I know that 98 percent of you are either lukewarm about the World Baseball Classic or don't care at all, but I couldn't be more excited. I love the World Baseball Classic. For the next two weeks, unwatchable Spring Training games are being replaced by intense, playoff-like competition between the 16 best national teams in the world in the only national-team competition that actually includes Major Leaguers. I think that's probably why I like the WBC so much.
This year had the added twist of the qualifying tournaments, which resulted in Spain and Brazil making the big tournament for the first time. They also wisely divided the four semifinalists from 2009 into the four different groups. That means we're not going to get Japan vs. South Korea five times like we did four years ago. In fact, the three teams that have made the finals in the history of the event (Japan, Cuba, South Korea) will all be in the same second round group, meaning one won't even get to the semis.
And with that, here's my take on the four WBC first round pools, as well as some predictions...
Pool A (Fukuoka, Japan): Japan, Cuba, China, Brazil
If they were going to separate Japan and South Korea (which they had to), they had to put somebody else in the Asian pool. The winner was Cuba. And I really mean that. Because there's no way Japan and Cuba aren't the two teams coming out of this group. Japan won the first two WBCs and is one of the favorites again, even though this time their team includes only players from the Japanese Major Leagues. No Ichiro. No Dice-K. No Darvish. That shouldn't matter. The only challenge they'll face is from Cuba. With baseball no longer in the Olympics, this is THE event for the Cuban national team, which was embarrassed by not even reaching the semifinals in 2009. The Cubans feel like they've got something to prove, and they'll take it out on poor China and Brazil. Brazil upset Panama to win its qualifying tournament and is making its WBC debut, while the Chinese team is improving all the time. The Chinese eliminated their rivals from Taiwan four years ago and avoided the qualifying tournament as a result. Since Brazil's also in this group, they might get direct entry again in 2017, but neither team is advancing. Not over Japan and Cuba.
Pool B (Taichung, Taiwan): South Korea, Netherlands, Australia, Chinese Taipei
This is arguably the weakest of the four groups. South Korea, the 2008 Olympic champions, lost only one game in the 2009 WBC. It just happened to be the final. In their fifth game against Japan in the tournament. That can't happen this time (the max games they can play is three). South Korea's clearly the class of this group, but the second spot is wide open. Any of the three teams can advance. The Netherlands is seeded second and probably has the slight edge over Australia and Taiwan. The Dutch team boasts a number of Major Leaguers from Curacao, and talent-wise they're probably the second-best team in this group. Furthermore, they're not going to need to beat the Dominican Republic twice like they did in 2009. Australia should be a win and Taiwan is definitely a winnable game. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Netherlands advance to round two. But I don't think Taiwan can be counted out. Especially since they're playing at home. In a group that's not too challenging. They're ranked sixth in the world and have a bunch of Major Leaguers on the roster. Australia isn't bad, either. A three-way tie at 1-2 that brings those wonderful, convoluted WBC tiebreakers into play doesn't seem out of the question. But I'm going to go with Taiwan taking that second spot behind South Korea.
Pool C (San Juan, Puerto Rico): Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Spain
Along with Pool B, this one figures to easily be the most competitive. Venezuela, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic are all deep enough to make deep runs in the tournament, but one won't even get out of the first round. In 2009, that was the Dominican Republic, which was knocked out after being upset by the Netherlands twice. Venezuela, meanwhile, was a semifinalist in 2009 and is my pick to win it all this year. It's really not fair how good that team is. Even without Felix Hernandez. Venezuela's biggest problem might be finding a way to get everybody into the lineup. Miguel Cabrera, Pablo Sandoval, Elvis Andrus, Marco Scutaro, Carlos Gonzalez. Yeah, they're gonna get some hits. Puerto Rico has the advantage of hosting and boasts its usual array of Major League stars in the lineup, but I'm not sure if the pitching staff is going to hold up against the likes of Venezuela and the Dominican Republic. Speaking of the DR, they're like Cuba. Good, hungry and dangerous. Like Venezuela, they've got an extremely loaded lineup, and I think the pitching, anchored by Edinson Volquez, should be good enough. Like Brazil, Spain's achievement was in just getting here. Unfortunately, though, they were drawn into this ultra-strong group. Spain is completely overmatched against these three opponents. As for the two that advance, I'm going with Venezuela and the Dominican Republic.
Pool D (Phoenix, Arizona): United States, Mexico, Italy, Canada
Italy gets to hang out with the three North American teams in Phoenix, where the USA and Mexico are the clear favorites. When the WBC was first concocted, most experts thought the tournament format favored teams like the United States, which can fill six teams of Major League all-stars and still have plenty to spare. Through two tournaments, though, that hasn't been the case. So Joe Torre was brought in to manage Team USA. And he took a different approach while assembling the roster, going with one starter at each position and just a couple of backup utlilty guys. This should allow the lineup to gel a little better and be a more cohesive unit in the later stages of the tournament. We'll see if it works out. Mexico's got Brewers ace Yovani Gallardo, Giants closer Sergio Romo and Dodgers first baseman Adrian Gonzalez on its roster, but will need to beat Canada to advance. The Canadians were as embarrassed as anybody by their showing in 2009, being eliminated first after losing twice (in Toronto!) and having to go through the qualifying tournament despite being ranked sixth in the world. They got through the qualifier with ease and are back where they belong in the WBC main tournament. Even without Russell Martin, I like this Canadian team. They beat the USA in 2006, only to be eliminated on that confusing runs tiebreaker. They've got the talent to knock off Mexico and advance. If nothing else, they should get a chance to get revenge on Italy, the team that knocked them out of the 2009 tournament. Nothing against Italy, arguably the best team in Europe, but the two qualifiers will be from North America. Probably the US and Mexico.
Pool 1 (Tokyo, Japan): Japan, Cuba, South Korea, Chinese Taipei
Pools A and B move on to Tokyo, where the format changes from round robin to modified double elimination. Assuming Japan and South Korea win their groups, that means South Korea would play Cuba in the first game of round two. Winning that game will be paramount, since the loser would have to beat the other again, as well as possibly Japan, to get to the semis. With Japan playing at home, I think they advance. For the other spot, I'll take Cuba.
Pool 2 (Miami, Florida): Venezuela, Dominican Republic, United States, Mexico
Fans in Miami, you'll get to see actual Major Leaguers this season! Of course, it'll be in March. I think Venezuela's the best team in the tournament, which means they'll get one of the semifinal spots. The same thing I said about Cuba-Korea applies to USA-DR. That could be the game of the tournament. Ultimately, though, I think the American pitching is what makes the slight difference. The USA takes the other spot.
Semifinals/Championship (San Francisco, California): Japan vs. USA, Venezuela vs. Cuba
The only thing standing between Japan and a third straight trip to the finals, in my opinion, is Team USA. However, this Japanese team isn't as good as the one in the previous two editions, and that break they'll get after crossing the ocean could be a detriment. As a result, I'm saying USA in a slight upset. I keep reiterating that whole "Venezuela is the best team in the tournament" thing. As much as I respect the Cuban National Team, I think the Venezuelans will be too tough. In the final, we've got Venezuela vs. the USA. The pitching is the only thing that concerns me about Venezuela, but not enough for me to stray from my pick. Venezuela wins the tournament.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
It's A Step, But Still Needs Work
The much talked-about NHL realignment plan was released today. The NHL has been trying to realign ever since the Jets moved to Winnipeg and they had a team in Central Canada stuck in the Southeast Division. They made a proposal last December that they wanted to take effect this season, but it was stupid and the players thankfully rejected it. Today came Round 2.
The biggest changes with the new plan is that somebody explained to the NHL that you can't have four conferences, so those "conferences" are now called "divisions" (what they actually are). They also juggled some of the teams around, moving both Columbus and Detroit to the Eastern Conference and switching Colorado from the Pacific Divison to the Midwest Division.
The schedule and playoff format are also slightly better in this proposed alignment. The December 2011 version of the schedule called for two games against everybody, but also a ridiculous number of intradivision games. Then intradivision playoffs. In other words, you would've been playing the same teams over and over again. Now they're proposing two interconference, three with the other division in your own conference and four or five in your division. It's much more balanced, which is significantly better.
And instead of going back to the pre-1994 division playoffs, the new playoff format has the top three teams in each division qualifying automatically, with the last two spots going to wild cards from either division. Theoretically, it could be five teams from one division and three from the other making the playoffs. That's OK. Because under the old proposal, you could've had a team with the fifth-best record in hockey not making the playoffs simply because it finished fifth in its division. (And not to mention the fact that teams like the Islanders would've had little to no chance of ever getting in, since some combination of the Penguins, Devils, Flyers, Rangers and Capitals are all good every year.)
They had to get Winnipeg out of the East. Everyone knows that. But there are still problems with the new divisions that I think need to be addressed before I can get completely on board with NHL realignment. The first is that the NHL brass is clearly not full of math majors. First, they wanted to have four conferences instead of two, which made no sense. Now, they want to have one conference with 16 teams and another with 14. Sure, Baseball made it work for 15 years, but even they've gone to the 15-15 split. That's what it should be. Especially since it's inherently unfair to have 14 teams with a 57 percent chance of making the playoffs and 16 with only a 50 percent chance.
I understand there are 16 teams in the Eastern Time Zone. That doesn't mean you have to put them all in the Eastern Conference. One has to be in the West for the conferences to be balanced. And, sorry Detroit and Columbus, but you're the furthest west. Being with all of the teams in the Central Time Zone wouldn't be killer on travel. Especially since those are their biggest rivals.
Also, by making the Red Wings happy and moving them to the East, you're screwing over the entire Western Conference. Especially the Chicago Blackhawks. Now you've got five Original Six teams in the East with only Chicago in the West. More significantly, the Red Wings are the Blackhawks' biggest rivals. You're willing to throw away 90 years of history just to make the Red Wings happy? (Not to mention their rivalries with teams like St. Louis that date back to the days of the Norris Division.) And for all the other teams in the Western Conference, they're losing the biggest draw that they bring into their arenas. I'm sure that most of the Eastern Conference teams aren't happy about having one of the best teams in the league switch conferences, either.
Detroit's biggest concern was that they constantly had to go back-and-forth to the West Coast. The new schedule will help that anyway, though. And going from the extreme Western portion of the Eastern Time Zone to the Central Time Zone isn't exactly back-breaking. 8:00 games aren't 10:00 games. Besides, if you're going to play a home-and-home against everybody, you've still got to go to California four times, Western Canada three times, Phoenix and Colorado. That's nine games.
I also have a slight problem with the Easternmost teams in the league (Boston and Montreal) being in the "Central" division, along with a bunch of other teams (Florida, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Torono and Ottawa) that aren't exactly in the Central. In fact, of those eight teams, the only one that's actually "Central" is Detroit, although you could make some slight argument for Buffalo and Toronto. I'd like to propose a different name for the Central Division. Although, I'm not sure what, since "Northeast" wouldn't work because of the two Florida teams.
I'll give the NHL some credit. This is definitely better. But there's still some work to do. It'll require some minor tweaking, but I think this is probably pretty close to what we're going to see next season. Regardless, there's going to be some sort of NHL realignment. And it's coming sooner rather than later. While I'd prefer something a little smaller than these widespread changes, it doesn't look like that's going to happen. And, on the surface, it seems like they did a good job of catering to what everyone wanted. Except for maybe the fans. But this is the NHL we're talking about. What do the fans matter?
The biggest changes with the new plan is that somebody explained to the NHL that you can't have four conferences, so those "conferences" are now called "divisions" (what they actually are). They also juggled some of the teams around, moving both Columbus and Detroit to the Eastern Conference and switching Colorado from the Pacific Divison to the Midwest Division.
The schedule and playoff format are also slightly better in this proposed alignment. The December 2011 version of the schedule called for two games against everybody, but also a ridiculous number of intradivision games. Then intradivision playoffs. In other words, you would've been playing the same teams over and over again. Now they're proposing two interconference, three with the other division in your own conference and four or five in your division. It's much more balanced, which is significantly better.
And instead of going back to the pre-1994 division playoffs, the new playoff format has the top three teams in each division qualifying automatically, with the last two spots going to wild cards from either division. Theoretically, it could be five teams from one division and three from the other making the playoffs. That's OK. Because under the old proposal, you could've had a team with the fifth-best record in hockey not making the playoffs simply because it finished fifth in its division. (And not to mention the fact that teams like the Islanders would've had little to no chance of ever getting in, since some combination of the Penguins, Devils, Flyers, Rangers and Capitals are all good every year.)
They had to get Winnipeg out of the East. Everyone knows that. But there are still problems with the new divisions that I think need to be addressed before I can get completely on board with NHL realignment. The first is that the NHL brass is clearly not full of math majors. First, they wanted to have four conferences instead of two, which made no sense. Now, they want to have one conference with 16 teams and another with 14. Sure, Baseball made it work for 15 years, but even they've gone to the 15-15 split. That's what it should be. Especially since it's inherently unfair to have 14 teams with a 57 percent chance of making the playoffs and 16 with only a 50 percent chance.
I understand there are 16 teams in the Eastern Time Zone. That doesn't mean you have to put them all in the Eastern Conference. One has to be in the West for the conferences to be balanced. And, sorry Detroit and Columbus, but you're the furthest west. Being with all of the teams in the Central Time Zone wouldn't be killer on travel. Especially since those are their biggest rivals.
Also, by making the Red Wings happy and moving them to the East, you're screwing over the entire Western Conference. Especially the Chicago Blackhawks. Now you've got five Original Six teams in the East with only Chicago in the West. More significantly, the Red Wings are the Blackhawks' biggest rivals. You're willing to throw away 90 years of history just to make the Red Wings happy? (Not to mention their rivalries with teams like St. Louis that date back to the days of the Norris Division.) And for all the other teams in the Western Conference, they're losing the biggest draw that they bring into their arenas. I'm sure that most of the Eastern Conference teams aren't happy about having one of the best teams in the league switch conferences, either.
Detroit's biggest concern was that they constantly had to go back-and-forth to the West Coast. The new schedule will help that anyway, though. And going from the extreme Western portion of the Eastern Time Zone to the Central Time Zone isn't exactly back-breaking. 8:00 games aren't 10:00 games. Besides, if you're going to play a home-and-home against everybody, you've still got to go to California four times, Western Canada three times, Phoenix and Colorado. That's nine games.
I also have a slight problem with the Easternmost teams in the league (Boston and Montreal) being in the "Central" division, along with a bunch of other teams (Florida, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Torono and Ottawa) that aren't exactly in the Central. In fact, of those eight teams, the only one that's actually "Central" is Detroit, although you could make some slight argument for Buffalo and Toronto. I'd like to propose a different name for the Central Division. Although, I'm not sure what, since "Northeast" wouldn't work because of the two Florida teams.
