Bleacher Report - Articles by Uncle Popov

Message to TCU and BSU Football Fans: Don't Blame the BCS System

Uncle Popov — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:54:13 -0500

Too many college football fans complain about the lack of a playoff at the FBS tier. They point to the BCS system and note that in most years there is at least one deserving team that is left out of the BCS title game—Texas in the 2008 season; Michigan in the 2006 season; Auburn in the 2004 season.

The anti-BCS crowd argues that a playoff system of some type, or even a Plus-One game, would remedy the omission of deserving teams.

The problem, however, is much more than simply replacing the BCS with a playoff format. A playoff system would still benefit certain teams over other "weaker" teams.

The larger problem here is summed up in one word—conferences!

There are so many "debates" that occur among college football fans. Does defense really win championships? Is establishing the ground game the key to victory? Should Notre Dame join the Big Ten? Is the SEC the best conference in the country?

However, no one questions the legitimacy of the conferences themselves. The problem here is that conferences have become "naturalized." Most college football fans simply accept that conferences are given entities and through that naturalization certain attributes are assigned that can also be naturalized.

Understand where this argument is coming from before thinking that this article is lost. In popular rhetoric, regions are often held as natural and rarely challenged outside of academia. We often speak of the "Middle East" or "Western Europe" or "the South" in the United States unproblematically.

However, there is nothing natural about the "Middle East" as it was constructed relative to Europe (east of Europe). During the Cold War, "Western Europe" included Greece, which is certainly in Eastern Europe. And ask two different people which states compose the U.S. South and you will likely receive two different lists.

In other words, people made up regions to create some form of order and categorization. But the next logical step is problematic as certain attributes are placed on these regions—the Middle East (as well as the Far East) was held as backwards and barbaric; Western Europe was "advanced"; the South is "redneck country."

While we know these to be stereotypes, if we hold these regions as natural and do not problematize their constructions, then what often occurs is these attributes are also made to be "natural."

To bring this back to sports, a similar process occurs with conferences in college football. We try to believe that there is something natural about conference, attempting to root it in geography or "tradition." But in actuality, conferences were constructed as a means of convenience and we have since attached certain attributes to these conferences.

For example, the Southeastern Conference is geographically concentrated, but it also overlaps other FBS conferences (ACC, Big East, Conference USA and Sun Belt). Sure it has "tradition," but Vanderbilt seems out of place in terms of academics and athletics. And even though you could argue that Vanderbilt was a charter member, that is not important because Georgia Tech and Tulane were not invited to rejoin when the conference expanded.

You could also look at the WAC and its inclusion of Louisiana Tech, or the Sun Belt and the inclusion of Denver in all sports other than football. Point here is that conferences are arbitrarily constructed.

To put it bluntly, the conferences were made up! Yet, there is an assumption that the conferences are natural.

Now comes the attachment of attributes. While there is usually a debate over whether the SEC is better than, say, the Pac-10 or Big 12, these debates rarely include conferences such as the Mountain West or MAC. The closest we get to the inclusion of these conferences is when discussing the perceived weakness of the Big East or ACC in relation to the Mountain West.

So, let us line this up properly. BCS conferences are better and non-BCS conferences are weak. And it is this type of naturalization of attributes to conferences and their affiliated teams that keeps teams such as Boise State and TCU from garnering serious consideration in the BCS championship discussion.

Thus, because Boise State and TCU play in "weak" conferences and must play "weak" teams within that conference, neither team deserves to be in the BCS title game, or so the argument goes. And, the anti-Boise State and anti-TCU groups would continue, if they want to play with the big boys then they should schedule more game against BCS-conference teams, which is the standard for which all FBS schools are measured.

Ah, but there in lies the problem. The attributes attached to Boise State and TCU arise from an organizational structure that was arbitrarily created and from a system in which that had little to no initial input. These teams are placed at a disadvantage because of their conferences and this disadvantage begins with preseason polls.

Preseason polls are based on perception, but just like conferences these polls create naturalized knowledge. With Florida being ranked number one, it seemed “natural” that they were the best team and thus, if their wins are unimpressive, they should remain at the top. Ergo, Florida and Texas and Alabama were all handed an easy path to the BCS title by being ranked in the top five!

Meanwhile, Boise State started 16th, with TCU at 17th, Iowa at 21st, and Cincinnati was not even ranked! They began at a disadvantage and had to work their way up. However, Iowa and Cincinnati were able to use their privilege of being in a BCS-conference to jump both Boise State and TCU.

Polls and starting position aside, what it really comes down to is what we can call spatial injustice. It is based on the locations of Boise State and TCU in relation to the other schools in the college football landscape. To say that the WAC is weak is also to insinuate that other conferences (say, the Pac-10) are strong.

But there is a problem with that. Because the conferences have been constructed by the powers that be, many teams have little to no say in what conference they belong. Is it Boise State’s fault that they are in the WAC?

To extend that, is it Boise State’s fault that New Mexico State and Utah State and San Jose State and (this season) Hawai’i are miserable? Is it fair to hold that against the Broncos?

The partitioning of the conferences was out of the hands of Boise State and Florida and Texas and TCU (although the Horned Frogs did bounce around from the Southwest Conference to the WAC to Conference USA to the Mountain West). Thus, Boise State and TCU cannot suddenly leave their respective conferences and join a BCS-conference for a season. They have to play the hand that they are dealt.

Ah, BCS-conferences! What about those? “TCU is not in a BCS conference. So they are not worthy of playing for the title.”

Well, who designed the BCS? The antecedents of the BCS is rooted in the Bowl Coalition. The Bowl Coalition was formed by five conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 8, SEC and SWC). It was later restructured to form the Bowl Alliance, which was still made up of the five conferences and focused on a rotating “championship game” between three bowl games (Fiesta, Sugar and Orange).

Finally in 1998, the BCS was created and added the Big Ten and Pac-10 (the Big 12 was also a part of this system after the consolidation of the Big 8 and SWC).

Ergo, the system that is set up to determine a champion in the FBS was created by conferences that have exclusive access to the system! Even though non-BCS conferences and teams can get into the system, the BCS still gives an unfair advantage to certain teams and conferences by granting that access.

So Boise State and TCU are criticized for not being a part of a system that they had no initial input in creating. It is no different than the reservations for American Indians that were set-up without input from the various nations.

But back to the conferences themselves, and in particular schedules. Both Boise State and TCU are being knocked for their schedules; the Broncos have the 81st “strongest” schedule while TCU has the 46th toughest schedule. A recent e-mail sent to the media by Iowa spokesperson Phil Haddy draws on this.

Boise State is hampered by its conference schedule. But again, this is not Boise State’s fault (as noted above). So, let’s look at the non-conference schedule. The reason for this is that by looking at the entire schedule, we are examining a fixed schedule based on the arbitrary conferences. So, it seems more appropriate to compare the schedules that teams control:

Florida: Charleston Southern (3-5); Troy (6-2); FIU (2-6); Florida State (4-4)
Texas: Louisiana-Monroe (4-4); Wyoming (4-4); UTEP (3-5); UCF (5-3)
Alabama: Virginia Tech (5-3); FIU (2-6); North Texas (2-6); Chattanooga (5-3)
Iowa: Northern Iowa (5-3); Iowa State (5-4); Arizona (5-2); Arkansas State (2-5)
Cincinnati: Southeast Missouri State (1-7); Oregon State (5-3); Fresno State (5-3); Miami University (1-8); Illinois (2-6)
TCU: Virginia (3-5); Texas State (5-3); Clemson (5-3); SMU (4-4)
Boise State: Oregon (7-1); Miami University (1-8); Bowling Green (4-5); California-Davis (4-4)

So, what makes any of those schedules any better than Boise State’s out-of-conference schedule? In fact, since the BCS conferences are the “standard” for strength, Texas does not face a single BCS-conference team. There is no reprieve because the Longhorns played Ohio State recently because we are talking about this season not the past!

In fact, if you remove annual out-of-conference rivals (Florida State and Iowa State), TCU and Cincinnati are the only teams to go out of its way to schedule two BCS-conference teams. And, between those two, the Horned Frogs were the only one to travel to two BCS-conference teams.

And, before you knock the fact that TCU played two ACC schools, the Sagarin conference ratings places the ACC third, behind the Pac-10 and the SEC. Since this ranking is carried by teams in the middle of a conference and TCU played middle-of-the-pack ACC teams, it should speak to the quality of win.

So, to the naked eye, TCU’s out-of-conference schedule is better than any of the other six teams. Boise State’s OOC is comparable to the other five teams. So, excluding the conference schedule, it seems that both TCU and Boise State are worthy of being in the BCS title game discussion.

To finish the thought of TCU and their schedule, as noted above their schedule ranks as the 46th toughest. Texas’s schedule is the 42nd toughest. Thus, even taking into account the “power” of the Big 12, Texas’s schedule is only slightly more difficult than TCU’s schedule. So, shouldn’t TCU be taken as seriously as the BCS #2 team?

But wait a minute! Let’s take a deeper look at strength of schedule. The BCS once used strength of schedule as part of its formula. This component was calculated by using the following formula:

SOS = [2*(Opponents Record + Opponents' Opponents Record)]/3

It is a common formula. The records used do not count the team themselves (so Florida would not be included in Troy’s record) and excludes non-FBS schools (so Charleston Southern would not be in Florida’s record).

But let’s remove all conference games and use the formula to determine strength of non-conference schedule. If we use the same formula and figure the opponents’ non-conference FBS record and the opponents’ opponents non-conference FBS record, we have an interesting output.

Iowa: 0.696
Boise State: 0.671
TCU: 0.653
Cincinnati: 0.587
Alabama: 0.547
Florida: 0.537
Texas: 0.444

So, if we take away the conferences, which again were arbitrarily constructed, and look only at non-conference games, Iowa tops everyone, followed by Boise State and TCU. In fact, the teams that are being argued as the “weakest” have played a tougher non-conference schedule. Does that not warrant Boise State and TCU the chance to play in the title game?

But of course, the complaints about the schedules in general will not cease, even when examining just the out-of-conference schedules. Problem is, as Dan Wetzel notes, the big boys are not willing to sign up to play Boise State or TCU or even Hawai'i.

Lastly, there is the argument that if Boise State and TCU played in a BCS conference they would not be undefeated. There is a fallacy in this argument because it is assuming that Boise State and TCU would be placed in, say, the SEC without any of the historic benefits that comes with playing in the SEC.

For example, what is assumed is that Boise State’s current team, based on its connections with the WAC will suddenly be placed in the SEC. In other words, they were not afforded the same recruiting base and television exposure that SEC teams enjoy. Ergo, this argument purposely puts Boise State at a disadvantage and in a situation that is unrealistic.

Why not reverse this argument? What if Florida was in the WAC or Texas was in the Mountain West? Well, with the same rosters, these two teams would likely run the table, just as Boise State and TCU have done so far. But, that means that Florida is beating Utah State and New Mexico State while Texas beats up on Wyoming (well, they already did that) and UNLV.

Now, Florida and Texas no longer appear to be “strong” as they have beaten up on “inferior” opponents.

Again, this is all based on the arbitrary nature of conferences. Because of circumstances beyond their control, TCU and Boise State were relegated to “weaker” conferences and therefore put at a “natural” disadvantage. Meanwhile, Florida and Texas were “born” into a life of privilege.

The argument of the Broncos and the Horned Frogs not being able to go undefeated in a BCS-conference is flawed. For this to even be considered, Boise State and TCU would need years of access to the recruiting bases of these “power” conferences, as well as the exposure. They would also need facilities on par with the SEC or Big 12 or Big Ten. Give them those things, then bring up this argument.

NOTE: Yes, TCU has the state of Texas, but its lack of exposure and the perception of the the Mountain West Conference hinder the Horned Frogs. They tend to be the fourth, fifth or sixth option for many Texas recruits, if at all.

The reason that Boise State and TCU are not in the conversation (at least, not seriously) is an issue of social justice. It is about the construction of the conferences, the development of the system to determine a champion in the FBS [the BCS], and who is allowed in and who is allowed to grab the crumbs off of the ground. The BCS is essentially an oligarchy that privileges a small elite, excluding teams that are just as deserving, if not more.

There is a very real scenario that could play out with Boise State and TCU are the only undefeated teams in the FBS. If that is the case, those two teams should be playing in Pasadena.

But even if those two teams are the only undefeated teams, the system is working against them.

A major bulk of this article derives from a similar article at Uncle Popov's Drunken Sports Rant, published on November 2, 2009.

NFL Shutouts: Why This Season Has Left So Many Teams Feeling Defenseless

Uncle Popov — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:56:39 -0400

After Oakland finally showed up last week, the Raiders went Raiders and collapsed against the New York Jets, losing 38-0.

It was so bad that Raiders head coach Tom Cable (finally) benched JaMarcus Russell. It was bad enough that Jets QB Mark Sanchez had time to enjoy a hot dog (allegedly because his stomach was not feeling well).

But for as awful as the Raiders have been this season, it was “only” their first time being shut out in 2009. However, it marked the seventh time this season that an NFL team has been shut out!

Personally, I held that shutouts in professional football rarely happened, if at all. At best maybe there would be one shutout in an NFL season, but perhaps a couple of seasons would pass before another shutout would occur. After all, it would seem that there is a lot of pride among professional players and they would do anything to end the shutout bid.

So, seven shutouts in seven weeks seems like a lot for professionals. Again, you would expect that people getting paid to play a sport would be talented enough to muster at least one touchdown. But these were not really close games.

Week One: Seattle 28, St. Louis 0
Week Three: New York Giants 24, Tampa Bay 0
Week Four: San Francisco 35, St. Louis 0
Week Five: Seattle 41, Jacksonville 0
Week Six: Green Bay 26, Detroit 0
Week Six: New England 59, Tennessee 0
Week Seven: New York Jets 38, Oakland 0

I am not sure which is more amazing, the number of early season shutouts or the fact that both of Seattle’s wins were shutouts. All or nothing for the Seahawks, I suppose.

Most teams also failed to just show up at all. In five of the seven shutouts, the offending team managed less than 200 total yards of offense. This includes the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who managed less than 100 yards (86 net yards to be exact) and the Tennessee Titans’ abysmal -7 passing yards.

The two teams that produced the "best" were the St. Louis Rams against Seattle (247 yards) and Oakland (263 yards).

Keep in mind that this does not include the games where a team only scored a field goal and managed a late touchdown to avoid the shutout.

With the explosion of shutouts so early in the season, it seems like there are more shutouts than in previous seasons. Is this year unusual compared to previous seasons? What does the trend look like? Glad you asked:

2009: seven (through 25 October)
2008: six
2007: five
2006: 15
2005: six
2004: four

Certainly 2006 jumps out as an outlier, but with the other four seasons, there is an average of 5.25 shutouts per season. So, the 2009 season is well ahead of the trend. Plus, in those four seasons, the shutouts primarily occurred towards the end of the season—teams “giving up” or resting players (see Tennessee in 2008).

Nevertheless, in general shutouts are more common that one might think. It seems intuitive that a team of professionals should be able to put points on the board. But the trend seems to indicate that shutouts do occur at least occasionally during the course of the NFL season.

To finish the thought before touching on the 2006 season, there is a tendency for the same teams to be shut out. Since 2004, both Oakland and Cleveland have been shut out five times. St. Louis, Miami, and the Jets have been shut out three times.

Of the 43 shutouts since 2004, 26 have involved AFC teams. By division, the AFC East has the most teams shut out (nine), with the NFC West is second with seven. The NFC East has been shut out the least, both times in 2005 (Philadelphia shut out by Seattle and Washington shut out by the Giants).

Now, what of the 2006 season? The 2009 season is ahead of the pace set in 2006 (six through Week Seven in 2006). But the 2006 season began with three shutouts on opening week (Tampa Bay, Green Bay, and Oakland) and a Week Two Monday night shutout of Pittsburgh by Jacksonville (9-0).

Things were quiet in the middle of the 2006 season (one shutout in Week Nine), but then there was an explosion of shutouts between Weeks 11 and 15.

Week 11: three shutouts
Week 12: two shutouts
Week 14: one shutout
Week 15: two shutouts

The shutouts in 2006 were spread across the board, with two playoff teams (New England [12-4] and New York Jets [10-6]) and two awful teams (Oakland [2-14] and Cleveland [4-12]) being shut out. In all, 10 different teams were shut out in 2006, with Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and the Jets being shut out twice and the Raiders three times.

In 2009, the shutout trends appears to be among the worst teams in the NFL. The six teams are a combined 6-33 this year and includes the three winless teams (Tennessee, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay). The St. Louis-Tennessee game on Dec. 13 could end up being a 0-0 tie!

So is the rash of shutouts this season unusual? Well, historically it appeared that shutouts could happen to any team. However, this season, it seems that the shutouts are concentrated among some of the worst teams in the NFL. Perhaps it also speaks to the polarization of power in the NFL—a couple of really strong teams and a handful of really awful teams.

Nevertheless, shutouts do seem to occur more often than I initially thought. Excluding the 2006 as an outlier, there are around five per season. And, a quick scan of games dating back to the 1981 season indicates that has been at least two shutouts in any given NFL season. So shutouts are not extremely rare.

Still, given that there are a total of 256 games per year, only five shutouts per season is still a minuscule number (2.05 percent of all games played). But it is a fact that a shutout will occur during the season.

Considering that there appear to be so many bad teams in the NFL this year, and since there tends to be an increase in shutouts towards the end of the season as teams give up (Washington? Kansas City? Cleveland?), we can expect even more shutouts as the season progresses!

