On Steroids In America

This got lost in the shuffle while I was traveling, and thus I haven't mentioned it before, but I wanted to put out there that I consider this required reading for anyone who has serious interest in the matter of performance enhancing drugs in sports. The link is to the first of a 3 part feature that ran in this week's Sports Illustrated, entitled "Steroids in America". Links to the other parts are available from the first link.

I found this feature to be excellent for a number of reasons. First of all, it was the first attempt I've encountered in the mainstream media to frame the debate raging around the use of steroids and HGH in sports within the larger context of their use in American society. For the most part, coverage has gone in reverse on this issue, focusing on the problem of steroids in sports, and then moving on to a larger scope, one which for the most part only ends up encompassing use by young athletes. The feature makes it quite clear that these drugs are rampant throughout society, and not just in the sporting sector. Law enforcement, Hollywood, and hip-hop are the major areas that are discussed, but they also talk about the growing number of regular citizens who are using HGH/testosterone in an effort to fend off some of the effects of aging.

The feature also points out how the legitimate medical community has been woefully behind the curve in addressing the effectiveness and impact of steroids, due to some very poor initial interaction with performance enhancers as they began to come into use. The reality is that, in a lot of cases, we're having discussions about things that we really don't fully understand yet, in terms of their long term effects, both positive and negative.

However, what I enjoyed the most was the look into the future. Right now, the debate regarding performance enhancers in sports can be relatively straightforward. What are being widely used now are controlled substances, are illegal, and have (or are at least perceived to have) dangerous side-effects. However, as our understanding of genetics advances, we may be on the verge of being able to effect "performance enhancement" at the genetic level, through gene therapy/transfer. For instance, scientists have done genetic work with mice that allowed them to double their muscle mass in a matter of weeks, without any actual exercise routine. Steroids, eat your heart out. As you might expect, athletes are looking at being on the leading edge of this. What the medical community that is pursuing all of this fears is that, much as has happened with steroids, the "misuse" by athletes and the controversy surrounding that will stigmatize what they foresee as incredible, legitimate medical breakthroughs that have the potential to seriously impact the lives of those with significant ailments in a positive way.

Ultimately, we're going to have to deal with the question of what we want/expect our athletes to be. In my opinion, society is rather conflicted on that, even though most people aren't necessarily aware of it. I point out that conflict like this: If a player takes steroids to help him get stronger, he's cheating. However, if a player gets laser vision correction to help him see better, he's not. Both are artificial methods that have performance enhancing capabilities. Right now, that conflict is one we don't have to really deal with. Steroids are illegal and potentially dangerous, laser vision correction, not so much. At some point in the future, that easy distinction of legality/danger is going to be taken away, but I do not believe that the conflict will disappear. I think steroids/performance enhancing drugs in sports offend the sensibilities of the average fan on a level that goes beyond their illegality and any potential danger associated with them.

The anti-rant rant

As promised, here it is: My annual post-NCAA tournament selection rant. And it's probably a lot different than most post-selection rants you've ever encountered. You see, most post-selection rants involve explaining why team A should have gotten in (sometimes, but not always, identifying the team B they should replace) There's usually negative language directed at the tournament selection committee, and the rant tends to contain emotion laden words like "screwed", "snubbed", "raw deal", and two of my personal favorite when applied in reference to something in sports "injustice" and "travesty". And generally, you'll see someone calling for the tournament to expand, perhaps even going as far as suggesting that there should be another full round added, taking the tournament from it's current 65 teams to 128.

No, you see, my rant will not be one of these kind of rants. In fact, my rant will be about those rants. I was actually, in many ways, quite thankful to be travelling yesterday, because it allowed me an easy way to avoid all the post-selection madness, which, based on the radio this morning, was relatively muted this year, but still very much present.

Allow me to frame these kind of rants in a bit of perspective. There are approximately 340 schools with Division I basketball programs at present. So, that means that with the current tournament size of 65 teams, about 20% of all Division I teams get an invitation to the NCAA tournament. Now, 31 of those are automatic bids that go to conference champions, leaving 34 bids as at-large bids to be awarded at the discretion of the selection committee. So, for the sake of insanity, let us assume that, by some major fluke, in a given year, all 31 automatic bids wind up in the hands of teams that would clearly not be tournament caliber. This would very likely never happen, but is, I suppose, possible due to the fact that most conferences, including all of the major conferences, award their automatic bids based on the conference tournament, rather than the regular season. But if it did happen, the committee would still be left with the ability to invite what it believed to be the top 10% of Division I teams to play for the national championship. In most years, the lowest seeded at-large teams wind up in the 11-12 seed range, so typically in order to be selected as an at-large, you're generally going to have to convince the committee you're among the best 45 teams in the country.

I lay all that out to say this - if over the course of a 30+ game regular season, your team has failed to demonstrate clearly that it is among the best 45 teams in the country, then in my opinion, you have clearly demonstrated that you are NOT the best team in the country, and thus you don't have a legitimate gripe about being excluded from the championship tournament. When you get down to the last few teams in/first few teams out, we're no longer talking about teams who have truly earned the right to play for a championship, we're talking about teams we need to use to fill spots in the bracket. I've heard teams who were among the "snubbed" referred to as teams that could "definitely have won a game or two in the tournament", as if that means something. Last time I checked, it takes 6 games to win the tournament, not one or two, and so as long as we aren't leaving out teams that have shown themselves as being capable of doing that, I think we're okay.

To get specific, let's look at the two poster child teams for "snubs" this year: Virginia Tech and Arizona State. Both teams had similar records (19-13 and 19-12, respectively). Both teams finished with about a .500 conference record (9-7 and 9-9), and neither team was in the top 3 of their conference (4th and 5th). Could either of these teams get hot and win a couple games had they been invited to the tournament? Yeah, probably. Can you make a case for their inclusion over 1 or more teams that did get invited? Probably, but it's really all subjective. Does any of that really matter? From where I sit, no. There are teams that earn the right to play for the title, and those that have it graciously bestowed upon them by the selection committee. Teams with resumes like these clearly fall into the latter category when they get into the tournament. And thus, the failure of the committee to bestow said grace in these cases falls far short of a "screw job","raw deal", or an "injustice", even in the sporting sense.

