In honor of the conclusion of the History Channel's excellent Hatfields & McCoys, I decided that today's blog would be a countdown of what I think are some of the greatest sports feuds of all-time. These aren't necessarily rivalries. In fact, most of my list is two individuals. I'm simply talking about two parties that had a well-publicized rocky relationship for whatever reason. Some ended amicably. Others, not so much. I was just going to go until I couldn't think of anymore, but I actually came up with more than I thought I would, so this turned into a Top 10 list.
10. Babe Ruth vs. Lou Gehrig-Ruth and Gehrig are forever linked. They're, of course, best known as the heart of the batting order during the Yankees' first dynasty. But they didn't speak to each other for years because of a remark Gehrig's mother made about Ruth's wife. All was forgiven on July 4, 1939, when Babe Ruth showed up at Yankee Stadium for "Lou Gehrig Day" and buried the hatchet with his longtime teammate.
9. Pat Summit vs. Geno Auriemma-Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, UConn and Tennessee used to play every year. Sometimes twice. But they haven't played since 2007. Not even in the NCAA Tournament. Why? Tennessee chose not to renew the series after the 2006-07. It was never really the friendliest of rivalries (Auriemma once called Tennessee the "Evil Empire," an obvious Yankees-Red Sox reference), but the annual meetings ended because Pat Summitt was angry about what she thought was the illegal recruitment of Maya Moore. Even with Summitt now retired, I don't see UConn and Tennessee playing in the regular season anytime soon.
8. Philadelphia Flyers vs. Boston Bruins-A lot of teams hated the Flyers during the 70s, so I had a lot of options here, but I'm going with the Bruins, since that's the team that the "Broad Street Bullies" were really born against. Dave Schultz led the league in penalty minutes in 1973-74, as the Flyers advanced to the Stanley Cup Finals. They played the great Bobby Orr and the Bruins, who had won the Cup in two of the previous four seasons. But Schultz, Bobby Clarke and the rest of the "Broad Street Bullies" (with their physical style of play) took the Bruins completely out of their game. A frustrated Orr pulled down Clarke on a breakway late in the clinching Game 6, as the Flyers became the first expansion team to win the Stanley Cup.
7. Cale Yarborough vs. Donnie Allison-The 1979 Daytona 500 has often been cited as one of the biggest reasons for the growth of NASCAR. At the start of the final lap, Allison was leading and Yarborough was in second. Yarborough tried to pass. Allison wouldn't let him. Yarborough tried again. This time he made contact with Allison, sending both cars into the wall. Allison obviously wasn't pleased, and he wanted to make sure Yarborough knew it. Except back then, drivers settled disputes a little differently. Yarborough actually got into a fist fight with Allison and his brother Bobby on the infield after the race.
6. Thurman Munson vs. Carlton Fisk-In the 70s, the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry was arguably at its most intense. And at the heart of it was the mutual dislike of the teams' two catchers, something that they both made known at every possible opportunity. It came to a head on August 1, 1973, when Munson plowed into Fisk while trying to score the go-ahead run during a game at Fenway, igniting a 10-minute bench-clearing brawl. Pedro Martinez and Don Zimmer could easily have made this list, as well, but the Munson-Fisk feud lasted longer and was a lot more public.
5. Al Davis vs. Pete Rozelle-This feud goes all the way back to the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. Al Davis was the commissioner of the AFL when merger talks began in 1966, and he was completely against it. NFL Commissioner Rozelle was the driving force behind the merger and rightfully received all the credit for it. Fast forward 10 years, Davis wants to move the Raiders from Oakland to L.A. Rozelle won't let him. So, Davis goes to court, sues the NFL on antitrust grounds, wins, and the Raiders move in 1982. (For some reason, they moved back to Oakland 13 years later.) And, of course, Davis was well-known for always being the only owner to vote "No" on something the NFL wanted, even if he actually wanted it too.
4. George Steinbrenner vs. Yogi Berra-George Steinbrenner could fill a list of Top 10 feuds all on his own. There was Billy Martin, Dave Winfield, Billy Martin, Reggie Jackson, Billy Martin, Fay Vincent, Billy Martin. But The Boss' most famous feud might've been the one he had with Yogi Berra. One of the greatest players in Yankees history, Berra was hired as Yankees manager in 1985 and promised to be given a fair chance, only to be fired by Steinbrenner three weeks into the season. Yogi vowed never to return to Yankee Stadium as long as Steinbrenner owned the team, and he stayed away for 14 years until Steinbrenner apologized in 1999. Yogi was welcomed back to Yankee Stadium with open arms, and "Yogi Berra Day" was held at the Stadium on July 18, 1999. On that day, David Cone threw a perfect game against the Expos.
3. Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier-These two became great friends later in life (Ali attended Frazier's private funeral in November), but they had a shared animosity when their rivalry was at its heyday. Ali made his political views well-known, and he characterized Frazier as essentially the "Great White Hope." His trademark taunts got very personal, underscoring their three epic fights. The first fight in the trilogy was the 1971 "Fight of the Century," when the undefeated Frazier handed Ali the first loss of his career. Ali won the two rematches, including the famous "Thrilla In Manila" in 1975. Frazier carried feelings of resentment and bitterness towards his great rival for many years, but those wounds healed over time.
2. MLB Owners vs. MLB Players (NHL Owners vs. NHL Players)-These two share the No. 2 spot because there have only been two instances in the history of professional sports that a labor dispute resulted in no champion being crowned. There was no 1994 World Series because the MLB players went on strike, while the entire 2004-05 NHL season didn't happen because the owners locked out the players. Both were about money. The MLB owners thought salaries were getting out of control in 1994 and wanted to institute a salary cap. The NHL owners needed a better business model and were willing to sacrifice an entire season to get one. Ultimately, baseball's players "won" in 1994 and hockey's owners "won" in 2005. But in reality, everybody lost. No one more so than the fans. However, there may be a silver lining behind both of these work stoppages. Both sports were nearly damaged beyond repair. As a result, I don't think either will ever have a work stoppage again.
1. United States vs. Soviet Union-Cold War tensions carried over into an intense sporting rivalry between the Americans and the Soviets. Every game was "Us vs. Them," Capitalists vs. Communists. And it was at its most intense during the Olympics. Especially in 1980. The 1980 Summer Olympics were in Moscow, but the U.S. didn't go. President Jimmy Carter boycotted the Games in protest of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and he got more than 60 other countries to join him. The Soviet Union responded by boycotting the 1984 Games in Los Angeles, joined by 15 other Communit-bloc countries. The Soviets did attend the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York, however. The most famous event of those Games, of course (perhaps the most famous event in Winter Olympics history) is the "Miracle on Ice," when the U.S. hockey team consisting entirely of amateurs beat the team of Soviet professionals and won the gold medal.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Stanley Cup Finals Preview
I'll be honest...my interest in the Stanley Cup Finals took a major hit on Friday night. I'll still watch them, but I really don't care who wins. My vested interest is gone.
You'd think I'd be more upset about the Rangers than I am. Sure I'm disappointed, but it was a hell of a season. And I guess 82 regular season games followed by 20 more in the playoffs is a little too much to ask. Especially when you're putting yourselves in a hole to start the game every night. Simply put, the Devils outplayed the Rangers. Henrik Lundqvist stood on his head, stole Game 3, and (aside from Game 5) was generally great as usual. Lundqvist can't score, however. That's the job of the Rangers' offense, which failed miserably. And it didn't help that they only decided to play well after the Devils had 2-0 leads. I still think the Rangers are the better team. But the Devils were the better team over the last two weeks. That's why they're in the Finals.
Out west, the LA Kings are that team you see every couple of years that comes out of nowhere and makes a deep playoff run. I'm still not really sure how the Kings have done it. But yet, they're 12-2 in this year's playoffs, and they beat all three division champions in the Western Conference, including two of the four best teams in the league during the regular season (Vancouver, the defending conference champion and this year's President's Trophy winner, and St. Louis). And it's simply remarkable that they haven't lost a road game in this year's playoffs. The Kings are 8-0 away from Staples Center in the postseason.
The Kings' success can be traced to two things. The first is Jonathan Quick. I said when the playoffs started that a hot goalie can take you a loooooooong way in the playoffs. The Canucks, Blues and Coyotes have found that out the hard way. If not for the play of Jonathan Quick, there's no way the Kings are here. But captain Dustin Brown's coming-out party was very well-timed, also. That LA offense has looked tremendous through three rounds. And Brown is suddenly playing like the captain of the Kings' 1993 Finals team (some guy named Gretzky, maybe you've heard of him). The combination of Brown and Quick have helped write a script worthy of a Hollywood screenplay so far this postseason. Because the Kings aren't this good.
I really have no idea how this series is going to play out. The Kings have had a ridiculous amount of rest this postseason, which has obviously seemed to work for them. They haven't had to fly coast-to-coast yet, though. And they didn't face a goalie anywhere near Martin Brodeur's caliber in the first three rounds. But they did beat the three best teams in the Western Conference. Even though the East was the tougher conference this season, that can't be ignored. Nor can that postseason road record, which is simply remarkable.
With all that being said, the Devils are the better team. Yes, they finished fourth in their division. But they played in the best division in hockey, and they vanquished two of those teams (the Flyers and Rangers) in the playoffs. After a shaky seven-game series against Florida, New Jersey has looked better with each round. However, how much of that had to do with the familiarity of playing two hated division opponents, who might be their two biggest rivals to boot?
For all the praise I've thrown Dustin Brown's way, Devils captain Zach Parise deserves a ton of credit for his team's postseason success, too. Of course, he'll always be remembered fondly for his goal in the waining seconds that sent the 2010 Olympic Gold Medal Game to overtime, but during these playoffs, Parise has proven even more so that he's a big game player. It was his late empty-net goals that sealed both Games 4 and 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals. He and Travis Zajac have proven to be a scary combination, and let's not forget the Devils' best offensive player, Ilya Kovalchuk. Then there's that future Hall of Famer in goal, looking to have his name etched on the Cup one more time.
Your guess as to how this series will go is as good as mine. The Devils and Kings played twice this season, but both games were in October, so you can't take anything out of them. Brodeur didn't even play either time. As for my projection, I think the Devils manage to win at least one of their home games and slow this crazy Kings ride. Whichever goalie plays better, his team will probably win. I think that'll be Martin Brodeur. He rises to the occasion and gives Chris Christie a reason to be even more annoying. I'm going to say Devils in six.
You'd think I'd be more upset about the Rangers than I am. Sure I'm disappointed, but it was a hell of a season. And I guess 82 regular season games followed by 20 more in the playoffs is a little too much to ask. Especially when you're putting yourselves in a hole to start the game every night. Simply put, the Devils outplayed the Rangers. Henrik Lundqvist stood on his head, stole Game 3, and (aside from Game 5) was generally great as usual. Lundqvist can't score, however. That's the job of the Rangers' offense, which failed miserably. And it didn't help that they only decided to play well after the Devils had 2-0 leads. I still think the Rangers are the better team. But the Devils were the better team over the last two weeks. That's why they're in the Finals.
Out west, the LA Kings are that team you see every couple of years that comes out of nowhere and makes a deep playoff run. I'm still not really sure how the Kings have done it. But yet, they're 12-2 in this year's playoffs, and they beat all three division champions in the Western Conference, including two of the four best teams in the league during the regular season (Vancouver, the defending conference champion and this year's President's Trophy winner, and St. Louis). And it's simply remarkable that they haven't lost a road game in this year's playoffs. The Kings are 8-0 away from Staples Center in the postseason.
The Kings' success can be traced to two things. The first is Jonathan Quick. I said when the playoffs started that a hot goalie can take you a loooooooong way in the playoffs. The Canucks, Blues and Coyotes have found that out the hard way. If not for the play of Jonathan Quick, there's no way the Kings are here. But captain Dustin Brown's coming-out party was very well-timed, also. That LA offense has looked tremendous through three rounds. And Brown is suddenly playing like the captain of the Kings' 1993 Finals team (some guy named Gretzky, maybe you've heard of him). The combination of Brown and Quick have helped write a script worthy of a Hollywood screenplay so far this postseason. Because the Kings aren't this good.
I really have no idea how this series is going to play out. The Kings have had a ridiculous amount of rest this postseason, which has obviously seemed to work for them. They haven't had to fly coast-to-coast yet, though. And they didn't face a goalie anywhere near Martin Brodeur's caliber in the first three rounds. But they did beat the three best teams in the Western Conference. Even though the East was the tougher conference this season, that can't be ignored. Nor can that postseason road record, which is simply remarkable.
With all that being said, the Devils are the better team. Yes, they finished fourth in their division. But they played in the best division in hockey, and they vanquished two of those teams (the Flyers and Rangers) in the playoffs. After a shaky seven-game series against Florida, New Jersey has looked better with each round. However, how much of that had to do with the familiarity of playing two hated division opponents, who might be their two biggest rivals to boot?
For all the praise I've thrown Dustin Brown's way, Devils captain Zach Parise deserves a ton of credit for his team's postseason success, too. Of course, he'll always be remembered fondly for his goal in the waining seconds that sent the 2010 Olympic Gold Medal Game to overtime, but during these playoffs, Parise has proven even more so that he's a big game player. It was his late empty-net goals that sealed both Games 4 and 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals. He and Travis Zajac have proven to be a scary combination, and let's not forget the Devils' best offensive player, Ilya Kovalchuk. Then there's that future Hall of Famer in goal, looking to have his name etched on the Cup one more time.
