In Defense of the Olympic Trials

The track & field Olympic Trials begin this weekend.  Jenn Suhr, the 2012 gold medalist in the women's pole vault, needs to finish in the top three if she'll have any chance of defending her title in Rio.  Her husband & coach Rick thinks that's ridiculous.  Rick doesn't think there should be Olympic Trials at all.  Based on those comments, though, Rick Suhr just makes himself look like an idiot.

First, a breakdown of Rick Suhr's comments, which really just come off as whining.  "We have to be in the top three that day, that day only, or we don't go," he said.  "We're stuck with it and we'll make the most of it...but I'm an advocate for change."  

He also doesn't like the five-week gap between Trials and the Olympics: "In our American system, you have to peak twice, a month before the Games and again at the Games.  That's very difficult.  We lobbied for the two to be farther apart.  Well, for some reason, the governing body decided to move the dates even closer, which doesn't make any sense.  Basically if you pop a gasket in the Trials, you're done."

Suhr is wrong on both counts, but I'll deal with his second point first.  One month in between actually sets everyone up for optimal performance at the Olympics.  You don't need to peak twice.  You need to peak once and hold it for about five weeks.  And some of the best (Jenn Suhr included) are good enough to make the team without peaking at Trials, so I really don't get his argument there.

Besides, we saw last year how detrimental too long of a gap can be.  U.S. Nationals (the Olympic Trials serve as U.S. Nationals in Olympic years) are always right around the same time at the end of June/beginning of July.  Last year's World Championships weren't until the end of August.  And Team USA was awful in Beijing, with many people blaming the nine-week gap between Nationals and Worlds as one of the reasons why.

There's another practical reason why the Olympic Trials are so close to the start of the Olympics.  They're at the absolute end of the qualifying period.  In addition to finishing in the top three at Trials, you need to have the Olympic qualifying standard to compete in Rio.  For World Championships, USA Track & Field will let you "chase" the standard if you don't already have it.  For the Olympics, they don't do that.  You must have the standard before Trials or get it at Trials in order to go.  No "chasing."  Why?  Because, USA Track & Field and the USOC announce the Olympic team as soon as Trials end.  It's only fair.  You know at the end of your event at Trials whether you're an Olympian or not.  If you finish fourth and have the standard, you don't have to sit there for a month and wait to see whether the third-place finisher gets the standard or not.  Everyone knows the Olympic team right away.

Achieving the Olympic qualifying standard generally isn't a problem for the Americans.  Which is precisely why you can't base it off the performance lists.  For example, the women's 100 meter hurdles.  This is going to be one of the most hotly-contested events at Trials.  The final at Trials could be better than the final in Rio, and there are potential Olympic medalists that will be watching the Games from home.  

Why is that?  Because 11 of the top 15 women in the world this year are American!  Now, you try telling Sharika Nelvis, who has the fourth-best time in the world, that since the three people above her on the world list are also American, she has no chance of going to Rio.  Same thing in the men's 100 meters, where five men are under 10 seconds, but only three can go.

Each country has their own method for building their Olympic team.  Many either go strictly off performance lists or use some combination of performance lists and a selection meet.  That seems to be the method Rick Suhr would prefer.  However, it's worth noting here that a lot of these countries may only have one or two athletes that have the Olympic standard in a particular event, and definitely not in all of them.  But the United States is so strong in every event, that you might see dozens of Americans that have the standard.  That's why the American track & field squad, which generally has around 125 members, is usually the largest single team at an Olympics.

And that's precisely why there's absolutely nothing wrong with the U.S. Olympic Trials.  It's the fairest way of determining who should be on the team.  Everyone has an equal shot of making it, and you have to earn your spot.  It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done in the past, you need to be in the top three.  Likewise, you can come out of nowhere to finish in the top three at Trials and make the team.  It's always been that way, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

In fact, a lot of athletes from other countries would prefer our method.  There's nothing arbitrary about it.  It's straightforward.  Either you make the team or you don't.  Is that cruel?  Maybe.  But it's also what ensures the best team possible represents the United States in Rio.  If you belong on the Olympic team, prove it.  If you don't, you don't have anyone else to blame.  It's time to put up or shut up (although, if you're Rick Suhr, maybe it's just time to shut up).

Taking Her Sport to the Summitt

It's been a rough couple of weeks in the sports world.  Muhammad Ali.  Then Gordie Howe.  Now Pat Summitt.  Three legends who completely changed their sport.  Yet to say Pat Summitt changed the sport of women's basketball doesn't seem to do her justice.  For 30 years, she was the game.  Women's basketball as we know it today was a direct result of Pat Summitt, who was, without a doubt, the most influential person in the sport's history.

Her numbers speak for themselves.  She's the all-time winningest coach in college basketball history, and the only one with more than 1,000 wins.  She was a seven-time National Coach of the Year.  Tennessee won eight National Championships, including a threepeat with those great Chamique Holdsclaw-led teams in the late-90s, and two in a row a decade later with Candace Parker.

Tennessee has been to every NCAA Tournament (which started in 1982), and reached the Sweet 16 every year but one.  The Lady Vols played in 18 Final Fours, not counting the four in the AIAW, the precursor of the NCAA.  Every Tennessee player from 1978-2008 got the opportunity to play in at least one Final Four, perhaps the most remarkable of her records.  Oh yeah, and every single Tennessee player under Summitt graduated.

But those incredible stats only tell part of the story.  Did you know she won a silver medal in the 1976 Olympics, the first to feature women's basketball?  As a player.  When she was already the head coach at Tennessee.  Eight years later, she was the head coach as the USA won gold.

Of all the tributes to Summitt that came out today, one of the best came from Peyton Manning.  Manning played four years at Tennessee before becoming an NFL legend.  When he was debating whether or not to return for his senior season, he sought out Summitt's advice about what he should do.  He, of course, decided to come back, then was drafted No. 1 overall by the Colts in 1998.  He was proud to call her a friend.  The biggest compliment he gave her, though, was when he said that he considered her one of his coaches.

A lot of people said that Pat Summitt was such a good coach that she probably would've been able to coach men.  Manning took it one step further.  He said that she could've coached any team in any sport.  He's probably not the only one who thinks so.  She commanded that much respect.

Whether or not she could've coached men will forever remain a matter of debate.  (Tennessee asked her to coach the men's team twice.)  And it's really an irrelevant argument.  Because her impact on the game of women's basketball will never be forgotten.  When she started at Tennessee (as a 22-year-old recent college graduate), women's athletics were an afterthought.  There was no budget, and they weren't even sanctioned by the NCAA.  When she retired 30 years later, she was making seven figures and her team was regularly appearing on ESPN, as part of its multimillion dollar deal for exclusive broadcast rights to the women's NCAA Tournament.

Everyone knows that none of that would've been possible without Pat Summitt.  She made women's basketball relevant.  She made people take notice of her team, and lifted her sport in the process.  Tennessee hasn't been to the Final Four since Summitt retired (in fact, they haven't been there since the 2008 title).  That's not because Tennessee has "struggled" under her successor, Holly Warlick.  Rather, it's a testament to how much better women's college basketball has become.