All of that is to say, I just don't care that Virginia Tech, Arizona State, and their kind aren't going to the tournament, even if a couple of similar teams are, and I never have. And neither should you, unless you happen to be a fan of one of those teams, in which case, simmer on. The only reasons I can fathom for the media's incessant fascination with these kind of teams every year are a) standard media willingness to blow up a "controversy" whenever perceived in anyway, or b) a total loss of perspective on what the tournament actually is, that being the process for determining the NCAA champion. I suspect both forces are at work. For my part, I've suggested in the past that once the selection committee gets down to the last 3-4 available spots, they should just identify a group of 6-8 "bubble" teams and do a lottery. It would be about as defensible a way to bestow these bids as current selection processes, and it would be a lot more clear cut.

Look, if you, or anyone else, wants to sit and debate the relative merits of Virginia Tech, Arizona State, and the similar teams that did get an invite to the dance, that's great. I'm not saying this isn't a worthwhile debate to have. But please, unless you have an emotional attachment to a school involved, check the heavy, emotion-laden words at the door. They just don't apply here.

Oh, and by the way, you have to love anyone whose reaction to one or two teams that they perceive as deserving being left out each year is at 63 more spots to the tournament. That's the sports equivalent of applying a tourniquet to a paper cut right there.

Heading home

Well, this will be my last post from the sunny land of Florida. I'm sitting at our gate in the Tampa airport, waiting for our flight to board in about 45 minutes, and enjoying the airport's free wireless connection. (Those greedy bastards want to charge for it in Baltimore)

We awoke to warm weather, but rather overcast skies. By 8:30 we were packed up and checked out of the hotel, on our way to the golf course. The clouds broke up about midway through the round, and we played the last several holes under beautiful blue skies. It wasn't best round ever, but given that until last night's brief stop at the driving range, I hadn't swung my clubs in 4 1/2 months, it was alright. To be honest, if this was the worst round I shoot all season (and it likely won't be), it would be a very good year.

And so, this wraps up my chronicles of my trek to Clearwater. I'll be back tomorrow with more standard content for this blog, most likely my annual rant on the fallout from NCAA tournament Selection Sunday! You may ask how I can call it an annual rant since this is the first Selection Sunday since I've started posting regular. Well, I've ranted every year for a few years, it's just now I will actually write it down and share it with the world. And actually, if you go back to the original 4 posts I made when I started this blog back in '05, I believe you'll find one of them to be a rant similar to what you are likely to see tomorrow.

Day 2 in Clearwater

Weather-wise, today was everything that yesterday was not. It was 80 degrees and sunny, with a nice steady breeze blowing to keep things cool. From a baseball perspective, it was pretty much the same story, however, as the Phillies couldn't pitch, and lost 11-2. Ryan Howard did homer in his first at-bat, which was nice, cause he's had a habit of not hitting home runs when I watch him play. We were all the way down the left field line today, but in the 3rd row, which is as close to the field as I've ever been at a pro game. Pretty cool view, really, and right where the Phillies walk while going to/from the dugout.

Unfortunately, there is no photographic evidence of today. Someone who shall remain nameless (but I will say he's the writer behind a really cool sports blog) left the memory card for his camera in the card reader in the hotel room when we left today.

So anyhow, we'll try and get some sleep tonight, then get up, pack up, grab some breakfast, play some golf, and head for the airport. These whirlwind trips are fun, but non-stop!

And then there were 4 - Falcons 2 wins away from a title

Messiah 54, Tufts 48. The Lady Falcons are going to the Final Four!

Ugly first half, with the Falcons leading 21-13, and then continuing to lead throughout for the final margin. It's a rare occurance when you get to cut the nets down in your own gym twice in a season! (First time came after the conference championship game) The ladies will play Oglethorpe next weekend for their shot at a 2nd national title game appearance in program history.

Among the elite - Falcons roar back to advance!

Well, I obviously wasn't there, but I wanted to post the update anyhow.

Messiah beats Rochester 73-61 to advance to the Elite 8 for the 3rd time in school history, and the first since 2003! That margin makes it sound like it might not have been the most exciting game ever, but you couldn't be more wrong. Messiah trailed Rochester all throughout the first half, and went into halftime down by 6. Rochester roared out further at the start of the 2nd, going on an 11-2 to run, putting the Falcons down 43-28 with 16:46 to go, and I was mentally preparing to write their obituary. But the ladies refused to die, and outscored Rochester 45-18 over the remainder of the game. Man, I really wish I could have been there, instead of listening over the internet.

The Lady Falcons will play Tufts tomorrow at 7 for the chance to move onto the Final Four for the 2nd time in program history.

Poetic justice

So, apparently my efforts to inspire hatred and jealousy went out into the universe, and brought the PM rain that was forecast into the Clearwater area a bit ahead of schedule. It started to rain about an hour and 15 minutes before gametime, and kept it up right until gametime, which led to about a 30 minute delay to the start of the game. It also kept up a drizzle for most of the game, before going back to another steady rain in the 7th. Dad and I watched the first 3 innings standing underneath cover, and then went to our seats for 4 innings, before finally leaving after the 7th. I'm fairly certain that none of the pitchers the Phillies used will actually make the major league team, and it showed, leading to the 9-1 Braves victory. Anyhow, the rain did not come until after I'd already had a chance to participate in my favorite spring training activity. When we're attending games in Clearwater, which is the case for both our games this year, Dad and I always go over right and get in as soon as the gates open. I've taken to going down and standing in the first row just to the right of the backstop, camera in hand, and watching batting practice. It's incredibly awesome to be down right next to some of my favorite players, and I always come away with some nice pictures. This year was no exception.

No idea who the dude on the left is, but the guy on the right is 2006 NL MVP Ryan Howard

I love Shane Victorino, mainly because dude is basically my size and is a very good player

My favorite player, and my dog's namesake, 2B Chase Utley

Jayson Stark, who covers the Phillies for ESPN (Leave it to me to take a picture of the sportswriter)

And So I Ask - On Location

Greetings from Clearwater, Florida, and welcome to this blog's first ever remote!

I'm here to "cover" Phillies Spring Training for the next 2 days. Okay, to be fair, my motives for being here are something less than professional, but I will do my best to let you into what I'm experiencing while I take in a couple of exhibition games with my dad.