Your guess as to how this series will go is as good as mine. The Devils and Kings played twice this season, but both games were in October, so you can't take anything out of them. Brodeur didn't even play either time. As for my projection, I think the Devils manage to win at least one of their home games and slow this crazy Kings ride. Whichever goalie plays better, his team will probably win. I think that'll be Martin Brodeur. He rises to the occasion and gives Chris Christie a reason to be even more annoying. I'm going to say Devils in six.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Indy 500 Preview
This year's Indy 500 is certainly going to be different than it was last year. Jim Nabors is sick, so "Back Home Again In Indiana" won't be sung live. It'll be on tape instead. No Danica either. She's busy trying to make it in NASCAR. Sadly, there's no defending champion either. Dan Wheldon's tragic fatal accident in last season's finale at Las Vegas devastated the sport. On so many levels. His absence has certainly been felt all month at the Brickyard. It's the first time since 1947 that the Indy 500 champion died before getting a chance to defend his title. (Although 2007 winner Dario Franchitti missed the 2008 race during his Danica-like one-year failed attempt at NASCAR.)
Bump Day was also incredibly unexciting this year. Only 33 cars entered the race. Thus, everybody qualified. For a while, there were worries that they wouldn't even get to a full field, so at least that problem was averted. Even if the entire back row was incredibly slow in qualifying, we've at least got the full 33 cars. That's the Indy tradition. (Although, here's a thought: If they'd had only 32, it would've been really cool to say the final starting spot belonged to Dan Wheldon. They even could've started without anybody on the pole, symbolically leaving it for the defending champ.)
Nevertheless, the Greatest Spectacle In Racing is upon us, and there's no shortage of storylines. J.R. Hildebrand had the race won last year before he crashed on the final turn of the final lap, giving Wheldon the win. Then there's Ryan Hunter-Reay, who got bumped out of the field last year, only to strike a deal to replace another driver. This year, he's starting in the front row. Teammates James Hinchcliffe and Marco Andretti are starting second and fourth, making up for Andretti Autosport's terrible May in 2011. This year's Andretti Autosport is Target Chip Ganassi Racing. Target teammates Scott Dixon and Franchitti, both former champions, are starting in the middle of the field. Franchitti did have the fastest speed during the final practice on Friday, though.
Dixon and Franchitti are two of the three former champions in the race. The third is three-time winner Helio Castroneves, who's got a great chance at No. 4. Helio's starting sixth, right next to Penske teammate Will Power. There's another Penske driver on the pole, Ryan Briscoe, who beat Hinchcliffe by a mere .003 mph in qualifying. Whoever starts on the pole always has to be viewed as a contender for the Borg-Warner Trophy, and this year is no exception. There are plenty of other contenders, though.
It might finally be Tony Kanaan's year. My favorite driver on the series, he's never won the Indy 500 despite leading the race seven consecutive years (2002-08), setting a record. He started 22nd last year and ended up fourth. This year Kanaan starts eighth, right in the middle of the action. If he can keep near the front, stay out of trouble and get a little luck, Tony Kanaan could end up sipping the milk in Victory Lane. (Although, I also fear he might be destined never to win the Indy 500. It's long been a part of Indy folklore that the track picks who wins. Just ask J.R. Hildebrand.)
There are also eight rookies in the field. Who will have a debut like Hildebrand? Or Helio for that matter? (Castroneves won his first two Indy 500 starts.) The smart money's on either Josef Newgarden or Rubens Barrichello. Newgarden had a great qualifying run. He'll start on the inside of Row 3. Barrichello just missed making that Top 9 shootout for the pole. He's starting 10th. Although, I think I like Barrichello's chances in the actual race a little better. Newgarden is the only driver representing Sarah Fisher's team, while Barrichello has two teammates--Kanaan and E.J. Viso. In fact, the three of them are starting eighth, ninth and 10th, giving them the chance to work as a team. If they're running near the front at the end, that could help Kanaan finally get that long overdue victory.
Without Danica, the chances of seeing a woman near the front decreased greatly. However, we do have three women in the field, led by veteran Ana Beatriz. Beatriz has a very good starting position (Inside Row 5), and could definitely be a player. I don't think she has a chance to win, but a Top 10 finish would be a very solid showing. At the very least, she'll probably do better than 21st, which was her showing in each of the last two years. The other women are Simona de Silvestro, who's also making her third Indy start, and rookie Katherine Legge. The fourth woman in last year's race, Pippa Mann (the second coolest Pippa from Great Britain), came to Indy, but didn't attempt to qualify.
As for my pick, I'm going with Kanaan. I don't know why, but I just have a feeling. Yes, he's my favorite IndyCar driver, but that's not the only reason. I also really like Will Power's chances, and Briscoe's looked too good to be counted out. It looks like the two Ganassi cars have figured out their problems, so I'm counting both Franchitti and Dixon as potential sleepers.
I just hope the 96th Indianapolis 500 is another classic. Just like last year's race. And regardless of who wins, they'll become a legend. That's what winning the biggest, most prestigious race in all of motor sports does for you.
Bump Day was also incredibly unexciting this year. Only 33 cars entered the race. Thus, everybody qualified. For a while, there were worries that they wouldn't even get to a full field, so at least that problem was averted. Even if the entire back row was incredibly slow in qualifying, we've at least got the full 33 cars. That's the Indy tradition. (Although, here's a thought: If they'd had only 32, it would've been really cool to say the final starting spot belonged to Dan Wheldon. They even could've started without anybody on the pole, symbolically leaving it for the defending champ.)
Nevertheless, the Greatest Spectacle In Racing is upon us, and there's no shortage of storylines. J.R. Hildebrand had the race won last year before he crashed on the final turn of the final lap, giving Wheldon the win. Then there's Ryan Hunter-Reay, who got bumped out of the field last year, only to strike a deal to replace another driver. This year, he's starting in the front row. Teammates James Hinchcliffe and Marco Andretti are starting second and fourth, making up for Andretti Autosport's terrible May in 2011. This year's Andretti Autosport is Target Chip Ganassi Racing. Target teammates Scott Dixon and Franchitti, both former champions, are starting in the middle of the field. Franchitti did have the fastest speed during the final practice on Friday, though.
Dixon and Franchitti are two of the three former champions in the race. The third is three-time winner Helio Castroneves, who's got a great chance at No. 4. Helio's starting sixth, right next to Penske teammate Will Power. There's another Penske driver on the pole, Ryan Briscoe, who beat Hinchcliffe by a mere .003 mph in qualifying. Whoever starts on the pole always has to be viewed as a contender for the Borg-Warner Trophy, and this year is no exception. There are plenty of other contenders, though.
It might finally be Tony Kanaan's year. My favorite driver on the series, he's never won the Indy 500 despite leading the race seven consecutive years (2002-08), setting a record. He started 22nd last year and ended up fourth. This year Kanaan starts eighth, right in the middle of the action. If he can keep near the front, stay out of trouble and get a little luck, Tony Kanaan could end up sipping the milk in Victory Lane. (Although, I also fear he might be destined never to win the Indy 500. It's long been a part of Indy folklore that the track picks who wins. Just ask J.R. Hildebrand.)
There are also eight rookies in the field. Who will have a debut like Hildebrand? Or Helio for that matter? (Castroneves won his first two Indy 500 starts.) The smart money's on either Josef Newgarden or Rubens Barrichello. Newgarden had a great qualifying run. He'll start on the inside of Row 3. Barrichello just missed making that Top 9 shootout for the pole. He's starting 10th. Although, I think I like Barrichello's chances in the actual race a little better. Newgarden is the only driver representing Sarah Fisher's team, while Barrichello has two teammates--Kanaan and E.J. Viso. In fact, the three of them are starting eighth, ninth and 10th, giving them the chance to work as a team. If they're running near the front at the end, that could help Kanaan finally get that long overdue victory.
Without Danica, the chances of seeing a woman near the front decreased greatly. However, we do have three women in the field, led by veteran Ana Beatriz. Beatriz has a very good starting position (Inside Row 5), and could definitely be a player. I don't think she has a chance to win, but a Top 10 finish would be a very solid showing. At the very least, she'll probably do better than 21st, which was her showing in each of the last two years. The other women are Simona de Silvestro, who's also making her third Indy start, and rookie Katherine Legge. The fourth woman in last year's race, Pippa Mann (the second coolest Pippa from Great Britain), came to Indy, but didn't attempt to qualify.
As for my pick, I'm going with Kanaan. I don't know why, but I just have a feeling. Yes, he's my favorite IndyCar driver, but that's not the only reason. I also really like Will Power's chances, and Briscoe's looked too good to be counted out. It looks like the two Ganassi cars have figured out their problems, so I'm counting both Franchitti and Dixon as potential sleepers.
I just hope the 96th Indianapolis 500 is another classic. Just like last year's race. And regardless of who wins, they'll become a legend. That's what winning the biggest, most prestigious race in all of motor sports does for you.
Friday, May 25, 2012
2012 French Open Preview
I was debating which preview would go up today--Indy 500 or French Open. But since the French Open draw came out today, I'm going to save my Indy pick for tomorrow.
It's evidently some sort of rule that Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal aren't allowed to be on the same side of a Grand Slam draw. Ever since Roger dropped to No. 3, it's been possible that they could play in the semis, but every time they've drawn Roger vs. Djokovic and Rafa vs. Andy Murray. The draw is supposedly random, but I don't think I'm buying it. They want that Nadal vs. Fill In the Blank rivalry as the final. I'm sure Andy Murray's just as sick of always getting matched up with Nadal as Roger and Novak are of seeing each other.
Anyway, Grand Slam semifinals have been pretty much the exclusive domain of the Big Four since they all made the semis at Roland Garros last year. In the last four Grand Slam tournaments, they've combined for 15 of the 16 semifinal appearances, with Roger's loss to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in last year's Wimbledon quarters the only thing preventing a clean sweep. Nevertheless, it's not a guarantee that they'll all be in the semis again.
Of the Big Four, Murray is probably the most vulnerable. Clay's his weakest surface. He knows it, and everyone else knows it, too. He could end up facing a Frenchman, Richard Gasquet, in the round of 16. If Murray gets through that match, I don't see him losing in the quarters. But I can't say with certainty that I see him beating Gasquet. In fact, I think this is the Grand Slam that breaks the trend. We won't have Djokovic-Federer and Nadal-Murray in the semis for the third straight Slam (and the fourth time in the last five). I'm taking Mikhail Youzhny to make the semis from that section of the draw.
This is the tournament where's Roger's had the most problems. It, famously, is the last one that he won, and his 2009 title remains his only French Open crown. He's got a tough quarterfinal matchup against either Juan Martin Del Potro or Tomas Berdych, two guys who play him well and have beaten him in Slams before, before the showdown with Djokovic. Last year, Roger handed Novak his first defeat of the season in the French Open semifinals, only to once again lose to Nadal in the final. It was probably Federer's best match of the year. If they play again, it could be a classic like their U.S. Open semis in 2010 and 2011.
I see Djokovic beating Roger and setting up our fourth consecutive Djokovic-Nadal Grand Slam final (BTW, that's really getting boring). And as much as I despise Rafael Nadal, there's no denying he's the best clay-court player on the planet. He's lost a grand total of one match at the French Open in his career. Djokovic has won four of the last five Grand Slam tournaments. The only one he's missing is the 2011 French Open crown that went to Nadal. I'm not saying Djokovic can't continue his dominance over Nadal. What I am saying, though, is that I've learned better than to pick against Rafael Nadal at the French Open.
On the women's side, the last year and a half have been so random that you could probably pull a name out of a hat and have just as much chance of picking the winner as any of the so-called "experts." In the last five Grand Slam tournaments, there have been five different winners, and all four of the reigning Grand Slam titleholders have won just the single Grand Slam title.
This tournament has been the most random of all. Last year's final pitted Li Na against Francesca Schiavone, who won the title in 2010 over Samantha Stosur (in 2009, it was Svetlana Kuznetsova vs. Dinara Safina, who was somehow ranked No. 1 at the time and is now off the tour). With all that being said, I think 2012 could actually bring some sembelance of order to the French Oepn women's draw. Victoria Azarenka took over the No. 1 ranking by winning the Australian Open, and she's playing like she's No. 1. And Maria has looked great all year. She lost to Azarenka in the final in Melbourne and looks primed to make a run at her first French Open title, which would complete a career Grand Slam.
The last two Grand Slam champions could meet in the quarters, as Azarenka and Stosur have been drawn together. The winner of that match could see No. 3 Agnieszka Radwanska in the semis. Radwanska's rise up the rankings this year has been incredibly quiet, and she's definitely a sleeper. However, she has a fairly tough draw, which could either work in her favor or work against her. Radwanska will likely face Venus Williams in the second round, then has back-to-back former French Open champs (Kuznetsova and Ana Ivanovic) just to get to the quarterfinals. Should she get through that incredibly tough first week, I can see Radwanska playing on Saturday of Week 2.
