Stick to 162

If you've watched Baseball Tonight or read anything on ESPN.com by one of their baseball writers recently, you've seen ESPN's new obsession.  Based on some comments Rob Manfred has made, they think the "solution" to baseball's non-existent problems is to reduce the schedule to 154 games.  This, of course, will never happen.  But that hasn't stopped ESPN from becoming obsessed with it.

ESPN has been so infatuated with the topic you'd think it's LeBron James or Johnny Manziel.  The fact that it's just an opinion, not a fact backed up by credible information from a legitimate source, doesn't seem to be relevant either.  The commissioner said something that they were able to twist into the story they want to tell.  That's good enough.  Who wants the truth to get in the way of a good story anyway?

The arguments used in support of the 154-game schedule are soft at best.  One of the biggest concerns is about travel.  In theory, taking eight games off the schedule while keeping the length of the season at 26 weeks, you're giving each team eight extra off days.  Yes, it's difficult for these players to finish a game, travel, get there at 3:00 in the morning and play again that night.  But they do that at all levels of baseball, and in the Minor Leagues they're not flying in private charters.  I'm not saying an extra off day here or there wouldn't be nice, but baseball's also a game that you're used to playing everyday and not doing so would knock you out of your routine.

Besides, there are plenty of ways to deal with the travel.  A lot of teams already play day games on the last day of a homestand before going on a road trip.  Baseball can't require that, but giving teams Monday off (or having their Monday game in the same city) after the Sunday night game IS something they could do.  They could also set up road trips so that there's no time-zone jumping.  An off day is already required when going from the West Coast to the East Coast, but there's nothing that says you can't go from St. Louis (Central time zone) to Cincinnati (Eastern time zone) to Milwaukee (Central time zone).

They've also used injury concerns as one of their reasons for wanting a shorter schedule.  I'm not sure how a shorter schedule would actually reduce the number of injuries.  How many guys are actually getting hurt because they're fatigued?  Yes, it would be fewer games that relief pitchers have to throw, reducing the number of innings on their arms.  But bullpen management is, and should be, the manager's job.  The abundance of Tommy John surgeries is alarming, but I'm not sure there's anything that can be done differently at the Major League level.

And the concern about injury for position players is just as silly.  The days of players playing all 162 games are long since gone.  The travel is one of the reasons why.  We see guys sitting out the game before or after a travel game already.  Or they'll only play one of the two when there's a day game after a night game.  That way they don't have to do that to their bodies.  Or is that the problem?  Do they want to see the stars playing all the time no matter what?

But my biggest issue here is this.  Other than ESPN, is anyone actually clamoring for a shorter schedule?  No one remembers when baseball only played a 154-game schedule, these writers and broadcasters included.  The AL went to 162 games in 1961 and the NL followed suit a year later.  That's 55 years ago.  It's like the people who long for the days before the designated hitter, which has been in place since 1973.  So, if you're keeping track, baseball has had both a 162-game schedule and the DH for the last 42 years.  (Interleague play isn't going anywhere either, by the way.)

This is all a moot point anyway.  Because the owners will never reduce the size of the schedule.  Going from 162 games to 154 would mean each team loses four home games.  While that's not a big deal for teams like Tampa Bay, think about how much lost revenue that would be for the Yankees or the Cardinals or the Red Sox.  Unless these talking heads can think of a way for these big-market owners to make the same amount of money in 77 games that they would've in 81.

We rarely see doubleheaders anymore for the same reason.  If you can get attendance, concessions, parking, etc., 81 times a season, why wouldn't you?  Sometimes doubleheaders are the only choice to make up rainouts, but even when teams have them, it's usually as a last resort.  And the doubleheaders we do see are usually of the day/night split-admission variety.

It's nice to think back to the '40s and '50s when teams played their 154-game schedules with a Sunday doubleheader.  But baseball only had eight teams that traveled by train and played almost exclusively afternoon games back then.  Baseball's different now.  And the game that it's become is pretty great.  There's nothing "wrong" with it.  It doesn't need "fixing."

Chopping eight games off the schedule certainly isn't the answer.  So, ESPN, please, for the love of God, just drop it!

NFL Franchise Fours

I almost forgot that I never did Franchise Fours for the NFL.  So, before May wraps up, I wanted to remedy that little problem.

The NFL did something similar to this last year or the year before with its "Mount Rushmore" polls, but I don't know if that was an official thing or not.  And seeing as I never saw it advertised anywhere or saw any results, I'm thinking it wasn't official.  It's not like that matters.  I just wanted to make that point.

Same rules apply as MLB used and I also applied to basketball and hockey.  Houston Oilers are all technically Titans.  If you played anywhere for the Rams or the Cardinals, it counts.  And since the agreement with the Browns/Ravens was that Baltimore would be treated as an expansion franchise, that's the way I'm treating them.  Jim Brown and Otto Graham were Browns and still are.  As far as I'm concerned, the Baltimore Ravens came into existence in 1995.  And don't try to tell me Johnny Unitas belongs with Baltimore.  The Colts' history went with them to Indianapolis, so that's where he goes.

One other note needs to be mentioned.  Only players are eligible.  Yes, George Halas founded the NFL.  But he left his mark as an owner and coach.  I think he played in the early days of the Bears, but that's certainly not his legacy, so he doesn't make the cut for the Bears.  It's worth saying that.  Because owners in football have had much more of a lasting impact on their teams than in other sports.  Al Davis, Ralph Wilson, Hank Stram, Wellington Mara, Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft.  The list goes on and on.

It's not like those teams don't have enough worthwhile players anyway.  Just like the other sports, it's hard finding four to fill out the team for the likes of Jacksonville and Houston, while it's hard to narrow it down to four for teams like the Bears and the Packers and the Steelers.  However, I shall do my best.  Here we go...

Arizona Cardinals: Larry Fitzgerald, Larry Wilson, Kurt Warner, Ottis Anderson
Atlanta Falcons: Tommy Nobis, Deion Sanders, Roddy White, Claude Humphrey
Baltimore Ravens: Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Haloti Ngata, Jonathan Ogden
Buffalo Bills: Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, O.J. Simpson
Carolina Panthers: Muhsin Muhammad, Steve Smith, Stephen Davis, Cam Newton
Chicago Bears: Bronko Nagurski, Red Grange, Dick Butkus, Walter Payton
Cincinnati Bengals: Anthony Munoz, Boomer Esiason, Cris Collinsworth, Carson Palmer
Cleveland Browns: Jim Brown, Otto Graham, Bernie Kosar, Joe Thomas
Dallas Cowboys: Roger Staubach, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, Troy Aikman
Denver Broncos: John Elway, Floyd Little, Terrell Davis, Peyton Manning
Detroit Lions: Barry Sanders, Billy Sims, Bobby Layne, Joe Schmidt
Green Bay Packers: Bart Starr, Brett Favre, Don Hutson, Reggie White
Houston Texans: Andre Johnson, Arian Foster, Matt Schaub, J.J. Watt
Indianapolis Colts: Peyton Manning, Johnny Unitas, Raymond Berry, John Mackey
Jacksonville Jaguars: Tony Boselli, Maurice Jones-Drew, Mark Brunell, Jimmy Smith
Kansas City Chiefs: Len Dawson, Tony Gonzalez, Derrick Thomas, Buck Buchanan
Miami Dolphins: Dan Marino, Bob Griese, Nick Buoniconti, Larry Csonka
Minnesota Vikings: Fran Tarkenton, Alan Page, Cris Carter, John Randle
New England Patriots: Tom Brady, John Hannah, Vince Wilfork, Andre Tippett
New Orleans Saints: Drew Brees, Archie Manning, Rickey Jackson, Sam Mills
New York Giants: Lawrence Taylor, Frank Gifford, Mel Hein, Eli Manning
New York Jets: Joe Namath, Mark Gastineau, Curtis Martin, Joe Klecko
Oakland Raiders: Ken Stabler, Jim Otto, Marcus Allen, Ted Hendricks
Philadelphia Eagles: Reggie White, Chuck Bednarik, Donovan McNabb, Steve Van Buren
Pittsburgh Steelers: Joe Greene, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, Terry Bradshaw
San Diego Chargers: Dan Fouts, Junior Seau, LaDainian Tomlinson, Philip Rivers
San Francisco 49ers: Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott, Roger Craig
Seattle Seahawks: Russell Wilson, Cortez Kennedy, Steve Largent, Shaun Alexander
St. Louis Rams: Jackie Slater, Jack Youngblood, Eric Dickerson, Marshall Faulk
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks, Lee Roy Selmon, Ronde Barber
Tennessee Titans: Warren Moon, Bruce Matthews, Earl Campbell, Elvin Bethea
Washington Redskins: Sammy Baugh, Sonny Jurgensen, Darrell Green, Art Monk