She brought out the best in everyone, from her players to her opponents to her rivals.  The Tennessee-UConn rivalry was legendary.  Her battles with Geno Auriemma were legendary.  And the feud between the two of them that led to the discontinuation of the series was well-documented.  They eventually mended their relationship, and Auriemma penned one of the most touching tributes to Summitt on Tuesday.

I can't even imagine what life was like for her in her final years.  She was a shell of her former self.  Dementia deprived her of everything.  When her family announced on Sunday that she was in bad shape, we unfortunately all knew what that meant.  Her suffering is now over, and that we're thankful for.

Pat Summitt.  A coach.  A teacher.  A mother.  An innovator.  A Hall of Famer.  She was to the women's game what John Wooden was to the men's game.  She will never be forgotten.

Ready For Wimbledon

The Wimbledon men's and women's singles champions will receive 3 million pounds.  On Thursday, that was $3.3 million.  On Friday, it was down to $2.7 million.  And it could drop even lower by Monday morning.  Still think that British decision to withdraw from the European Union won't have an impact?  Fortunately for the players, Wimbledon starts on Monday, so they'll be receiving those checks soon.

Roger Federer's decision to sit out the French Open must've been a tough one, but it was also probably the right one.  He knows that Wimbledon is his best chance to win another Slam, so why spend two weeks grinding it out on clay then turn around and play Wimbledon less than a month later?  Especially if he was injured.  Instead he rehabbed and is as healthy as he's going to be for his best tournament.

In each of the last two years, Roger has lost the Wimbledon final to Novak Djokovic.  That can't happen this year.  Why?  Because they were drawn into the same side of the draw.  But...if anyone's capable of preventing Djokovic from making a seventh straight Grand Slam final, Roger Federer's probably the guy.  Especially at Wimbledon.  Even if it doesn't seem likely.

Men's tennis right now is Novak Djokovic and everybody else.  He didn't just get the French Open monkey off his back in Paris, he did something that even Roger and Rafa have never done.  In fact, he's the first guy to do it since 1969.  He completed the "Djoker Slam," which started here last year (it's six out of eight overall, during which time Federer and Nadal have won a combined zero).

Heading into Wimbledon last year, we were all focused on the "Serena Slam" and wondering if she could win all four in the same calendar year.  I think there's a real possibility we'll go into the US Open wondering the same thing about Djokovic.  Because he's just on a completely different level from everybody else.

On paper, Federer would seem to be the most likely person to upset Djokovic.  And if he wins that semi, I can easily see him lifting the trophy on the final Sunday.  With the way Djokovic is playing, though, I just can't see that happening.  Which means it's up to Andy Murray.

Murray is probably hoping Federer wins that semi.  Because I think he's sick of losing Grand Slam finals to Novak Djokovic.  Both this year and five overall (although, he has beaten him twice).  Although, Murray's also 0-3 against Federer in Grand Slam finals, so he might be hoping they both get upset (he's been in 10 Grand Slam finals, but only played those two).

And don't forget that whole pressure of being the British guy thing.  Murray's win here in 2013 will obviously always remain the highlight of his career, and it certainly has made things easier for him at Wimbledon.  But he still feels it every year.  Add in the fact that he hasn't reached the final here since he won, and the two final losses to Djokovic already this year, and you know Andy Murray will be feeling the heat during the fortnight.

Meanwhile, Serena Williams hasn't won a Grand Slam title since she completed the "Serena Slam" here last year.  We all remember that shocking upset in the US Open semis, and this year she's lost the first two finals to Angelique Kerber and Garbine Muguruza, who both claimed their first Grand Slam titles.  As a result, Muguruza is up to No. 2 in the world and Kerber is No. 4.

Fortunately for Serena, they're both on the other side of the draw.  Of course, she has Roberta Vinci, the same woman her at the US Open as her potential quarterfinal opponent, though.  At Wimbledon, it should be a different story.  On grass, really the only person who can beat Serena is Serena.  And when her back's up against the wall, she has a tendency to turn up her game.

Remember when she dominated the US Open after going 0-for-3 in Slams to start the year?  Or last year, when she was going for the Serena Slam?  Well, I think she's feeling that pressure once again.  Most people expected her to be challenging Margaret Court's record of 24 Slam wins by now, if not already past it.  But she's been stuck on 22 since last year's Wimbledon!  It's not really through any fault of her own that she's in this situation.  Vinci, Kerber and Muguruza each had the match of her life in their win over Serena.  But her aura of invincibility is definitely gone.

There are plenty of women who could give Serena problems.  Petra Kvitova's a two-time champ, and she's in Serena's half of the draw.  So is former finalist Aga Radwanska.  And don't forget Venus.  She's won Wimbledon four times and is seeded eighth, where she could face Muguruza in the quarters.  Muguruza lost to Serena in the final here last year, so it wouldn't come as a shock to see her make it two in a row.  She absolutely has the look of a multiple Grand Slam winner.

For my picks, though, I've got to go with the chalk.  The Novak Djokovic we're seeing right now might be better than Roger Federer was in his prime.  And in his prime, you went against Roger at a Grand Slam at your own peril.  And while I do think Serena is susceptible to an upset, I can't pinpoint the exact player I think will pull it.  As a result, I've gotta think she makes it back-to-back Wimbledon titles for the third time.

Keep the Americas Separate

As we wrap up the incredibly successful Copa America Centenario this weekend, there's been plenty of talk about making the combined Copa America an annual event.  Or even taking it a step further and combining the Americas into a single region.  I can see where that enthusiasm is coming from, although you'd have to imagine Mexico and the United States aren't completely on board with that idea, so FIFA going from two Americas to one doesn't seem that likely.

The CONMEBOL teams are better than the CONCACAF teams.  I don't think anyone doubted that heading into the Copa America, and the South American teams have done nothing but reaffirm that belief during the tournament.  Which is why I think the idea of them playing each other more frequently isn't necessarily a bad thing.

CONMEBOL has only 10 teams.  They have to be pretty sick of playing each other all the time.  The South American nations play a home-and-home with everyone else during World Cup qualifying, then they go into Copa America and play everybody again before the cycle repeats.  Sure, Mexico and another invited team also take part in Copa America, but, for the most part, South American nations generally play the same nine opponents over and over again.

At least in CONCACAF, there's a little variety.  Sure, the better teams (the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica) face each other regularly, but there are also plenty of games against the Central American and Caribbean nations in the Gold Cup and World Cup qualifying (case in point, the United States will travel to St. Vincent & the Grenadines next month).  However, there's a small problem with that.  These small nations aren't highly ranked, so there's really very little benefit to playing them.

This, of course, isn't the USA and Mexico's fault.  These islands are part of CONCACAF, too, so playing them is part of the deal.  But that doesn't mean the top teams in CONCACAF wouldn't benefit from better competition.  Sure, wins wouldn't be as easy to come by, but I think that's a tradeoff they'd be willing to take.  Because it would be better preparation for the global tournaments that the likes of Antigua & Barbuda and Belize are nowhere near good enough to qualify for.

And which confederation would be the easiest one to draw those better opponents from?  How about the one directly to the south that has only 10 teams?  (In fact, CONCACAF members Guyana and Suriname, which are geographically part of South America.)  I bet the CONMEBOL teams would enjoy that opportunity as much as the CONCACAF teams would.  It's not a radical idea, either.  In fact, many other sports, most notably basketball, do combine North and South America.