Our trip was highly uneventful, up until the point where we arrived in the Tampa airport. Our efforts to get from our plane to the hotel were highlighted by a jammed baggage belt, me leaving one of my bags on the shuttle from the terminal to the rental car place and not realizing it for a couple minutes (thankfully the driver had left the bag behind anyhow), and the Garmin repeatedly trying to send us down roads that were under construction as we tried to get out of the airport.

But we're here safe and sound none the less.

The primary purpose of this entry, however, is for me to post this, which I'm sure will inspire some combination of hatred/envy from my Northeast/Midwest readership.

I'll check back in tomorrow, well, actually, just later today. Must sleep...

God Save the Fan

When I finished my last book, I was not necessarily sure what book I wanted to read next. None of the books I had at my immediate disposal really captured my attention. I thought I was going to read another college football/basketball book, but then I stumbled upon a little piece about God Save the Fan, a book by Will Leitch, the editor of the popular Deadspin sports blog, in that week's Sports Illustrated. I was familiar with Deadspin, but didn't really read it that often. I knew enough to know that the blog put a very humorous, satirical slant on sports, and I was interested in the premise of the book, so I picked it up.

I was not disappointed. This was easily the best book I've read so far in terms of pure entertainment value. Leitch is extremely witty, irreverant, and exceptionally insightful. He takes to task all the various forces that he believes have taken the fun out of sports for fans, and that's pretty much everyone - players, owners, and the media, and then proceeds to instruct us fans as to how he believes we can take our sports back. One thing I realized from reading the book is that, in my own writings, I was often trying to make a polished, safe take, and not really letting my own voice and opinions carry through. Not always the case of course, but I had a run of entries like that, and I'm trying to get back to them.

Of course, with someone so opiniated, I didn't even come close to agreeing with everything he said, but still he struck me as highly perceptive, and I really enjoyed his barbs against the mainstream media (Surprised, aren't you?) The thing that impressed me the most (and was most unexpected by the time I got to it) was his discussion on athletes that talk about God. Leitch is clearly not coming from a Christian perspective, and given his general level of irreverence, when I saw the title for that chapter, I stopped my reading for that day, simply because I expected he was going to upset me, and I wanted to come into it fresh. Couldn't have been more wrong. His treatment of that was one of the better ones I've seen, noticing the clear distinction between those athletes who demonstrate a genuine faith in God, and those who just throw out those words. He also grasped very well the understanding that just because an athlete believes that God was with him out there on the field, doesn't mean that he thinks God was ONLY with him. Very well done, very impressed, as I was with the book as a whole.

It's baseball time, so I will next pick one of the baseball books off my stack. In honor of my coming trip to Phillies spring training, I'll be reading Clearing the Bases, by Phillie legend and the greatest third baseman to play the game, Mike Schmidt.

Follow up

Just to follow up on last night's post, it appears that Messiah will host their NCAA women's basketball sectional this weekend.

It figures. Usually, my Dad and I take our spring training trip the last weekend the team is in Florida, which this year would be the weekend of the 22nd. But, Easter is that weekend, as I mentioned before, hence we are going this weekend.

Silly Easter and its fickle jumping around the calendar! *hides from potential lightning strike* Hopefully I will be able to find time to listen to the games via Messiah's radio webcast. I love the internet!

How Sweet it is! Lady Falcons advance!

I have to admit, I was feeling it at halftime. By it, I mean, that eerie feeling that I'd seen this play out before, and not in a good way. Here it was, the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament, and Messiah was in a real scrap with a team that I really felt they should be beating. Messiah was missing free throws, St. Lawrence was having some prayers being answered with their shots, and there was a steady rain of St. Lawrence threes going in, the last one being a rainbow from about 4 feet behind the arc that made it only a slim one point Messiah lead going into intermission, at 30-29.

Honestly, I think the Messiah players, especially the seniors, were gripping a little bit too for a lot of the game. It seemed like the failures on the home court in the 2nd round the last two years might have been there in the back of their mind. I sat there at half, hoping that what I thought I was seeing was accurate, and that Messiah's intense defensive pressure, coupled with their superior depth and the fact that St. Lawrence had been required to go the distance in their game last night, would wear the Saints down in the 2nd half.

Well, I think that happened to a degree, but there were a few other significant factors that led to the Falcons pulling away and winding up with their 64-49 victory. Perhaps the most significant was Messiah's halftime defensive adjustment. St. Lawrence's Jamie Wolff had scored 18 of St. Lawrence's 29 points, and was the culprit in St. Lawrence's 3 point barrage, hitting 4 of them in the first half. Coming out in the 2nd half, Messiah had shifted All-American Nikki Lobach over to defend her. Lobach spent most of the second half in Wolff's shorts (figuratively of course, I'm sure the NCAA would frown on the literal act), holding her scoreless. Wolff didn't even attempt a three until there were about 2 minutes to go, and let's just say, she wasn't open.

The second factor was that Messiah was able to launch their own barrage of 3s. Sharpshooter Lauren Schurr, who was 0-3 from beyond the arc in the first half, was 4-4 in the second half, and with Amy Reed tossing in a 3 of her own, was instrumental in the Messiah run that broke the game open a few minutes into the second half. Messiah was uncharacteristically poor from the free throw line, or they probably would have put the game out of reach pretty early.

The real story of the game, however, was junior center Sal Shani's coming out party. Sal has perhaps the most interesting story on the Messiah roster. My understanding (I'm not really much of an insider), is that Sal, who came to Messiah via Senegal, had not really played organized basketball prior to her time at Messiah. She was on the team as a freshman and sophomore, but saw very limited minutes as she really learned the game, despite her incredible abilities. You see, Sal is 6' 2", which usually means she is the tallest player on the court. In addition, she is generally the most athletic player on the court, and about as fast as anyone else. Had she been playing basketball for most of her life, she probably would be a D-I type talent. Even this year, her minutes have still been relatively limited in favor of the more experienced players who know how to run the offense better, and yet she's still wound up as the team's second leading scorer, and was recognized as a 1st team All-Conference performer despite only playing about 18 minutes a game, 7th on the team in that department.