Appreciating Orioles Magic

Some of you may already know this, but I'm also sure that a lot of you probably don't.  My friend Jim Henneman had something pretty cool happen to him recently.  He was commissioned by the Baltimore Orioles to write their official team history, which came out over the winter to celebrate the team's 60th anniversary.  I just finished reading it, and I must say, job well done.

There's obviously been a lot of publicity surrounding the book, especially in the Baltimore area, and I agree with the assessment that Jim was the perfect person to undertake such a project.  He's widely considered to have seen more Orioles games in person than anyone.  He's been involved with the team in some fashion for most of their 60 years.  After a long career as a sportswriter, he now works as an official scorer at Camden Yards.  A member of the BBWAA, he's the actual Hall of Fame voter that I always talk about when that time of the year comes around.

As Jim said in the note that he included when he signed my copy, "Even a die-hard Yankees fan can appreciate Orioles magic."  I certainly can.  You don't need to be a fan of a particular team to have a sense and appreciation of their history.  My trip to the Montreal Canadiens Hall of Fame last summer is another example of that.  As a baseball fan, I respect the Orioles and their place in the game's history (they were, after all, the first American League team to relocate in more than 50 years).

But that doesn't mean I didn't learn something while reading the book.  For example, I never knew that in the mid-70s, there was real talk about making the Orioles a Baltimore-Washington regional team.  Or that a fire led to the construction of Memorial Stadium, their original home, and was probably a big factor in Baltimore getting a Major League team.  Or that "Oriole Park at Camden Yards" was actually a compromise combination of two names.

While, other than a brief description of how the relocation came about, the book doesn't really touch at all on the team's past as the St. Louis Browns, the history of baseball in Baltimore prior to the Orioles' arrival is very well-chronicled.  From the original Orioles that played in the National League in the late 1800s to the 1901-02 American League franchise that moved to New York and became the Yankees to the highly-successful Minor League team that was always among the attendance leaders.

An entire chapter is dedicated to the Orioles' first season, but after that, the book is divided into segments that cover roughly five years apiece.  The divisions are logical.  Expansion in 1961.  The championships in 1966 and 1970 (which has my favorite chapter name "The Best Damn Team In Baseball".)  The arrival of Cal Ripken, Jr., and another World Series title in 1983.  The lean year that followed the ALCS appearances in 1996 and 1997.  Last season's incredible ALCS run in their 60th anniversary season.

Plenty of time is also given to the legends that wore an Orioles jersey.  The trade for Frank Robinson, which many consider a turning point in franchise history.  Jim Palmer, who actually wrote the foreword.  Earl Weaver, the "Earl of Baltimore." Brooks Robinson, the first face of the franchise.  Hall of Famer Eddie Murray.  Reggie Jackson even spent a year in Baltimore.  And, of course, Cal Ripken, Jr.

The lesser-known Orioles who were just as important to the team's history receive just as much time, though.  Original manager Paul Richards, for example, was given a day in his honor after he was fired as manager.  Fellow original Oriole Don Larsen, who they traded to the Yankees in 1954, two years before his World Series perfect game.  Rick Dempsey, the hero of the 1983 World Series who became an Orioles TV announcer.  Elrod Hendricks, the backup catcher-turned longtime bullpen coach.  Mike Flanagan, who had a long career as a starter, then came back as a veteran reliever and closed the old stadium on the mound.  Just to name a few.

Each chapter ends with a timeline of the most memorable games from that segment of Orioles history.  Some are noteworthy for obvious reasons (Cal Ripken's 2,131st consecutive game, the World Series clinchers), while others mark records or no-hitters, and still others represent significant dates in franchise history.

Great reverence is also given to Baltimore's two ballparks.  I was close to crying as I read the part about the ceremony held on the field after the final game at Memorial Stadium.  Camden Yards (which I can't believe is almost 25 years old) is called "The Ballpark That Forever Changed Baseball," which isn't a stretch.  An old-school, baseball-only ballpark was a radical idea during construction in 1989-90.  The end product was (and still is) absolutely beautiful, as well as the inspiration for all the new stadiums that have come after it.

Hundreds of photos from the Orioles archives are also included.  There's a little bit of everything, and they wonderfully blend with Jim's reverent words.  More than just pictures, there are some pretty cool artifacts, too.  A press badge from the 1966 World Series, an early scouting report of Brooks Robinson, the scorecard from Cal Ripken, Jr.'s final game.

When Jim first told me he was doing the Orioles book, I thought it was pretty cool and I was hoping I'd get a chance to read it.  I'm glad I did.  Because it was everything I was expecting and more.  For Baltimore Orioles fans, this book is a must-read.  But even if you're not, there's still plenty in there to appreciate.  Just like the author himself said.  Boy, was he right.

Tennis In Paris, 2015

As you know, the French Open is my least favorite of the four Grand Slams.  It's got nothing to do with the tennis or the clay.  It's all because of one annoying little Spanish guy.  Even his fans have to admit, it's getting pretty boring watching him win every year.  Once the French Open becomes a little more like the other three Grand Slams and less predictable, it might go back to generating the same excitement level I have for Wimbledon or, especially, the US Open.

This year, I have a feeling it might actually be different, though.  Clay Boy has shown himself to be remarkably pedestrian over recent weeks.  He lost (and not in the finals) at all the clay court tune-up tournaments that he usually steamrolls right through.  As a result, his ranking has dropped significantly, and he's seeded only sixth here (the ranking goes down further if he doesn't win again and defend all his French Open points from last year).  So, while Nadal might be chasing his sixth straight title and 10th overall, this is also an incredible opportunity for someone else to actually be allowed to win the French Open.

Of course, knowing that Nadal was going to be seeded lower this year, all the top players were hoping he wouldn't end up in their draw.  Well, you know whose draw he ended up in?  Top-ranked Novak Djokovic, who's still looking for that elusive first French Open title.  A Djokovic-Nadal quarterfinal!  Are you kidding me?!

Djokovic, of course, is less excited about that than everyone else.  It's a double-edged sword for him.  The French Open title is going to go through Nadal.  Everyone knows that.  But you also want to put off facing him as long as possible.  Now Djokovic won't have to deal with him in a final or even a semi, but a quarter!  However, should he win that match, the most dangerous challenger is out and the path to his first French Open title becomes a lot clearer.  And Djokovic has won a bunch of those clay court tournaments Nadal lost in, so I really think he's got a good shot.

