Title IX at 40

Before the month of June comes to a close, I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize a significant anniversary that took place earlier this month.  This month marked the 40th anniversary of one of the most important pieces of federal legislation ever to impact the sports world.  I'm, of course, talking about Title IX.  I'd even be willing to argue that because of what it's done for women in sports, Title IX is right up there with Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier.

I'm a member of the Title IX Generation.  I don't know what life was like without women having equal opportunities in sports.  I'm even having trouble imagining it.  But the fact that people my age and younger take these things for granted is all that needs to be said about Title IX's legacy.  What was considered groundbreaking 40 years ago has become the norm.  Back then, the idea of women as athletes was a foreign concept.  Now, the reverse is true.  Even more important, female athletes are some of the greatest role models out there.

When I was thinking about how I wanted to do this blog, I came up with way too many ideas.  It would be impossible to do a countdown of the greatest female athletes.  There are simply too many.  And going through the whole history of the law and its impact would simply take too long.  So, what I decided was to recognize what I still consider to be Title IX's watershed moment.  The moment when everyone finally got it: the 1996 Olympics.

The 1996 Olympics were 24 years after the passage of Title IX.  That, obviously, means that many of the athletes that went to Atlanta were among that first generation of girls that reaped the rewards of Title IX.  The fact that they were all entering their athletic primes is only part of the story.  More importantly, these American women's teams were all going to take center stage (and steal the spotlight) during a home Olympics.

Sure, American women also had their success in individual sports like track and swimming at the Atlanta Games, but it's the American performance in the team sports that's especially noteworthy.  The United States won gold medals in women's basketball, gymnastics, soccer and softball in Atlanta...with the first generation of female athletes that felt the benefits of Title IX all the way from youth sports to college and beyond.

Just as significantly, softball and women's soccer made their Olympic debuts in 1996.  While Title IX was, obviously, only a federal law in the U.S., it was the impetus for change worldwide.  Female participation in sports grew exponentially everywhere.  One of the reasons for this growth is, obviously, the fact that foreign female athletes were now able to get full scholarships to attend American colleges.  So, it's safe to say that Title IX has had an even greater impact than what was originally intended.  (In fact, the law itself makes no mention of sports.)

As important as the 1996 Olympics were for Title IX, they were nothing compared to what happened three years later.  The 1999 Women's World Cup has to rank up there as perhaps the shining moment for women's sports in this country.  For three weeks during the summer, football stadiums were filled for every game and TV ratings were through the roof.  And it was all capped by that scintillating final between the U.S. and China that was attended by 103,000 people at the Rose Bowl.  No women's sporting event before or since had ever been played in front of that many fans.  We all remember the penalty kick shootout and Brandi Chastain's spontaneous celebration.  It was one of the greatest moments in the history of women's sports, and it inspired a whole new generation of female athletes.

Perhaps that's the greatest legacy of Title IX.  Sure, the law gave women so many opportunities that they'd never had before.  But people still needed to get it.  And they do.  The 1996 Olympics and 1999 Women's World Cup proved that.  So does the fact that the WNBA is still going strong in its 16th season.  And as long as young female athletes have the Misty May-Treanors and Hope Solos and Missy Franklins to look up to, Title IX will continue to have an impact on the next generation. 

Is Title IX one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to affect the world of sports?  That's an uneqivocal "Yes."  Just ask the parents of millions of young girls who've played youth, high school, college and professional sports in this country over the past 40 years.

My 2012 All-Stars

With All-Star voting ending tonight and the selection show coming up on Sunday, I figured it was time to make my picks for the 2012 All-Star Game.  For the starters, I'm going with all the guys who were leading the voting as of Monday/Tuesday when they made the final ballot update.  The online-only portion of voting usually changes things, of course, but I'm not concerning myself with that right now.  I'm also not picking replacements for injured guys or starting pitchers that are going on Sunday.  I am, however, following the one from every team rule, which I fully support.

And with that, here we go...

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *Buster Posey (Giants), Yadier Molina (Cardinals)
1B: *Joey Votto (Reds), Paul Goldschmidt (Diamondbacks)
2B: *Dan Uggla (Braves), Brandon Phillips (Reds), Jose Altuve (Astros)
SS: *Rafael Furcal (Cardinals), Starlin Castro (Cubs)
3B: *David Wright (Mets), David Freese (Cardinals)
OF: *Matt Kemp (Dodgers), *Carlos Beltran (Cardinals), *Ryan Braun (Brewers), Michael Bourn (Braves), Carlos Gonzalez (Rockies), Giancarlo Stanton (Marlins), Andrew McCutchen (Pirates), Matt Holliday (Cardinals), Melky Cabrera (Giants)
SP: Johnny Cueto (Reds), Chris Capuano (Dodgers), R.A. Dickey (Mets), Cole Hamels (Phillies), Lance Lynn (Cardinals), Matt Cain (Giants), Gio Gonzalez (Nationals), Stephen Strasburg (Nationals)
RP: Craig Kimbrel (Braves), Jonathan Papelbon (Phillies), Joel Hanrahan (Pirates), Huston Street (Padres), Santiago Casilla (Giants)

**Final Vote: Aaron Hill (Diamondbacks), Martin Prado (Braves), Andre Ethier (Dodgers), Carlos Ruiz (Phillies), Ian Desmond (Nationals)

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *Mike Napoli (Rangers), Joe Mauer (Twins)
1B: *Prince Fielder (Tigers), Paul Konerko (White Sox)
2B: *Robinson Cano (Yankees), Ian Kinsler (Rangers)
SS: *Derek Jeter (Yankees), Asdrubal Cabrera (Indians)
3B: *Adrian Beltre (Rangers), Miguel Cabrera (Tigers), Mark Trumbo (Angels)
OF: *Josh Hamilton (Rangers), *Curtis Granderson (Yankees), *Jose Bautista (Blue Jays), Adam Jones (Orioles), Alex Rios (White Sox), Mike Trout (Angels), Josh Reddick (Athletics)
DH: *David Ortiz (Red Sox), Adam Dunn (White Sox)
SP: Clay Buchholz (Red Sox), Chris Sale (White Sox), Justin Verlander (Tigers), Jered Weaver (Angels), CC Sabathia (Yankees), Felix Hernandez (Mariners), David Price (Rays), Yu Darvish (Rangers), Matt Harrison (Rangers)
RP: Josh Johnson (Orioles), Chris Perez (Indians), Jonathan Broxton (Royals), Fernando Rodney (Rays)

**Final Vote: A.J. Pierzynski (White Sox), Austin Jackson (Tigers), Alcides Escobar (Royals), Elvis Andrus (Rangers), Edwin Encarnacion (Blue Jays)

NL Starting Lineup: Furcal-SS, Beltran-RF, Kemp-CF, Votto-1B, Braun-LF, Holliday-DH, Wright-3B, Posey-C, Uggla-2B, Strasburg-P
AL Starting Lineup: Jeter-SS, Granderson-CF, Hamilton-LF, Beltre-3B, Fielder-1B, Bautista-RF, Ortiz-DH, Cano-2B, Napoli-C, Verlander-P

Finally

Finally!  I think that's the only word that can sum up the feelings of most sports fans with today's announcement that college football is going to have a playoff starting in 2014.  The controversy surrounding BCS team selections, schools switching conferences on a yearly basis, and the general fan disgust in the current system seem to have been enough to send the 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame's AD over the edge.  (Either that or they realized there's even more money to be made with a playoff in place, which I think is actually more likely.)

