put is.  All four Americans have a realistic shot at the podium, but for the win, I'll take defending champion Cantwel.
Discus: Robert Harting, Germany-Hungary's Zoltan Kovago has the best mark in the world, but he's been an inconsistent performer to say the least at global championships.  Defending champion Harting, however, has two Diamond League wins this season.
Hammer Throw: Krisztian Pars, Hungary-Believe it or not, American Kibwe Johnson is actually a legitimate gold-medal contender.  But I'll go with Pars, the 2008 Olympic silver medalist, who should've won the tile in Berlin, but didn't even medal.
Javelin: Andreas Thorkildsen, Norway-This event used to belong to Jan Zelezny.  Now it belongs to Thorkildsen.  Until somebody proves they can beat him, he'll be my pick at every World Championships and Olympics.
20 km Walk: Valery Borchin, Russia-Borchin ran away (or should I say "walked away") with the event in Berlin.  He'll face more of a challenge in Daegu, but I still expect him to win.
50 km Walk: Sergey Bakulin, Russia-Russia completely dominates the longest event in track & field.  Defending champion Sergey Kirdyapkin hasn't raced since the Berlin World Championships, so I'll go with his teammate Bakulin, who has the fastest time in the world this year.
Decathlon: Trey Hardee, USA-Ashton Eaton scored a world-leading 8729 points while winning the national title, but the Oregon alum seems to put up good results only in Eugene and nowhere else.  As a result, I'll take defending champion Hardee, who has a score of 8689 this season.
4x100 m Relay: Jamaica-Even if the Americans manage to get the baton around the track (which is no guarantee), the Jamaicans are just too good.  In Powell and Bolt, they have the top two 100-meter runners in the world on the last two legs of the relay.
4x400 m Relay: United States-I see no reason why the American domination of this event should end.  Losing Jeremy Wariner only slightly affects things.  You've still got Merritt, Tony McQuay, Greg Nixon, Jamaal Torrance and all of the 400 meter hurdlers.  You can probably write this victory in pen right now.

World Championships Picks-Women

Today is one of those days where I'm going to use my blog as an opportunity to indulge myself and talk about a topic I'm sure very few (if any) of you care about.  However, I've been waiting all summer for the Track & Field World Championships.  About two weeks ago I paid my $15 to watch the webcast live from Korea, even though I have no intention of missing any of the TV coverage.  (Hint, if you are a track & field fan, buy the webcast.  That way, you can actually see some field events.) 

Anyway, I've decided that instead of a preview, I'm going to take it one step further and pick the winner in all 47 events.  Since they're split almost evenly down the board (24 men, 23 women), I'm breaking this up into two posts.  Today it's the women.  Tomorrow the men.

100 m: Carmelita Jeter, USA-The Jamaicans are strong and Bulgaria's Ivet Lalova has a chance to medal, but Jeter has the best time in the world this year and has looked good in the European meets all season.
200 m: Allyson Felix, USA-Jeter actually has the best time in the world in the 200, too, but this is Felix's event.  She's looking for her fourth straight World Championship.
400 m: Amantle Montsho, Botswana-Felix is going for a 200-400 double and, since the 400's first, has a chance to do it.  Defending champion Sanya Richards-Ross has finally rounded back into form and the Russians are always good, but Montsho's ready for a breakout performance.
800 m: Mariya Savinova, Russia-This is one of the most wide-open events on the entire program.  The top three times in the world all belong to Russians, and Savinova's 1:56.95 is the best.
1500 m: Maryam Yusuf Jamal, Bahrain-Jamal is the reigning World and Olympic champion, so she's the pick, but the 1500's also wide open.
5000 m: Vivian Cheruiyot, Kenya-The women's 5000, however, has one of the clearest favorites in any event.  Cheruiyot, the defending champion, has dominated this event this season.
10,000 m: Linet Masai, Kenya-This is a hard one because the 10,000 is where the Kenya-Ethiopia rivalry is at its strongest.  Cheruiyot wants to double, but Masai is the defending champ.
Marathon: Edna Kiplagat, Kenya-To pick the winner of a marathon, you might as well pull a name out of a hat.  Kiplagat finished third at the London Marathon and has the fastest time in the field, so I'll go with her.
100 m Hurdles: Sally Pearson, Australia-The Americans are always strong in this event, but Pearson, the 2008 Olympic silver medalist, has been a world-beater this year.  She's the class of the field.
400 m Hurdles: Kaliese Spencer, Jamaica-This should be one of the best women's events.  Jamaican Melaine Walker is the defending champion, but American Lashinda Demus and Russia's Natalya Antyukh are also strong.  Spencer is the only one that's sub-53 this year, though.
3000 m Steeplechase: Milcah Chemos, Kenya-It's not even fair how much Chemos has dominated the women's steeplechase this year.  It would be a surprise to see anyone else on the top step of the podium.
Long Jump: Darya Klishina, Russia-American Brittany Reese is the two-time defending champion and has the best jump in the world this year, but I like looking at Darya Klishina, who happens to be the No. 2 seed.
Triple Jump: Yargeris Savigne, Cuba-This one also has the makings of an incredibly competitive event.  Kazakhstan's Olga Rypakova and Ukraine's Olha Saladuha are my picks to complete the medals stand, but they're both extremely capable of knocking off the defending champion.
High Jump: Anna Chicherova, Russia-It pains me to pick against Blanka Vlasic, but now we at least know why she's struggled this year.  Unlike Blanka, Chicherova's healthy.
Pole Vault: Fabiana Murer, Brazil-All of the experts are picking American Jenn Suhr.  I'm not sure why.  Murer was the best in the world last year and has been just as good this year.  And world record holder Yelena Isinbayeva wants to redeem herself after no-heighting in Berlin, when Anna Rogowska of Poland won.
Shot Put: Valerie Adams, New Zealand-Adams, the class of the event, is looking for a shot put three-peat.  Nadezhda Ostapchuk of Belarus, the 2005 champ, has the best throw in the world this year, though.  American Jillian Camarena-Williams could medal.
Discus: Li Yanfeng, China-Li's best mark this season is almost two meters further than the rest of the field.  This has been a close event on the Diamond League circuit all season, though.
Hammer Throw: Betty Heidler, Germany-Heidler, who won in 2007 but not in Berlin two years ago, has the four furthest throws in the world this year, including a world record 79.42 meters in May.  It's her event to lose.
Javelin: Barbora Spotakova, Czech Republic-One of the best ever in the event, Spotakova is the world leader in 2011.  However, Christina Obergfoll of Germany has beaten her five times in six meets this season.
20 km Walk: Olga Kaniskina, Russia-Kaniskina is looking for her third straight World Championship, but fellow Russians Vera Sokolova and Anisya Kirdyapkina are Nos. 1 and 2 in the world.  A Russian sweep is possible.
Heptathlon: Jessica Ennis, Great Britain-If she performs up to her ability, nobody can beat Ennis.  A second straight World Championship will solidify her status as the clear favorite at her home Olympics next year.
4x100 m Relay: United States-Getting the baton around the track is always a problem, though.  If it proves to be one again, the pick is Jamaica.  It'll probably be close anyway.
4x400 m Relay: United States-Russia is also very good and will make it a close race, but I'm not going to bet against a relay team that includes Sanya Richards-Ross, Allyson Felix and Lashinda Demus.