This article originally appeared at Uncle Popov's Drunken Sports Rant on Oct. 26, 2009.

Lane Kiffin Should Blame His Players, Not SEC Officials

Uncle Popov — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:09:41 -0400

Tennessee head football coach Lane Kiffin is complaining about a penalty that was not called.

In Tennessee’s game against Alabama on Saturday, the Volunteers attempted a game-winning kick to knock off the second-ranked team in the country. Vols kicker Daniel Lincoln had a low-trajectory kick that Alabama nose tackle Terrence Cody blocked. It was his second blocked kick of the game.

As the ball rolled around, Cody ran towards the Alabama sideline and removed his helmet. Time expired and the Crimson Tide escaped with a 12-10 victory.

Kiffin argues, and rightfully so, that Cody should have been penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. Kiffin told The Knoxville Sentinel :

“To me, the rule is this: If a play is still going on, you can’t take your helmet off.

“The play is still going. The ball is sitting there. If Luke [Stocker, UT tight end] sees the ball he can pick it up and go score a touchdown and we win the game. The guy [Cody] throws his helmet, then two of their guys go recover the ball.

“It’s a 15-yard penalty and we kick again.”

Well, SEC associate commissioner Charles Bloom commented to The Birmingham News that there was no time left and thus there could not be another play.

But there is more to it than the time.

From the NCAA Football 2009-10 Rules and Regulation (Rule 10, Section 2, Article 2, subsection IV):

A Team A player clips in Team B’s end zone when a scrimmage kick has touched a Team B player in the field of play and the loose ball is still a kick. RULING: Penalty—15 yards. Enforcement is either at the previous spot (Team A retaining possession) or at the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B (emphasis added).

The rule uses a clipping call against the kick-defending team after the kick has been “touched” (blocked?). What I gather from this rule is that Team B recovers the ball. Thus, the penalty is assessed on the offending team, but that team is now in possession of the ball.

Applied to the Alabama-Tennessee game, Alabama should have been penalized. But since they recovered the ball, the 15-yard penalty would be assessed after the change of possession. First down, Alabama. Ball game!

Now, because I am not sure if that is the correct rule, here is another (Rule 10, Section 2, Article 3, subsection I):

Either team fouls during a scrimmage kick after the ball has been touched beyond the neutral zone. The foul is more than three yards beyond the neutral zone, and Team A is not in legal possession when the ball is declared dead . RULING: For fouls by Team B, penalty enforcement will be by the Three-and-One Principle with the post-scrimmage kick spot as the basic spot (Rule 2-25-11). Team B’s ball, first and 10 . For fouls by Team A, penalty enforcement is either from the previous spot or from the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B (Rule 6-3-13) (emphasis added).

So, again, kick is blocked and the kick-defense team recovers the ball (read: “Team A is not in legal possession when the ball is dead”). But again, if Team B commits the penalty, they still maintain possession. First down, Alabama. Ball game!

Either way, even if the penalty was called, Alabama recovered the blocked kick. Because the penalty occurred while the ball was not in possession of either team, it came down to who got the ball. In this case, Alabama jumped on the ball.

As it was, there was no penalty and Alabama still recovered the blocked kick.

If Kiffin wants to complain, he should get on his own team and not the SEC officials. Why did half of his special team unit run away from the ball!? It seemed they had no idea where it was after Cody swatted it.

That is on his own team. As Kiffin stated, “The play is still going. The ball is sitting there.”

So where was your team running to, Lane? Why did your players not get on the ball that was just "sitting there?"

I think Kiffin's ire is misplaced.

This article first appeared at Uncle Popov's Drunken Sports Rant on October 26, 2009.

Austin Scott's Lawsuit Against Penn State Is a Fumble Waiting to Happen

Uncle Popov — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:54:09 -0400

Austin Scott is a running back. And he is looking to get paid!

But he is not attempting to get on an NFL team, or a CFL team, or a UFL team, or even in one of the many European leagues.

No, Austin Scott is trying to get Penn State to pay him!

Do not worry, he is not currently a player for Penn State. But he is suing the university, along with a host of others, for “mental pain and suffering” and a loss of “earning capacity.” Hmm.

This all stems from rape allegations that were slapped on Austin in 2007. The accuser filed the claims on October 12 claiming that she was raped on the morning of October 5, the day before Penn State’s game with Iowa. Scott was suspended from the team on October 5.

Charges were eventually dropped after the Superior Court in Pennsylvania permitted the cross-examination about a previous 2003 sexual assault case brought forth by the accuser. In that case, the accuser claimed she was sexually assaulted by a student from another university. Charges in that case were later dropped.

So the case against Scott was dropped. With his career at Penn State over (no more eligibility after the 2007 season), he signed with the Cleveland Browns as an undrafted free agent. After rushing for two total yards on two carries, Scott was cut by the Browns, allegedly for not being able to pick up the offense.

With no “professional” job, and likely no career-worthy degree, he did what anyone would do in that situation—sue! And the lawsuit seems to be casting a wide net—Centre County prosecutors, PSU law enforcement, the university itself, and the accuser. Why not throw in El Nino for good measure?

He is seeking $150 million in both compensatory and punitive damages!!!

His attorney, John Karoly, tries to throw down some sympathy and bring on some tears.

"When you think of the blood, sweat, and tears he put in from five years of age until now just to get that one shot and have it destroyed by someone like this is unconscionable. He’s distraught. That was his entire life."

Well, that makes sense. Poor kid has worked so hard. Karoly goes on to claim that Scott “had enjoyed a highly successful career as both a high school and college athlete. He was slated to be a third or fourth round draft pick for the National Football League.”

Yeah, of course. It seems that Karoly is an NFL scout during his downtime. A recreational Mel Kiper.

Good luck with that case, Mr. Frivolous Lawsuit Attorney! Let’s look at his illustrious career.

First, Scott was an excellent running back in high school. He set the Pennsylvania state record for single-season rushing yards and touchdowns. That’s impressive.

But his collegiate career was mediocre at best. He had a nice freshman season, leading the team with 436 yards. But he followed that up with 176 yards and 273 yards as a backup.

After redshirting in 2006, he was named the starter for 2007. However, his numbers through the five games before the suspension were pedestrian—302 yards and six touchdowns. In fact, backup running back Rodney Kinlaw’s numbers were better (379 yards with two TDs and a better YPC average). Scott also fumbled the ball four times, losing all four.

In all, Scott ran for 1188 yards while at Penn State. He was hampered by minor injuries and had minor off the field issues dealing with the coaches and team meetings.

Given his lackluster performance at Penn State, what makes Scott and Karoly believe the former would have been a third or fourth rounder? Who is to say he would have made the NFL even without the rape charges?

While backup players are sometimes drafted based on potential (see Matt Cassel, Ronnie Brown, Felix Jones), it is still a rare occurrence. What does Karoly think the NFL should do—ignore his on-field performance at Penn State and consider Scott’s high school numbers?

Karoly claims that Scott carries a “scarlet letter” and that is why both NFL and CFL teams have stayed away from his client. But there are many players with off the field problems—from Michael Vick to Ray Lewis—who are given second chances. If you have the talent, then a team is willing to provide another opportunity.

An NFL team gave Scott a chance, but apparently he did not grasp the offense or show any determination to improve. I would think that the NFL and team scouts are able to judge talent coming into the league. And apparently, he was not deemed good enough.

In the end, this seems like an attempted cash grab. I am not stating that this case will be thrown out and that Karoly and Scott have no case. The legal system is a tricky landmine field and if navigated carefully almost any lawsuit can be ruled favorably (see the McDonald’s hot coffee case).

But it just seems frivolous, especially going after 12 different individuals.

Maybe there should be 13 people named in the lawsuit—Austin Scott. After all, it seems that his inability to hold on to the football caused him to lose carries prior to his suspension. I am sure that had something to do with the his diminishing “earning capacity.”

I guess all the blood, sweat, and tears that Scott put in since he was five did not solve his fumble-itis.

Just blame it on the hands!

Bobby, Blue, Bland: The Effect of Bobby Bowden at Florida State

Uncle Popov — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:51:22 -0400

During the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then vice presidential candidate Al Gore repeated the line "it's time for them to go." In Tallahassee, the words from Gore's fateful July 1992 speech are becoming a bit more vocal as fans of the Florida State Seminoles are beginning to shout, "It's time for him to go."

Now, certainly it is not a unified voice among the Seminole fan base as many fans continue to stand by the university's decision to retain head coach Bobby Bowden. But dissent is beginning to grow and one has to wonder if the ax will finally fall on the legendary head coach.

Calls for Bowden to resign are not new. Concern began to surface once Florida State began to lose its dominance in the ACC. The re-emergence of Florida as a perennial power does not help the people in Tallahassee cope with the slide either.

The claim is that the game has passed Bowden by; he is no longer "hip" and up-to-date on the present game of college football. The same statements were made about Joe Paterno. Alumni and fans of Penn State began to think that the game had passed by Paterno. Even Paterno, after a dismal 2004 season, stated that maybe he should step down (if the Nittany Lions produced another sub-par season).

But 2005 was a revitalization in Happy Valley as Penn State went 11-1 and defeated Bowden's Seminoles in the Orange Bowl. While credit certainly goes to the 2004 hiring of current offensive coordinator Galen Hall and the subsequent changes he made to the offensive attack, the fact is that Paterno adjusted and proved that he can still put together a winning team. This is proven in his 45-12 record since his suggestion of "getting [his] rear end out of" Penn State.

So, why the trouble in Tallahassee? Why has one legendary coach been able to at least fight off "forced retirement" (although critics of Paterno still exist) while another only sees critics increase each week?

It all comes down to one thing—stubbornness. And Bowden's stubborn act is manifested in two different ways.

The first manifestation is seen in his coaching staff. The hiring of Jimbo Fisher as offensive coordinator was a smart move. But it is the person that Fisher is replacing that should be drawn into question.

After Mark Richt took the head coaching job at the University of Georgia, Bowden promoted then-wide receivers coach Jeff Bowden to the offensive coordinator position. Yes, the "Bowden" name is no coincidence as Jeff is Bobby's son. And this act of nepotism was the first in a string of questionable personnel moves.

Florida State was able to circumvent any nepotism laws by having Jeff Bowden answer to the assistant head coach rather than to Bobby himself. That did not stop the offense from becoming inept. While the offense numbers appear solid in the ACC (typically top quarter of the conference since 2003), the numbers in all of the FBS are mediocre at best.

2003: 21st in points per game (PPG); 31st in yards per game (YPG)
2004: 66th in PPG; 70th in YPG
2005: 43rd in PPG; 51st in YPG
2006: 54th in PPG; 74th in YPG
2007: 91st in PPG; 83rd in YPG
2008: 28th in PPG; 56th in YPG
2009 (through Oct. 10): 44th in PPG; 25th in YPG

What this demonstrates is the offense became lackluster under Jeff Bowden. It was so awful that there was a residual effect in the first year under Jimbo Fisher (2007). This gets not only at poor game planning, but also recruiting.

Despite the bland style of play under Jeff, Bobby stood by his son even as the Seminoles were embarrassed in a 31-0 home loss to once-perennial doormat Wake Forest. Pressure finally boiled over and Jeff was forced to step down, complete with a nice pay day.

Now, despite what John Romano of the St. Petersburg Times thinks, it does appear that the offense has turned things around under Fisher. The improvement since 2007 is significant and the maturation of quarterback Christian Ponder is a testament to Fisher's success. So, the error of promoting Jeff Bowden seems to have corrected itself.

But, another hire in 2007 returns to the theme of questionable personnel decisions. After a pathetic 3-9 season with North Carolina State in 2006, Chuck Amato was welcomed back to Florida State. That decision, along with the coaxing of Mickey Andrews to remain with the Seminoles, has turned a once-proud defensive tradition into something more deserving of a WAC team.

As with the offense, here are the numbers for the Florida State defense since the 2003 season.

2003: 13th in PPG; 24th in YPG
2004: 6th in PPG; 5th in YPG
2005: 28th in PPG; 15th in YPG
2006: 36th in PPG; 15th in YPG
2007: 32nd in PPG; 37th in YPG
2008: 33rd in PPG; 14th in YPG
2009 (through Oct. 10): 90th in PPG; 108th in YPG

Now, those numbers do not demonstrate a dramatic drop over the time frame presented. But the 2009 numbers are appalling and the decline is evident in the points per game.

Does this fall on Amato? Not completely, but Bowden's choice to bring in Amato to replace Kevin Steele has played a role in recruiting.

According to Rivals.com, including the current recruiting class, Amato has brought in three defensive recruits out of 19 targets. Jimbo Fisher has brought in six defensive recruits out of 10. What does the say about a program when the offensive coordinator is bringing more defensive players than the linebacking coach.

To Amato's credit, he has brought in eight offensive players. And a couple of the defensive players that Fisher brought in were jointly recruited by Amato and Fisher. And while there is nothing against coaches recruiting for the other side of the ball, but it is worrisome that Fisher is having to target defensive players because Amato cannot bring them in.

And what of Mickey Andrews? It is certainly his defense. But being coerced to come back for a couple of more seasons has apparently burned him out and it shows in this his last season as defensive coordinator.

These questionable personnel decisions—promoting Jeff Bowden, bringing back Amato, keeping Andrews on too long—all fall on Bowden and speaks to his stubborn stranglehold on control of football operations.

The second manifestation is in his sense of entitlement. Now, here is where someone will say, "Well, he has earned his position. Bobby put in his time and he has a right to remain at Florida State." And I cannot argue against that as he certainly has earned his position.

But, consider this statement from Bowden.

"My problem is age. If I was 50, nobody would be saying a word as far as that's concerned. But at 79, he's too old. I found out when I first started, it's always this way: 'Yeah, but what have you done lately? What have you done lately?' What you used to do doesn't count, and I know it's that way. I'm ready for it. But I also know anytime something goes wrong, he's too old.'" (ESPN.com).

He is absolutely right. There is a problem with age in that he has been at the helm so long and done so much for the football program at Florida State that he seems "natural" as head coach. Age, in reference to longevity, has created a situation where he believes he is the natural fit at Florida State.

In other words, while some will use his age against Bowden, the truth is that his age might actually play a role in him remaining at FSU. And that even seems to buy into the naturalization of his position.

But there is another part of that statement that is more important. "What have you done lately?" Regardless of age, when a team struggles, it is the coach that comes under fire and not the coordinators.

Maybe Bowden is attempting to play the "age" card, but truth is, Florida State has struggled over the past few years. Since I have used 2003 as a starting point for stats, let's look at Florida State's record beginning with that season.

2003: 10-3 (7-1 in conference)
2004: 9-3 (6-2)
2005: 8-5 (5-3)
2006: 7-6 (3-5)
2007: 7-6 (4-4)
2008: 9-4 (5-3)
2009 (through Oct. 10): 2-4 (0-3)

So during that time frame the Seminoles are 52-31, with a 30-21 conference record. Given the previous success, most would consider that a decline. And asking "What have you done lately?" this season, it looks like not much has been done.

If a 44-year-old coach was dragging a once-proud program through those numbers, then I think that coach will be gone. Frank Solich was fired after a 9-3 record at Nebraska. Ron Zook produced a mediocre record at Florida that is comparable to Bowden's recent trend, yet he was run out of Gainesville.

Age does not seem to matter when the product on the field is lackluster. The legacy that Bowden's longevity (a product of age) produced seems to allow him a free pass, at least in his own mind.

But Bowden appears to be oblivious to the damage he is causing to his beloved program. Bowden recently stated, "If I thought I was hurting Florida State and that I couldn't do it any more, I would walk away. But that's not what I see right now."

However, his stubborn nature has led to slow, excruciating death to his coaching legacy and career. He is in fact hurting the Seminoles and yet refuses to acknowledge that.

There is no question what Bobby Bowden has accomplished in Tallahassee. He built a national powerhouse out of a perennial doormat and made Florida State what it is today. Bowden's legacy is cemented in the annals of college football history.

So, given that the field is called "Bobby Bowden Field" it would be blasphemy to criticize Bowden. Perhaps because his image adorns a stained glass window outside the stadium it would be considered decide to ask him to step down or worse, fire him.

But his job there is done.

And it is time for him to go.

Jeff Passan, Sports Media, and the Loss of Power

Uncle Popov — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:20:06 -0400

Jeff Passan is a writer for Yahoo! Sports and formerly of The Kansas City Star; the latter a newspaper, for those who did not know (yes, newspapers do still exist). And apparently he is a bitter man.

Passan recently wrote a column ridiculing Tony Faust’s assessment that the Minnesota Twins, in particular soon-to-be MVP Joe Mauer, were stealing signals from the Detroit Tigers.

Passan is quick to discredit Faust’s analysis by claiming that the latter “does not play baseball, nor is he a scout.” He later continues to attack Faust by insinuating that it is completely made up; that Faust “manufactured” it.

In another column, Passan takes another shot at Faust by playing off the conspiracy theory aspect a la “the grassy knoll.” In this shot, Passan attempts to paint Faust as a bit loopy.

Is Faust accurate? Well, I am not sold that Mauer was stealing signs to relay to Jason Kubel. The video and Kubel’s reactions did not seem to fit the theory.

But it is interesting how quickly Passan tries to de-legitimate the claim by stressing how players would be more subtle; “an exaggerated lean that looks natural, or a hand tap that is familiar between only two players.”

But grabbing the earhole of one’s helmet, something that the Twins claim that Mauer does “all the time,” seems subtle enough to me. Or wiping the face.

