Goodbye Brett

I can’t believe I’m writing these words, but Brett Favre is officially the former starting quarterback of the Green Bay Packers.
In his illustrious career, Favre broke the NFL records for touchdown passes, passing yards, pass attempts, pass completions, wins by a starting quarterback, consecutive games started by a quarterback, most 3,000 yard seasons, most consecutive 3,000 yard seasons, most seasons with 30 or more touchdown passes, most consecutive playoff games with a touchdown, and finally, most MVP awards.
The record that Favre was identified with the most was the consecutive starts by a quarterback. Since Sept. 20, 1992, the date when Favre made the first of his 253 consecutive regular season starts, 212 players have started at least one game as a quarterback. To give some perspective, second place Peyton Manning, will have to play another five 16-game seasons, and the first 13 games of another, just to tie Favre’s record
But the number that defines Favre the most is not his 253 consecutive starts, it’s not his 160 regular season wins, nor is it his 442 touchdown passes, his 6,1655 yards or his 5,377 completions. It’s not his three MVP awards, his 63 three touchdown games, or his 16 consecutive 3,000 yard seasons.
The number that defines Favre, is simply “four,” the word that describes the legend best is simply “Favre.” He is the most unique individual to play the game.
From the time he took over the reins as the Packers quarterback, he has played the game with such a little-kid enthusiasm, sometimes a little reckless, sometimes a little careless, but always, always amazing.
No article about Favre is complete without mentioning that he also holds the record for interceptions with 288. But that’s really what makes Farve Favre.
It’s his unpredictable nature that sometimes made you cry, and sometimes cry tears of joy.
It’s also that unpredictable nature that makes Favre so special. He’s not perfect, he’s just a regular small town high school quarterback.
Favre was one of the most respected players throughout the league. When he broke the record for career touchdown passes, he did so in a road game against a rival team. The fan response however? A standing ovation.
A standing ovation from your rival? Thats the kind of stuff that’s unheard of, , but there’s nothing that counts as impossible with Favre.
The only word to describe Farve is “Farve.”
The word “Farve” is sort of like an expletive. It can be used as seemingly any part of speech. As a noun, a farve is a pass throw in a rush without necessarily thinking about the consequences. As an adjective, a farve pass is a pass thrown in that same manner. As an adverb, someone could farvely toss the ball down the field. As a verb, one could farve it down the field.
Now, I made all that up, but with the right visual aide, I’d be willing to bet many football fans would understand it if I referred to a reckless pass as a farve.
Farve’s eagerness to compete has always been there. Even in college, there seemed to be nothing that could slow him down. Less than one month before his senior season in college, Farve was in a car accident that eventually left him with 30 inches less small intestine than he had before the accident.
Farve had that surgery Aug. 8 1990, and returned to action one month later, 30 pounds lighter.
Two years later, on Sept. 13, 1992, Farve completed his first pass as a Packer, a “farve” that was deflected by a defender and caught by Farve himself.
A week later, Farve replaced Don Majkowski, the Packers quarterback at the time, after Majkowski injured a ligament in his ankle, and led the Packers to a come-from-behind-win capped off with a game-winning touchdown pass. with 13 seconds left in the game.
Seven days later, Farve started his first game as a Packer, and the rest, well the rest is history.

Clemmens McNamee Drama

In theory, the writers’ strike would mean that we’d be without soap operas this year, but (luckily?) the sports world has produced several juicy storylines that should make up for the lack of the episodic dramas we’ve been missing.
Sitting down to write my column this month, I felt like a kid in a candy store--both because I started on Valentines Day and was surrounded by candy--and because there are so many stories right now that are a columnist’s dream.
I ended up landing on two controversies currently being discussed on Capitol Hill. One: the fallout from former senator George Mitchell’s investigation on steroids in sports and the baseball great’s Roger Clemmens/Brian McNamee story that has officially replaced the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan debacle as sports’ greatest soap opera. (In 1994 Harding was behind an successful attack on Kerrigan’s knee) And two: Congress’s investigation into the NFL’s handling of Spygate.
The McNamee/Clemmens saga started last December when the much anticipated “Mitchell Report” about steroids in sports was released. One of the higher-profile athletes mentioned was Clemmens. According to the report, Clemmens had used HGH and anabolic steroids several times. Clemmens has repeatedly denied this. McNamee, who was Clemmens’s personal trainer at the time Clemmens was allegedly juicing, has said that Clemmens has used anabolic steroids and HGH.
The interesting thing here, is that they have given these contradictory views to congress, under oath. I’m not an expert in law, but if Clemmens told the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that “I have not used steroids or growth hormone,” but McNamee has told that same committee that the he has injected Clemmens with anabolic steroids and HGH, somebody is committing perjury.
McNamee has evidence including bloody syringes and cotton balls, that he supposedly kept from the time when Clemmens was allegedly on steroids, from 2001 according to the report. I won’t lie. It’s really, really creepy to think that McNamee kept these syringes lying around all that time. But if they are truly syringes used on Clemmens to inject steroids, then however creepy, they’re still incriminating.
Bottom line, McNamee has evidence--Clemmens has only public opinion and his decreasingly good name to support him, but many, including me question why McNamee kept bloody syringes lying around for seven years.
Still, as more and more evidence begins to surface, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that Clemmens is guilty.
The tip of the iceberg, was Clemmens’s teammate Andy Pettitte’s confirmation of McNamee’s testimony regarding Pettitte’s alleged steroid use. If McNamee was telling the truth about Pettitte, I’ve got to believe that he’s telling the truth about the Clemmens.
Perhaps the most interesting, and flat out weird, aspect of these hearings though, is that the opinion among Congress members falls largely among party lines. Now, we can expect there to be a partisan response to the war in Iraq, the economy, and other issues that should be discussed on capitol hill, but over a hearing on steroids in baseball? How can this possibly manage to fall among party lines?
And by the way, what in the world does congress think it’s doing investigating the Spygate scandal? It looks as if the government is more concerned about the way the NFL handled the situation than they were with the real Watergate, which is a very bad sign.
I guess I have to admit that I secretly want congress to unearth something that would make the Patriots seem more evil, and I definitely want steroid users to be brought to justice, but I really feel strongly that they should be spending more time on congressional issues than athletics.
The bottom line is that the government has more important things, much more important things, to deal with right now. Sports were created to be a distraction, but not to distract the government!