Shani was just dominant inside tonight, playing 26 minutes while putting up a career-high 24 points, a career high 10 rebounds, and 3 blocked shots to go along with it. St. Lawrence just had no answer for her inside. In my opinion, Sal is the X-factor in Messiah's chances for a deep tournament run, and even a national title. Messiah already has a dominant presence on the perimeter in Lobach. If they are able to finally let Sal loose, and she can produce, their offense is going to be very difficult to stop, and that coupled with their ever present intense defense is going to be a potent combination. Making a deep run is quite often about having someone step up that you don't necessarily expect, much as was the case during Messiah's run in 2001, when Melissa Ehst, a 3 point specialist off the bench who was averaging about 6 points a game through the season, caught fire from outside and averaged 20+ from the second round to the Final Four. Here's hoping Sal can serve a similar role for the 2008 Falcons.

So, the bottom line is that the Lady Falcons are on to the Sweet 16. I'm so pumped, especially for the seniors, who finally got through that 2nd round wall, and have a chance to extend their record for most wins by a class at Messiah. Given their high seeding, it is possible that they will host next week's sectional. Unfortunately, even if that happens, this will be my last "in person" game report, as I will be in Florida next weekend for my annual trip to Phillies spring training with my Dad. If they advance to the Final Four, that's in Michigan, which would probably be enough by itself to prevent my presence, but when you add in the fact that it is over Easter weekend, there's just no way I can consider making the trip.

Once again, go Falcons!

1 down, 5 to go!

I love D-III March Madness, even women's March Madness.

The Lady Falcons advanced to tomorrow's second round NCAA tournament game against St. Lawrence, defeating Cabrini by a score of 63-34, in a game that wasn't as close as the score indicated.

Looking at the game on paper, based on things like results against common opponents, strength of schedule, etc, the game definitely looked like a mismatch in favor of Messiah. However, in the NCAAs, you generally play teams you know nothing about, and in a win or go home format, you never want to take any opponent for granted, even as a fan, so I wasn't exactly feeling totally comfortable at tip off time. Most of the lingering doubts I had were erased after Cabrini's first 2 or 3 possessions, when it became abundantly clear that they were going to be hard pressed to score 40 points against Messiah's aggressive man to man defense. It was evident from the get go that Messiah had a clear advantage in athleticism at pretty much every position, so even though Cabrini started out with some pretty good defense of their own, you knew it was just going to be a matter of time before Messiah pulled away. And sure enough, led by that stifling defense and a very balanced offensive attack, the Falcons pulled out to a 40-14 halftime lead, holding Cabrini to 28% shooting, while shooting over 50% from the floor themselves. The second half was predictably uneventful, as Messiah took their foot off the gas pretty early, and cruised to the final 29 point margin.

It was really a perfect scenario for the first of back to back games. Messiah was able to use their considerable depth, with no player playing over 24 minutes, and 11 players who played at least 11. The ladies should have plenty left in the tank for tomorrow night's game, particularly when contrasted with St. Lawrence, who only played 8 players and had 4 players go over 30 minutes, including two who played the whole game, in defeating William Patterson by a score of 64-57. Unfortunately, I can't give much more of a scouting report on St. Lawrence, as I was only in the gym for about the last minute of the first game.

The second round of the tournament has tripped Messiah up each of the last two seasons, so it seems quite likely that tomorrow will be a battle as well. I'm really pulling for this team (not that I haven't really pulled for every Messiah team), because in my mind they are clearly the best team Messiah has ever fielded, and yes, that includes the team that was the national runner up in 2001, back when I was but a junior in college. That team was a good team, but really just got hot at the right time. The current Messiah bunch, led by All-American Nikki Lobach, has considerably better athletes across the board, and unbelievable depth. It's difficult to really know anything about what lies ahead in the tournament given the regional nature of D-III basketball, but from my limited perspective, it seems like the bracket sets up very well for the Lady Falcons, if they can break through their 2nd round wall. Hopefully Messiah's experience (4 senior starters, 3 of which are basically 3 year starters) will finally carry the day and avoid another 2nd round exit in front of the home crowd.

Go Falcons!

Favre's Decision: Fighting through the B.S.

Say, did you by any chance hear the news? Brett Favre retired yesterday. I was just checking, because I'm not sure if it's really gotten enough coverage yet. I'm sure there are plenty of people still unaware. For instance, someone who might be in a mountain cave somewhere in the Andes, with their head down in their lap and their fingers in their ears.

That little bit of opening sarcasm aside, I'm actually quite pleased about this development. That pleasure comes not from any feelings about Favre's decision itself. Rather, I'm pumped, because it's been a little while since I really tore into the media about something, and if I go more than a few days without doing that, I begin to question my reason for being. Now, the reality is that there is generally something that I run across in the media that bugs me everyday, but I try to keep most of that stuff out of this blog, for fear of being revealed as the petty, condescending, self-righteous jerk that I am.

As I often do, let me state something clearly upfront - I like Brett Favre. The guy is a clear first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback, and as athletes go, an rather compelling personality on top of that. I do not share the kind of torrid man-crush for Favre that much of the media, led by the increasingly senile and erratic John Madden, clearly has, but I appreciate his talent and have a great deal of respect for him. I'm about to rant about a variety of issues regarding reaction to his retirement, but that says nothing of my attitude towards him.

The first thing I have to react to is the sheer volume of coverage that we've been subjected to over the last 24-36 hours. Now, this is not to equate Favre's retirement with an overblown non-story. Given Favre's status, his retirement clearly merits a significant amount of attention. It was unquestionably the story of the day yesterday, certainly the story of the week, and very likely the story of the year thus far. It is not, however, the story of the century, or of the millennium, or of all time. As one caller to the Jim Rome show suggested today, you might think that Favre was murdered or suffered a similarly tragic death, given the all-Favre, all the time coverage. Just because one story is clearly the most important doesn't make it a cardinal sin to mention others. Now, I've had similar rants before, so I certainly expected this. We all know that the media tends to pump up stories that aren't actual stories, and to beat us across the head with the real stories until we're bloodied, bruised and broken. So, while it bears mentioning, the sheer volume of the coverage isn't my primary concern, and I probably would have found something else to write about tonight if that was the only thing going on.