Baseball Musings

Before I get completely absorbed by the Track & Field World Championships and U.S. Open later this week, I've got some baseball-related items on my mind.  With less than six weeks left in the regular season, that Red Sox-Phillies World Series everybody predicted in March doesn't look as guaranteed as we all thought.  Here are the reasons why:

• The Milwaukee Brewers are the real deal.  I waited through a three-hour rain delay at the Mets-Brewers game on Friday night, and once the game started, I was incredibly impressed with Milwaukee.  The Phillies better be worried about the Brewers, because they can definitely give them a run for the NL pennant.  The Brewers are on pace for 95-96 wins, which would be a franchise record, and they've turned a four-team race in the NL Central into a runaway.  They're going to win that division by eight games.  Maybe more.  Prince Fielder might be the MVP and Ryan Braun is finally getting the national attention he deserves.  Throw in Casey McGehee, Corey Hart and Rickie Weeks and you've got a lineup that's just as good as Philadelphia's.  Maybe better.  Nobody matches the Phillies' rotation, but Milwaukee's pitchers can certainly hold their own in October.  Zack Greinke, Yovani Gallardo, Shaun Marcum and Randy Wolf, there's not a slouch in the bunch.  I love that potential matchup against the Braves, where they'll face Tim Hudon, Tommy Hanson and Jair Jurrjens, but I'd be very surprised if Milwaukee doesn't win its first playoff series since the 1982 ALCS.
• Speaking of that three-hour rain delay, the Mets decided to reward those of us at the game with free tickets to a game in September.  We can pick any game we want during a four-game set against Washington from September 12-15.  So, I'll be attending a September game between the Mets and Nationals with 40-man rosters.  It'll be just like watching a Triple-A game.  But if Stephen Strasburg ends up pitching, it'll end up being a steal.
• This year's playoff races are all the proof you need that an extra playoff team in each league is completely unnecessary.  It doesn't matter who wins the AL East.  The Yankees and Red Sox are both clearly going to make the playoffs.  In fact, they're the two best teams in the American League.  Tampa Bay is currently second in the AL wild card race...EIGHT GAMES BACK!  Same thing in the National League.  Philadelphia and Milwaukee are clearly going to win their divisions, and unless something drastic happens, the Braves will be the wild card team.  Atlanta has an 8.5 game lead over San Francisco.  Both current wild card leaders have the second-best record in their league.  Can anyone honestly say that the Rays and Giants look like playoff teams right now?  I didn't think so.
• As much as I hate the Boston Red Sox, I can't help but like their newest player.  Before you start labeling me a traitor, I've got my reasons.  When I worked at Yale, Ryan Lavarnway was far and away our best player.  He's the best college athlete I've ever worked with.  I knew he'd make it to the Majors some day.  And on Thursday he did.  He was called up to the Red Sox when Kevin Youkilis went on the DL, and he DHed all four games of their series against Kansas City.  Way to go Ryno!
• This Yankees-Red Sox battle in the AL East is going to go down to the wire.  On paper, Boston should probably be ahead.  Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez have both missed significant time with injuries this season, and Boston's rotation is far superior.  But thanks to a pair of Rookie of the Year candidates (Ivan Nova and Eduardo Nunez) and MVP candidate Curtis Granderson, the Yankees are actually sitting in first place right now.  And, believe it or not, the Yankees actually have the deeper rotation right now.  They have six starters, five of whom are actually performing, and can't narrow it down to four for the playoffs.  The Red Sox, meanwhile, can't figure out what their postseason rotation will look like either because everybody's hurt.
• If Joe Girardi had waited until now to say that Jorge Posada won't be getting as much playing time going forward, nobody would've had a problem with it.  Eduardo Nunez deserves to be in the lineup.  The only way to do that is DHing Jeter, A-Rod or Cano and rotating Nunez between the three infield positions.
• My dad has told me that he'd prefer it if the Yankees are the wild card rather than winning the AL East.  The reason?  He would rather play the Rangers again than face Justin Verlander twice.  I'm not sure I agree with him.  Verlander would go against CC twice, so those two cancel each other out.  The rest of the Tigers' postseason rotation would likely be Brad Penny, Max Scherzer and Rick Porcello.  I'll take Freddy Garcia, Ivan Nova and Bartolo Colon.  While the Rangers' rotation isn't as scary as it was last year, the lineup still is.  It might even be better.  I'll take a matchup with Detroit any day.
• Evidently all teams with the nickname "Giants" try their hardest NOT to make the playoffs.  We all remember the end of the football season, where a fourth quarter collapse and a DeSean Jackson punt return started us fans of the New York Giants on the way to an agonizing end of the 2010 season.  San Francisco Giants fans have got to be feeling the same way.  The defending World Champions actually got better over the winter, but they haven't been able to score at all since Buster Posey got hurt.  Even with a nasty rotation of Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Madison Bumgarner and (I guess) "All-Star" Ryan Vogelsong, San Francisco can't win games on pitching alone.  The Giants are a much better team than the Diamondbacks, but Arizona's going to run away with the NL West if San Francisco doesn't wake up and figure that out sometime in the next six weeks.
• How amazing has the Little League World Series been?  The games have been of the highest quality, but the crowds have been the real story.  A team from Pennsylvania qualified, and the fans have come in droves to watch the home team.  They drew more than 41,000 (a Little League World Series record) for their first game on Friday night, then 35,000 more on Saturday.  Little League made the smart decision to move Pennsylvania's game from 4:00 to 8:00 tonight to accomodate the larger crowd, and the little dudes responded with a 10-0 win.  Oh yeah, and it was a no-hitter!  I'm sure these kids are loving it.  And not just the ones from Pennsylvania.  If I'm Little League, I want Pennsylvania to keep on winning.

City Sports Halls of Fame

ESPN.com just concluded a pretty cool fan poll on each of its five city sites.  They wanted to put together inaugural five-man classes for the "City Hall of Fame" from Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles and New York.  This, obviously, is a monumental task that I think, for the most part, the fans did a good job with.  In case you haven't seen them, here are the classes:

Boston-Red Auerbach, Larry Bird, Bobby Orr, Bill Russell, Ted Williams
Not surprisingly, it's got a bunch of Celtics.  And a Boston Hall of Fame wouldn't be complete without Bobby Orr and Ted Williams.

Chicago-Ernie Banks, Dick Butkus, Mike Ditka, Michael Jordan, Walter Payton
Like Boston, there were some obvious ones from Chicago (Banks, Jordan and Payton).  I'm not sure how you get three Bears and none of them are George Halas, though.

Dallas-Troy Aikman, Tom Landry, Nolan Ryan, Emmitt Smith, Roger Staubach
Evidently people in Dallas really like the Cowboys.  Although, as far as I know, Nolan Ryan never played for them.

Los Angeles-Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wayne Gretzky, Magic Johnson, Sandy Koufax, John Wooden
This might've been the easiest vote of them all.  All five were obvious choices.

New York-Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth
Just as they like their football in Dallas, we like our baseball in New York.  So, not surprisingly, it's five baseball players: the four greatest Yankees ever and the man who changed sports in America.

There were a number of different ways I could handle this one.  I first considered revealing my choices for the Class of 2012 in each of the five City Halls of Fame before opting to induct inaugural classes in six other great sports cities: Atlanta, Detroit, Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington.  ESPN.com's only criterion was no active athletes, so I followed that same rule.