I'll give the NHL some credit. This is definitely better. But there's still some work to do. It'll require some minor tweaking, but I think this is probably pretty close to what we're going to see next season. Regardless, there's going to be some sort of NHL realignment. And it's coming sooner rather than later. While I'd prefer something a little smaller than these widespread changes, it doesn't look like that's going to happen. And, on the surface, it seems like they did a good job of catering to what everyone wanted. Except for maybe the fans. But this is the NHL we're talking about. What do the fans matter?
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Same Title, Different Plot
The Academy Awards are on Sunday night. Even though I don't go to the movies that often, I love the Oscars. I'm not even really sure why. Anyway, I decided that today's blog is going to be a salute to the Oscars, except with a little twist. So many of the Oscar-nominated movies this year have titles that could easily be used as the title of some sort of sports-related documentary. So, here's what I think the plots of those movies might be...
- Amour-Finding love is even more difficult in the incredibly competitive world of professional sports. Yet these couples did it. These are the stories of the sports couples that made it. From Misty May-Treanor and Matt Treanor to Caroline Wozniacki and Rory McIlroy to Danica Patrick and Ricky Stenhouse, Jr., among others.
- Argo-The incredible true story of the 2012 Toronto Argonauts, who overcame tremendous adversity in winning their final five games to go from missing the playoffs entirely to Grey Cup Champions. A Grey Cup, which was the 100th in history, and just happened to be played on their home field. Your main character: Ricky Ray, the quaterback brought in to revive the franchise who got the job done in the first season.
- Beasts of the Southern Wild-Big game hunting is a truly remarkable, and extremely dangerous, pastime. Travel to Africa with a group of courageous adventurers as they go on safari, searching for these beautiful animals in their natural environments. (I know that's not exactly sports-related, but with all those hunting shows on NBC Sports Network, I figured it would be right up their alley.)
- Django Unchained-Alright, so it doesn't work for every movie. As much as I tried, I couldn't think of anything for this one. If you want to give it a try, be my guest. 'Cause I've got nothing.
- Les Miserables-In English, this translates to "The Miserable." This is the story of Cleveland Browns fans, who could only sit there and watch as the Baltimore Ravens, the team that used to be the Browns, won their second Super Bowl in franchise history, while the replacement Browns endured yet another losing season and another coaching change.
- Life of PI-See what life after baseball is like for former Texas Rangers slugger Pete Incaviglia, as he attempts to build a career as a real estate agent while also adjusting to life as a retired Major Leaguer. This show has TLC or one of those other networks like that written all over it.
- Lincoln-Saturdays in Lincoln, Nebraska forever changed in the Fall of 2011. Join the Huskers faithful as the team they love makes the transition from the Big 12 to the Big Ten. Be there as Nebraska forms new rivalries with the likes of Michigan, Ohio State and Purdue, while saying goodbye to old foes Oklahoma and Colorado.
- Silver Linings Playbook-A group of Philadelphia Eagles fans try to justify what happened to their team over the past two seasons, falling flat on their faces under the burden on high expectations. An example of a silver lining found in the playbook: "At least we finally managed to get rid of Andy Reid." (I haven't seen the actual movie, but I think the actual plot may be something similar.)
- Zero Dark Thirty-What really happened during those 30 minutes when the lights went out at the Super Bowl? Was it Beyonce's fault? Or was it something else? Dig inside the Super Bowl blackout in this suspense thriller from director Kathryn Bigelow.
- The Master-Just when everyone thought he'd never win another Grand Slam tournament, be there as Roger Federer proves all his doubters wrong. Join "The Master" as he plows through the field and steamrolls the hometown favorite in the final to win the 2012 Wimbledon title.
- The Impossible-If sports have proven anything, it's that nothing is impossible. This documentary looks at some of those unlikely performances that were once considered impossible. From improbable comebacks to upset wins to unbelievable individual efforts. Some of these stories you'll have to see to believe.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Gentlemen (And Danica) Start Your Engines
I've always found it fascinating that NASCAR's biggest race--the Daytona 500--is the first event of the year. But the cool thing about that is all the hype about the new season and all the hype about Daytona get wrapped into one. And this year there are plenty of storylines headed into the Great American Race. So, with Daytona coming up this weekend, I think it's time to take a look at what's ahead for NASCAR 2013. (Not counting a lot of car changes, which will be really confusing for at least the first couple of weeks, if not the entire season.)
The biggest news coming out of Daytona involves everybody's favorite race chick, Danica Patrick. After her much-hyped move from IndyCar, Danica makes her debut as a full-time Sprint Cup driver this season. And she made an immediate splash at Daytona, qualifying on the pole. In so doing, she's already made NASCAR history in the same way she made IndyCar history. While I don't think she's going to win on Sunday, qualifying on the pole has definitely stamped Danica as a contender. At the very least, she has to be in the conversation. She was successful in IndyCar and needs to have at least a similar level of success in NASCAR to avoid becoming another Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Rookie of the Year honors will likely come down to Danica and her boyfriend, Ricky Stenhouse, Jr.
Jeff Gordon's looking for a bounce-back year, and got off to a good start by claiming the other position on the front row at Daytona. With his experience, Gordon can never be counted out. Especially from the front of the pack. One of the things that makes Daytona so great is that there's always that accident that takes out a good portion of the field. When the "Big One" hits, you want it to happen behind you. If you start in the front of the field, the chances of avoiding the "Big One" become a lot better. With that in mind, I like Gordon's chances at Daytona. I'm not sure he'll win, but a Top 5 finish seems likely.
The second row is Kevin Harvick and Kyle Busch. That's where I think your winner comes from. Harvick has looked great since arriving at Daytona, and he won the race in 2007. He's also undefeated this year, earning his starting position with a win in the qualifying race. I'm expecting a big year out of Kevin Harvick. Same thing with Kyle Busch, who I think is the most talented driver on the series. His reputation as a hothead precedes him, but it doesn't change the fact Kyle Busch is damn good. Will this finally be the year he harnesses everything into a Sprint Cup championship?
Then there's Jimmie Johnson with his annoying consistency. He's always in the mix for the championship at the end of the season, which doesn't necessarily mean that much at Daytona, but he's a veteran, and he's won the race before. I wouldn't be surprised to see Johnson in the front at the end. Nor would I be surprised to see defending Sprint Cup champ Brad Keselowski. I also like Greg Biffle and Kasey Kahne's chances starting out of the third row.
Matt Kenseth is trying the impossible. He's looking to become the first back-to-back Daytona winner since Sterling Marlin in 1994-95. Last year's race was weird to say the least. The rainout on Sunday. The move to Monday night. The delay after Juan Pablo Montoya drove right into the jet dryer (which is still one of the coolest things I've ever seen). I give Kenseth a ton of credit for overcoming all of that. But I highly doubt he's going to win again.
Believe it or not, Tony Stewart has never won the Daytona 500. With nothing else to accomplish in NASCAR, it wouldn't surprise me if he goes all-out to capture the one remaining thing that he lacks on his resume. But let's not forget, Michael Waltrip has won this race twice. So have Jamie McMurray and Trevor Bayne (who did it in his first try). Daytona has a way of picking her champions in the same way Indy does. Just like another Tony (Kanaan) at Indy, it might not be meant to be for Tony Stewart and Daytona. For the longest time, people were saying that about the great Dale Earnhardt. That's what made it so great when the Intimidator finally got his first (and only) Daytona 500 victory in 1998.
Daytona, obviously, also marks the start of the Race to the Chase for the Sprint Cup. There are some drivers who, even now, have to be considered locks to be among the 12 in the Chase field. All they're worried about is getting a few wins under their belts to be in the best position to the start of the Chase in mid-September. As for the rest, this is the beginning of a 26-race dogfight to claim the remaining spots.
Here's who I think will end up capturing the 12 places in the Chase:
The biggest news coming out of Daytona involves everybody's favorite race chick, Danica Patrick. After her much-hyped move from IndyCar, Danica makes her debut as a full-time Sprint Cup driver this season. And she made an immediate splash at Daytona, qualifying on the pole. In so doing, she's already made NASCAR history in the same way she made IndyCar history. While I don't think she's going to win on Sunday, qualifying on the pole has definitely stamped Danica as a contender. At the very least, she has to be in the conversation. She was successful in IndyCar and needs to have at least a similar level of success in NASCAR to avoid becoming another Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Rookie of the Year honors will likely come down to Danica and her boyfriend, Ricky Stenhouse, Jr.
Jeff Gordon's looking for a bounce-back year, and got off to a good start by claiming the other position on the front row at Daytona. With his experience, Gordon can never be counted out. Especially from the front of the pack. One of the things that makes Daytona so great is that there's always that accident that takes out a good portion of the field. When the "Big One" hits, you want it to happen behind you. If you start in the front of the field, the chances of avoiding the "Big One" become a lot better. With that in mind, I like Gordon's chances at Daytona. I'm not sure he'll win, but a Top 5 finish seems likely.
The second row is Kevin Harvick and Kyle Busch. That's where I think your winner comes from. Harvick has looked great since arriving at Daytona, and he won the race in 2007. He's also undefeated this year, earning his starting position with a win in the qualifying race. I'm expecting a big year out of Kevin Harvick. Same thing with Kyle Busch, who I think is the most talented driver on the series. His reputation as a hothead precedes him, but it doesn't change the fact Kyle Busch is damn good. Will this finally be the year he harnesses everything into a Sprint Cup championship?
Then there's Jimmie Johnson with his annoying consistency. He's always in the mix for the championship at the end of the season, which doesn't necessarily mean that much at Daytona, but he's a veteran, and he's won the race before. I wouldn't be surprised to see Johnson in the front at the end. Nor would I be surprised to see defending Sprint Cup champ Brad Keselowski. I also like Greg Biffle and Kasey Kahne's chances starting out of the third row.
Matt Kenseth is trying the impossible. He's looking to become the first back-to-back Daytona winner since Sterling Marlin in 1994-95. Last year's race was weird to say the least. The rainout on Sunday. The move to Monday night. The delay after Juan Pablo Montoya drove right into the jet dryer (which is still one of the coolest things I've ever seen). I give Kenseth a ton of credit for overcoming all of that. But I highly doubt he's going to win again.
Believe it or not, Tony Stewart has never won the Daytona 500. With nothing else to accomplish in NASCAR, it wouldn't surprise me if he goes all-out to capture the one remaining thing that he lacks on his resume. But let's not forget, Michael Waltrip has won this race twice. So have Jamie McMurray and Trevor Bayne (who did it in his first try). Daytona has a way of picking her champions in the same way Indy does. Just like another Tony (Kanaan) at Indy, it might not be meant to be for Tony Stewart and Daytona. For the longest time, people were saying that about the great Dale Earnhardt. That's what made it so great when the Intimidator finally got his first (and only) Daytona 500 victory in 1998.
Daytona, obviously, also marks the start of the Race to the Chase for the Sprint Cup. There are some drivers who, even now, have to be considered locks to be among the 12 in the Chase field. All they're worried about is getting a few wins under their belts to be in the best position to the start of the Chase in mid-September. As for the rest, this is the beginning of a 26-race dogfight to claim the remaining spots.
Here's who I think will end up capturing the 12 places in the Chase:
- Jimmie Johnson, Kyle Busch, Tony Stewart, Kevin Harvick, Brad Keselowski, Greg Biffle, Jeff Gordon, Kasey Kahne, Matt Kenseth, Clint Bowyer, Carl Edwards, Denny Hamlin
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Some Ugly New Hats
I first saw on ESPN.com in late December that MLB was going to roll out new batting practice hats for all 30 teams this season, but I decided to reserve judgment on them until I actually saw them on real-life baseball players. Well, the first fews days of Spring Training have confirmed my original suspicions. With a few exceptions, the new hats are, for the most part, extremely ugly.
There are some that I like and some that I'm just indifferent towards, but there are way too many where I'm left wondering "What were they thinking?" (All of the pictures are from ESPN.com)
There are some that I like and some that I'm just indifferent towards, but there are way too many where I'm left wondering "What were they thinking?" (All of the pictures are from ESPN.com)
The What Were They Thinkings
Astros: Houston overhauled its entire uniform set to coincide with its move to the American League this year. As a result, the Astros' orange and blue from the 70s made its return. I think it's the orange hat, but what they came up with doesn't work for me.
Blue Jays: You play in Canada. I get it. So does everybody else. You don't need a giant maple leaf on your hat to remind us all. Especially since the "Maple Leafs" are the hockey team in your city.
Brewers: This might be because I don't really remember the 80s, but I don't like the white front panel. The white panel might work a little better if they were using the old logo (which they are on alternate BP hats). Not on these, though.
Cardinals: I think this is simply because of the lack of an outline around the "STL." But the Cardinals' red hat is one of baseball's classics and they should wear it all the time.
Cubs: Ditto with the Cubs. The red bill isn't the problem. It's the white "C." Cubs hats are blue with a red "C." Period.
Dodgers: Remember a few years ago (I think it was sometime in the mid- to late-90s) when a number of different teams experimented with gray hats on the road before realizing it was a bad idea? It's not a good idea now, either.
Indians: I know a vast majority of people hate Chief Wahoo and think the logo is racist, but I'm not one of them. I hate that generic block "C" they went to instead. The red version of the hat doesn't make it any better.
Marlins: So many problems with the Marlins' new logo/uniforms/hats. The logo is still ridiculously too big, and I already made my point about the white fronts. It looks like a minor league team (although, this is the Marlins, so that's not much of a reach).
Mets: I have no problem with Mr. Met. In fact, I think he's adorable. One of the best mascots in sports. But he doesn't belong on a hat. Unless it's one that you bought for your five-year-old to wear to his first Mets game.
Nationals: This one isn't all bad. They're the only team that can pull off the red, white and blue thing, and I really like it how it harkens back to the old Expos hats. But, again, the white front panel is too ugly to ignore.
Orioles: The good: the return of the cartoon bird. He made his way back to the game hats last year and we all saw what happened. The bad: the orange front. It's just as bad as the white. All one color, guys. All one color.
Rays: There are so many good things about Tampa Bay's uniforms/hats. The powder blue jerseys for example. I give them credit for trying on their BP hats, but the sunburst logo (or whatever that thing is) doesn't work.
Royals: Kansas City's one of those teams that doesn't understand its hats are completely fine the way they are and they don't need to tinker. They tried gray. They tried black (which, admittedly, wasn't horrible). Now they're trying white. They should stick with blue.
Tigers: This monstrosity is simply blasphemous. Tigers hats should not be touched. The road ones with the orange "D" are fine, but this is an absolute travesty. Miguel Cabrera and Justin Verlander should not be subjected to these.
Twins: Joe Mauer's catching helmet is kind of cool. That might've been the inspiration for these hats. But, again, the 80s are over.