The other two reiging Grand Slam champions, Li and Petra Kvitova, are also on a collision course for a quarterfinal matchup. Schiavone's also in this quarter of the draw. Since winning Wimbledon, Kvitova has emerged as one of the most consistent players on Tour, and she's played her way up to the No. 4 ranking. But somebody whose game is so well-suited to Wimbledon you have to think is vulnerable at Roland Garros. Was Li a one-year wonder? That's the question everybody's going to be asking. They asked that about Schiavone last year, and she proved her 2010 title wasn't a fluke by getting back to the final. I'm sure Li and Kvitova would've been happier to see her name elsewhere in the draw.
Clay is Maria's weakest surface, and she's never really played that well here. But she's on a mission. Sharapova might be playing the best tennis of her career. And after losing the final at both Wimbledon and the Australian Open, she's desperate to add another Grand Slam title to her resume. Serena Williams is the No. 5 seed and Maria's potential quarterfinal opponent. You never really know what you're going to get from Serena. After finally losing the No. 1 ranking, Caroline Wozniacki has dropped all the way to No. 9. She's in this section of the draw, too. So is Maria Kirilenko. Those two both stand in the way of that Maria-Serena quarterfinal.
As for the pick, I think Azarenka and Radwanska both get through to the semis, where Radwanska's tough first week helps her reach her first Grand Slam final. On the bottom half, I'm playing the "It wasn't a fluke" card for Li. I think she gets back to the semis, where she loses to Sharapova. And, even though common sense tells me not to (I think she's equally capable of being an early-round upset victim), I'm taking Maria Sharapova to win her first French Open title.
It's evidently some sort of rule that Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal aren't allowed to be on the same side of a Grand Slam draw. Ever since Roger dropped to No. 3, it's been possible that they could play in the semis, but every time they've drawn Roger vs. Djokovic and Rafa vs. Andy Murray. The draw is supposedly random, but I don't think I'm buying it. They want that Nadal vs. Fill In the Blank rivalry as the final. I'm sure Andy Murray's just as sick of always getting matched up with Nadal as Roger and Novak are of seeing each other.
Anyway, Grand Slam semifinals have been pretty much the exclusive domain of the Big Four since they all made the semis at Roland Garros last year. In the last four Grand Slam tournaments, they've combined for 15 of the 16 semifinal appearances, with Roger's loss to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in last year's Wimbledon quarters the only thing preventing a clean sweep. Nevertheless, it's not a guarantee that they'll all be in the semis again.
Of the Big Four, Murray is probably the most vulnerable. Clay's his weakest surface. He knows it, and everyone else knows it, too. He could end up facing a Frenchman, Richard Gasquet, in the round of 16. If Murray gets through that match, I don't see him losing in the quarters. But I can't say with certainty that I see him beating Gasquet. In fact, I think this is the Grand Slam that breaks the trend. We won't have Djokovic-Federer and Nadal-Murray in the semis for the third straight Slam (and the fourth time in the last five). I'm taking Mikhail Youzhny to make the semis from that section of the draw.
This is the tournament where's Roger's had the most problems. It, famously, is the last one that he won, and his 2009 title remains his only French Open crown. He's got a tough quarterfinal matchup against either Juan Martin Del Potro or Tomas Berdych, two guys who play him well and have beaten him in Slams before, before the showdown with Djokovic. Last year, Roger handed Novak his first defeat of the season in the French Open semifinals, only to once again lose to Nadal in the final. It was probably Federer's best match of the year. If they play again, it could be a classic like their U.S. Open semis in 2010 and 2011.
I see Djokovic beating Roger and setting up our fourth consecutive Djokovic-Nadal Grand Slam final (BTW, that's really getting boring). And as much as I despise Rafael Nadal, there's no denying he's the best clay-court player on the planet. He's lost a grand total of one match at the French Open in his career. Djokovic has won four of the last five Grand Slam tournaments. The only one he's missing is the 2011 French Open crown that went to Nadal. I'm not saying Djokovic can't continue his dominance over Nadal. What I am saying, though, is that I've learned better than to pick against Rafael Nadal at the French Open.
On the women's side, the last year and a half have been so random that you could probably pull a name out of a hat and have just as much chance of picking the winner as any of the so-called "experts." In the last five Grand Slam tournaments, there have been five different winners, and all four of the reigning Grand Slam titleholders have won just the single Grand Slam title.
This tournament has been the most random of all. Last year's final pitted Li Na against Francesca Schiavone, who won the title in 2010 over Samantha Stosur (in 2009, it was Svetlana Kuznetsova vs. Dinara Safina, who was somehow ranked No. 1 at the time and is now off the tour). With all that being said, I think 2012 could actually bring some sembelance of order to the French Oepn women's draw. Victoria Azarenka took over the No. 1 ranking by winning the Australian Open, and she's playing like she's No. 1. And Maria has looked great all year. She lost to Azarenka in the final in Melbourne and looks primed to make a run at her first French Open title, which would complete a career Grand Slam.
The last two Grand Slam champions could meet in the quarters, as Azarenka and Stosur have been drawn together. The winner of that match could see No. 3 Agnieszka Radwanska in the semis. Radwanska's rise up the rankings this year has been incredibly quiet, and she's definitely a sleeper. However, she has a fairly tough draw, which could either work in her favor or work against her. Radwanska will likely face Venus Williams in the second round, then has back-to-back former French Open champs (Kuznetsova and Ana Ivanovic) just to get to the quarterfinals. Should she get through that incredibly tough first week, I can see Radwanska playing on Saturday of Week 2.
The other two reiging Grand Slam champions, Li and Petra Kvitova, are also on a collision course for a quarterfinal matchup. Schiavone's also in this quarter of the draw. Since winning Wimbledon, Kvitova has emerged as one of the most consistent players on Tour, and she's played her way up to the No. 4 ranking. But somebody whose game is so well-suited to Wimbledon you have to think is vulnerable at Roland Garros. Was Li a one-year wonder? That's the question everybody's going to be asking. They asked that about Schiavone last year, and she proved her 2010 title wasn't a fluke by getting back to the final. I'm sure Li and Kvitova would've been happier to see her name elsewhere in the draw.
Clay is Maria's weakest surface, and she's never really played that well here. But she's on a mission. Sharapova might be playing the best tennis of her career. And after losing the final at both Wimbledon and the Australian Open, she's desperate to add another Grand Slam title to her resume. Serena Williams is the No. 5 seed and Maria's potential quarterfinal opponent. You never really know what you're going to get from Serena. After finally losing the No. 1 ranking, Caroline Wozniacki has dropped all the way to No. 9. She's in this section of the draw, too. So is Maria Kirilenko. Those two both stand in the way of that Maria-Serena quarterfinal.
As for the pick, I think Azarenka and Radwanska both get through to the semis, where Radwanska's tough first week helps her reach her first Grand Slam final. On the bottom half, I'm playing the "It wasn't a fluke" card for Li. I think she gets back to the semis, where she loses to Sharapova. And, even though common sense tells me not to (I think she's equally capable of being an early-round upset victim), I'm taking Maria Sharapova to win her first French Open title.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The 2020 Candidates
Today the IOC went through the formality of officially eliminating the two cities that had absolutely no chance of hosting the 2020 Olympics--Doha and Baku from the race. Doha, in its delusional view of things, is inevitably going to cry about it and claim that the IOC is "closing the door on the Arab world." Even if the incredibly oppressive heat and Qatar's backward view of women's role in society, the proposed October schedule would've been the deal-breaker. That wouldn't work for the United States or any European countries. Besides, even if Doha had made it to the final round, there's no way it would've won. They haven't hosted the 2022 World Cup yet, and that event should be the test to see if Qatar can actually host major sporting events. And there was no way the IOC was going to pick Doha and deal with the same criticism FIFA rightfully received after Qatar bought that World Cup.
Some people thought they'd take Doha into the final round just for the sake of having more than three candidates, but I think that would've been a silly reason. Madrid, Tokyo and Istanbul all have a realistic shot of hosting. Let them battle it out. What would've been the purpose to bring Doha along for the ride and make them go through the process for another year and a half when they were inevitably going to finish no better than fourth? That's one of the reasons the U.S. didn't bid this time. Of course, the money that goes into it wouldn't be a problem for Qatar, but I think excluding Doha from the final list was a good call. Especially since the other three bids are all very good. Let's take a look at them:
Some people thought they'd take Doha into the final round just for the sake of having more than three candidates, but I think that would've been a silly reason. Madrid, Tokyo and Istanbul all have a realistic shot of hosting. Let them battle it out. What would've been the purpose to bring Doha along for the ride and make them go through the process for another year and a half when they were inevitably going to finish no better than fourth? That's one of the reasons the U.S. didn't bid this time. Of course, the money that goes into it wouldn't be a problem for Qatar, but I think excluding Doha from the final list was a good call. Especially since the other three bids are all very good. Let's take a look at them:
MADRID
Pros: Madrid is bidding for the third straight time, and finished second for both the 2012 and 2016 Games. The IOC tends to reward persistence (2018 Winter Olympic host Pyeongchang won on its third bid last year), and the Madrid bid is just as solid now as it was four years ago, when it almost pulled off the shocker. Perhaps the only reason they lost in 2016 was because they didn't want to go back-to-back in Europe. That's obviously not a problem this time. In addition, most of the facilities are already built, so Madrid's budget could be considerably less than the previous bids. Giving the Games to Madrid would also be a nice way to honor the legacy of late IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch.
Cons: The biggest con for Madrid is the fact that the Spanish economy is in the tank right now, and there's no guarantee it'll get any better in the next seven years. (That was also the case for Rome, which is why Rome dropped out of the race.) But the Spanish government has pledged full backing. Regardless, will the economic concers doom Madrid's chances?
TOKYO
Pros: Tokyo also bid for 2016, but lost to Rio. On paper, this is viewed as the best bid, and many consider Tokyo to be the favorite. I was skeptical of Tokyo's decision to bid so soon after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan early last year, but the Japanese economy seems to be recovering fine. And like Spain, the Japanese government thinks the Olympics in Tokyo would generate a huge amount of revenue for the country. It's also a very compact bid, which the voters like. Perhaps the biggest think working in Tokyo's favor, though, is the fact that it's the only remaining city that's previously hosted an Olympics, the highly successful 1964 Games.
Cons: While Tokyo has a lot of pros, it's staring at one very big con. The 2018 Winter Olympics are in Korea. I don't see the IOC giving consecutive Olympics to the Far East and its highly unfavorable time zone. Further working against Tokyo is the fact that 2020 is only 12 years removed from the Beijing Games. Is that too soon? It might be.
ISTANBUL
Pros: A few years ago, Istanbul announced that it was going to bid for the Olympics every time until they finally won. They didn't bid for 2016, but for the most part, they've been men of their word. And this might be Istanbul's time. Unlike the other two countries, Turkey's economy is fine. Combine that with near-unanimous support within the country to host the Games. Turkey has also successfully hosted a number of major international events in recent years (the 2010 World Basketball Championships and 2012 World Indoor Track & Field Championships), proving that it can handle bigtime events. And Istanbul's location makes it an incredibly compelling candidate. The Olympics have never been held in an Arab country, and with the Games headed to South America in 2016 and a South African bid for 2024 likely, that's another opportunity to bring the Olympic Movement to another part of the world. Turkey straddles Europe and Asia (I think the continental divide is somewhere within the country), and Africa is right there, as well. They've never had an opportunity to have the Olympics within the borders of three different continents like this before.
Cons: One way or another, it looks like Turkey is going to be hosting a major sporting event in 2020. Initially, Turkey was the only bidder for the 2020 European Soccer Championships (although UEFA has since re-opened the bid process). It would be impossible for Istanbul to host the Euro final and the Olympics within a month of each other. In fact, the IOC prohibits countries from hosting any major international sporting events the same year it's hosting the Olympics, probably for that reason. The IOC will announce the Olympic host first. If Istanbul wins, they'll have to withdraw their Euro bid.
My take: For some reason, I really want Istanbul to win. I think an Olympics in that part of the world would be really cool, and Turkey seems so eager to host. But I don't think it'll be Istanbul. I've been saying since it almost beat Rio that 2020 would be Madrid's turn (it's the only major European capital never to have hosted the Olympics). Even though Tokyo is listed as the "favorite," I still believe that to be true. The bid has no holes in it, and if the Spanish economy doesn't take a turn for the worse in the next year and a half, the financial worries will be greatly reduced. But mostly, I don't see the mostly-European IOC voters going back to the Far East when they can award another Games to Europe with very little controversy. This race is way too close to call, though. I can see any of these three cities hearing its name called in Buenos Aires on September 7, 2013.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Best Minor League Team Names
Yesterday I saw a guy wearing an Augusta GreenJackets shirt and it reminded me of one fact that is very well-known to baseball fans: minor league teams have the best names. I've never really known what it's like for these small towns that most identify themselves with their minor league team, but my understanding is that they're usually a great source of civic pride. Sometimes the team name is something significant to the town. Sometimes they're not. But Minor League Baseball gives us some of the unique names and logos in all of sports. Here are some of the better ones (this is just a sampling, there are way too many good minor league team names to list them all):
Augusta GreenJackets (Giants Class A): Augusta is obviously best known as the host of the Masters, where the winner receives a green jacket (hence the golf clubs underneath "GreenJackets" on the logo). Kudos for deciding that a "GreenJacket" was also some sort of bug for logo/mascot purposes.
Lansing Lugnuts (Blue Jays Class A): Oh, Michigan and its cars. Their stadium used to be called Oldsmobile Stadium. They're obviously named after the car part, and while "Lugnuts" might be a stupid name for a baseball team, I love the face that the lugnut in the logo is making.