There are a lot of details that still need to be worked out, but it'll be four teams that are selected by a committee and seeded 1-4.  The two semifinals will be played on New Year's Day at existing bowl games, with the championship game a week later on a Monday night.  Six bowls (you'd figure probably the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton and Champions) will alternate hosting the semifinals, and the championship game, like the Super Bowl, is open to the highest bidder.  The rest of the bowls will continue to be the meaningless exhibition games they are now.  They still have to figure out which bowls will be the semifinals and how the conference tie-ins are going to work, but the Rose Bowl will probably remain Big Ten vs. Pac-12, provided those teams aren't in the playoff.

When news of this playoff broke last week, I was asked if this means I'll start following college football now.  This playoff certainly helps, but the answer is "Probably Not."  (There are a number of reasons why I don't watch college football.  The BCS is just one of them.)  But that doesn't change the fact I think this is an important milestone.  And I give the commissioners and presidents credit for realizing that change was needed before even more people become disillusioned.

So what do I actually think of the new playoff model?  If they were trying to "preserve the integrity of the regular season" (one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever heard), they succeeded in doing that.  If they were trying to make sure the Continental Tire Bowl and Humanitarian Bowl survived, they succeeded in doing that, as well.  ('Cause God knows December wouldn't be the same without 30 meaningless crappy bowl games between two 7-5 teams.)  Most importantly, they figured out a way to do all that and still have a playoff.

Personally, I would've liked to see them go with an eight-team playoff (or, better yet, a 16-team tournament like all other levels of NCAA football), but the reasoning for going with four seems to make sense.  This way, the only game that's actually being eliminated is the BCS Championship Game.  (Sorry to the ninth-place team in the ACC who won't get that football CBI bid anymore.)

And if they're only going to have four teams, it makes sense to not have any automatic bids and (theoretically, at least) make everybody eligible for the tournament.  (Who are we kidding?  The four teams are still only going to come out of the same four conferences, but they're at least pretending that everyone has an equal chance.)  With only four teams, it would be impossible to decide which conference champions got to go to the tournament and which ones didn't.  It's also entirely possible that two of the four best teams are from the same conference. 

Probably the only good thing about last year's "championship" game between Alabama and LSU is that it exposed this major flaw within the old system.  When you only have two teams and you have a championship game between two schools from the same league, that's a problem.  But if two teams from the same league win their semifinal games and play for the championship, no problem.  They both earned their spot.  When it happens in the Final Four, it's simply validation that said conference is the best one.

The other aspect of the college football playoff that I like is that the teams will be selected by a committee.  Let's face it, the BCS is stupid.  The polls are completely arbitrary, and the computer formula doesn't make any sense.  Now they've got a committee that will pick the four best teams and determine the matchups.  What a concept!  Whether you jump five spots in the polls by running up the score at home against Youngstown State in September will have no bearing on whether or not you end up playing for the championship anymore.  And it shouldn't.

One of the reasons college basketball is so successful is precisely because of the NCAA Tournament.  I understand that basketball's never going to challenge football's status at the top of the mountain.  But, in this case, football wisely took a page out of basketball's book: a seeded playoff, with the teams chosen by a committee.  It's still not perfect.  But it's a very, very, very good (and very important) first step.  And for that, I can actually tip my cap to the college football establishment.

Wimbledon 2012

Starting tomorrow, the sports world's attention shifts to London for the better part of the next two months.  And things are certainly going to be busy on the grounds of the All-England Club.  Olympic tennis gets underway at Wimbledon next month, but first, they'll have another slightly significant tournament at the venue.  Before they redecorate the grounds for the Olympics, it's two weeks of tradition at the oldest, most prestigious tennis tournament in the world.

There is one significant change at Wimbledon this year, though.  For the first time in 43 years, there will be no "Breakfast at Wimbledon" on NBC.  ESPN, which has had the cable rights for the last few years, outbid NBC last year for rights to the entire tournament.  (Of course, NBC will still be at Wimbledon this year, but in this case, being there for the Olympics won't quite be the same.)

For the players, this is an interesting year at Wimbledon, too.  They'll be playing at the venue twice in a matter of a few weeks.  For some, that's a tremendous advantage heading into the Olympics.  Others won't have to wait a year to redeem themselves after a disappointing showing at Wimbledon.  Then there are those who have no chance to win, but will still have the thrill of competing at Wimbledon twice in the same year.  I bet the grass-court players are thrilled about that possibility.

On the men's side, the Djokovic vs. Federer semifinal rule was followed again here.  Meaning that, once again, Rafael Nadal doesn't have to play either until the finals.  Although, at Wimbledon that's not really that much of an advantage, since his typecasted semifinal opponent happens to be Andy Murray.  Is this the year he finally breaks through at Wimbledon?  (I still think he wins an Olympic medal for Great Britain on Centre Court in August.)  And while not a rule at all Grand Slams (like Djokovic-Federer), it's become a Wimbledon rule ever since their epic match that John Isner and Nicolas Mahut must play at some point.  This year, they're set to match up in the second round.

One of the unique things about Wimbledon is that grass court tennis is completely different than the clay court tennis they all just finished playing.  That doesn't matter for the Big Four, but a lot of guys who were out early at the French Open (Andy Roddick comes to mind) will threaten to make deep runs here, while the guys who went far in Paris are vulnerable to an early exit here.  Although, like I said, that doesn't matter to the Big Four.

Although, I'm steering clear of going straight chalk into the semifinals.  Fifth-seeded Jo-Wilfried Tsonga is drawn against Nadal in the quarters.  With that monster serve, I think Tsonga challenges him.  He'll also have a lot of confidence after coming back from 2-0 down to beat Federer in the quarters last year.  In fact, I'm picking Tsonga to end the Djokovic-Nadal final streak at four.  This is where Roger plays his best, and if Federer is ever going to win another Grand Slam title (I still think he will), it'll probably be at Wimbledon.  I'm not sure he beats Djokovic, though.  Novak's had his number of late.  In the other semi, Murray breaks through and becomes the first British man to play in the Wimbledon final since 1936.  However, the dream ends there, as Djokovic wins his second straight Wimbledon title.

There are so many women that can win this thing it's crazy.  Maria Sharapova might be playing the best tennis of her career.  She won the French Open to get back to No. 1 in the world and made the finals here last year.  And let's not forget, Sharapova's breaktrough came at Wimbledon eight years ago.  No. 2 Victoria Azarenka was a semifinalist last year, and No. 4 Petra Kvitova is the defending champion.  Then there's sixth-seeded Serena Williams, who's been dominant at Wimbledon throughout her career and wants redemption after that first-round loss in Paris.  And Venus is unseeded.  She's the last person I'd want to see end up in my draw.  Same thing with Kim Clijsters, who's nowhere as dangerous here as the Williams sisters.