Yankees: I'm willing to guarantee this is a surprise to most of you. But there are certain things in this world that are sacred. One is the New York Yankees hat. The previous incarnation of Yankees BP hats had a gray bill. That was acceptable. White, however, is not.
The rest of them are all fine. I like some more than others, but, for the most part, don't have a problem with any of them. But 16 teams (more than half of MLB!) have ugly BP hats. Fortunately, with the World Baseball Classic and March Madness, I won't be watching too many Spring Training games this year. Then, hopefully, MLB will change them again next year.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The Year of Bringing Athletes Down
Even though 2013 is just six weeks old, I've already noticed a disturbing trend. One that needs to stop. Every major sports story this year has been about one athlete or another falling from grace, either by their own actions or someone else.
First we had the Baseball Hall of Fame vote, a damning indictment of the stars of the Steroids Era. Public opinion about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the rest of the suspected users has never been favorable, and most people figured that they wouldn't get in. But a complete shutout? That speaks volumes. Bonds, Clemens and some other might eventually get in, but if this election proved anything, it's that guys like Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire never will. Guilt by association/suspicion is even enough to keep you out. Just ask Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza.
Then there's Lance Armstrong, who finally admitted after all these years that he's been lying to all of us the whole time. I'll admit it. He had me fooled. And that's exactly what I feel like. Armstrong took PEDs for 15 years, including all seven times he won the Tour de France, then tried to take down anybody that dared challenge him through bullying and intimidation. My perception of Lance Armstrong is forever changed. Although, I do give him some credit for finally coming clean. But, like I said after I watched his interview with Oprah, I'm not sure if he even knows what the "truth" is anymore.
Right after Armstrong's admission we got the truth about Manti Te'o. Te'o's story seemed too good to be true. He led Notre Dame to an undefeated regular season and finished second in the Heisman Trophy voting in memory of his girlfriend, who died of leukemia the same day his grandmother died. The story seemed too good to be true. Turns out it was. Te'o's girlfriend isn't dead. She never existed. He got "catfished," the victim of an online hoax. It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for him.
Except the details don't match up. Te'o found out she wasn't real in mid-December, but kept up the rouse for another month, not revealing the truth until after Notre Dame played in the National Championship Game. If you were a victim, why keep up the charade? At the very least, stop using it as a storyline when you know it's not true. As more about this truly bizarre story has come out, more and more people have held firm in their belief that Te'o was completely uninvolved in perpetrating the scam. Regardless, this isn't a feel-good, inspirational story anymore. At best, Manti Te'o is a little too trusting and gullible. At worst, he was behind all this. Either way, people will never look at Manti Te'o the same way again.
Next up was the Super Bowl, which was all about Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis. Lewis had already announced that this was his final season, and Baltimore was aiming to send him out on top. Then the news came out during Super Bowl Week that he received deer antler spray, which is on the NFL's banned substance list. Once again the steroid issue jumped into the limelight, bringing somebody's entire career into question. It didn't help that Ray Lewis was once accused of murder (the day before the Super Bowl in 1999). Even though he was acquitted, that's something a lot of people still don't forget.
But all of that pales in comparison to the two most recent stories. First, we have the mess involving Anthony Bosch's now-closed Biogenesis Lab outside Miami, which evidently provided PEDs to a number of Major League Baseball players, most notably Alex Rodriguez. A-Rod, of course, admitted to PED use during his time with the Rangers, but claims he hasn't used them since. Bosch's records indicate otherwise. For a guy who a vast majority of the public and media already found totally unlikable, that wasn't exactly the best way of improving A-Rod's image. And regardless of whether or not this proves to be true, his legacy is forever tarnished.
A-Rod wasn't the only name implicated in the Biogenesis scandal. And it looks like there's too much there for it to be nothing. Some of them have already been suspended for PED use (Melky Cabrera, Bartolo Colon). Ryan Braun had a steroid suspension overturned last offseason, but he, too showed up in Bosch's records. Since people like Ryan Braun, that's kind of been swept under the rug. Why? All it says to me is that Braun's suspension really shouldn't have been overturned.
It also doesn't help these guys that there seems to be plenty of substance behind all this. Francisco Cervelli, who was named in the report, has come out and admitted he did consult with Bosch while rehabbing from an injury. That gives credence to the entire report. I'm also more inclined to give guys like Cervelli the benefit of the doubt. He had the integrity to be forthcoming about his involvement and that it was a mistake. It's like when Andy Pettitte admitted using HGH after he was named in the Mitchell Report. He explained and apologized. That explanation was plausible, so his apology was accepted and people moved on. I have a feeling it will be the same way with Cervelli.
The capper, though, has to be the Oscar Pistorius murder case. Talk about a rapid fall from grace. While I've never been a fan of Oscar Pistorius (I think he's a publicity whore, among other reasons), I was always in the minority. Millions were inspired by watching him "overcome his disability" to qualify for last summer's Olympics. NBC couldn't shut up about him.
Well, things have certainly changed, haven't they? His family "strongly disputes" the charges (what does that even mean? Do they think she's still alive?), but you'd have to be a fool to look at all the evidence and not think the obvious. The latest report is that they've also found steroids in the house. Does that come as a surprise to anyone either? From a South African national hero and an inspiration to millions to a murder suspect in the span of just a few months. It doesn't matter what the truth is. Oscar Pistorius is never going to be looked at in the same way again.
My only hope is that he's the last sports hero to fall from grace in 2013. We've got more than enough time for this year to turn around. If anything, we at least know it's not possible for this year to get any worse. Is it?
First we had the Baseball Hall of Fame vote, a damning indictment of the stars of the Steroids Era. Public opinion about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the rest of the suspected users has never been favorable, and most people figured that they wouldn't get in. But a complete shutout? That speaks volumes. Bonds, Clemens and some other might eventually get in, but if this election proved anything, it's that guys like Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire never will. Guilt by association/suspicion is even enough to keep you out. Just ask Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza.
Then there's Lance Armstrong, who finally admitted after all these years that he's been lying to all of us the whole time. I'll admit it. He had me fooled. And that's exactly what I feel like. Armstrong took PEDs for 15 years, including all seven times he won the Tour de France, then tried to take down anybody that dared challenge him through bullying and intimidation. My perception of Lance Armstrong is forever changed. Although, I do give him some credit for finally coming clean. But, like I said after I watched his interview with Oprah, I'm not sure if he even knows what the "truth" is anymore.
Right after Armstrong's admission we got the truth about Manti Te'o. Te'o's story seemed too good to be true. He led Notre Dame to an undefeated regular season and finished second in the Heisman Trophy voting in memory of his girlfriend, who died of leukemia the same day his grandmother died. The story seemed too good to be true. Turns out it was. Te'o's girlfriend isn't dead. She never existed. He got "catfished," the victim of an online hoax. It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for him.
Except the details don't match up. Te'o found out she wasn't real in mid-December, but kept up the rouse for another month, not revealing the truth until after Notre Dame played in the National Championship Game. If you were a victim, why keep up the charade? At the very least, stop using it as a storyline when you know it's not true. As more about this truly bizarre story has come out, more and more people have held firm in their belief that Te'o was completely uninvolved in perpetrating the scam. Regardless, this isn't a feel-good, inspirational story anymore. At best, Manti Te'o is a little too trusting and gullible. At worst, he was behind all this. Either way, people will never look at Manti Te'o the same way again.
Next up was the Super Bowl, which was all about Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis. Lewis had already announced that this was his final season, and Baltimore was aiming to send him out on top. Then the news came out during Super Bowl Week that he received deer antler spray, which is on the NFL's banned substance list. Once again the steroid issue jumped into the limelight, bringing somebody's entire career into question. It didn't help that Ray Lewis was once accused of murder (the day before the Super Bowl in 1999). Even though he was acquitted, that's something a lot of people still don't forget.
But all of that pales in comparison to the two most recent stories. First, we have the mess involving Anthony Bosch's now-closed Biogenesis Lab outside Miami, which evidently provided PEDs to a number of Major League Baseball players, most notably Alex Rodriguez. A-Rod, of course, admitted to PED use during his time with the Rangers, but claims he hasn't used them since. Bosch's records indicate otherwise. For a guy who a vast majority of the public and media already found totally unlikable, that wasn't exactly the best way of improving A-Rod's image. And regardless of whether or not this proves to be true, his legacy is forever tarnished.
A-Rod wasn't the only name implicated in the Biogenesis scandal. And it looks like there's too much there for it to be nothing. Some of them have already been suspended for PED use (Melky Cabrera, Bartolo Colon). Ryan Braun had a steroid suspension overturned last offseason, but he, too showed up in Bosch's records. Since people like Ryan Braun, that's kind of been swept under the rug. Why? All it says to me is that Braun's suspension really shouldn't have been overturned.
It also doesn't help these guys that there seems to be plenty of substance behind all this. Francisco Cervelli, who was named in the report, has come out and admitted he did consult with Bosch while rehabbing from an injury. That gives credence to the entire report. I'm also more inclined to give guys like Cervelli the benefit of the doubt. He had the integrity to be forthcoming about his involvement and that it was a mistake. It's like when Andy Pettitte admitted using HGH after he was named in the Mitchell Report. He explained and apologized. That explanation was plausible, so his apology was accepted and people moved on. I have a feeling it will be the same way with Cervelli.
The capper, though, has to be the Oscar Pistorius murder case. Talk about a rapid fall from grace. While I've never been a fan of Oscar Pistorius (I think he's a publicity whore, among other reasons), I was always in the minority. Millions were inspired by watching him "overcome his disability" to qualify for last summer's Olympics. NBC couldn't shut up about him.
Well, things have certainly changed, haven't they? His family "strongly disputes" the charges (what does that even mean? Do they think she's still alive?), but you'd have to be a fool to look at all the evidence and not think the obvious. The latest report is that they've also found steroids in the house. Does that come as a surprise to anyone either? From a South African national hero and an inspiration to millions to a murder suspect in the span of just a few months. It doesn't matter what the truth is. Oscar Pistorius is never going to be looked at in the same way again.
My only hope is that he's the last sports hero to fall from grace in 2013. We've got more than enough time for this year to turn around. If anything, we at least know it's not possible for this year to get any worse. Is it?
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Happy Birthday MJ
When I got my issue of Sports Illustrated this week, I was a little confused why Michael Jordan was on the cover. Then I looked at the cover a little more closely and it all made perfect sense. As you know, I don't normally blog about the NBA. But today I'm willing to make an exception. Like Sports Illustrated, I'm in the mood to celebrate the Greatest. Happy 50th Birthday Michael!
I don't think there's any need to elaborate on why Michael Jordan is the Greatest. Where do you even start? His Airness isn't just the greatest basketball player ever. When ESPN did its SportsCentury series counting down the top 50 athletes of the 20th Century in 1999, Jordan landed at No. 1. No. 2? Babe Ruth. No 3? Muhammad Ali. The AP did a similar list in the same year, and Jordan was No. 2 behind Ruth.
Michael Jordan is so much more than a sports icon. He's one of those rare athletes who transcends sports. He's an American institution. He's synonomous with the Chicago Bulls. And the NBA. And the number 23. How many numbers are there that people immediately associate with one individual? 23 and 99. That's about it. Oh yeah, then there's that six championships in eight years thing.
Jordan's birthday has reopened that whole Jordan vs. LeBron debate that I find completely ridiculous. The LeBron faithful need to shut up and face reality. There's only one Michael Jordan. It's not fair to even try making a comparison. It's like trying to compare a hockey player to Wayne Gretzky. Saying that he isn't Wayne Gretzky doesn't make Sidney Crosby any less great. Nor is it a slap in the face to say that. Likewise, when people say LeBron James isn't Michael Jordan, it's not meant as a sign of disrespect.
If I wanted to, I could easily use the number of championships won as the be-all, end-all point to end a Jordan vs. LeBron debate, but there's no reason to go there. LeBron James is the greatest player of his era, and probably the most talented player to enter the NBA since Jordan. Why can't that be enough? It's not an insult to say he'll never be Michael Jordan. Because there can only be one Michael Jordan.
And another point in Jordan's favor, when he was in Cleveland, LeBron wore No. 23. Even before he signed with Miami, he had announced that he was going to change his number to 6 that season, even if he stayed in Cleveland. Number 23 belongs to Michael Jordan. Even LeBron knows that. If Major League Baseball can retire No. 42 league-wide for Jackie Robinson and the NHL can retire No. 99 for Wayne Gretzky, the NBA should do the same thing with No. 23.
Michael could probably suit up in the NBA today and still drop 20. As much as I hated it that the Bulls always beat the Knicks in the 90s, I never rooted against Chicago in the Finals. It was simply too much of a privilege to watch Michael Jordan play. When you watched him, you knew you were watching greatness. Even during those embarrassing two years in Washington when he was a shell of his former self, you were still watching Michael Jordan.
In celebration of his birthday, here are my favorite Michael Jordan moments. And, of course, there are 23 of them (in no particular order).
I don't think there's any need to elaborate on why Michael Jordan is the Greatest. Where do you even start? His Airness isn't just the greatest basketball player ever. When ESPN did its SportsCentury series counting down the top 50 athletes of the 20th Century in 1999, Jordan landed at No. 1. No. 2? Babe Ruth. No 3? Muhammad Ali. The AP did a similar list in the same year, and Jordan was No. 2 behind Ruth.
Michael Jordan is so much more than a sports icon. He's one of those rare athletes who transcends sports. He's an American institution. He's synonomous with the Chicago Bulls. And the NBA. And the number 23. How many numbers are there that people immediately associate with one individual? 23 and 99. That's about it. Oh yeah, then there's that six championships in eight years thing.
Jordan's birthday has reopened that whole Jordan vs. LeBron debate that I find completely ridiculous. The LeBron faithful need to shut up and face reality. There's only one Michael Jordan. It's not fair to even try making a comparison. It's like trying to compare a hockey player to Wayne Gretzky. Saying that he isn't Wayne Gretzky doesn't make Sidney Crosby any less great. Nor is it a slap in the face to say that. Likewise, when people say LeBron James isn't Michael Jordan, it's not meant as a sign of disrespect.
If I wanted to, I could easily use the number of championships won as the be-all, end-all point to end a Jordan vs. LeBron debate, but there's no reason to go there. LeBron James is the greatest player of his era, and probably the most talented player to enter the NBA since Jordan. Why can't that be enough? It's not an insult to say he'll never be Michael Jordan. Because there can only be one Michael Jordan.
And another point in Jordan's favor, when he was in Cleveland, LeBron wore No. 23. Even before he signed with Miami, he had announced that he was going to change his number to 6 that season, even if he stayed in Cleveland. Number 23 belongs to Michael Jordan. Even LeBron knows that. If Major League Baseball can retire No. 42 league-wide for Jackie Robinson and the NHL can retire No. 99 for Wayne Gretzky, the NBA should do the same thing with No. 23.