Kannapolis Intimidators (White Sox Class A): The Intimidators play in the hometown of the late, great Dale Earnhardt, and they were renamed when the NASCAR legend bought a share of the team in 2000. The black, white and red color scheme is the same as Earnhardt's famous black No. 3 Goodwrench Chevrolet. After Earnhardt was killed at the 2001 Daytona 500, the Intimidators retired No. 3.
Modesto Nuts (Rockies Class A): Another team with a stupid name that makes the list because of an awesome logo. The nuts remind me of Red and Yellow from the M&M's commercials. Apparently they grow a lot of nuts in Modesto, which is how they came up with the name.
Corpus Christi Hooks (Padres Double A): Evidently Corpus Christi, Texas is associated with fishing. Who knew? The name would make absolutely no sense otherwise.
Aberdeen Ironbirds (Orioles Short-Season A): The Orioles win the award for best minor league team names across the board. Their Double A team is the Bowie Baysox. Their Class A teams are the Frederick Keys (named after Frederick Scott Key, the guy who wrote the national anthem) and the Delmarva Shorebirds (following the whole bird theme by using the most common bird in that area). But I like the story behind the name "Ironbirds" the best. Cal Ripken, Jr., owns the team, and it plays in his hometown. The "Iron-" part comes from his "Ironman" streak of 2,632 consecutive games, and they kept the "-birds" thing going. The airplane logo (with Ripken's No. 8 on it) is for the Army proving ground that's also in Aberdeen.
Visalia Rawhide (Diamondbacks Class A): If you're a fan of Minor League Baseball, you learn something. The Visalia Rawhide were renamed in 2009 because they play in one of the richest agricultural regions in the world and the top dairy-producing area in the country. (I guess they're named after cattle and not the chew-toys you give to your dog.)
Rancho Cucamonga Quakes (Dodgers Class A): If the award for "Best Minor League Team Names" doesn't go to the Orioles, it goes to the Dodgers. They've got the Albuquerque Isotopes (Triple A), Chattanooga Lookouts (Double A), Great Lakes Loons (Class A), and Ogden Raptors (Rookie). But "Rancho Cucamonga Quakes" has always been one of my favorites, and it's really fun to say. They get bouns points for having a sense of humor about that whole Rancho Cucamonga being on an earthquake faultline thing (their mascot's name is "Tremor", and their ballpark is called the "Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter".)
Lehigh Valley IronPigs (Phillies Triple A): While I'm not really a fan of the name "IronPigs," I give the Phillies credit for originality. Pig iron is used to make steel, and the Lehigh Valley region is world famous for its steel production. They just switched the order of the words and made some sort of steel pig for the logo.
Auburn Doubledays (Nationals Short-Season A): I'm not really sure how close Auburn is to Cooperstown, but they're named after the man himself: Abner Doubleday. Doubleday was a Civil War general before he was credited with inventing baseball, so "Abner" is wearing a uniform from the 1860s.
Las Vegas 51s (Blue Jays Triple A): Area 51 is 80 miles away from Las Vegas. Since that's where some people think the UFO's land, their mascot is an alien. With baseball stitches on his ginormous forehead.
Unfortunately, the Casper Ghosts are no more. The Rockies moved the team and gave it a very boring, unoriginal name, the "Grand Junction Rockies." The Ghosts' hats had a glow-in-the-dark logo. If they were still around, they'd be right at the top of the list.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
10 Years of YES
I read a pretty interesting article about the 10th anniversary of the YES Network in the Sports Business Journal about a week ago. As everyone knows, YES is the network that was started by late Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. Everybody wanted it to fail. It didn't. It went on to become one of the leading regional sports networks in the country and spawned a whole lot of imitators.
If any network was ever set up to fail, it was the YES Network when it first started. Jim Dolan, the owner of Cablevision, was mad that the Yankees left MSG (which Cablevision owns), so he didn't carry the channel for its first year. (Yes, you read that correctly. Most New Yorkers couldn't watch the Yankees at home in 2002.) Other regional networks across the country also wanted YES to fail, fearing that other teams would follow the Yankees' lead and create their own networks, too.
But YES succeeded, in no small part because of the power of the Yankees brand. And its success changed the face of sports television. Without YES, there'd be no NFL Network. Or MLB Network. Or Big Ten Network. Or Longhorn Network. A few years later, the New York Mets did the same thing, launching SportsNet New York. Sure, there have been some failures, too. The Minnesota Twins and Kansas City Royals both tried to launch their own networks, and both went down in flames.
When it launched, a lot of people thought YES was essentially going to be "All Yankees All the Time." For the most part, that's what it is. But let's face it, when you've got New York Yankees games, it would be stupid not to build your schedule around your greatest asset. And the other Yankee-themed programming isn't simply fluff. Yankeeography is a great, insightful documentary series, and Yankees On Deck is fun, entertaining and informative. Sure, the Yankees always win the Yankees Classics, but regional sports networks that aren't owned by the team show classic games, too, and they need something to put on during the winter.
The YES Network has become much more than just the Yankees. I think that's been one of the keys of its success. During the winter, YES has extensive coverage of college basketball, mainly the Big 12, as well as various Yale sports as a part of its "Yale on YES" package. They also have the rights to show Notre Dame football games (did anybody actually think it was a coincidence that Notre Dame played the first football game at the new Yankee Stadium?) and the English soccer team Arsenal. The interview show CenterStage is one of the best programs on the network, and it's not just former sports stars who've been interviewed on it. Then there's This Week In Football and Forbes SportsMoney. YES even carried the FOX NFL Sunday pregame show last year on September 11 so that FOX-5 in New York could show the 10th anniversary ceremony from Ground Zero uninterrupted.
Like any TV network, YES has its flaws. I could do without six hours a day of Mike Francesca's soapbox, and the cavalcade of former Yankees in the broadcast booth seems too much at times, but these criticisms are relatively minor in comparison. But I think (and my obvious bias notwithstanding) YES has earned its status as one of the premier regional sports networks in the country. They've proven that they're more than just the Yankees.
If the YES Network has proven anything it's that these regional sports networks have staying power. The great experiment turned out to be a tremendous success, and it established a blueprint that others have followed. All of those cable operators might've wanted YES to fail, but there were a whole bunch of other people who wanted YES to succeed. If it hadn't other teams (and leagues) wouldn't have tried it. Now everybody's doing it. The Yankees were the trendsetter. They showed everyone else how much money there is to be made when you don't outsource your broadcast rights.
Along with the New Yankee Stadium, the YES Network is arguably the greatest legacy left by George Steinbrenner. The man was truly a visionary. Ten years of the YES Network is just another example of that. Ten years and still going strong. I think we can all agree, YES is here to stay.
If any network was ever set up to fail, it was the YES Network when it first started. Jim Dolan, the owner of Cablevision, was mad that the Yankees left MSG (which Cablevision owns), so he didn't carry the channel for its first year. (Yes, you read that correctly. Most New Yorkers couldn't watch the Yankees at home in 2002.) Other regional networks across the country also wanted YES to fail, fearing that other teams would follow the Yankees' lead and create their own networks, too.
But YES succeeded, in no small part because of the power of the Yankees brand. And its success changed the face of sports television. Without YES, there'd be no NFL Network. Or MLB Network. Or Big Ten Network. Or Longhorn Network. A few years later, the New York Mets did the same thing, launching SportsNet New York. Sure, there have been some failures, too. The Minnesota Twins and Kansas City Royals both tried to launch their own networks, and both went down in flames.
When it launched, a lot of people thought YES was essentially going to be "All Yankees All the Time." For the most part, that's what it is. But let's face it, when you've got New York Yankees games, it would be stupid not to build your schedule around your greatest asset. And the other Yankee-themed programming isn't simply fluff. Yankeeography is a great, insightful documentary series, and Yankees On Deck is fun, entertaining and informative. Sure, the Yankees always win the Yankees Classics, but regional sports networks that aren't owned by the team show classic games, too, and they need something to put on during the winter.
The YES Network has become much more than just the Yankees. I think that's been one of the keys of its success. During the winter, YES has extensive coverage of college basketball, mainly the Big 12, as well as various Yale sports as a part of its "Yale on YES" package. They also have the rights to show Notre Dame football games (did anybody actually think it was a coincidence that Notre Dame played the first football game at the new Yankee Stadium?) and the English soccer team Arsenal. The interview show CenterStage is one of the best programs on the network, and it's not just former sports stars who've been interviewed on it. Then there's This Week In Football and Forbes SportsMoney. YES even carried the FOX NFL Sunday pregame show last year on September 11 so that FOX-5 in New York could show the 10th anniversary ceremony from Ground Zero uninterrupted.
Like any TV network, YES has its flaws. I could do without six hours a day of Mike Francesca's soapbox, and the cavalcade of former Yankees in the broadcast booth seems too much at times, but these criticisms are relatively minor in comparison. But I think (and my obvious bias notwithstanding) YES has earned its status as one of the premier regional sports networks in the country. They've proven that they're more than just the Yankees.
If the YES Network has proven anything it's that these regional sports networks have staying power. The great experiment turned out to be a tremendous success, and it established a blueprint that others have followed. All of those cable operators might've wanted YES to fail, but there were a whole bunch of other people who wanted YES to succeed. If it hadn't other teams (and leagues) wouldn't have tried it. Now everybody's doing it. The Yankees were the trendsetter. They showed everyone else how much money there is to be made when you don't outsource your broadcast rights.
Along with the New Yankee Stadium, the YES Network is arguably the greatest legacy left by George Steinbrenner. The man was truly a visionary. Ten years of the YES Network is just another example of that. Ten years and still going strong. I think we can all agree, YES is here to stay.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Bring Back the Mile? Why?
There's a growing sentiment within the track & field community to restore the mile (as opposed to the Olympic distance of 1500 meters, which is roughly 100 meters shorter) in high school and college meets. There's even a website bringbackthemile.com, which claims the mile is "America's distance." That contention makes absolutely no sense to me, but more on that later. My whole thesis here is that I'm not one of the people suddenly jumping on this mile bandwagon.
First, a little background. The mile has always had special significance in the track & field world. Everybody's heard of Roger Bannister, and everybody knows that he was the first person to break the four-minute barrier. That achievement is on the shortlist of most significant sporting milestones of the 20th Century, and it's one of the main reasons why I think Roger Bannister should light the Olympic flame two months from now.
The mile used to be contested regularly around the world. That was when tracks were built using the English system of measurement and, thus, every race was run using the English distances (110 yards rather than 100 meters, 220 instead of 200, 440 instead of 400, etc.). But the Olympics were always held on a meter-track, and the Olympic races were held over metric distances. Sometime around the early '70s (when dirt tracks were starting to be replaced by rubberized ones), somebody figured out that it would be a good idea for the race distances to actually be standardized. There were a few holdouts for a little while, but by the late 70s-early 80s, all of the tracks and races were in meters.
In my opinion, this makes complete sense. Why have athletes run a completely different distance from week to week? 110 yards isn't 100 meters just like a mile isn't 1500 meters. They're completely different races that require different training and different strategies. It wouldn't be fair to ask an athlete to keep going back-and-forth between English and metric. (They also measure the jumps in meters.)
Likewise, if the Olympic distance is 1500 meters, and the Olympics are the ultimate goal of any athlete, why would coaches want their athletes to race anything but the international distance? If somebody is good enough to compete overseas, they're going to have to run the 1500 anyway, so why not give them that experience at home? There are also a number of international athletes who come to the U.S. for college. For them, the opposite is true. All they've ever run is 1500 meters. Now you're asking them to run a mile just when they're competing collegiately, then going back to the 1500 whenever they're back in Europe? That's not a fair expectation either.
I get the historical significance of the mile. The featured event at the Millrose Games is the Wanamaker Mile. At the Prefontaine Classic, they run the Bowerman Mile. The Bislett Games is Oslo, one of the most prestigious meets in the world, has the "Dream Mile," which, in its heyday, was run just before midnight so that it could be broadcast live in the U.S. But those meets date back to the days when the mile was contested regularly. That's why they still run it at them.
Now for this whole "The mile is America's distance" thing, which makes absolutely no sense. But America's distance? I beg to differ. Name one great American miler. Exactly. America's distance is, was and always will be the 100 meters. We dominate the sprints. It's only recently that Americans have even become relevant again in the mid-distance events. Jenny Simpson's gold in the 1500 meters at last summer's World Championships was the first for an American woman since 1983, so how can you possibly contend that the mile is "America's distance?"
People know what a four-minute mile is. Saying you run the mile has a lot more cache than saying you run the 1500 meters. But the idea to revive the mile in American high schools and the NCAA is stupid. Track & field is a niche sport in the United States. That's not going to change if high schoolers suddenly go from running 1500 meters to running a mile. Regardless of what event high schoolers are running, Americans are only going to pretend to care about track for a week every four years. That's just the way it is. I don't like it, but I accept it.
The rest of the track & field world runs the 1500. That's all the argument I need to defend my position. You can't win an Olympic gold medal in the mile. Until that changes (which isn't going to be anytime soon), there's absolutely no reason why the status quo should.
First, a little background. The mile has always had special significance in the track & field world. Everybody's heard of Roger Bannister, and everybody knows that he was the first person to break the four-minute barrier. That achievement is on the shortlist of most significant sporting milestones of the 20th Century, and it's one of the main reasons why I think Roger Bannister should light the Olympic flame two months from now.