So how do I see the women's tournament playing out?  Maria's game is on a different level right now.  And she's always played well at Wimbledon.  It doesn't matter who she plays.  I'd be surprised if she doesn't reach the semifinals.  Third-seeded Agnieszka Radwanska was the unfortunate soul to see Venus Williams' name pop up (although, Radwanska has beaten Venus at Wimbeldon before).  The winner of that second-round match could go all the way to the semis.  But I'm going with Daniela Hantuchova, another player who always finds success on grass.  You've also got a Serena vs. Kvitova quarterfinal.  That could end up being the match of the tournament on the women's side.  I've got Serena winning and facing Azarenka in the semis. 

In the women's final, I think it'll be a rematch of 2004.  And the result will be the same.  Maria Sharapova continues her incredible run in 2012 by defeating Serena Williams for the Wimbledon title.

Do or Die at Olympic Trials

This weekend marks the beginning of two of the most competitive athletic events anywhere in the world--the U.S. Olympic Team Trials in track & field and swimming.  The United States is so deep in track & field and swimming, two of the Olympics' marquee sports, that simply making the team is an achievement in itself.  There are only three berths available in each track & field event, and only two in swimming!  In a number of events, potential Olympic medalists will be left home.

Part of the beauty of the Olympic Trials is that they're do-or-die.  These athletes train four long, hard years for one opportunity to make the Olympic team.  And you'd better bring your A-game to Trials.  Otherwise, you might not even be an Olympian.  Finish fourth at the Olympics, you just miss a medal.  Finish fourth at the Olympic Trials, you're watching the Olympics at home.  Four years comes down to a matter of minutes (or seconds) over a couple days.  In a way, it seems somewhat cruel.  But that's part of the beauty of it, too.

The U.S. is the only country in the world that picks its Olympic team based exclusively on the results at Trials.  Other nations use various different critera, but each involves some sort of selective component.  Take Olympic host Great Britain, for example.  The British track trials are also this weekend.  However, only the top two are guaranteed places in the Olympics.  The third spot is at the discretion of a selection panel.  Hannah England, who won the silver medal in the 1500 meters at last year's World Championships, is injured at won't compete at the British Trials.  She'll likely still go to London, though.  Although now she has to rely on the selection committee giving her a spot. 

Then there are the countries that give the Olympic berths to the athletes with the best marks.  While that might seem fair, what if somebody gets that time early in the season, then comes nowhere close to it again, while somebody else is consistently outperforming them heading into the Olympics?  To me, this seems a little counterintuitve.  Wouldn't you want to send the best team possible to the Olympics, even if it's not necessarily the athletes with the "best" marks?  (Some smaller countries use this method, but, since they're not going to send full teams, it makes sense for them to send whoever qualifies.)

Even though it's often been criticized by outsiders, I prefer the U.S. selection method.  It makes the most sense.  Especially in a country that's so deep in so many events.  If there were a selection committee, how could they justify taking somebody over somebody else with similar credentials?  For example, four of the top shot putters in the world are American.  They're all capable of winning gold in London.  One can't go.  How do you pick?  Same thing in the women's 1500 meters.  Five Americans have made the finals at the last two World Championships.  At least two of them aren't going to London.  The only fair way to decide who goes and who doesn't is to let them fight it out for the berths themselves.

It also gives the athletes a sense of urgency.  They know the rules.  They know they have to get the job done at Trials.  Sure, it adjusts the training schedules of some of the top athletes, who have to peak for Trials, then peak again a month later at the Olympics, but that's a sacrifice they have to make in order to go to the Olympics.  Olympic Trials are unlike the National Championships in the other three years because everybody's there and everybody's competing in their best events.  It's the only way to make the Olympic team.  You don't necessarily have that in other years, when the top athletes might be taking a year off, or trying out other events, or whatever.

Many people have said that the Olympic Trials are often more competitive than the Olympics.  That's the reason why.  America's best are often the world's best.  Sure, the sprints at the Jamaican Olympic Trials are probably extremely exciting, but no other nation has so many top athletes that compete in the same event across the board.  Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte compete in the same events.  Natalie Coughlin and Missy Franklin have to cross paths at the Olympic Trials, too.  I feel kind of sorry for the poor suckers in the races with them.

Every Olympic Trials gives us the case of the potential Olympic medalist not making the team for whatever reason.  Take Dan O'Brien in 1992.  Or Tyson Gay in 2008.  We're bound to have that happen again this year.  But the winner-take-all, one-shot element also makes the Olympic Trials great.  Not only do athletes have to finish in the top three, they have to achieve the Olympic qualifying mark at the Trials if they don't already have it.  That brings something different entirely to the Olympic Trials table.  Four years ago, Amy Begley dove across the line at the finish of the women's 10,000 meters at Trials.  She finished third, and got the standard.

Moments like that wouldn't be possible if the U.S. Olympic team was selected in any different way.  And moments like that make the Olympic Trials great.  The Olympics, obviously, are also great.  But the U.S. Olympic Trials are a pretty tasty appetizer before we get to the main course next month.

Mets All-Time Team

Tonight on SNY, they unveiled the New York Mets' 50th Anniversary All-time Team.  There weren't any surprises (the ceremony was actually held on Sunday), but there were definitely some deserving players that were left off.  For example, they only had one right-handed starting pitcher.  Since that was obviously going to the undisputed greatest player in Mets history, there wasn't any room for Dwight Gooden on the team.  And how were the voters supposed to choose between Mike Piazza and Gary Carter at catcher?

I have no such problems.  Since an actual baseball team consists of 25 players, I'm going to take the team that was announced today and add a few more players to it.  Mike Piazza or Gary Carter?  How about both!  Tom Seaver and Dwight Gooden in the same rotation?  Sure.  Tug McGraw and John Franco both in the bullpen?  You got it.

And with that, here we go...

Starting Pitchers: Tom Seaver, Dwight Gooden, Jerry Koosman, Jon Matlack, Ron Darling
The only guy wearing a Mets hat in Cooperstown, as well as the only player in franchise history to have his number retired, Seaver's a no-brainer.  You'd get very little argument from anybody that he's the best player in Mets history.  His sidekick Jerry Koosman was the left-handed starter on the All-Time Team.  The conversation regarding Koosman's place on the team probably took as long as the one about Seaver.  If there was another starting pitching spot available, it would've gone to Dwight Gooden, who might be the most electric player in franchise history.  He trails only Seaver on the Mets' all-time wins and strikeouts lists, and might have joined him in the Hall of Fame if not for his "problems."  Ron Darling's not just a great broadcaster, he's fourth on the franchise's all-time list with 99 career wins.  He started three games in the 1986 World Series, including the Game 7 clincher.  Matlack's the only one that required any sort of thought.  But I went with him over guys like Sid Fernandez and Al Leiter because Matlack brought home some hardware (1972 Rookie of the Year, 1974 All-Star Game MVP), and he helped them reach the 1973 World Series.