Michael could probably suit up in the NBA today and still drop 20. As much as I hated it that the Bulls always beat the Knicks in the 90s, I never rooted against Chicago in the Finals. It was simply too much of a privilege to watch Michael Jordan play. When you watched him, you knew you were watching greatness. Even during those embarrassing two years in Washington when he was a shell of his former self, you were still watching Michael Jordan.
In celebration of his birthday, here are my favorite Michael Jordan moments. And, of course, there are 23 of them (in no particular order).
- The game-winning shot in the 1982 NCAA Championship Game
- The Dunk in the 1988 Slam Dunk Contest
- The 63-point game against the Celtics in the 1986 Playoffs
- The final shot of his Bulls career, the buzzer-beater in Game 6 to clinch the 1998 Finals against the Jazz
- The Dream Team
- The first three-peat
- The second three-peat
- His Hall of Fame speech, where he told off anybody he ever met
- Space Jam
- Dropping 55 on the Knicks in his third game back after his short-lived first retirement/baseball career
- 72-10
- Clinching the 1996 title on Father's Day
- The jumper over Craig Ehlo in the 1991 Playoffs
- The switching-hands layup against the Lakers in his first Finals
- Posterizing John Starks
- His first Olympic gold in 1984
- The Blazers picking Sam Bowie, forever changing the fortunes of two franchises
- The game of horse vs. Larry Bird in the McDonald's commercials
- The tongue and the finger wag
- The triple-double in the 1997 All-Star Game
- His two-year baseball career
- Nike's Air Jordan shoes
- His return to, and final game in, Chicago as a member of the Wizards
Thursday, February 14, 2013
NCAA Title Contenders
A lot of stuff happened in the sports world today. So much to blog about. But I'm in a college basketball frame of mind, and we're in the midst of Rivalry Week, so I'm going with that. More specifically, we're only about a month away from the start of the NCAA Tournament. I think that this year's Tournament is shaping up to be a very good one. That's because it's going to be so wide open it's ridiculous. There isn't one dominant team. Rather, there are about 10 teams that I can see winning the title...and I can also see those same 10 losing to an 11-seed in the second round.
Let's start with the two Big Ten teams, who seem to be the most complete squads out there. I'd give both Indiana and Michigan 1-seeds if I were to make a bracket today, and I think Indiana is the best team in the nation. But we've seen the Hoosiers lose immediately after becoming No. 1 twice. Michigan is incredibly talented. I think the likelihood of them getting upset in the Tournament is less than some of the other top teams. In fact, if I had to make a National Championship pick right now, it'd probably be the Wolverines. I'm not sure I see any non-Big Ten teams beating them. But with that being said, it's looking like there will be at least seven Big Ten teams in the Tournament, all of whom are looking at pretty high seeds. Regardless, Indiana and Michigan are the two best teams in the best conference. If one of them wins the Big Ten Tournament, they'll be the No. 1 overall seed.
Another dangerous Big Ten team is Michigan State. Michigan State is in the Final Four every year. It doesn't matter the seed. It doesn't matter the region. Despite being the third-best team in the Big Ten, it certainly looks like that might be the case again this season. The Spartans are a Top 10 team, and rightfully so. They've got all the weapons necessary to make their deep Tournament run. Most importantly, they know how to play in March.
The other conference looking at two potential 1-seeds right now is the ACC. I like Duke. Maybe a little more than I should. Whenever everybody counts them out seems to be the time Duke makes a run. And keep in mind, they lost to Lehigh in the first round last season. You know Coach K won't let that happen again. But that doesn't mean they don't lose to a 10-seed in the second round. As likely as that might seem, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Elite Eight run by Duke. And I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't see Miami going that far. What they've done in a very good conference so far can't be ignored. Miami's looking at no lower than a 2-seed right now. But I have them pegged as the top team most likely to get upset early. They remind me too much of last year's Florida State team.
Then there's Florida, who everybody seems to forget about. The Gators went to the Elite Eight last season and are even better this year. I don't know if it's because the SEC's down this year or what, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's Florida, not Kentucky, representing the conference in the Final Four. Speaking of Kentucky, I don't see it happening. They're still good enough to reach the Sweet 16, but they don't have the killer instinct of last year's team. Especially now that Nerleans Noel is out.
I seem to be the only person that's high on Arizona. There aren't that many good teams out West, and Arizona's probably the best one. As a result, I see them getting a pretty high seed and, likely, a favorable route to the Final Four. They're like Michigan. They keep losing to conference games, but there aren't many teams outside their conference who can give them trouble. I know a lot of people would probably be surprised if Arizona makes a deep run in the Tournament. I wouldn't be one of them.
What's up with Kansas? I still think that's one of the four or five best teams in the nation. But they just can't figure things out (or get out of their own way). As a result, the Jayhawks' seed is plummeting into the 4-5 range, and a first round upset doesn't seem that far-fetched. But if Kansas gets things straightened out and starts playing the way its capable, look out. And remember, they made it all the way to the Championship Game last year. They might not be the best team in the State of Kansas, though. Kansas State's not going to win the title. But that doesn't mean the Wildcats aren't capable of making noise in the Tournament. Quite the opposite, actually. I think Kansas State is going to be that team nobody wants to see in their bracket.
I didn't forget about the Big East. Or Louisville. This team was the preseason No. 2, and is one of the most talented squads in the nation. The Cardinals have taken some lumps this season, but I think they're the one team that seems most capable of simply getting hot and staying that way. I can see them doing something similar to UConn in 2011. However, an off night makes Louisville vulnerable. Syracuse is barely worth talking about. They're good, but they're not going to make any noise in the Tournament. Second round, maybe Sweet 16. They don't fit the mold of a potential early upset victim, but I don't think there's anyone in the country who views Syracuse as a legitimate Final Four contender either.
As for your traditional March mid-major darlings Gonzaga and Butler, it's going to be the same old script. The Zags will be hurt by their strength of schedule, get seeded lower than most people think they should be, and lose in either the Sweet 16 or Elite Eight. Butler's chances of going far seem slightly better, and not just because of the back-to-back Championship Game appearances. It's because they're now in the Atlantic 10, which means they're playing a much better schedule. While I don't think Butler is as good, or even as capable of making that run, I wouldn't be surprised to see them win a couple of Tournament games.
And this doesn't even count all those mid-level teams in the major conferences or the other really good mid-major teams. Truth is, everything's so wide open this year that it wouldn't surprise me if somebody like a Creighton or a Georgetown gets hot and rides it all the way to the Promised Land. (Remember, we did see Kemba Walker basically single-handedly win both the Big East and NCAA Tournaments two years ago.) That's one of the best, and worst, things about watching college basketball this season. There are so many good teams, anyone can win.
Last year, Kentucky was clearly the best team and proved it. This year? Who knows! Your argument for why Louisville is going to win the title makes just as much sense as mine about Michigan or his about Duke. The NCAA Tournament is always fun. When you have a year like this, where there's no dominant team, that's especially true.
Let's start with the two Big Ten teams, who seem to be the most complete squads out there. I'd give both Indiana and Michigan 1-seeds if I were to make a bracket today, and I think Indiana is the best team in the nation. But we've seen the Hoosiers lose immediately after becoming No. 1 twice. Michigan is incredibly talented. I think the likelihood of them getting upset in the Tournament is less than some of the other top teams. In fact, if I had to make a National Championship pick right now, it'd probably be the Wolverines. I'm not sure I see any non-Big Ten teams beating them. But with that being said, it's looking like there will be at least seven Big Ten teams in the Tournament, all of whom are looking at pretty high seeds. Regardless, Indiana and Michigan are the two best teams in the best conference. If one of them wins the Big Ten Tournament, they'll be the No. 1 overall seed.
Another dangerous Big Ten team is Michigan State. Michigan State is in the Final Four every year. It doesn't matter the seed. It doesn't matter the region. Despite being the third-best team in the Big Ten, it certainly looks like that might be the case again this season. The Spartans are a Top 10 team, and rightfully so. They've got all the weapons necessary to make their deep Tournament run. Most importantly, they know how to play in March.
The other conference looking at two potential 1-seeds right now is the ACC. I like Duke. Maybe a little more than I should. Whenever everybody counts them out seems to be the time Duke makes a run. And keep in mind, they lost to Lehigh in the first round last season. You know Coach K won't let that happen again. But that doesn't mean they don't lose to a 10-seed in the second round. As likely as that might seem, I wouldn't be surprised to see an Elite Eight run by Duke. And I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't see Miami going that far. What they've done in a very good conference so far can't be ignored. Miami's looking at no lower than a 2-seed right now. But I have them pegged as the top team most likely to get upset early. They remind me too much of last year's Florida State team.
Then there's Florida, who everybody seems to forget about. The Gators went to the Elite Eight last season and are even better this year. I don't know if it's because the SEC's down this year or what, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's Florida, not Kentucky, representing the conference in the Final Four. Speaking of Kentucky, I don't see it happening. They're still good enough to reach the Sweet 16, but they don't have the killer instinct of last year's team. Especially now that Nerleans Noel is out.
I seem to be the only person that's high on Arizona. There aren't that many good teams out West, and Arizona's probably the best one. As a result, I see them getting a pretty high seed and, likely, a favorable route to the Final Four. They're like Michigan. They keep losing to conference games, but there aren't many teams outside their conference who can give them trouble. I know a lot of people would probably be surprised if Arizona makes a deep run in the Tournament. I wouldn't be one of them.
What's up with Kansas? I still think that's one of the four or five best teams in the nation. But they just can't figure things out (or get out of their own way). As a result, the Jayhawks' seed is plummeting into the 4-5 range, and a first round upset doesn't seem that far-fetched. But if Kansas gets things straightened out and starts playing the way its capable, look out. And remember, they made it all the way to the Championship Game last year. They might not be the best team in the State of Kansas, though. Kansas State's not going to win the title. But that doesn't mean the Wildcats aren't capable of making noise in the Tournament. Quite the opposite, actually. I think Kansas State is going to be that team nobody wants to see in their bracket.
I didn't forget about the Big East. Or Louisville. This team was the preseason No. 2, and is one of the most talented squads in the nation. The Cardinals have taken some lumps this season, but I think they're the one team that seems most capable of simply getting hot and staying that way. I can see them doing something similar to UConn in 2011. However, an off night makes Louisville vulnerable. Syracuse is barely worth talking about. They're good, but they're not going to make any noise in the Tournament. Second round, maybe Sweet 16. They don't fit the mold of a potential early upset victim, but I don't think there's anyone in the country who views Syracuse as a legitimate Final Four contender either.
As for your traditional March mid-major darlings Gonzaga and Butler, it's going to be the same old script. The Zags will be hurt by their strength of schedule, get seeded lower than most people think they should be, and lose in either the Sweet 16 or Elite Eight. Butler's chances of going far seem slightly better, and not just because of the back-to-back Championship Game appearances. It's because they're now in the Atlantic 10, which means they're playing a much better schedule. While I don't think Butler is as good, or even as capable of making that run, I wouldn't be surprised to see them win a couple of Tournament games.
And this doesn't even count all those mid-level teams in the major conferences or the other really good mid-major teams. Truth is, everything's so wide open this year that it wouldn't surprise me if somebody like a Creighton or a Georgetown gets hot and rides it all the way to the Promised Land. (Remember, we did see Kemba Walker basically single-handedly win both the Big East and NCAA Tournaments two years ago.) That's one of the best, and worst, things about watching college basketball this season. There are so many good teams, anyone can win.
Last year, Kentucky was clearly the best team and proved it. This year? Who knows! Your argument for why Louisville is going to win the title makes just as much sense as mine about Michigan or his about Duke. The NCAA Tournament is always fun. When you have a year like this, where there's no dominant team, that's especially true.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
A Stupid Decision That Makes No Sense
Wrestling? The IOC looked at all 26 sports on the Olympic program, decided on one to eliminate, and picked wrestling? While keeping modern pentathlon and taekwondo? To say I'm shocked and disappointed would be an understatement. I was so confident in wrestling's place on the Olympic program that I figured it wouldn't even enter into the discussion. The decision to drop it is simply mind-boggling. And it makes you wonder what the IOC's real motivation was.
For starters, let's put this in a historical context. Wrestling has been in the Olympics since the beginning. In fact, Carl Schumann, who won the gold medal in wrestling at the 1896 Games, also won three gold medals in gymnastics and competed in the shot put, long jump and triple jump that year. But wrestling goes back even further than that. It was one of the four sports contested in the Ancient Olympics. That means wrestling has been an Olympic sport longer than any other (with the exception of track & field and boxing). You want historical significance? How's that for ya? What other sport can trace its Olympic history back to 708 BC?
Now let's look at the universality element. The IOC likes sports that have wide participation around the world. Wrestling certainly meets this criterion. The sport is generally dominated by athletes from Russia, the United States and Iran (and the Japanese women). But in London, medals were also won by competitors from Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, North Korea, South Korea, Egypt, Canada, Hungary, India, Sweden, Armenia, Estonia, Lithuania, France, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Poland, Puerto Rico, Turkey, China, Mongolia, Colombia, Bulgaria and Spain. A total of 71 countries sent wrestlers to London, including such obscure nations as American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, Namibia, Madagascar, Central African Republic and Vietnam.
Women's wrestling was only added to the Olympics in 2004. To much fanfare. Including the freestyle and Greco-Roman disciplines, there were 18 wrestling events in 2012. With roughly 16 competitors in each event, that's approximately 300 athletes. Whatever sport is added to replace wrestling won't come anywhere near those numbers for participation. And it's highly unlikely there'll be representatives from more nations.
Sagging TV ratings were one of the primary reasons cited for wrestling's Olympic demise. Wrestling's never going to be as popular as sports such as beach volleyball. (Think about it, which would you rather watch: hot women in bikinis or large, hairy Russian men wrapped in a giant bear hug for five minutes?) But, in the United States at least, wrestling is still featured heavily on Olympic telecasts, so the TV ratings couldn't have been that terrible. They also looked at things like ticket sales and anti-doping policy. While I don't know how wrestling fared in those two areas (although, no wrestlers had medals stripped because of positive tests in London), you can't tell me the scores were so poor that it was enough to override all of the overwhelming positives.
More importantly, let's compare wrestling to modern pentathlon, which was the sport pretty much everyone just assumed would be the one to go, in those areas. Modern pentathlon only has two events, so it's impossible for more than six nations to medal. Worldwide participation? The number of competitors in both the men's and women's event in London was 36. That's 72 athletes. Or, one more than the number of nations that entered wrestlers in the 2012 Olympics. TV ratings and ticket sales? Name one country where modern pentathlon is actually popular. And let's not forget that, until the proposed and still somewhat confusing one-venue proposal for Rio, modern pentathlon is held in three or four different venues, making it virtually impossible to follow the entire competiton.