Plus, I seriously doubt that Mauer or any of the Twins would claim, “Heck yeah we were stealing signs. That Gerald Laird is easy to read!” So their negative reaction to that is only natural. As is the Tigers' reaction that Twins are known for stealing signs.

But I am not here to debate whether or not Mauer stole signs. As I noted above, I do not completely buy that the video Faust provided proves it. (But I do believe that sign-stealing does happen).

However, my concern here is Passan’s attack and reaction towards the “28-year-old graphic designer from Maple Grove, Minnesota.”

In general, there seems to be a fear of the overall power of the Internet. Remember the days of stealing, ERRRR I mean downloading music for free. Record companies and Metallica had a conniption fit! Lawsuits abound and soon “free” Internet downloads went the way of New Coke while iTunes and other pay sites filled the gaps.

What was the motivating factor in the shutdown of free Internet music downloading? Greed? Copyright infringement? Perhaps. I mean, the artists were having their work passed around for free.

But consider this. People had been recording cassette tapes for years (you do remember cassette tapes, yeah? Whether it was tape-to-tape recording or straight from the FM, people had copied music.

And people recorded television shows or movies onto VHS tapes. Okay, I am aging myself by referencing VHS. But the use of tapes to record your favorite music or sitcom has been in play for awhile.

The technology existed to record CDs. And certainly people did that. Borrow a buddy’s ABBA CD so you could make a copy for yourself. The technology was there then and the record execs said little to nothing.

But things changed with Napster and peer-to-peer sharing. Suddenly sharing files accelerated and it was a whole new ballgame. It was a great way to discover new music, or get that awesome Britney Spears song. Record companies should have embraced it!

Well, they certainly did embrace it. A giant bearhug called “lawsuit.” And they went hard after people, from 13-year-old Marilyn Manson fans to 89-year-old Marilyn Manson fans. “Don’t take our music without paying for it!” was their reply.

But what were the record execs and artists really upset about? Was it the sharing of music, something that had occurred for a long period of time? Or was it simply that the record companies did not capitalize on the technology first? Many argue that it is the latter that upsets the music industry. I tend to side with the latter, but the former plays a role, as well.

Point is, the music industry was upset that someone beat them to the punch. And they did whatever they could to discredit those involved until they had control of it.

What does this have to do with Passan? Well, it is more directed at the attempts of reporters to discredit blogs and bloggers in general than it is a shot at Passan specifically.

Go back to June. Jerod Morris, a blogger for Midwest Sports Fan, wrote a piece concerning Philadelphia Phillies outfielder Raul Ibanez. In the piece, Morris wondered in print what could be the cause of Ibanez’s seemingly dramatic increase in power numbers.

Morris does examine many explanatory factors, but also references the use of steroids. The piece is careful not to outright call Ibanez a cheater or claim he was definitely taking any type of “performance-enhancer.”

"…any aging hitter who puts up numbers this much better than his career averages is going to immediately generate suspicion that the numbers are not natural, that perhaps he is under the influence of some sort of performance enhancer."

"And since I was not able to draw any absolute parallels between his prodigiously [sic] improved HR rate and his new ballpark’s hitter-friendliness, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that 'other' performance enhancers could be part of the equation (emphasis added)."

The key words are really "suspicion" and "possibility." This did not stop Philadelphia Inquirer columnist John Gonzalez from blasting Morris’ blog. Although, to Gonzalez’s credit, he did seem to at least understand where Morris was writing from and did not slight the power of blogs.

Ken Rosenthal, on the other hand, spent a great deal of time belittling Morris, as can be seen on this Outside the Lines segment.

Hmm. Barry Bonds’ increase in power numbers (and head size) have driven speculation. Game of Shadows helped solidify those speculations. There was much made of Alex Rodriguez and the use of steroids as well. Reporter Selena Roberts helped drive much of that speculation.

But where was the outcry then? Well, who was "reporting" those speculations? Reporters! People in the media. Gatekeepers!

And that is the fear. With declines in newspaper circulations, there is a fear that these reporters, including those on online media outlets, are becoming obsolete. And when they are not the ones who are breaking the stories, it means that they are losing their power to dictate knowledge.

Controlling and dictating the construction of knowledge is critically important in maintaining power. And for much of our lifetimes, and those of our parents and grandparents, newspapers and newspaper writers have been the ones in power and controlled information, and therefore knowledge.

What blogs in particular and the Internet in general have done is empower the previously powerless masses. And when it comes to sports, fans now have a voice. And evidently, that voice is becoming audible.

This disempowers sports reporters. And, in turn, they lose their gatekeeper status. Hence the reaction towards blogs that break stories. Like the music industry, when reporters are beaten to the punch, the natural reaction seems to be to discredit those who write in the "new media."

Hence Gonzalez’s sarcastic use of “poet” when referring to Morris.

Hence Rosenthal’s parental lecture of “don’t do that” (complete with finger waving).

And hence Passan’s attack of a Twins’ fan’s occupation and competence.

I am not claiming that Morris or Faust are correct in their assessments. I think Morris’ speculation is warranted, but that is all it was—speculation. And Faust’s analysis seems fuzzy at best.

And this is not an anti-Passan article. I like a good deal of his work and think he does a fine job on many of his stories.

But the point is not about the bloggers and the “grainy” videos, but simply the vitriolic reaction from those in the media, such as Passan and Gonzalez and Rosenthal.

The reactions and criticism of bloggers and user-driven sites such as Bleacher Report comes across as bitter. Perhaps the bitterness comes from that slip in power and the loss of the gatekeeper status.

Or maybe, in the case of Passan, he is just bitter because, like Faust, he “does not play baseball, nor is he a scout.”

But then again, I am not a “sports writer” either. What do I know?

Rainbow Bright: Finding Positives in Hawai'i's Loss To UNLV

Uncle Popov — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:09:52 -0400

After getting out quickly and holding off the Washington State Cougars, Hawai'i met a stronger opponent in Mountain West foe UNLV. In the end, the Warriors came away with a loss in the second of a three-game mainland road trip.

But there were plenty of positives to be found in that game against the Rebels.

UNLV is Not a Bad Team.

First, give credit to UNLV. After a disappointing 2008 campaign, many believe that the Rebels were due to rebound and have a solid season. UNLV was also coming off a tough loss against Oregon State.

In that game against the Beavers, the Rebels took a fourth quarter lead and looked poised to win the game. After taking a 21-20 lead, UNLV kicked off and the Beavers took with just over four minutes to drive 64 yards on 12 plays. Oregon State kicker Justin Kahut booted through a 33-yard field goal for the victory.

Even though it was a loss for UNLV, they demonstrated that they could hang with the Beavers, a mid-to upper tier Pac-10 team. For Hawai'i to lose to UNLV, it could almost be seen as expected. Remember, UNLV was a seven-point favorite going into the game.

Greg Alexander Continues to Shine.

Another week, another record game for Hawai'i quarterback Greg Alexander. The gunslinger was 31 for 44 passing for a career-high 477 yards and three touchdowns. He did have one interception though.

After a 2008 season of Russian Roulette at quarterback, it is nice to have solid, steady play at the QB position.

The Emergence of New (Multiple) Targets

Hawai'i fans knew that Greg Salas would blow up this season. Salas has scored in all three games this season, and has tallied over 100 yards in each contest.

The emergence of junior Rodney Bradley has allowed for more diversity in the passing game. Bradley followed up a big game at Washington State (seven catches for 150 yards and two scores) with another 100-yard performance against the Rebels (189 yards, to be exact). He is becoming a big time threat for the Warriors.

Add to that Kealoha Pilares, who set a career high in receptions (13) and receiving yards (146). For the season, Pilares has totaled 27 catches for 257 yards.

With the emergence of the latter two to compliment Salas, Alexander has several targets to choose from and that should make the offense difficult to stop.

Coach Greg McMackin commented that the "offense played excellent." Even though the running game was not there against UNLV (and it is not as though it is a major component of the offense), the passing game definitely looked excellent. Alexander and the receiving corps continue to blossom and will only get better.

Are there concerns from the UNLV game? Sure. But it appears to be confined to that game. As Coach McMackin noted, "If if you always win two out of three phases of the game [offense, defense and special teams] you are going to win the game...We only won one phase."

In other words, the problems from the UNLV game can be corrected.

But again, why dwell on the negatives? The Warriors are 2-1 and face a stiff challenge in the third game of the long road trip; at Louisiana Tech on Wednesday September 30.

Whiteout? Blackout? Who Really Wins (and Who Cares)?

Uncle Popov — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:57:42 -0400

It seems that it is now fashionable for teams, particularly college football teams, to have color-themed games. Penn State has pulled the “whiteout” at Beaver Stadium and while it is cool looking, it does not really do anything special.

But at least with Penn State it makes sense; one of the primary colors is white and it is prominent even in the home (color) uniforms. Georgia has pulled the “blackout” a couple of times. Yes, Georgia does have “black” as one of their colors, but it is not prominent.

Florida State, on the other hand, rolls with garnet and gold (officially). Yet, they have had at least one “blackout” game over the past three seasons. Black is not part of the primary colors of Florida State, yet they still went with it and encouraged fans to do the same.

[Note: The primary reason for the FSU "blackout" is to 'honor' the Seminole Nation. You know, the real one and not the fans.]

But what is the real point of these fashionable games? Does it make the fans cheer louder? It would be awesome if shirts made a person become more of a fan, but obviously it does not.

Sure, it shows cohesiveness, but are fans not united by the love of their team? Must they wear the same-colored shirts like that “cute” family that chooses to wear all the same types of shirt—from daddy all the way down to the damn family dog?

Does it make the players perform better? I am not sure of Penn State’s record in “whiteout” games, but I know Georgia (donning the black jerseys) demolished Hawai’i in the Sugar Bowl in 2008, only to have Alabama kill them in a “blackout” game last season. Florida State is 1-2 in “blackout” games, losing twice to Boston College but beating doormat Duke.

Nevertheless, teams continue to do this. Although it seems that Florida State will not have a “blackout” game this year.

Oh, but that has not stopped the powers that be in Tallahassee from coming up with another color-themed, minor league baseball-esque game! Let’s "steal" the Penn State theme, which is doing their “whiteout” game this weekend against Iowa (who, by “stole” the whiteout from the Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes)! Yes, Florida State is having a “whiteout” this weekend against South Florida.

Good lord, come on! Want to do something different? Paint the field garnet! Yes, I know Boise State has the blue turf, but a garnet field with gold yard lines would be awesome.

A “whiteout” game is boring because it has been done before. Plus you know that people will look at Florida State’s version and just claim that they are copying Penn State.

Let’s be real. “Blackout” games and “whiteout” games are about merchandising! It is why teams have multiple colors of hats and shirts, including camouflage. Shops are loving these color-themed games because people just “got to have” the shirts to fit in with the rest of the suckers, OOPS, I mean fans.

At least with these “whiteout” games you can play a fun game—when there is a crowd shot, find the fans in the crowd of “white” that is wearing a different color. For example, with the Florida State-South Florida game, look for fans wearing garnet (or gold). You could do an over/under for some coin. Or, turn it into a drinking game!

I hope Florida State loses and goes 1-3 in their cute little color games! Not likely because Matt Grothe, the talented South Florida quarterback, is out for the season. And the Bulls have played against some of the worst teams on the planet!

Seriously, Wofford? Charleston Southern? Western Kentucky, likely the worst team in the FBS!?!? They do have the talented (and highly-touted) B.J. Daniels filling in at quarterback, but it likely will not be enough.

It does not matter what color Florida State wears on Saturday. We already know who the real winner is…Garnet & Gold, the “locally-owned” FSU apparel store!

This article originally appeared on Uncle Popov's Drunken Sports Rant on September 24, 2009.

Hawaii Football: Finding Positives In Close Win Over Central Arkansas

Uncle Popov — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:56:55 -0400

It was not pretty, but it was one of those "we'll take it" victories over the Bears of Central Arkansas.

What was likely perceived by some to be an automatic "W" became a fight for survival for the Hawaii Warriors as they were able to overcome a 12-point deficit and then a one-point deficit late to beat their FCS-opponent at Aloha Stadium.

It could certainly be a sign of bad things to come.

But before fans begin to give up on the Warriors and turn their attention to the Wahine volleyball team, it is important to take the positives from a tough first game.

First, no one is going to mistake Central Arkansas for the University of Arkansas or even Arkansas State. They are not even on par with Richmond or Northern Iowa, two of the top teams in the FCS. But the Bears are a solid team. And the gap between the FCS and the mid-tier FBS schools is smaller than many recognize.

The Bears sported one of the top offenses in the FCS last season, and they returned top rusher Brent Grimes (who scored all three Bears' TDs). While they did break in a new starter in Robbie Park, who was efficient, they return talent at the wideout position.

Also, Central Arkansas' defense is solid and led by all-American DE Larry Hart, who did register one of UCA's four sacks. Hart is a beast in the college ranks (12 sacks, 43 tackles last year), but likely a late round NFL pick.

So UCA came in with some talent and an offensive scheme that is explosive. Despite that, Hawaii still tallied over 400 yards of offense while limiting the Bears to 270 yards.

The Warriors were their own worst enemy, committing four turnovers in the game, including one that set up Central Arkansas' first score early in the opening quarter.

Despite those miscues, Hawai'i was able to overcome it and win the game. And, protecting the football is something that can be corrected.

Also, keep in mind that the Warriors only committed two penalties. It is hard to say that such a trend will continue, but that shows good discipline. The turnovers hurt, the Warriors did not compound issues by having costly penalties.

Overcoming turnovers and keeping penalties down is a major positive. As Coach Greg McMackin noted after the game,

"we lost the turnover battle, but still pulled out the win. That’s a good sign, we didn’t do that last year. I’m also happy about the lack of penalties. We only committed two for the game, which is something to be really proud of."

Third, Greg Alexander and Greg Salas were superb. Alexander threw for over 300 yards and tacked on another 76 on the ground, the latter a career high. His scrambling ability and improvisation will be a major asset down the road.

As for Salas, seven catches for 180 yards and one score were big for the Warriors. His 66-yard catch and run were crucial in setting up the game winner-His play earned him WAC offensive player of the week!

Lastly, it is just the first game. There are always jitters in that first game, even when the opponent is an FCS team (just ask Virginia, Iowa, Duke, Indiana, East Carolina, Wyoming, etc.). And, that very young and inexperienced defense now has a game under their belt before heading into Pullman on Saturday.

Were there negatives? Of course! But why dwell on those?

Football season has arrived and the Warriors are 1-0—Right now, that is all that matters!

Josh Hamilton's Scarlet Letter?

Uncle Popov — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:42:52 -0400

Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel The Scarlet Letter is one of sin, guilt, and repentance, set in Puritan Boston. It follows Hester Prynne, who is forced to wear a scarlet "A" to advertise her sin after committing adultery and giving birth to her daughter Pearl . Her refusal to reveal the name of Pearl's father adds to her punishment.

Meanwhile, her aptly-named lover, Arthur Dimmesdale, torments himself in private. He burns his own "A" onto his chest. But unlike Hester's "A", Dimmesdale's remains hidden. This secrecy only adds to his guilt and he grows weaker as he tortures himself.

Eventually, Hester and Dimmesdale decide to leave Boston and move to Europe along with their daughter. Sensing a chance to relieve herself of the burden of her "A," Hester attempts to remove the scarlet letter, only to find Pearl does not recognize her without the letter. Although she has shed the shame, she puts the letter back on for her daughter.

But before they leave for Europe, Dimmesdale, the town's minister, reveals his sin and displays his tortured "A" for all to see. He finally claims Pearl, who until this time rejected him, and Pearl kisses him. Finally relieved of his burden, Dimmesdale dies.

While set over 300 years ago and published almost 160 years ago, the words and characters of Hawthorne's novel have played out in the form of Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton. And it can be argued that Hamilton is a caricature of two central figures in The Scarlet Letter—Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale.

Hamilton is like Prynne in that he wears his "sin" literally on his arms. The tattoos, despite his attempts to cover them up, serve as a public reminder of his troubled past. And, much like Prynne, over time many have forgiven him of those sins and embraced him.

But this leads to his likeness to Dimmesdale. Since his actions in January, he has secretly carried a guilt-burden.

Yes, he told those that matter most—his wife and the Rangers organization. However, that fateful night in January festered deep inside. Before, Hamilton never needed to acknowledge publicly what happened. It was the photos' appearing on the Internet that led him to bring a once private matter forward.

So how was he "tortured" in the way of Dimmesdale?

Well, b/r colleague Illya Harrell makes an excellent case primarily within his responses to comments from his Aug. 9 article titled "What If Josh Hamilton Was Black?" Summed up, Harrell notes that Hamilton made himself the poster child of recovery. This identity construction of Hamilton is part of the reason Harrell finds trouble with someone attempting to become the model of "recovery" while also allowing himself that type of relapse.

It is within that argument that we find Hamilton's Dimmesdale. How can he maintain that "recovery" image knowing he had relapsed? How is it not torturing him and tearing him up both physically and mentally?

Apparently it has been torturing him, and it shows with his play on the field. Before his admission to the relapse, Hamilton was batting .234 with eight home runs, 28 runs and 33 RBIs. That translates to a run every eight at bats and an RBI every 6.9 at bats. Those numbers are extremely disappointing compared to last year.