ATLANTA
Hank Aaron (Braves, 1966-74): 755 career homers ranks second all-time; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1982
Bobby Cox (Braves Manager, 1978-81, 1986-2010): fourth-winningest manager in history; led Braves to 14 straight division titles (1991-2005) and 1995 World Championship
Greg Maddux (Braves, 1993-2003): just beat out Evander Holyfield for the final spot; anchored that ridiculous rotation during the '90s dynasty
Deion Sanders (Falcons, 1989-93; Braves, 1991-94): probably the best player in Falcons history; oh, and he's the only man ever to play in both the Super Bowl and World Series; Football Hall of Fame, 2011
Dominique Wilkins (Hawks, 1982-94): overshadowed by Jordan and Bird, but the reason the Hawks were good in the '80s; played college ball at Georgia; Basketball Hall of Fame, 2006

DETROIT
Dave Bing (Pistons, 1966-75): barely gets the edge over Joe Dumars as the Piston; one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players and current mayor of the city; Basketball Hall of Fame, 1990
Hank Greenberg (Tigers, 1930, 1933-41, 1945-46): would've been even better if not for World War II; two-time World Series champion; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1956
Gordie Howe (Red Wings, 1946-71): about as obvious a selection as there can be; the third member of hockey's "Holy Trinity"; Hockey Hall of Fame, 1972
Al Kaline (Tigers, 1953-74): another easy one; called "Mr. Tiger" for a reason; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1980
Barry Sanders (Lions, 1989-98): there were plenty of Lions to choose from, but he's probably the best; Football Hall of Fame, 2004

HOUSTON
Craig Biggio (Astros, 1988-2007): gets the call over Bagwell because he was the face of the Astros for 20 years; will probably become the Astros' first Hall of Famer when eligible
Earl Campbell (Oilers, 1978-84): No. 1 overall pick and Rookie of the Year in 1978; one of the best power runners in NFL history; Football Hall of Fame, 1991
George Foreman (Boxing): Big George is from Houston, so that's his qualifying city; became heavyweight champion in 1971; came out of retirement and won it again in 1994
Hakeem Olajuwon (Houston, 1981-84; Rockets, 1984-2001): led "Phi Slamma Jamma" Cougars to three straight Final Fours and Rockets to back-to-back NBA titles; Basketball Hall of Fame, 2008
Nolan Ryan (Astros, 1980-88): our first two-city Hall of Famer; spent more time with the Astros than any other team; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1999

PHILADELPHIA
Chuck Bednarik (Penn, 1946-48; Eagles, 1949-62); the NFL's last two-way player; a three-time All-American at Penn; led Eagles to 1960 NFL championship; Football Hall of Fame, 1967
Bobby Clarke (Flyers, 1969-84): won two Stanley Cups as a player; led the Flyers to the Finals three more times as GM; currently team's Senior VP; Hockey Hall of Fame, 1987
Julius Erving (76ers, 1976-87): this list wouldn't be complete without Dr. J; 1983 NBA champion; one of NBA's 50 Greatest Players; Basketball Hall of Fame, 1993
Robin Roberts (Phillies, 1948-61): still arguably the greatest pitcher in Phillies history; the lone bright spot on the team when it wasn't very good; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1976
Mike Schmidt (Phillies, 1972-89): maybe the greatest third baseman ever; led Phillies to first World Championship (1980) and another pennant three years later; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1995

SAN FRANCISCO
Rick Barry (Warriors, 1965-67, 1972-78; Oaks, 1968-69): best known for shooting free throws underhand; ABA champion during only season in Oakland; Finals MVP when Warriors won 1975 title; Basketball Hall of Fame, 1987
Barry Bonds (Giants, 1993-2007): like him or not, you've got to admit this Barry is one of the best ever; holds the all-time (762) and single-season (73) home run records; also a seven-time MVP (five with the Giants), including four in a row from 2001-04
Willie Mays (Giants, 1958-72): after Ruth, the greatest all-around player in history and without a doubt the greatest living ballplayer; 660 career home runs (fourth all-time); MLB All-Century Team; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1979
Joe Montana (49ers, 1979-92): one of the NFL's all-time greatest quarterbacks; three-time Super Bowl MVP as 49ers won four titles in eight years; Football Hall of Fame, 2000
Jerry Rice (49ers, 1985-2000; Raiders, 2001-04): the greatest receiver in NFL history; holds every NFL receiving record; Football Hall of Fame, 2010

WASHINGTON
Sammy Baugh (Redskins, 1937-52): revolutionized the quarterback position; also played defensive back and punter; considered one of the NFL's all-time greats; Football Hall of Fame, 1963 (inaugural class)
Patrick Ewing (Georgetown, 1981-85): one of the greatest players in college basketball history; led Georgetown to three NCAA championship games and the 1984 title; will eventually be named to the New York Hall of Fame, too; Basketball Hall of Fame, 2008
Joe Gibbs (Redskins Coach, 1981-92, 2004-07): won three Super Bowls and went to the playoffs 10 times in 16 seasons; retired to run successful NASCAR team; Football Hall of Fame, 1996
Walter Johnson (Senators, 1907-27): one of the greatest all-time pitchers, stuck playing for a really bad team; second all-time with 417 wins and first all-time with 110 shutouts; 1924 World Series champion; Baseball Hall of Fame, 1936 (inaugural class)
Sonny Jurgensen (Redskins, 1964-74): still franchise's all-time leader in numerous passing categories; Football Hall of Fame, 1983

This Week's Random Observations

There's a lot of stuff going on in the world of sports right now.  Instead of focusing on just one topic today, I decided to do one of those posts where I make a bunch of random observations about some of that stuff and give some comments on them.

• I can officially cross "NCAA Investigator" off my list of dream jobs (not that it was there in the first place).  The summer's supposed to be a lean time on the college sports front, but evidently nobody bothered to tell these guys.  I certainly don't envy them.  In the last 18 months, there have already been investigations into the football programs at USC, Auburn, Oregon, North Carolina, I'm sure there are some others that I'm missing.  As if they didn't have enough to do with our buddy Terrelle Pryor and the mess at Ohio State, now we have the ugly situation at Miami.
• While I'm on the topic, Miami's screwed.  If you haven't yet, check out the Yahoo! Sports article about booster Nevin Shapiro, who blantanly broke several pretty serious NCAA rules with 72 football players for a period of eight years.  People are talking "death penalty" (which the NCAA has only issued once, to SMU's football team in 1987) as a possible punishment.  I don't know if Miami'll get the "death penalty," but this is bad.
• Not that any NFL preseason games are actually worth watching, but why do they insist on putting the absolute worst ones on national television?  Last week, we had Bucs-Chiefs.  On this week's slate?  Falcons-Jaguars.
• Danica Patrick has announced her plans to move to NASCAR full-time in 2012.  Bad move Danica.  Look what happened when Dario Franchitti tried to do it.  He was back in IndyCar the following year.  I don't think she'll be anywhere near as good.  More importantly, she's the face of IndyCar.  She's the only open-wheel driver who's not known for being somebody's husband (Franchitti) or the winner of a reality show (Helio Castroneves).  In NASCAR, she'll just be another driver.  Albeit a good-looking one.
• Now that she's actually healthy, I think Serena Williams is going to be a major factor at the US Open.  She's once again playing like the best player in the world and has won two straight US Open Series events.  Serena's ranking is back up to No. 31.
• Speaking of the US Open, ESPN.com did an investigative report questioning whether the random draw is truly random.  They went through the men's and women's draws over the past 10 years and discovered that the No. 1 and 2 seeds ended up playing the low-ranked American wild cards in the first round more often than regular chance would suggest.  I don't see a problem with this.  The top two seeds are probably going to win in the first round anyway (not a single No. 1 or 2 seed has lost in the first round since they started seeding 32 players instead of 16), so you might as well give the young Americans a chance to play under the lights on Arthur Ashe Stadium against the world's best player in the first round of the US Open.  Yes, they're more likely to lose to Rafael Nadal than if they were to play, say, Janko Tipsarevic.  But would you rather lose to Tipsarevic in an 11 a.m. match in front of 100 people on Court 14 or against Nadal in front of 23,000 people, on television?  That's something to tell your grandkids about.
• Every single athlete at the upcoming Track & Field World Championships will be drug tested.  This is a great move by the IAAF.  However, since they all know they'll be tested as soon as they get to Korea, I wonder how many athletes are going to withdraw because of "injuries" before the Championships start.
• I'm still not buying the Diamondbacks, but the Brewers are going to be tough once the playoffs begin.  Milwaukee's a ridiculous 45-15 at home and currently has the second-best record in the National League, which means the extra home game in the Division Series.  Speaking of which, if things stay the way they are right now, we'll get a Brewers-Braves Division Series.  That's a phenomenal matchup...and the winner would actually have a chance against the Phillies.
• The Tigers are still the team to beat in the AL Central, but look out for the White Sox.  With their pitching, they actually have a chance to make it a three-team race down the stretch in that division.  Detroit will still win, but won't be able to coast into October.
• The Little League World Series starts tomorrow.  A team from Uganda made history by becoming the first African team ever to qualify, but there were eligibility questions about some of the Ugandan players (read: they're overage), so they weren't issued visas to play in the tournament.  As a result, the team from Saudi Arabia that wins that region every year got to go again.  There's something inside me telling me that it's incredibly wrong to make a prediction about who's going to win the Little League World Series, so I'm not going to make a pick.