Belichick is undeserving of COY

He cheated. He spied on his opponent and stole information to make it easier for his side to win. He was charged with his crimes at first, but then President Gerald Ford pardoned Former President Richard Nixon.
New England Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick also cheated. He also spied on his opponent and stole information that made it easier for his team to win. He too, was charged at first by the NFL handing down a record $500,000 fine, but then the sports writers of the Associated Press played the role of Gerald Ford and named Belichick (the same Belichick that spied on the New York Jets) as the coach of the year in the NFL.
It is a disgrace that Belichick was named the coach of the year.
To any New England fan reading this, I feel your eyes rolling and I hear you yelling from here. Yes, the New England Patriots had perhaps the best season in the history of the NFL. Yes, they were just the fourth team to go undefeated in the history of the NFL, only the second to do so in the modern era, and the first to do so in a 16-game season.
I don’t deny that at least some of that has to do with Belichick.
But, even if they went 16-0, they, um cheated. They probably would have been undefeated even if they hadn’t cheated, but they did.
But they cheated, and if If you cheat, you shouldn’t win an award.
To recap, the Patriots cheated in the first week of the season by videotaping the defensive signals from the New York Jets’ sideline. With this knowledge, the Patriots were able to change the plays they called on offense and exploit the weakness of the defense.
Many people question how much the cheating actually helped the Patriots. But, the point is not how much it helped them, the point is that they cheated.
If a marathon runner were to jump out to a 10-minute lead on his nearest competitor, he would be guaranteed to win, but if he got on a bus after 20 miles and drove across the finish line, he’d be disqualified-- not named to the olympic team! . The Patriots were clearly the better team when they took the field against the New York Jets. But, they stole the Jets defensive signals, and took the bus into the endzone.
Even if they didn’t cheat, I don’t know if Belichick was the best coach in the league this year.
First off, let’s look at Mike McCarthy’s accomplishments in Green Bay. Last year was McCarthy’s first year in Green Bay and he lead the team to an 8-8 year, doubling their 2005 win total of four. Now, in his second year, he has added another five wins to last year’s already impressive turnaround.
I personally think McCarthy is the best candidate, but I am a huge Packers fan, so here are two other coaches that are deserving:
Joe Gibbs led the Washington Redskins to a 9-7 year and came in third in their division, normally not Coach of the Year material.
On December 2nd, the Skins had lost three straight games and needed a win against the Bears to have any chance of making the playoffs. But this crucial game was the least important thing on their minds.
Five days before game day, Redskins safety Sean Taylor was murdered.
The Redskins lost the emotional game 17-16, and it seemed as if the season was over; the Redskins had a slain teammate, a four-game losing streak, and were two games under the .500 mark.
If that wasn’t enough, the Redskins next four games included tilts against their division rivals, the New York Giants and the Dallas Cowboys.
This where Gibbs started to show his stuff. Somewhere in the Redskins team meeting, Gibbs got the team to buckle down on their next four games. Somehow, against all odds, the Redskins won all four of those games and locked up a playoff berth.
I don’t care if they lost in the first round of the playoffs, any coach who can lead the Redskins past all their troubles and into the playoffs deserves a COY nomination.
Another nominee is Wade Phillips, the coach of the Dallas Cowboys. In his first year as head coach, Phillips led the Cowboys to the NFC’s best record. Normally a new coach means at least one sub-par season of rebuilding, but Phillips jumped right in to immediate success. He deserves some accolade for that.
When all’s said and done, there are plenty of other coaches who deserved the Coach of the Year award. Sure, no others went undefeated, but, none of the others cheated, and they have impressive things on their resumes too.

12-0 Hawaii's Low Ranking Proves That The BCS is Completley Out of WAC

The college football season is over, and that can mean only one thing: it's time for me to start complaining about the BCS. The Bowl Championship Series, for those of you who don't know, is the illegitimate child of a utopian idea. That idea was a way of ranking college football teams using a computer ranking system to determine the teams that are statistically the best.
At the end of the season, the two "best" teams (according to the BCS) get to play for the national title. Sometimes, it works out fine. Sometimes. Usually, it spits out a controversial match up that may leave the best teams out of the title game.