Ah, but with his public address of the photos and the relapse, Hamilton has seemingly cast off the guilt-burden, much like Dimmesdale. Since his Aug. 8 admission, Hamilton is batting .472 with seven runs and seven RBIs (no home runs, though). He is driving in runs and scoring runs at the same pace—every 5.14 at bats.

Additionally, he is apparently seeing the ball better since his admission at the media scaffold. He's posting multi-hit games at triple the rate of before his admission. And while his walk totals are similar, his strikeout numbers have improved (a strikeout every ten at bats versus one every 4.96 at bats prior to Aug. 8).

Based on the small sample set, it appears Hamilton is indeed playing much better since gaining a sense of relief from his guilt-burden. Thus, unlike Dimmesdale, who died shortly after his admission, Hamilton has been revived.

A quick note on Hamilton's numbers. He has been on fire in August, batting .407 with nine runs and 11 RBIs versus .227 with 26 runs scored and 29 RBIs before then. You can also look at his All-Star Game splits (an even .300 since the All-Star Game versus .243 prior) and his "injury" splits (.292 since returning from the DL versus .240 before the injury) to see his improvement.

Thus, the post-admission improvement is a part of a longer trend of better play.

Nevertheless, it is here where we return to Hester Prynne, as there is another part of her narrative we can project onto Hamilton. When Hester attempted to shed herself of the "A," her daughter Pearl no longer recognized her. This is because that was all that Pearl had known; Hester will always be identified with that letter regardless of forgiveness.

For Hamilton, even if he is the "poster boy of recovery", he will forever be linked to his addictions and to his "sins". It relates to something I noted in my Aug. 12 article on Hamilton.

For Hamilton or any addict, there is no such thing as "recovery" or "cure". That addiction, and the battles with temptation, are something they will live with forever, regardless of if the public has forgiven him and afforded him extra chances. It is something Hamilton can never shed because, unfortunately, he is forever linked to that "sin".

Hester Prynne was forced to publicize her sin and as a result her daughter always associated her mother with that "A". Hamilton's sin was also publicized, albeit voluntarily, and it is through this publicizing that we will also associate him with his "sin".

Josh Hamilton will forever wear his scarlet letter, for that is all we have ever known.

Josh Hamilton, Addiction, and Human Frailty: Disasterpieces

Uncle Popov — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:16:50 -0400

"I don’t feel like I’m a hypocrite. I feel like I’m human."

Those are Josh Hamilton's words on Saturday, Aug. 8, following the publication on Deadspin of pictures proving MLB's "Superman" had in fact relapsed.

The public acknowledgment of his relapse diminishes the shine from a great comeback story. Unfortunately, "tainting" of baseball and baseball-related stories is becoming all too common.

While there are some that are outraged at Hamilton, the reaction does not seem to be as severe as the reaction towards Manny Ramirez or David Ortiz. Both the relapse and the use of steroids tarnish the image of Major League Baseball. And there are some who would argue that race/ethnicity plays a role in the differences in reaction.

Perhaps race is a factor here. But I think there is something more than race or the fact that he jumped out in front of it as soon as it became public (he told the people that matter about the incident soon after it happened). I believe that we see the "flaw" in Josh Hamilton that exists in all of us.

I am reminded of the song "Your Glass House" by the hip-hop group Atmosphere. In that song, the rapper Slug sings about a person waking up the day after a drinking binge and not knowing whose house they are in or how they got there. They can barely crawl to the bathroom, and noticing all the missed calls makes the person wonder how many people he or she pissed off.

But, in the end, we realize that it's not some stranger's house. As Slug sings, "Maybe you don't recognize, but this is your home, this is where your life lives."

That entire song, and that last line in particular, is very powerful and a sobering reminder of what a life "out of control" is like. That song is a narrative of what Hamilton's life was once like, and what the day after his relapse probably felt like.

And, unfortunately, some of us can probably relate to the message of that song (at least in one instance) and thereby relate to Hamilton's battle.

How many of us have woke up the day after with a terrible hangover and wondered, "Wow, what happened?" You recall those first couple of drinks, but beyond that everything is either a blur or simply does not exist in your mind. Lying on the bathroom floor staring up at the ceiling, which seems to be spinning, you realize how easy it is to lose control.

It is through that lens that we see someone like Josh Hamilton. That escapade in January likely began "in control" but ended up an empty spot in his mental history. Well, with the exception of those photos.

Alcohol is something that most of us enjoy responsibly (well, at least I hope so). But Hamilton is a reminder of how easy it is to allow the alcohol to consume us, rather than the other way around.

But Hamilton's story is more than just one night in January. It recalls his entire story of a downward spiral into a world and lifestyle that for a time robbed him of his talent and nearly his own life.

Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports wrote a column on how Hamilton's relapse offers us "pause." In that article he wrote, "Addiction is a twisted creature, and no matter how long one stays sober, it is never enough." He later adds that for Hamilton "there is no such thing as recovery."

Passan is correct, but it's not just Hamilton. In the article I wrote on Brett Favre's addiction to football, I learned a lot about addiction in general, and alcoholism in particular. And many of the items and points that I came across in researching that topic hold true with Hamilton and his battle.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Addiction (NIAAA) has noted that there is no known cure for alcoholism. I believe that it is safe to state that this can also be applied to drug addiction. The only thing that can be done is treatment.

In other words, there is no such thing as recovery for anyone consumed by this "disease." A news release for a report on how addiction affects the brain notes that those addicts in so-called recovery "may remain hypersensitive to the drug and the cues that predict its presence. This can heighten the risk of relapse in addicts long after they stop taking the drug."

Thus, for anyone battling alcoholism and addiction, one is never simply "one" as a hypersensitive reaction to that one drink is likely exponentially more potent than it seemed. It is no wonder that one became a Niagara Falls of alcohol.

And perhaps the most chilling aspect of Hamilton's relapse is that he very well might have asked where he could score some cocaine; he cannot remember! Just the potential of him asking that question speaks to the frailty of our existence as humans. It is a clear example of just how easily we can lose control.

We all like to think that we are in control. That we can only have a couple of drinks or drive home safely after a few drinks. But those couple of drinks can easily turn into mind-eraser night and buzzed driving can easily turn into a DUI arrest or worse. We can easily lose control, and that is what Hamilton's relapse should remind us.

We can never fully relate to what Hamilton goes through on a daily basis. Nor can we relate to his life story. I mean, how many of us have been highly-touted No. 1 picks who also allowed drugs and alcohol to ruin our lives?

But in Hamilton, we see something that exists in all of us—the "ability" to make a wrong choice. And it is from that ability that we can end up in situations that are extremely regrettable and even potentially dangerous. But that ability to make choices, rational or otherwise, is part of our frailty as human beings.

Addiction is indeed a twisted creature. And any attempt to build a life beyond an addiction of any kind will be a life filled with temptations. Treatment can only do so much, as those temptations will fire off triggers in the brain that scream, "Do it again...just for old time sake."

Most of us are pulling for Hamilton not just because of his story and our relation to him as humans. But also because we have seen what addictions can do to people. From Darryl Strawberry to Elvis Presley to maybe even a close loved one, addictions can ruin lives.

We have seen how the mistakes people make can lead to disaster. We try to learn from it, but we know how easy it is for us as humans to make the wrong choice or attempt to step into a situation where we think we are and will remain in control. But, as Josh Hamilton's slip should remind us, we are not always in control, especially when that "twisted creature" of addiction is present.

Yes, Josh, you are indeed human. And so are the rest of us. We should remember that, always!

2009 Boise State Schedule: Three Big Games Beyond Oregon

Uncle Popov — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:55:33 -0400

Upon the release of the USA Today coaches poll, it became quite clear that the voters initially held Boise State in high regards. Ranked 16th and just ahead of their mid-tier counterparts, namely TCU and Utah, the Broncos are well positioned to make a BCS bowl game. The early test against Oregon, a team ranked 14th, could be the catalyst for a nice season for the defenders of the blue turf. The Oregon game appears to be the greatest hurdle to an undefeated season. A Rivals.com roundtable discussion unanimously chose Boise State to be the "most prohibitive favorite in its conference." And the relatively high ranking also positions the Broncos for the very real, although still quite unlikely, possibility to play for the BCS title, as Zachary Ball argued in his recent slideshow. With the big game set for a Thursday night in early September, Boise State could coast the rest of the way. Ah, but that is where the challenge really begins. Beating the Ducks in Boise only adds to the pressure as then the Broncos must maintain their focus and not slip up. And, there are a few challenges beyond Oregon that, given the right combination, could doom BSU's chance at a BCS game—title game or otherwise. Here are three games that I see as the greatest road blocks to an undefeated season for the Broncos.

Begin Slideshow

Three Mountain West BCS Busters Face Three Trap Games Before Crashing the Party

Uncle Popov — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:30:11 -0400

Sometimes, you have to suspend disbelief in order for an article to work. We love the underdog. Well, most of us love the underdog just as long as that underdog is not upsetting our favorite team! And for those who despise the BCS system, the most revered underdogs are those BCS-busters. Four schools from non-BCS conferences have reached one of the most coveted bowl games. Three of those four times, one of those schools have shown the college football world that they indeed belong. Utah (twice) and Boise State have proven themselves on a grand stage. Hawai'i—well, at least their fans impressed Sugar Bowl organizers. As we approach the 2009 season, analysts are attempting to pick this year's BCS-buster. And it is easy to look towards the two conferences that have sent representatives to BCS bowl games—the Mountain West and the Western Athletic conferences. With this article, I wish to look at three MWC schools that have a decent chance of gaining an invite to a BCS bowl game. However, instead of examining how those teams can (or will) make it there, I want to look at potential slip-ups along their road to greatness. The three teams are TCU (preseason media favorite to win the conference), BYU and Utah. Now, obviously there need to be one major assumption which, maybe in the case of BYU, means we have to suspend disbelief. We must assume that with whichever team I am examining, that the team will be undefeated at the time of the trap game (and obviously, all three teams cannot be undefeated at the end of the season). So, in the case of the Cougars, we have to assume that they upset Oklahoma. Also, and this should be obvious, I did not choose match-ups between any of the two teams. Those are marquee games and would not necessarily be considered a slip up (unless, of course, Utah manages to lose to an 0-11 BYU team). Lastly, I chose three different teams for each of the three teams examined. This is to avoid redundancy. So enjoy! I welcome any questions, complaints or comments.

Begin Slideshow

Hi, My Name Is Brett, and I Am an Addict: Brett Favre and Football

Uncle Popov — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:27:36 -0400

Football is indeed the new favorite pastime in the United States, supplanting baseball for that honor. This status is exemplified by how ESPN and other sports media cover the sport 365 days a year. The ESPN program NFL Live airs every weekday throughout the year, and well after the season has ended!

So it should come as no surprise that we become inundated with "news" and drama about football and professional football players even during the offseason—and the player that has filled offseason news over the last two years is none other than Brett Lorenzo Favre.

Last year, after retiring in early March, Favre began hinting at returning to football. What ensued afterwards was a long, drawn-out soap opera complete with an appearance with Greta Van Susteren. After formally filing for reinstatement at the end of July, the Packers agreed to move Favre to the New York Jets.

After a solid season with the Jets, Favre once again announced his retirement. But that itch returned, and now after having arthroscopic surgery on his throwing shoulder, he is close to returning again, this time with the Minnesota Vikings—and once again we are faced with the drama surrounding his return.

Many people are tired of his retired-not retired routine and have begun labeling him, just as they have in the past.

Addict?

While it might bit of a sensitive word to use with Favre given his past addiction to painkillers, it is becoming evident that No. 4 is addicted to playing football—and it is quite understandable.

We mostly associate addiction with drugs and alcohol, so that seems to be a good place to begin.

According to a report published in the January 2007 edition of the Harvard Mental Health Letter, addiction is related to the brain's memory capacity.

Addictive drugs—from cocaine to alcohol to caffeine—stimulate something known as "reward circuits," which registers the value of important experiences. These experiences trigger the release of dopamine, a brain chemical that essentially tells you to "do it again."

What this research notes is that addiction is involved with the same brain activity that dictates learning and memory, particularly long-term memory. Drugs, as with any perceived reward, can increase something known as transcription factors, which are formed by our long-term memories.

The more drugs one person takes, the stronger the memory of those pleasurable effects become.

As the news release of this report states, "Even after transcription factor levels return to normal, addicts may remain hypersensitive to the drug and the cues that predict its presence. This can heighten the risk of relapse in addicts long after they stop taking the drug."

Now, making the leap from a drug or alcohol addiction to an addiction to an activity such as football might seem large. As a great animated illustration from Time notes, addictive drugs do things such as increase dopamine levels, block the uptake of dopamine (which helps balance brain circuits and rewards), or block inhibitory neurotransmitters (which prevents overstimulation).

However, there is plenty of research in existence that points to addictions such as gambling, eating, shopping, video games, the Internet, and sex (see David Duchovny). To suggest that an addiction exists with football seems to fall in line with these types of addictions.

When people become addicted to a drug or an activity like compulsive eating, it ends up consuming their life. In many ways, it defines their life because it is all that they know and understand. This is related to what they have "learned" and their memory.

For Favre, his transcription factors have been greatly increased because of the long-term memories that have been crafted by playing football. Those reward circuits have fired off so much dopamine over the years that those pleasurable memories of slinging the ball downfield are very strong.

Thus, once he stepped away, he became "hypersensitive" to football. Sure, it is easy to retire in February or March. But when those "cues that predict its presence" emerge—be it the NFL Draft, Organized Team Activities, or the preseason—relapse could be imminent.

Football is life—and it is very difficult to step away from the life.

My grandfather worked every single day of his adult life, even though he retired. The man ran a part-time printing business by himself well into his 70s and managed rental property, including doing the maintenance and upgrades himself. He worked until the day that he died, peacefully in his sleep.

That was his addiction—work. It was all that he had ever known, and it was ingrained in his long-term memory to work because that is what he enjoyed doing.

We see this in sports as well.

Paul "Bear" Bryant coached from 1945 until 1982, when he officially retired following Alabama's Liberty Bowl victory over Illinois. Bryant passed away less than a month after that game.

While perhaps a stretch, popular Southern folklore claimed that Bryant knew he would die once he quit coaching. His life, which was predicated on his addiction to football, was driven by the sport, and once the cord was pulled on Dec. 29, 1982, it was only a matter of time before he passed.

Some speculate that a similar addiction to football drives Penn State head coach Joe Paterno and Florida State head coach Bobby Bowden. The addiction has so consumed their lives that once they stop coaching, perhaps they would follow Bryant's path to the gridiron in the sky.

What this illustrates is how difficult it is to end a dependency, in this case a dependency on football. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) notes that there is no known cure for alcoholism; only treatment.

Thus, there is likely no cure for an addiction to football—simply treatments or, at the very least, lower dosages (call it steps, if you will).

Some are able to walk away through some form of "treatment." Bo Jackson's treatment is bowhunting and being an investor in a bank in Illinois. Tom Osborne became a U.S. Representative (he has since partially relapsed).

Others who were addicted to playing the sport find treatment in lower dosages, such as being a coach or an owner of a franchise.

Jack Del Rio, one-time Pro Bowl linebacker and Super Bowl champion, helps calm his addiction as head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Michael Jordan, who suffered a couple of relapses, has found solace first as the president of basketball operations with the Washington Wizards and now as part owner of the Charlotte Bobcats.

Perhaps Favre, who appears to be on the verge of feeding his addiction once again, needs some sort of treatment. Maybe he could coach a high school team in Mississippi. Or he could focus on building on his outstanding acting performance in the film There's Something About Mary.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Brett Favre is addicted to football. It might not be as devastating as an addiction to alcohol or drugs or gambling could be (well, unless he ruins the Vikings' season if he plays).

He might not acknowledge that addiction, but we should all acknowledge it—or we should at least understand how difficult it is to break an addiction, especially when the temptations (and exposure) from football exists 365 days a year.

College Football's Five Most Likely Upsets in 2009, Part Three

Uncle Popov — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:36:17 -0400

Many different people, from academics to politicians, spend an extraordinary amount of time defining each word they use. As sports fans, we are no different, especially when defining exactly what is a "sport." Over the past two slideshows pertaining to potential upsets for the 2009 season, I have recognized that "upset" is another term that needs to be defined. When teams are so evenly matched, does the potential for an "upset" really exist? For example, in the NCAA basketball tournament, is a 9-seed beating an 8-seed really an upset? So, a criticism that I have received in some of the games I have chosen as potential upsets are not likely to be considered upsets. To me, in those games, anytime an FCS team knocks off an FBS team, it is an upset. Others disagreed. Thankfully, we now move to games solely involving teams from the FBS. While Part 1/> examined FCS teams versus non-BCS schools in the FBS, Begin Slideshow

MLB's All-Star Game Is for the Fans—at Least According to the Media

Uncle Popov — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:55:43 -0400

The moment that Major League Baseball announces the starting rosters for its annual All-Star Game, sports fans across the United States (and maybe Ontario) begin dissecting the selections.

The most common topic is one on who was not selected, which then leads to a discussion on who does not belong in the All-Star Game.

While the reserves usually ensure that most "deserving" players make it to the Midsummer Classic, snubs still exist. Snubs will always exist in any all-star contest simply because there are usually too many quality players to choose from. It is rare that a position is so shallow that people are selecting from a pool of mediocre players.

But what all of this discussion leads to is a simple question: Should fans be allowed to vote for the starters in an all-star contest?

Well, the topic itself has been approached by several writers on b/r, including Christopher Murphy's article on snubs, while Shady Botros wrote two articles—one examining the American League snubs and one examining the National League omissions.