But that doesn't mean the Americas should become one region.  If FIFA needs to combine any regions, it's not the Americas.  It's Asia and Oceania.  (Seriously, there are 11 teams in Oceania, how hard would it be to absorb them into the Asian confederation and actually give New Zealand a fair chance at qualifying for the World Cup?)

There are many more reasons to unite Oceania with Asia than there would be to merge the Americas.  For starters, CONCACAF is a much stronger federation than Oceania.  That's one of the reasons Australia left to join Asia in the first place, and it does New Zealand no good to only face those small islands.  CONCACAF, meanwhile, has enough quality teams to make the region worthwhile, and they've proven themselves to be capable of holding their own in global tournaments.

Whereas I don't really see anything other than the mutual benefit of combining Asia and Oceania, it would be counter-intuitive to eliminate CONCACAF as a region.  Some of the teams in CONCACAF would undoubtedly get stronger, but it wouldn't be the best move for all.  And if that's not the case, what would be the point in doing it?

Combining the Americas would involve plenty of logistical issues, too.  For example, how would you figure out things like World Cup berths?  While the games against the Caribbean islands may feel predetermined and somewhat unnecessary, you can be the USA and Mexico don't mind their virtually guaranteed trips to the World Cup and would not be happy about having to go through the likes of Colombia and Peru instead of Guatemala and Canada.

I think the idea of a semi-regular combined Copa America isn't a terrible one, though.  I'm not saying that you get rid of the regular Copa America or the Gold Cup.  Rather, you use them as some sort of qualifying events for the combined tournament.  Maybe the eight quarterfinalists from Copa America and the eight quarterfinalists from the Gold Cup qualify, and you hold it every four years in the same year as the Euro (so the next one would be in 2020).  That doesn't disrupt the two continental championships, but makes this combined tournament more than just a one-off event.

Whether this is a one-off event remains to be seen, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that doesn't think the Copa America Centenario wasn't a great idea.  Or a resounding success.  Hopefully it's the start of something that becomes a regular occurrence.  Because the fans want it and deserve it.  But that doesn't mean the Americas should suddenly go from two to one, either.  That's NOT something the fans want.

Definitely Worth the Gamble

It's official.  The NHL is coming to Las Vegas.  One of the four major sports was going to establish a franchise in Vegas eventually, and it's the NHL that got there first.  The move was brilliant.  And the gamble is well worth it (c'mon, you know there had to be a Vegas pun in there somewhere).  Vegas finally has a team of its own, and it's a hockey team.  Don't underestimate the importance of that down the road.

The NHL did its due diligence, and they wouldn't be going all in if they hadn't.  There was a concern over whether there would be a market for a pro sports team in a market already saturated with nighttime entertainment options out the wazoo.  Well, the 14,000 season ticket deposits emphatically answered that question.  And the brand new T-Mobile Arena, which is located just off the world-famous Strip, is absolutely gorgeous.  It was built with the NHL in mind, so unlike the Barclays Center, it's going to be a great place to watch a hockey game.

That enthusiasm doesn't surprise me.  Las Vegas is the largest city in the country that doesn't have a team of its own.  Yes, tourism is a huge industry in Las Vegas.  But there are also 2.1 million locals.  They've never had a team of their own (the Triple-A 51s don't count).  Now they do.  That's huge.

Those 41 hockey games aren't exactly going to hurt Las Vegas' biggest industry, either.  You think fans of other teams aren't going to jump at the chance to go to their team's road game in Vegas?  Where would you rather spend a couple days in the middle of January?  Las Vegas or Winnipeg?  Not a hard decision.  And these visiting fans will need somewhere to stay.  They'll obviously spend plenty of time in the casinos, too.

You can see why the NHL was eager to jump on the Las Vegas market.  It's been so ripe for a pro team for so long, but the leagues have stayed away because of the gambling connections.  While those fears are legitimate, they'll figure out a way around them.  Maybe it'll mean you can't bet on NHL games.  Whatever it is, it'll be a small concession.  They wanted hockey as much as the NHL wanted them, so it's a small price to pay to get it done.

For its part, the NHL is going to do everything it can to make sure the Las Vegas team succeeds.  Immediately.  It's important that they do.  Because the NHL's southern experiment has only drawn mixed results.  Tampa Bay and Anaheim have worked out, but Arizona went bankrupt and Atlanta moved.  Las Vegas is definitely a risk.  And they need it to pay off.  That's why they're giving Vegas one player from every team in the expansion draft.  That's why they're only adding one team instead of two.

Of course, 31 teams isn't going to be sustainable for long and the NHL is eventually going to add a 32nd team.  But they're being cautious with it.  They want to get Vegas off the ground and running before bringing Quebec into the fold.  Well, that and there are still some logistics with Quebec that need to be worked out.

All of the reasons for tabling Quebec's expansion application make sense.  The Canadian dollar is weak in comparison right now.  For Quebec's return to make financial sense, they have to do it in the right economic situation.  That's one of the reasons why the original Nordiques moved to Denver in the first place.

They also don't think it's fair to take two players off of every other team's roster.  From a competitive standpoint, that is the absolute right thing to do.  There are a number of restrictions on who can and can't be protected, but with each team only allowed to protect eight players, the Las Vegas roster isn't going to look like your typical expansion roster.  They're going to be at least competitive.  But if Quebec was joining the league, too, each team would be losing two pretty good players.  Depending on which two players those are, that could be a big difference.

Mostly, the NHL didn't want to add a 17th Eastern team.  They slightly addressed their imbalance by putting Las Vegas in the Pacific Division, but with Quebec still the most likely place to get the other team, the 17-15 split will still be a problem.  Of course, this is a problem of the NHL's own making, and it's one that has an easy solution.  Tell the Red Wings to suck it up and go back to the Central Division.  Frankly, they never should've been moved to the East in the first place.

Quebec's bid was tabled, not rejected.  No one knows what kind of a time frame they'll be on now, but, unless Seattle comes out of the blue with an expansion bid (which they won't, since their priority is getting the Sonics back), Quebec City remains the most likely candidate for the NHL's 32nd franchise.  The NHL all but said that when they praised the bid and arena.  That's why they haven't closed the door on a return to Quebec City.  Even the NHL acknowledges that this is the most likely scenario.

For Quebec to work, though, they'll need to be with the Canadiens in the Atlantic Division.  And the only way to achieve that would be moving the Red Wings to the Central Division, which is now the only seven-team division.

But that's a discussion for another day.  Today is about Las Vegas.  Their owner went to West Point and evidently wants to name them the "Black Knights," but I bet Chicago will object to the "Black" part for obvious reasons, so my money's on the compromise name "Knights."  Whatever they end up naming the team, this is a new day.  Las Vegas is finally a Major League town.

Who's Stuck With a Worse Contract?

David Wright had surgery for a herniated disk last week and is out for the year.  Meanwhile, Mark Teixeira is trying to work his way back from a knee injury that very well may end up costing him the season, as well.  With Wright and Teixeira both spending more time on the DL than the field, it makes you wonder which oft-injured star is more of a financial burden on his team.