Relief Pitchers: Tug McGraw, John Franco, Jesse Orosco, Roger McDowell, Rick Aguilera, Billy Wagner
Just like the right-handed starter was a problem area, the lefty reliever must've been a tough selection.  The voters went with Tug McGraw, who was the heart and soul of that '73 team.  And I'm sure he got bouns points for coming up with "Ya Gotta Believe."  But how can any all-time Mets team be complete without Franco or Orosco?  Franco's probably as closely identified with the New York Mets as anybody.  A Queens guy, he's their all-time leader in appearances (695) and saves (276).  Yes, Jesse Orosco became a running joke for pitching for every Major League team until he was about 80 years old, but he was at his best with the Mets.  And how about that 1986 postseason?  I love the celebration after striking out Marty Barrett to end the 1986 World Series.  The pickings are slim on the right side, but Roger McDowell was the right call.  Before he spit on Kramer and Newman, he was perhaps the most valuable member of that bullpen in 1986.  I gave the last two spots to Rick Aguilera and Billy Wagner because, if this was an actual team, they'd be pretty sick setup guys.

Catchers: Mike Piazza, Gary Carter
Clearly the hardest choice for the actual selection committee.  Carter's in the Hall of Fame.  Piazza will be.  The late, great Gary Carter has always been one of my all-time favorite players, and he was the missing piece that turned the Mets into a championship team.  He gets my vote.  I also hate Mike Piazza.  But I'm not disputing his greatness, and I understand why he got the nod.  Catchers aren't supposed to put up those kind of offensive numbers.  And that walk-off home run against the Braves in the first game after 9/11 is a moment that won't be forgotten anytime soon.

Infielders: Keith Hernandez, Edgardo Alfonzo, Jose Reyes, Bud Harrelson, David Wright, Howard Johnson
Keith Hernandez ("I despise him!") was an obvious selection at first base.  So obvious, in fact, that he's the only first baseman on my 25-man roster.  It's unfair to even try and explain how good Keith Hernandez was, so I'm not going to.  Edgardo Alfonzo won the second base spot by default.  That tells you how good the second basemen the Mets have had were (although Roberto Alomar and Jeff Kent both spent time with the Mets).  Alfonzo's not even really a second baseman (he's listed as a third baseman on the Mets' all-time stats), but he was there on the 2000 World Series team, so I guess that counts.  The voters clearly hold no bitterness towards Jose Reyes for signing with the Marlins during the offseason.  He's certainly one of the most exciting players in Mets history.  That's for sure.  And he has 37 more triples than second-place Mookie Wilson.  Bud Harrelson is slightly underrated as a player, but he's been such a part of the franchise in so many different aspects that it would seem wrong to leave him off the all-time team.  David Wright's the Mets' best player right now.  Earlier this year, he became the franchise's all-time leader in RBIs.  But I'd still take HoJo over Wright.  A switch-hitter, he was one of the utility guys on the '86 team before solidifying his place at third in the late 80s.  HoJo's also temporarily third on the Mets' all-time home run list until Wright hits his next one.

Outfielders: Darryl Strawberry, Carlos Beltran, Cleon Jones, Lenny Dykstra, Mookie Wilson, Ron Swoboda
Let's start with the easy one.  Darryl Strawberry in his prime.  Do I need to say anything else?  This is why the Mets were so fun to watch in the 80s.  The Mets' all-time leader in home runs, and second in RBIs.  It's really not fair how good he was.  He might've been the best player in the National League for a few years during his prime.  The voters were clearly able to overlook the called strike three in Game 7 of the 2006 NLCS in awarding the center field spot to Beltran.  That's the only one I think is a little questionable.  I would've gone with Mookie Wilson, and not just because he has an awesome name.  Mookie's behind only Reyes in triples and stolen bases.  And I seem to recall him hitting a ground ball once upon a time.  Lenny Dykstra was your prototypical leadoff hitter.  He made that '86 team go.  Cleon Jones got the left field spot almost by default.  But who am I to argue with it?  He first got called up in '63, so he had to endure a lot of losing before the 1969 Miracle Mets.  It was Jones that caught the final out of the Mets' first championship.  My final roster spot went to Ron Swoboda, who was probably the Mets' greatest right fielder until Strawberry came along.  Like Harrelson, he didn't put up numbers that blow you away.  Like Harrelson, I can't picture a 25-man team without him.  Plus, I need a backup for Hernandez at first base, so he serves a dual purpose.

There you have it.  My take on the Mets' all-time team, with a few additions of my own.  I hope you Mets fans think I did it justice.  You would know better than me if I left anybody out.

Do You Get the Picture Yet?

The federal government's steroids in sports witch hunt is sure going well, isn't it?  First Barry Bonds. Now Roger Clemens.  Who's next?  Lance Armstrong?  I hope they don't bother.  I can already tell you what the jury's verdict in that trial will be.  (Here's a hint: it'll be the same as it was in the other two.)

They'll, of course, go after Lance.  Because the federal government simply doesn't get it.  If the Bonds and Clemens trials have proven anything, it's that the American public, for the most part, doesn't really care whether or not they took steroids.  And, ultimately, whether or not they did doesn't really matter.  If you were to ask the average American, they'd probably tell you that they think Bonds and Clemens both took performance-enhancing drugs.  But they'd also tell you that the government's relentless pursuit of these guys was a tremendous waste of time and money.  My feeling has always been that the government should worry about, you know, governing.

I knew going in that Clemens would be found not guilty.  That's what happens when your entire case is built on hearsay.  From one witness.  Who happens to be a complete scumbag.  With no credibility.  The Clemens legal team was smart.  Instead of mounting an actual defense, all they did was attack McNamee.  And it worked.  It didn't help the prosecution's case that they even admitted McNamee's a sleeze ball.  Who injects somebody with something (whatever it is), then saves the disgusting bloody needles for 10 years if their goal isn't to completely screw that person over in the end?

In this battle of "He Said, He Said," the jury decided that they didn't believe McNamee more than they did believe Clemens.  The fact that the government paraded an endless array of "experts" that didn't actually conclusively prove anything and made the trial drag on unnecessarily for weeks didn't help, either.  All the prosecution did was bore everyone, literally put jury members to sleep, have their star witness get torn to shreads, and provide absoultely no evidence that could definitely prove Roger Clemens took steroids and lied about it.

Meanwhile, there was plenty of reasonable doubt in this case.  Only one person claimed firsthand knowledge of Roger Clemens being injected with steroids--Brian McNamee.  My feelings on Brian McNamee are well-known.  I need a shower after just looking at the guy.  Everything he said was contradicted by somebody else.  If it's just McNamee's word against one other person's, it might've been easier to believe him.  But when every other witness (even some prosecution witnesses) says the opposite, that tells you all you need to know about who's telling the "truth." 

Whether the jury members believe Clemens took steroids or not is irrelevant.  It was the government's job to prove that he 100 percent DID.  And even the biggest Clemens haters out there have to agree that they didn't.  When the prosecution fails to prove its case, you have to return a verdit of "Not Guilty."  That's the way the American legal system works.  (Keep in mind that "Not Guilty" and "Innocent" don't mean the same thing.)

And trying these guys for perjury makes absolutely no sense.  Perjury's probably the hardest thing in the world to prove.  Nobody knows what went through Roger Clemens' head except for Roger Clemens.  When he said that he never took steroids, he believed it.  Whether that's the actual truth or not (I'm in the minority in believing that it is), it was the truth in Clemens' eyes.  In order to commit perjury, you have to knowingly give false statements.  Roger Clemens didn't "know" his statements were false (provided they actually were, which is very much up for debate once more).  In his opinion, he was speaking the God's honest truth.  Thus, he didn't perjure himself.