This year is no different.

The "championship" game pits the 11-1 Ohio State Buckeyes against the 10-2 Louisiana State Tigers. Normally, losing one game in the regular season eliminates a team from the national championship game. Normally. Normally losing two games drops a team out of the top ten. Normally. (Then again, normally Notre Dame's football team could beat a Pop Warner team...)

Anyway, this year, there is an undefeated team, although they have the weakest schedule in the nation (this means that while they have won all their games, they have not beat any notable opponents). So, at 12-0, the University of Hawaii Warriors are the 10th best team in the country according to all major college football polls, legitimate and BCS.

Okay, so I get it that Louisiana State and Ohio State have played much tougher competition than the junior varsity teams Hawaii has played most of the year. But the Buckeyes of Ohio State and the Tigers of Louisiana State did manage to do one thing that the Warriors did not, namely lose a game.

But it’s not as if Hawaii has squeaked by. The Warriors averaged over 40 points a game, never scored fewer than 28 (and even that it did only once) scored over 40 points eight times, scored over 50 points four times and broke the 60 point threshold twice. The Warriors average margin of victory: 22 points.

To translate that for those who don't speak football: they scored a lot of points and also usually won by a lot.

A similar situation happened last year. The Boise State Broncos, (who play in the same conference as the Warriors) finished off the year undefeated and were not in the title game also because of their weak schedule.

But last year, they (Boise State) were not the only undefeated team, so it was less absurd that they didn't play for the title game, although they were one of two undefeateds. But then again, Florida, the one-loss team that leapfrogged the Broncos last year did breeze past Ohio State to take the National Championship.

Hawaii can't entirely be blamed for their (lack of a) schedule. First of all, since they play in Hawaii, it’s hard for them to persuade other schools to make the flight out. If Hawaii had more national respect, they would be more successful getting teams to come out, but because they are five hours-plus from the West Coast, it’s a rather hard sell. Also, since they have no national respect, teams do not want to waste a home game. (Although I do suspect scheduling is slightly easier now that the school dropped “Rainbow” from its nickname).

Another thing, it's not as if Hawaii hasn't tried to schedule tough opponents. In fact, they had scheduled to play the Michigan Wolverines, but Michigan paid quarter of a million dollar fine to cancel the game and replace the Warriors with 1-AA Appalachian State, the equivalent of Venice scheduling a game against Mark Twain. If you follow college football you'll remember that that turned out to be a very stupid move when Appalachian State pulled off the upset of the century.

Maybe Hawaii will be blown out by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl on New Years Day. Maybe their first game against talented competition will be their first loss.

But what if Hawaii wins? What if the national champion is not undefeated and doesn’t have the best record in the country? For the second year in a row.

We need a playoff system in college football. Period. But what do we have? We have Bowl Games. The arguments for the 85 trillion bowl games are legitimate ideas, like the BCS, but also like the BCS, are pointless. People will tell you that having bowl games give more teams the opportunity for success, and this is definitely true, but if there was a tournament in college football it would be the mark of a successful season to reach the tournament. (Like it is in basketball). Playoffs would also crown a more legitimate national champ (like they do in basketball). But the idea of a national champion in football is largely token, given that teams only play 13 or 14 games at most, and flukes can ruin a season.

Rebounding From Donagate

Over the summer, a story broke that was an absolute sucker punch to the stomach of NBA fans everywhere. Tim Donaghy, a 13-year veteran referee of the NBA, was discovered to have bet on numerous NBA games. This would have been a disgrace enough, but the story didn't end there. Donaghy bet on games that he officiated. He also released information to other bookies that was supposed to be classified, regarding player's injuries. He also released information about the officiating tendencies of other referees.
The disgraced referee allegedly fixed games he officiated by calling enough fouls to make sure that the team he bet on scored enough points to beat the point spread, or call enough fouls on the underdog to ensure that the spread was not beat, depending on how he bet.
In August, Donaghy stood before a federal court in Brooklyn and pled guilty to conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting wagering information through interstate commerce.
As part of this plea agreement, Donaghy paid $30,000 dollars to the government, the amount he received for disclosing classified information regarding injuries and other officials habits.
Now, the NBA must prove to its fans that Donaghy was indeed an isolated rogue official, something that will be increasingly difficult as reports begin to surface that there were other officials involved in the scandal.
Reports on Espn.com cite anonymous sources who claim that six officials have been disciplined by the NBA since Donagate broke in July, although the source claims that the referees were not related to the scandal and were punished for minor infractions only and did not bet on NBA games.
The NBA however, has denied these reports, but NBA commissioner David Stern did announce that the league has looked into "policy violations" committed by other referees.
So, the essentially, the NBA has said that something bad happened, more accurately, the statements from Stern and league spokesman Tim Frank have made seem as ambiguous as saying that something ungood has happened.
Which, unfortunately, sets the precedent of conspiracy that the rest of the season will carry with it.
Even if Donaghy was indeed a "isolated, rouge, criminal" as Stern has labeled him seemingly eight trillion times, it's not likely many people will buy it.
Personally, I don't know if Donaghy was truly the only one, and I doubt that Stern does either. I don't mean to criticize Stern here, but I see no way that he can know entirely.
Now, every close call made by any official in the NBA, will be scrutinized. Genuine mistakes will be evidence for indictments, and whenever a team wins a close game, the opposing fans will undoubtedly scream that the game was fixed.
Okay, so that part of it is nothing new, but now there will be reason to think they're right.
The real losers in all of this, apart from the players who lost games they may have otherwise won, are the clean refs in the NBA, who I hope to God do in fact exist. While refs have never been viewed with great respect, NBA refs in particular are now all associated with Donaghy and therefore treated as scum.
Additionally, NBA games may now resemble street ball pick-up games now, because refs will be so reluctant to call fouls that they will end up missing fouls that they should call. If that habit gets pointed out, we'll see the opposite effect within a month.
All in all, it will be a roller coaster season in the NBA.