Let's start in Queens, where David Wright has been the face of the Mets for the better part of a decade.  He's definitely earned that status.  But for as much as Wright has earned his place in Mets history, his last few seasons have been defined by injuries.  In 2011, he spent two months on the DL with a stress fracture in his back.  Then in 2013, he missed six weeks after straining his hamstring.  Wright did play 134 games in 2014, but his production was limited due to a shoulder injury.

Last year was actually an example of why David Wright is such a great leader.  He was diagnosed with spinal stenosis in April.  After missing four months, Wright hit a home run in his first at-bat of his first game back in August.  Most importantly, he was able to play in the postseason, as the Mets reached the World Series for the first time in 15 years.  Because of the spinal stenosis, Wright had to go through an extensive pregame routine this season and everything seemed to be working out...until hurting his neck.  Wright played in just 38 games last season.  This year, it was 37.

That means, in the last two seasons, he'll have played in a total of 75 out of a possible 324 regular season games.  At the end of this season, Wright will have played in less than half of the Mets' games (321 of 648) since he signed an eight-year extension that pays him roughly $20 million annually until 2020.  The Mets have taken out insurance on his contract, but David Wright will still be a part of the New York Mets for another four seasons.  (Although, I think they'll finally be done paying Bobby Bonilla by then.)

Whether or not David Wright will ever be able to play again is a completely different question.  Knowing him, he'll do everything he can to get on the field.  But you know that even if he is able to make it back from his second major injury in two years, it's unlikely he'll ever be the same player again.  Do you want to pay him $20 million a year for the next four years just for his leadership?

Moving uptown to the Bronx, we have Mark Teixeira, who's also been bitten by the injury bug a lot in recent seasons.  When the entire Yankees team was injured in 2013, Teixeira managed to play in 15 games before being shut down for the season on July 1.  He was still working his way back from his wrist surgery in 2014, when he had a couple stints on the DL, but did manage to play 123 games.

The Teixeira of old returned last season, and he actually made the All-Star team.  Then he fouled a ball off his leg in August and missed two weeks with what everyone thought was a bone bruise.  Turns out, it was a fractured shin that ended his season.  And this year, after getting off to a slow start, Teixeira revealed he was having neck spasms and needed a cortisone shot.  That was before they found torn cartilage in his knee.  A lot of people thought this would end Teixeira's season.  It still might.  But he's going to try and come back.  We'll see how that works out.

There's one big difference between Teixeira and Wright, though.  Wright's got four years left on his contract.  Teixeira is a free agent after this year.  He's making $23 million this season, and it's highly unlikely the Yankees will re-sign him for 2017.  They'll be freed of that very expensive burden very soon.  Meanwhile, the Mets will still be on the hook for Wright's salary until 2020.

It's because of the remaining years that I think the Yankees are in a slightly better position than the Mets when it comes to these two contract situations.  David Wright IS the New York Mets.  But that's quite a commitment for someone you aren't sure can even play.  Especially since you'll need to have  another third baseman on the roster just in case (or need to give up a lot in a midseason trade to get that replacement).

Teixeira's absences have been felt each time he's been out of the Yankees lineup over the past few seasons.  Especially this year, when they've had to trot another first baseman out there seemingly daily (for the record, it's six total not including the two catchers, four that have been on the DL, three that are out for the year).

But they'll soon be able to move on from Teixeira and his contract.  Unless he takes it upon himself and retires before his deal is over, the Mets won't have that luxury with David Wright.  For their sake, and his, I hope I'm wrong.  But right now, it looks like that contract is going to be a burden for far longer than Teixiera's will be for the Yankees.

A Weekend of Futbol and Volleyball

It was pretty good weekend for sports in New York City.  On Friday, Copa America came to Met Life Stadium, and it was an absolute mad house for the quarterfinal game between Colombia and Peru.  It was an experience and a half.  Then on Saturday, I made my way to the beach.  Well, not exactly the beach.  Hudson River Park for the AVP New York City Open.

First, let's talk about the soccer game.  I knew when we had to wait for the train because it was too crowded that it would be totally packed.  What I didn't know was that of the 80,000 people in the stadium, about 70,000 of them would be wearing Colombia jerseys.  But that just added that much more to the atmosphere.  I've always heard about what a game between South American or European national teams is like, and now I know exactly what people mean when they say how crazy they are.  I can only imagine how much crazier it would've been if the U.S. was playing in the game (which I was expecting when I bought the tickets).

Anyway, it was intense.  As intense as you would expect when two teams that know each other so well get together (sidebar: do these South American countries ever get tired of playing the same countries so many times?).  Colombia almost scored a couple times, including one that hit the post.  But it ended up 0-0 and, just when I thought we were headed to extra time, I found out that Copa America doesn't do extra time except for the final.  So, it was off to the penalty kick shootout.

James, Colombia's star started off the shootout with a goal, and it was 3-2 when the Colombian goalie made a great save.  After Colombia scored again, Peru needed a goal to keep the game going.  But, Peru's fourth shooter channeled his inner Roberto Baggio and completely shanked it, shooting about five feet over the crossbar to send Colombia into the semis.

Then on Saturday, it was off to the beach.  Well, sort of.  Beach volleyball is another one of those sports that you just have to experience.  I got a sampling of what it's like last year at the Pan Am Games, but a pro event is a completely different animal.  They had three different courts going, so there were literally matches going on all day.

Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning the view.  They set up the main court on Pier 25 and the three side courts on Pier 26.  They actually kept a tally of "water balls," balls that managed to get around the net and land in the Hudson River.  On a couple, there were races to retrieve the ball between the kayakers in the water.  The coolest part, though, is that the Freedom Tower is only a couple blocks away from the pier, and it was in full view from the court.  Same thing with the Statue of Liberty, which is a little bit more off in the distance.

Back to the volleyball.  As I said before, there were matches all day.  But the big one wasn't until later in the afternoon, when NBC showed up to televise the Kerri Walsh Jennings & April Ross match live.  General admission tickets were free, and you can bet the seats were filled up and the standing room crowd went about 10 rows back for that one.

Kerri & April haven't played that many AVP events this year because they had to play in so many international events to qualify for Rio.  This was actually their first event since officially being named Olympians.  Before they took the court, it was their Olympic teammates, Phil Dalhausser and Nick Lucena in action.  Like Kerri & April, they were playing for the first time since officially being named to the Olympic team.  Both of the top pairs took pair of business (and ended up winning the tournament) and, sure enough, after Kerri & April finished off their win, most of the crowd cleared out.

Obviously, this wasn't your typical New York sports weekend.  But this is why New York is such a great sports town.  Both events were packed.  There's just as much of an appetite for Copa America and the AVP as there is for the Yankees and Rangers and Giants.  And, if the current StubHub prices are any indication, Met Life Stadium will be just as packed for the final next weekend.  Regardless of who wins the USA-Argentina game.

Pete Rose Is the Hit King

Congratulations to Ichiro on recording his 4,257th professional hit yesterday.  It's definitely an impressive accomplishment.  But this whole discussion of whether Ichiro or Pete Rose is the all-time hits leader is just stupid.  More than 1,000 of Ichiro's hits came in Japan.  That's not the Major Leagues!  Rose got all of his in the Majors.  Pete Rose is the all-time hits leader.  He has been since 1985 and he will be for the foreseeable future.