The biggest beneficiary of Nadal's seed and place in the draw, though, has to be Roger Federer.  Normally to win a Grand Slam on the men's side, you have to go at least two of the Big Three.  Well, this year that won't be the case.  Roger knows that he only has to face one of his rivals, and that can't happen until the finals.  Federer's the only guy other than Nadal to win this title in the last 10 years, and this is perhaps his best shot to add another one.  Especially if Djokovic and Nadal beat the crap out of each other (which you'd have to figure will happen), how much will the survivor have left for Federer, who'll likely have had a much easier path to the final.

That's not to say Roger's automatically going to reach the finals.  There are plenty of other players in the bottom half of the draw who are ready to seize the opportunity before them.  Both French guys (Tsonga and Monfils) have perhaps their best chance to win their home Grand Slam, and Tomas Berdych and Stan Wawrinka are both there.  I don't think they'll prevent Federer from getting to the finals, but he's lost some early matches to obscure players in Grand Slams recently, so if he slips up, one of them will be there to capitalize.

However, if it's somebody other than Federer that comes out of the bottom half of the men's draw, the final will be a very one-sided affair.  You've gotta think the winner of that Djokovic-Nadal quarterfinal becomes the odds-on favorite to win the whole thing, regardless of who the opponent is, but a Federer-Djokovic final would be very interesting (and very fun to watch).  I've got Djokovic beating Nadal, so my final is Djokovic-Federer, with Djokovic winning and finally claiming that first French Open.

On the women's side, this has been Maria Sharapova's tournament of late.  She completed the career Grand Slam here two years ago, then defended a Grand Slam title for the first time last year.  But of course, that was before Serena Williams got back to the absolute pinnacle of her game at the US Open.  If the Serena that played in Australia shows up, it'll be very difficult for any woman to beat her.  But this is Roland Garros.  Clay is traditionally Serena's worst surface, and Maria has developed into the best clay courter on the women's tour, so you'd have to think she enters the tournament as the favorite.

Serena's path could be a challenging one, too.  Vika Azarenka is finally once again ranked high enough to be seeded, but at No. 27, she'll play Serena in the third round.  Then it's Serena vs. Venus in the round of 16, with one Williams set for a matchup with Caroline Wozniacki in the quarterfinals (if Woz can get by Sara Errani).  And after that, it's the tour's new darling, Genie Bouchard, a semifinalist here and finalist at Wimbledon in 2014.  Like I said, tough.

Joining Sharapova on the bottom half isn't anyone you would consider a serious threat for the title.  Sure, Ana Ivanovic is also a former French Open champion, but how many times has she lost in the first or second round to somebody unknown?  I don't even think Ivanovic has been to the second week other than the two years she was in the finals back-to-back.  Simona Halep, last year's finalist, is seeded third and appears to have a pretty clean route to Maria in the semis, but you'd really have to reach to say you envision Simona Halep hoisting the trophy a week from Saturday.

We usually see someone emerge at the French Open, but this year's draw really favors those top seeds.  Serena's path is by far more difficult, but you know what happens with her as Grand Slam tournaments move along.  Same thing with Sharapova, who's a completely different player on the slow stuff at Roland Garros.  Could those two be on a collision course for the finals?  I think so.  And if they do meet, will Serena continue to have Maria's number, or will Sharapova finally get that first win over Serena since the 2004 Wimbledon final?  If she's going to beat her, this is the place.  I'll take the minor "upset" and say Sharapova makes it three straight French Opens with a win over Serena Williams in the final.

2015 Indy 500 Preview

It's been a weird year at Indy.  First of all, the Indy 500 kinda just snuck up on us.  Memorial Day's the earliest it can possibly be, which means the race is also on its earliest possible date.  (I totally didn't realize the Winston was last Saturday until I watched the replay of it on Sunday morning.)  Then day one of qualifying gets rained out and all we hear about is the spectacular crashes this month at the Brickyard which, fortunately, haven't resulted in any injuries (except to the cars).

But all that's irrelevant now.  Because come race day, no one's going to care about rain earlier in the month or what happened in qualifying.  All that matters is what happens on the track.  That's ultimately what's going to decide who kisses the bricks and drinks the milk.

Last year, we had an American winner for the first time in so long I can barely remember.  I think it was Sam Hornish, Jr., in 2008 who won Indy, then, like so many others, decided there was more money to be made in NASCAR.  Sam Hornish, Jr. hasn't been heard from since.  Fortunately, Ryan Hunter-Reay didn't do that after his 2014 Indy win.  He's back in 2015 to defend his title.  Hunter-Reay is starting in the middle of the pack, but that's roughly where he started last year, so I doubt that'll be an issue.

Hunter-Reay's margin of victory over Helio Castroneves last year was just 0.06 seconds, the second-closest margin in Indy 500 history.  Meanwhile, two years ago, we saw a remarkable 68 lead changes.  We can only hope that this year's race is anywhere near as exciting as the last two have been.

The favorite here has to be Scott Dixon.  Dixon won from the pole in 2008 and is on the pole again this year.  He has looked dominant all week.  Dixon's qualifying speed was almost half an MPH faster than anybody else.  Barring catastrophe (and we all know anything is possible at Indy), this is likely Dixon's race to lose.

Should Dixon falter, there are plenty of other contenders in the mix.  Let's start with Will Power, who'll be starting right next to Dixon in the middle of row 1.  Power hasn't had the greatest luck at the Brickyard.  This is the seventh straight time he'll start in one of the first three rows (second straight in row 1), his best finish was fifth in 2009, and two eighth-place finishes were the only other times he's been in the Top 10.  But he's the defending series champion and has been one of the most consistent drivers on the IndyCar circuit throughout his career.

Meanwhile, the Brazilian guys will be right behind Dixon and Power in row 2.  After years of leading during the race and not winning, Tony Kanaan finally led at the end of the race in 2013.  He's always a threat to win (as evidence by the fact he leads every year) no matter where he starts from.  Kanaan has shown his ability to work his way up from the back, which isn't going to be the case this year.  With him up front to start, Kanaan is absolutely a threat to win his second Indy 500.

Then there's Helio Castroneves.  He came thisclose to joining legends A.J. Foyt, Al Unser and Rick Mears as the only four-time Indy 500 winners last year, and you'd have to think it's just a matter of time before Helio gets that fourth one.

Marco Andretti has had to endure his family's Indy curse ever since finishing second by a nose as a rookie in 2008.  Eight years later, he's still looking for that first Andretti win since 1969.  While not as esteemed as Marco, Graham Rahal is looking to join his father as an Indy 500 winner and has a decent starting position of 17th.  And I can't go without mentioning Ed Carpenter.  The Indianapolis native was the pole-sitter in each of the last two years, but this year has been talked about more for his crazy wreck in qualifying.  I have to wonder, though.  Does that take the pressure off him?

Others with an outside chance for the win are Frenchman Simon Pagenuad, who'll be on the outside of row 1; Josef Newgarden, who always seems to be in the mix; JR Hildebrand, who was an agonizing second to the late Dan Wheldon a couple years ago when he crashed while leading around the final turn on the final lap; Juan Pablo Montoya, who's in his second year back after his stint in NASCAR; and Carlos Munoz, who had some of the best practice runs of anybody and qualified 11th.

While I've got Dixon tabbed as my favorite for the win, I'm not counting out Power, Kanaan, Castroneves or even Hunter-Reay.  I'll give you that as my top five.

The 33-Yard PAT

After they started talking about it during last year's owner's meetings and certain owners refused to let it go, it seemed inevitable that the NFL was going to make some sort of rules change regarding extra points.  Especially after they experimented with different things during the preseason and in the Pro Bowl last year.  So it came as no surprise today when they announced that they will, indeed, be changing the PAT rule for the 2015 season.