I know I'm in the minority, but I've always believed that Roger Clemens was innocent.  When he got cut by the Red Sox in 1996, he wanted to prove to them that he wasn't "done."  So he worked even harder.  And even during the whole "did he or didn't he" debate, nobody ever questioned that work ethic.  That's what made him so successful.  Like Clemens, Randy Johnson was dominant into his 40s.  Randy Johnson has never come under suspicion.  If it's possible that Randy Johnson did it all naturally, isn't it possible that Roger Clemens did, too?

This whole process is finally over after four years.  Next year will be five since Roger Clemens played his last Major League game.  Ordinarily, his numbers, longevity and sheer dominance would make Clemens a lock for Cooperstown.  But there are Hall of Fame voters who refuse to ever vote for any player even suspected of steroid use.  That's a debate for January (when Barry Bonds also makes his debut on the Hall of Fame ballot).  For now, though, while he might never win over the court of public opinion, Roger Clemens did win over a jury of his peers.

It's kinda funny to think that after 354 Major League wins, the biggest victory of Roger Clemens' career came in a Washington, DC, courtroom.  The sad irony of the Mitchell Report and the Steroids Era.

Red, White and Eeww

With the Olympics just six weeks away and the Olympic Trials set to begin next week, yesterday Nike unveiled the USA's track & field uniforms for the London Games.  For those of you who haven't seen them yet, here they are:

The only word I can think of to describe this uniforms is HIDEOUS.  I really would like to know what Nike was thinking.  The "speedsuits" apparently take like .023 seconds off your time, but this isn't speedskating, runners don't wear full-body suits. 

But here's my biggest problem: Why are they red?  If these uniforms were blue, I'd probably love them.  (I'd probably even be able to make my peace with white jerseys and blue shorts.)  I understand it's "Red, White and Blue," but the lack of blue, which has been the U.S. track team's primary color for 20 years, is pretty glaring.  Not to mention the fact that the darker color is much more aesthetically pleasing.  (I now invite you all to take in that disturbing mental image of shot putters in red spandex.) 

Some people who actually like the red said that the Americans "will be so much easier to spot now."  How?  Here's a quick rundown of other nations whose primary uniforms are dark blue.  Great Britain.  That's it.  Now, let's go through all the teams whose national color is red.  China.  Spain.  Switzerland.  Japan.  Denmark.  (That's not even all of them.)  And let's not forget that country located a little bit to the north.  Whatever international competition the U.S. is in, Canada's always going to be there.  So, I ask again...How is it easier to spot one of the 15 people wearing red instead of the only one wearing navy blue?

The worst part about the "London" is that since USA Track & Field only changes uniform designs for the Olympics, we're stuck with red uniforms for the next four years.

How do these compare to U.S. Olympic track uniforms through the years?  Well, here's a look at every one from my lifetime:

2008 Beijing

I actually really like the "Beijing," which will still be the national team uniform for another month or so.  They also had versions of this with red jerseys and white jerseys.

2004 Athens

The "Athens" wasn't great, but it wasn't bad, either.  I don't like the way "USA" is written, and they didn't really pull of the white as well as they did on the women's uniforms, which had a blue strip across the top.

2000 Sydney

These are my favorite.  I know there are a lot of people who don't like the "Sydney," but I'm not one of them.  I like the light blue down the side (even if the USA on the leg was too big).  My favorite part, though, is that the front was blue and the back was red.

1996 Atlanta

The Atlanta Games will always have a special place in my heart.  Other than the ridiculously large white stripe on the side, there's nothing wrong with the "Atlanta."  They were the perfect uniform for the mid-90s.

1992 Barcelona

Oh, Barcelona, where do I start?  First, the good: this was the first one to utilize blue as the primary color.  That's really all I've got on the "good" front.  Otherwise, the "Barcelona" has all sorts of problems.  Although, it was the early 90s, so these uniforms were, again, a sign of the times.

1988 Seoul

The "Seoul" isn't horrible.  I actually do kind of like it.  And this particular uniform wouldn't have worked in blue.  But what's with the belt FloJo?

1984 Los Angeles

You want a lasting visual of sports in the early to mid-80s?  Here it is.  Again, the "LA" wouldn't work in blue.  Not terrible and, but not that good either.  The "LA" does get bonus points, though, for what Carl Lewis did while wearing it.  Lasting question: Why is the "USA" on the front so big?

So, here are the rankings: 1. Sydney, 2. Beijing, 3. Seoul, 4. Atlanta, 5. Athens, 6. LA, 7. London, 8. Barcelona

Pro Sports In Vegas

My buddy Pat gets the credit for the topic of today's blog.  Pat's our resident NBA guru, and I was telling him today about an article I read on ESPN.com. 

It was about the fans in Seattle and how they have to be feeling weird during the NBA Finals.  Are they still fans of the Thunder?  Or are they so bitter about them leaving that they can't possibly root for them?  They included a quote from one fan who said that Oklahoma City hadn't "earned" the team yet.  He kind of has a point.  He compared them to the Arizona Diamondbacks and Florida Marlins, who were expansion teams that won the World Series right away.  Their fans never suffered.  Seattle fans suffered with the Sonics, only to see the team relocate once they got good again.

I pointed out the irony that Clay Bennett is now the head of the NBA's relocation committee.  From there, it turned into a discussion about the chances of the NBA returning to Seattle anytime soon.  The Hornets aren't going anywhere.  Saints owner Tom Benson is keeping them in New Orleans.  But the Kings are probably going to leave Sacramento.  The Maloof Brothers already tried going to Anaheim once (as if L.A. needs a third NBA team), so you know they're likely on the move.  If Seattle isn't the NBA's preferred location for a team that's looking to move (like it should be), Las Vegas might be an option for the Kings, too.

It wouldn't be a stretch for the Maloofs to bring the Kings to Vegas.  They already own the Palms.  Furthermore, I think the NBA is the only major league that would be able to get away with putting a team in Las Vegas.  They had the All-Star Game there a few years ago, and it was a tremendous success.  I think a permanent franchise would be just as successful. 

Like Oklahoma City, where the Thunder's fan base is so rabid in part because they're the only game in town, it would be the same thing with an NBA team in Las Vegas.  They have a Triple-A baseball team, but that's nowhere near the same as a major league team of their own.  Hockey simply wouldn't work.  I think Vegas has an ECHL team, but if the NHL has learned anything about its great expansion into the Sun Belt, it's that less is more.  And football wouldn't work simply because the Vegas sports books make way too much money on NFL games.  They wouldn't be willing to part with that money.  The NBA, however, is a different story.  The NBA could work.

When I was in grad school, I had one class where our big project for the semester was to create a professional franchise from scratch.  My group had the NBA.  It didn't take us long to decide on Las Vegas.  The selection was so obvious (keep in mind that the Sonics were still in Seattle at the time).  And with that, the expansion Las Vegas Rounders were "born" (I came up with the name).

Las Vegas is the fastest-growing city in the country.  Within the next 20-25 years, it'll probably be considered a "major" city.  Las Vegas has become THE destination for all the big boxing matches.  Every major fight takes place in Vegas.  They host NASCAR at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway, and the college bowl season traditionally starts with whatever they call the Las Vegas Bowl now.  And, of course, Las Vegas is quickly becoming one of the entertainment capitals of the world.  The only things it's missing is a major league pro team of its own.