Pete Rose didn't want to hear it when people started talking about Ichiro passing him, and I don't blame him.  Major League Baseball never said that Icihro's Japanese stats counted, and that's really the only voice that matters on the subject.  So why are people trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist?  Is it just because it's Pete Rose?  If it is, you need to get over yourselves.  Because guess what?  His gambling has nothing to do with the number of hits he got.

To me, this is just as ridiculous as the Barry Bonds-Hank Aaron argument.  Regardless of whether you feel all of the home runs Bonds hit were legitimate, he still hit them.  The Major League record book says 1. Bonds 762, 2. Aaron 755.  The moral judgment isn't a part of it.  Barry Bonds' home runs all counted, and he is the record-holder.  It's not arbitrary.  And, frankly, those people that insist Aaron is the record-holder are just idiots.  Whether you like it or not, Bonds hit those home runs.  If Major League Baseball acknowledges that he holds the record, then he holds it.

People don't like Barry Bonds because of what he (allegedly) did.  That's why they're so quick to try and invalidate his record.  It's the same thing with Pete Rose.  People can't get over what he did.  He's been a pariah ever since he was banned, and I'm not sure if it helped or hurt his case when he finally admitted to his gambling all those years later.  Pete Rose is a "bad guy."  He committed the cardinal sin.  He bet on baseball.  But that doesn't diminish what he did on the field during his otherwise Hall of Fame career (he'd have gotten in on the first ballot if he was eligible and everyone knows it).  Pete Rose's ban and Pete Rose's hits record are completely separate things independent from each other.

We saw this a few months ago with hockey.  Jaromir Jagr moved into third place on the all-time scoring list and people began to wonder if he'd be close to Wayne Gretzky's record if he hadn't lost time due to the lockouts and his years in the KHL.  There was lots of speculating and some projecting (I even did a post about that), but no one suggested that Jagr's stats in the KHL or any other pro leagues should count.  Why?  Because it's a beloved figure, Wayne Gretzky, the Great One, who holds the record.

Likewise, do we include ABA stats for Julius Erving  or CFL stats for Doug Flutie or WHA stats for Gretzky?  Of course not.  Those are recognized as completely separate leagues.  AFL stats do count.  But that's only because that was part of the merger agreement with the NFL.  No one tries to argue that stats from those leagues should count, so why should this be any different?

Nippon Professional Baseball is not the Major Leagues.  It's a very high level.  But it's not the same thing.  Sadaharu Oh hit 868 home runs during his career.  If we're counting Japanese stats, how come he's not the all-time home run leader?  According to Major League Baseball, Sadaharu Oh's official career home run total is 0.

Had Ichiro come over earlier, I have no doubt he'd be approaching Rose's record right now.  He had 200 or more hits in each of his first nine seasons, so if he'd made his debut at 21 instead of 27 and hit at that pace, he'd be closing in on 4200 hits right now.  As it is, however, he's not even at 3000 yet.  He'll get that at some point in July, but 3000 is not 4256.  Say he ends this season at 3056, he'd still need 1200 more, and he's 42 years old.  He's said he wants to play until he's 50, but this isn't the In-His-Prime Ichiro that was getting 200 hits on a regular basis for the Mariners 10 years ago.

Ichiro is an all-time great.  He's by far the most successful Japanese player ever to cross the Pacific and play in the Majors.  And five years after he retires, he'll be the first Japanese player inducted into the Hall of Fame.

None of this takes away from Ichiro's incredible achievements.  On both sides of the Pacific.  And you can't help but be in total awe of his longevity.  But he's not the all-time hits leader.  Pete Rose is.

Some Snapshots From Old-Timers' Day

My first Old-Timers' Day was definitely a worthwhile experience.  In fact, it was better than the regular Yankee game that followed, which probably isn't a surprise considering the current state of the team.  Although, I think I may have found them a first baseman!  Hideki Matsui played first (the outfield on his team was Rickey Henderson, Bernie Williams and Paul O'Neill), and he went yard.  He's not much older than Alex Rodriguez and Carlos Beltran.  The Old-Timers' Day homer came on his 42nd birthday.  He doesn't think so, but I think Matsui could totally hold his own in the Majors today.

Anyway, if I had to declare an MVP of the Old-Timers' game, Matsui would be it.  Cone came in to face him again and gave up a single, which started the winning rally.  All in all, a good day for Hideki Matsui.

Matsui got a great ovation, but so did a number of other Yankee legends in attendance (the best one probably went to Lou Piniella).  John Wetteland, the 1996 World Series MVP, returned for the first time and got a great hand.  So did everyone else from the 1996 team, which I can't believe was 20 years ago.  Speaking of anniversaries, Don Larsen's World Series perfect game was 60! years ago.  And the 86-year-old Larsen, who used a walker, but got out there on his own, got one of the loudest ovations of the day.

Larsen wasn't the only old guy there.  One player who made his Old-Timers' Day debut was Eddie Robinson.  His career wasn't distinguished by any means, but at 95, he's the oldest living Yankee.  Meanwhile, Dr. Bobby Brown, a regular guest, is the last remaining member of the 1947 World Championship team, making him the oldest living Yankee World Champion.  Robinson and Brown both threw out ceremonial first pitches prior to the Old-Timers' game.

One Yankee who wasn't in attendance was Yogi Berra.  This was the first Old-Timers' Day since Yogi's death, and his absence was felt.  John Sterling became choked up when saying the tributes the Yankees were paying him.  For the Old-Timers' game, they used special Yogi baseballs and Yogi bases.  All of the players also wore Yogi's number 8 on their left sleeve, just like the current Yankees have all season.

Oh, and we were welcomed by Bob Sheppard.  That recognizable voice hasn't been heard at the Stadium since Derek Jeter retired.  Current PA announcer Paul Olden does a great job (and he actually sat on the field and did play-by-play of the Old-Timers' game with broadcasting legend Bob Wolff), but there's something about hearing Bob Sheppard's voice that is missed.

It's still too soon for Jeter and Pettitte and Posada.  They'll come back eventually, just like Bernie Williams and Paul O'Neill did, but you can understand them wanting to put some distance between their playing days and coming back for Old-Timers' Day.  But hearing Bob Sheppard made me think of what needs to happen when the last member of that group starts appearing in the Old-Timers' game.

For the most part, the Old-Timers' game is very casual.  Guys seem to bat whenever they want and change positions all the time.  You even get guys playing out of position, as Ron Guidry replaced Matsui at first base when he went to the outfield.  As for pitching changes, they just walk out of the dugout and take over for whoever's currently pitching.  That won't work with Mariano Rivera.  When he comes into the game, the bullpen door will have to swing open to the sound of "Enter Sandman."  We've still got a couple years before that happens, but imagine what the reaction will be when it finally does.  (As long as they do it my way.)

Overall, my first Old-Timers' Day was a great experience.  Sure, the regular game could've been better, but it was nice to see the Stadium full for a change.  And the whole point was to cheer on some of the greats that have made the Yankees what they are.  It's been that way for 70 years, and it'll be that way for 70 more.