Starting next season, the ball will be spotted at the 15 for extra points, but remain at the 2 for two-point conversions.  That makes the extra point attempt 33 yards, roughly the same distance as a typical field goal.  Most people think that won't change much.  The success rate for 30-35 yard field goals isn't that much lower than the success rate for extra points.  But that doesn't make the rule change any less unnecessary.  So what if extra points are easy?  Isn't that the point?

The argument for the rule change is that the PAT from the 2-yard line has become almost automatic.  Kickers' success rate on extra points since the start of 2010 is over 99 percent.  And for some reason, the owners think this is a bad thing.  So they decided something needed to be done about it.  Which is unfair to the kickers.  They're being singled out for being too good at doing their jobs.

Nobody watches a football game to watch the kickers.  Everybody knows that.  But this isn't the answer.  The owners said that they're not trying to take the kicking element, which is still important, out of the game.  I do believe them.  If they wanted to eliminate kicks completely they could've. 

They could've implemented a rule where you automatically get 7 for a touchdown unless you decide to go for 2, where you'll get 8 if you make it and 6 if you don't.  (I'm not advocating such a rule, I'm just using it to illustrate my point.)  And who needs kickoffs, either?  Just let the other team take the ball at the 20 after a score.  While you're at it, get rid of special teams entirely.  Who needs punters?  Just like in the arena league, you have to go for it on fourth down no matter what.  If you don't make it, the other team gets the ball right there.  And with no special teams, that frees up like five roster spots.  You wouldn't have to worry about return men getting hurt, either.

But you know what, people weren't NOT watching because the extra point was virtually automatic.  On the rare occasion it actually did happen, it affected coaching moves later in the game.  I remember one game a couple years ago that a team lost 20-19 or 17-16 (something like that) because of a missed extra point.  And who can forget that playoff game where Tony Romo was holding for the extra point and bobbled the snap, resulting in Dallas losing 21-20.

There is one element of the new PAT rule that I like.  It's no longer a dead ball on a failed attempt.  If the defense blocks the extra point or intercepts a two-point attempt, they can return it for two points.  This has been a rule in college football for years and it'll definitely add something to  the NFL game.  It's already a rule that you can return a missed field goal, and that leads to some of the most exciting plays you could ever hope to see (Auburn-Alabama anybody?).

Teams might be more inclined to go for the block on an extra point or try and intercept a two-point conversion instead of just knocking it down now.  Imagine, one team is down 21-13 in the fourth quarter and scores to make it 21-19, but the two point-conversion is intercepted and returned for a safety.  Instead of being tied or, at worst, down by two, now they're trailing 23-19 and need another touchdown.  That's a huge difference.

Blocking an extra point just became a whole lot easier, too.  It used to be something most teams wouldn't even try because really, what difference did it make?  But now with a potential three-point swing at stake, there's actually incentive to defend the extra point.  Especially because blocking a field goal isn't unheard of, and that's essentially what they've turned the extra point into.

Ultimately, moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line probably won't make that much of a difference.  Just like we'll probably all get used to it pretty quickly and, five years from now, forget that the old rule worked just fine for the NFL for 95 years.  95 years.  That's how long the previous extra point rule lasted. 

As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  The extra point rule wasn't broken.  But the NFL "fixed" it anyway.  Why?

A Fish Out of Water

I wish I had some way to explain why the Miami Marlins fired their manager only to replace him with their GM, but I simply can't.  It seems like everything the Miami Marlins do is confusing, and this is one of their most confounding moves yet.  I may be way off.  Dan Jennings might be the perfect person to lead the Marlins.  But I have a feeling I'm not.  It does, however, look like Jeffrey Loria is moving closer towards his goal of actually becoming Al Davis.

When Loria fired Mike Redmond after the Marlins almost got no-hit by the Braves on Sunday, he announced that the new manager would be introduced on Monday.  That's code for "it's somebody within the organization."  Most people assumed that meant one of the coaches would be promoted, like the Brewers did with Craig Counsell after they fired Ron Roenicke a couple weeks ago.  But to say that going with the GM (whose only managing experience in a 30-year career was at a high school) who was responsible for constructing the under-achieving roster came out of left field would be an understatement.  I doubt there was anyone outside of the Marlins organization who saw this coming.

Teams have had success with out-of-the-box hires before.  Houston made the playoffs a couple times under broadcaster-turned-manager Larry Dierker, and Arizona won the World Series the year after they plucked Bob Brenly out of the broadcast booth.  The White Sox' hiring of Robin Ventura despite his not having any previous managing or coaching experience seems to be working out OK so far, too.  But it's important to note that all of those guys played in the Major Leagues.  Dan Jennings did not.

Jennings made his mark in the Majors as a scout.  But identifying talent and coaching it are different things entirely.  And who's to say they translate?  Just because you clearly know baseball well enough to sign guys like Giancarlo Stanton and Jose Fernandez and Henderson Alvarez into your organization doesn't necessarily mean you know when to make a pitching change or when to sit a struggling hitter.  We all think we can manage in the Major Leagues, but the truth is very few people actually can.

Loria clearly has a short fuse with his managers.  One of the articles I read today said that he's a big fan of George Steinbrenner, which is probably where he gets this itchy trigger finger from.  But to me, he's more like Al Davis than George Steinbrenner.  When Steinbrenner stopped firing his manager every other year, Joe Torre won four championships in five years.  After John Gruden left the Raiders, the longest Al Davis kept a coach was like two seasons, and Oakland hasn't finished above .500 since they went to the Super Bowl a decade ago.

That Raiders team lost Super Bowl XXXVII to the Bucs in January 2003.  In October 2003, the Marlins won the World Series under Jack McKeon, who was brought in as manager after Jeff Torborg was fired in mid-May (I think it was the same number of games, and the Marlins had the exact same record as they do right now).  Florida/Miami hasn't been back to the postseason since, despite having guys like Miguel Cabrera, Josh Beckett, Jose Reyes, Stanton and Fernandez on the roster.

We all remember a couple years ago when the Marlins opened their new ballpark and they actually tried to be good for the first time since the 2003 World Series.  That was the winter of Jose Reyes and Mark Buehrle and Ozzie Guillen.  What happened?  An epic failure of season that was bad even by the Marlins' historically inept standards.  (They fact that they were actually trying to be good that year probably made it worse.)  Who was responsible for constructing that team, and subsequently breaking it up the following offseason?  Oh yeah, Dan Jennings.

Miami is still paying Guillen, which I think had a lot to do with the decision to give the managing job to Jennings.  They're still paying Guillen, who was fired after only that one season.  They're still paying Redmond, who was in his third season as Guillen's replacement.  So, if they brought in somebody from outside the organization, even if it was just until the end of the season, that would be THREE different managers they'd be paying in 2015.  Jennings was already under contract with the organization, so they didn't have to add that third manager's salary.  For a money-conscious team like the Marlins, that had to have been a factor.

They've established a pretty impressive laundry list of managers who haven't lasted in Miami since McKeon retired.  They replaced McKeon with Joe Girardi, who was Manager of the Year as a rookie skipper in 2006, only to be fired after that season because he didn't get along with Loria.  Three years later, of course, Girardi won the World Series with the Yankees.  After Girardi it was Fredi Gonzalez, who actually lasted three and a half years before he got the boot.  Gonzalez then became manager of the Braves and has taken Atlanta to the playoffs twice.  They actually brought an 80-year-old McKeon back for the rest of the 2010 season after letting Gonzalez go.  Then there's Ozzie Guillen, one of their prize free agents in 2012.  Guillen was already established, having won the World Series with the White Sox in 2005.  After a 69-93 season and some not-so-good comments in the media, Guillen was gone.  He hasn't managed since.