Dan Wade put together a column discussing how the debate over what the All-Star Game is about (fan favorites or performance) is moot, as most deserving players make it anyway.

It is almost overkill for me to put out another article on the selections, as there are many other articles that already exist on Bleacher Report (many with only a few reads). However, I am going to write one anyway, but hopefully take a different approach.

Any all-star contest exists for one reason, which is a combination of the two ideologies that Wade discusses. It serves as a stage for fans to see both their favorite players and the game's most talented players (some who are likely unknown to the casual fan).

But there is a priority in terms of all-star ideologies. Fans come first, and then the young talent receive their due respect. Major League Baseball even acknowledges this when, in a press release announcing the opening of fan voting, they write, "Fans can send their favorite players to St. Louis" (emphasis added).

Because fans come first, there will obviously be players on the starting roster who might not be statistically the best at their given position. Even though those fan omissions are often included via player vote, a trickle-down effect occurs that is not unlike a 6-25 NCAA basketball team winning its conference tournament and "bursting" a bubble team.

The selection of Josh Hamilton by the fans ultimately means that either Ian Kinsler or Adam Lind will not be on the final roster.

This is what leads to this debate over whether or not fans should choose the starting roster. Those selections have an effect everywhere else on the two rosters, especially with the requirement that all 30 teams send at least one representative.

But I would argue that fans are not necessarily the ones at fault here. Blame falls primarily on the media and its influence on what we see (and what we do not see).

Look at this year's two starting rosters. Of the 18 players, six play in cities that, relatively speaking, are small television markets—Joe Mauer (Minneapolis, 14th); Evan Longoria (Tampa-St. Petersburg, 19th); Ichiro Suzuki (Seattle, 13th); Ryan Braun (Milwaukee, 29th); and both Yadier Molina and Albert Pujols (St. Louis, 20th). Molina and Pujols are exceptions, since St. Louis is hosting the event.

Of the remaining 12 players, four are from New York City, the largest television market in the United States. The cities of Boston and Philadelphia, ninth and fifth respectively, each have two players on the starting roster.

However, television markets do not explain everything. Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco/Oakland have no starters on either roster—although, to be fair, Manny Ramirez's suspension is the probable reason why Los Angeles does not have a starter.

Media coverage plays a large part in determining what teams and players we, as fans, see on a daily basis. ESPN acts as a gatekeeper and basically shows us what they believe we want to see.

In a 2000 article for the Journal of Sport & Social Issues, Michael Berube wrote the following:

One SportsCenter anchor opened a story by saying, "After a solid start at the beginning of the year, the Montreal Expos' season has rapidly headed south, to the point at which their games are relegated to this segment of the broadcast," that is at the show's ebb tide, well after all the "important" games in baseball...have been addressed.

In other words, highlight shows such as SportsCenter and Baseball Tonight dictate what we see, when we see it, and how much of it we are allowed to see. The chances today that the Nationals open the highlights on SportsCenter hinge on if some sort of anomaly occurs—a no-hitter, a brawl, a four-home run game, etc.

Therein lies a fundamental problem. Because stronger, more popular teams (Yankees and Red Sox) and big-name players (Manny, Pujols, Alex Rodriguez) are typically covered with greater detail, it may be difficult to track lesser-known players who are having a great season despite playing for a last place team.

In 2005, I tracked the highlights shown on SportsCenter over a 22-day period. What was observed was not only a geographic bias, but also that certain teams appeared far more than other teams.

While it cannot be directly applied to this year's All-Star selections, I doubt little has changed since that time.

In terms of the "featured" game highlighted on the 11 PM Eastern SportsCenter (i.e., first baseball game highlighted), an American League East team was involved 78.6 percent of the time.

A National League Central team was involved in 66.7 percent of those highlights. In terms of the first five games highlighted, what could be dubbed "important games," there is still bias towards the AL East (50 percent), as well as the NL East (53.7 percent).

Now, there is an obvious reason why teams in the east are highlighted more often than teams from the west. By the time the 11 PM edition of SportsCenter aired, most games in the east had concluded and therefore were able to be highlighted. So, let's look at the 1 AM Eastern edition of SportsCenter.

With the 1 AM edition, the distribution of highlights is spread more evenly among the geographic divisions. The AL East was still involved in the plurality of featured and important games, but more games involving the two West divisions are highlighted. The issue, however, is many people on the east do not see these highlights.

One final point with the divisional breakdown: In terms of important highlights on the 1 AM edition of SportsCenter, most divisions see an increase in coverage when one of their teams is playing a team from the East.

56 percent of AL Central highlights were against AL East teams
58 percent of AL West highlights were against AL East teams
75 percent of NL Central highlights were against NL East teams
56 percent of NL West highlights were against NL East teams

For the East divisions, the distribution was fairly even across all divisions.

As for teams during this time, only four teams had every game highlighted at some point in the program—the Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees, the Texas Rangers, and the Atlanta Braves. The Rangers were an anomaly at the time due to the Kenny Rogers-cameraman incident.

The Toronto Blue Jays and Seattle Mariners were the only teams to have less than 50 percent of their games highlighted. The Chicago White Sox, who had the best record at that time, were only highlighted 86.7 percent of the time, while the Oakland Athletics were highlighted 93.75 percent of the time despite having a losing record!

The reason the A's were highlighted more often than the White Sox had a lot to do with their opponents during this time frame.

Another interesting aspect is the SportsCenter reset, which recapped the day's top stories during the 1 AM edition. Of the 18 baseball games that were deemed to be a top story worth resetting, 16 involved teams from the east, and 11 involved either the Red Sox or the Yankees.

So, does the media, namely ESPN, play a role in who makes an all-star roster? The answer is partially.

In 2005, the Pittsburgh Pirates' Jason Bay had to make it in as a reserve despite strong numbers, while the Cincinnati Reds' Felipe Lopez did not even make the team. Both the Pirates and Reds received sporadic highlights on SportsCenter, 50 percent and 56.25 percent respectively.

Conversely, the Cardinals and the Houston Astros were highlighted roughly the same number of times. Despite this, Scott Rolen was selected as a starter from the Cards, while the Astros' Morgan Ensberg was a last-minute replacement, ironically for the injured Rolen. Ensberg was having a far better season than Rolen.

So there is some sway that is held by ESPN, but it is obviously not the only factor. Nevertheless, to hammer home the point that ESPN does hold some influence over who makes the All-Star team, let's look at Jason Bay.

Here are Bay's pre-All-Star stats for the four of the last five seasons. I have randomized them for the hell of it.

Sample A: .284, 21 HRs, 66 RBI, 54 Rs, 56 BBs, 84 Ks, .927 OPS, 6 SBs
Sample B: .287, 19 HRs, 53 RBI, 64 Rs, 56 BBs, 77 Ks, .917 OPS, 6 SBs
Sample C: .265, 20 HRs, 71 RBI, 54 Rs, 51 BBs, 81 Ks, .915 OPS, 8 SBs
Sample D: .299, 16 HRs, 44 RBI, 59 Rs, 45 BBs, 79 Ks, .930 OPS, 5 SBs

Now, Bay has made an All-Star roster three times—twice as a starter and once as a reserve. Sample A, when he was with the Pirates in 2006, and Sample C, his current stats, are the two times he was selected as a starter.

Sample D, again with the Pirates but in 2005, was when he was selected as a reserve. Sample B is from 2008, prior to his trade to the Red Sox, when he did not make the roster at all.

While his stat line with the Red Sox this season is not terrible, it is not as solid as A and could be considered worse than B, when Bay did not make the roster at all. I do not recall many Pirate highlights on SportsCenter or seeing Pittsburgh on Sunday Night Baseball. What this seems to suggest is that ESPN does promote/limit specific teams and players, even if it is unintentional on their part.

The biggest hole in this argument is team popularity. While the Red Sox are a more popular team and would therefore have more of their players receive votes, it would also seem that the Pirates' smaller fanbase hindered Bay's rise to "stardom."

Tony Kornheiser stated it perfectly in 2006 on Pardon the Interruption, when he claimed, "They put other stuff on, and it doesn't rate like the Yanks and the Sox. You put the Yanks and Sox on—it's magic! It's magic!"

In closing, while most fans obviously have the capacity to think for themselves, and ESPN and Fox Saturday Baseball are going to show the more popular teams (or teams with winning records), there is still influence being exerted by those in control of what comes through our digital connections. Sometimes it is even a personal bias.

On July 21, 2005, ESPN ran a behind-the-scenes episode of SportsCenter. During an interview with a producer on the topic of "killed" highlights, the producer noted that the Boston Red Sox versus Chicago White Sox highlights ran long (two minutes and 40 seconds, to be exact).

It was then that the producer, who is from the Northeast, admitted a Red Sox bias.

Why is that not surprising?

Ricky Rubio, Who Do You Think You Are?

Uncle Popov — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:00:37 -0400

You remember Yi Jianlian, yeah? He was the seven-footer from Guangdong Province in China who was drafted by the Milwaukee Bucks with the sixth pick in the 2007 NBA Draft. Oh, how nice it was to be drafted so high and be able to play in the best basketball league in the world.

But wait! Yi was upset. His “handlers” were upset. They wanted their boy to play in a “large” market. But the problem was that none of the teams selecting in the first 10 picks were in a large market.

Well, maybe Chicago, who had acquired the New York Knicks’ ninth pick. Beyond the Bulls, the true “large” market teams would not select until 14th (the Los Angeles Clippers), followed by the Los Angeles Lakers at 19 and New York Knicks at 23. Considering the talent and potential of Yi, you knew he would not last that long.

As it was, the Bucks took him, and he held out, deciding not to sign. He whined and moaned, but finally he did sign.

Yi then rewarded the Bucks with lackluster play. In turn, the Bucks rewarded him by trading Yi to the New Jersey Nets. Hey, now he is in a large market!

So, being in a large market, Yi should be happy and produce. Well, only by "producing" nearly an identical season in East Rutherford as he had in Milwaukee: same points per game (8.6); one-tenth of a rebound more (5.3); two-tenths of an assist more (1.0); one-tenth of a steal less (0.5); and three-tenths of a block less (0.6).

Oh, but he did dramatically improve one stat—games missed (21 in 2008-09, five more than a season before).

What gives a guy who has not proven himself in the Association any right to push to be on a particular team? In this case, Yi still has not proven himself yet. Well, except he is inconsistent, mediocre, and seems to be injury-prone.

Apparently these unproven "kids" are still trying to dictate where they go.

On Thursday, June 25, Spanish point guard Ricky Rubio was drafted No. 5 by the Minnesota Timberwolves. This should be a happy time for an 18-year old kid! But the following day there was some whining and moaning about him not being happy going to a "small market." His dad is meddling as well.

I can get being upset that the T-Wolves took another point guard. It seems unlikely that a Rubio-Jonny Flynn backcourt could really work in the NBA. And a platoon system? Forget it.

But being upset about the size of the city where the franchise is located? C’mon, Ricky! He played in Badalona, Spain—population of over 218,000. He does know that the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA has over three million people, right? That is the 16th largest MSA in the U.S. and, according to Nielsen Media Research, the 15th largest television market

Or that the city of Minneapolis itself has 377,000 people? Seems to be a step up from Badalona. Sure, it is relatively a small market, but it is not Boise, Idaho either. Yes, I am being facetious, but complaining about the size of the franchise's city seems petty.

First off, Mr. Big Stuff, who do you think you are? Have you proven anything? Oh, Rubio has some decent ball skills. Some nice behind the back carrying—ERRRR, I mean dribbling; good passes out of his backside.

Do people realize that he averaged 2.4 PPG in the Euroleague last season? That’s just awesome. Hmm, 2.8 assists? And 2.4 turnovers per game!?

In the Spanish League, Rubio did produce a bit more. He averaged just over 10 points per game over the last two seasons. And while he averaged 4.9 assists in those two seasons, Rubio was the ACB's leader in average assists per game last season (6.14).

Most scouting reports note that he is not that great of a shooter. He also does not seem to be able to get through traps or actual defense. He seems to be able to move it in transition, but that is only a small part of the game.

He is also small in terms of his frame (listed 6'4" and 180 pounds). He is going to get banged all day and beaten by stronger NBA point guards. I cannot imagine Rubio guarding someone like Baron Davis, who has 35 pounds on the Spanish "phenom."

At best, he is a streetballer (at least right now). It is the AND1 Mixtape, the European Version! Remember White Chocolate? That is Ricky Rubio!

He does need time to get better, and he will likely do that. But he has not done anything to prove that he is worthy of being a lottery pick, nor has he done anything to be able to dictate where he should play. It is no different than college football players being given huge contracts even though they have not proven themselves.

The problem here is that neither Rubio nor Yi have done anything in the NBA to give them any power to dictate where they should be playing.

Rubio could have ended up in Oklahoma City. He does realize how cold it gets there. I am sure Sacramento would have been exciting.

As it is, he is in Minnesota. Suck it up; play your best and earn your place in the NBA.

Maybe it is a trend among young kids. After all, he was the first player born in 1990 drafted into the NBA. But this sense of entitlement is a bit much.

People want to compare Rubio to Pete Maravich and Drazen Petrovic. That is unfair to the late, great players, as both of them actually established themselves before entering the NBA. I do not remember seeing Petrovic average fewer than three points a game prior to entering the NBA, or Pistol Pete complaining about playing in Atlanta.

But hey, who needs to be established when you have "potential," the most often used term in this year's NBA Draft. Apparently "potential," translated to Spanish, means "entitlement." I think I need Mark Madsen to translate for me.

Ricard Rubio Vives has "potential."

So did Michael Olowokandi.

This article originally appeared on Uncle Popov's Drunken Sports Rant on June 26, 2009.

College Football's Five Most Likely Upsets in 2009, Pt 2

Uncle Popov — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:46:37 -0400

Sometimes the snow comes down in June. Sometimes the earth goes 'round the moon. And sometimes, an FCS school beats two FBS schools in the same season! Yes, I did just cite a Vanessa Williams song. But it speaks to how improbable an upset of an FBS school by an FCS school seems. I write "seems" because it is more common than it seems, albeit among what could be described as "lesser quality" FBS teams. Nevertheless, these upsets are more than just a Sun Belt school going down. Ask Colorado and Dan Hawkins what it is like to lose to Montana State! I thought it was "the Big 12!" Or ask Minnesota, who lost to a North Dakota State team that also beat a bowl-eligible Central Michigan team in the same season. And, of course, how could we forget what happened in Ann Anbor in 2007 when national champion Appalachian State shocked and awed the mighty Michigan Wolverines? This is part two of a three part series that examines potential upsets for the upcoming 2009 college football season. Part One analyzed potential upsets involving Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) schools and non-BCS Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools. This slideshow will go through potential upsets of FBS schools in BCS conferences by FCS programs. First, allow me to address a couple of comments from Part One. One person commented that the picks were not really upsets, since it involved mediocre FBS schools, while another person noted that each selection was a safe one. With regards to the first comment, any time a team from a "lower" (sub)division beats a team in a "higher" (sub)division, it is an upset. The teams are divided into these classifications for a reason. Even if it is Montana (an FCS power) beating Washington (0-12 last season), it is still an upset, at least by my definition. In terms of the second comment, yes these are "safe" picks in that it would seem ludicrous for me to state that the Charleston Southern-Florida game is a "potential" upset. I am looking at the games that present the best opportunity for an upset. Picking the Buccaneers to beat the Gators would be akin to predicting a 16-seed beating a 1-seed in the NCAA basketball tournament; it could happen, but it is extremely unlikely. Thus, most of these picks are more like a 13-seed beating the 4-seed. Still, I am not as confident about these potential upsets as I am with Part One. That stated, these are simply games that present the best potential for an upset. I am not claiming these upsets will definitely take place. (As you will see, #5 is not likely, but presents a better scenario than any other match-up). So, enjoy! I appreciate any and all feedback.

Begin Slideshow

Holy Chizik! Give Auburn a Break!

Uncle Popov — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:44:03 -0400

Two seasons after Alabama makes a splash with the hiring of Nick Saban, Auburn goes out and, like 13-year-old Chinese divers, barely makes a splash in the pool by hiring Gene Chizik. That is not a Saban-like hire; that is like a Neil Callaway-like hire (see UAB). But give Auburn a break…at least for now.

There are a couple of important things to keep in mind. First off, Iowa State is bad. Really bad. And they have historically been awful.

Yes, they had some success in the 1970s under the legendary Earle Bruce and later with Dan McCarney, whom Chizik succeeded as head coach in Ames. But this is a program that has a winning percentage of around 43 percent.

And even under McCarney the Cyclones were more like breezes, losing as many as 10 games twice and successful seasons were spotty (and driven by players that would move on to the NFL — Sage Rosenfels, Ellis Hobbs, Seneca Wallace). Even though McCarney was able to recruit respectable classes, it was still a tough sell. So, you cannot necessarily hold that against Chizik.

Second, remember that Chizik was a well-respected coordinator.

As a defensive coordinator, he produced three Thorpe winners (best DB in college football) and led defenses on two different undefeated teams — 2004 Auburn Tigers and the 2005 Texas Longhorns (BCS champs that season). His 2004 effort also earned him the Frank Broyles Award, given to the best assistant coach. So his talent was recognized.

It was probably a bad investment on his part to take the Iowa State job, but he saw his opportunity. Unfortunately, it did not pan out; or at least he was not there long enough to find out. Keep in mind that Pete Carroll did not do so well at the pro ranks and could be considered a questionable hire by Southern California (at least at the time).