The mile used to be contested regularly around the world. That was when tracks were built using the English system of measurement and, thus, every race was run using the English distances (110 yards rather than 100 meters, 220 instead of 200, 440 instead of 400, etc.). But the Olympics were always held on a meter-track, and the Olympic races were held over metric distances. Sometime around the early '70s (when dirt tracks were starting to be replaced by rubberized ones), somebody figured out that it would be a good idea for the race distances to actually be standardized. There were a few holdouts for a little while, but by the late 70s-early 80s, all of the tracks and races were in meters.
In my opinion, this makes complete sense. Why have athletes run a completely different distance from week to week? 110 yards isn't 100 meters just like a mile isn't 1500 meters. They're completely different races that require different training and different strategies. It wouldn't be fair to ask an athlete to keep going back-and-forth between English and metric. (They also measure the jumps in meters.)
Likewise, if the Olympic distance is 1500 meters, and the Olympics are the ultimate goal of any athlete, why would coaches want their athletes to race anything but the international distance? If somebody is good enough to compete overseas, they're going to have to run the 1500 anyway, so why not give them that experience at home? There are also a number of international athletes who come to the U.S. for college. For them, the opposite is true. All they've ever run is 1500 meters. Now you're asking them to run a mile just when they're competing collegiately, then going back to the 1500 whenever they're back in Europe? That's not a fair expectation either.
I get the historical significance of the mile. The featured event at the Millrose Games is the Wanamaker Mile. At the Prefontaine Classic, they run the Bowerman Mile. The Bislett Games is Oslo, one of the most prestigious meets in the world, has the "Dream Mile," which, in its heyday, was run just before midnight so that it could be broadcast live in the U.S. But those meets date back to the days when the mile was contested regularly. That's why they still run it at them.
Now for this whole "The mile is America's distance" thing, which makes absolutely no sense. But America's distance? I beg to differ. Name one great American miler. Exactly. America's distance is, was and always will be the 100 meters. We dominate the sprints. It's only recently that Americans have even become relevant again in the mid-distance events. Jenny Simpson's gold in the 1500 meters at last summer's World Championships was the first for an American woman since 1983, so how can you possibly contend that the mile is "America's distance?"
People know what a four-minute mile is. Saying you run the mile has a lot more cache than saying you run the 1500 meters. But the idea to revive the mile in American high schools and the NCAA is stupid. Track & field is a niche sport in the United States. That's not going to change if high schoolers suddenly go from running 1500 meters to running a mile. Regardless of what event high schoolers are running, Americans are only going to pretend to care about track for a week every four years. That's just the way it is. I don't like it, but I accept it.
The rest of the track & field world runs the 1500. That's all the argument I need to defend my position. You can't win an Olympic gold medal in the mile. Until that changes (which isn't going to be anytime soon), there's absolutely no reason why the status quo should.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Round 3
If the first two rounds of the Stanley Cup Playoffs have proven anything, it's that I really suck at picking the winners of these series. I said that Pekka Rinne might single-handedly win the Cup for the Predators. So much for that. I thought the Kings had absolutely no chance against the Canucks. Or the Blues. All they did was go 8-1 against the two best teams in the Western Conference. Phoenix? I can't be the only person who didn't see that one coming.
Even though I'm probably going to be way off once again, I'm going to keep at this picking the series winner thing. And I don't think I'm going out on too far of a limb to say that it'll be a New York-area team against a team from the West Coast in the Finals. (I also love it how both matchups are two teams from the same division, offering further proof that the playoff format proposed by the NHL earlier this year before it was vetoed by the players was incredibly stupid.)
EASTERN CONFERENCE: Rangers vs. Devils-The last time the Rangers played the Devils in the Eastern Conference Finals was 1994. That, of course, is a year us Rangers fans hold near and dear to our hearts. That one went seven, with Stephane Matteau scoring the memorable series-clinching goal at the Garden in double overtime. Hopefully this series will be as memorable as that one.
After back-to-back Game 7's, I have a new approach towards them. I'm completely fine with the Rangers playing four Game 7's at the Garden. Win them all and Ryan Callahan is skating around the Garden ice with a big silver Cup. As long as you get 16 wins, what difference does it make how many losses you have?
One of the reasons I've made my peace with a Game 7 is because I think there's a very strong possibility this series will have one. Against the Flyers, Martin Brodeur looked like the Martin Brodeur of 10 years ago, when he was in his prime and the Devils were winning three Stanley Cups in nine years. Henrik Lundqvist, meanwhile, has been the best goalie in the NHL all season, and it's not as if he's been a slouch in the playoffs. He is, after all, 2-0 in Game 7's.
But the goalies aren't the only reason I see this series going seven. Any series between bitter division rivals is destined to be a long one. These teams know each other so well, and since they're in such a close proximity, they hear about (and see) each other all the time. (Think about it, all 228 hockey games involving the three New York teams were televised, giving them each plenty of opportunity to scout.)
The Rangers have been winning because of their defense. The offense is dynamic, but hasn't really clicked beyond the Gaborik-Richards-Hagelin line. They'll need to continue that solid defensive game against Zach Parise, Ilya Kovalcuk and Co. The Devils offense has been slightly better thru two rounds, but I think that Rangers defense is the X-factor. And if it goes seven, that crowd at Madison Square Garden will be the difference. When these two met in the Eastern Conference Finals 18 years ago, the Rangers won a classic series en route to the Cup. With the way these playoffs have gone for the Blueshirts, I like the chances of history repeating itself. Rangers in seven.
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Coyotes vs. Kings-That whole "Pekka Rinne might single-handedly win the Stanley Cup" thing is now moot. Change "Pekka Rinne" to "Jonathan Quick." Because the play of Jonathan Quick is the only conceivable reason I can think of as to why the Kings dispatched of both the Canucks and Blues so easily. However, I also think this could simply be a case of a team peaking at the right time. Every year, you see a lower-seeded team make a deep run into the playoffs, sometimes leading all the way to the Finals. The LA Kings are certainly that team this year.
Meanwhile, the Coyotes have been just as much of a surprise. They won a grand total of two playoff series during their entire time as Winnipeg Jets 1.0. Both of those came against Calgary. Coming into this season, they'd won a grand total of zero playoff series since moving to Phoenix. Now they've gone and won two rounds to move into the Conference Finals for the first time ever. The reason? Their goalie, Mike Smith. I don't want to give Smith all the credit, since the offense has been very good, as well, but he outplayed Pekka Rinne in the Nashville series. The Coyotes have also been one of the luckiest teams I've ever seen in a playoff year. Four of their eight wins in the first two rounds came in overtime.
So now we're left with one of the most unexpected Conference Finals matchups ever. Either the Kings' run or the Coyotes' run has to end here. (Sidebar: it's great to see people actually in the stands in Phoenix. Sidebar No. 2: the Kings, Lakers and Clippers all hosting Games 3, 4 and 6 will really cause some scheduling headaches for both the NHL and NBA.) I honestly have no idea how this series is going to play out. The Kings are riding a ton of momentum and are clearly the hottest team in hockey. Plus, LA's a very underrated offensive team that has really come into its own during the playoffs. But I just can't count Phoenix. That offense is way too good, and it would be so great to see Shane Doan finally get a chance to play for the Cup. He deserves it. The Coyotes want to give Doan that chance, and that just might be enough to push Phoenix over the edge.
But I like the Kings. I don't know what it is about this team, but they easily beat the top two seeds in the West. The winners of the Central and Northwest Divisions didn't seem to provide much of a challenge. For some reason, I don't think the winners of the Pacific Division will, either. Go ahead and call me crazy, but I'm jumping on that Kings bandwagon. They haven't been to the Finals since Gretzky. I think that changes within the next two weeks. Kings in six.
Even though I'm probably going to be way off once again, I'm going to keep at this picking the series winner thing. And I don't think I'm going out on too far of a limb to say that it'll be a New York-area team against a team from the West Coast in the Finals. (I also love it how both matchups are two teams from the same division, offering further proof that the playoff format proposed by the NHL earlier this year before it was vetoed by the players was incredibly stupid.)
EASTERN CONFERENCE: Rangers vs. Devils-The last time the Rangers played the Devils in the Eastern Conference Finals was 1994. That, of course, is a year us Rangers fans hold near and dear to our hearts. That one went seven, with Stephane Matteau scoring the memorable series-clinching goal at the Garden in double overtime. Hopefully this series will be as memorable as that one.
After back-to-back Game 7's, I have a new approach towards them. I'm completely fine with the Rangers playing four Game 7's at the Garden. Win them all and Ryan Callahan is skating around the Garden ice with a big silver Cup. As long as you get 16 wins, what difference does it make how many losses you have?
One of the reasons I've made my peace with a Game 7 is because I think there's a very strong possibility this series will have one. Against the Flyers, Martin Brodeur looked like the Martin Brodeur of 10 years ago, when he was in his prime and the Devils were winning three Stanley Cups in nine years. Henrik Lundqvist, meanwhile, has been the best goalie in the NHL all season, and it's not as if he's been a slouch in the playoffs. He is, after all, 2-0 in Game 7's.
But the goalies aren't the only reason I see this series going seven. Any series between bitter division rivals is destined to be a long one. These teams know each other so well, and since they're in such a close proximity, they hear about (and see) each other all the time. (Think about it, all 228 hockey games involving the three New York teams were televised, giving them each plenty of opportunity to scout.)
The Rangers have been winning because of their defense. The offense is dynamic, but hasn't really clicked beyond the Gaborik-Richards-Hagelin line. They'll need to continue that solid defensive game against Zach Parise, Ilya Kovalcuk and Co. The Devils offense has been slightly better thru two rounds, but I think that Rangers defense is the X-factor. And if it goes seven, that crowd at Madison Square Garden will be the difference. When these two met in the Eastern Conference Finals 18 years ago, the Rangers won a classic series en route to the Cup. With the way these playoffs have gone for the Blueshirts, I like the chances of history repeating itself. Rangers in seven.
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Coyotes vs. Kings-That whole "Pekka Rinne might single-handedly win the Stanley Cup" thing is now moot. Change "Pekka Rinne" to "Jonathan Quick." Because the play of Jonathan Quick is the only conceivable reason I can think of as to why the Kings dispatched of both the Canucks and Blues so easily. However, I also think this could simply be a case of a team peaking at the right time. Every year, you see a lower-seeded team make a deep run into the playoffs, sometimes leading all the way to the Finals. The LA Kings are certainly that team this year.
Meanwhile, the Coyotes have been just as much of a surprise. They won a grand total of two playoff series during their entire time as Winnipeg Jets 1.0. Both of those came against Calgary. Coming into this season, they'd won a grand total of zero playoff series since moving to Phoenix. Now they've gone and won two rounds to move into the Conference Finals for the first time ever. The reason? Their goalie, Mike Smith. I don't want to give Smith all the credit, since the offense has been very good, as well, but he outplayed Pekka Rinne in the Nashville series. The Coyotes have also been one of the luckiest teams I've ever seen in a playoff year. Four of their eight wins in the first two rounds came in overtime.
So now we're left with one of the most unexpected Conference Finals matchups ever. Either the Kings' run or the Coyotes' run has to end here. (Sidebar: it's great to see people actually in the stands in Phoenix. Sidebar No. 2: the Kings, Lakers and Clippers all hosting Games 3, 4 and 6 will really cause some scheduling headaches for both the NHL and NBA.) I honestly have no idea how this series is going to play out. The Kings are riding a ton of momentum and are clearly the hottest team in hockey. Plus, LA's a very underrated offensive team that has really come into its own during the playoffs. But I just can't count Phoenix. That offense is way too good, and it would be so great to see Shane Doan finally get a chance to play for the Cup. He deserves it. The Coyotes want to give Doan that chance, and that just might be enough to push Phoenix over the edge.
But I like the Kings. I don't know what it is about this team, but they easily beat the top two seeds in the West. The winners of the Central and Northwest Divisions didn't seem to provide much of a challenge. For some reason, I don't think the winners of the Pacific Division will, either. Go ahead and call me crazy, but I'm jumping on that Kings bandwagon. They haven't been to the Finals since Gretzky. I think that changes within the next two weeks. Kings in six.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Non-NBC Olympic Moments
The "30 Greatest NBC Olympic Moments" series is starting to get more and more play. I've even already written a blog about it. But like I said a few weeks ago, there are plenty of Olympic moments that have happened on networks other than NBC (OK, mainly ABC). So, in that spirit, here are 10 of my favorite Olympic moments from 1960 (the first televised Olympics) to 1984 (the last Games not on NBC). Keep in mind that these are in no particular order.
Bob Beamon, 1968 Mexico City-Bob Beamon's long jump is one of the truly remarkable sporting achievements of all time. Going into the Mexico City Olympics, the world record in the long jump was 8.35 meters (27 feet, 4-3/4 inches). No one had ever broken the 28-foot barrier. Beamon bypassed 28 feet altogether. He shattered the world record, jumping 8.90 meters (29 feet, 2-1/2 inches). It would be 23 years until Mike Powell broke the record, and Beamon's mark is still the second-best all-time. Incredible record-breaking performances like this one have been referred to as "Beamonesque" ever since.