A Texas-Sized Ego

Well, it turns out Texas A&M isn't joining the SEC after all.  Evidently, conferences decide on their members, not schools.  So, the next time you're planning on announcing you want to switch conferences, wait for the one you want to go to to actually invite you first.  Otherwise, you just come off looking like morons.  Which is certainly what Texas A&M looks like.

The reasons why Texas A&M wants to leave the Big 12 is very simple.  Envy and ego.  Texas A&M thinks it's on par with Texas in every way.  It's not.  Aggie Nation is also upset that Texas enjoys favorite nation status in the Big 12, conveniently disregarding the fact that's the reason the Big 12 stayed together last summer in the first place.  The tipping point was probably the Longhorn Network, a TV network that Texas and ESPN are starting up this fall.  As a result, Texas A&M went crawling to the SEC begging to be admitted.  The SEC's response?  "We're good." 

While Texas A&M thought it was a good idea for that conference to have 13 teams and expected to be embraced with open arms, the SEC presidents utilized this crazy notin known as logic in denying their application for admission.  The SEC humored them by saying that adding Texas A&M could "expand the conference's recruiting base into Texas," but, amazingly, reasoned that having an even number of schools in the league makes a lot more sense than having 13.  So, unless Texas A&M can find somebody else willing to bolt their current conference, they aren't joining the SEC anytime soon.  I loved it how everybody was acting like this was a done deal on Saturday and was throwing out options as the potential 14th SEC member.  Clemson?  No.  South Carolina has made it pretty clear they don't want to be in the same conference as Clemson.  Ditto with Georgia and Georgia Tech, so Georgia Tech's out.  Florida State?  Possibly.  Missouri?  That one doesn't make much sense.

Frankly, other than penis envy, I don't know why Texas A&M would want to make this move in the first place.  It's certainly not for competitive reasons.  Texas A&M won three national championships (women's basketball, men's & women's outdoor track) during the 2010-11 school year.  They're the three-time defending national champion in both outdoor tracks.  Texas A&M also played in the men's basketball tournament and made it to the College World Series in 2011.  With Nebraska and Colorado leaving the conference, they figure to be even stronger across the board in the Big 12 this season.

Now let's take those same teams and put them in the SEC, which is widely recognized as the best conference in the nation.  Women's basketball?  Maybe you've heard of this school called Tennessee.  Men's track?  Florida won the indoor title and finished third outdoors.  Women's track?  LSU finished third.  Baseball?  The NCAA championship series was South Carolina vs. Florida.  The SEC has admittedly been down in men's basketball recently, but Kentucky made the Final Four, Florida lost in overtime in the Elite Eight, and Alabama was in the finals of the NIT.

And how about football, which, let's face it, is what this is really about?  Texas A&M's football team hasn't been that good in a while.  They won their division in 2010, only to get spanked by LSU (an SEC school) in the Cotton Bowl.  Texas A&M has lost 10 of its last 12 bowl games and hasn't won one since the 2001 Galleryfurniture.com Bowl.  All this while playing in a conference that features such powerhouses as Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas and Kansas State.  Do they seriously expect to be any better than the middle of the pack in the SEC, the conference that features the last five "national champions?"  Texas A&M would obviously be put in the SEC West with Auburn (13-0 in 2010), Arkansas (10-2), LSU (10-2, win over Texas A&M in Cotton Bowl), Alabama (10-3) and Mississippi State (9-4).  No Iowa State's there.

Texas A&M is so desperate to get out of the shadow of Texas that they're not considering another consequence of leaving the Big 12: their rivalry with the Longhorns.  Texas A&M fans love beating Texas.  If the Aggies were to bolt for the SEC, why would Texas have any reason to agree to play non-conference games against them?  If I were Texas, my response to any such request would be, "Screw you!"  I highly doubt the rest of the Big 12 would be that eager to play you, either.  Would it really be worth it to give up your school's biggest rivalry?  And for what?  My guess is that if given the option, those involved with Texas A&M would rather beat Texas than not play the Longhorns at all. 
Texas A&M needs to face the facts and accept reality.  You're not Texas.  You never will be.  Just deal with it.  Running away to the SEC certainly isn't going to change that.  As the old saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt.  That's what makes a rivalry.  You don't like Texas.  We get it.  You're not supposed to like your archrival.  But you have to be in the same conference if you want to go out and prove that you're "better."  Just ask UCLA and USC.  Or Duke and North Carolina.  Or Ohio State and Michigan.  Or Auburn and Alabama.  So, Texas A&M, do us all a favor and suck it up.  You're in a much better situation than you think you are. 

P.S.-There's nothing stopping you from creating the "Aggie Network," which you wouldn't be able to do in the SEC.

The State of the Yankees

As usual, watching today's Yankees game on FOX and thus having to listen to Tim McCarver is enough to make me want to shoot myself.  Mainly because "In My Opinion" likes to hear himself talk without lending anything of actual substance to the broadcast.  Last week, they went on for two innings about that poor beer vendor who dropped his entire tray of beer onto the field.  It was funny, but you started to feel bad for the poor guy after they kept going on and on about it.  And did I really need to know that both Tim AND Ken Rosenthal were stadium vendors in their past lives?  Today's insight?  That the conversations at first base between the first baseman and the baserunner are all pure nonsense.  So is your commentary, Tim.

Anyway, I could go on for days about how bad Tim McCarver is, but what really got me going today was his attempt to dissect the current state of the Yankees.  He's said at least six times today that "they have to find a way to turn six starters into four" (among other brilliant pieces of insight).  As our friends at FOX see it, the Yankees have three "problems" they need to address before the postseason: the rotation, finding a left-handed DH, and "straightening out" Mariano Rivera.