Including Jennings, the Marlins have had 14 managers in their 23-year history, and no Marlins manager has lasted more than three and a half years on the job.  Loria hasn't owned the team the whole time, but those numbers are telling.  And this revolving door in the manager's office has likely had an impact on the team's fortunes.  They've never won the division and only made the playoffs twice (although they did win the World Series both of those years).  For most of the remaining time, they've been a bad team playing in a mostly-empty ballpark.

Jeff Loria wants his team to succeed very badly.  Perhaps a little too badly.  Because his "win now" approach is actually a hindrance.  He doesn't give his managers enough time to build something (Jim Leyland's 1997 team doesn't count since it was bought for the sole purpose of winning the World Series, then disassembled just as fast).  If he did, he might be amazed by what he saw.  Because Giancarlo Stanton is on the shortlist of the best players in the game and there's plenty of other talent around him.  The Marlins are almost good enough to be very good really soon.  If only their owner would stop getting in the way.

Stanley Cup Conference Finals

I don't want to brag, but I went 4-for-4 on my predictions for the second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs (11-of-12 overall including the first round).  What's more, I even had the right number of games for three of the four series.  The only one I missed was two extra games in Chicago-Minnesota.

And that brings us to a pair of conference finals that I think actually do match-up the four best teams in hockey.  Sometimes we'll see a lower-seeded team sneak in, but this year we didn't.  Entering the playoffs, all four of the remaining teams were considered Cup contenders, and that hasn't changed.  I can't even pick a favorite at this point.  All four are capable of getting the eight more wins they need.  They're all strong.  These conference finals are gonna be good.

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Rangers vs. Lightning: This is not the matchup the Rangers wanted.  Tampa Bay has their number.  Very badly.  The Lightning won all three games between the teams this season, and none of them were close.  However, they were also all early in the year, before the Rangers went on their ridiculous run to jump to the top of the NHL.  Regardless, they wanted to see Montreal or really anybody else.  Anyone other than Tampa Bay.

It also doesn't help that it's not just an NHL rule the Rangers play Capitals in the playoffs.  It's a rule that they got seven.  Playing all those one-goal games might end up hurting them eventually, too.  Playoff hockey is ultra-intense, and the intensity is dialed up that much higher in close games.  Even more so in overtime.  They've got the best goalie on the planet, but would it kill them to give Lundqvist a little bit of a break at some point?  As great as Lundqvist is, you can't keep relying on your goalie to win games 2-1.  You need some offensive punch.  During the end of the Washington series, Chris Kreider stepped up and turned things around in the Rangers' favor.  Maybe that'll carry over into the conference finals.

Scoring's not a problem for the Lightning.  In fact, they seem to be reinvigorated by moving Steven Stamkos to the wing.  Plus, they've got a healthy Ben Bishop.  Last season, when they got swept out of the playoffs in the first round, it was because Bishop was hurt.  This season, they've added a healthy goalie to their scoring punch, and it resulted in their first trip to the conference finals in four years.  They've also got a ton of ex-Rangers on the roster, which is going to be ultra-confusing, but could also help explain why the Lightning have owned the Rangers over the last two years.

Tampa Bay swept Montreal in the regular season and it carried over into the playoffs.  If this series starts like that one, it'll be short.  The Rangers need to figure out a way to actually beat the Lightning early.  Because if they don't, Tampa Bay won't let them back in the series.  They came back from 3-1 against the Capitals, but that won't happen against a better Lightning team.  I do think the Rangers will finally get a win.  Will they get four, though?  That I'm not so sure of.  Lightning in six.

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Ducks vs. Blackhawks: Anaheim and Chicago have been the two most dominant teams so far in the playoffs.  As evidence by the fact that the two conference semis went a combined nine games.  When the playoffs started, most people predicted a Ducks-Blackhawks Western Conference Final.  And while Anaheim was the better team in the regular season, Chicago is built for the playoffs, which makes this series an absolute toss-up.

The Ducks have been every bit as impressive in the postseason as they were in the regular season.  Anaheim is a much better team than both Winnipeg and Calgary, and it showed.  That won't be the case against Chicago.  On paper, the Ducks probably are better than the Blackhawks, but the difference is negligible.  They also have to overcome a history of playoff disappointment.  They haven't been to the conference final since 2007.  Let's see if that lack of experience relative to the Blackhawks comes into play.

As for the Blackhawks, they're doing what they normally do this time of the year.  Chicago's in the Western Conference Final for the third straight year and looking to win its third Cup since 2010.  Against Minnesota, it looked like they really hit their stride, and after the goalie merry-go-round that was the first round, Corey Crawford settled in and once again played like the Cup-winning goalie he is against the Wild.  Offensively, the teams are a wash.  If the real Corey Crawford shows up, Chicago has the goaltending edge, though, and that could make the difference.

No matter what, I think this series goes deep.  They're both well-rested, talented, and well-coached.  This is the series everybody wanted to see, and it's going to be just as competitive as we were all hoping.  There's going to be plenty of goals scored, so it'll be all about who stops more.  I just have a feeling that'll be the Blackhawks.  It's their turn to win the West in that weird Giants-Cardinals thing they've got going on with the Kings.  Blackhawks in seven.

NBA Franchise Fours

For some reason, the NHL has decided that there won't be any hockey games until Saturday.  Even though the Blackhawks have been off for a week and the matchup has been set since Monday, the Western Conference Final will start after the East.  So, the Blackhawks get eight days off between games, while the Rangers will have two (and the "rested" Lightning will have three).  Although, after looking at the schedule for both series, it looks like they wanted to make sure they'd have that Saturday night Ducks-Blackhawks game on NBC, so they made it Game 4 instead of Game 5.

But I've found the silver lining in this lack of hockey.  It gives me a chance to continue my Franchise Four project before doing my conference finals previews (by the way, I went 4-for-4 in the second round, and I got three of the game numbers right, missing only on the Blackhawks).

Anyway, more about the NHL tomorrow.  Today it's back to the Franchise Four.  So do I do NBA or NFL?  Well, I read that Sports Illustrated article about the 1985 lottery and whether or not it was fixed for the Knicks to get Patrick Ewing, and that made my decision for me.  The Knicks' franchise center, he's obviously one of their four.  And since there's NBA playoff games today and the extent of what's going on in the NFL is Tom Brady declaring war against the league over his suspension, the NBA it is.

Same rules apply that MLB used for their Franchise Four and I then extended to the NHL.  The Charlotte Hornets, if I understand everything right, include both incarnations of the franchise, while the New Orleans Hornets count for the Pelicans.  Since NBA teams move around a lot, I'm not sure I'll have them all necessarily in the right places, but I'll try my best.