More frustrating, however, is the media's obsession with unearthing Favre's "real" motives for retiring. To date, Favre's explanation has been that he's just mentally tired and not willing or interested in starting it all up again and putting himself through training camp, weekly preparation, and the like for another season. He's also mentioned that, given the success of this year's team, it would be difficult for next year to be anything but a disappointment. The media, led by the timing of his announcement and some statements made by his agent and brother, have pushing one of two alternate reason for Favre's decision. The first one suggests that Favre was irked by the team's refusal, for the second year in a row, to pursue wide receiver Randy Moss. Most people espousing this idea soften it to some degree by suggesting that Favre didn't quit just because of that, but that if Moss had gone to Green Bay, Favre probably would have found the willingness to continue playing. This is, of course, a pointless hypothetical, since there's no way that Moss would have come to Green Bay short of receiving assurances that Favre would continue to play. The second theory is that Favre did want to return for another season, but that Green Bay was cool to the idea of his return, wanting to instead hand the ball over to his successor, Aaron Rodgers.

As I've paid more close attention to the media in recent months, one of the major lessons I've learned is that if you want the sports media on your case, the best thing to do is to make a decision that goes against the prevailing media opinion of what you will do. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Sportswriters and other media figures, in general, aren't really more intelligent or more sports savvy than you and I are, nor do most of them have any particular insight into how a given athlete is thinking. However, they prefer to keep that little bit of information as quiet as they possibly can. So, when they completely misread an athlete's intentions, as most of the media did in Favre's case, they have to find a reason for it that goes beyond "I was just wrong." If Favre wanted to come back but was in someway put off by the team, they can let themselves off the hook, which I suppose works out well for them.

Here's the problem with that, specifically as it relates to this case. First of all, if there's an athlete who has earned the right to be taken at his word, in absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, it's Brett Favre. Secondly, if there's an athlete who has earned the right to leave his sport on his own terms, regardless of the particulars of those terms, it's Brett Favre. Thirdly, and most importantly, who in the hell cares WHY Brett Favre retired? Aside from the nation of Packers fans who might be a bit pissed to know that their team showed their hero the door, does the story really change for anyone if Favre was willing to play another year, but walked away due to other circumstances? From my perspective, it doesn't, and I have a hard time believing the average fan feels much differently. The calls I heard to sports radio today seem to agree with me. While many people had an opinion, very few people seemed to have any genuine concern as to whether their opinions were true or not.

Lastly, I'm appalled at articles I've seen like this one, in which Jeffri Chadiha proclaims without hesitation that Favre made a huge mistake by stepping away now, and that he will regret it this fall. You know what, he may be right. In fact, I have little doubt that Favre will miss the games themselves. Favre's made it clear for a while that were it just about deciding to play the games, he'd play until he physically couldn't do it anymore. However, I find it ridiculously arrogant for a writer like this (who, by the way, has never been through an NFL season as a player, and thus has zero concept of what Favre would be signing up for) to suggest that he knows better than Favre himself what Favre should have done. I mean, seriously, are you kidding me? Now, I understand it's an easy trap to fall into. We as fans, and even the media to a large extent, saw Favre on gameday this past season playing at a high level, and having a blast doing it. As people who would kill for a chance to play sports for a living, we can sit back and say "Why the heck would you give that up before you have to?" However, we only see the glamour of the games, we don't see the trainer's room, and the grind of camp, and the weeks between games - things that Favre has been subjecting himself to week in and week out for the last 17 seasons, without missing a single start. No one knows better than Favre whether he is up to doing that for another season. And furthermore, people talk about this as if it's a foregone conclusion that the Packers will be contenders again next year. Yes, they had the youngest team in the league this year, but so much changes in the NFL from year to year these days, because there are some many variables. To put things in perspective, it's been 3 years since the losing team in the NFC championship even made the playoffs the following year, and the losing team in the NFC title game has only gone to the Super Bowl the following year once in the last decade. So, while on paper it seems like a safe bet for the team to be able to repeat or improve on this year's success, the reality is that the odds aren't as favorable as you might think.

To say "I wish he would keep playing" or "I think he could keep playing successfully" or even "I think he'll end up wishing he had kept playing" is one thing. To proclaim the decision a colossal mistake within hours of it becoming public, without allowing the slightest possibility that Favre might know what is best for him is just absurd. And yet, this is just the most prominent example, from a guy who in all likelihood wouldn't have hesitated to question Favre's decision to return if he had done so and he and/or the team had struggled next year.

In defense of player "greed"

Okay, I'm about to do something that violates the standard code of conduct for fans. I'm going to side with a couple of "greedy" players in their gripes with ownership. The players in question here are Cole Hamels of the Philadelphia Phillies, and Prince Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers. Both players have publicly expressed displeasure at their team's decision to renew their contracts for the 2008 season at an amount significantly lower than they had hoped for.

Now, an important piece of background here is that, as players with less than 3 years of major league service time, neither Hamels nor Fielder have any actual leverage negotiating their contract. There is a negotiating process that typically goes on with such players, but the bottom line is that if an agreement can't be reached, the team can renew their contract at any amount (as long as it is at least the league minimum, and not more than 20% less than the player made the previous season), and there's nothing a player can do about it. So, by the rules, neither player is even close to being "entitled" to any particular amount of money. At this stage of their careers, ownership holds all the cards, and that's not going to change. These rules are why most players with under 3 years of service time wind up making a figure that isn't too much more than the league minimum.

Hamels and Fielder, however, are not "most" players. Fielder finished 3rd in the NL MVP voting last year, after a season in which he became the youngest player ever to hit at least 50 HRs. Hamels established himself as the clear ace of the Phillies pitching staff, going 15-5 and earning an All-Star bid. He also finished 6th in the NL Cy Young voting, despite an injury that cost him about 4 starts. Clearly, Hamels and Fielder are special talents, and not your "run of the mill" young players.

Hamels was renewed at 500,000, having requested 750,000. Fielder's request is unclear, at least as far as I can tell, but he's expressed dissatisfaction with his renewal amount of 670,000, which leads me to believe he was looking for something in the neighborhood of, or higher than, the contract that 2006 NL MVP Ryan Howard was given for last season, of 900,000. While neither player has suggested that these moves would be a reason for them to not return when they hit free agency, both have made it clear that they felt disrespected by the renewals, and will remember such things going forward.