I'm going to tackle these one at a time, starting with the most ridiculous.  They need to "straighten out" Mariano Rivera?  Really?  Mariano didn't have a good week.  On Sunday, he blew a save in Boston.  Then he took the loss against the Angels on Tuesday and gave up a home run to Russell Branyan (before still getting the save) on Thursday.  He threw one bad pitch during that entire outing against the Red Sux.  It just so happened, it resulted in a leadoff double by Marco Scutaro.  The next guy up was Jacoby Ellsbury, and he dropped down a not very good bunt.  Mariano fielded and had plenty of time to get Scutaro at third...except third baseman Eduardo Nunez was standing right next to him, so he had to go to first.  Runner on third, one out, the Boston lineup's probably going to get the run in. 

Let's move on to Thursday.  It was 6-2 going into the ninth, so Cory Wade started the inning.  Mariano only came in after he put two runners on.  Russell Branyan was up next, and all he does is hit home runs at Yankee Stadium.  The home run made it 6-5, but Mariano shut the door from there and got the save.  Mariano only gave up one of those runs, and he wouldn't have even been in the game if Wade hadn't put two runners on.  Nothing's "wrong" with Mariano.  He had a bad week.  Big deal.  He's still the greatest closer ever.  And I'd still much rather have him pitching the ninth inning than any other closer out there.  It's the rest of the bullpen that you've got to worry about.

Now it's time for this whole left-handed DH thing.  I'm going to try hard not to make this entirely about Jorge Posada, but I can't go without mentioning how ridiculously poorly the Yankees have treated him this year.  The Yankees have never been very good at firing players (face it, that's what they're trying to do here), but this is really getting messy.  If he's not going to DH against lefties and he's not going to DH against righties, why is he still on the team?  This obsession to carry 13 pitchers means you're playing with a three-man bench anyway.  If you're telling Jorge that he's not needed, that means your bench consists of Cervelli and whichever of the Chavez/Nunez/Jones trimuverate isn't in the lineup.

We all know this is it for Jorge Posada on the New York Yankees.  Do him (and us) a favor and let him go out gracefully.  Or at the very least, show him some class.  Don't forget, this guy's won four World Championships with the organization.  Anyway, Jorge was in the lineup on Saturday for the first time in a week and proceeded to start off the game 3-for-3 with a grand slam and six RBIs.  Maybe he'll respond to this benching the same way he did the first time, when he went on a six-week hot streak and looked like the player of old.  There are even questions as to whether or not Jorge will be on the playoff roster.  I'm not sure where I stand on that, but if you're not going to use him in the playoffs, don't put him on the roster.

One final note about Posada before I move on to A.J. Burnett.  Don't do the stupid thing and call up Jesus Montero.  If this guy's as good as you say he is, don't call him up and waste Major League service time just because you don't want to use Posada anymore.

And now for the rotation.  Everybody's worried about Mariano, but how about the fact that CC is 0-4 against the Red Sux this season?  Or the fact that he gave up five home runs on Friday?  I think that's a bit of a problem.  Especially since he'd pitch against them twice in a potential ALCS, and I'm sure the Yankees would count on a victory every time Sabathia takes the mound.  But CC has carried this rotation on his back for two-and-a-half years.  It's time for the other guys to pick him up.  Nevertheless, the question of who to put behind CC in the postseason isn't a hard one.  It's just figuring out the order.  Going on performance, it's easy: Freddy Garcia, Ivan Nova and Bartolo Colon.

They're dropping the six-man rotation on Monday, which means either A.J. Burnett or Phil Hughes is headed to the bullpen.  I think that's an easy choice, as well.  Phil Hughes was great out of the bullpen in 2009.  A.J. Burnett has never pitched out of the bullpen.  He wouldn't be happy about it, but Hughes would be a lot more effective in that role than A.J. would.  And as for A.J., Michael Kay made a very good point during the game the other night.  Why is Jorge under such a microscope, but not A.J.?  Brian Cashman said that some of the criticism towards him isn't warranted, and, for the most part, he's pitched better than his record.  While I agree with that (on Tuesday against the Angels, he had one bad inning), there are still some stats that can't be ignored.  Burnett has NEVER won a game in August for the Yankees, and earlier this month against the White Sox, he didn't get the win because he couldn't get through five innings despite having a 13-1 lead!  I  honestly believe he's still capable of being the pitcher that received that ridiculous contract.  But Burnett has to start contributing something positive other than the walk-off shaving cream pies.

Finally Somebody Gets It

My last post was about a bunch of clueless people--the citizens of Nassau County.  Today I'm happy to do a blog about another group of people.  Ones who actually know what they're doing.  NCAA President Mark Emmert and the group of school presidents/athletic directors that met at NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis this week to discuss NCAA reforms that were sorely needed.  Even more impressively, some of those reforms have already been put in place.

The biggest change made by the group was raising the minimum APR from 900 to 930.  The APR, which stands for academic progress rate, is the measure the NCAA uses to make sure student-athletes are actually on track to graduate.  Previously, if schools had an APR below 925, they got a letter from the NCAA and faced penalties like loss of scholarships.  But they didn't face a postseason ban unless their four-year APR dropped below 900.

That's all about to change.  From now on, 930 (which translates to a 50 percent graduation rate) will be the strict minimum standard.  And here's the best part.  Teams that are below 930 will face postseason bans.  How significant is that?  If the new standard had been in place, 12 of the 68 teams that played in the 2011 men's basketball tournament would've been ineligible.  UConn would've barely made the cut last season (the Huskies' APR in May 2010 was 930), but wouldn't be able to defend its title in 2012 after seeing its APR drop to 893.  That's not going to happen.  It'll probably take a little while for the change to be approved and put into effect, and with fall sports getting underway as early as next weekend, it would be unfair for the NCAA to start instiuting postseason bans in any sport prior to the 2012-13 school year.

But the point remains.  This is a good thing for the NCAA.  As expected, men's basketball and football coaches don't like it.  Well, guess what?  College basketball and college football aren't the minor leagues for the NBA and NFL.  The term is student-athlete.  The NCAA takes that seriously.  So do school presidents.  These student-athletes receive scholarships that allow them to attend school for free.  It's embarrassing that some of the finest academic institutions in the country are basically forced to admit these idiots who can't even spell their own name just because they play football or basketball, only to then have those same individuals spit in their faces by not even going to class, then complain about being ineligible.  You made a choice to go to school, not just play basketball.  Take the school part seriously.

Of course, I'm only referring to a small percentage of the student-athlete population here.  I respect the hell out of guys like Andrew Luck, who isn't majoring in football.  He appreciates the fact that he goes to Stanford, which I think is probably the best school on the West Coast, and takes advantage of it.  He's majoring in architecture.  Or how about Matt Leinart, who decided to go back to USC for his senior season because he liked being in college?  Fortunately, there are plenty of guys like that, too.

But the unfortunate fact is that its the guys like Terrelle Pryor and Reggie Bush who make the headlines.  That's why the NCAA called this meeting in the first place.  College administrators are some of the smartest people around.  They realized that problems like that weren't going to go away anytime soon if changes weren't made.  Raising the minimum APR is the most significant since it'll be the first to take effect, but it's not even close to the only change that was recommended over two very productive days in Indianapolis.