More Steroids Ranting!

Baseball has been around since the late 1800s. Its longevity gives it an amazing aura, but it also frames the changes that our time has seen. The biggest example is the 500 home run club. In its first 120 seasons, MLB saw 14 players join the club. This year alone, four players are on pace to join the once exclusive club.
This is exhibit A in the murder trial of Human Growth Hormone, performance- enhancing drugs and miscellaneous steroids vs. Major League Baseball.
Granted, the increase in players who have hit 500 home runs is not quite as shocking as it would seem. Although the MLB dates back to 1887, the Live Ball Era began only in 1920. For the first 33 years, baseball was a different game, and home runs came around about once every ice age, due to differences in the ball and the way it was thrown.
Nowadays, every time a ball gets dirty, it is replaced. Every time a ball is hit into the stands, it is replaced. But it wasn't always that way.
In the old days, balls were replaced as often as public school textbooks--even rare home run balls were required to be thrown back to the field so they could be reused. Because of this, the ball, which was softer to begin with and would soften as the game went on, meaning that it would be near impossible to hit a home run.
Pitchers were also kept in for almost the entire game, so by the end of the game, fatigue would set in and batters would get no decent pitches to hit. In addition, batting was complicated because the spitball was legal, so the batter would get a shower of sweat on every pitch.
Baseball still only saw 14 players hit 500 homers through last year. It still only happened about once every five years. Not four times in one year.
Consider also that pitch speeds have dramatically increased, making it harder to see the ball.
But along with the changes in the game, have come changes in the world. Like, hmm...oh yeah, steroids!
The onset of performance-enhancing drugs in the 1980s, almost immediately began to spike home run statistics. Nowadays, steroids are showing their ugly face more than ever before, because drug tests don't scare players away, since "designer steroids" have the same effects without showing up on drug tests. The drug tests are the problem. They need to add a common sense element to the drug tests. If, and I only use Barry Bonds because he is the most obvious example, you look at a picture of the young Bonds, it would take a close look and a little bit of trust to believe he is the same player we know today. Don't believe me? Look for a picture of the rookie Barry Bonds on Google, and look at a picture of him now. Immense gains in muscle mass are not typical result of the aging process.
Another example, Frank Thomas, started out lanky, then mysteriously gained muscle mass. Mark McGwire also mysteriously gained muscle mass and lost hair due to aging at the same time. Sammy Sosa was also originally lanky. Manny Ramirez started out strong, but not as beefy as he is now.
Let's look at the other side of the coin. Babe Ruth started out fat, finished off fat. Honus Wagner (old time baseball player, considered to be the best shortstop who ever lived) was stocky, and gained weight if anything over the course of his career. To be fair, steroids weren't much of an issue in Wagner's day but he forced tobacco companies to stop circulation of his card (baseball cards were originally "prizes" given along with packs of cigarettes) because he was opposed to smoking, so I doubt he would take steroids.
I just hope that MLB gets way more strict on steroids, before I have to tell my grandkids stories about how hitting 500 home runs over the course of a career was significant. After all, baseball players are getting enough help with the longer seasons, smaller ballparks, and constantly replaced, hittable balls.

note: his was added after i recieved a comment, and is a response to that comment.
I looked up Frank Thomas and saw pictures of his rookie season. He looked pretty lanky to me. i agree, the change wasn't as dramatic as Bonds and maybe I was a little to accusitory, but what are you gonna due. Thanks for the comments.