While again keeping in mind that, as I said, neither player is entitled to anything by baseball's contract rules, it's also important to understand that the two players are undoubtedly among the best players on their respective teams, and presumably both teams would like to keep them around for a number of years. From that perspective, it seems to me like an exceedingly poor play to risk alienate your best talent over the matter of a couple hundred thousand dollars, especially when you consider that even at their full asking price, both players would be a ridiculous bargain relative to what more veteran players of similar talent would command.

Ownership would try to sell you some line about "If we give them X amount of dollars, that impacts what we have to give the next guy". But from my perspective, that just doesn't fly. You aren't going to have a legitimate MVP or Cy Young candidate in this position all that often, so it's hardly a damaging precedent to set. And again, all the leverage is in the hands of the owners, so it's not a case where lesser players will be able to force their hand if they were to reward their young stars better. This sort of line rings especially hollow coming from the Phillies, who just last year gave Ryan Howard the biggest contract every for a player with less than 2 full years of service time. That contract, by the way, is almost double what Hamels was given for this year.

The reality is that both of these teams are going to likely be sitting down with the players in question in the near future to negotiate highly lucrative long term contracts. Lingering resentment over these sorts of things could easily lead either player to take a much tougher line when that time comes, so scrimping on a matter of a few hundred thousand now could contribute to the loss of millions later, or even losing the talented player altogether. I think both teams would have done much better to have acted in better faith in these negotiations, in hopes of seeing something like that reciprocated down the road.

I will say this much for Milwaukee, however: Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, and I'm not sure "good faith" is in his vocabulary. Regardless, I say give them what they want in this instance. At some point down the road, I'll elaborate on why I'm much closer to being "pro-player" on contract matters than average fan, but in this case, I think it's clearly in the best interests of both sides that ownership not play hardball with contracts.

All hot and bothered

I gotta say, I'm hot today. And I'm not talking about my appearance. I mean, I'm hot in that regard as well, but that's an everyday reality and thus not noteworthy enough to be specifically mentioned on my blog. I mean hot as in angry, perturbed, pissed off. You may ask why. Well, there are two separate sports stories that have really grabbed my attention over the last 24 hours. And, unlike most sports stories, which only have the ability to mildly irk me due to the fact that I do my best to keep sports in their proper perspective, these two stories have some real life implications that really allow me to get worked up over them.

The first story will be out in this week's Sports Illustrated, and is already up online. The article is an overall look into the kind of over the top negative behavior that is becoming all too common around college basketball these days. 2 stories in particular really caught my attention. The first was that of Kevin Love, an Oregon native who was a highly touted recruit, and now one of the best freshman players in the country, who had the audacity to choose to go to Pac 10 rival UCLA, rather than to Oregon. Apparently this truly horrific act merited his cell phone number being circulated among a large group of Oregon students, and him receiving 30 voicemails the day prior to UCLA's game at Oregon, the first two of which being death threats directed at him and his family. Love didn't check the remaining messages and immediately canceled his cell service. The second story surrounds another highly touted freshman Eric Gordon, who committed the atrocity of switching his (non-binding) verbal commitment from Illinois to conference rival Indiana. His earned punishment for this? Having his mother struck with a cup of ice water during his game at Illinois, along with the other, more standard abusive taunts.

What in the world have we come to here? We're talking about 18-19 year old kids receiving death threats and having their parents requiring security details because they did what? Choose the "wrong" college to play for? Look, I love college students, in general, as sports fans. Their passion for their team just can't be matched. And I'm all for some good, playful, clever banter/trash talk between rivals. I even argued against one conference's rule outlawing profane/taunting coordinated cheers. At some point though common sense has to kick in, and clearly it just hasn't in these cases. These kids (and they are just kids) are being subjected to a level of abuse that you rarely even see directed at professional athletes. Filling up a kid's voicemail with death threats, whether they are serious or not, isn't funny, it's criminal. Throwing something at a mother who is just trying to watch her son play basketball isn't clever, it's deranged. The NCAA made a point of cracking down on coaches and their sideline behavior this season, and yet this kind of thing goes largely unchecked, unless you consider the apologies the schools in question issued after the fact as sufficient. And if you do, well, I might have to yell at you for a while. I know Kevin Love, for instance, doesn't want to make a big deal out of this, but the reality is that he shouldn't have to. Oregon should have been all over this the second it was reported. I sincerely hope they do deal with it on their own. Seriously, everyone, this is just sports. It's not like it's anything of real consequence. Chill out and enjoy it.

The second story is really just the latest development in an ongoing story, so I won't spend as much time on it, but Congress was once again sticking it's nose into the business of drugs in professional sports today. It looks like they might be getting serious about legislating a common drug testing program for all 4 major pro sports. This stuff just continues to make me red in the face. Congress has zero business legislating drug testing policies for a private enterprise, no matter how big and well-known, and yet they are about to officially make it their job. I think it's absolutely comical for a bunch of Washington politicians to suggest that they know better than the leagues themselves how to address performance enhancing drugs. I've said this before, I'll say it again - these drugs are illegal, and if Congress really wants to do something to make sure the leagues get really serious about cleaning up their act, they can instruct the Justice Department to start locking up using players. Short of that, they need to just back off. And if Congress is allowed to legislate baseball's drug testing program, what's to stop them from one day deciding to step in and legislate it's economic structure, or the rules of the game, or any other number of things they have no business touching? And what's to keep them from doing the exact same thing to any other business?

The other reason I'm upset about this is that I didn't know about it until yesterday, because the sports media is spending all its time on the comparatively insignificant matter of whether Roger Clemens is going to be investigated for the lies he's believed to have told to the last Congressional hearing on baseball that should never have happened. At this very moment, the Clemens saga is the featured story on the front page of ESPN.com, while the story about the hearing is just a side link. As has been the status quo since the Mitchell Report dropped, the real developments are being pushed to the back page while the media jumps all over the red herring that is Roger Clemens. There are going to be a lot of baseball fans rather surprised about a number of things once the dust finally settles around Clemens and attention turns to what's actually gone on while we were all looking the other way.

The sports media: Judge, jury, executioner

I've made it clear in previous entries on this blog that I am not a Barry Bonds fan. In fact, I've made it pretty clear that I don't like the guy. And yet, there's something I like even less right now, and that is members of the media who, from where I sit, are basically gloating about the fact that Bonds can't find anyone who wants to sign him this off-season.