The whole Pryor thing has brought the whole "should they be paid?" argument to the forefront.  They shouldn't, and won't be as long as Emmert is in charge, but SEC Commissioner Mike Slive proposed a reasonable potential solution.  A full scholarship covers tuition and room and board, but doesn't take cost of living into account.  How about including an extra $2,000-3,000 per semester into a student-athlete's scholarship to cover living expenses?  $2,000 a semester is approximately $500 a month.  That's enough to cover a college student.  Paying athletes makes them professionals.  That's why you can't do it.  But this is an issue that definitely needed a closer look, and I think Slive's proposal could go a long way.

Along those same lines, the panel suggested making scholarships four-year committments, rather than the current system, where they're basically one-year deals that are renewable each year.  Providing a little more stability wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  Another sticking point is the NCAA rulebook.  It's really big (434 pages) and really confusing.  There are so many rules, it's impossible for anyone to actually know what they all are.  The stupidest little thing could be a violation of NCAA rules.  And the NCAA spends so much time worrying about those stupid little minor violations.  The proposal is to make the rulebook a lot simpler and a lot less confusing.  That would definitely be good. 

Finally, they proposed stricter enforcement standards for major violations.  Right now, it seems like the penalties for major violations are completely arbitrary.  And they also seem to change on a whim.  The presidents want to have a clear cut system that says, "You break this rule, you get this penalty."  That way, schools would know what the consequences are for breaking the rules, and it also won't continue to look like Ohio State gets off easy while Youngstown State gets nailed for doing the exact same thing.  That would also make the NCAA less hesitant to investigate potential major violations at major programs.  Needless to say, making the penalties and punishments clearer will make programs think twice about breaking NCAA rules.  With all the negative news that we've heard about major rules violations at major programs over the last couple years, I think we can all agree that a rules-breaking deterrent is definitely necessary.

You have to give the NCAA a lot of credit.  They realized that these things needed changing, and they took the necessary steps to address them.  Even more amazingly, for an organization where change doesn't usually happen very quickly, the NCAA made it a point to get this stuff done and put it into effect.  The APR was the first step, but the others are sure to follow soon.  Perhaps as early as 2012-13.

A Massive Shame

Today in Los Angeles, the City Council approved the funds to build a stadium for L.A.'s non-existent football team.  In fact, there's also a private group that has secured a site for a stadium.  Problem is there isn't a team that's shown any intention to move to L.A.  Contrast that to Nassau County, where the brilliant county legislature put the fate of the new arena the Islanders desperately need in the hands of the voters, who are just as clueless.  Not surprisingly, the new arena was voted down.

Now, before I go any further I need to stop here and clarify something.  I am not, never have been and never will be a fan of the New York Islanders.  As a Rangers fan, that's just the way it is.  If the Islanders were relevant, they'd be on par with the Red Sux in my eyes.  But as it stands right now, they're somewhat irrelevant, so I'm sort of in this weird state of indifference towards them.  Nevertheless, the situation that the Islanders are being forced to deal with, which really has nothing to do with them, is just sad.

Hockey-wise, it's a catch-22.  The team isn't good and hasn't been for years.  In an area that has three teams, one of which is consistently good (the Devils) and another of which has been an institution in the city for 85 years that plays in a legendary arena (the Rangers), that doesn't really help the Islanders' cause.  But more importantly, Nassau Coliseum is a dump.  It was a dump 15 years ago and inherited the title of "Worst Sports Venue In New York" when the Mets finally tore down Shea Stadium.  That's where the situation becomes tricky.  People don't want to go watch a crappy team play in a crappy facility.  Thus, the Islanders don't bring in that much money from ticket sales.  Revenue that could be used to improve the team on the ice.  If the team on the ice was better, the seats would be filled and that would certainly strengthen the Islanders' argument that they need a new arena.

I don't think a single person who's ever been to Nassau Coliseum could dispute that the Islanders desperately need a new arena.  Islanders owner Charles Wang certainly knows that.  But it's not as simple as just building one like the Yankees, Mets and Giants/Jets did (and Nets are).  Wang doesn't have enough money to do that.  Nassau County owns Nassau Coliseum.  So, Wang has to work with the county on any new arena plans.  And that's where the problem comes in.  The team and the county announced plans to renovate the Coliseum way back in 2004, but seven years later, that still hasn't happened.  Then on August 1, Nassau County voters were asked to vote on a proposal to build a new arena that would replace the Coliseum.  Everybody knew that it wouldn't pass, and it didn't.  Now the Islanders moving to another city seems a lot more likely than actually convincing the people of Nassau County to pay for a new arena.

Whether or not New York needs to have three hockey teams is irrelevant.  That's not the point of this post.  This isn't about the New York Islanders.  It's about the fact that Nassau Coliseum is 40 years old and desperately needs to be replaced.  Unfortunately, the voters of Nassau County don't get that.  They just see the tax increase.  Not the big picture.

So, with that in mind, let me paint the big picture for our friends in Nassau County (full disclosure: my family is from Suffolk, the other county on Long Island).  While the most well known, Islanders games aren't the only events that take place at the facility.  Far from it.  Nassau Coliseum is the only major league arena on Long Island, which means it hosts a lot of concerts and other entertainment events (wrestling is one of the most popular).  The fact that the Islanders suck should have no impact on these events.  But they don't sell out either.  Why?  Because the arena's not only a piece of crap, it's impossible to get to.  The only way to get there is one road, which means you have to drive (and sit in traffic).  People don't want to do that, then be uncomfortable when they finally get to the concert/game.

Now say the Islanders move to Quebec (arbitrary city, nothing more).  That's 41 fewer events at the arena each year.  That means parking attendants, vendors, ushers, security, concessions people, ticket takers, etc., will lose income.  It doesn't matter how much.  And with the Nets' new arena in Brooklyn opening next year, how soon until Nassau Coliseum starts losing some of its concert dates?  Want proof, look at what happened to the Meadowlands Arena when the Prudential Center opened.  So add the other events that don't come to Nassau Coliseum to the lost wages.  And that's just for one year.

I'm sure that's something that the genuises in Nassau County didn't consider.  I bet they didn't consider this either: building a new arena will also create a whole bunch of jobs.  Think about it.  You need contractors, carpenters, engineers, electricians, welders, and I'm sure a lot of other people who do jobs I can't really think of right now.  And once it's done, you've got this beautiful new arena that might attract MORE events.  So, not only are you keeping money in Nassau County, you're also bringing it in.  I think that would make the slight tax hike for a few years worth it for Nassau County residents.  Unfortunately, they don't.

Idiocy Run Amok

It's no secret that the commentary from ESPN.com's columnists isn't exactly hard-hitting journalism.  Sometimes I agree with them, but more often then not, I wonder where their idiotic points came from and how they were able to get jobs as "journalists."  Bill Simmons is a Red Sox fan, so the likelihood of my agreeing with him on any particular topic is usually slim at best...then he writes something that makes me question the credibility of ESPN.com as a whole.  The brilliance to which I'm referring comes in his mailbag, so instead of linking to the entire article, I'm going to post certain parts of it in italics, then rip them to shreds.

Q: Grant Wahl thinks we should play the Women's World Cup every two years. You down with that idea?
SG: Absolutely. I couldn't get my 6-year-old daughter to watch the Women's World Cup until the second half of the final game … and by extra time, she was totally hooked. She won't watch another meaningful women's soccer game until she's 10. How shortsighted is that? In general, we need to reconfigure these schedules: The Olympics and the World Cup should happen every three years.