Baseball's Most Significant Record Is In Perilous Danger

If and when Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron’s record for the most home runs in a career, the most significant record in all of professional sports will mean about as much as setting a record set on a particularly unrealistic video game on the easiest difficulty level.
The fact is, that Bonds, as well as numerous other athletes, are cheating. In particular, most people believe Bonds has injected himself and taken in pill form several different performance enhancing steroids.
The classic defense used by Bonds and his fans, is “but he passes drug tests!” The only issue with saying that, is that steroids are a whole different ballgame now. Bonds and others are taking “designer steroids,” made to beat the tests.
According to the, book , “Game of Shadows,” which is the biggest piece of evidence against Bonds and other athletes, Bonds’s personal trainer Greg Anderson says on tape that he had obtained steroids for Bonds that could beat the tests.
To me, what makes this so depressing is that Bonds was not always the lying, dirty, cheating scum that he is now. I know, its a pretty powerful indictment, but I for one am not particularly fond of how steroids are turning professional baseball into a game that involves no talent beyond lying. In my opinion, the athletes should leave the lying and deceiving to politicians.
Anyway, Bonds hit the majority of the home runs of his career before he began shooting up behind the toilets in the locker room in San Francisco. Okay, I’m making assumptions there-- I have no proof where he took them, maybe he shot up in the comfort of his own home.
It really is depressing though, to look at Bonds in the beginning of his career, and now. His rookie picture shows a lanky, tall and thin outfielder with a lot of promise. Now, at 42, he is beefy, and to the untrained or lazy observer, looks like a completely different player. Consider also that his beef-ization happened after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa also allegedly took steroids, before McGwire broke the single season home run record, which Bonds would later re-break. According to “Game of Shadows,” the record was Bonds’s inspiration. Although McGwire also broke the record with the aid of steroids, although the public outrage at McGwire was non-existent mainly because it was not known that he was dirty.
In a way, you’ve got to feel a little sorry for Bonds. It must stink to be booed more than a national enemy at all of your away games. Then again, he kinda did it to himself by ruining baseball.
Despite what it seems like, I’m making no intention to single out Bonds, it’s just that he is the only druggy that’s about to break an important record. Heck, if I found out that the reason Brett Favre, the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers, has started 221 consecutive games was because he had been secretly injecting himself the elixir of life, I’d be willing to detest my hero. By the same token, if I found out that Kobe Bryant was injecting himself, I’d be ticked off at him too.
If Bonds does break the record, and here’s to hoping that he is stricken with a sudden outbreak of character and retires before he makes the title of Home Run King meaningless, there should be an asterisk next to his name in the record book. He should get credit for the mind-boggling number of homers he hit before he took steroids, and next to that number should go the asterisk, which would say that he hit more homers than Aaron, but he hit the rest when he was on steroids.


The following is a rewrite of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A Changin’” written to convey the perilous state steroids have put baseball into.

Come gather round people, wherever you roam, and admit that the number of homers has grown, and accept that soon, old records will be gone, if baseball to you is worth saving, then cheer the clean players and boo the drugged ones, for baseball’s records, they are in danger.

Rex Grossman Stinks! In Other News

When I think of the Super Bowl, I think of many things, football, commercials, Janet Jackson, but pretty colors and weird music are not among them. Neither are you Prince.
You have the most manly, good old “American” four hours of television of the year, and you fill it with Cirque du Soleil?! Honestly, I can’t imagine what the Super Bowl coordinators were thinking. When people watch the Super Bowl, they do not want to see anything un-American, least of all French. It’s not that I have anything against the French, but, to quote British comedian Eddy Izzard, “they do have a tendency to be, you know, French”
Actually, I have a lot of respect for the performers in Cirque Du Soleil, it takes a great deal of coordination to do whatever it is they do. Still, that does not mean that I condone their performance during the pre-game show of a Super Bowl.
As for the football aspect of the Super Bowl, and yes, those of you who may watch the game solely for its commercials, it is actually a football game, not only a commercial filled halftime show.
I can sum up the reason why the Indianapolis Colts beat the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl 41 by a 29-17 score in two words: Rex Grossman.
I can sum up his performance in two words: gross, man!
Actually, if you look at Grossman’s quarterback stats, he wasn’t all that bad. He only threw eight incomplete passes, compared to twenty complete, and if you count the one which he happened to throw to the wrong team, he had two TD passes. His QB rating of 63.8 beats his season low by 63.8. (Grossman recorded the NFL’s first-ever 0.0 quarterback rating on New Year’s Eve against the Green Bay Packers.)
Oh, let’s not forget his two fumbled snaps. If I was being kind to Grossman, I would say that fumbling the snap is about one percent the fault of the center. But that would be too kind for Grossman.
Actually, I gotta hand it to him (what’s the point, he’d drop it anyway). He did provide me with a boatload of laughs. (Speaking of a boat, the teams on the field could have used one with all the rain that fell over the course of the game)
Moving on to more examples of how Rex Grossman just plain failed. On one of the snaps which he dropped, he tried to pick it up, and it actually fell through his legs a second time. That was really, really funny.
The Super Bowl as a whole however—not too funny. This is sad, considering it had so much potential, so much firepower on the field. And yet, the rain doused the firepower. This was the most evenly matched Super Bowl in as long as I can remember, and it ended nothing short of a blowout. Although it was really only a 12-point game, as far as momentum and domination are concerned, it might as well have been a 1,200-point game. It wouldn’t have made a difference.
But what else is new? Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre is returning for another season (his 17th season, and 16th as a starter for Green Bay), Rex Grossman choked in a big game, and the Bear’s Devin Hester ran back a kickoff for a touchdown. (In a related story, the sky is blue.)