Atlanta Hawks: Dominique Wilkins, Bob Pettit, Kevin Willis, Al Horford
Boston Celtics: Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek
Brooklyn Nets: Jason Kidd, Julius Erving, Buck Williams, Richard Jefferson
Charlotte Hornets: Larry Johnson, Alonzo Mourning, Glen Rice, Gerald Wallace
Chicago Bulls: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Sloan, Derrick Rose
Cleveland Cavaliers: LeBron James, Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, Larry Nance
Dallas Mavericks: Dirk Nowitzki, Rolando Blackman, Jason Terry, Mark Aguirre
Denver Nuggets: Dan Issel, Alex English, Dikembe Mutombo, Carmelo Anthony
Detroit Pistons: Dave Bing, Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Grant Hill
Golden State Warriors: Chris Mullin, Rick Barry, Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
Houston Rockets: Hakeem Olajuwon, Ralph Sampson, Calvin Murphy, Yao Ming
Indiana Pacers: Reggie Miller, Paul George, Jermaine O'Neal, Detlef Schrempf
Los Angeles Clippers: Blake Griffin, Bob McAdoo, Chris Paul, Randy Smith
Los Angeles Lakers: Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant
Memphis Grizzlies: Mike Bibby, Pau Gasol, Rudy Gay, Mike Conley
Miami Heat: Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Alonzo Mourning, Tim Hardaway
Milwaukee Bucks: Oscar Robertson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Sidney Moncrief, Bob Lanier
Minnesota Timberwolves: Kevin Garnett, Kevin Love, Stephon Marbury, Wally Szczerbiak
New Orleans Pelicans: Chris Paul, Anthony Davis, David West, Baron Davis
New York Knicks: Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe
Oklahoma City Thunder: Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, Kevin Durant, Nate McMillan
Orlando Magic: Shaquille O'Neal, Dwight Howard, Anfernee Hardaway, Nick Anderson
Philadelphia 76ers: Julius Erving, Moses Malone, Allen Iverson, Charles Barkley
Phoenix Suns: Steve Nash, Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson, Walter Davis
Portland Trail Blazers: Clyde Drexler, Bill Walton, Terry Porter, LaMarcus Aldridge
Sacramento Kings: Mitch Richmond, Oscar Robertson, Vlade Divac, Chris Webber
San Antonio Spurs: David Robertson, Tim Duncan, George Gervin, Tony Parker
Toronto Raptors: Vince Carter, Chris Bosh, Damon Stoudemire, DeMar DeRozan
Utah Jazz: Karl Malone, John Stockton, Pete Maravich, Adrian Dantley
Washington Wizards: Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Walt Bellamy, Gilbert Arenas

Baseball/Softball's Pitch For Reinstatement

Don't worry, we'll continue the Franchise Four project with the NBA and NFL soon enough.  But it would be boring to do essentially the same post three times in a row.  Besides, I've got to build that suspense.

The reason I wanted to do something different today?  Well, it's because the IOC has officially opened the process for the sports that are looking to be added to the Olympic program for the 2020 Tokyo Games.  Or, as many people think, baseball & softball's path to reinstatement.  While I'm not as confident as most that we're necessarily going to see that happen, I absolutely love the fact that the Olympic program will be expanding one way or the other in 2020.

This was one of the major reforms in IOC President Thomas Bach's "Olympic Agenda 2020" initiative.  During former President Jacques Rogge's tenure, the Olympic program was capped at 28 sports.  When baseball and softball were voted out, that created two openings, which were filled by golf and rugby for Rio.  That 28-sport maximum created even more controversy when they determined that a new sport would be added for Tokyo, which meant another sport would have to be dropped.  But, as it turns out, they didn't really add a sport at all, since they made that ridiculous decision to drop wrestling, then rectified the situation by immediately reinstating it.

I always hated the 28-sport cap, which seemed completely arbitrary (why not a nice round number like 30?).  Fortunately, President Bach agrees with me.  Why do sports have to get dropped so others can get added?  If you can find a way to work in new sports/events while keeping within the preferred number of athletes, why not do that?  To me, it just doesn't seem fair to take that Olympic status away from a sport.

Bach moving it from a sport-based program to an event-based program created a little more flexibility when creating the Olympic schedule.  One of the reasons for doing this was to give the host nation the opportunity to showcase sports that are more popular in their respective countries.  (If Boston does end up hosting in 2024, you can bet they'll want to have baseball games at Fenway Park included.)
That's why the optimism for baseball and softball's return is so high.  Both sports are obviously huge in Japan.  Baseball is the national sport, Nippon Professional Baseball is the highest level of pro ball outside the Major Leagues, and Japan won the first two World Baseball Classics.  Meanwhile, the Japanese softball team is the reigning Olympic champions, having upset the United States in the gold medal game in Beijing.  It seems to make perfect sense.  They're incredibly popular, and there are plenty of existing baseball/softball venues in the country that they wouldn't need to build one.

But my big worry about the readmission of baseball and softball is their place in the Games beyond 2020.  As I said earlier, I don't like the idea of sports coming and going from the Olympic program.  I have a feeling that's exactly what would happen if the right sport isn't added for Tokyo, though.  Baseball's popularity is limited throughout the rest of the world.  Among potential 2024 hosts, it's popular in the United States, Germany and Italy, but what if Paris ends up hosting?  Do they even know what baseball is in France?  Paris might want to say "au revoir" to baseball and softball and add something that's popular in France, meaning that Olympic return was limited to just one Games.

Don't get me wrong.  I think baseball and softball belong in the Olympics.  It was a mistake to drop them in the first place, and I would certainly welcome their return in Tokyo.  But I'd also like to see some assurance that whatever sport is added will stick around for a while.  Especially because of how devastating it would be (especially for softball) to be dropped from the Olympics twice. 

With that in mind, baseball/softball's not the only international federation that has been invited to apply for Olympic inclusion, and there are a few that I think would make excellent additions to the program.  OK, one mainly.  And, yes, I'm talking about squash.  There's also that camp that feels baseball and softball have had their chance and it should be somebody else's turn.  While I don't necessarily agree with that, I can see their point.

Squash, in my opinion, is the most Olympic-ready of the sports that have been invited to apply for inclusion for the first time, and is probably considered the sport most likely to get the nod if baseball and softball somehow don't.  There's also the possibility that more than one sport could be added.  Or none.  That decision won't come until next year.  First they'll look at the applications and choose which sports will move forward.  Then the Tokyo organizers will make a proposal to the IOC by September 30.  The IOC won't discuss it until they meet in Rio just before next year's Olympics, though.

It's highly likely that the Tokyo organizers will recommend that at least one sport be added to the Olympic program for 2020.  Does that mean the return of Olympic baseball and softball?  One can only hope so.  You know they're thanking their lucky stars that the 2020 Olympics are in Japan.  (Perhaps only the U.S. and/or Canada would've been better for baseball/softball's prospects.)  And if baseball and softball are brought back, I hope it's a permanent return for two sports that never should've been dropped in the first place.

NHL Franchise Fours

Yesterday I had a very lively discussion with my dad and brother-in-law about the MLB Franchise Fours and who is/isn't going to make it for the various franchises.  We agreed that it was stupid all of the players listed as Washington Nationals were actually Montreal Expos.  We also agreed that some were incredibly easy, some were almost impossible, and some teams had one or two that are absolute no-brainers.  That's part of the fun of this thing.  Everyone's going to have their own opinion, and it's not like anybody's going to be wrong.  It really is a matter of preference.

It also got me thinking.  What if they did the Franchise Four in the other sports?  Like baseball, it would be the same type of exercise.  The Franchise Four for the Columbus Blue Jackets?  They've only been around 15 years and irrelevant for most of that time.  For the Montreal Canadiens?  You want me to pick just four?  The Winnipeg Jets?  Sorry, Phil Housley and Dale Hawerchuk don't count.  They're technically Coyotes.  Ilya Kovalchuk and Dany Heatley count as Jets, though.

But that's part of the fun of all this.  My four might be completely different than your four.  But there are some that I'm fairly certain we'll all agree on.

Here we go.  Let the debating begin...