Nadia Comaneci, 1976 Montreal-Right up there with Bob Beamon's long jump is Nadia Comaneci's perfect 10 in Montreal. In the uneven bars portion of the women's team competiton, the diminutive 14-year-old Romanian did something that had never been done before--score a perfect 10.0. She would end up with seven 10's, and three gold medals, including one in the all-around.
Mary Lou Retton, 1984 Los Angeles-Nadia Comaneci's coach was Bela Karolyi. After moving to the United States, Karolyi took on a new protege: Mary Lou Retton. Even though the Soviets weren't there because of the boycott, Romania and world champion Ekaternia Szabo were. And the two would wage an epic battle for the all-around title. With two rotations left, Szabo led by 0.15 points. Retton responded with 10's in the floor exercise and vault to win by a margin of 0.05, becoming the first American to win the Olympic all-around gold medal.
Mark Spitz, 1972 Munich-Before Michael Phelps, there was Mark Spitz. Phelps' eight gold-medal performance in Beijing broke the record of seven golds set by Spitz in Munich. He swam seven events, and set the world record in each! With that performance, Spitz set the standard by which all future Olympians would be measured. Of course, Michael Phelps would one-up him 36 years later.
Carl Lewis, 1984 Los Angeles-In my opinion, Carl Lewis is on the short list of greatest Olympians ever. He won nine gold medals in his Olympic career, but LA was when his star shone the brightest. In 1936, Jesse Owens won four golds in the 100 meters, 200 meters, long jump and 4x100 meter relay. Lewis entered the LA Games looking to match that feat. He started his quest by winning the 100, then earned the first of what would be four straight long jump golds. After winning his third gold medal, in the 200 meters, Lewis matched Owens by anchoring the United States to a world record in the relay.
Abebe Bikila, 1960 Rome-Today we're used to the long distance races being dominated by Africans, but that wasn't the case in the first televised Olympics 62 years ago. Running barefoot in the first Olympic marathon held at night, Bikila set a world record. He became the first East African to win an Olympic gold medal, then became the first man to repeat as Olympic marathon champion four years later in Tokyo (the 1964 Games were on NBC).
Tommie Smith and John Carlos, 1968 Mexico City-Sometimes Olympic moments transcend the competition. That's certainly the case with the men's 200 meters in 1968. Tommie Smith won the gold medal, setting a world record of 19.83 seconds. John Carlos took the bronze. However, what they did on the medals stand is what makes Smith and Carlos noteworthy. As a silent protest to the treatment of blacks in the United States, they received their medals barefoot, and raised clenched fists that were covered by black gloves during the national anthem. The IOC was outraged, but they got their point across.
Sugar Ray Leonard, 1976 Montreal-The 1976 U.S. Olympic boxing team was perhaps the greatest in history. The Americans won five gold medals in Montreal, including ones for each Spinks brother (Leon and Michael), both of whom would become world heavyweight champions. But arguably the best member of that team is the man who would become one of the greatest pound-for-pound fighters in history. Sugar Ray Leonard won the gold medal in the light welterweight division before going on to a professional career in which he would win world titles in five different weight classes.
Greg Louganis, 1984 Los Angeles-When I did the blog about the NBC Olympic moments a few weeks ago, someone wrote a comment about Louganis hitting his head on the board in Seoul, then coming back to still win two gold medals. I 100 percent agree. Those two golds that Louganis won in Seoul were his second straight. He first pulled off the diving double in Los Angeles. Up first was the springboard, in which he set a record by winning by more than 90 points. Then in the platform final four days later, Louganis became the first diver in history to break the 700-point barrier. With that, he became the first diver to win both the springboard and platform competitions at the same Olympics since 1928.
Wilma Rudolph, 1960 Rome-One of the first great female Olympic champions was Wilma Rudolph, who won three gold medals in Rome. Rudolph dominated the field in the 100 meters, then did the same in the 200. In the 4x100 meter relay, where Rudolph was joined by three of her teammates from Tennessee State University, the United States set a world record in the semifinals. Germany had the lead in the final, but Rudolph went ahead on the anchor leg and crossed the line first for her third gold medal of the Rome Games.
Bob Beamon, 1968 Mexico City-Bob Beamon's long jump is one of the truly remarkable sporting achievements of all time. Going into the Mexico City Olympics, the world record in the long jump was 8.35 meters (27 feet, 4-3/4 inches). No one had ever broken the 28-foot barrier. Beamon bypassed 28 feet altogether. He shattered the world record, jumping 8.90 meters (29 feet, 2-1/2 inches). It would be 23 years until Mike Powell broke the record, and Beamon's mark is still the second-best all-time. Incredible record-breaking performances like this one have been referred to as "Beamonesque" ever since.
Nadia Comaneci, 1976 Montreal-Right up there with Bob Beamon's long jump is Nadia Comaneci's perfect 10 in Montreal. In the uneven bars portion of the women's team competiton, the diminutive 14-year-old Romanian did something that had never been done before--score a perfect 10.0. She would end up with seven 10's, and three gold medals, including one in the all-around.
Mary Lou Retton, 1984 Los Angeles-Nadia Comaneci's coach was Bela Karolyi. After moving to the United States, Karolyi took on a new protege: Mary Lou Retton. Even though the Soviets weren't there because of the boycott, Romania and world champion Ekaternia Szabo were. And the two would wage an epic battle for the all-around title. With two rotations left, Szabo led by 0.15 points. Retton responded with 10's in the floor exercise and vault to win by a margin of 0.05, becoming the first American to win the Olympic all-around gold medal.
Mark Spitz, 1972 Munich-Before Michael Phelps, there was Mark Spitz. Phelps' eight gold-medal performance in Beijing broke the record of seven golds set by Spitz in Munich. He swam seven events, and set the world record in each! With that performance, Spitz set the standard by which all future Olympians would be measured. Of course, Michael Phelps would one-up him 36 years later.
Carl Lewis, 1984 Los Angeles-In my opinion, Carl Lewis is on the short list of greatest Olympians ever. He won nine gold medals in his Olympic career, but LA was when his star shone the brightest. In 1936, Jesse Owens won four golds in the 100 meters, 200 meters, long jump and 4x100 meter relay. Lewis entered the LA Games looking to match that feat. He started his quest by winning the 100, then earned the first of what would be four straight long jump golds. After winning his third gold medal, in the 200 meters, Lewis matched Owens by anchoring the United States to a world record in the relay.
Abebe Bikila, 1960 Rome-Today we're used to the long distance races being dominated by Africans, but that wasn't the case in the first televised Olympics 62 years ago. Running barefoot in the first Olympic marathon held at night, Bikila set a world record. He became the first East African to win an Olympic gold medal, then became the first man to repeat as Olympic marathon champion four years later in Tokyo (the 1964 Games were on NBC).
Tommie Smith and John Carlos, 1968 Mexico City-Sometimes Olympic moments transcend the competition. That's certainly the case with the men's 200 meters in 1968. Tommie Smith won the gold medal, setting a world record of 19.83 seconds. John Carlos took the bronze. However, what they did on the medals stand is what makes Smith and Carlos noteworthy. As a silent protest to the treatment of blacks in the United States, they received their medals barefoot, and raised clenched fists that were covered by black gloves during the national anthem. The IOC was outraged, but they got their point across.
Sugar Ray Leonard, 1976 Montreal-The 1976 U.S. Olympic boxing team was perhaps the greatest in history. The Americans won five gold medals in Montreal, including ones for each Spinks brother (Leon and Michael), both of whom would become world heavyweight champions. But arguably the best member of that team is the man who would become one of the greatest pound-for-pound fighters in history. Sugar Ray Leonard won the gold medal in the light welterweight division before going on to a professional career in which he would win world titles in five different weight classes.
Greg Louganis, 1984 Los Angeles-When I did the blog about the NBC Olympic moments a few weeks ago, someone wrote a comment about Louganis hitting his head on the board in Seoul, then coming back to still win two gold medals. I 100 percent agree. Those two golds that Louganis won in Seoul were his second straight. He first pulled off the diving double in Los Angeles. Up first was the springboard, in which he set a record by winning by more than 90 points. Then in the platform final four days later, Louganis became the first diver in history to break the 700-point barrier. With that, he became the first diver to win both the springboard and platform competitions at the same Olympics since 1928.
Wilma Rudolph, 1960 Rome-One of the first great female Olympic champions was Wilma Rudolph, who won three gold medals in Rome. Rudolph dominated the field in the 100 meters, then did the same in the 200. In the 4x100 meter relay, where Rudolph was joined by three of her teammates from Tennessee State University, the United States set a world record in the semifinals. Germany had the lead in the final, but Rudolph went ahead on the anchor leg and crossed the line first for her third gold medal of the Rome Games.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Time to Take a Stand
Today was a good day in Olympic World. The Olympic flame was lit in Ancient Olympia, officially beginning the torch relay that will conclude with the lighting of the cauldron at the conclusion of the Opening Ceremony on July 27. Then we got the news that Qatar will be sending 100-meter sprinter Noor al-Malki to London. Along with swimmer Nada Arkaji, al-Malki will be one of the first two Qatari women ever to compete in the Olympics.
For various (mainly political and cultural) reasons, Qatar is one of only three nations to have never sent a female athlete to the Olympics. That was a problem. Qatar's attempts to buy every major sporting event it can are very well-known. The fact that they'd never sent a woman to the Olympics didn't make Qatar look very good in a lot of people's eyes, and if that hadn't changed in London, it would've all but killed Doha's chances of hosting the 2020 Games (which don't look that good in the first place).
The other two nations that have never sent a woman to the Olympics are Brunei and Saudi Arabia. Brunei will also send a woman to London--Maziah Mahusin, who runs the 400 meters and 400 meter hurdles. That leaves us with just Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no plans of sending a woman to London. And not for lack of qualified female athletes. In fact, Dalma Rushdi Malhas won a bronze medal in equestrian show jumping at the 2010 Youth Olympics. But it's not that simple. Even though she competes in equestrian, the only sport where men compete against women on an even playing field and the uniform provides enough coverage to be considered "acceptable" under Islamic law, the Saudis don't seem that eager to send her to London. Despite the IOC's attempts otherwise. Prince Nawaf bin Faisal, the President of the Saudi Olympic Committee, is seemingly unaware of the fact that the year is 2012. He's on record as saying he "does not approve" of sending female athletes to the Olympics.
It's no coincidence that Qatar, Brunei and Saudi Arabia are all Islamic countries. Under Islamic law, women have subservient roles and need to keep their heads and faces covered in public. In some Islamic countries, it's illegal for women to do such run-of-the-mill things as driving a car. Participating in sports is, therefore, completely unacceptable.
Qatar and Brunei have at least gotten the message that this strict adherence to those Islamic laws is a view not shared by a majority of the rest of the world. They've also realized that keeping women from participating in the Olympics was not the right thing to do. And by allowing women to represent their country, Qatar and Brunei are making headlines for the right reasons. It's a sign of progress.
Unfortunately, the same can't be said about Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's stance is stubborn and wrong. Especially since there's an extremely qualified female Saudi athlete who's probably going to be left off the team for no reason other than her gender. (It should also be noted that Malhas' bronze was Saudi Arabia's only medal at the 2010 Youth Olympics.)
Because of its stance banning female athletes just because, many people are calling on the IOC to take a stand and ban Saudi Arabia from sending a team to London. I'm one of them. South Africa was banned from the Olympics for more than 30 years because of aparthied, and, more recently, Afghanistan wasn't allowed to particpate in the Sydney Games because of the Taliban's policies.
The Saudi Olympic Committee's stance is wrong and needs to change. If they don't do it on their own, the IOC needs to force Saudi Arabia to make that change. The only way to do that is to send a message. Saudi Arabia either needs to send women to London or shouldn't be allowed to send a team at all.
For various (mainly political and cultural) reasons, Qatar is one of only three nations to have never sent a female athlete to the Olympics. That was a problem. Qatar's attempts to buy every major sporting event it can are very well-known. The fact that they'd never sent a woman to the Olympics didn't make Qatar look very good in a lot of people's eyes, and if that hadn't changed in London, it would've all but killed Doha's chances of hosting the 2020 Games (which don't look that good in the first place).
The other two nations that have never sent a woman to the Olympics are Brunei and Saudi Arabia. Brunei will also send a woman to London--Maziah Mahusin, who runs the 400 meters and 400 meter hurdles. That leaves us with just Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has no plans of sending a woman to London. And not for lack of qualified female athletes. In fact, Dalma Rushdi Malhas won a bronze medal in equestrian show jumping at the 2010 Youth Olympics. But it's not that simple. Even though she competes in equestrian, the only sport where men compete against women on an even playing field and the uniform provides enough coverage to be considered "acceptable" under Islamic law, the Saudis don't seem that eager to send her to London. Despite the IOC's attempts otherwise. Prince Nawaf bin Faisal, the President of the Saudi Olympic Committee, is seemingly unaware of the fact that the year is 2012. He's on record as saying he "does not approve" of sending female athletes to the Olympics.
It's no coincidence that Qatar, Brunei and Saudi Arabia are all Islamic countries. Under Islamic law, women have subservient roles and need to keep their heads and faces covered in public. In some Islamic countries, it's illegal for women to do such run-of-the-mill things as driving a car. Participating in sports is, therefore, completely unacceptable.