That team may be coming soon.  It seems inevitable that one of the Big Four will eventually take a chance on Las Vegas.  It's just a matter of time.  If an NBA team decides to relocate, they should go to Seattle.  That city deserves its team back.  But if the NBA decides its wants to adopt the NFL's 32-team model, my vote for the homes of the two expansion franchises are Seattle and Las Vegas.

What a Weekend

Saturday and Sunday were two of the busiest (and craziest) sports days this year.  Especially in the New York area.  It's weekends like this that make sports great.

The weekend started in the waning hours of Friday night/wee hours of Saturday morning, when six Mariners pitchers combined to no-hit the Dodgers.  (Honestly, I didn't even know about that one until Saturday afternoon.)  Then if you got up early, you had the pleasure of seeing Maria Sharapova complete a career Grand Slam by winning her first French Open title.  Staying in Europe, but moving a little further east to Ukraine, the "Group of Death" was in action at the European Championships with heavyweights Germany and Portugal facing off (then a surprise win by Denmark over the Netherlands).

Back in New York, we had the adidas Grand Prix track meet.  There are always some great performances at this meet, and this year was no exception.  David Rudisha almost set a world record in the men's 800, and Sunette Viljonen had the longest javelin throw ever in North America.  Not to mention the great races in the girls' high school mile and women's 5000.  And some of my favorite American stars, who clearly look ready for the Olympic Trials.  I go to this meet every year, and the competition never fails to impress.  This year was certainly no exception.

The track meet ran long, so NBC had to delay its trip from Randall's Island to Long Island by a few minutes.  After I'll Have Another was scratched and there was no longer a chance at a Triple Crown, the Belmont Stakes became very anticlimactic.  But that was some stretch run by Union Rags!  Our friends at the Peacock Network then traveled across the bridge to Jersey, where the Devils stayed alive against the Kings in the Stanley Cup Finals (they had no such luck tonight in LA).  Meanwhile, at Yankee Stadium, there was this little event known as the Subway Series going on.

I haven't even yet mentioned the stuff I didn't watch on Saturday night.  The Celtics and Heat played a Game 7 for the right to go to the NBA Finals.  For those of you who actually care about that sort of thing, LeBron's team won to set up a matchup with the Sonics in the Finals.  I didn't watch the basketball game by choice.  An event that I would've loved to have watched, but didn't have the opportunity was the Manny Pacquiao fight.  Pacquiao lost in a controversial split decision, giving Floyd Mayweather another excuse to avoid fighting him.  Now we're definitely not going to get that Mayweather-Pacquiao fight everybody wants to see.

Fast forward to Sunday.  Let's go back to Paris, for Rafa-Novak Part IV.  Frankly, I'm getting a little bored of the Djokovic vs. Nadal Grand Slam finals, so the fact that the men's final was suspended by rain midway through the third set was fine with me.  I didn't even bother to watch the conclusion this morning.  As sick as I am of the same two guys in the finals, Nadal winning the French Open every year has really gotten old.  (Seriously, his "surprised face" at the end of Grand Slam tournaments is about as annoying as Taylor Swift's "surprised face" at her concerts.  Enough already.  You're actually surprised?  Really?  You win the freakin' French Open every year!)

But all of that pales in comparison to Stony Brook.  The little no-name school from Long Island (which is located approximately 10 minutes away from my parents' house), which has only been D-I for a decade and isn't even big enough to be considered a "mid-major" program, is going to the College World Series.  The entire Northeast was rooting for the Seawolves.  They're the first team from the region to make it to Omaha since 1986.  College baseball in the Northeast suddenly just got a whole bunch of validation.  (And they won't be the only party crashers in Omaha.  Kent State, which beat Kentucky in 21 innings in its first game of the NCAA Tournament, will also be there.)

Weekends like the one that just transpired are why we love sports.  There was something for everybody, and the competition was great across the board.  It wasn't the first great sports weekend.  And it won't be the last.  But let's savour it anyway.  It was a good weekend to be a New York sports fan.

Home Run Derby Fantasy Teams

The other day they announced that Robinson Cano and Matt Kemp will be the team captains at this year's Home Run Derby.  I guess that means the Commissioner's Office feels secure in both of their chances to make the All-Star team.  (They're sure going out on a limb with Kemp, huh?)  I'm not sure if Cano automatically gets to be the AL captain because he's the defending Home Run Derby champion, but his place on the All-Star roster should be pretty secure, as well.  Even if he doesn't start.  And I certainly hope Kemp will be off the DL in time to join in the All-Star festivities.

As team captains, Cano and Kemp get to choose their teams for the Derby.  For some reason, they a have a spot for the Home Run Derby on the All-Star ballot you get at the stadiums, even though there's no fan vote element in the selection of Home Run Derby participants whatsoever.  But that doesn't mean there aren't guys we'd like to see in the Derby.  Assuming these guys are named to the All-Star team, I've got a few suggestions as to who should fill out the Derby rosters.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
Prince Fielder, Tigers-Prince was the National League's captain last year, and he was the only National Leaguer to make the semifinals.  Then he was named MVP of the actual All-Star Game for a three-run bomb that gave the NL the lead.  Now he's in the American League.

Josh Hamilton, Rangers-We all remember the show he put on at the old Yankee Stadium in 2008.  He hasn't participated in the Home Run Derby since.  Why not?  With the crazy numbers he's put up so far this year, I think us fans deserve the chance to see Josh Hamilton aiming for those fountains in center field.

David Ortiz, Red Sox-Big Papi is a Home Run Derby staple.  He won it in 2010, so he got to be the AL captain last year.  As annoying as it is when he hits 700-foot home runs during the regular season, those are the ones that make the Home Run Derby fun to watch.  And I'm not going to pretend Ortiz doesn't deserve to be an All-Star this year.

Alternates: Curtis Granderson, Yankees-From what I hear, he mashes in BP pretty regularly.  Granderson hits a lot of homers in real games, too.  Does Robbie pick his teammate?
Miguel Cabrera, Tigers-That move to third base really effected his hitting, didn't it?  Miggy's another Home Run Derby regular.  Since he'll probably be on the All-Star team once again, he wouldn't be a bad guy for Cano to choose.
Adam Jones, Orioles-Albert's having some issues and might not even make the team, and everyone else has finally seemed to realize that Jose Bautista is overrated.  So how about showcasing the AL's breakout star of 2012?  Jones isn't really known as a home run hitter, though.

NATIONAL LEAGUE
Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins-Am I the only one who thinks this name change has turned The Artist Formerly Known As Mike into a bona fide superstar?  The numbers this guy's been putting up are ridiculous!  Since he plays in Miami, he's still not really that well-known.  But if he wins the Home Run Derby, that could certainly change.

Joey Votto, Reds-Now that Prince and Albert are in the American League, Joey Votto is suddenly the king of National League first basemen.  They've only announced the first ballot update, but he already has such a big lead, I'd be shocked if he didn't start.  Votto's biggest attribute is that he can rake.  Really far.  Joey Votto was made for the Home Run Derby.