Anaheim Ducks: Teemu Selanne, Ryan Getzlaf, Paul Kariya, Jean-Sebastien Giguere
Arizona Coyotes: Shane Doan, Keith Tkachuk, Jeremy Roenick, Phil Housley
Boston Bruns: Bobby Orr, Ray Bourque, Phil Esposito, Johnny Bucyk
Buffalo Sabres: Gilbert Perrault, Dominik Hasek, Pat LaFontaine, Rene Robert
Calgary Flames: Jarome Iginla, Theo Fleury, Lanny McDonald, Al MacInnis
Carolina Hurricanes: Ron Francis, Erik Cole, Eric Staal, Rod Brind'Amour
Chicago Blackhawks: Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Jonathan Toews, Glenn Hall
Colorado Avalanche: Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Patrick Roy, Michel Goulet
Columbus Blue Jackets: Rick Nash, Sergei Bobrovsky, Nick Foligno, Ryan Johansen
Dallas Stars: Mike Modano, Derian Hatcher, Joe Nieuwendyk, Neal Broten
Detroit Red Wings: Gordie Howe, Steve Yzerman, Ted Lindsay, Nicklas Lidstrom
Edmonton Oilers: Wayne Gretzky, Grant Fuhr, Jarri Kurri, Mark Messier
Florida Panthers: Jay Boouwmester, John Vanbiesbrouck, Roberto Luongo, Olli Jokinen
Los Angeles Kings: Wayne Gretzky, Luc Robitaille, Anze Kopitar, Marcel Dionne
Minnesota Wild: Zach Parise, Marian Gaborik, Mikko Koivu, Nicklas Backstrom
Montreal Canadiens: Maurice Richard, Jean Beliveau, Patrick Roy, Guy Lafleur
Nashville Predators: Pekka Rinne, Shea Weber, Kimmo Timonen, Tomas Vokoun
New Jersey Devils: Martin Brodeur, Scott Stevens, Ken Daneyko, Scott Niedermayer
New York Islanders: Mike Bossy, Denis Potvin, Billy Smith, Bryan Trottier
New York Rangers: Mark Messier, Brian Leetch, Rod Gilbert, Mike Richter
Ottawa Senators: Daniel Alfredsson, Jason Spezza, Alexei Yashin, Wade Redden
Philadelphia Flyers: Bobby Clarke, Eric Lindros, Ron Hextall, Bernie Parent
Pittsburgh Penguins: Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin
San Jose Sharks: Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, Evgeni Nabokov, Owen Nolan
St. Louis Blues: Brett Hull, Brendan Shanahan, Bernie Federko, Chris Pronger
Tampa Bay Lightning: Martin St. Louis, Vincent Lecavalier, Steven Stamkos, Brad Richards
Toronto Maple Leafs: Syl Apps, Mats Sundin, Ace Bailey, Tim Horton
Vancouver Canucks: Pavel Bure, Trevor Linden, Henrik Sedin, Markus Naslund
Washington Capitals: Alex Ovechkin, Rod Langway, Dale Hunter, Peter Bondra
Winnipeg Jets: Evander Kane, Dustin Byfuglien, Ilya Kovalchuk, Dany Heatley

Deflating Brady's Ego

We've finally gotten to the bottom of Deflatgate.  Sort of.  Actually not really at all.  After spending all these months and all that money on the Wells Report, they didn't conclude anything.  All they said is that it's "more probable than not" that the Patriots cheated.  Groundbreaking stuff.

What the Wells Report did tell us was stuff that we pretty much all knew already.  Bill Belichick was not involved and likely had no knowledge.  Why would he?  He's got more to worry about before a game than how inflated the footballs are.  That's a job you delegate to your quarterback.  He's the one actually handling the footballs.  They also acknowledged that Robert Kraft didn't have any influence over what happened or knowledge of what was going on.  They did stop short of giving Kraft his apology, though.  He "disagreed" with the findings (as if you'd expect him to say anything else), but as a "league man" will likely go along with whatever punishment is handed out.

Rather, the report centered the blame on three people.  There were two locker room attendants who had access to the balls after they were tested.  One of them, logic suggests, is the person responsible for the action of physically taking the air out of the footballs.  But it's the third person implicated that's the most significant.  They determined that Tom Brady "was at least generally aware" of what was going on.  Although, they did stop short of saying it was at his request that the balls were tampered with.

Of course, Brady remains defiant.  He insists that he never cheated, deliberately or otherwise, even though the evidence points to the contrary.  But that press conference he gave the day after the Deflategate report was released didn't help his case.  It struck me more as a guy whose head has gotten so bloated by the size of his ego.  "I'm Tom Brady.  I'm the All-American boy.  I didn't cheat."  He came off as arrogant and smug, and it looked like he thought he would either not get caught or not get punished because he's Tom Brady.  Which is completely absurd.

Even if the footballs in the AFC Championship Game had been properly inflated the whole time, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.  The Colts got their butts kicked.  And we all know that the balls used in the Super Bowl were legal, so there's nothing about New England's championship that's tainted.  But this is a team that's been caught trying to circumvent the rules before.  That's why the NFL has to come down hard on the Patriots.

So what kind of a punishment do they deserve as an organization?  I think the report is correct in that Kraft and Belichick had no knowledge or involvement.  But that doesn't change the fact this happened under their watch.  For Spygate, it was a $500,000 fine and the loss of draft picks.  I'd expect something similar here.  It's not their fault, so they don't deserve to be punished individually.  But their the bosses and have to be held accountable.  That's why the team won't escape something, even if it is just a fine.

Brady, on the other hand, deserves to be suspended.  He deliberately broke the rules and was cocky about it.  A message needs to be sent.  At the very least, he needs to sit out on Opening Night (although the Jimmy Garoppolo vs. Ben Roethlisberger quarterback matchup doesn't have quite the same appeal, but that shouldn't matter).  I think he needs to miss more than that.  Brady needs a multiple-game suspension.  I'm not saying the four that a substance-abuse policy violator gets, but at least two and I'd be OK with three.  But if Brady gets off with just a fine (or, worse yet, completely unscathed), Roger Goodell will be made to look like a total chump.

Goodell hasn't had a good year when it comes to suspensions.  The fact that Ray Rice got only two games was utterly ridiculous, then he tried to do an about-face and was ridiculed even more.  Then came Adrian Peterson, who he suspended indefinitely, only to have that overturned.  But the bottom line remains that Goodell still has the sole power to punish players under the personal conduct policy, and he still gets a lot of discretion when it comes to doling out suspensions.

The personal conduct policy was designed to deal with off-the-field issues in a very image-conscious league.  And while it's apples and oranges to compare Brady and Ray Rice, in a way what Brady did was worse.  He went against the integrity of the game.  He tried to gain an advantage by manipulating the equipment used on the field (which he didn't even need to do). The fact that he's one of the most recognizable stars in the game is completely irrelevant.  Tom Brady deserves to have the hammer dropped on him the same way it would be dropped on any other player who did the same thing.

Sure, the fact that it happened in the AFC Championship Game, and that it was the Patriots, and that, more specifically, it was Tom Brady gave this story a life of its own.  So what?  This isn't about the fact that a majority of the country hates the Patriots or that Brady is a love-him-or-hate-him personality.  It's about a guy who broke the rules and needs to face the consequences for those actions.  Anything less than a fine and suspension for Brady wouldn't be appropriate.  I don't care who it is.  The message needs to be sent that you can't do that and expect to get away with it.

No Place In the WNBA

Jim Dolan may have a lot of money, but he has once again proven he has no idea how to competently run a professional sports franchise.  In possibly the dumbest move he's ever made with one of his teams, he's brought Isiah Thomas back as president of the Liberty.  Isiah Thomas!?  In the WNBA?  Yeah, that's a great idea.