I am not stating that Chizik will build a dynasty similar to what Carroll has done in Los Angeles, but the situations are similar. Carroll was not the Trojans top choice—nowhere near it.

And Carroll was not well-received at first. Going 6-6 in his first season and losing to Utah in the Las Vegas Bowl certainly did not help things. Going to the Las Vegas Bowl to begin with was bad enough!

Now, Carroll is considered one of the better coaches in the FBS ranks and rightfully so. In the right situation, Carroll has flourished. Perhaps the same can happen with Chizik on “The Plains.” Only time will tell.

Maybe he is not the best pick. Maybe Turner Gill would have been better. Or maybe we will find out that Chizik is not really cut out to be a head coach. Great coordinator (see Carl Torbush), but not fit to be the top guy.

But cut Auburn some slack. It was certainly questionable to fire—whoops, allow Tuberville to "resign" and then fill the void with a 5-19 coach who is riding a nice ten game losing streak.

But Chizik is no dummy when it comes to football. He has been at Auburn before and knows the recruiting trails in the SEC. Pulling in the 19th best recruiting class, according to Rivals, displays his ability to recruit. And, as B/R colleague Nick Bishop notes, adding knowledgeable assistants such as offensive genius Gus Malzahn will help bring Auburn back into the SEC elite.

So relax! Chizik was successful at his assistant gigs at Auburn and Texas and perhaps was just in a bad situation in Ames. Have the patience that Mr. Bishop is asking for and give it time. At least until August.

This article originally appeared on Uncle Popov's Drunken Sports Rant on December 15, 2008.

College Football's Five Most Likely Upsets in 2009, Pt. 1

Uncle Popov — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:09:44 -0400

As college football fans, we love to circle the marquee games for the upcoming season. It helps build up the anticipation to discuss the games that will define the season for our favorite teams. But what we hope to avoid—at least for fans of powerhouse schools—are the unforeseen upsets. In recent years, upsets have become somewhat of an epidemic, from FCS power Appalachian State knocking off Michigan in the Big House to Louisiana-Monroe of the Sun Belt Conference defeating Nick Saban and Alabama in Tuscaloosa. These games are the unpredictable ones; the ones that most of us already mark as a "W." But, as many people will point out, parity has changed everything on the college football landscape. This is part one of a three part series that I am compiling on the Top Five most likely upsets for the 2009 college football season. In this article/slideshow, I am listing five games involving Football Championship Subdivision [FCS] teams and non-BCS Football Bowl Subdivision [FBS] teams. While it is most obvious that a FCS team could defeat a weak FBS team, in two of the five presented games the FBS team is a team that went to a bowl game during the 2008 season. Keep in mind that these are simply games that have the best potential for an upset. I am not stating these will definitely occur. So enjoy! And feel free to leave comments or suggestions of other potential upsets.

Begin Slideshow

The Top Five U.S. Athletes To Play Abroad

Uncle Popov — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:46:32 -0400

In most sports, we as sports fans simply take it as natural that the world's best athletes come to the United States to play in arguably the best leagues in the world. It only seems natural that these athletes—no matter if they play baseball, basketball or ice hockey—would want to compete against the top talent the world has to offer. Until recently, however, it was inconceivable that players from the NBA, NHL and MLB players would leave North America during the prime of their careers and play somewhere else. Yet, we have taken notice of a recent trend of players, particularly from the NBA and NHL, going to play in Europe. While it has historically been foreign-born players leaving to play elsewhere, the recent "defection" of players like Josh Childress and Bryan Berard has drawn extra attention. Despite what appears to be a relatively new trend, U.S. players have been going overseas to play for quite sometime. While some have played in North America for several seasons [Dominique Wilkins and Bob McAdoo come to mind], others go abroad simply to garner more playing time. This slideshow presentation is a nod to those athletes who have found great success outside of the United States. I am not claiming that any of these are definitively the best to play overseas in their respective sports, but highlighting some of the great U.S. players to play throughout the world. In determining the list, I considered the following: 1. longevity. While some have relatively short careers in other countries, I did not take into account players who played only one season overseas. This includes many NHL players who played in Europe during the lockout. I wanted to examine players who have spent a good portion of their career abroad. 2. statistics. I mainly rely on statistical evidence rather than simply being on a team that wins titles. Titles are impressive, and certainly elevated one player on this list, but production is what I took into account. 3. competition. While certainly most leagues overseas do not likely compare to those in the United States, I did try to avoid obscure leagues. J.R. Sakuragi [pictured, formerly J.R. Henderson] has had quite a productive career in the Japanese Basketball League, but my take is that the European leagues are much more competitive. 4. club-level performance. I looked solely at these athletes' performance at the club level and did not take into account international play. 5. geography. I looked at leagues that did not have a constant presence in the United States. At one time, the Canadian Football League did field franchises in the United States. But that experiment ended and therefore it is not constant; so I did include the CFL. Furthermore, MLB, MLS, NBA and NHL have a constant presence in the United States. So, even though they have teams in Canada and U.S. players are on those teams, I did not count those leagues. 6. team sports. I focused only on teams sports. No individual sports such as tennis or golf were analyzed. NOW...on with the list!

Begin Slideshow

Rush Limbaugh Should Own a Sports Franchise—Just Not the St. Louis Rams

Uncle Popov — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:35:42 -0400

Imagine the following scenario on ESPN's SportsCenter:

"Today, NFL owners approved the sale of the St. Louis Rams to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh."

Actually, it would not have to be SportsCenter, as it would certainly be a rare case where the sale of a sports franchise attracts the attention of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. I am sure Keith Olbermann would have much to say about this, while Sean Hannity would note the liberal media's outrage over the "politicization of sports."

Now, before I go deeper into this topic, I must first credit both blogger MJD (real name Matthew J. Darnell) on Yahoo! Sports Blog "Shutdown Corner" and Tim Klutsarits of Examiner.com for first making a reference to Limbaugh becoming an owner of the Rams. Also, this was all spurred by an article in the St. Louis Business Journal.

Now, I am not sure how likely it is that Limbaugh would seriously pursue this business endeavour. But he has expressed interests in the past, is originally from the state of Missouri, and claims to have friends in the NFL.

But can you imagine Football Night in America on NBC right before a Limbaugh-owned St. Louis Rams game? I am not so certain if Olbermann could hold back given his feud with Limbaugh (although I am not sure how often the former has brought politics into the football pregame and halftime show, if at all).

People do not like the mixing of sports and politics. Most fans use sports to get away from the drivel of political talkers and the bickering of politics in general. So having someone like Olbermann on NBC's football coverage is maddening enough for some to actually boycott Sunday night games on NBC.

However, as I have alluded to before, no matter how much we want to believe that sports are apolitical, in reality sports are often politicized.

There is a reason why the President of the United States of America telephones national champions to congratulate them or invites them to the White House. The entire "business" of sports and the relocation or retaining of franchises is steeped in politics.

However, while winning teams—from Northwestern women's lacrosse team to the Pittsburgh Steelers—visit the White House regardless of the political party of the President, Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, fairly or not, bring their partisan politics to sports. Even if they manage to keep their political views away from sports, just those names alone conjure up connections to their respective ideologies.

The Yahoo! Sports blogger MJD noted this in his entry: "It wouldn't matter if Limbaugh was a completely silent owner, the mere mention of his name drives people into fits of political rage or glee."

He then cites two comments from the Examiner.com piece as evidence of this. Additionally, comments to his own article reflected the Grand Canyon-like divide that separates opinions on Limbaugh.

I believe that anyone with the means to purchase a sports franchise should be allowed to do so irrespective of that person's political views.

However, MJD and Klutsarits and all of the commenters to their articles reflect the polarizing nature of Rush Limbaugh—and that aspect alone is enough to increase the media attention that the Rams, and the NFL in general, normally receive.

Given how much people in the United States love football—arguably the new national pastime—and that ESPN seems to believe that the NFL season is actually 365.25 days long, such a polarizing figure is not a welcome sight.

Limbaugh could end up being an excellent owner, and I believe that people on both sides of the political pole would watch St. Louis Rams games simply because they want to see him succeed or fail.

This argument against his potential ownership of an NFL franchise has little to do with his 2003 comments on Donovan McNabb and the media.

Some saw that comment as bringing politics into sports, while others thought that Limbaugh was attempting to discredit McNabb's leadership abilities. But that controversy alone is not enough to keep him from owning a team; he was, after all, there to offer his opinions.

However, the added attention is not necessary for the league's survival, and it only brings controversy to a league that has enough to deal with. A marriage between Limbaugh and the Rams (and essentially the NFL) could potentially create the mother of all migraines. The NFL does not need to be nightly fodder on Fox News and MSNBC.

Not being able to own an NFL team should not stop Rush Limbaugh from owning a sports franchise. And I have just the team for him—the St. Louis Blues!

No, I am not trying to punish him by relegating him to the fourth-most popular professional sport in the United States. But here is a league that has fallen off of the map. It is in need of a resurgence, a jolt!

In a class I am currently teaching, some of my students were surprised when I mentioned that the Penguins pushed the Stanley Cup to a Game Seven. The surprise was not that it was going to a Game Seven, but that hockey was still being played!

After noting that the NHL does still exist, some were puzzled that Games Three and Six coincided with games in the NBA Finals!

The NHL has, unfortunately, become irrelevant in the U.S. Games are regularly shown on Versus, which is in 71 million households (compared to ESPN being in at least 92 million households).

This has led to a decrease in national exposure and a loss in revenue. We have witnessed this with players leaving the NHL to play for the Gazprom-backed Kontinetal Hockey League in Russia.

The NHL needs the added exposure, and Limbaugh owning a franchise would do just that. Sure, he would still bring politics into sports and polarize both Blues fans and NHL fans, but he would also bring media attention to a league that is desperate for it. When was the last time Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow opened with hockey?

Now, some will say that he would bring negative media exposure to the league. In this case, people will argue that "no news is good news." But the NHL only receives widespread media attention when there is a major brawl, some act of "racism," or some gambling charge against a star player.

In other words, outside of the Stanley Cup finals, most of the time the NHL is lead news when negative situations occur.

While Limbaugh would bring some negative press with him, people might be more inclined to watch the NHL and St. Louis Blues games because of Limbaugh. I am not sure that people started tuning into hockey after Todd Bertuzzi sucker-punched Steve Moore.

So, I do think that Limbaugh should own a sports team and that the media attention can be positive.

Just as long as that team is the Blues, I think Limbaugh's official entry into sports could be a good thing.

Sure, more people would be talking about Limbaugh as the owner and his political ideology rather than the fact that the Blues reached the Stanley Cup Finals. But the point is that they would be talking about hockey.

And for a league desperate for attention, this is the best way to attract the spotlight.

Thus, two sports would be "saved." The NHL would receive an increase in exposure while the NFL avoids politicization. We could then focus our attention on "exciting" issues concerning Brett Favre, Terrell Owens, and Rex Ryan.

Now, about this Olbermann guy...

Chien-Ming Wang To Start, but Is He Really "Back"?

Uncle Popov — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:18:44 -0400

First, I have to give big ups to "Heartbeat of the Bronx." His article on Chien-Ming Wang inspired this article.

Wang is scheduled to make his first start today since returning from the disabled list. He starts against a Texas Rangers team that just lost Josh Hamilton for at least two weeks, but is sitting atop the American League West and still boasts a potent lineup.

The reason this is big news is not only because I am a fan of Wang. In his earlier starts at the beginning of the season, Wang drove his ERA to numbers approaching the price for a barrel of crude oil!

After a trip to the DL and a few rehab starts, Wang returned to the Yankees and was put in the bullpen.

During that time, he was impressive as a reliever, allowing two earned runs over eight innings of work in three games (2.25 ERA). He struck out seven, walked only two, and gave up nine hits.

But while Wang has had success in his limited work out of the bullpen, will the success carry over to starting?

Some hold the theory that it is easier to come out of the 'pen that it is to start. Well, let's look at the numbers.

In Wang's three 2009 starts against Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and Cleveland, he gave up 23 runs on 23 hits, walked six, and struck out only two—all in six innings of work.

But there are two points of interest to be taken from those three starts.

First off, he only gave up two home runs—a two-run shot to Nick Markakis and a three-run homer to Shin-Soo Choo. That seems to indicate that he was not making huge mistakes with his pitches as he did not turn the games into a home run derby. But he did give up a large number of hits.

That leads me to the second point: Wang is not a power pitcher in terms of strikeouts. He is a ground ball pitcher. This can be seen in the fact that in 2007 he was tied with Fausto Carmona of the Cleveland Indians for inducing the most double plays in the majors (32).

Obviously last season he injured his ankle and missed most of the season. But through 95 innings in 2008, he had induced 12 double plays. That is one double play every 7.92 innings. The leader last season, Mark Buehrle, induced 34 double plays in 213.2 innings of work (one every 6.4 innings).

Still, if you extrapolate the numbers, Wang could have approached the top spot in the majors last season as well. The point is that Wang needs that sinker to work in order to induce the ground ball.

Among the 13 non-strikeout outs that he recorded in his three 2009 starts, seven were fly balls and six were ground balls (the remaining three outs come from base stealers being caught or runners being thrown out while attempting to advance). Obviously, he is missing with the sinker, as a majority of these outs are fly ball outs.

For comparison, let's take a random set of three games from 2008—May 2 game versus Seattle (win), May 7 game versus Cleveland (loss), and May 13 game at Tampa Bay (no decision).

During that three-game span, Wang had 48 non-strikeout outs. Of those 48, 31 were ground ball outs (64 percent).

To give the ground ball breakdown, he had eight in the win (five fly balls), seven in the loss (nine fly balls); and 16 in the no decision (three fly balls)!

So, with all this in mind, Wang's biggest problem in those three starts was failing to make the sinker, well, sink!

Has he turned things around? Well, in those bullpen appearances against the Phillies, Rangers, and Indians, Wang had 16 non-strikeout outs. Of that number, he induced 10 ground balls, including one double play.

That comes out to 62.5 percent, close to the random sample set's ground ball percentage!

Thus, based on that small sample set, it does appear that Wang is back to his old ways...and I mean that in a good way. However, as stated above, being a starter is a different beast.

Based on what he did today, despite giving up five runs, he seemed to be keeping the ball down. The one real mistake, the home run to Nelson Cruz, was a sinker that stayed up.

Against the Rangers, he threw 69 total pitches, 47 for strikes (68.12 percent). He mainly stayed with his four-seam fastball (39 times), with only 16 sinkers. The rest of his pitches were as follows: slider (nine times), changeup (three times), and curve ball (twice).

He had five strikeouts (three from the fastball, two from the slider), induced eight ground ball outs (six from the fastball, two from his changeup), and one fly ball out (from the fastball).

The concern would be the sinker. Of those 16 pitches, he only threw six for strikes (37.5 percent). Obviously, you try to get someone to chase that pitch, but based on his pitch pattern, once he started missing early with the sinker, he started to rely more on the fastball.

As one commenter (Heartbeat of the Bronx) noted, after a stellar start, he seemed to lose some of the intensity his second time through the lineup.

Overall, I would say he is on the right path. He needs to gain more trust in his sinker but was definitely keeping the ball down. That is a good sign not only for the Taiwanese pitcher, but for the Yankees as a team.

An Ode to LeBron James, With Help From Coldplay (Viva LeBron?)

Uncle Popov — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:40:22 -0400

An article written by Dan Wetzel for Yahoo! Sports discusses LeBron James's silence and actions speaking loudly. For some reason, as I read that article, the sounds of Chris Martin and Coldplay entered my head. So much so that I could not get "Viva la Vida" out of my head.

Eventually, the two began to mesh together—LeBron's inability to make it to the NBA Finals and "Viva la Vida." And what lies below is the result.

Now, I like LeBron James so this is not some " ha-ha" moment towards the man. Just a little fun at The King's expense. And, perhaps a weak attempt at humor, but this is what happens when you have five minutes alone.

So, cue the violins and let's hit it!

[VERSE 1]

I used to rule the world
Crowds would raise when I gave the word
Now this morning I sleep alone
Dream of rings I should have owned

I used to throw dunks down
Average 40 points every round.
But, listen as the crowds sing
"Now the new king is dead! God save the king!"

One minute I held the key
See me holding O’Brien’s trophy
And I discovered that my titles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

[CHORUS 1]

I hear in Cleveland bells were ringing
Cavalier fans as one were singing
”Be our savior and bring home the trophy”
Feel pressure from Jordan’s legacy.

For some reason I can't explain
The Cavs-Lakers final was never
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world

[VERSE 2]

It was the Magic from the dirty South
Blew down the doors to keep me out
Shattered hopes and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become

ABC executives wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be King?

[CHORUS 2]

I hear in Cleveland bells were ringing
Cavalier fans as one were singing
”Be our savior and bring home the trophy”
Feel pressure from Jordan’s legacy.

For some reason I can't explain
I know David Stern won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

[INSTRUMENTAL BREAK]

I hear in Cleveland bells were ringing
Cavalier fans as one were singing
”Be our savior and bring home the trophy”
But my true title shot is with Jay-Z.

For some reason I can't explain
I know that the Nets will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Big ups to Coldplay. It is, after all, based on their song "Viva la Vida" from the 2008 album of the same name, and I'd be remissed if I did not acknowledge that much.

Did Chris Andersen Posterize Lamar Odom?

Uncle Popov — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:39:57 -0400

Whoa now! How is it that someone who dunked “all over” another human being can actually be the one who is “posterized”?