Matt Holliday, Cardinals-Matt Holliday seems to be the National League's answer to David Ortiz.  He's in the Home Run Derby every year.  I don't really know why.  Regardless, if he makes the NL All-Star team, I wouldn't be surprised if he's in the Home Run Derby, too.

Alternates: Ryan Braun, Brewers-I personally don't think Ryan Braun should've been allowed to play the first 50 games of this season.  But he was.  And he put up his usual carzy numbers.  Even though I'm not going to throw a single vote his way, Braun will probably end up on the All-Star team again.
Dan Uggla, Braves-He's leading the voting at second base and, unlike last year, is actually off to a good start.  Uggla's been known to bring the long ball, so why not have a second baseman from each league in the Home Run Derby?
Carlos Beltran, Cardinals-What is it about St. Louis that revives the careers of seemingly washed-up former stars?  Beltran looks like an All-Star lock.  And he's a former Royal, which might not be a good thing.

Of course, the actual participants are up to Cano and Kemp.  Maybe they've got different ideas.  Regardless, I'm cheering for the AL.  Just like I do every year.  And for the most part, that strategy has worked.  An AL player has won in four of the last five years.

Euro Time

We've reached the start of the second-biggest sporting event of 2012: the UEFA European Championships.  Four years ago, Spain won the Euro for its first major championship, and that victory propelled them to a World Cup title two years later.  The Spanish are the undisputed best team in the world.  However, no team has ever won back-to-back Euros.  For that reason, I've got to think Spain is vulnerable.  I still think they've got to be considered the favorites, but don't count out teams like Germany, the Netherlands, and even England.

GROUP A: Czech Republic, Greece, Poland, Russia
Poland's co-hosting, so they get to be the seeded team in the weakest group.  I'm not sure if any of these teams would advance out of another group, but two of them will be in the quarterfinals.  I've got to think Russia will be one of them.  The Russians were semifinalists in 2008, and they're clearly the most talented team of these four.  Greece won the title in 2004, but was eliminated in the group stage four years ago.  You never know what you're going to get out of the Greeks.  Getting placed in this weak group could be a blessing.  I can easily see them winning it.  But I can also see them losing all three games.  Poland's only in the tournament because they're hosting.  Yet they could easily advance to the quarterfinals.  The Czech Republic barely got into the tournament, but could also surprise.  Goalkeeper Peter Cech just won the Champions League with Chelsea, and he's the best goalie in the group.  With him in net, I can see the Czechs winning a game or two and getting out of the group stage.

GROUP B: Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal
Unlike Group A, Group B is the proverbial "Group of Death."  Germany and the Netherlands were the teams that lost to Spain at each of the last two major tournaments.  The Germans followed up their Euro 2008 silver with a third-place finish at the 2010 World Cup.  Germany has been the most successful team in the history of the European Championships, and even in a tough group, they're the class of it.  While the Germans have the best team, the best players in this group might be the ones wearing Dutch orange: Robin van Persie, Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben.  The Netherlands is the perennial bridesmaid, though.  I also don't think it's a guarantee Germany and the Netherlands both advance.  Portugal is a dangerous team.  They made the Euro final in 2004 and the World Cup semis in 2006.  I'm not sure Portugal has the horses to get far, but Cristiano Ronaldo is an absolute stud.  If he gets hot, that could be bad news for the other three teams in this group.  Denmark is ranked ninth in the world, but only fourth in this group!  In any other group, I'd be tempted to pick the Danes.  But against these three, they've got no chance.

GROUP C: Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Spain
There's no question that Spain is the class of this group.  That's what happens when you're the No. 1-ranked team in the world, who also happen to be the defending European and World champions.  Spain's going to cruise through this group.  The only potential hiccup could be their opening game with Italy.  But Spain lost its first group game in the 2010 World Cup and went on to win the title.  As long as they get out of the group stage (which shouldn't be a problem), Spain looks poised to make another deep run.  No team has ever repeated at the Euro, or won three straight major tournaments, but Spain's got a great chance to do both of those things.  The other traditional power in this group is Italy.  The Azzuri always seem to back up a bad tournament with a deep run.  After being eliminated in the group stage of Euro 2004, they won the World Cup in 2006.  Well, they were three-and-out in South Africa.  Following that formula, Italy should be a contender for a deep run.  I'm not sure about that, but they'll get out of the group pretty easily.  Croatia's got those cool checkerboard jerseys, but will be overwhelmed by the two heavyweights.  Same thing for Ireland.  After controversially missing out on the 2010 World Cup, the Irish are playing in a major tournament for the first time in 10 years.  However, the best Robbie Keane and Co. can hope for is keeping the games close and maybe stealing a couple of points in draws.

GROUP D: England, France, Sweden, Ukraine
This is the second-deepest group behind Group B.  England and France are generally messes when it comes to these big-time tournaments, and I don't think Poland/Ukraine 2012 is going to be any different.  England dind't even qualify for Euro 2008, while France's flameout in South Africa was very well-publicized.  Yet you still have the feeling one of them is going to win the group.  The problem with the English and French teams is that they both have so much talent.  That's what makes those results so frustrating.  If they can ever put it together, the sky's the limit (like France did in 1998 and 2000).  You've got to think that the level of dysfunction with England and France works in Sweden's favor.  Like always, the Swedes are quiet contenders.  They're not in-your-face.  They're just consistent and steady.  I can easily see Sweden winning this group.  I'm officially making them my sleeper team.  Like Poland, Ukraine's only in the tournament because they're co-hosting.  Some way to make your initial Euro appearance!  The thing about Ukraine is, even though they're the second lowest-ranked team in the tournament, I can see them surprising in this group.  The host team always does well in major tournaments, and Ukraine's not as overmatched as some people might think.  Since you never know what you're going to get from England and France, both yellow and blue teams could move on to the quarterfinals.

QUARTERFINALS: Russia vs. Netherlands, Spain vs. England, Germany vs. Poland, Sweden vs. Italy
Those are my matchups.  I think Poland gets the second spot out of a weak Group A, Sweden surprises a lot of people by taking Group D, and England manages to be less of a mess than France, which gives them the second spot out of that group.  It could come down to goal differential between those two.

I think the Netherlands beats Russia in a very competitive quarterfinal, setting up a rematch of the World Cup final against Spain.  The Polish fans will be amped up for a quarterfinal matchup against hated neighbor Germany, but the Germans will spoil their party.  Sweden vs. Italy could be the most entertaining of the quarterfinal games.  I'm going Italy in penalty kicks.  Spain and Germany win the two semifinals, setting up a rematch of 2008.  But this time, the Germans come out on top, denying Spain the chance to complete the trifecta.

Best of Three Is Best

As we come down the stretch run of the 2012 French Open, the debate over the length of Grand Slam tennis matches has once again come to the surface.  Men and women receive equal prize money, yet the men play best-of-five matches and the women only play two-out-of-three.  That's tradition.  That's what it's always been.  But some people want to change it.  ESPN.com's LZ Granderson dedicated an entire column to it recently.

I kind of understand the argument being made by Granderson and others.  Their feeling is that women are definitely capable of playing five sets, so give them the opportunity.  I don't disagree.  Women are certainly just as capable of playing best-of-five matches as men are.  In fact, in the years the WTA Championships were held annually at Madison Square Garden, there was a best-of-five final.  But that's not really the point. 