Qatar and Brunei have at least gotten the message that this strict adherence to those Islamic laws is a view not shared by a majority of the rest of the world. They've also realized that keeping women from participating in the Olympics was not the right thing to do. And by allowing women to represent their country, Qatar and Brunei are making headlines for the right reasons. It's a sign of progress.
Unfortunately, the same can't be said about Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's stance is stubborn and wrong. Especially since there's an extremely qualified female Saudi athlete who's probably going to be left off the team for no reason other than her gender. (It should also be noted that Malhas' bronze was Saudi Arabia's only medal at the 2010 Youth Olympics.)
Because of its stance banning female athletes just because, many people are calling on the IOC to take a stand and ban Saudi Arabia from sending a team to London. I'm one of them. South Africa was banned from the Olympics for more than 30 years because of aparthied, and, more recently, Afghanistan wasn't allowed to particpate in the Sydney Games because of the Taliban's policies.
The Saudi Olympic Committee's stance is wrong and needs to change. If they don't do it on their own, the IOC needs to force Saudi Arabia to make that change. The only way to do that is to send a message. Saudi Arabia either needs to send women to London or shouldn't be allowed to send a team at all.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Great Conference Migration Continues
With schools switching conferences left and right, it's becoming harder and harder to keep track of who's in what league. The Great Conference Migration of 2012 started with Texas A&M deciding it didn't want to be Texas' little brother anymore. But that was just the start of it. One can easily be forgiven for having trouble keeping track of who's going where. Here's my attempt at making sense of everything that's happened so far:
Big 12: In-TCU, West Virginia; Out-Texas A&M, Missouri
As we all know, Texas A&M is to blame for all of this. Their penis envy of University of Texas resulted in their bolting to the SEC. A few weeks later, Missouri decided to come along for the ride. Since when I think of the Southeast, Missouri and Texas are the first two states that come to mind. The Big 12 quickly replaced Texas A&M with TCU, a rival of all the Texas schools dating back to the old Southwest Conference. And I give TCU credit for actually making a decision that makes sense for the school. They went to a conference where they're not going to have ridiculous travel and they're actually reviving rivalries, unlike the two schools that are leaving the conference. (I love it that Texas and Kansas no longer have any interest in playing Texas A&M and Missouri in anything.) When Missouri bolted, they needed a 10th school, so the State of West Virginia is being relocated to the Midwest. A move that makes complete sense since West Virginia is near the other Big 12 schools and everything. BYU wouldn't have made more sense.
SEC: In-Texas A&M, Missouri
Texas A&M came to the SEC begging to join, and the league would've been stupid to say no. Talk about the rich getting richer. The best overall league in the country now has a conference member located in the recruiting hotbed of Texas. The SEC knew that 13 schools wasn't going to work, so they let Missouri come, too.
ACC: In-Pitt, Syracuse
I'm not sure if this was the ACC poaching the Big East like last time or simply Pitt and Syracuse looking for greener pastures that aren't necessarily greener. Either way, I'm done with Pitt and Syracuse. I'm done with West Virginia, too, for that matter. If you don't want to be in the Big East, the hell with you. These schools being in the ACC make about as much sense as Boston College being in the ACC, but the Eagles are probably happy. Syracuse and Pittsburgh are at least in the same geographical part of the country as Boston. The ACC reportedly wants to go to 16 teams and split into two eight-team divisions. You know what they call those? Conferences.
Big East: In-SMU, Houston, Central Florida, Temple, Memphis, Boise State (football), San Diego State (football), Navy (football); Out-Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, TCU
Leave it to the Big East to do it again. The last time this happened, they created the 16-team superconference that landed 11 teams in the NCAA Tournament two years ago. This time it was a little harder, because three of the league's cornerstone members (including founding member Syracuse, the school most associated with the Big East) have peaced out, but the Big East did it again. They realized all of this was because of football, so why not improve/expand the football conference? No matter that San Diego is practically in the Pacific Ocean. And Boise State football has developed one of the biggest cult followings of any team in the country, so bringing them in was a stroke of genius. And to make up for the loss of four full members, they added five. They lost Texas when TCU decided to leave before ever actually joining. Now they've got Texas back with SMU and Houston. And another Florida school to make going down there to play Central Florida a little more worthwhile. The best part is that the basketball coaches got what they wanted. I've been saying for years that Temple should be in the Big East. It's a marquee basketball program and a natural rival of Villanova. Memphis got left behind when Louisville, Cincinnati, et. al. left Conference USA for the Big East a few years ago. Now the Tigers are back with their former conference rivals in a league that's actually going to be competitive. They've been too good for Conference USA for the last couple years. I hope they bring all 18 teams to the Garden. That'll make the Big East Tournament even more fun.
Atlantic 10: In-Butler; Out-Temple, Charlotte
Realignment in the Atlantic 10 might not necessarily be over yet. CAA members George Mason and VCU (or both) are rumored to be on the A-10's radar to replace Charlotte, which is moving back to Conference USA. The A-10 obviously took a tremendous hit when it lost flagship program Temple to the Big East. But Butler's a great addition. They've been arguably the best mid-major program in the country in recent years, going to back-to-back National Championship Games. Now they've got Indianapolis to go with the other Midwestern schools Dayton, Xavier (Cincinnati) and Saint Louis. Plus, Butler plays in the legendary Hinkle Fieldhouse.
Conference USA: In-Charlotte, Florida International, Louisiana Tech, North Texas, UTSA; Out-Memphis, Houston, SMU, Central Florida
It's really hard to keep track of what schools are in Conference USA. This league's membership seems to change by the day. As it is, they're bringing in five to replace the four that are leaving for the Big East (once everybody switches conferences, nine of the Big East's 18 members will be former Conference USA members), with an invitation to Old Dominion pending. They're bringing in a couple Texas schools to keep UTEP, Rice and Tulsa company, and after years of being stuck in the WAC, Louisiana Tech finally gets to move to a conference with schools that are actually near it. Most importantly, they're finally in the same league as Tulane.
Mountain West: In-Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, Utah State, Hawaii (football); Out-Boise State, San Diego State, TCU
The Mountain West and Conference USA were discussing a merger for a little while, but it doesn't look like that's going happen now. So it looks like the Mountain West is going to settle for basically absorbing the WAC, which is where all of its original members came from in the first place. Fresno State and Nevada had already announced they were joining the Mountain West next season (to replace BYU and Utah), and San Jose State and Utah State announced the other day that they'll be joining them in the Mountain West. Hawaii wants to be in the California-based Big West to make its travel a little more feasible, but their football team will play in the much more competitive Mountain West, which will help soften the blow of Boise State and TCU leaving.
WAC: In-Denver, Seattle, Texas-Arlington, Boise State (everything but football); Out-Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, Utah State, Hawaii, Louisiana Tech, UTSA, Texas State
The WAC is on life support. They brought in six schools to replace the ones that are leaving or have already, and two of them--Texas State and UTSA--will play only one season in the WAC before leaving themselves. And Denver, Seattle and Texas-Arlington don't have football teams! That leaves the WAC with just two football-playing members--New Mexico State and Idaho, and six in every other sport. I can easily see New Mexico State joining New Mexico in the Mountain West, leaving Idaho to fend for itself. They're talking about bringing in even more new members, but the WAC's days are numbered.
Believe it or not, that was actually a BRIEF overview of the conference movement that's going on across Division I. And it's probably not over yet. So, if you don't know what league your favorite team is in, I don't blame you. They're probably not going to be in that conference that long anyway.
Big 12: In-TCU, West Virginia; Out-Texas A&M, Missouri
As we all know, Texas A&M is to blame for all of this. Their penis envy of University of Texas resulted in their bolting to the SEC. A few weeks later, Missouri decided to come along for the ride. Since when I think of the Southeast, Missouri and Texas are the first two states that come to mind. The Big 12 quickly replaced Texas A&M with TCU, a rival of all the Texas schools dating back to the old Southwest Conference. And I give TCU credit for actually making a decision that makes sense for the school. They went to a conference where they're not going to have ridiculous travel and they're actually reviving rivalries, unlike the two schools that are leaving the conference. (I love it that Texas and Kansas no longer have any interest in playing Texas A&M and Missouri in anything.) When Missouri bolted, they needed a 10th school, so the State of West Virginia is being relocated to the Midwest. A move that makes complete sense since West Virginia is near the other Big 12 schools and everything. BYU wouldn't have made more sense.
SEC: In-Texas A&M, Missouri
Texas A&M came to the SEC begging to join, and the league would've been stupid to say no. Talk about the rich getting richer. The best overall league in the country now has a conference member located in the recruiting hotbed of Texas. The SEC knew that 13 schools wasn't going to work, so they let Missouri come, too.
ACC: In-Pitt, Syracuse
I'm not sure if this was the ACC poaching the Big East like last time or simply Pitt and Syracuse looking for greener pastures that aren't necessarily greener. Either way, I'm done with Pitt and Syracuse. I'm done with West Virginia, too, for that matter. If you don't want to be in the Big East, the hell with you. These schools being in the ACC make about as much sense as Boston College being in the ACC, but the Eagles are probably happy. Syracuse and Pittsburgh are at least in the same geographical part of the country as Boston. The ACC reportedly wants to go to 16 teams and split into two eight-team divisions. You know what they call those? Conferences.
Big East: In-SMU, Houston, Central Florida, Temple, Memphis, Boise State (football), San Diego State (football), Navy (football); Out-Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, TCU
Leave it to the Big East to do it again. The last time this happened, they created the 16-team superconference that landed 11 teams in the NCAA Tournament two years ago. This time it was a little harder, because three of the league's cornerstone members (including founding member Syracuse, the school most associated with the Big East) have peaced out, but the Big East did it again. They realized all of this was because of football, so why not improve/expand the football conference? No matter that San Diego is practically in the Pacific Ocean. And Boise State football has developed one of the biggest cult followings of any team in the country, so bringing them in was a stroke of genius. And to make up for the loss of four full members, they added five. They lost Texas when TCU decided to leave before ever actually joining. Now they've got Texas back with SMU and Houston. And another Florida school to make going down there to play Central Florida a little more worthwhile. The best part is that the basketball coaches got what they wanted. I've been saying for years that Temple should be in the Big East. It's a marquee basketball program and a natural rival of Villanova. Memphis got left behind when Louisville, Cincinnati, et. al. left Conference USA for the Big East a few years ago. Now the Tigers are back with their former conference rivals in a league that's actually going to be competitive. They've been too good for Conference USA for the last couple years. I hope they bring all 18 teams to the Garden. That'll make the Big East Tournament even more fun.
Atlantic 10: In-Butler; Out-Temple, Charlotte
Realignment in the Atlantic 10 might not necessarily be over yet. CAA members George Mason and VCU (or both) are rumored to be on the A-10's radar to replace Charlotte, which is moving back to Conference USA. The A-10 obviously took a tremendous hit when it lost flagship program Temple to the Big East. But Butler's a great addition. They've been arguably the best mid-major program in the country in recent years, going to back-to-back National Championship Games. Now they've got Indianapolis to go with the other Midwestern schools Dayton, Xavier (Cincinnati) and Saint Louis. Plus, Butler plays in the legendary Hinkle Fieldhouse.
Conference USA: In-Charlotte, Florida International, Louisiana Tech, North Texas, UTSA; Out-Memphis, Houston, SMU, Central Florida
It's really hard to keep track of what schools are in Conference USA. This league's membership seems to change by the day. As it is, they're bringing in five to replace the four that are leaving for the Big East (once everybody switches conferences, nine of the Big East's 18 members will be former Conference USA members), with an invitation to Old Dominion pending. They're bringing in a couple Texas schools to keep UTEP, Rice and Tulsa company, and after years of being stuck in the WAC, Louisiana Tech finally gets to move to a conference with schools that are actually near it. Most importantly, they're finally in the same league as Tulane.
Mountain West: In-Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, Utah State, Hawaii (football); Out-Boise State, San Diego State, TCU
The Mountain West and Conference USA were discussing a merger for a little while, but it doesn't look like that's going happen now. So it looks like the Mountain West is going to settle for basically absorbing the WAC, which is where all of its original members came from in the first place. Fresno State and Nevada had already announced they were joining the Mountain West next season (to replace BYU and Utah), and San Jose State and Utah State announced the other day that they'll be joining them in the Mountain West. Hawaii wants to be in the California-based Big West to make its travel a little more feasible, but their football team will play in the much more competitive Mountain West, which will help soften the blow of Boise State and TCU leaving.
WAC: In-Denver, Seattle, Texas-Arlington, Boise State (everything but football); Out-Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, Utah State, Hawaii, Louisiana Tech, UTSA, Texas State
The WAC is on life support. They brought in six schools to replace the ones that are leaving or have already, and two of them--Texas State and UTSA--will play only one season in the WAC before leaving themselves. And Denver, Seattle and Texas-Arlington don't have football teams! That leaves the WAC with just two football-playing members--New Mexico State and Idaho, and six in every other sport. I can easily see New Mexico State joining New Mexico in the Mountain West, leaving Idaho to fend for itself. They're talking about bringing in even more new members, but the WAC's days are numbered.
Believe it or not, that was actually a BRIEF overview of the conference movement that's going on across Division I. And it's probably not over yet. So, if you don't know what league your favorite team is in, I don't blame you. They're probably not going to be in that conference that long anyway.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Life Without Mariano
The news about Mariano Rivera's season-ending ACL injury is obviously a few days old by now, but that doesn't change the fact that not having that bullpen gate swing open to the strains of "Enter Sandman" will require a little bit of an adjustment. There are also some decisions that have to be made regarding the Yankees' bullpen in his absence.