If you want to see pictures, I've got a gallery up on Facebook.

Olympic Priorities

As more and more names drop out of consideration for the U.S. Olympic basketball team, I'm left wondering whether or not there will be 12 guys left to play.  Seeing as he's basically the only point guard left, I hope Kyrie Irving realizes he's going to play about 35 minutes a game in Rio (provided he doesn't drop out once the Finals end).

It's not just the U.S., either.  Andrew Wiggins isn't going to play for Canada in the qualifying tournament in the Philippines, saying that he'd rather spend the summer working out for the Timberwolves' upcoming season (in other words, the team told him to).  Wiggins is just sitting out the qualifying tournament and is technically still eligible for the Olympics should Canada make it, but the chances of that are significantly lower without one of their best players.

Sadly, that's become a trend among NBA players.  Playing in the Olympics simply isn't a priority.  Now, some of the withdrawals are for completely legitimate reasons (if Steph Curry wasn't dealing with injuries, you can guarantee he wouldn't have passed on Rio).  But others indicate a simple lack of interest.  Which is a downright shame.  Because how many people out there would love to be in their shoes and would give anything to represent their country?  Let alone in the Olympics?

This isn't the first time this has happened.  After the Dream Team, the U.S. sent another strong team of NBA stars to the Atlanta Games 20 years ago.  But the Sydney Olympics were in late September just before the start of training camp, so the options were slightly more limited.  They still won the gold medal, but it was much tighter than the previous two.  In fact, they almost lost a few times, most memorably to Lithuania.  Then it all bottomed out in Athens.  They had trouble fielding a team and dropped three games, settling for that disappointing bronze (which came on the heels of an embarrassing sixth-place showing at the 2002 World Championships in Indianapolis).

After that, USA Basketball changed up the national team process, hiring Mike Krzyzewski as the head coach and asking the players to commit well in advance.  It seemed to work, as the 2008 Olympic team dominated in Beijing and reclaimed the gold medal.  Then the 2010 World Championships came around and, amazingly, no one who played in Beijing was available.  (That didn't stop Kevin Durant from single-handedly winning the gold medal, though.)  They were all suddenly available again for the London Olympics, where Durant joined everyone else and the U.S. won again.

The trend that I was beginning to see was that players wanted to participate in the Olympics, but not the World Championships (which is now called the World Cup).  That's why it's so disturbing to see these NBA guys are now backing out of the Olympics, too (with the notable exceptions of LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony, who are set to become four-time Olympians).

There are people who've suggested that NBA players have no place in the Olympics and would like to see the return of college players.  Well, that's not going to happen.  Once they opened up international basketball to professionals, they knew they'd never be able to go back.  And, for the most part, other countries don't have a problem convincing their native-born NBA stars to play for the national team.  Whether that means they have more national pride or the NBA owners have less influence over them, I don't know.  But the bottom line remains that this is primarily an American problem.

Contrast that to the NHL.  The hockey players want to play in the Olympics so much that they basically forced the owners' hand to go to Sochi.  That's why I think we will see NHL players at the 2018 Olympics in Korea.  Because they want to.  They want to play so bad that the league shuts down for three weeks in the middle of the season so the players can represent their national teams.  Same thing in the WNBA.  Yet the players in the men's NBA, which is in the middle of its offseason and doesn't have to shut down, are all finding ways to get out of the Olympics.

Are some of the reasons legitimate?  Of course.  But I worry that this isn't an isolated problem.  Will the same thing happen four years from now in Tokyo?  (If LA wins its bid for 2024, I guarantee they'll be lining up to play, but if not, we might have the same problem again.)  It's already an epidemic when it comes to trying to create a World Cup team.

Why should the tournament matter?  Olympics, World Cup, whatever it is.  Putting on a national team jersey is an honor that would be the highlight of any athlete's career.  And it's not an opportunity that comes around very often.  Fortunately, some NBA players understand that.  But not nearly enough.

Although, what's a little national pride when you're talking about millions of dollars.  Maybe that's the problem.  The Olympics simply don't pay enough.  If they did, maybe you wouldn't need to make a list of 50 games just to get 12 willing to represent their country.  The country that makes it possible for them to make those millions in the first place.

Time For Some European Futbol

As the Copa America continues across the U.S., the soccer world prepares for another continental championship.  This one is much more significant and will certainly capture much more attention worldwide.  At the very least, I guarantee we won't see the half-empty stadiums like the Copa has had in Seattle and Orlando.  The Euro is considered by many to be the second-best international tournament in the world, behind only the World Cup.  And, frankly, it's hard to argue that.

This year's Euro is the first with an expanded 24-team field.  It was 16 for the last 20 years (five editions), but with the number of national federations now in the 50s, it made sense to increase the size of the continental tournament.  The little guys had virtually no chance at qualifying when it was 16 teams.  Now that it's 24, we're seeing the likes of Iceland, Albania, Northern Ireland and Wales competing alongside the European heavyweights (although, remarkably, even with eight extra teams in the tournament, the Netherlands somehow didn't qualify).

So who are the favorites?  Well, Germany is the reigning World Cup champions, so I'd say on paper it's got to be them.  Also, fun fact, Germany's last Euro title was in 1996, which was the first year with 16 teams.  Their previous win before that was in 1980, which was the first eight-team tournament.  Will the trend of Germany winning when the field expands continue?

Spain, meanwhile, is the two-time defending champions.  Although the Spanish aura of invincibility is most certainly gone.  That team got old in a hurry, which we saw on full display in Brazil two years ago.  Then there's France.  The French have a reputation of choking in major tournaments.  Except when they host.  The last time they hosted the Euro in 1984, they won it.  They hosted the World Cup in 1998, and won it, then followed that up with a Euro title two years later.  If I had to pick a favorite, it'd have to be one of those three.

France's competition in Group A isn't that daunting.  Switzerland is probably the best of the other three teams.  Remember, because of FIFA's screwed up rankings, they ended up seeded at the World Cup last year.  Just like Romania, which is also in Group A, got seeded for 2018 World Cup qualifying.  On home turf, I expect France to beat both, but with the third-place wild cards in play at a Euro for the first time, I'd be surprised if Switzerland and Romania didn't both join them in the knockout round.  Kudos to Albania, which is playing in a major tournament for the first time.

On paper, Group B might be the weakest in the tournament.  Seeded England, which needs to overcome some major tournament choking questions of its own, is only ranked 11th in the world (sixth in Europe).  This group works in their favor, though.  Slovakia and Russia will both be tough games, and the Wales match will be significant for another reason.  But I don't see any way England doesn't come out of this.  Russia needs a good showing heading into the Confederations Cup and World Cup that they'll be hosting in the next two summers, and reaching the round of 16 would certainly qualify.

Germany (which is somehow only ranked fourth in the world and second in UEFA, gotta love those FIFA rankings!) is joined in Group C by Ukraine, Poland and Northern Ireland.  Like Wales, Northern Ireland is making its Euro debut, and it's been 30 years since their last major international tournament of any type--the 1986 World Cup.  Also like Wales, I think Northern Ireland's stay in France will be limited to the three group games.  I'll give Ukraine second place behind the Germans, but Poland should also advance as one of the best third-place teams.