There's another factor at play here that's not being considered: the length of matches.  Using the conservative estimate of 45 minutes per set, it takes roughly two hours and 15 minutes to play three sets (which is the minimum length of a men's Grand Slam match).  Add another hour and a half to that, and you've got five-set matches lasting between 3:30-3:45.  Obviously the ones that cross the four-hour threshold are the epics.  Using that same formula, a two-set women's match will be over in roughly an hour and a half.  There are obvious extremes on both ends of the spectrum (the 6-0, 6-1 whitewashing that takes less than an hour; Isner-Mahut), but for the most part, these averages are pretty accurate.

Now consider the tournament organizers that have to schedule 254 singles matches over the two-week duration of the event.  Not to mention all the doubles, juniors, seniors and wheelchair matches.  Plus practice times.  Again using my average match time, you figure that at the very least it'll take six hours to complete four matches on a given court.  At the US or Australian Open, the courts have lights, so matches going long isn't really an issue.  But at the French Open and Wimbledon, they've got to stop when they're out of natural light.  That's usually around 8:30-9:00.  Matches that aren't done by then have to be suspended and sandwiched between two other matches on the next day's schedule.  And that's not even taking rain delays into account.

I do have a point here, I promise.  Let's take a typical day at the US Open as our example.  The day session on Arthur Ashe Stadium consists of three matches starting at 11:00, then the night session featuring two matches starts at 7:30.  More often than not, the day session runs long (sometimes until after 8:00), pushing back the start of the night matches.  And this is with the women playing best-of-three and final set tiebreakers!

At each of the other three Grand Slams, they play out the final set until somebody breaks serve.  That's how you get a 12-hour Isner-Mahut match.  And that's why the women also playing best-of-five would never work.  Especially when you're playing out the final set (which can take forever in its own right), you can't add two more sets to women's matches and still expect to get every match scheduled for every court completed that day.

Of course, you could get around this by scheduling fewer matches on each court, but there are obvious problems with that plan.  The first is that you'd then need more courts to still play the same number of matches each day.  These are the four greatest tennis facilities in the world, but even they don't have the court space to accomodate that.  Besides, that also means you'd have top players on the outer courts more frequently.  It would be great for the fans who can't afford stadium tickets to get to see the top players, but what about the ones who bought tickets for the show courts?  Especially since Andy Murray's not playing anywhere other than Centre Court at Wimbledon and the Andy Roddick/Williams Sisters US Open night sessions probably aren't going anywhere too soon, either.

As weird as it is to see the top players on the outer courts, it's also incredibly unfair to them.  You try explaining to Novak Djokovic that he has to play on Court 2 in front of 800 people without replay (or TV cameras) because the women are playing five sets now and they could only schedule three matches on the stadium.  That sounds ridiculous.  Yet, it would be the reality if the women also played best-of-five at the Grand Slams.

Sure, it would be incredibly exciting to see 15 sets over the course of three matches, but the women's game hasn't lost anything by playing two fewer sets.  In fact, they've got more of a sense of urgency.  Does Serena Williams lose in the first round last week if the match is best-of-five?  Probably not.  Instead, we got a tremendous upset.  I agree that those comebacks from 2-0 down that can only happen on the men's side are extraordinary.  But you can't tell me that every five-set men's match is a classic.  Just like you can't tell me that, three sets or not, there haven't been any classic women's Grand Slam matches. 

While it would be cool to see the women play best-of-five, it's completely unnecessary.  But more importantly, it would never work.

A Stupid Move (If It's Made)

A few days ago, David Stern said that he doesn't want NBA players participating in the Olympics anymore.  He said that he would prefer to use soccer's model, where the main focus is the World Cup and the under-23 national teams play in the Olympics.  David Stern is an idiot.  If NBA players aren't participating in the 2016 Olympics, it would be a colossal mistake.

One of the reasons (in fact, probably the reason) basketball has become so popular worldwide is precisely because NBA players started participating in the Olympics.  Twenty years ago when the "Dream Team" went to Barcelona, they were rock stars.  Everyone was in awe.  Even the players on the opposing teams couldn't believe they were on the same floor as Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.  The tournament wasn't even close.

The "Dream Team" was great for the growth of basketball.  In fact, a mere 12 years later, the U.S. sent a team of NBA stars to Athens, and they lost twice, settling for the bronze.  (By the way, this came after an even more embarrassing sixth-place finish at the 2002 World Championships in Indianapolis.)  You can offer any number of excuses for the embarrassing results in Indianapolis and Athens, but the reason everybody conveniently ignores is that the rest of the world has gotten better.  There's no guarantee that the even the NBA's best can just show up and win anymore.  Take the 2006 World Championships in Japan.  That U.S. team cared/tried and still ended up third after losing to Greece in the semifinals.

My point is this: the U.S. needs to send its best possible team to the Olympics.  If the best teams in the world are competitive with a team full of NBA players, how is an under-23 team supposed to stand a chance?  Unless he gets FIBA to change the tournament rules, there's no stopping NBA players from other nations representing their national teams.  If Manu Ginobili wants to play for Argentina or Spain asks Pau Gasol to play, there's no way Stern can stop them.  But those national teams don't consist entirely of NBA players, which is why only the U.S. team would be affected by Stern's plan.

He's also neglecting two other points that are very important.  First, the Olympic soccer tournament sucks.  The senior national teams used to play in the Olympics in soccer.  And when FIFA switched it to a junior tournament, there were a number of factors that were considered.  (The European Championships are FIFA's second-biggest event, and they're always in an Olympic year.  It was impossible for European players to do both.)  In women's soccer, the senior national teams play because that sport needs the attention an Olympics brings. 

But more importantly, the NBA players don't care about the World Championships.  They care about the Olympics.  After the bronze in 2004, USA Basketball changed its model, asking players to make a four-year committment to both the World Championships and Olympics.  Everybody was on board, and the 2006 World Championships team (that took bronze) was one of the best the U.S. has ever assembled.  All of those guys wanted to play in Beijing and knew that playing in Japan was part of the deal.  And the team that went to Beijing was ridiculous!  Out of those 12 players, do you know how many didn't back out of the 2010 World Championships for one reason or another?  ONE!  It was an entirely different team that went to Turkey two years ago, and if not for Kevin Durant deciding he wanted to win the World Championship, the U.S. wouldn't have come close to the gold medal.  But now that we're back to the Olympics, all of those core players from Beijing can't wait to wear the red, white and blue again.

Without NBA players, the Olympic basketball tournament loses its high-profile status.  Sure, it would still be cool to see the college guys again, like pre-1992, but would that really be for the good of the game?  American fans deserve the best team USA Basketball can put out there.  If the rules allow for that team to consist of NBA players, that's who should be on the team.  Especially if other countries are sending their NBA guys.  David Stern can use injury concerns or whatever as his reasoning for being opposed to NBA players in the Olympics, but he's wrong.

One of the reasons baseball was dropped from the Olympics is because they couldn't get Major League players to participate.  The NHL hasn't committed to sending its players to Sochi in 2014.  I hope they realize taking the two-week break and sending the pros is better for the sport.  Just like NBA players in the Summer Olympics (when, unlike the hockey players, they aren't in the middle of the season) is good for the sport.  No matter what David Stern thinks.