He also proposed a schedule that goes like this: 2012 Summer Olympics, 2013 Men's World Cup, 2014 Winter Olympics & Women's World Cup, 2015 Summer Olympics, 2016 Men's World Cup, 2017 Winter Olympics & Women's World Cup. 

Why wouldn't that work?  Well, let's start with the soccer.  He forgot another major event on the FIFA calendar, one which ranks as the second-biggest international championship in the sport...the European Championships.  The Euro is also held every four years, opposite the World Cup.  And teams have to qualify for both events.  Believe it or not, World Cup 2014 qualifying has already started.  For European nations, qualifying for one starts as soon as the other ends.  Talk about short-sighted.  How do you want to handle the qualifying, Bill?  (For the record, Grant Wahl's suggestion about having the Women's World Cup every two years isn't that bad of an idea.)

Beyond the entertainment value of having at least one major event every year, did you ever wonder why we decided on the "every four years" thing in the first place? The modern Summer Olympics started in 1896 and settled on a four-year format for one simple reason … it was 1896!  In 1921, they decided it was weird to include figure skating and hockey in the Summer Olympics, so they spun those events off into a Winter Olympics (along with new events such as skiing, speed skating, ski jumping, etc.) that launched in 1924 in France with the same every-four-years format.  The Olympics didn't really become THE OLYMPICS until 1936...only we were stuck with the every-four-years gimmick at that point. And it's been that way ever since. Why? Because of the always-dangerous, "That's the way we've always done it!" logic.

Actually, the every four years thing has nothing to do with the fact that the first Olympics took place in 1896.  It came from the Ancient Greeks (you know, those people who put on the Olympics for 1,500 years!).  How often were the Ancient Olympics held?  Every four years.  That's your precedent.  It has nothing to do with when the first modern Olympics were held.  In fact, the IOC was founded in 1894 and the original plan was to have the first Olympics in Paris in 1900.  However, the rest of the committee convinced the Olympics' founder, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, that waiting six years would be too long, and that the first Games should be held in Greece.  So, the four-year cycle was preserved, Paris 1900 became the second Olympics, and the first Games were held in Athens in 1896.

And if you think about it, the Olympics don't take place every four years.  They take place every two years.  The first Winter Games took place in 1924, and they were both held in the same year until 1992.  Eventually, the IOC realized that holding both in the same year was becoming too costly, so they moved the Winter Games to the even year in between Summer Games, starting in 1994.  It's been that way ever since.  The only reason the Winter Olympics ended up in the same year as the World Cup is because, when organizing the first World Cup, FIFA decided it didn't want to go up head-to-head with the Olympics, so they adopted the same four-year cycle, just opposite the Olympics.  The IOC moving the Winter Games wasn't an issue because the World Cup takes place in the summer.

Going every three years would be more entertaining, generate more money, give us a better measure of who mattered the most during a 10-year window, and do a better job of capturing athletes as they're peaking.

This is my favorite part.  I'll start with the money part.  I'm not sure how much more money it would generate for the IOC or FIFA.  Part of what the appeal of the Olympics and World Cup is the fact that they're held every four years.  If they were held more frequently, there would be less novelty, and the TV contracts would reflect that (read: not be as high).  In addition, do you have any idea how expensive it is just to bid for the Olympics or World Cup?  If you ask cities/nations to do that more frequently, you're going to get stuck with inferior bids that end up hosting because they're the only ones willing to pony up the money.  You're asking NOCs/local bid committees to fund bids that might not pan out more often, which isn't going to happen.  And you'd get stuck with undesirable locations for the Olympics/World Cup, which means people would be less willing to travel there, and you're giving them one less year to get the money together if they decide they want to make a trip to one of these once-in-a-lifetime events.

But the athletes' peak argument is the one that really doesn't make any sense.  If you figure an Olympic athlete's peak is anywhere between six and eight years, that's two Olympics.  Sure, some unfortunately get stuck with only one Olympics in their prime, but, for the most part, they'll get at least two.  Some of the lucky ones get more than two.  Example: Michael Phelps.  His peak was roughly 2001-08.  There were two Olympics during that timeframe, and he won 16 medals in Athens and Beijing.  And sometimes even the greatest athletes don't win Olympic gold even during their peak.  Michelle Kwan won nine World Championships, was at her peak in 1998 and won silver.  She wasn't exactly over the hill in Salt Lake City, when she settled for bronze. 

The fact that you have to wait four years to redeem yourself is part of the appeal.  For both fans and athletes.  Unfortunately, there are some sports columnists that don't get that.  So, Bill, do I agree with your plan to have the Olympics and World Cup on three-year cycles instead of every four years?  No I don't.

Trade Deadline Winners & Losers

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that the baseball trade deadline has come and gone.  But I got caught up in that whole MTV '80s thing before I could give my analysis.  Of course, breaking it down a week after the fact seems like a stupid idea on the surface, but doing it this way also means these guys have already started to make an impact with their new teams.  And even though the Braves and Giants both started to play some really bad baseball immediately after the deadline, one week does not equal a season (just ask the Red Sux about that wonderful month of April they had).  So, I think Atlanta and San Francisco are going to be fine.  In fact, they both fall into the "winners" category.

WINNERS
Braves-They missed out on Carlos Beltran, then Hunter Pence went to the division rival Phillies.  It looked like Atlanta wasn't going be able to get the leadoff-hitting center fielder it needed.  Then they landed Michael Bourn, Pence's former Astros teammate.  Sure, it would be better if he hit right-handed, but that's a minor detail.  The Braves finally have an actual leadoff man again.  And their best center fielder since Andruw Jones was in his prime.  Atlanta already had the pitching.  Now adding Bourn makes the lineup stronger top to bottom.  They're not going to catch the Phillies, but the Braves have to be the favorites to win the NL wild card again.

Giants-San Francisco's had a hole in the lineup since Buster Posey got hurt.  They also had a black hole in left field with Pat Burrell basically standing out there wearing a glove just so he could strike out.  Problem solved and problem solved.  Inserting Beltran into the middle makes the lineup stronger, and the defense is definitely better with Beltran in right and Ross in left instead of Ross in right and Burrell in left.  With that pitching staff, the Giants didn't need to do much.  The Diamondbacks are hanging tight right now, but that's not going to last.  The Giants were probably going to win the NL West again anyway without getting Beltran.  Now it's all but a lock.

Rangers-While the Yankees and Red Sox were busy not doing much of anything at the deadline, Texas was busy getting ready for whichever one they'll play (or both) in October.  Every move the Rangers made was subtle, but they were all smart.  Chris Davis (who strikes out about as much as Mark Reynolds, which makes him the perfect addition to the Orioles' lineup) and Tommy Hunter brought Koji Uehara.  Then they bolstered the bullpen even more by getting San Diego setup man Mike Adams, who I'm shocked ended up in Texas.  Meanwhile, the Angels, who needed help, didn't do anything.  Los Angeles/Anaheim/Orange County/California is hanging in there, but that's only going to last so long.  The Rangers are a better team and they know it.  With this improved bullpen, Texas could easily make its way back to the World Series.

Honorable Mention: Indians-While I'm not sold on Ubaldo Jimenez, Cleveland needed to do something to keep pace with Detroit.  They weren't going to catch the Tigers with the rotation the way it was.  They still won't, but that's because Detroit's better.
Pirates-The Pirates being a buyer instead of a seller at the trade deadline is enough to qualify as a "winner," which is something they haven't been in 18 years.  Pittsburgh's probably not going to make the playoffs, but 82-80 is a realistic, attainable and admirable goal.