Before I continue, let me first be clear about something. It is neither surprising nor at all disheartening to me that Bonds is as yet unemployed. Bonds is 43 years, and the combination of his age and his bloated body have left him with a range in the outfield roughly equivalent to that of the statue of his godfather Willie Mays that graces the grounds of AT&T Park in San Francisco. Okay, that might not be totally fair, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the real-life, almost 77 year old version of Mays could probably get to more balls in the outfield than Bonds these days. Additionally, his body has become fragile enough that he likely can't be more than a part-time player, if he has to play the field. That's just what happens over time, no matter how long you try to put it off with steroids. So, realistically, there's only 14 major league teams who have a position he can play, those being the 14 AL teams and their designated hitter. Several of those teams already have younger players who are comparable hitters to man said position. On top of that, Bonds is noted as a questionable (at best) clubhouse presence, is exceeding polarizing among fans, and, having made 17 million dollars last year, isn't likely looking to play for the minimum this year. Oh, and there's also that slight issue of the pending perjury trial. So, if Bonds doesn't find a team to play for this year, it won't be because he's been blacklisted, or the result of some other conspiracy theory, it will simply be because not one of the 30 MLB teams felt he was worth devoting a roster spot to, at least not under terms Bonds would accept.

And yet, over the the last day, as word broke that the Tampa Bay Rays, one of the laughing stock franchises in the majors since their existence began back in '97, had at least engaged in some internal discussion about bringing Bonds in, I couldn't help but detect an air of victory amongst some of the media as they reported it. It was like "hah, look, even they don't want him." That, of course, isn't even necessarily accurate. The Rays said the talk hadn't gone anywhere, not that they didn't have interest.

I don't generally have a ton of sympathy for Bonds in terms of the how the media portrays him. He's made his bed in this area to a large degree, with his attitude, and the fact that he chased down the venerable Hank Aaron's record while being the most notorious (and probably best documented) steroid cheat in the game. I don't expect the media to like the guy, and I don't expect them to go out of their way to be nice to him. What I would like to see is them stop short of finding some sort of glory or vindication in the guy's downfall.

The sports media, in general, treats Barry Bonds (and Roger Clemens has recently moved into this territory) as if he has somehow personally and individually wronged them by his cheating. This, of course, would be the same sports media that, along with everyone else, turned a totally blind eye to drug use in baseball for years. It's as if Bonds, by being the "biggest" cheater in an era that we now believe to have been full of cheaters, has singlehandedly damaged baseball forever. The media, as "defenders of the game", now feel obliged to make sure this guy gets everything that's coming to him, in the name of baseball fans everywhere. Those same fans whom Bonds has apparently robbed, by the way, have continued through the gates in record numbers long after the steroids bubble burst. Could it be that they don't care about this nearly as much as the media does, and as much as the media believes they do?

Look, steroids are bad. They are illegal, and they are potentially dangerous, and they should have no place in the game. I support all appropriate efforts to clean up the game. And yet I'm completely tired of the media's passion for punishing offenders over and over again (well, at least the offenders they don't like, that is) after the fact. Barry Bonds (at least for the moment) and Roger Clemens are no longer major league baseball players. It may just be time for the media to start devoting more time to guys who are.

Taking the phrase "diaper dandy" too far

Okay, so I'm dutifully making my weekly journey through the current issue of Sports Illustrated, when I come upon this article. It's a rather standard feature/human interest piece on twin brothers Brook and Robin Lopez, who are both 7 feet tall and are currently sophomore members of the Stanford basketball team. The article in and of itself wasn't particularly noteworthy for me, save one passing reference to an SI piece on high school recruiting back in 1990. The article referenced their older brother, who was in 8th grade, and also alluded to the fact that the twins, who were 21 months old at the time were already drawing attention from recruiters because they were projected to reach 7 feet tall.

Yes, that's correct - 21 month old kids were attracting attention from recruiters - in 1990. I don't know about you, but my own personal skill set at a few months prior to my 2nd birthday didn't offer much indication into my potential as a basketball player. I had mastered walking, and was only beginning to master talking in words that weren't utter gibberish to anyone but me. I might have been able to palm a Nerf basketball, but only by squeezing the thing into oblivion. Oh, you know, I might have been able to feed myself to some degree back then - a very useful skill for a future basketball player.

Now, I understand that the reality was that, since the boys projected to be 7 feet tall, these recruiters weren't likely concerned about anything else at that point, especially given that they came from athletic roots. And the simple fact of the matter is that there are some 7 footers in the NBA today who I sometimes doubt have total command of the 21 month old skill set I just described. But the very simple fact that anyone felt they needed to keep an eye on these kids by the age of 21 months is quite disturbing to me. I know Dick Vitale (shudder) has been using the term "diaper dandy" for years on years to describe excellent freshman basketball players, but I'd really never read of anyone taking the term so literally before.

A few years back, 2 D-III All-American soccer players from Messiah (one male, one female, of course) dated, got engaged, and then were married. I remember suggesting at the time on a D3 soccer fan forum that the Messiah coaching staff had approached the couple about signing an agreement binding their children, of either gender, to play soccer at Messiah. This was, of course, totally tongue and cheek, and meant solely for humor's sake. However, knowing that almost 2 decades ago there were recruiters putting 21 month old kids on their radar due to height projections, such a scenario doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched as it did when I made the comment.

I mean, seriously, how far are we (or might we already be there already) from the day where kids are being basically recruited in utero based on genetics? I can just see recruiters (well, maybe not official recruiters, NCAA regulations being as they are) standing outside delivery rooms with school logo onesies to bestow upon the minutes old child, just hoping to get that early foot in the door. I have visions of parents bringing their newborn home to find their nursery repainted in Duke royal or Carolina powder blue. Heck, why wait until the child has already been conceived to start the process? Let's start matching couples and genetically engineering our athletes.

Okay, so all of that is an over-dramatization of the issue, but I guarantee you that anyone with an ear to the recruiting scene will tell you openly that, regardless of what the NCAA regulations are, kids are being recruited earlier and earlier. At what point do we say "Enough?" Clearly, whatever that point is, we haven't found yet, and I think that's sad. Kids, no matter how talented in whatever arena, deserve time to be just that - kids. The sooner we suck them into this athletic sub-culture (one that, by the way, pretty much everyone involved assigns far too much importance to), the quicker we take that away.