I've long held this theory that Thomas has to have some sort of incriminating dirt on Dolan.  How else can you explain why Dolan keeps hiring a guy who everyone else agrees is toxic?  Dolan's clueless, but I'm pretty sure he isn't blind.  He has to know what everybody else thinks about Isiah Thomas and for some reason doesn't care.

The sad part is that this has very little to do with how terribly Isiah Thomas ran the Knicks.  Sure, he ran the franchise into the ground, and he did it for years, but that's as much Dolan's fault for letting him do it and not doing anything about it.  Of course, being that bad at running a franchise should be enough to mean you won't get the chance to run another one.  But not if you're Isiah Thomas.  Apparently, in Jim Dolan's eyes, running a team of men and running a team of women are completely separate things and sucking at one doesn't mean you're going to suck at the other.  (He will.)

Rather, this is about Isiah Thomas' behavior during his time with the Knicks.  In 2006, former Knicks employee Anucha Browne Saunders filed a lawsuit against the team claiming Thomas sexually harassed her.  And Browne Saunders won the case.  The jury found that Thomas was guilty of sexual harassment and held the Knicks liable.  The suit was eventually settled for $11.5 million.

Unbelievably, that wasn't enough for Dolan to fire Thomas.  Instead, he gave him added responsibilities as head coach.  It was only after Thomas proved he couldn't do that job either (56-108 in two seasons) that Dolan finally canned Thomas.  He became the head coach at Florida International in 2009, then took a "consultant" job with the Knicks a year later, only to backtrack when everyone realized that was a violation of NBA rules.
Clearly there's some sort of weird bromance going on between Jim Dolan and Isiah Thomas.  Because there isn't a single person in the basketball-watching world that thinks Isiah Thomas is employable.  Except for maybe Jim Dolan.  Which is why the fact that Dolan constantly hiring Thomas for various jobs he isn't competent to do is mind-boggling.  Well, to everyone but Jim Dolan.  Even though it's Dolan's teams that Thomas destroys, Dolan doesn't seem to mind.

This has nothing to do with Isiah Thomas and Jim Dolan's relationship either.  It's about the fact that a man who was found guilty of sexually harassing a female team employee (and wasn't fired) has been hired (by the same employer) to run a women's basketball team.  Are you serious?  Once again, Jim Dolan has shown that he's either completely clueless or, worse, ignorant, to what's going on around him.

He certainly knew there was going to be reaction, primarily negative, to the hiring of Isiah Thomas.  And rightfully so.  People who serve prison sentences for crimes against children have to register when they get out, and they're not allowed to have anything to do with youth sports.  While I'm not comparing Isiah Thomas to those monsters, the situation isn't completely dissimilar.  He was guilty of sexually harassing a female team employee.  He has no place in women's sports.  And he definitely doesn't belong in the only professional women's sports league in the country.

Whether or not they can force him out, I don't know, but the league has to step in here.  You'd have to think there's something in the WNBA bylaws that they can use to prevent Isiah Thomas from having anything to do with the day-to-day operations of the New York Liberty.  If they let him be involved in the league in any way, it sends a bad message.  It's as if they're condoning the sort of workplace behavior that he's been guilty of previously.  And allowing that would be devastating to a league that struggles for relevance in a crowed American sports scene as it is.

For the sake of the Liberty and the WNBA, Jim Dolan and Isiah Thomas must be stopped.  If the WNBA can't do something to prevent the hiring, it's up to Dolan and/or Thomas.  Dolan needs to do the right thing and actually respond to public criticism with more than the "F.U." attitude he normally shows.  Or, even less likely, Isiah Thomas needs to realize he and the WNBA don't mix and resign.

Finally Fight Night

 

After six years of waiting, it's finally here.  The "Fight of the Century."  Mayweather vs. Pacquiao.  If it had happened back in 2009-10 when they were both at the height of their powers, it really would've been something special, but I'm not going to nitpick about something so many people have wanted for so long.  And it's here at long last, which is all that really matters.

Boxing needed this.  Boxing has needed this for a while.  The sport hasn't been talked about this in a long time.  Boxing has been flirting with irrelevance for the last couple years.  The fact that the Klitschko brothers refuse to fight each other and there isn't a heavyweight good enough to take the belt away from one of them is probably the main reason for that.  But Mayweather and Pacquiao are the sport's two biggest draws.  And they're in the same weight class.  Finally getting them in the ring together is what the sport, and its fans, have been clamoring for.

I'm not saying boxing is on its way back to what it once was.  I don't think it'll ever be that again.  But for one night at least, it's what everybody's talking about.  People are basing their Saturday night plans around where and how they're going to watch a boxing match.

For the past couple months, they've been building a Buffalo Wild Wings about a block away from my apartment.  Every time I walked by it, I hoped it would be finished in time.  Because that's where I wanted to watch this fight.  Buffalo Wild Wings opened on Monday.  They've got banners everywhere advertising that they've bought the fight and encouraging people to come watch it there.  Guess where I'm going for the first time on Saturday night?

The pay-per-view price is $89.95.  That's the most I've ever seen for a fight.  I usually see these prices and think people would be crazy to pay it.  For this fight, it seems like a bargain.  (Although, one of the reasons I wanted Buffalo Wild Wings to be open was so that I could save $90 by not watching it at home.)  Plenty of people are going to pay $90 a pop, and they're expecting to easily break the record of $150 million in pay-per-view buys set for Mayweather's fight against Saul Alvarez in 2013.

There are a number of reasons why it took six long years for a Mayweather-Pacquiao bout to come to fruition.  Some are more legitimate than others, but I think they've been avoiding each other.  Or, more specifically, Mayweather has been avoiding Pacquiao.  Throughout all the negotiations from 2009 until now, it's always seemed like the Pacquiao camp has been more willing to put up the gloves and do this than the Mayweather camp.  So why did it finally happen?  Because Mayweather, who I think was giving in to public pressure a little bit, is the one who initiated the talks.

As much as I don't like it, I can kind of see why Mayweather was coming up with every reason he could think of to NOT fight Pacquiao.  While they were in their primes, Pacquiao was the better fighter.  But the one thing Mayweather always had over him was the thing he still does.  That undefeated record.  Of course, that undefeated record comes with somewhat of an asterisk, since a lot of Mayweather's fights have been against lesser opponents, but undefeated is undefeated.  Had they fought in 2010 or 2011, that 0 probably would've become a 1 at the hands of Manny Pacquiao.

Pacqiuao has long since moved on to other interests.  Boxing is just one of the things he does.  He's a Congressman in the Philippines and has dabbled in singing, acting and a bunch of other stuff (evidently he coaches a basketball team, too).  He's the biggest Filipino celebrity on the planet, and the fight will probably be the most-watched TV program in the history of the Philippines.

Floyd Mayweather, on the other hand, is a boxer first and foremost.  Boxing has made him very rich, and it's his only career.  He's past his prime, but he's still incredibly formidable at the only profession he's ever known.  There's no question that at this point in their respective careers, Mayweather is the better fighter.  That's what's going to make him the heavy favorite in this matchup.

As for the fight itself, I'll be rooting for Pacquiao, but I do think Mayweather is going to win.  It's hard to predict how this is gonna go, though.  Many people think that Pacquiao's best chance is to get an early knockout.  The longer it goes, they reason, the better it'll be for Mayweather, who's the more fit of the two.  But I actually think the opposite might be true.  Mayweather's got more power.  He may go for a knockout early on and tire himself out, which would allow Pacquiao to take advantage in the later rounds.

It could go the distance or be a first-round knockout.  Mayweather could win or Pacquiao could win.  None of that matters.  Because the real winner is boxing.  And the fans who've waited way too long for this and are finally being rewarded with the "Fight of the Century."