Astronomers Discover Shiny New Star In LA Galaxy

Why would David Beckham, possibly the world’s most famous football player sign with the LA Galaxy, an okay-at-best team in a mediocre league?
I can give you 250 million reasons why.
Other than his record-breaking five-year, $250 million deal, Beckham and his beautiful wife Victoria are a perfect fit for LA, considering his star status (oh the irony, a star playing for the Galaxy) and his gobs and gobs (and now 250 million more gobs) of money.
But what does this mean for the Galaxy organization? I’ve come up with a list of several things this means for them.
For one, the addition of Beckham to the roster probably means that the team’s female fan base has just quadrupled. This probably means that the owners of the Galaxy’s stadium, the Home Depot Center, will have to double the number of women’s restrooms.
It also means that since Beckham’s wife will probably be attending multiple games and therefore may appear on the stadium’s big screen, possibly doubling the team’s male fan base.
The players also must to brace themselves for the attacks of the English press, who will undoubtedly be jumping at every opportunity to expose the team for what it really is: mediocre.
Perhaps the biggest thing the Galaxy has to prepare for, is the date that Beckham retires, and people resume not caring about football in Los Angeles. The Galaxy must take a lesson from the former North American Soccer Association, who experienced a jolt in popularity in the late 1970s due to the hiring of football legend Pele, along with other stars from around the world.
Pele played for the New York Cosmos, ironically another astronomically talented player playing for a team with an astronomy-related name. Although the Cosmos, and the rest of the league did enjoy temporary popularity which rivaled the other New York (American) football teams, they league folded in 1984, almost immediately after Pele and co. retired.
One also needs to wonder where in the world the Galaxy came up with $250 million. Beckham’s ginormous salary is equal to 25 times what the rest of the team is making...combined.
Here, the Galaxy should look to the Cosmos for advice. Before hiring Pele, the Cosmos played on a field which was more dirt than grass. Actually, they spray painted the field green for Pele’s arrival to try and make him think he was playing on grass. Somehow the Cosmos found enough money to pay Pele, so maybe the Galaxy can find an extra 250 million laying around.
What does this mean for the quality of play the Galaxy will put on the pitch (American translation: field)? It means that their right attacking midfielder (if that’s where Beckham will play in LA) will be amazing, and the rest of the team will continue to be, well, the LA Galaxy. We can probably expect to see an increase in scoring, due to Beckham bending inch perfect crosses like, well, Beckham.
In addition, we may see an increase in diving by the Galaxy players, since their shiny new toy that is David Beckham is so precise on free kicks. We should also be prepared to see corner kicks as they were meant to be taken.
So far, it seems like the Galaxy will benefit from Beckham, but will probably fall to the ground hard when he retires. But my biggest hope as a fan of the Galaxy is that I never have to hear the reunion tour of Beckham’s wife’s group the, Spice Girls, singing the national anthem. Not because they aren’t American, but because hey—who really wants to hear the Spice Girls?


.

BCS Rant (and this is actually the short version)

It’s that time of year again. As we look towards winter break, we look forward to days beginning at noon, presents under the tree or next to the menorah, a new year, and a big juicy controversy in college football.
Yes, it’s the season to give, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the Bowl Championship Series will give us yet another juicy controversy, just as it has in five of the eight years of it’s existence.
The BCS is the ranking system used by the NCAA to determine the national champion of Division 1-A college football. It was also given the task of selecting teams to play in BCS Bowl games, prestigious games pitting the champions of the “BCS conferences” against the highest rated teams, it is a system so controversial that I actually just copy-pasted “controversy” to save time typing up this column.
The system was implemented in the 1998 season, replacing the “Bowl Alliance” which was in place from 1995 to 1997. In fact, in the first season that it was in place, the BCS created controversy. Kansas State finished third in the BCS standings, but because they did not win their conference championship, they did not get to play in a BCS Bowl..
The BCS realized its mistake and instituted “The Kansas State Rule,” or as I like to call it “ The 1998 Common Sense Provision,” which guaranteed the team finishing third in the BCS gets a spot in a bowl game, even if it didn’t win its conference championship.
The next debacle, and probably one of the more embarrassing ones, came in the 2000 season. The national championship game featured Oklahoma; undefeated and ranked no. 1 by all major polls, against Florida State, a one-loss team ranked number three by both “human polls.”
The reason that Florida State was ranked number three by both human polls, is that their loss was to the number two team. Despite this, Florida State was ranked ahead of the team that beat them in the BCS, and earned them opportunity, which they capitalized on, to completely embarrass themselves in the final.
Perhaps the most fun controversy to date came in 2003. Now, with all respect to the BCS, there was no clear no. 1 team at the end of the season. Three teams from BCS conferences finished the season with one loss, no teams anywhere finished undefeated. USC was ranked no. 1 by both human polls, but had a feeble schedule which dropped their computer ranking to third, because one of the components in the computer ranking is strength of schedule. Oklahoma was ranked number three in the human polls and ranked—well I’ll let you guess their ranking in the BCS….Need more time…Ok, so lets recap. The team ranked no. 1 in the human polls was according to the computers not worthy of playing for glory, and the team ranked by the human polls as number three, as you’ve just figured out, set as the number one team by the computer rankings of the BCS. Louisiana State was ranked number two by both polls.
LSU won the BCS championship, and as a result the no. 1 ranking in the coaches poll, but USC also one the national title with their victory in the Rose Bowl. Coincidently, they did this by defeating Michigan. If Michigan avenges that defeat New Years’ Day, they could claim half a title if Florida manages to upset Ohio State.
That situation with Michigan is evident of the controversy that the BCS presented us this year. It is actually quite similar to what happened to Kansas State in 1998. Michigan and Ohio State both played through the first portion of their season 11-0. The schools, who are two of the biggest rivals in college sports, met each other in the last game of their regular season. Ohio State won the game, but barley. The loss dropped Michigan to number three in the BCS rankings, and allowed USC to take its familiar position of title contender.
Whatever omniscient and seriously confused spirit controls college football decided that letting USC win out would be to easy. And I have to admit, even as a Trojan fan, it was starting to get a little old. So anyway, the Men of Troy seriously messed things up by losing to UCLA. That opened up the number two spot for debate. The University of Florida and Michigan both also had only one loss. For the past three weeks, Michigan had nothing to do but watch USC win, study for final exams, and wonder what could have happened if they had managed to beat Ohio State. Meanwhile, Florida finished off their season, impressing the human voters.
In the end, Florida was the number two team, .0101 ahead of Michigan. The Gator’s miniscule advantage came only in the human polls. Michigan had a huge disadvantage here because their last game was a loss, while Florida’s last game was a conference championship game. They were almost exactly even in any measurable category, and the human pollsters succumbed to human nature.
I’m not one to judge a gift horse by its teeth, but I’m kind getting tired of these controversies. Maybe next year the NCAA will surprise us with an actual gift: a college football playoff! All of the drama of “March Madness,” the emotion of a Bowl Game, for four weeks straight, that’d be a paradise.