Well, let’s go over what happened in Game Five of the NBA Western Conference Finals involving the Denver Nuggets and the Los Angeles Lakers.

During the second half of that game, Chris “Birdman” Andersen was dunked on not once but twice. First time occurred in the third period when on a three-on-one fast break, Shannon Brown brought the hammer to a back-peddling Chris Andersen.

The second dunk occurred in the fourth quarter when Lamar Odom took what was essentially a drop-pass from Kobe Bryant and then threw it down over Andersen.

Both were indeed dunks “over” Andersen. But sports talker Jim Rome and others made it sound like they were dunks that took Andersen’s manhood. However, after watching video of the dunks, including multiple angles of the Odom dunk, I disagree.

Both dunks, especially Brown’s, were run-of-the-mill type dunks. So, let’s start with Brown’s.

In the third, and off of a turnover, Pau Gasol gets the ball and begins to push up court with Brown on his right (not sure who was running on his left). Andersen is the only one back so an excellent opportunity for the Lakers.

A couple of steps from the three-point line, Gasol makes a pass to Brown, who catches it in stride just past the “elbow” and then gets around Andersen for the dunk.

Key part of the play is “gets around Andersen.” It is not like Brown went over Andersen for the dunk. He was simply too quick and exploded past the Birdman. He is literally dunking “ahead” of Andersen who ends up attempting to block him from the side/behind. It was poor timing by Andersen, but a great use of quickness by Brown.

Now, this does not take away from Brown’s dunk and the impact it had on the Lakers as a whole, as well as the Staples Center crowd. It energized that crowd in a tight game (and at a point where Los Angeles was down by five) and got things going for them.

But it was NOT a posterizing dunk. A good dunk. But a typical fast break dunk. Not even the third or fourth best dunk of that game!

The Odom dunk was a bit more vicious. Up two and with possession, Kobe drives to the lane and drops it off to an eagerly waiting Odom. Odom takes the ball, takes a step, brings it down on Andersen’s head.

Now, it was definitely an emphatic dunk over one of the top shot blockers in the Association. And there is nothing that someone driving to the lane loves more than dunking on a player known for blocking shots. But I have a problem with this example of a “posterizing” dunk.

Like I stated above, it is definitely a vicious dunk. And, much like the Brown dunk, it was an energizing dunk that got the Staples Center rocking even more and Odom’s teammates amped up. But there are a couple of problems I have with this dunk being a great posterizer.

First off, Andersen had little time to even react. It is like "The Play" in the 1982 Cal-Stanford football game, where the Stanford band member had no clue he was about to get run over.

The same thing with Andersen. He initially set up to block Kobe. With the nice drop-pass, Andersen was left out of position. And like the trombone player, it was time to get bowled over!

Odom wasted little time dunking on Andersen. And, if you watch the video, you can see Andersen begin to go for the block, but he is way too late.

The other problem I have is the push. If you watch the dunk, Odom clearly uses his free arm to push and, basically pin Andersen down.

Now, I understand that Andersen was in the zone underneath the basketball and therefore fair game for this sort of dunk (and the subsequent foul). That is not the part I am disputing.

My problem is that if you have to push someone and basically hurdle yourself over them to dunk the ball, then how can it be a posterizing dunk? Anywhere else on the court and this move (forearm into the back) would be an offensive foul.

The positioning of the players and where the play took place negated the potential foul on Odom, but it does not diminish the fact that Odom needed to push down someone in order to rise up!

Look, I know using the free arm to "push off" is part of the game. As someone who plays basketball recreationally, and as someone who takes pride in his shot-blocking ability, I have first-hand experience of the push off, and the subsequent jawing that goes on after the offending opponent makes a basketball.

Even if it is a nice basket, the person still needed a push off in order to get separation from the shot blocker.

With Andersen and Odom, I saw the same thing. Yes, it was a good dunk. But the combination of the late reaction with the use of Andersen literally as a dunk prop, in my mind, demoted the dunk from a posterizer to just a good power dunk.

Perhaps if Andersen was straight-up and prepared to block, and Odom still hammered if over the Birdman (without having to push him down), then it would have been a posterizer…even if there was a small push off.

If you want a good posterizing dunk, look at Tracy McGrady "sucking the gravity right out of the building" went he went over the Human Dunk Prop Shawn Bradley. Even with the push, it was an awesome dunk because Bradley was prepared and still got posterized!

The only posterizing that really took place is what likely sparked Odom’s vicious revenge-seeking dunk.

Towards the end of the first quarter, Kobe made a pass to Odom who had a clear path to the lane…with the exception of Chris Andersen. Odom had a great look at it and Andersen had time to react.

Had Lamar Odom hammered it home with a dunk like his fourth quarter one, then it definitely would have been a posterizing dunk that would have stolen the Birdman’s manhood. As it was, Andersen rejected Odom and, in turn, posterized the Laker forward!

It was Odom, not Andersen, who had his manhood taken and, in the end, sought to get it back. So, I’d consider the two even!

The Draft, Rookie Salaries, and Inequality in the NFL

Uncle Popov — Tue, 19 May 2009 08:34:07 -0400

“With the first pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, the Detroit Lions select...INSIGNIFICANCE!!!”

Now, before people reading this article become upset that I am calling Matthew Stafford a bust, follow the logic. It is not Stafford personally that I am calling out, nor is this a shot at the Detroit Lions.

It is all about the amount of money that Stafford is going to receive simply for being selected number one. That is a major problem that the NFL must correct.

Let’s first be clear about one thing.

Among the four major team sports in North America, professional football has perhaps the shortest “life expectancy” among its players. Former MVP Shaun Alexander is essentially “washed-up” now at age 31, still an unsigned free agent.

But also remember that he was cut by Seattle when he was 30, and only picked up by the Redskins after their backup, not their starter, went down!

While baseball, hockey, and even basketball have players in their late-30s and early 40s, it is rare in football, especially at so-called “skill” positions. The major exception to this are kickers in their 40s, as well as an occasional quarterback.

So due to short utility, it is understandable that football players need a lot of money. And this is not a “oh, they make too much money” jealousy rant. Your labor and skill is a “commodity” and if that commodity has a high demand, as professional football has in the United States, then top dollar is paid to those with the best skill. So more power to them.

The problem is this simply fact—Matthew Stafford will make more money than Tom Brady! Stafford has yet to throw a pass even in an exhibition NFL game and he will earn more than a three-time Super Bowl winner and two-time MVP???

But that is not even the greatest concern here. What the outrageous rookie salaries translates to is a potential trap for teams with high first round draft picks.

Teams that have high draft picks in the first round must put so much money into an unproven commodity that if that commodity goes belly up, then the team is once again back to square one. Let’s analyze!

Over the past 20 years, 12 quarterbacks have been taken with the first overall pick (60 percent of the time); eight of those coming in the last 10 years.

Of those 12, four have guided their team to the Super Bowl (Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Drew Bledsoe, and Hall of Famer Troy Aikman) and two others have had some success statistically—Jeff George and Carson Palmer. I do not include Michael Vick here because his quarterback numbers are unimpressive.

Three of the remaining five quarterbacks taken first overall since 1989 have been utter failures—Tim Couch, David Carr and Alex Smith. The jury is still out on JaMarcus Russell, although it is not looking good. And Matthew Stafford obviously has yet to play.

What this means is that there is roughly a 50 percent chance that a QB taken number one overall will actually pan out. To be fair, the last two QBs taken at that spot do not have enough to go on (or anything at all), so let’s remove the two most recent and the two “oldest.”

Still, 50 percent. If you want to look at the last 10 years, and still remove Russell and Stafford, then the success rate is less than 50 percent because you also take out Peyton Manning.

But obviously not all starting quarterbacks in the NFL are top picks. So let’s look at starting quarterbacks around the NFL in 2008.

Of the 32 opening day starters at quarterback, 14 were drafted in the first round, so a good number. But, seven of the opening day starters were drafted in the fourth round or later. Add to that number the five undrafted starters, and 14 of the opening day starters were either taken between the fourth and seventh rounds or not drafted at all.

And before you claim that some of those starters did not play the majority of their team’s games, that is a good point. But most of those who took over were also late round quarterbacks, with three being seventh-rounders.

The only first rounder to take over—Kerry Collins—took over for another first rounder—Vince Young. So, if you look at those quarterbacks who took over, then the average moves towards the latter rounds.

But what of those averages? Well, among all drafted quarterbacks, the average round of the opening day starters is 2.48, or mid-second round. But that is unfair because (1) there are so many from the first round versus the other rounds, and (2) it is a comparison of one round versus six rounds.

But, let’s separate the first round from the rest of the rounds and look at the average selections. First off, looking at all drafted starting QBs, the average pick number is 62.4. Among first-rounders, the average pick number is 8.79, while the average for the remaining QBs 120.

While it is difficult to place these numbers into an actual round because of changes in the number of teams since 1991, the average pick for all quarterbacks is somewhere in the late second or early third round. Among first rounders, it is closer to the middle of the first round, but still a high pick.

And among all other QBs, it is somewhere in the late third or early fourth. Or in other words, second day!

In terms of success, two of the quarterbacks to led their team to win their division were undrafted (Warner and Delhomme), with a third being taken in the seventh round (Gus Frerotte). This past Super Bowl was the epitome of this debate, with Arizona led by an undrafted QB versus Pittsburgh with a first-rounder.

What does this all mean? Well, while yes quarterbacks taken in the first round can pan out and be starters, it is just as likely that a quarterback taken on the second day or even undrafted can be a starter. In other words, it is a crapshoot.

You are more likely to see Shaquille O’Neal hit consecutive free throws or Nick Swisher striking someone out than you are to see a team with a first-rounder lining up under center.

Long story short, to guarantee so much money to an unproven commodity is a fallacy that will most likely perpetuate failure. Keep in mind that I have only delved into quarterbacks. That are many other first-rounders at other positions to turn out to be failure.

But how does all of this further the gulf between the elite programs in the NFL and the bottom-feeders? Well, let’s look at the teams drafting in the No. 1 spot.

Three times: Cincinnati (1994, 1995, 2003) and Indianapolis (1990, 1992, 1998)
Two times: Cleveland (1999, 2000); Dallas (1989, 1991); Houston (2002, 2006)
One time: New England (1993); New York Jets (1996); St. Louis (1997); Atlanta (2001); San Diego (2004); San Francisco (2005); Oakland (2007); Miami (2008); Detroit (2009)

Since 1989, the teams picking first tend to draft in the middle of the first round over the three drafts following that first overall pick. The average number of wins over the three seasons following their first overall pick is 7.2 wins! In other words, it is a losing record.

Granted, there are some shenanigans with the top pick as there have been some trades out of that pick by the worst team. And teams have been successful in the three seasons following a No. 1 pick.

The St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl three seasons after selecting Orlando Pace with the first overall pick. The Dallas Cowboys won two Super Bowls within the three seasons of taking Russell Maryland No. 1 overall.

However, both of those teams traded into the position to take the first pick. The pieces came together for the Cowboys because of their many draft picks, while the Rams relied on an undrafted quarterback!

Only two teams have really turned it around from the basement—New York Jets, who would have had the first pick in 1996 and 1997 (that pick traded to the Rams) and the San Diego Chargers, who traded their 2001 top pick to Atlanta.

But even with the Jets, their success has been a roller coaster. San Diego has done a bit better.

Now, granted, long term the Indianapolis Colts became successful with Peyton Manning, as have the New England Patriots. Conversely, the St. Louis Rams have gone the other way. But the point here is short-term problems and becoming a “repeat offender” as the worst teams in football.

One final point on the draft; just picking No. 1 does not necessarily mean a team is consistently bad. The Detroit Lions, for example, did not hold the No. 1 pick until 2009; Oakland only landed it in 2007.

However, many NFL fans will point to these teams as being some of the worst in football. So, let’s look at the worst teams from 2008 and their recent positions in the draft [past five seasons].

Now admittedly, some teams like the Seattle Seahawks and Jacksonville Jaguars appeared to have down seasons over the past two years. So, I have decided not to include those teams, nor am I including teams that finished last in their division but were 7-9 or 8-8.

Detroit Lions: 7.4
St. Louis Rams: 9.4
Kansas City Chiefs: 13.2
Cleveland Browns: 9
Cincinnati Bengals: 14.8
Oakland Raiders: 5.2
San Francisco 49ers: 7

With the exception of Kansas City and Cincinnati, most of these teams’ average first round pick over the last five years is within the top 10! And both of those exceptions are carried by successes from more that two seasons ago.

St. Louis’s 9.4 average first round pick is also carried by a 2004 playoff appearance, while Cleveland is “high” because of a successful 2007 season (although no playoffs).

In other words, teams considered to be at the bottom of the NFL hierarchy tend to continuously remain in the “big money” picks of the First Round. Or, these teams are consistently “lottery” teams, much like the Los Angeles Clippers of the NBA.

And this gets to the money, and how the money invested in these unproven players continues the vicious cycle. Let’s take the worst team in terms of average draft picks—the Oakland Raiders.

Over the last three drafts (2009 aside), the Raiders have taken Darren McFadden (fourth overall), JaMarcus Russell (first overall), and Michael Huff (seventh). Those three account for over $24 million of the Raiders total payroll of over $152 million. That is 16 percent of their payroll to players that have not really proven themselves in the NFL.

And Darrius Heyward-Bey is just another unproven player that will be paid millions to keep the Raiders in the basement.

Now, it is understandable that teams invest a sizable percentage of their payroll towards a couple of players. The NFL tends to have the highest individual player salaries among the four major North American sports. But it also has the lowest average salary of the four sports.

Nevertheless, let's look at some of the top teams in the NFL and their team salaries.

Super Bowl champs Pittsburgh devotes 28 percent to two players (mostly to Roethlisberger), while runner-up Arizona devotes 20.5 percent to two players. Other top teams follow a similar pattern, such as New England (23 percent), Indianapolis (24.6 percent), and the New York Giants (21.4 percent).

The difference here is that New England and Indianapolis are devoting that payroll to players like Randy Moss and Peyton Manning; players who have proven their worth in the NFL.

Oakland and Detroit have pushed money onto rookies who have only proven they are good college players. And when so when one of these unproven players with so much guaranteed money fail, it is difficult for the team to bring in talent because of the salary devoted to these failures!!!

What this long rant represents is that the current structure of the NFL Draft and rookie salaries are designed, unintentionally, to keep teams down. Certainly a team can hit the jackpot by landing a player like Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman, or Orlando Pace.

But for every Manning, there is a Ki-Jana Carter. For every Roethlisberger, there is a Charles Rogers.

And when it is more likely that Dwight Howard would hit a free throw than a high first-round pick will work out, then something is definitely wrong.

This article originally appeared on Uncle Popov's Drunken Sports Rant on 9 May 2009.

Minding Your Manners: Should Enthusiasm in Baseball Be Discouraged?

Uncle Popov — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:09:39 -0400

Much has been made over the past weekend's baseball games and "extracurricular activities."

On Saturday, Milwaukee Brewer Ryan Braun took a Ryan Dempster pitch deep for a solo shot in the seventh, ending the Cubs pitcher's day. As Braun rounded the bases, he stared down Dempster and emphatically clapped his hands.

Also on Saturday, White Sox closer Bobby Jenks threw behind Ian Kinsler. In a close game, Jenks' purpose was to send a message to the Rangers to quit hitting Chicago players (Kevin Millwood had hit two White Sox players in the game).

Then on Sunday, Orioles first baseman Aubrey Huff hit a three-run blast off of the emotional Joba Chamberlain. As Huff rounded the bases, he pumped his fists multiple times and reacted in a way that seemed to mock Chamberlain.

Later that day, Casey Blake took Giants closer Brian Wilson deep in the bottom of the 12th inning and tied the game again. After Blake returned to the Dodgers' dugout, he made a gesture crossing his arms like an "X" that was apparently towards Wilson.

Four acts of "aggression" that could lead to retaliation. Four justified displays of emotion. And four overblown reactions to it all.

First off, I agree with the notion of not showing up your opponent. You should show some respect for your opponent and play like you have been there. That is the way to gain respect yourself.

It is a reason I appreciate a player like Matt Stairs, who will hit a pinch-hit home run, round the bases, and then return to the bench. He did his job and let his actions speak for themselves.

There are the so-called "unwritten rules" of baseball that if you show up your opponent, you can expect some retaliation. Nolan Ryan, Bob Gibson, and other "old school" pitchers would dot a player on the other team if he felt he was disrespected.

That stated, we do not want emotionless players. We also understand that it is easy to get caught up in the moment. So while we desire respect of the game, we also want emotion.

It is with this in mind that I believe the events over the past weekend are a culmination of these two ideas. While some people, especially those fans of the Yankees, Giants, Cubs, and Rangers, might be upset, I believe the reactions are a bit too much and disregard their own team's (re)actions.

First, what happened on Saturday were both examples of those elusive "unwritten rules" coming into play.

Maybe Braun should have simply trotted the bases after his homer, but the homer itself was a reaction to the Dempster pitch that nearly caught Braun's head (the pitch actually hit Braun's bat, but he was rewarded with a HBP).

If someone tries to buzz you, your reaction is to get back in there and jack it out of the park. So the homer was a reaction within the rules of baseball, while his stare down was from emotions that, at least to Braun, were driven by the Dempster high-and-tight pitch.

There should be no explanation for Jenks' pitch, but MLB is investigating the pitch. Jenks admitted that the pitch was intentional. As ESPN.com reported via the Chicago Tribune, Jenks "meant to" throw the pitch "to send a message":

"Basically I was saying, 'I'm sick of seeing our guys get hit and hurt and almost get taken out of the game.' I threw it with intention. ... I was not going to hit him. I made my point with that pitch, and it came across the way I wanted it to.