LOSERS
Astros-We all know that the Houston Astros were already barely a Major League team when the season began.  Then they traded away the two best players on the team without finding a way to also get rid of the left-handed starter that a lot of contenders wanted.  Although, it might've just been a big game of possum.  If you make a waiver claim for Wandy Rodriguez in August, you don't have to give up any prospects.  But aside from Wandy and that ridiculous contract known as Carlos Lee, this is the NL Central's new Quadruple-A franchise.

Angels-The Angels really needed to upgrade in a couple places.  For starters, their rotation is weak behind Jered Weaver and Ervin Santana.  And their bullpen could use a lot of help.  As for the lineup, another bat, preferably one that can play the outfield, was a must.  Torii Hunter, Vernon Wells and Bobby Abreu are all getting old, and they're nowhere near as good as Josh Hamilton, Michael Young and Adrian Beltre.  Russell Branyan would've been a decent pickup if he did anything other than hit home runs at Yankee Stadium.  They're keeping it close right now, but the Angels are going to see the Rangers pull away soon enough.

Red Sox-Theo Epstein continued his obsession with adding starting pitchers at the trade deadline for little or no reason without addressing the fact that Boston has absolutely no bench to speak of.  However, I will give him a little credit for resisting the urge to get his annual unnecessary extra first baseman.  They also probably need a right fielder better than J.D. Drew.  But their biggest need that went unaddressed was the bullpen.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the fact the Red Sux didn't get any better.  Boston's still going to make the playoffs.  But I'm not sure a trip to the World Series is as guaranteed as some New Englanders think it is.  I don't think Erik Bedard was the missing piece between going to the World Series or not for this team.  And I'm not just saying that because I'm a Yankees fan.

Honorable Mention: (because who doesn't love an honorable mention "Loser?") Rays-I don't know if Tampa Bay conceded the AL East race, but they certainly didn't act like a team that was trying to get out of third place.  The only logical reason I can think of for keeping B.J. Upton is because they think they'll be good next year (which they will) and wanted to keep their center fielder.  The Yankees and Red Sox are currently better teams.  They were able to get away with standing pat.  If the Rays wanted to make it a three-team race, they had to make a move, which they didn't.
Dodgers-The Dodgers are a mess.  Everyone already knows that.  Their problems are a long way from being solved.  But Hiroki Kuroda didn't help matters by refusing to waive his no-trade clause.  I'm not blaming him.  That's his collectively-bargained right.  But it pretty much sums up the Dodgers' season in a nutshell.  And they somehow ended up stuck with Juan Rivera, too.  The good news is they still have Matt Kemp and Andre Either.

I Love the '80s

Once again, the inspiration for today's blog comes from pop culture.  August 1, 1981 was a historic day.  It marked the debut of MTV.  Interestingly enough, there were no professional major league sports played in North America on that day.  It was the day after the 50-day MLB players' strike ended, although the season wouldn't resume until the All-Star Game on August 9.

In honor of today's anniversary, I sought out some help from my Facebook friends for suggestions on '80s-related topics.  For the most part, those suggestions sucked, although Pat White, my sister's mother-in-law, gave me a good one.  She reminded me of New York's incredible 1986 season.  The Mets won 108 games and the World Series, while the best Giants team in franchise history won Super Bowl XXI.  That made me realize the incredibly awesome coincidence that this is the 25th anniversary of Super Bowl XXI and the 21st anniversary of Super Bowl XXV.  This is the only time that'll ever happen.  But I was looking for more of an "I Love the '80s"-type inspiration, and in this area, everyone failed miserably.

So I'm left looking back to the '80s on my own.  First off, I'd like to state for the record that I'm eight and a half months younger than MTV, so my recollection of 1981 is nonexistent.  Anyway, things were definitely different back then.  Baseball only had 26 teams, two of which were in Canada, football had 28, hockey had 21 (16 of which made the playoffs), and the expansion Dallas Mavericks gave the NBA 23.  March wasn't madness.  The Tournament didn't have 64 teams and the games weren't even shown live.  The U.S. was fresh off not going to the 1980 Olympics in Moscow and hadn't qualified for the World Cup in 30 years (and wouldn't for another 10).  Phoenix had a grand total of one team.  So did Miami.  There was a football team in Los Angeles, a baseball team in Montreal and a basketball team in Kansas City.  Meanwhile, Atlanta's hockey team had just packed up and moved to Canada (wait, that sounds familiar).

According to Lonny in "Rock of Ages," it was a "groovier" time.  It was also a simpler time.  I'm guessing Boston fans were a lot less annoying back then.  The Celtics won the NBA title as usual, but the Bruins sucked, the Patriots were irrelevant and the Red Sux were still cursed.  Chicago, meanwhile, hadn't won a damn thing since 1963 and still wouldn't until the '85 Bears.  Although, things must've been a little strange here in New York, too.  The Islanders were not only relevant, they were good.  In fact, they were in the middle of a run of four straight Stanley Cups.

There were no 24-hour regional sports networks (ESPN was just a baby itself), and there was no FOX.  But there was "Wide World of Sports."  Cookie-cutter stadiums were still cool and games were actually still played on AstroTurf.  Some World Series games took place in the afternoon (although, as cool as it would be, there's no way that would possibly work today) and, most importantly, a number of teams (across the board) wore those awesomely ugly "What were they thinking?" uniforms that have either become more awesome (basically any powder blue baseball uniform) or more ridiculous with the passage of time.  All while the Yankees, Canadiens, Celtics and Bears wore essentially the same thing they wear today.

But the real way that I want to honor MTV on its 30th birthday is to take some classic '80s videos and relate them to the modern sports world:

• "Video Killed the Radio Star," The Buggles-Remember those wonderful days before there were 9000 regional sports networks?  There weren't 9000 annoyingly bad play-by-play guys who think they're the next Vin Scully or Ernie Harwell.  There was, however, Vin Scully and Ernie Harwell and Harry Caray calling games on the radio.
• "Take On Me," A-ha-This is what Randy Moss was begging NFL teams to do during the week since the lockout ended.  Since nobody wanted to, he decided to retire.
• "Sledgehammer," Peter Gabriel-A sledgehammer needs to be taken to several sports venues, most notably Tropicana Field (Rays), Nassau Coliseum (Islanders) and Arco Arena (Sacramento Kings).  They also need to stop playing baseball in football stadiums in Miami and Oakland.
• "Here I Go Again," Whitesnake-It's almost football season, which means the never-ending Brett Favre saga has once again begun.  Is he retired or not?  Does anyone care anymore?
• "Wanted Dead or Alive," Bon Jovi-This applies to Congress and its endless pursuit of fruitless criminal cases against Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Lance Armstrong and everyone else who allegedly took steriods.
• "PYT (Pretty Young Thing)," Michael Jackson-Which pretty-boy quarterback do you want to apply this to?  Tom Brady?  Peyton Manning?  Drew Brees?  Aaron Rodgers?
• "Don't Stop Believin'," Journey-NBA fans, don't stop believing that the lockout will be settled in time for there to be a season.  It won't be, but feel free to have hope.  Go for it.
• "The Final Countdown," Europe-Awesome, very '80s song and video.  Here it applies to Frank McCourt's ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers, which will inevitably end in his forced sale of the team.

Sorry I couldn't think of an appropriate situation to apply to a Madonna song.  I'm sure there are a couple, I just couldn't think of any.  If you think of one, post it as a comment.