The only thing that modern pentathlon had going for it was historical significance. The sport was created by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the Modern Olympics, which might've been its saving grace. Another thing in modern pentathlon's favor? The vice president of the International Modern Pentathlon Union is Juan Antonio Samaranch, Jr., the son of the longtime IOC president. His influence is significant and wide-reaching. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were also some back-room deals made to save modern pentathlon's place at the Olympic table.
If there's anything more surprising than the decision to drop wrestling, it's that the third sport in the final round of elimination talks was field hockey. From the various articles I've read today, it seems like field hockey's biggest problem is that too many IOC members view it as a sport whose reach is limited mainly to the British Commonwealth (even though the gold medalists in London were the German men and Dutch women, and Argentina's women's team is one of the best in the world). That's the same thing that doomed baseball and softball in 2005, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's the reason field hockey ended up on the bubble.
As puzzling and disappointing the elimination of wrestling from the list of "core" Olympic sports is, the good news is this isn't the end. Wrestling still has a chance to be reinstated. It's now on a list that includes squash, karate, roller sports, wakeboarding, sport climbing, something known as wushu and baseball/softball, one of which will be added to the 2020 program for a full slate of 28 sports. (For the record, I think six of these nine sports should be in the Olympics.)
Hopefully the worldwide reaction of shock, disbelief and disgust will be enough to bring the IOC to its senses. Wrestling didn't deserve to get booted from the Olympic Games. And if it will indeed be gone after 2016, more than just the sport will suffer. The entire Olympic Movement will suffer. And at what cost?
This is a misguided decision that makes little to no sense. They eliminated the wrong sport. The worst part is they probably know it. Fortunately, the IOC still has a chance to rectify it. As long as they aren't stupid enough to get in their own way again. But, knowing the IOC, it's more likely that wrestling won't be contested at the 2020 Games. And that's just an outright shame.
For starters, let's put this in a historical context. Wrestling has been in the Olympics since the beginning. In fact, Carl Schumann, who won the gold medal in wrestling at the 1896 Games, also won three gold medals in gymnastics and competed in the shot put, long jump and triple jump that year. But wrestling goes back even further than that. It was one of the four sports contested in the Ancient Olympics. That means wrestling has been an Olympic sport longer than any other (with the exception of track & field and boxing). You want historical significance? How's that for ya? What other sport can trace its Olympic history back to 708 BC?
Now let's look at the universality element. The IOC likes sports that have wide participation around the world. Wrestling certainly meets this criterion. The sport is generally dominated by athletes from Russia, the United States and Iran (and the Japanese women). But in London, medals were also won by competitors from Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, North Korea, South Korea, Egypt, Canada, Hungary, India, Sweden, Armenia, Estonia, Lithuania, France, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Poland, Puerto Rico, Turkey, China, Mongolia, Colombia, Bulgaria and Spain. A total of 71 countries sent wrestlers to London, including such obscure nations as American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, Namibia, Madagascar, Central African Republic and Vietnam.
Women's wrestling was only added to the Olympics in 2004. To much fanfare. Including the freestyle and Greco-Roman disciplines, there were 18 wrestling events in 2012. With roughly 16 competitors in each event, that's approximately 300 athletes. Whatever sport is added to replace wrestling won't come anywhere near those numbers for participation. And it's highly unlikely there'll be representatives from more nations.
Sagging TV ratings were one of the primary reasons cited for wrestling's Olympic demise. Wrestling's never going to be as popular as sports such as beach volleyball. (Think about it, which would you rather watch: hot women in bikinis or large, hairy Russian men wrapped in a giant bear hug for five minutes?) But, in the United States at least, wrestling is still featured heavily on Olympic telecasts, so the TV ratings couldn't have been that terrible. They also looked at things like ticket sales and anti-doping policy. While I don't know how wrestling fared in those two areas (although, no wrestlers had medals stripped because of positive tests in London), you can't tell me the scores were so poor that it was enough to override all of the overwhelming positives.
More importantly, let's compare wrestling to modern pentathlon, which was the sport pretty much everyone just assumed would be the one to go, in those areas. Modern pentathlon only has two events, so it's impossible for more than six nations to medal. Worldwide participation? The number of competitors in both the men's and women's event in London was 36. That's 72 athletes. Or, one more than the number of nations that entered wrestlers in the 2012 Olympics. TV ratings and ticket sales? Name one country where modern pentathlon is actually popular. And let's not forget that, until the proposed and still somewhat confusing one-venue proposal for Rio, modern pentathlon is held in three or four different venues, making it virtually impossible to follow the entire competiton.
The only thing that modern pentathlon had going for it was historical significance. The sport was created by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the Modern Olympics, which might've been its saving grace. Another thing in modern pentathlon's favor? The vice president of the International Modern Pentathlon Union is Juan Antonio Samaranch, Jr., the son of the longtime IOC president. His influence is significant and wide-reaching. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were also some back-room deals made to save modern pentathlon's place at the Olympic table.
If there's anything more surprising than the decision to drop wrestling, it's that the third sport in the final round of elimination talks was field hockey. From the various articles I've read today, it seems like field hockey's biggest problem is that too many IOC members view it as a sport whose reach is limited mainly to the British Commonwealth (even though the gold medalists in London were the German men and Dutch women, and Argentina's women's team is one of the best in the world). That's the same thing that doomed baseball and softball in 2005, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's the reason field hockey ended up on the bubble.
As puzzling and disappointing the elimination of wrestling from the list of "core" Olympic sports is, the good news is this isn't the end. Wrestling still has a chance to be reinstated. It's now on a list that includes squash, karate, roller sports, wakeboarding, sport climbing, something known as wushu and baseball/softball, one of which will be added to the 2020 program for a full slate of 28 sports. (For the record, I think six of these nine sports should be in the Olympics.)
Hopefully the worldwide reaction of shock, disbelief and disgust will be enough to bring the IOC to its senses. Wrestling didn't deserve to get booted from the Olympic Games. And if it will indeed be gone after 2016, more than just the sport will suffer. The entire Olympic Movement will suffer. And at what cost?
This is a misguided decision that makes little to no sense. They eliminated the wrong sport. The worst part is they probably know it. Fortunately, the IOC still has a chance to rectify it. As long as they aren't stupid enough to get in their own way again. But, knowing the IOC, it's more likely that wrestling won't be contested at the 2020 Games. And that's just an outright shame.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Sports On the Chopping Block
When the IOC meets next week, one of the items on the agenda will be which sport to cut from the Summer Olympic program after the Rio Games. They want to add a new sport for 2020, but there's a max of 28, so the only way to do that without going over the maximum is to get rid of another one. This is, of course, assuming golf and rugby are in the Olympics to stay (which they should be).
I absolutely hate this arbitrary maximum the IOC has imposed. Part of the rationale for it is to control costs and curb the ever-growing size of the Summer Games. I get that, but I also don't think it's right that for a sport to be added to the Olympics, it has to be at the expense of another. There's a way to do both. Reduce the number of events or cap the number of athletes that can enter one sport. Then you can add something else without having to drop another.
Different sports have grown in popularity, thus their inclusion in the Olympics. Take beach volleyball. It wasn't an Olympic sport until 1996, yet has quickly become one of the most popular. That's why golf's inclusion seemed like a no-brainer. And there are going to be more sports that become desirable to the Olympic Movement as they continue to draw TV viewers/younger fans that the IOC covets. But the ultimate slap-in-the-face of telling a sports federation that it's no longer worthy of Olympic inclusion isn't right. Nor is it fair to the athletes in that sport, whose lifelong dream to be an Olympian will never be realized. And for the sport itself, the instant credibility and funding that comes with being associated with the National Olympic Committees will be gone, dropping it immediately to second-tier status.
Alas, I don't have a say in the matter. They're going to drop a sport from the "core list." That sport will then immediately be put on the list of sports vying for a place in the 2020 Games, but there's absolutely no chace it'll be reinstated immediately after getting cut from the program. With that in mind, some Olympic sports have much more reason to worry than others.
The sports that are completely safe are all the obvious ones: track & field, swimming, gymnastics (including trampoline and rhythmic), diving, beach volleyball, volleyball, basketball, soccer, water polo, field hockey, handball, equestrian, triathlon, rowing, canoe/kayak, boxing, wrestling, fencing, weightlifting and synchronized swimming.
Judo has become an Olympic staple that more and more countries have won medals in (and not just the traditional powers). As a result, I think judo's in the "safe" column. Same thing with the China-dominated sports of table tennis and badminton. They'd like to see a little more diversity in the medalists (which almost always go to East Asia), and, believe it or not, the biggest controversy to come out of the London Games was in badminton, but I don't see them touching either one of these sports. China's too important to the Olympic Movement to take away a whole bunch of Chinese medals without a fight.
Sailing's an interesting one. It's never held in the same place as the rest of the Olympics, it's hard to follow, not TV-friendly, and usually an afterthought for spectators (who'll only be able to see, at best, a portion of the races). But I don't think sailing's in any danger. It's too widely practiced and has great historical venue. Besides, outgoing IOC President Jacques Rogge was an Olympic sailor. They're not going to eliminate the sport that the president played.
Some in the anti-doping world have suggested cycling might be vulnerable if the sport doesn't clean itself up, but I don't think so. There's no denying that the Tour de France, endurance version of the sport clearly has a major issue with performance-enhancing drugs. But track cycling doesn't. Neither do BMX or mountain biking. Same thing with the women's events. There are way too many innocent athletes that would be punished if the misgivings of Lance Armstrong, Floyd Landis, etc., were taken as a representation of the entire sport.
There are also some who've mentioned tennis. The argument there is that tennis doesn't need the Olympics, since the Olympic tournament is, at best, going to be the fifth-most important tournament to the players each year. If London proved anything, it's that tennis and the Olympics are a perfect marriage. The players get it. They want to be there. They know what an Olympic gold medal means. More importantly, the Olympics needs tennis. Outside of the NBA players and a handful of stars in sports like swimming or track & field, the most famous, well-known, richest athletes competing at the Olympics are the tennis players. They're the biggest draw. Take the Opening Ceremony in London as an example of my point. How many of the flagbearers were tennis players?
Shooting has its critics, and for good reason. Gun control is a hot-button issue in many countries, not just the United States. However, shooting has a couple things going for it. First of all, nobody will ever confuse shooting the sport with whether or not somebody should be allowed to own a semi-automatic assault rifle in their home. Shooting also goes all the way back to the first Olympics in 1896. It's one of only a handful of sports that's been in every Olympics, and the IOC members would be very hesitant to remove an original Olympic sport from the program. There are also way too many countries that are good at shooting. That diversity isn't something that will go unnoticed. Shooting is also safe.
That leaves us with two sports, which I think are the only ones that are on the chopping block. Taekwondo and modern pentathlon. I never quite understood why taekwondo was added to the Olympics in the first place. Did they really need another martial art? Especially a not-TV-friendly one that is completely dominated by South Korea? A bunch of different nations did medal in taekwondo, including a bunch of newer ones, in London, though, which helps its chances.
Modern pentathlon, however, hasn't been that "modern" in years. The sport, which combines swimming, fencing, riding, shooting and running, was created by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the Olympics, and has been on the program since 1912. That clearly works in its advantage and is the angle they're going to play us as to why modern pentathlon should stay. Everything else points to Rio being modern pentathlon's Olympic swan song though. They've made some fan-friendly changes in recent years, reducing the competition from five days to one, combining the shooting and running into one biathlon-style event, and, most recently, switching to laser pistols. They've even proposed to have all four events in the same stadium in Rio, but I'm not even sure how that would work.
If it is indeed down to taekwondo and modern pentathlon, I'll give taekwondo the slight edge to remain on the program. Even though its popularity is nowhere near that of the other combat sports, it does seem to be growing. More importantly, taekwondo still has room to grow, whereas modern pentathlon's popularity peaked long ago, and it doesn't seem likely that it will ever become viewer/spectator friendly again. Modern pentathlon's been rumored to be on the Olympic chopping block for several years now, yet has avoided a meeting with the grim reaper each time. This time, though, I think it'll take a miracle to save Baron de Coubertin's creation.
I absolutely hate this arbitrary maximum the IOC has imposed. Part of the rationale for it is to control costs and curb the ever-growing size of the Summer Games. I get that, but I also don't think it's right that for a sport to be added to the Olympics, it has to be at the expense of another. There's a way to do both. Reduce the number of events or cap the number of athletes that can enter one sport. Then you can add something else without having to drop another.
Different sports have grown in popularity, thus their inclusion in the Olympics. Take beach volleyball. It wasn't an Olympic sport until 1996, yet has quickly become one of the most popular. That's why golf's inclusion seemed like a no-brainer. And there are going to be more sports that become desirable to the Olympic Movement as they continue to draw TV viewers/younger fans that the IOC covets. But the ultimate slap-in-the-face of telling a sports federation that it's no longer worthy of Olympic inclusion isn't right. Nor is it fair to the athletes in that sport, whose lifelong dream to be an Olympian will never be realized. And for the sport itself, the instant credibility and funding that comes with being associated with the National Olympic Committees will be gone, dropping it immediately to second-tier status.
Alas, I don't have a say in the matter. They're going to drop a sport from the "core list." That sport will then immediately be put on the list of sports vying for a place in the 2020 Games, but there's absolutely no chace it'll be reinstated immediately after getting cut from the program. With that in mind, some Olympic sports have much more reason to worry than others.
The sports that are completely safe are all the obvious ones: track & field, swimming, gymnastics (including trampoline and rhythmic), diving, beach volleyball, volleyball, basketball, soccer, water polo, field hockey, handball, equestrian, triathlon, rowing, canoe/kayak, boxing, wrestling, fencing, weightlifting and synchronized swimming.
Judo has become an Olympic staple that more and more countries have won medals in (and not just the traditional powers). As a result, I think judo's in the "safe" column. Same thing with the China-dominated sports of table tennis and badminton. They'd like to see a little more diversity in the medalists (which almost always go to East Asia), and, believe it or not, the biggest controversy to come out of the London Games was in badminton, but I don't see them touching either one of these sports. China's too important to the Olympic Movement to take away a whole bunch of Chinese medals without a fight.
Sailing's an interesting one. It's never held in the same place as the rest of the Olympics, it's hard to follow, not TV-friendly, and usually an afterthought for spectators (who'll only be able to see, at best, a portion of the races). But I don't think sailing's in any danger. It's too widely practiced and has great historical venue. Besides, outgoing IOC President Jacques Rogge was an Olympic sailor. They're not going to eliminate the sport that the president played.
Some in the anti-doping world have suggested cycling might be vulnerable if the sport doesn't clean itself up, but I don't think so. There's no denying that the Tour de France, endurance version of the sport clearly has a major issue with performance-enhancing drugs. But track cycling doesn't. Neither do BMX or mountain biking. Same thing with the women's events. There are way too many innocent athletes that would be punished if the misgivings of Lance Armstrong, Floyd Landis, etc., were taken as a representation of the entire sport.