"I'm not going to go dirty. I was going to keep it low and behind him."

That, once again, is in the "rules" of baseball. If you hit one of our players, you can expect to have the same happen to your players.

Those cases are more clear-cut than what happened on Sunday. Let's take the Chamberlain-Huff situation first.

Joba Chamberlain is known for the amount of energy and emotion that he brings to the mound. His fist pumps after striking out the side, especially at home, are well documented.

Aubrey Huff's mimicking of Chamberlain's strikeout celebration was a direct play. While Huff's reaction could be held as disrespecting or showing up Chamberlain, keep in mind that Chamberlain's reactions are no different.

Granted, Huff's homer came in the first inning and should not extract great emotion, but his fist pumps could be held as remaining within the "rules" of baseball.

Look at it this way; Jenks' reaction was because of something the Rangers did and not because Jenks likes throwing behind people. Similarly, Huff's reaction was to something that Chamberlain does, and Huff admitted as much.

So, if you take a step back and examine it in that manner, it is just an example of following those unwritten rules coming into contact with emotion.

Plus, if Chamberlain had a problem with it, he could place one on Huff's back (and not in the ear as one B/R writer suggested). But Chamberlain actually played it cool, took his medicine, and moved on...at least until the teams meet again.

And then there is the Blake-Wilson incident. Neither has really commented on it, so it is difficult to gauge their opinions, although it was reported through his teammates that Wilson was upset.

Apparently, Wilson has made it a habit to make an "X" with his arms at the end of games. It is apparently a tribute to both his faith as a Christian and to his deceased father. While I just learned of that (admittedly, I do not follow the Giants closely), it seems like common knowledge on the West Coast.

So it is safe to assume that Casey Blake knows why Wilson crosses his arms like that. Therefore, Blake's mocking of Wilson's tribute could be seen as classless and insensitive.

However, whenever you bring something public like that, you leave yourself open to criticism and/or mockery. While perhaps a stretch to compare baseball to wrestling, consider that Stone Cold Steve Austin played off of Jake "The Snake" Roberts' faith to develop the insanely popular "Austin 3:16" catchphrase.

I am not saying that Wilson is wrong to openly display his faith, but when a player makes a certain gesture—be it fist pumps or a cross—it can be expected that at some point someone will mock it. This is especially the case when emotions come into play, as it likely did when, down a run in extra innings, Blake homered with one out.

In a way, it is another example of "what goes around, comes around." While Wilson might feel it is simply a tribute, opposing players might view it as you've been "X'ed" out.

Again, we have not heard from Blake; perhaps he did not know what it meant to Wilson.

No one wants to see a batter do the Riverdance on home plate after hitting a solo shot in the first inning (although it might be amusing). But emotion is a part of the game. There still has to be a certain amount of respect for the opponent, but we cannot expect emotionless robots in sports.

In each of these four cases, I believe that emotions played a role in the reactions that seem to remain within the "unwritten rules" of baseball. If you are going to pump your fist after a strikeout or make an "X" after converting a save, then you should expect it in return after a home run.

And if you hit a player or two, it should be expected there will be retaliation, either by the other team jacking a homer off of the offending pitcher or the opposing pitcher hitting one of your teammates.

Alex Rodriguez: Guilty Until Proven Innocent for Pitch-Tipping

Uncle Popov — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:39:04 -0400

We live in a country that prides itself on cute little slogans. One that is applied to our court systems is "innocent until proven guilty."

This line is meant to demonstrate our legal system and that one must provide evidence—irrefutable evidence—that someone broke the laws of our country and prove beyond all doubts that this person committed a crime.

In other words, there exists an assumption of innocence (although the "guilty/not guilty" plea rather than "innocent/not innocent" is somewhat odd).

But that is the legal system of the United States of America. In the court of public opinion, the tag line is "guilty until proven innocent"—and to many people, unfortunately, this is the only court that matters.

Before I list some players, let me be clear that I am not attempting to exonerate any of these players.

O.J. Simpson rounded up a great group of lawyers and was acquitted in criminal court of the murder of his wife and her "friend." Yet, public opinion found him guilty of those crimes (and a civil court found him liable).

Kate Faber accused Kobe Bryant first of rape, then of sexual assault. That criminal case never came to trial, although a settlement was reached in a civil case. Despite not being found guilty of a crime, the court of public opinion continues to judge him negatively on that incident (cheating on his wife does not help either).

In 2006, three Duke lacrosse players were accused of raping a young woman. The North Carolina District Attorney, Mike Nifong, went as far as labeling the incident a "hate crime" (the young woman was black, while the three accused players were white).

In the end, the accusations turned out to be false, but that did not stop public opinion at the time from condemning the players.

Now, Alex Rodriguez, already admitting that he took steroids, is being accused of pitch-tipping while a member of the Texas Rangers.

Despite the fact that there is no actual evidence from identified sources, the verdict in the court of public opinion seems to be "guilty."

Guilty, guilty, guilty!!! Whatever happened to due process? While some people worry about "activist judges" on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears we have many "activist judges" in the court of public opinion.

Let's be clear on another matter. I am not a fan of Alex Rodriguez, nor am I a fan of the New York Yankees. But the point is that we too often rush to judgment and criminalize someone before all of the facts are out.

But what are the reasons (or reason) that we force people, particularly those "high-profile" individuals, to prove that they are innocent rather than us (or an investigator) proving that they are guilty? Why is the onus placed on the accused?

Is it because of a history of wrongdoing?

Well, before O.J. was accused of murder, he was a well-loved guy, playing a bumbling police officer in the Naked Gun series (watch out for that bear trap!!!).

Kobe had no (reported) history of choking random women in hotel rooms. Previous to the steroid allegations, A-Rod was considered one of the clean players. The Duke lacrosse team...well...

Is it jealousy of star athletes? Well, the Duke lacrosse players were not well-known outside of the lacrosse world. But Kobe Bryant and A-Rod are both polarizing figures that fans of other teams love to hate—so beyond Laker and Yankee fans, it is easy to quickly find these guys guilty.

Or is it something else? Is it that we like to see failure? We like to see that someone else also makes mistakes.

We like to see that, yes, the world's best athletes are indeed human. They make mistakes and are not perfect. The higher the profile of the accused athlete, the more coverage it receives, and the more vindicated we feel.

It is why Juan Rincon's 2005 drug suspension was merely a blip on the sports radar, while Manny Ramirez's suspension will be a topic for many weeks to come. Bad news makes us common mortals feel more human.

Now we see the same rush to a guilty verdict for Manny Ramirez. While some have obviously stepped up and defended Manny, others have not only criminalized Manny but have also begun to label all players guilty by association.

Keep in mind that Ramirez was not punished for taking steroids, but for taking something that contained a banned substance (human chorionic gonadotropin, or HCG). And it is quite possible that Ramirez is taking HCG because of a truly personal problem.

But certain "experts" have stepped up and demonstrated a logical connection between taking HCG and steroids. One such expert noted that it is used to counter certain post-steroid side effects. That "expert" is none other than the upstanding Jose Canseco.

Jose Canseco? It is amazing that Jose Canseco—a guy who seems to bathe in the glory of his dirtiness—is more believed than Ramirez. But then again, many of the things that Canseco has stated have appeared true. There is a reason that Dan Patrick is attempting to interview the guy.

But are we going to now talk to convicted murderers in order to figure out if Phillip Markoff is really the so-called Craigslist Killer? This is not The Silence of the Lambs, but it is beginning to look like it.

Just like Dr. Hannibal Lecter returning to crime at the end of the film, Canseco is still involved with substances related to steroids.

In the cases involving steroids, Canseco seems to be the prosecuting attorney in the court of public opinion. But where is that figure in the pitch-tipping scandal?

Maybe that person is still playing. Maybe that person is someone we would least expect. Maybe that person is Derek Jeter!

Or maybe not (and no, I am NOT accusing Jeter of being involved). But given the rampant guilty by association verdicts that are spreading because of steroids, I am not surprised that names have not surfaced.

This has nothing to do with the fact that Selena Roberts is the one reporting this "crime." I do understand that if others are involved, they are not going to just come out and say that they were involved.

If the pitch-tipping is true, it is an offense that should receive the "baseball death penalty" (i.e. banned for life), and no player wants that.

Again, the problem is we are too quick to judge. It does not help that the media loves bad news, and that people feed off of it.

It is easier to accuse someone of a "crime" and have them prove their innocence than it is for the public to collect evidence and prove the accused's guilt.

Guilty until proven innocent is the slogan of public opinion—and unfortunately for most people, it is the only verdict that matters.

Alexander Ovechkin, Shots on Goal, and the NHL Playoffs

Uncle Popov — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:33:30 -0400

As the NHL Playoffs continue, the most anticipated Conference Quarterfinal match-up features the Pittsburgh Penguins versus the Washington Capitals (thank you, Carolina!). Or, as many fans see this series, Sidney Crosby versus Alexander Ovechkin.

And with that in mind, I think it is worth revisiting the debate over Ovechkin's shots on goal.

On 21 April, I wrote an article here comparing Ovechkin to NBA star Allen Iverson. The comparison focused on the amount of shots each takes compared to the rest of their respective team and how it is potentially detrimental to the playoff success of their team.

Needless to state that the comparison received a lot of criticism and feedback. Some were upset that I compared Ovechkin to Iverson because they thought I was comparing personalities. This was never the case, and I actually like Ovechkin and have a lot of respect for the passion he displays on the ice.

Others did not like the cross-sport juxtaposition, claiming that shots on goal in hockey are not necessarily to score but to create scoring changes, such as rebounds and put-backs. However, this was still an indication that the team relied too heavily on Ovechkin, as is/was the case with Iverson.

Overall, the debate was stimulating and actually led me to watch more of the playoffs than I normally would, considering the Ottawa Senators did not make it. And, with that, I have followed Ovechkin's numbers closely. And, at least with the Rangers series, I think my thesis has held.

So far in the NHL Playoffs, Ovechkin is far and away the clear leader in shots on goal with 49. Now granted, some teams played fewer games during the First Round. However, Eric Staal, who finished second in SOG during the regular season and is currently second in the playoffs, has played in as many playoff games as Ovechkin and is still 16 shots behind.

But that is not what is important when it comes to the Capitals' series with the Rangers. Let's look at Ovechkin's numbers in that series.

Game One - 13 shots (37 percent of team's total shots); LOSS
Game Two - six shots (17 percent of team's shots); LOSS
Game Three - five shots (12.5 percent of team's shots); WIN
Game Four - 11 shots (28 percent of team's shots); LOSS
Game Five - three shots (14 percent of team's shots); WIN
Game Six - six shots (27 percent of team's shots); WIN
Game Seven - five shots (20 percent of team's shots); WIN

Now, while the latter two games display a pattern of taking a lot of shots, the numbers deserve some qualifying.

First, shooting between four to six shots per game is closer to the league average for a team's top shooter (see Staal, Zach Praise, and Jeff Carter). So Ovechkin's contribution in those games was on par with the rest of the top shooters in the NHL.

Second, Game Two was a game that could have followed that pattern had it not been for a superb performance by Rangers' goaltender Henrik Lundqvist. His 35 saves in a tight 1-0 game cannot be ignored.

Third, in three of the four victories for Washington—Games Three, Five, and Seven—Ovechkin was not even the leading shooter in the game. Alexander Semin was the leading shooter in Games Three and Seven, while Eric Fehr led in Game Five. In fact, Ovechkin was tied for second with Sergei Federov in Game Five.

This third point is crucial for it denotes a shift in burden away from Ovechkin and spreads it to other players. Once this happened, Washington seemed to be a better team.

One final point, changing goaltenders is something that specifically has nothing to do shots on goal, but had a lot to do with Washington winning the series. It would be a disservice to Simeon Varlamov to not point out his stellar play since taking over for Jose Theodore.

He is a big reason why the Capitals are playing hockey on Saturday rather than golf.

In conclusion, I believe that the Rangers series proves my point that when Ovechkin's shots on goal are tempered, the Capitals are in a better position to win. The recent historic trend of Stanley Cup winners also supports that argument.

It was never my intent to knock Ovechkin's skill, but just an observation of how his high amount of shots on goal runs counter to the trends of championship teams.

I do think that Ovechkin will eventually lead his team to the Stanley Cup Finals and perhaps win it someday. But he cannot do it all on his own; taking 10+ shots in the process.

Of course, he could prove be wrong with the series against the Penguins and sweep Pittsburgh while taking 12 shots a game. Or, conversely, take two shots per game and lose to Crosby and the Pens.

One thing is for certain, no matter how many shots he takes in the series, he will likely have fun doing it.

Going Against the Home Team

Uncle Popov — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:56:47 -0400

Growing up in Alabama, it was difficult to to pull for professional teams. College teams—well, college football—became the obvious teams to follow, as if there even was a choice. You were either an Alabama fan or an Auburn fan.

But when it came to choosing a pro team to follow, it was never clear cut. My grandfather used to tell me of listening to Cardinals baseball games on the radio. Before the Braves moved to Atlanta in 1966, the Cards were the South's team (and the West's team until the Dodgers and Giants move to California).

After 1966, the South had two sport franchises—the Atlanta Braves and the Atlanta Falcons (three if you include the Miami Dolphins). By 1972, the South had a team in all four major sports—the St. Louis Hawks moved to Atlanta in 1968 and the NHL awarded the city with the expansion Flames in 1972. Two years later, with the addition of the New Orleans Jazz, the South had six teams (seven with Miami).

Today, there are 17 professional teams in the South, excluding teams in Miami (many do not count south Florida as part of "the South"). People living or growing up in Nashville or Atlanta or Tampa have a "home" team to pull for rather than adopting one.

However, this speaks to the arbitrary nature of "fanhood." Cities that suddenly gain a team that have no history of "fans" must nurture their new clubs. So the concept of "fan" is constructed; it is not natural.

But that should be obvious. So what is my real point here? Geography should not be the reason for supporting a team. Or, at the very least, should be a minor reason.

I understand the argument for supporting the local economy. Going to a game or a bar to watch the locals trickle down dollars to the local economy—taxi rides, dinner before or after the game, tailgating (buying alcohol and food), etc.—is good for the community. Certainly it is a good thing to support your city in that manner.

But why must we automatically support the local team? Allow me to offer an anecdote.

When I moved to Tallahassee, people often asked me if I would "convert" or become a Florida State fan. I would ask them why I would do that and their response was usually the same—because this is where you live now and you should support the local team.

Well, that seems somewhat silly. But, finally I caved in and decided to support a different local team—the Florida A&M Rattlers!

The point here is there is an expectation to automatically support the hometown squad. Most people did not even take into account that maybe I bring in my own favorite teams (some did and still tried to convert me).

Perhaps it is easier for me to scoff at the notion of automatically cheering for the home team. Growing up in the South meant that my father was not attached to a professional team. So there was no "tradition" of cheering for a pro team that he could pass onto me; and I would in turn pass it on to my sons. My guess is that many people are influenced by their parents' support of, say, the Green Bay Packers or Boston Red Sox.

But family choices also influenced my decision to go against the local team. With my parents split between Alabama and Auburn, my brother and I chose different teams—I chose Georgia Tech while my brother went with Notre Dame. This actually set the stage for my team support decisions and freed me from the constraints of geography.

With this "freedom," I was able to choose any team I wanted. But I needed some sort of rubric; I felt that I could not simply choose the best teams at the time (jumping on a bandwagon). However, the teams I support today actually found me.

Dislike for the bandwagon fans for the 1991 Atlanta Braves led me first to follow the Canadian teams, especially Montreal. Once the Expos ceased to exist, I chose the worst team in baseball at the time, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

My father's stories of the rich history of the Green Bay Packers—at a time when they were so bad Don Majkowski was their QB—led me to become a Packers fan. Playing the video game "NHL '94" and trying to win with the worst team on the game, the Ottawa Senators, in turn made me a Sens fan.

And the team I follow in basketball actually used to be one that I hated. I really never attached to any NBA team, but once I started following Andrei Kirilenko, I slowly became a Utah Jazz fan.

The geography of my favorite teams is great! From Canada to Florida to Wisconsin to Utah, I am all over the place. It also creates great reactions when I go to a bar and ask the bartender if they could put on the Ottawa game ("Are you Canadian?" or "You know, we have hockey teams in Florida!").

But that is the beauty of not being geographically fixed to a team. It adds much needed variety in life. Plus, what if all the local teams are down in a given year? Imagine what it was like to be a Seattle sports fan last year, with the Mariners and Seahawks performing very weakly and then losing the Sonics.

Some cities already have limited "options" since they have more than one team in a given sport. New York is the prime example as, including the Nets, there are two teams in every major sport. But for other cities, you are probably locked into one team. Escaping the constraints of geography allows you to choose any team!

Plus, imagine if the large base of people in cities like New York City and Los Angeles began cheering for the Kansas City Royals or Jacksonville Jaguars or Oklahoma City Thunder. Perhaps it could balance out exposure because there would be Thunder fans screaming, "Hey! We do not care how awful our team is this year! We want to see the Thunder-Wizards game on TNT!!!"

Options are great! Try it! Tonight, follow the Blue Jays-Royals game and marvel at how great a pitcher Zach Greinke is!

Then, when the game is over, imagine how Greinke will look in pinstripes, because you are still going to cheer for your local team, aren't you?