To bad there’s not a chance.

The Worst World Series (And Thats Saying Something)

Baseball is supposed to be a beautiful game. It is supposed to flow, to have that magnificently tense feel, despite the lack of nonstop action which rivals golf. It is the simplest game, yet the most complex.
The individuality of the pitchers wind-up, the blur of white that is a 90-mph fastball, the swing of the wooden bat, the crack of the ball on the sweet spot… Nothing quite like it; nothing at all.
Normally, the champions of the two leagues that make up the Major League, the National and American, play in the World Series. They’ve done it every year since 1903, with the exceptions of 1904, because it was not an established tradition and 1994 because of a players’ strike.
The World Series is supposed to be one of the most holy spectacles in all professional sports. The previous series lived up to that expectation. This year’s series did not. The biggest difference between this year, and the other 100 series, was that this year, nobody really won.
Yes, Cards fans, I can hear you yelling from here. I know, the St. Louis Cardinals did win the World Series in five games, but they really didn’t win, per se. They just played good-enough baseball and watched the Tigers choke on glory.
The Tigers played so terribly, St. Louis could have easily let their AA affiliates (the middle level of three minor league teams) the Springfield Cardinals play, and they probably still would have won.
Don’t get me wrong, I give credit where credit is due. The Cardinals did play well enough in the 162-game regular season to make the playoffs, and they easily defeated the Padres and Mets in the National League Playoffs, but when it came to the World Series all they did was avoid choking.
Or maybe the Tigers didn’t choke…Maybe they just froze in the terrible, cold and rainy weather Detroit offered. Whatever it was, the Tigers didn’t just play poorly, they played like amateurs (no offense, amateurs). Before I present evidence of how terribly the Tigers played, small and easily impressionable children may want to stop reading. In addition, those with heart conditions are advised to skip the next few paragraphs. There’s nothing dirty, but it is really sad.
The Tigers committed eight fielding errors in five games. That allowed eight unearned runs, the most allowed by a team in the World Series in 50 years. That’s not just bad—that is unexplainably awful.
The Tigers couldn’t get on base if their lives depended on it. As a team, they had a .199 batting average in the World Series—and they weren’t exactly stepping into the batters’ box against hall of fame pitchers. Instead, the Cardinals sent a bunch of young pitchers up to the mound, and still got the best of the Tigers.
Not even Placido Polanco, the Tigers slugger, who was batting.471 in the first two rounds of the playoffs; was able to hit a barn door with a banjo in the fall classic. The Tigers “slugger” hit a depressing 0-17, .000 against the young relatively inexperienced pitching staff of the Cards.
Polanco wasn’t alone in the category of key players letting their team down. Kenny Rodgers, Detroit’s pitching ace, also put his mark on the series. Rodgers embarrassed himself and his team—for that matter the sport, by winning a game. He pitched eight scoreless innings in game two, and at the same time disgraced the series. He embarrassed the series because of the “dirt smudge” found on his right hand.
Depending on who you ask, it wasn’t dirt at all. Allegedly, the substance was pine tar, a substance sometimes used legally by batters, and illegally by pitchers, to enhance grip.
Regardless of what it was, and I have my doubts about the “dirt defense.” The smudge of whatever-it-was also joined on the beating up of this series.
I won’t even talk about the terrible baserunning display the Tigers put on, except to say that it looked more like the “before” picture of a baseball fundamentals DVD than it did a Major League Baseball team.
But what can you do? Thankfully, we only have to wait until April before the new season. Hopefully the local Little League coach can teach the Tigers how to play by then.

Published for the November 22 issue of The Oarsman

Enough Allready!