There are also some who've mentioned tennis. The argument there is that tennis doesn't need the Olympics, since the Olympic tournament is, at best, going to be the fifth-most important tournament to the players each year. If London proved anything, it's that tennis and the Olympics are a perfect marriage. The players get it. They want to be there. They know what an Olympic gold medal means. More importantly, the Olympics needs tennis. Outside of the NBA players and a handful of stars in sports like swimming or track & field, the most famous, well-known, richest athletes competing at the Olympics are the tennis players. They're the biggest draw. Take the Opening Ceremony in London as an example of my point. How many of the flagbearers were tennis players?
Shooting has its critics, and for good reason. Gun control is a hot-button issue in many countries, not just the United States. However, shooting has a couple things going for it. First of all, nobody will ever confuse shooting the sport with whether or not somebody should be allowed to own a semi-automatic assault rifle in their home. Shooting also goes all the way back to the first Olympics in 1896. It's one of only a handful of sports that's been in every Olympics, and the IOC members would be very hesitant to remove an original Olympic sport from the program. There are also way too many countries that are good at shooting. That diversity isn't something that will go unnoticed. Shooting is also safe.
That leaves us with two sports, which I think are the only ones that are on the chopping block. Taekwondo and modern pentathlon. I never quite understood why taekwondo was added to the Olympics in the first place. Did they really need another martial art? Especially a not-TV-friendly one that is completely dominated by South Korea? A bunch of different nations did medal in taekwondo, including a bunch of newer ones, in London, though, which helps its chances.
Modern pentathlon, however, hasn't been that "modern" in years. The sport, which combines swimming, fencing, riding, shooting and running, was created by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the Olympics, and has been on the program since 1912. That clearly works in its advantage and is the angle they're going to play us as to why modern pentathlon should stay. Everything else points to Rio being modern pentathlon's Olympic swan song though. They've made some fan-friendly changes in recent years, reducing the competition from five days to one, combining the shooting and running into one biathlon-style event, and, most recently, switching to laser pistols. They've even proposed to have all four events in the same stadium in Rio, but I'm not even sure how that would work.
If it is indeed down to taekwondo and modern pentathlon, I'll give taekwondo the slight edge to remain on the program. Even though its popularity is nowhere near that of the other combat sports, it does seem to be growing. More importantly, taekwondo still has room to grow, whereas modern pentathlon's popularity peaked long ago, and it doesn't seem likely that it will ever become viewer/spectator friendly again. Modern pentathlon's been rumored to be on the Olympic chopping block for several years now, yet has avoided a meeting with the grim reaper each time. This time, though, I think it'll take a miracle to save Baron de Coubertin's creation.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
One Year 'Til Sochi
It seems like the London Olympics just ended, yet today marks the One-Year-To-Go mark in the countdown to the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia. They'll be a Winter Olympics unlike any other. Not only will they be the first Winter Games held in Russia, one of the traditional powers of the Winter Olympics, there's going to be a slew of new events, 12 in all, ranging from team figure skating to the long-overdue addition of women's ski jumping to new disciplines in snowboarding and freestyle skiing. We still don't know about the hockey tournament, but the KHL has already committed and I think the NHL knows it would be a huge mistake NOT to go. (And sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but NBC's going to have to tape-delay prime time again. Sochi is eight hours ahead of New York.)
On the one-year pre-anniversary of the London Games, I took a shot at figuring out who might be the final torchbearer, which is always one of the big questions leading up to any Olympics. We were all wrong in London. Nobody saw those kids coming. But I was right in Vancouver, where the choice of Wayne Gretzky couldn't have been more obvious. Likewise, if Pele's not the final torchbearer in Rio, what's the point of even having an Olympics in Brazil? However, with Sochi, I have absolutely no idea. The Soviet Union/Russia's Winter Olympic history is so rich and vast that the candidates are numerous. I'm not even sure there's a clear favorite. Regardless, you know I've got a couple suggestions.
If they're looking for a current athlete, Olga Zaitseva might get the call. She won gold in the biathlon relay in Torino and again in Vancouver, where she also won a silver in the mass start event. Another option who might actually compete in Sochi is Yevgeny Plushenko. Plushenko raised a storm of controversy in Vancouver when he complained about losing the gold to Evan Lysacek, but he's still got silvers from Salt Lake City and Vancouver sandwiching a gold from Torino. Plusheko's the most successful figure skater in history, and is attempting to compete in an unprecedented fourth Olympics for the sole purpose of ending his career in his home country. No skater has ever won a medal in four straight Olympics, either.
Plushenko's just one in a long line of great Soviet/Russian figure skaters. Nowhere has that been more evident than their dominance in the pairs discipline. Starting with the legendary Protopopovs in 1964, Soviet/Russian pairs won gold at 12 straight Olympics until getting shut out in 2010. The greatest of those pairs was Irina Rodnina & Aleksandr Zaitsev. Rodnina was one of the ambassadors who helped Sochi land the Games, and she won gold in three straight Olympics, the last two with Zaitsev. She also won 10 straight World Championships from 1969-78. In my eyes, a selection of Irina Rodnina, with or without her former partner (and husband), would be beyond appropriate.
Or they could go with the first great Russian Winter Olympic champion--speed skater Lydia Skoblikova. The Soviet Union didn't make its Winter Olympic debut until the 1956 Cortina Games. Skoblikova made her Olympic debut four years later in Squaw Valley and won two gold medals. She then went 4-for-4 in Innsbruck in 1964, becoming the first athlete to sweep the speed skating program at an Olympics. She also became the first athlete to win four gold medals at a single Winter Games. Her six career gold medals are still the record for a speed skater. Skoblikova wasn't just Russia's first Winter Olympic star. She was one of the first Winter Olympic stars period.
But I think the choice is really down to one of three people. When most people think of the Soviet Union and the Winter Olympics, they immediately think of hockey. The Soviet dynasty was one of the most dominant teams in the history of international sports. With the exception of the two Games in the United States (1960 and 1980), when they won silver, the Soviets took gold at every Olympics from 1956-92. (Interestingly, Russia hasn't won Olympic hockey gold as an independent nation, something they're desperate to change in Sochi.)
The biggest star of those teams was goalie Vladislav Tretiak. Perhaps the greatest goalie in the history of the sport, Tretiak is a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame and was selected to the IIHF's All-Time Team. He played in four Olympics, winning three golds and the 1980 Miracle on Ice silver. Tretiak was also the goalie on 10 World Championship teams. He's currently the president of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation and was the general manager of the 2010 Olympic team. Tretiak represents that dynasty better than anyone, and he's also one of the game's greatest ambassadors. And after the embarrassment of pulling him after the first period of the Miracle on Ice game, which is still talked about more than 30 years later, Tretiak's ultimate reward could be lighting the Olympic cauldron in Sochi.
I don't think it'll be Tretiak either, though. In my opinion, it'll be one of two women. Both cross country skiers. Lyubov Yegorova and Raisa Smetanina. Yegorova represented the Unified Team in 1992 and won five medals, including three golds. Then representing Russia two years later, she became the first great Olympic champion for the newly-independent nation. She won four more medals in Lillehammer, three of which were gold. She was the most decorated athlete at both Games, and the six career gold medals are tied for the second-most in Winter Olympic history. The nine medals overall has Yegorova in a tie for fifth place all-time. However, her career ended with a positive drug test in 1997, which might ruin her chances of carrying the Olympic flame.
As a result, I'm going to say that Raisa Smetanina is my choice. Smetanina competed at five Olympics, medalling in all of them. Her final Olympic medal was a gold in the 4x5 kilometer relay in 1992. When she was 39 years old! With that she became the oldest woman to win a gold medal in Winter Olympic history. She was also the first Winter Olympian ever to win 10 career medals, which is still the third-most (and most by a woman) all-time. She's tied for that record with Italian Stefania Belmondo, who had the honor of being the final torchbearer in Torino.
Much like Great Britain last year, Russia's had so many great Olympians that it'll be virtually impossible for them to make a bad choice. If it were up to me, I think I'd go with Smetanina. But I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
On the one-year pre-anniversary of the London Games, I took a shot at figuring out who might be the final torchbearer, which is always one of the big questions leading up to any Olympics. We were all wrong in London. Nobody saw those kids coming. But I was right in Vancouver, where the choice of Wayne Gretzky couldn't have been more obvious. Likewise, if Pele's not the final torchbearer in Rio, what's the point of even having an Olympics in Brazil? However, with Sochi, I have absolutely no idea. The Soviet Union/Russia's Winter Olympic history is so rich and vast that the candidates are numerous. I'm not even sure there's a clear favorite. Regardless, you know I've got a couple suggestions.
If they're looking for a current athlete, Olga Zaitseva might get the call. She won gold in the biathlon relay in Torino and again in Vancouver, where she also won a silver in the mass start event. Another option who might actually compete in Sochi is Yevgeny Plushenko. Plushenko raised a storm of controversy in Vancouver when he complained about losing the gold to Evan Lysacek, but he's still got silvers from Salt Lake City and Vancouver sandwiching a gold from Torino. Plusheko's the most successful figure skater in history, and is attempting to compete in an unprecedented fourth Olympics for the sole purpose of ending his career in his home country. No skater has ever won a medal in four straight Olympics, either.
Plushenko's just one in a long line of great Soviet/Russian figure skaters. Nowhere has that been more evident than their dominance in the pairs discipline. Starting with the legendary Protopopovs in 1964, Soviet/Russian pairs won gold at 12 straight Olympics until getting shut out in 2010. The greatest of those pairs was Irina Rodnina & Aleksandr Zaitsev. Rodnina was one of the ambassadors who helped Sochi land the Games, and she won gold in three straight Olympics, the last two with Zaitsev. She also won 10 straight World Championships from 1969-78. In my eyes, a selection of Irina Rodnina, with or without her former partner (and husband), would be beyond appropriate.
Or they could go with the first great Russian Winter Olympic champion--speed skater Lydia Skoblikova. The Soviet Union didn't make its Winter Olympic debut until the 1956 Cortina Games. Skoblikova made her Olympic debut four years later in Squaw Valley and won two gold medals. She then went 4-for-4 in Innsbruck in 1964, becoming the first athlete to sweep the speed skating program at an Olympics. She also became the first athlete to win four gold medals at a single Winter Games. Her six career gold medals are still the record for a speed skater. Skoblikova wasn't just Russia's first Winter Olympic star. She was one of the first Winter Olympic stars period.
But I think the choice is really down to one of three people. When most people think of the Soviet Union and the Winter Olympics, they immediately think of hockey. The Soviet dynasty was one of the most dominant teams in the history of international sports. With the exception of the two Games in the United States (1960 and 1980), when they won silver, the Soviets took gold at every Olympics from 1956-92. (Interestingly, Russia hasn't won Olympic hockey gold as an independent nation, something they're desperate to change in Sochi.)
The biggest star of those teams was goalie Vladislav Tretiak. Perhaps the greatest goalie in the history of the sport, Tretiak is a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame and was selected to the IIHF's All-Time Team. He played in four Olympics, winning three golds and the 1980 Miracle on Ice silver. Tretiak was also the goalie on 10 World Championship teams. He's currently the president of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation and was the general manager of the 2010 Olympic team. Tretiak represents that dynasty better than anyone, and he's also one of the game's greatest ambassadors. And after the embarrassment of pulling him after the first period of the Miracle on Ice game, which is still talked about more than 30 years later, Tretiak's ultimate reward could be lighting the Olympic cauldron in Sochi.
I don't think it'll be Tretiak either, though. In my opinion, it'll be one of two women. Both cross country skiers. Lyubov Yegorova and Raisa Smetanina. Yegorova represented the Unified Team in 1992 and won five medals, including three golds. Then representing Russia two years later, she became the first great Olympic champion for the newly-independent nation. She won four more medals in Lillehammer, three of which were gold. She was the most decorated athlete at both Games, and the six career gold medals are tied for the second-most in Winter Olympic history. The nine medals overall has Yegorova in a tie for fifth place all-time. However, her career ended with a positive drug test in 1997, which might ruin her chances of carrying the Olympic flame.
As a result, I'm going to say that Raisa Smetanina is my choice. Smetanina competed at five Olympics, medalling in all of them. Her final Olympic medal was a gold in the 4x5 kilometer relay in 1992. When she was 39 years old! With that she became the oldest woman to win a gold medal in Winter Olympic history. She was also the first Winter Olympian ever to win 10 career medals, which is still the third-most (and most by a woman) all-time. She's tied for that record with Italian Stefania Belmondo, who had the honor of being the final torchbearer in Torino.
Much like Great Britain last year, Russia's had so many great Olympians that it'll be virtually impossible for them to make a bad choice. If it were up to me, I think I'd go with Smetanina. But I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
The NFL's Elite QBs, and Who's On the Verge
Is Joe Flacco an elite quarterback? Heading into the playoffs, that was the one question on everybody's mind. Well, the answer to it now is a resounding "Yes!" I didn't have any doubts before, but Flacco has now silenced all of his critics. Five seasons, five playoff berths, nine road playoff wins (an NFL record), one Super Bowl title, one Super Bowl MVP. Yeah, he's elite.
In my opinion, Flacco is now one of seven quarterbacks in the NFL who can truly call themselves elite. The others, for the most part, are the obvious ones: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning. Last year, people were asking this same asanine question about Eli. Well, what are the first three letters in "Eli"-te? Eli's beaten Brady in the Super Bowl twice and been MVP each time. Sure, he's not his brother. Or Brady. But if that's not elite, what is?
Others might try to make an argument for Tony Romo or Philip Rivers, but the seven quarterbacks I've already mentioned have something in common that Romo and Rivers don't. If Romo and Rivers want to be considered elite, they've got to prove it. Being elite is about more than putting up gaudy numbers. It's about knowing your QB is going to find a way to win at the end. It's a guy who's gotten it done time and again. Romo and Rivers might put up big numbers, but their seasons are always done by mid-January, if not earlier.
I'm not saying that winning the Super Bowl automatically makes you elite (Exhibit A: Brad Johnson), but it's not a coincidence that the seven active quarterbacks who've won the Super Bowl are the only ones who currently fit into that category. Romo and Rivers are guys you might want for your fantasy, but they won't be "elite" until they've earned it. Which they haven't yet. However, the "Is he elite?" question has been answered about two different quarterbacks in the last two years, and Romo and Rivers are prime candidates to jump to that level next year. They're among that group of QBs on the verge of becoming elite. Which of those has the best shot of actually making the jump? Here's who I think:
Matt Ryan-Ryan and the Falcons overcame a major hurdle this season by winning a playoff game for the first time. He's got a pair of elite receivers in Roddy White and Julio Jones, and Atlanta's set up to be good for a long time. They had the best record in the NFL this season and got to the NFC Championship Game. The Falcons are, without question, Matt Ryan's team. And as for durability, he's never missed a start. Ryan has the numbers, too. All that's missing for him to be "elite" is another deep playoff run. One deeper than this year's.