The biggest of those decisions is obviously who's going to close in Mariano's stead. The two obvious choices were David Robertson and Rafael Soriano. Joe Girardi has tabbed Robertson for the role, at least for now. Robertson has been one of the most dominant relievers in all of baseball since the start of last season. He made the All-Star team last season, and he has a whopping ERA of 0.00 this season, and struck out the side in his debut as closer last night. It's not like picking him is a "bad" decision. But I think it's the wrong one.
The reason why the Yankees got Rafael Soriano was to serve as a "backup" closer to Mariano. In other words, they wanted an insurance policy in case something unthinkable like this actually happened. You didn't bring him in to pitch the eighth for David Robertson. You brought him in to pitch the eighth for Mariano Rivera. But more to the point, Rafael Soriano has experience as a closer. Pitching the ninth inning doesn't phase him in the slightest. Doing it in the AL East won't phase him in the slightest. At least it didn't when he had 45 saves for a Tampa Bay team that won the division in 2010.
Having Soriano pitch the ninth solves the other potential problem I see with having Robertson close. Who pitches the seventh? It wasn't uncommon to see Robertson get more than three outs before handing the ball to Rivera. By taking Robertson out of the eighth-inning role, you're also taking him out of those seventh-inning situations. Now who's going to get you out of those jams? Joba's out until at least the All-Star Break, and he can't be trusted anyway.
One solution that's been suggested is Phil Hughes. I actually like that one. Hughes succeeded in a relief role during the 2009 World Championship season. They need to open up a spot in the rotation when Andy Pettitte comes back, and I think moving Hughes into that setup role will kill two birds with one stone. Don't be surprised to see them get a reliever at the deadline, though. If not sooner.
While it sucks that Mariano is out for the year, I've decided I'm going to try and find a silver lining. In fact, I've found two. The first is that this means Mariano's definitely not going to retire now. Like most people, I was under the assumption that he was going to retire after this season. Not anymore. We all knew that immediately. And it took Mariano less than a day to confirm it. The career of the greatest closer in history isn't going to end with him grabbing his knee in agony on the warning track in Kansas City. No. It's going to end the way it should. With him walking out to the Yankee Stadium mound and picking up one last save by striking out the final batter with that unhittable cutter.
This unthinkable situation will also help prepare us for when Mariano actually does retire. It's a little preview of 2014, when he won't be around and the Yankees will have to figure out the ninth inning. Who knows? Maybe David Robertson will succeed as the Yankees' closer this season. If he does, the trial and error that inevitably would come with the process of finding Mariano's successor would be eliminated. That would actually make all of us a little more comfortable, so in that respect, Mariano's injury might actually be some sort of blessing in disguise (although, I think we can all agree that we'd rather figure it out later).
Obviously this situation isn't ideal. The sight of Mariano Rivera rolling on the ground in agony is about the worst image any Yankees fan can imagine. Well, that nightmare is currently our reality. But it's not the end of the world, either. Did the Yankees' chances of winning the World Series take a hit? Absolutely. Does it mean they can't win it? Absolutely not. The Road to October just got a lot bendier, though. That's for sure.
The biggest of those decisions is obviously who's going to close in Mariano's stead. The two obvious choices were David Robertson and Rafael Soriano. Joe Girardi has tabbed Robertson for the role, at least for now. Robertson has been one of the most dominant relievers in all of baseball since the start of last season. He made the All-Star team last season, and he has a whopping ERA of 0.00 this season, and struck out the side in his debut as closer last night. It's not like picking him is a "bad" decision. But I think it's the wrong one.
The reason why the Yankees got Rafael Soriano was to serve as a "backup" closer to Mariano. In other words, they wanted an insurance policy in case something unthinkable like this actually happened. You didn't bring him in to pitch the eighth for David Robertson. You brought him in to pitch the eighth for Mariano Rivera. But more to the point, Rafael Soriano has experience as a closer. Pitching the ninth inning doesn't phase him in the slightest. Doing it in the AL East won't phase him in the slightest. At least it didn't when he had 45 saves for a Tampa Bay team that won the division in 2010.
Having Soriano pitch the ninth solves the other potential problem I see with having Robertson close. Who pitches the seventh? It wasn't uncommon to see Robertson get more than three outs before handing the ball to Rivera. By taking Robertson out of the eighth-inning role, you're also taking him out of those seventh-inning situations. Now who's going to get you out of those jams? Joba's out until at least the All-Star Break, and he can't be trusted anyway.
One solution that's been suggested is Phil Hughes. I actually like that one. Hughes succeeded in a relief role during the 2009 World Championship season. They need to open up a spot in the rotation when Andy Pettitte comes back, and I think moving Hughes into that setup role will kill two birds with one stone. Don't be surprised to see them get a reliever at the deadline, though. If not sooner.
While it sucks that Mariano is out for the year, I've decided I'm going to try and find a silver lining. In fact, I've found two. The first is that this means Mariano's definitely not going to retire now. Like most people, I was under the assumption that he was going to retire after this season. Not anymore. We all knew that immediately. And it took Mariano less than a day to confirm it. The career of the greatest closer in history isn't going to end with him grabbing his knee in agony on the warning track in Kansas City. No. It's going to end the way it should. With him walking out to the Yankee Stadium mound and picking up one last save by striking out the final batter with that unhittable cutter.
This unthinkable situation will also help prepare us for when Mariano actually does retire. It's a little preview of 2014, when he won't be around and the Yankees will have to figure out the ninth inning. Who knows? Maybe David Robertson will succeed as the Yankees' closer this season. If he does, the trial and error that inevitably would come with the process of finding Mariano's successor would be eliminated. That would actually make all of us a little more comfortable, so in that respect, Mariano's injury might actually be some sort of blessing in disguise (although, I think we can all agree that we'd rather figure it out later).
Obviously this situation isn't ideal. The sight of Mariano Rivera rolling on the ground in agony is about the worst image any Yankees fan can imagine. Well, that nightmare is currently our reality. But it's not the end of the world, either. Did the Yankees' chances of winning the World Series take a hit? Absolutely. Does it mean they can't win it? Absolutely not. The Road to October just got a lot bendier, though. That's for sure.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
One Crazy Day
I think it's safe to say that May 2 was definitely the craziest sports day so far this year. If narrowed down to just one sport, it still would've been nuts. But we had wackiness all across the board. The only pro league that didn't have newsworthy stuff going on was the NBA (which is in the midst of the playoffs), and the Great Conference Shuffle of 2012-13 continued.
Let's start in the NFL, where the players involved in Bountygate found out their fates. Four current/former New Orleans Sinners were suspended for their roles, most notably Jonathan Vilma, who was banned for the entire year. Vilma vows he's innocent and will appeal. My response: "Really?" Everyone knows Vilma was the ring-leader among the players. Including Roger Goddell. I didn't think he'd get an entire year, but I don't think it's unfair that he did. Vilma was just as responsible as the coaches involved. Anthony Hargrove, now with the Packers, got half a season, while Will Smith was suspended for four games and current Brown Scott Fujita received a three-game suspension. All four players have denied their involvement and have even threatened legal action against the NFL.
This is a case of the sublime meeting the ridiculous. The suspensions aren't going to be reduced on appeal, and I'm not exactly sure what purpose legal action would serve other than wasting a lot of money and a lot of people's time. The CBA, which was signed by the union that represents every one of these players, supercedes everything. And the CBA gives Roger Goddell and Roger Goddell alone to power to dole out discipline. And Goddell's made it pretty clear that player safety is his top priority.
The NFLPA also has to tread lightly in this situation. It's not like the union can just jump completely to the defense of these guys. They were going out intentionally trying to injure fellow union members. The NFLPA can't ignore that.
Then there was the sad news about Junior Seau. To call his suicide "shocking" would be an understatement. He played football with a reckless abandon, which is part of what made him so enjoyable to watch. It's also why he suffered so many concussions. The same concussions that might've contributed to his death. The entire situation is incredibly sad. I can't believe he'll be enshrined in Canton posthumously.
And talk about the sublime meeting the ridiculous, Andy Pettitte reluctantly testified against Roger Clemens yesterday. And gave the prosecution ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! In case there was any confusion, the Roger Clemens trial is going to yield the same result as the Barry Bonds trial. I'm so glad that the government decided to waste taxpayer money on this trial. TWICE!
On to yesterday's actual baseball games. For the first time in Major League history, two 40-year-olds hit walk-off home runs on the same day. First it was Jason Giambi in Colorado, then it was future Hall of Famer Chipper Jones ending a wild Braves-Phillies game in the 11th inning. In the Yankees-Orioles game, Eric Chavez got hurt. The only reason I bring this up is because in Joe Girardi's neverending quest to have a roster made up entirely of pitchers, the Yankees are down to 11 healthy position players (including the guy they called up today), one of whom is backup catcher Chris Stewart, who doesn't count.
Now it's off to Anaheim, where Jered Weaver threw the year's second no-hitter. Two interesting little factiods about that game. First, Alberts pitchers have thrown more no-hitters this season than the man himself has hit home runs. Second, when they showed Weaver hugging his parents on MLB Network, Harold Reynolds noted that they raised "two great Major League pitchers." Under what definition does Jeff Weaver qualify as a "great" Major League pitcher? Jered, sure. Jeff, not quite.
Weaver's no-hitter ended only about 15 minutes after that incredible Rangers-Capitals game. I normally don't have a problem with triple overtime playoff hockey, but when I have a vested interest, I don't really enjoy it as much. At least the right team won. (Of course, it would've been a lot earlier if that shot hadn't hit Boyle in the butt during OT No. 2.) And in a game that lasted more than 110 minutes, Rangers defenseman Stu Bickel got a whopping four minutes of ice time.
See, look at that. So much stuff happened that I didn't even get a chance to touch on all the conference-jumping in college sports. But we may be getting a college football blog pretty soon. A playoff is coming!
Let's start in the NFL, where the players involved in Bountygate found out their fates. Four current/former New Orleans Sinners were suspended for their roles, most notably Jonathan Vilma, who was banned for the entire year. Vilma vows he's innocent and will appeal. My response: "Really?" Everyone knows Vilma was the ring-leader among the players. Including Roger Goddell. I didn't think he'd get an entire year, but I don't think it's unfair that he did. Vilma was just as responsible as the coaches involved. Anthony Hargrove, now with the Packers, got half a season, while Will Smith was suspended for four games and current Brown Scott Fujita received a three-game suspension. All four players have denied their involvement and have even threatened legal action against the NFL.
This is a case of the sublime meeting the ridiculous. The suspensions aren't going to be reduced on appeal, and I'm not exactly sure what purpose legal action would serve other than wasting a lot of money and a lot of people's time. The CBA, which was signed by the union that represents every one of these players, supercedes everything. And the CBA gives Roger Goddell and Roger Goddell alone to power to dole out discipline. And Goddell's made it pretty clear that player safety is his top priority.
The NFLPA also has to tread lightly in this situation. It's not like the union can just jump completely to the defense of these guys. They were going out intentionally trying to injure fellow union members. The NFLPA can't ignore that.
Then there was the sad news about Junior Seau. To call his suicide "shocking" would be an understatement. He played football with a reckless abandon, which is part of what made him so enjoyable to watch. It's also why he suffered so many concussions. The same concussions that might've contributed to his death. The entire situation is incredibly sad. I can't believe he'll be enshrined in Canton posthumously.
And talk about the sublime meeting the ridiculous, Andy Pettitte reluctantly testified against Roger Clemens yesterday. And gave the prosecution ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! In case there was any confusion, the Roger Clemens trial is going to yield the same result as the Barry Bonds trial. I'm so glad that the government decided to waste taxpayer money on this trial. TWICE!
On to yesterday's actual baseball games. For the first time in Major League history, two 40-year-olds hit walk-off home runs on the same day. First it was Jason Giambi in Colorado, then it was future Hall of Famer Chipper Jones ending a wild Braves-Phillies game in the 11th inning. In the Yankees-Orioles game, Eric Chavez got hurt. The only reason I bring this up is because in Joe Girardi's neverending quest to have a roster made up entirely of pitchers, the Yankees are down to 11 healthy position players (including the guy they called up today), one of whom is backup catcher Chris Stewart, who doesn't count.
Now it's off to Anaheim, where Jered Weaver threw the year's second no-hitter. Two interesting little factiods about that game. First, Alberts pitchers have thrown more no-hitters this season than the man himself has hit home runs. Second, when they showed Weaver hugging his parents on MLB Network, Harold Reynolds noted that they raised "two great Major League pitchers." Under what definition does Jeff Weaver qualify as a "great" Major League pitcher? Jered, sure. Jeff, not quite.
Weaver's no-hitter ended only about 15 minutes after that incredible Rangers-Capitals game. I normally don't have a problem with triple overtime playoff hockey, but when I have a vested interest, I don't really enjoy it as much. At least the right team won. (Of course, it would've been a lot earlier if that shot hadn't hit Boyle in the butt during OT No. 2.) And in a game that lasted more than 110 minutes, Rangers defenseman Stu Bickel got a whopping four minutes of ice time.
See, look at that. So much stuff happened that I didn't even get a chance to touch on all the conference-jumping in college sports. But we may be getting a college football blog pretty soon. A playoff is coming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)