While Group E is viewed as the Group of Death, I'd argue that Group D is just as tough.  You've got Spain, the two-time defending champions, the Czech Republic, which is better than its ranking, perennial World Cup participant Croatia, and Turkey.  Spain is still the group favorites, but the battle for the other two qualifying places will be a good one.  I'm going to say Croatia finishes second and the Czechs advance in third, but I'm not sleeping on Turkey.  They made the semis eight years ago , beating both the Czech Republic and Croatia along the way.

I never fare well when I try to predict what's going to happen in a Group of Death.  But I guess that's what happens when you have four good teams, which is certainly the case with Belgium, Italy, Ireland and Sweden.  I still have absolutely no idea how Belgium is so highly ranked, let alone No. 2 in the world!  (Again, Germany is the World champions.)  Italy's out to redeem itself after the World Cup, and, frankly, I think they're better than Belgium.  I give them the group win and Belgium the No. 2 spot.  The Ireland-Spain game will decide who advances in third place, and I'm gonna say that's Sweden.

Finally, Group F, which contains two top-10 teams according to the latest FIFA rankings in Portugal and Austria.  Not having seen Austria, I don't know if they have a smoke-and-mirrors ranking some of these European teams have become known for.  But Portugal is a known commodity, and Cristiano Ronaldo is arguably the best player in this tournament.  These two advance, and I think this will be the other group where only two move forward.  Hungary will be dangerous down the road, but I don't think they'll be a major threat here.  Congratulations to Iceland on qualifying for a major tournament for the first time (after just missing out on making the World Cup in the home-and-home playoffs).

It's harder to handicap the knockout round since the matchups are in flux until you know the third-place teams.  According to the way I have group play going, though, this would be the round of 16: Switzerland-Ukraine, Spain-Sweden, England-Croatia, Portugal-Belgium, Germany-Romania, Italy-Czech Republic, France-Poland, Russia-Austria.  My quarterfinals are then Switzerland-Spain, England-Portugal, Germany-Italy and France-Austria.  Give me Spain-Portugal and Germany-France as the semifinals and Germany over Portugal in the final (which would give Portugal a trip to Russia for the Confederations Cup since Germany's already going as World Cup champs).

The Baseball/Softball Tokyo Conundrum

Last week at the IOC meetings in Switzerland, they recommended that all five sports that Tokyo 2020 organizers proposed be added for those Games move forward to a vote of the entire IOC membership.  This vote won't take place until August just before the Olympics start, but it's considered a formality.  Baseball/softball, sport climbing, surfing, skateboarding and karate are thisclose to becoming official Olympic sports.

My excitement for the new additions is lukewarm at best.  I'm thrilled about the reintroduction of baseball and softball, which never should've been removed from the Olympic program in the first place.  But the fundamental flaw of this system where the host city/country can propose the new sports is that we may see them come and go depending on where the Olympics are, which I don't like at all.  Either you're an Olympic sport or you're not.  It shouldn't be on a Games-by-Games basis.

As stupid as the old process seemed (the one where wrestling was voted out, then immediately voted back in), it at least set up sports to be in the Olympics for the long haul.  Golf and rugby are only guaranteed for Rio and Tokyo, but is there really any doubt that they're going to become permanent fixtures (especially rugby)?  Ditto with wrestling, which never should've been removed in the first place.

I'd much rather see sports federations have to present themselves to the entire IOC membership and have the vote for inclusion come from the entire body, rather than the organizers of a particular Olympics.  To me, that system is much fairer.

But this is the system we're stuck with for the time being, and this is an exciting time for those six sports, most notably baseball and softball.  They were unceremoniously cut following Beijing, and their return will coincide with the Olympics returning to Asia.  The symmetry of that is pretty cool, seeing as the only continent where baseball is bigger than it is in Asia is the Americas.  Especially in Japan, baseball's popularity is huge.  (And Japan is the defending softball gold medalists from 2008.)

The IOC did give Tokyo guidelines for how many athletes can be added, so the baseball and softball tournaments will have only six teams instead of the ideal eight.  Six should work out OK for softball, but that baseball tournament is going to be missing some of the sport's heavy hitters.  Especially since they'll have to include at least one team from Europe/Africa, which means a max of two from the Americas and two other Asian teams along with Japan.

One of the IOC's requests for the baseball tournament is not going to happen, though.  They want Major Leaguers.  Logistically that's impossible.  Major League teams play 162 games in 180 days.  They're not taking a break for two weeks or 10 days or whatever it is in the middle of the season, especially just after the All-Star Break.  And it's not fair to ask the players who aren't chosen for their respective Olympic teams (which would be a vast majority of them) to go that long without games, either.  Baseball's all about repetition.  That's why they play everyday.

So how can hockey do it?  Well, for starters, NHL teams don't play everyday.  They play 82 games in six months, so you can take a three-week Olympic break and still have plenty of wiggle room to make up the missed games.  It just means you get fewer days off between games during the season.  And while a vast majority of hockey's better players participate in the Olympics, the rest do get that time off...which they probably appreciate during the grind of an 82-game hockey season.

Anyway, I digress.  The IOC is pretty adamant on their stance that they want Major League players, but it's highly unlikely the owners and MLBPA are going to budge.  The best compromise might be to send a team of Triple-A players that are on Major League 40-man rosters.  The Japanese and Korean leagues have vowed to shut down for the Olympics, but that's not going to happen in the US.  The owners aren't giving up two weeks' worth of games in the middle of the summer (when attendance is always higher), and they're not going to start earlier/end later to accommodate the players taking a long trip to Japan.

This is a good problem to have at least.  I'd much rather baseball try and figure out what players to send and how over the alternative, which is no Olympics at all.  For softball, which was unfairly grouped with baseball in 2005 when they were voted out together, it'll be like they never left.  The Olympics were softball's biggest stage and will be again.

Eventually, the IOC realized that they made a mistake with baseball and softball.  They would've been voted back in for Tokyo already if they hadn't made that equally boneheaded decision to drop wrestling.  And that's exactly what I meant when I said the sport program should be determined by the IOC, not the individual Olympic organizers.

Baseball and softball should be in the Olympics.  They were before, they will be again, and I think they will be in a future that extends beyond 2020 (especially if LA wins the 2024 Games).  The other sports, though?  Do you really think "Olympics" when you think of skateboarding?  Or surfing?  And do we really need another martial art?  Not to be mean, but how is karate any different than taekwondo?  Sport climbing is the only one of the other four that I'm on board with.

Whether or not those other sports belong in the Olympics is a matter for a different day.  The biggest takeaway from Tokyo's chosen new sports is that baseball and softball are back where they belong as a part of the Olympic family.  And that's something worth celebrating.

Truly the Greatest

It's one of the most iconic sports photos in history, and it's arguably the best.  Neil Leifer's shot of "The Champ" the moment he became exactly that, standing over a vanquished Sonny Liston after knocking him out in their 1964 heavyweight title fight.

Leifer's photo also sums up Muhammad Ali perfectly.  He was brash.  He was confident.  He talked trash.  And he backed it up.  He was, simply, "The Greatest."  And not just because he told you so.