Matt Schaub-The Texans' Matt is well on his way to elite. He's been selected to the last two Pro Bowls while leading Houston to the first two division titles in franchise history. The same things I just said about Matt Ryan also apply to Matt Schaub. Everything's in place for the Texans to make another deep playoff run. If they do it, Matt Schaub will be the one who leads them there. And if he does, the "elite" discussion ends.
Jay Cutler-Let's see what a new head coach does for Cutler. Mark Trestman's an offensive guy, and he's coming from the pass-happy CFL. I've always been confident in Jay Cutler's ability. Me probably moreso than most others. But I truly think coaching and confidence have been the only things standing in Cutler's way. Remember, the Bears went to the NFC Championship Game two years ago. Call me crazy, but I think Jay Cutler's closer to elite than people give him credit for.
Colin Kaepernick-In his 10th NFL start, in the Super Bowl, his team fell behind 28-6. Then he led a massive comeback as his team almost won the game. Oh yeah, and he only took over the starting job because the former No. 1 pick who led said team to the NFC Championship Game last season was injured. Then did so well he never gave it back. Kaepernick's well on his way to becoming elite. It probably won't be long until he's there.
Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin III, Andrew Luck-I'm lumping the three rookies together because they're all on the same career trajectory right now. It's also really hard to separate them. Griffin won Rookie of the Year and probably has the greatest skill set, but he hurt his knee in the playoffs and I have a feeling his durability is going to be a major issue moving forward. Luck's your traditional pocket passer who's been bred for NFL success for years. The last guy to play QB in Indy worked out pretty well. That's a lot to live up to, but Aaron Rodgers is doing a good job replacing a legend in Green Bay, and Luck seems capable of doing the same thing. Of the three, I think the one who'll reach "elite" status the fastest is Wilson, if only because I think the Seahawks are on the verge of becoming the NFL's next "it" team. But also because using my own criteria of playoff success, Wilson's already got one road playoff win under his belt and probably should've gotten another. The future's bright for all three of these guys, but Wilson's might be the brightest.
Andy Dalton-Before you say, "What? Andy Dalton?" consider this: he's been in the NFL for two years. All he's done in those two years is take the Cincinnati Bengals (the CINCINNATI BENGALS!) to the playoffs twice, their first back-to-back postseason appearances in 30 years. I'm not saying luck hasn't come into play or that this success is going to continue (especially in that division), but there's no denying that Andy Dalton is, at the very least, an above-average NFL quarterback. And if this ins't a fluke and it is the start of something more in Cincinnati, "elite" isn't entirely out of the question.
Romo and Rivers obviously fall into the "almost there" category as well. So does Michael Vick, although, while all of those other guys are on the rise, he's fallen into that category. Vick's on the way down. Not up. As for Ryan, Schaub, and all the rest, it's very possible that they could be the NFL's next big thing. The next elite quarterback. Just like Joe Flacco.
In my opinion, Flacco is now one of seven quarterbacks in the NFL who can truly call themselves elite. The others, for the most part, are the obvious ones: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning. Last year, people were asking this same asanine question about Eli. Well, what are the first three letters in "Eli"-te? Eli's beaten Brady in the Super Bowl twice and been MVP each time. Sure, he's not his brother. Or Brady. But if that's not elite, what is?
Others might try to make an argument for Tony Romo or Philip Rivers, but the seven quarterbacks I've already mentioned have something in common that Romo and Rivers don't. If Romo and Rivers want to be considered elite, they've got to prove it. Being elite is about more than putting up gaudy numbers. It's about knowing your QB is going to find a way to win at the end. It's a guy who's gotten it done time and again. Romo and Rivers might put up big numbers, but their seasons are always done by mid-January, if not earlier.
I'm not saying that winning the Super Bowl automatically makes you elite (Exhibit A: Brad Johnson), but it's not a coincidence that the seven active quarterbacks who've won the Super Bowl are the only ones who currently fit into that category. Romo and Rivers are guys you might want for your fantasy, but they won't be "elite" until they've earned it. Which they haven't yet. However, the "Is he elite?" question has been answered about two different quarterbacks in the last two years, and Romo and Rivers are prime candidates to jump to that level next year. They're among that group of QBs on the verge of becoming elite. Which of those has the best shot of actually making the jump? Here's who I think:
Matt Ryan-Ryan and the Falcons overcame a major hurdle this season by winning a playoff game for the first time. He's got a pair of elite receivers in Roddy White and Julio Jones, and Atlanta's set up to be good for a long time. They had the best record in the NFL this season and got to the NFC Championship Game. The Falcons are, without question, Matt Ryan's team. And as for durability, he's never missed a start. Ryan has the numbers, too. All that's missing for him to be "elite" is another deep playoff run. One deeper than this year's.
Matt Schaub-The Texans' Matt is well on his way to elite. He's been selected to the last two Pro Bowls while leading Houston to the first two division titles in franchise history. The same things I just said about Matt Ryan also apply to Matt Schaub. Everything's in place for the Texans to make another deep playoff run. If they do it, Matt Schaub will be the one who leads them there. And if he does, the "elite" discussion ends.
Jay Cutler-Let's see what a new head coach does for Cutler. Mark Trestman's an offensive guy, and he's coming from the pass-happy CFL. I've always been confident in Jay Cutler's ability. Me probably moreso than most others. But I truly think coaching and confidence have been the only things standing in Cutler's way. Remember, the Bears went to the NFC Championship Game two years ago. Call me crazy, but I think Jay Cutler's closer to elite than people give him credit for.
Colin Kaepernick-In his 10th NFL start, in the Super Bowl, his team fell behind 28-6. Then he led a massive comeback as his team almost won the game. Oh yeah, and he only took over the starting job because the former No. 1 pick who led said team to the NFC Championship Game last season was injured. Then did so well he never gave it back. Kaepernick's well on his way to becoming elite. It probably won't be long until he's there.
Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin III, Andrew Luck-I'm lumping the three rookies together because they're all on the same career trajectory right now. It's also really hard to separate them. Griffin won Rookie of the Year and probably has the greatest skill set, but he hurt his knee in the playoffs and I have a feeling his durability is going to be a major issue moving forward. Luck's your traditional pocket passer who's been bred for NFL success for years. The last guy to play QB in Indy worked out pretty well. That's a lot to live up to, but Aaron Rodgers is doing a good job replacing a legend in Green Bay, and Luck seems capable of doing the same thing. Of the three, I think the one who'll reach "elite" status the fastest is Wilson, if only because I think the Seahawks are on the verge of becoming the NFL's next "it" team. But also because using my own criteria of playoff success, Wilson's already got one road playoff win under his belt and probably should've gotten another. The future's bright for all three of these guys, but Wilson's might be the brightest.
Andy Dalton-Before you say, "What? Andy Dalton?" consider this: he's been in the NFL for two years. All he's done in those two years is take the Cincinnati Bengals (the CINCINNATI BENGALS!) to the playoffs twice, their first back-to-back postseason appearances in 30 years. I'm not saying luck hasn't come into play or that this success is going to continue (especially in that division), but there's no denying that Andy Dalton is, at the very least, an above-average NFL quarterback. And if this ins't a fluke and it is the start of something more in Cincinnati, "elite" isn't entirely out of the question.
Romo and Rivers obviously fall into the "almost there" category as well. So does Michael Vick, although, while all of those other guys are on the rise, he's fallen into that category. Vick's on the way down. Not up. As for Ryan, Schaub, and all the rest, it's very possible that they could be the NFL's next big thing. The next elite quarterback. Just like Joe Flacco.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Which Harbaugh Wins?
After two weeks of hype and the game being broken down in every way possible, we've finally arrived at Super Bowl Sunday. We've heard so many reasons why both teams are going to win that it seems impossible either one will lose. But that, of course, is impossible. Either the 49ers will win their sixth Super Bowl title or the Ravens will win their second. This much is certain--Coach Harbaugh's team is going to win. Other than that, I have no idea how Super Bowl XLVII is going to play out.
Before I get into my analysis of the matchup, here's where I stand on a couple of the pressing matters leading up to Super Bowl XLVII. The Ravens will call heads, win the toss, and defer. Beyonce will actually sing and there will be a Destiny's Child reunion. Now that I've got that off my chest, let's move on to the Ravens and 49ers.
It's crazy to think that the day after one original Raven, Jonathan Ogden, was elected to the Hall of Fame, another original Raven, Ray Lewis, will be playing in the Super Bowl in the final game of his career. The Ray Lewis Retirement Tour has been one of the motivating factors for Baltimore on this ride through the playoffs, and they're determined to send him out a champion. But Lewis, while still the emotional leader, isn't going to be the reason the Ravens win or lose this game. The offense is going to need to get it done. If Joe Flacco wants to be considered "elite," this is his chance to prove it once and for all.
Ray Rice was shut down by the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game. The 49ers have a better run defense than the Patriots do, so there's no reason to think they won't be able to shut him down, as well. Which means Flacco's going to be a key. He'll need to air it out. Of the six Pro Bowlers on the San Francisco defense, none of them were pass protectors. That's the one advantage Baltimore has against the 49ers. Torrey Smith and Anquan Boldin are both better than the San Francisco cornerbacks. And safeties Dashon Goldson and Donte Whitner will only be able to provide so much help, since double-teaming the receivers leaves them vulnerable to tight end Dennis Pitta catching screen pass after screen pass. The Baltimore offense has a big play receiver in Smith. They used him to burn the Broncos, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the 49ers at least once.
San Francisco's offense is more dynamic than Baltimore's. Colin Kaepernick is able to do more things than Joe Flacco, and that's going to be vital for the 49ers' success. As great as the Ravens' defense is, the 49ers have too many pieces for them to be able to stop them all. Focus on Frank Gore and Kaepernick can beat you through the air, taking advantage of his very good wide receiving corps. Try to shut down the air attack, and Gore might run wild. And even if they do shut both down, Kaepernick just might do everything himself and open up the offense that way. Even for a defense like Baltimore's, that's a lot of different things to worry about at the same time.
It's not normally worth talking about special teams when breaking down the Super Bowl matchup, but in this case I think it's relevant. Jacoby Jones is a very important figure in this game. Everybody knows how explosive he is on returns, and if he breaks one, look out. Just ask the Broncos about that. So it's up to Andy Lee and David Akers to keep the ball away from him. Speaking of Akers, his problems this season have been well-documented. He's been good so far in the playoffs, but if he reverts to his regular season form, keeping points off the board and giving the Ravens good field position, that could be just as costly for San Francisco as a big Jones return.
Both of these teams are known for their defense, but I think it's going to be a fairly high-scoring game. The Ravens aren't going to dominate defensively like they did against the Giants in their only other Super Bowl appearance. (It's worth noting here that of the 92 previous Super Bowl teams, 90 scored at least one offensive touchdown, the 2000 Giants being one of the two exceptions.) Likewise, I like Baltimore's big play ability on offense.
The old saying is that "defense wins championships." That's especially true when you've got two of the best defenses in the game. But, again, I don't think it'll come down to one defense dominating. It'll come down to which defense comes up with the big turnover or big stop at a crucial moment. That's where the game's going to be won. Because I think both offenses will have a reasonable amount of success.
So who's going to win? I'm going with Jim. The 49ers' defense is younger, faster and more talented than Baltimore's. I like their chances of holding the Ravens offense in check. At least enough to give their own offense a chance to win. And Colin Kaepernick is the X-factor. He brings a different dynamic that makes the San Francisco offense so multi-faceted, which is hard to contain on a good day.
It's not going to be like the last three Super Bowls involving these two teams (closest margin of victory: the 49ers' 23-point romp of the Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX that wasn't even that close). I expect it to be a close one, although it won't come down to the final play like last year. But in the end, I see the 49ers prevailing and joining the Steelers as six-time Super Bowl champs. I think the Ravens will be so preoccupied with Kaepernick that they'll let Gore run wild en route to two touchdowns and MVP honors in the 49ers' 27-21 victory.
Conference Championships: 1-1
Playoffs: 6-4
Season: 176-89-1
Before I get into my analysis of the matchup, here's where I stand on a couple of the pressing matters leading up to Super Bowl XLVII. The Ravens will call heads, win the toss, and defer. Beyonce will actually sing and there will be a Destiny's Child reunion. Now that I've got that off my chest, let's move on to the Ravens and 49ers.
It's crazy to think that the day after one original Raven, Jonathan Ogden, was elected to the Hall of Fame, another original Raven, Ray Lewis, will be playing in the Super Bowl in the final game of his career. The Ray Lewis Retirement Tour has been one of the motivating factors for Baltimore on this ride through the playoffs, and they're determined to send him out a champion. But Lewis, while still the emotional leader, isn't going to be the reason the Ravens win or lose this game. The offense is going to need to get it done. If Joe Flacco wants to be considered "elite," this is his chance to prove it once and for all.
Ray Rice was shut down by the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game. The 49ers have a better run defense than the Patriots do, so there's no reason to think they won't be able to shut him down, as well. Which means Flacco's going to be a key. He'll need to air it out. Of the six Pro Bowlers on the San Francisco defense, none of them were pass protectors. That's the one advantage Baltimore has against the 49ers. Torrey Smith and Anquan Boldin are both better than the San Francisco cornerbacks. And safeties Dashon Goldson and Donte Whitner will only be able to provide so much help, since double-teaming the receivers leaves them vulnerable to tight end Dennis Pitta catching screen pass after screen pass. The Baltimore offense has a big play receiver in Smith. They used him to burn the Broncos, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the 49ers at least once.
San Francisco's offense is more dynamic than Baltimore's. Colin Kaepernick is able to do more things than Joe Flacco, and that's going to be vital for the 49ers' success. As great as the Ravens' defense is, the 49ers have too many pieces for them to be able to stop them all. Focus on Frank Gore and Kaepernick can beat you through the air, taking advantage of his very good wide receiving corps. Try to shut down the air attack, and Gore might run wild. And even if they do shut both down, Kaepernick just might do everything himself and open up the offense that way. Even for a defense like Baltimore's, that's a lot of different things to worry about at the same time.
It's not normally worth talking about special teams when breaking down the Super Bowl matchup, but in this case I think it's relevant. Jacoby Jones is a very important figure in this game. Everybody knows how explosive he is on returns, and if he breaks one, look out. Just ask the Broncos about that. So it's up to Andy Lee and David Akers to keep the ball away from him. Speaking of Akers, his problems this season have been well-documented. He's been good so far in the playoffs, but if he reverts to his regular season form, keeping points off the board and giving the Ravens good field position, that could be just as costly for San Francisco as a big Jones return.