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Enough Allready!
I thought I’d seen it all when I saw hockey player Marty McSorley slash an opponent on the neck with his stick. I hadn’t. I thought I’d seen enough when I saw basketball’s Jermaine O'Neal go into the stands and attack a fan. I hadn’t. I thought I’d seen it all when I saw Phoenix Suns baller, Raja Bell, slam Kobe Bryant to the ground by the neck. I hadn’t. Now, in the name of sports, I hope and plead that I’ve seen enough after watching the 5-minute brawl between players on the University of Miami and Florida International football teams.As a hockey fan, I’ve seen some pretty creative attacks, but never in my life had I even imagined seeing a football player attack another player with his helmet. That is, until my innocent vision of sports was blurred when I watched the disgusting brawl on Sportscenter on Oct 14 . The vicious riot in Miami escalated from a minor scuffle, a harmless scrap that adds flavor to the soup of the game, to an uncontrollable melee, which was like adding ten tons of garlic to an 8 oz. cup of soup.The fight resulted in 31 players being suspended. Before I discuss how ineffective a simple suspension is, I’d like to point out that at any given time, there are only 22 players on the field. All players involved were eventually suspended for the remainder of the season, and one player was suspended indefinitely—and he was only suspended indefinitely because he was using his helmet like a medieval armament. He should not be suspended indefinitely, he should be arrested and in a state penitentiary indefinitely.It gets worse. Initially, the players involved in the fight, which required police intervention to be stopped, were initially suspended for only one game. Thank goodness the Atlantic Coast Conference came to its senses and changed the laughable one-game suspensions to slightly less laughable suspensions for the rest of the season, meaning that both teams will be without most of their starters. Given the intensity of the brawl, suspending players for the rest of the season really isn’t enough. I’d venture, far enough to say that program sanctions--a year off from competitive play next season--are necessary.The real losers in all of this are the students of Florida International University. A month ago, if somebody said they went to Florida International, a standard response might have been, “Florida What?” Now, if somebody said they went to Florida International, the more standard response would be a timid “Oh”. At least Miami is a big name university famous for things other than the disgraced football fight.Those who lost even more are the players from Florida International not involved in the debacle. For anybody to tell their grandkids that they played college football, it makes a great bedtime story. When the benchwarmers not involved in the madness tell their grandkids about their days playing college ball at Florida International, it’ll be a pg-13 if not R-rated horror story.

Originally Published For October Issue of The Oarsman

Whats Wrong With Polytrack?!

Barbaro was the kind of horse who was no less an athlete and deserved no less respect than Pele, Ronaldo, Michael Jordan, or any human athlete. He was supposed to be a shoo-in for the Triple Crown, the three most prestigious races in horse racing, and it is one of the most prestigious awards in all of sports. Barbaro won the first of these three races, the Kentucky Derby by one of the largest margins in race history. He entered the second race, The Preakness, with even money odds. It looked as if the most recent Triple Crown winner Secretariat would have to make room for a new hero-horse.
Shockingly and sadly, Barbaro shattered his right hind leg in the beginning of the Preakness, instantly ending his career, and seriously jeopardizing his life.
The only positive note than can come out of that, is that Barbaro will probably survive, a victory far greater than winning the Triple Crown.
After watching its poster-horse instantly end his career, it would seem obvious that track owners should convert more tracks to Polytrack, a synthetic "fake" dirt that is safer for the horses. However, track owners and National Thoroughbred Racing Association officials continue to widely reject the use of Polytrack, because they fear that because it is a faster surface, age old records would be shattered, and the new records would be insignificant.
To think that this could save the lives of many horses in the future, yet that horse racing purists have looked the other way, raises serious questions about the ethics of a sport that is already underfire.
While Polytrack would not eliminate racing injuries, it would bring the number of injuries down a great deal. At one particular California racetrack, after eight months of racing on Polytrack, only three horses had to be euthanized because of racing injuries, compared to eight horses in a single month at that same track before Polytrack was installed.
If the "safer" alternative still kills three horses, animal rights groups have enough of a case against horse racing, yet the purists aloofly push away the complaints, balking that the use of Polytrack would jeopardize the integrity of the existing records. This implies the big shots at the NTRA care more about the safety of arbitrary records than they do about the safety of the horses. They don't want past records broken, so they keep the horses from breaking them by making the sport unsafe.
Personally, I feel disgusted with myself that I have respected horse racing as a sport this long.
The day Barbaro injured his leg was a tragic day for racing and should not be the basis of jokes or headline-puns. And if I seem to be ranting from my soapbox, then forgive me for caring about living things.
After weighing all the circumstances, I still for the life of me can't figure out why track owners are against Polytrack.
Equally shocking, is how so many members of the community have rallied behind the injured Barbaro, yet nobody is willing to acknowledge that horse racing is an extremely dangerous and unethical sport.
Also disturbing, is how a horse breaking its leg is only front page news because Barbaro was the Paris Hilton of the racing world. It is not a rare occurrence for horses to have to be put down. In addition, if it is reported in the media, which it often isn't, it is relegated to the bottom corner of the inside of the back page.
My heart goes out to Barbaro's wonderful vet staff. You are as much heroes as emergency room doctors. My hat is off to you Barbaro; I wish you a speedy effective recovery.
It really makes one think, if I may steel a line from Bob Dylan, how many deaths, will it take till we know, that too many horses have died?

Note: This was written for the June 2006 Issue of The Oarsman.