I'm too young to remember Muhammad Ali as anything other than the shell of a man he became as he dealt with Parkinson's disease later in life.  The one lasting image of Muhammad Ali that I have is something I'll never forget, though.  I think there's a lot of people that won't.  There wasn't a dry eye in the house on that night 20 years ago when Ali emerged from the shadows to ignite the Olympic cauldron in Atlanta.  A man who had won a gold medal 36 years earlier was one of the biggest stars of the 1996 Games, simply by being there and being himself.

Three years later, ESPN counted down the 50 greatest athletes of the 20th century as part of its SportsCentury series.  Ali finished third--behind only Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan.  I'm not disputing his place on that list.  But he easily could've been in the top two.  Simply put, Muhammad Ali is an icon.

There's a whole generation of people who only know Muhammad Ali the same way I do.  Our only exposure to his fights are from ESPN Classic and YouTube, or from Will Smith's incredible Academy Award-nominated performance in the great biopic Ali.  (There was also a documentary about Ali and George Foreman, When We Were Kings, that won the Best Documentary Feature Oscar in 1996.)  I rely on my dad for the first-hand accounts of what it was like to watch Ali in his prime.  And I can only imagine what it was like!

Boxing today is nothing like what boxing was during that era.  Ali wasn't the only larger-than-life figure.  His rivalries with Joe Frazier and George Foreman are stuff of legend.  Everyone knew those fights would be epics.  That's why they were given catchy nicknames before they even took place!  From the "Fight of the Century" to the "Rumble In the Jungle" to the "Thrilla In Manila," Muhammad Ali was made for the big stage.  And he thrived once he got there.

Is he the greatest boxer ever?  Does it even matter?  Muhammad Ali's boxing career is only a part of the story.  It's everything else that made him "The Greatest."  And all that will ultimately be his legacy.

Cassius Clay changed his name and wanted the world to know that he embraced the Nation of Islam.  Muhammad Ali stood up for what he believed and refused to go to Vietnam ("I ain't got no problems with no Vietcong!").  Even though that meant he would be stripped of his title and potentially go to jail, he refused to cave.  He wasn't allowed to fight for three years, making his comeback and subsequent regaining of the championship belt that much sweeter.

His career arc has been replayed over and over in the last day and a half since Ali's passing.  As extraordinary as it was, though, it pales in comparison to his impact as a humanitarian and a man.  He was a voice for social change long before it was acceptable.  He was one of the most quotable sports figures of the 20th century, and you either loved him or hated him (but mostly loved him).

Muhammad Ali touched so many people in so many ways--most of whom never saw him box.  He dubbed himself "The Greatest" as a cocky young fighter, only to prove that he was by everything he did long after his boxing career ended.  

Most of all, Muhammad Ali was a true original.  One not soon to be forgotten.  He will be missed.

At the Copa, Copa America

Jurgen Klinsmann has said that he thinks Copa America will be a better tournament than Euro 2016.  While that's a bit ridiculous on the surface, you can see his point.  This will be the best tournament on American soil since the 1994 World Cup, and it's the first time the U.S. is hosting a major international tournament it actually has a chance to win.

No, I don't think the U.S. is the favorite heading into the Copa.  Argentina and Mexico are the two best teams in the Americas, so that's my pick for the final.  But the 1994 World Cup was definitely a happy to be there type of situation.  This one is much different.  It feels much different.  There's a chance for disappointment.  We didn't have that 22 years ago.

This is also much different than any of the tournaments the U.S. hosts on a regular basis.  Why?  Because it's not just CONCACAF teams.  It's no secret that, along with Costa Rica, the U.S. and Mexico are the top teams in CONCACAF.  So, it's actually kind of refreshing to see some other nations for a change.  And the fact that the Copa is combining both Americas for the first time is pretty freakin' awesome, too!  Because, while Klismann's claim that this tournament will be better than the Euro is a stretch, it's still gonna be pretty good.  There are a lot of quality teams in the Americas.

As it stands, the U.S. might not be the favorites in Group A (which is actually fine with me, since a second-place finish would mean I see the U.S. in the quarterfinals at MetLife Stadium).  Although, who can forget that memorable win over Colombia at the Rose Bowl during that 1994 World Cup?  Well, as fate would have it, what's the opening game of the Copa?  Should the Americans beat James and Co. (or even get a draw), winning the group is entirely plausible.

Either way, I think the U.S. and Colombia will be the two teams to advance out of Group A.  Costa Rica is the strongest unseeded CONCACAF team, but the USA typically handles the Costa Ricans in the home game during World Cup qualifying (and even in the Gold Cup when they actually play each other), so I don't see why this would be any different.  I'm not discounting Paraguay, which is the best of the four bottom-ranked South American squads, but I think if either of the two favorites is going to get upset, it'll be by Costa Rica.

While the U.S. and Colombia were handed the most difficult opponents possible, that wasn't the case for Brazil.  Somehow, the Brazilians ended up with the weakest group of them all.  And it's not even close.  I'll be surprised if they give up a goal in the group stage.  There probably won't even be much suspense over who'll finish second.  Ecuador is by far the second-best team in Group B.  Haiti's the worst team in the tournament.

Group C features Mexico and Uruguay, which will be a great opening game in Phoenix on Sunday night (Sunday Night Futbol?)  The winner of that one has the inside track on first place in the group.  Although, I think they'll both advance fairly easily.  Jamaica and Venezuela aren't remotely on the same level as those two regular World Cup participants, both of whom have legitimate reasons to think they can win this tournament (which, for Mexico, would go along with its 2015 Gold Cup title).

Chile beat Argentina in penalty kicks to win last year's Copa America and keep Messi's streak of never having won a major tournament in tact.  After finishing second in the World Cup (in Brazil) and the Copa America (in Chile), the top-ranked Argentines will leave their home continent and head north to try and finally get that monkey off their backs.

But, of course, they're not just in the same group as Chile, that's their opening game.  Winning this one is nowhere near as important as the final, but it'll set the tone for the rest of the tournament.  Either way, they both know they're going to have a difficult quarterfinal against either Mexico or Uruguay.  Ultimately, winning the group might not matter, especially if Mexico doesn't win Group C, but you know Argentina wants a little bit of payback after last year's final, so they'll be out for blood in that opening game against Chile.  They want to send a message that they're the team to beat.

Argentina definitely is the team to beat.  They're the best team in the Americas, and it's not really that close.  Brazil's biggest concern this summer is winning Olympic gold at home.  Although, after their World Cup embarrassment and an early exit at last year's Copa, you have to wonder if they care more about this tournament than they're letting on.  The draw works out well for the Brazilians, so I can see them making a run.

Once it gets to the knockout stage, Klinsmann is right.  The eight teams that reach the quarterfinals will all be quality.  My quarterfinals are Colombia-Ecuador, Argentina-Uruguay, Brazil-USA and Mexico-Chile.  In the semis, I see Argentina knocking off Colombia to make it three finals in major tournaments in as many years.  In the final they meet Mexico, which beats Chile, then Brazil.  Except this time, Argentina gets it done.  (And Messi loves playing in America so much that he leaves Barcelona for MLS.)