Both of these teams are known for their defense, but I think it's going to be a fairly high-scoring game. The Ravens aren't going to dominate defensively like they did against the Giants in their only other Super Bowl appearance. (It's worth noting here that of the 92 previous Super Bowl teams, 90 scored at least one offensive touchdown, the 2000 Giants being one of the two exceptions.) Likewise, I like Baltimore's big play ability on offense.
The old saying is that "defense wins championships." That's especially true when you've got two of the best defenses in the game. But, again, I don't think it'll come down to one defense dominating. It'll come down to which defense comes up with the big turnover or big stop at a crucial moment. That's where the game's going to be won. Because I think both offenses will have a reasonable amount of success.
So who's going to win? I'm going with Jim. The 49ers' defense is younger, faster and more talented than Baltimore's. I like their chances of holding the Ravens offense in check. At least enough to give their own offense a chance to win. And Colin Kaepernick is the X-factor. He brings a different dynamic that makes the San Francisco offense so multi-faceted, which is hard to contain on a good day.
It's not going to be like the last three Super Bowls involving these two teams (closest margin of victory: the 49ers' 23-point romp of the Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX that wasn't even that close). I expect it to be a close one, although it won't come down to the final play like last year. But in the end, I see the 49ers prevailing and joining the Steelers as six-time Super Bowl champs. I think the Ravens will be so preoccupied with Kaepernick that they'll let Gore run wild en route to two touchdowns and MVP honors in the 49ers' 27-21 victory.
Conference Championships: 1-1
Playoffs: 6-4
Season: 176-89-1
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Football Hall of Fame-2013 Edition
It's the day before the Super Bowl, which also means it's Pro Football Hall of Fame election day. And it also means that we're inevitably not going to agree with the five, six or seven people the committee votes into Canton. Part of the problem is that they're limited by that number. Other than the 10 votes per person rule, there's no limit in place for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. There are only nine starters per team in a baseball game. Yet football has this ridiculously low limit despite the fact that there are 22 starters per team in the NFL. That's 704 starters each week.
Five to seven Hall of Famers a year isn't enough. What harm would there be in increasing the number to, say, between eight and 10? If the limit was raised, you wouldn't have these ridiculously loaded elections with more worthwhile candidates than available spots. And you also wouldn't have guys like Cris Carter coming up short year after year because they don't meet some sort of magic arbitrary criteria that the committee has developed.
Take this year's list. Of the 15 Modern Era finalists, I can easily say that there are 12 I'd vote for if I was able, and a 13th--Tim Brown--I wouldn't vote for only because Cris Carter has been waiting longer. That's one of the problems I'm talking about. All three wide receivers deserve it (Andre Reed is the third), but they all keep getting passed over for some reason. The voters also have this weird obsession with offensive linemen. Larry Allen, Jonathan Ogden and Will Shields were all great. They all deserve to be Hall of Famers. But I also don't think there's any reason to vote more than one offensive lineman into the Hall of Fame.
Same thing with the owners, but with both of this year's Super Bowl teams represented (Eddie DeBartolo and Art Modell), I have a feeling one of them will take a spot away from a player. The voters always seem to like it when the Super Bowl teams have Hall of Fame finalists, which also bodes well for Ogden and Charles Haley. Ditto with the Senior Nominees, who have an unfair advantage in that they're automatically on the final list of seven with five of the Modern Era guys.
With all that being said, here are the six finalists that I'd throw my support behind if I were one of those 44 people sitting in that room discussing these extremely worthy candidates...
Larry Allen, Guard (1994-2005 Cowboys, 2006-07 49ers)-I'll always remember something John Madden said about Larry Allen during a Cowboys Thanksgiving game a number of years ago: "It's rare that you see the greatest player ever to play his position, but Larry Allen might be." I don't disagree. Larry Allen was perhaps the greatest guard in NFL history. He was All-Pro too many times to count and was the primary blocker for Emmitt Smith, the NFL's all-time leading rusher. Allen was on the NFL's All-Decade Team for both the 90s and 2000s, and went to 11 Pro Bowls. Offensive linemen are always hard to judge since they don't have any actual stats. But you know a great one when you see one. And Larry Allen was the best of the best. Nothing against Ogden, but if I'm forced to vote for only one offensive lineman, it's Larry Allen. I'll be shocked if he's not voted in on the first ballot this year.
Cris Carter, Wide Receiver (1987-89 Eagles, 1990-2001 Vikings, 2002 Dolphins)-How many times does Cris Carter have to be a finalist before the voters finally put him in? It boggles my mind why the second-greatest receiver in NFL history has been on the Hall of Fame ballot for six years! Why do they hold the fact that the NFL has become a passing league against the wide receivers? What about Cris Carter's numbers don't scream first-ballot Hall of Famer? Second all-time in catches and touchdowns. Eight straight 1,000-yard seasons. Eight Pro Bowls. It's time to stop making all three receivers wait and finally give Carter his due. Hopefully the voters agree. Yet, with the amount of time they made Lynn Swann and Art Monk wait, I have a feeling Carter misses out again. Which would be a shame.
Michael Strahan, Defensive End (1993-2007 Giants)-In his final NFL game, Michael Strahan won the Super Bowl, just like Ray Lewis hopes to. Then, five years later, he became the new Regis. He's also one of the talking heads on FOX's pregame show. Those two things alone make him the most recognizable name on the list, and that might be enough to get him in. But if Strahan is elected, it will be on merit. He was a dominant pass rusher and a five-time All-Pro. Strahan set the single-season sack record in 2001, unanimously winning Defensive Player of the Year that season, and finished his career with 141.5 sacks. It was a toss-up between him and Charles Haley, but I'd go with Strahan if I had to choose between the two. Likewise, I'd take them both over Warren Sapp. Although, since it's his first year on the ballot, I'm not sure Strahan gets in.
Jerome Bettis, Running Back (1993-95 Rams, 1996-2005 Steelers)-Like Strahan, Bettis won the Super Bowl in his final NFL game. He and Curtis Martin were both finalists last year. I couldn't find much to differentiate between the two, yet Martin got in and Bettis didn't. This year I think that changes. He's fifth all-time in rushing yards and had eight 1,000-yard seasons. Bettis also led his team in rushing 11 times in his 13 NFL seasons. The two greatest running backs in Steelers history are Franco Harris and Jerome Bettis. That's not bad company. Especially since we're talking about the only franchise to win six Super Bowls (until Sunday). While I never thought of Bettis as a dominant back, his numbers indicate sustained greatness for a long period of time. That's what makes somebody a Hall of Famer. However, if Bettis doesn't get in, I won't be overly upset about it. He will get in eventually, though.
Bill Parcells, Coach (1983-90 Giants, 1993-96 Patriots, 1997-99 Jets, 2003-06 Cowboys)-If everything I've seen/read/heard in the past couple days is true, it looks like Bill Parcells is finally going to get his bust in Canton. And I don't think there's anyone who doubts he belongs. The Tuna won two Super Bowls with the Giants, took the Patriots to another, and brought the Jets to the AFC Championship Game. Throw in a playoff appearance with the Cowboys, and he's the only coach in NFL history to take four different teams to the postseason. It's also worth noting how many of his assistants went on to become successful NFL head coaches, including Bill Belichick and Tom Coughlin, who've won five Super Bowls between them.
Dave Robinson, Linebacker (1963-72 Packers, 1973-74 Redskins)-We're going to get another one of Lombardi's Packers into the Hall of Fame, and, frankly, this one seems overdue. A big play linebacker on that punishing Green Bay defense that won three straight NFL titles and the first two Super Bowls. He was on the NFL's All-Decade Team of the 1960s and earned All-Pro honors three times. If you're having trouble recalling which one was Dave Robinson, he's the one with Vince Lombardi in the locker room at the end of the NFL Films Super Bowl II highlights. I've got no problem honoring Vince Lombardi's legacy and that Packers dynasty one more time.
But like I said, of this year's 17 finalists, I'd vote for a number of them if I could. My next five, in order, are Jonathan Ogden, Charles Haley, Aeneas Williams, Tim Brown and Art Modell. Then Warren Sapp, Will Shields, Curley Culp, Andre Reed, Eddie DeBartolo and Kevin Greene. As for who the actual voters are going to put in, I think Allen, Robinson and Parcells are safe bets. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ogden. And it's really a toss-up between Modell, Carter, Bettis and Strahan for the remaining one or two selections. But this is the Pro Football Hall of Fame election. Trying to predict it is nearly an impossible task.
Five to seven Hall of Famers a year isn't enough. What harm would there be in increasing the number to, say, between eight and 10? If the limit was raised, you wouldn't have these ridiculously loaded elections with more worthwhile candidates than available spots. And you also wouldn't have guys like Cris Carter coming up short year after year because they don't meet some sort of magic arbitrary criteria that the committee has developed.
Take this year's list. Of the 15 Modern Era finalists, I can easily say that there are 12 I'd vote for if I was able, and a 13th--Tim Brown--I wouldn't vote for only because Cris Carter has been waiting longer. That's one of the problems I'm talking about. All three wide receivers deserve it (Andre Reed is the third), but they all keep getting passed over for some reason. The voters also have this weird obsession with offensive linemen. Larry Allen, Jonathan Ogden and Will Shields were all great. They all deserve to be Hall of Famers. But I also don't think there's any reason to vote more than one offensive lineman into the Hall of Fame.
Same thing with the owners, but with both of this year's Super Bowl teams represented (Eddie DeBartolo and Art Modell), I have a feeling one of them will take a spot away from a player. The voters always seem to like it when the Super Bowl teams have Hall of Fame finalists, which also bodes well for Ogden and Charles Haley. Ditto with the Senior Nominees, who have an unfair advantage in that they're automatically on the final list of seven with five of the Modern Era guys.
With all that being said, here are the six finalists that I'd throw my support behind if I were one of those 44 people sitting in that room discussing these extremely worthy candidates...
Larry Allen, Guard (1994-2005 Cowboys, 2006-07 49ers)-I'll always remember something John Madden said about Larry Allen during a Cowboys Thanksgiving game a number of years ago: "It's rare that you see the greatest player ever to play his position, but Larry Allen might be." I don't disagree. Larry Allen was perhaps the greatest guard in NFL history. He was All-Pro too many times to count and was the primary blocker for Emmitt Smith, the NFL's all-time leading rusher. Allen was on the NFL's All-Decade Team for both the 90s and 2000s, and went to 11 Pro Bowls. Offensive linemen are always hard to judge since they don't have any actual stats. But you know a great one when you see one. And Larry Allen was the best of the best. Nothing against Ogden, but if I'm forced to vote for only one offensive lineman, it's Larry Allen. I'll be shocked if he's not voted in on the first ballot this year.
Cris Carter, Wide Receiver (1987-89 Eagles, 1990-2001 Vikings, 2002 Dolphins)-How many times does Cris Carter have to be a finalist before the voters finally put him in? It boggles my mind why the second-greatest receiver in NFL history has been on the Hall of Fame ballot for six years! Why do they hold the fact that the NFL has become a passing league against the wide receivers? What about Cris Carter's numbers don't scream first-ballot Hall of Famer? Second all-time in catches and touchdowns. Eight straight 1,000-yard seasons. Eight Pro Bowls. It's time to stop making all three receivers wait and finally give Carter his due. Hopefully the voters agree. Yet, with the amount of time they made Lynn Swann and Art Monk wait, I have a feeling Carter misses out again. Which would be a shame.
Michael Strahan, Defensive End (1993-2007 Giants)-In his final NFL game, Michael Strahan won the Super Bowl, just like Ray Lewis hopes to. Then, five years later, he became the new Regis. He's also one of the talking heads on FOX's pregame show. Those two things alone make him the most recognizable name on the list, and that might be enough to get him in. But if Strahan is elected, it will be on merit. He was a dominant pass rusher and a five-time All-Pro. Strahan set the single-season sack record in 2001, unanimously winning Defensive Player of the Year that season, and finished his career with 141.5 sacks. It was a toss-up between him and Charles Haley, but I'd go with Strahan if I had to choose between the two. Likewise, I'd take them both over Warren Sapp. Although, since it's his first year on the ballot, I'm not sure Strahan gets in.
Jerome Bettis, Running Back (1993-95 Rams, 1996-2005 Steelers)-Like Strahan, Bettis won the Super Bowl in his final NFL game. He and Curtis Martin were both finalists last year. I couldn't find much to differentiate between the two, yet Martin got in and Bettis didn't. This year I think that changes. He's fifth all-time in rushing yards and had eight 1,000-yard seasons. Bettis also led his team in rushing 11 times in his 13 NFL seasons. The two greatest running backs in Steelers history are Franco Harris and Jerome Bettis. That's not bad company. Especially since we're talking about the only franchise to win six Super Bowls (until Sunday). While I never thought of Bettis as a dominant back, his numbers indicate sustained greatness for a long period of time. That's what makes somebody a Hall of Famer. However, if Bettis doesn't get in, I won't be overly upset about it. He will get in eventually, though.
Bill Parcells, Coach (1983-90 Giants, 1993-96 Patriots, 1997-99 Jets, 2003-06 Cowboys)-If everything I've seen/read/heard in the past couple days is true, it looks like Bill Parcells is finally going to get his bust in Canton. And I don't think there's anyone who doubts he belongs. The Tuna won two Super Bowls with the Giants, took the Patriots to another, and brought the Jets to the AFC Championship Game. Throw in a playoff appearance with the Cowboys, and he's the only coach in NFL history to take four different teams to the postseason. It's also worth noting how many of his assistants went on to become successful NFL head coaches, including Bill Belichick and Tom Coughlin, who've won five Super Bowls between them.
Dave Robinson, Linebacker (1963-72 Packers, 1973-74 Redskins)-We're going to get another one of Lombardi's Packers into the Hall of Fame, and, frankly, this one seems overdue. A big play linebacker on that punishing Green Bay defense that won three straight NFL titles and the first two Super Bowls. He was on the NFL's All-Decade Team of the 1960s and earned All-Pro honors three times. If you're having trouble recalling which one was Dave Robinson, he's the one with Vince Lombardi in the locker room at the end of the NFL Films Super Bowl II highlights. I've got no problem honoring Vince Lombardi's legacy and that Packers dynasty one more time.
But like I said, of this year's 17 finalists, I'd vote for a number of them if I could. My next five, in order, are Jonathan Ogden, Charles Haley, Aeneas Williams, Tim Brown and Art Modell. Then Warren Sapp, Will Shields, Curley Culp, Andre Reed, Eddie DeBartolo and Kevin Greene. As for who the actual voters are going to put in, I think Allen, Robinson and Parcells are safe bets. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ogden. And it's really a toss-up between Modell, Carter, Bettis and Strahan for the remaining one or two selections. But this is the Pro Football Hall of Fame election. Trying to predict it is nearly an impossible task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)