Sorting through the Meat Market

I just finished reading Meat Market, by Bruce Feldmen. Feldmen was given an insider's seat at the table to follow head coach Ed Orgeron and the Ole Miss coaching staff through the ordeal of recruiting for a year, culminating with the 2007 national signing day. If you've been reading my blog for any length of time, you know my feelings on major college athletics, and so I was very much interested in getting a behind the scenes look at recruiting.

While I won't say I came away with any particularly thrilling insights, it was amazing to me just how consuming the recruiting process is at a major football school. They really just didn't seem to quit. I was also quite impressed with the extent to which it all seemed to be something of a house of cards at times, or perhaps a real-life game of Jenga, trying to make this move or that without disturbing the overall tower. I was also rather surprised to read about the level of deception and double-talk that went from recruits and those around them to coaches in some cases. The cynic in me expected that sort of thing to be coming from the schools, but I guess I never really thought about the level to which the recruits might be willing to "play the game" as well.

The story in the book that really cast an aspect of the college athletics scene into a new light for me was that of prized recruit Jerrell Powe. I'm not going to go into all the details of the story, but suffice to say that Powe had originally signed with Ole Miss back in 2005, but was unable to gain academic eligibility, and has since been turned 2 more times. Now, on the surface, this seems to be one of the classic things that I hate about major college athletics - a school doing everything they can to get a kid into school who really has no business being on a college campus. And there's certainly some of that there. However, as presented in the book, Powe was a kid who had been basically ignored and allowed to slip through the school system, despite ultimately failing grades when Ole Miss first discovered him. When Ole Miss began setting him up for academic help, he had a 2nd grade reading level. Within a relatively short time, he was up to a 5th grade level. The various complications and ultimate outcome of Powe's case make it such that I certainly can't hold his actual situation up as an example of a kid really being helped academically as a result of the football machine, but it did make me wonder if maybe there aren't situations similar to this that occur, where a kid who would otherwise have slipped through the cracks of a poor school system gets picked up and put on a better path as a result of interest in his football abilities. None of this, of course, excuses the kind of other academic compromises you hear about all the time, but it does bring me some comfort to think that maybe there are some kids who really benefit from the process, in areas other than just on the football field.

It's worth noting that since the publishing of this book, Ole Miss went 3-9 (0-8 in the SEC) and Coach Orgeron was fired after 3 years at Ole Miss, with a 10-25 overall record, and 3-21 in the SEC.

I'm not sure where I'm going for my next non-fiction read at this point, I'll have to make a decision over the weekend. I've got two baseball books sitting immediately on my stack, but both deal with steroids on some level, and I'm a bit saturated with that topic thanks to Roger Clemens. I'm thinking I may acquire another book on college football or basketball this weekend. No such confusion on the fiction side. Still working through Tom Sawyer, but I just got a box from Barnes and Noble yesterday that contained The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, vols. I and II, Treasure Island, and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. And thanks to the Barnes and Noble Classic series, my member discount, and a gift card, that all came at an actual cost to me of about 5 bucks :-) Suffices to say, I have plenty of fiction reading for the foreseeable future.

On coaching "the right way"

Before I get started, I have to make clear that there are two things I am NOT looking to do with this entry. First of all, I'm not going to defend current (for the moment, anyhow) Indiana University basketball coach Kelvin Sampson. Secondly, I'm not going to demonize former IU coach Bob Knight.

If you're in tune with the college basketball scene (or perhaps if you just live in and around Indiana), you're aware of the situation that IU coach Kelvin Sampson has found himself in. (summary of the current situation) In short, Sampson, who was already on probation with the NCAA due to improper phone calls to recruits at his prior job at Oklahoma when he was hired at Indiana, was found to have made over 100 improper phone calls since coming to Indiana. Furthermore, last week he was accused by the NCAA of having provided false and misleading information to investigators looking into the violations, and thus Indiana was being charged with 5 major rules violations. Sampson's status at Indiana has yet to be officially sorted out, but conventional wisdom is that he will be suspended within the next few days, and dismissed shortly afterwards.

A recruiting scandal of this magnitude at a storied program like Indiana would be a compelling story all by itself. What has added a little more punch to the discussion in this case has been the proximity of this story to former Hoosier coach Bob Knight's resignation from Texas Tech. Now, contrary to what some Hoosier fans might dream, the possibility of Knight returning to finish out his career at Indiana is quite remote. However, having just come out of a time where Knight was prominent in the news and his legacy was being discussed/debate, this story has offered an interesting opportunity to compare/contrast.

What I've picked up on in the last number of days has been rather illuminating. I have heard a number of people contrast Sampson and Knight, and talk about how Knight, throughout his 42 year coaching career, did things "the right way" - using that specific phrase. I've really got to take issue with that sort of language, particularly when it's being used to draw a distinction between Sampson and Knight.

When people talk about how Knight did it "the right way", they are no doubt referring to the fact that Knight enjoyed an incredible amount of success, without ever having even a hint of NCAA violations around his programs, and that as a rule, his players graduated and stayed out of trouble. These are all highly admirable, and sadly are all becoming significantly less common in the present day. And yet, to say that Knight did it "the right way" quickly glosses over a very checkered history of his personal conduct. A quick run-down of things that Knight did/was accused of doing throughout his career: Assaulting a police officer in Puerto Rico while coaching at the Pan-Am Games, throwing a chair across the floor during a game, kicking a player (his own son, actually) during a game, berating an NCAA volunteer, choking a player during practice, having to be restrained from going after a heckling Baylor student.

As I said at the beginning, I'm not out to pile on to Bob Knight. I have an immense amount of respect for Bob Knight and his legacy as a coach. I also think that latter in his career, a number of incidents were made out to be much more than they actually were, simply because it was Knight. But the fact of the matter is that, as much as his supporters would like to idealize him after the fact, Coach Knight is far from the gold standard for doing things "the right way". He did an awful lot of things the right way, but he also did many things the wrong way due to a lack of the self control and discipline he preached to his players day in and day out. And to demonize Kelvin Sampson for making a bunch of extra phone calls to recruits, while glossing over Knight's transgressions seems to me to be rather unfair.

As I also said at the beginning, I'm not here to defend Sampson. The guy knew the rules, and he continued to break them even after being caught and put on probation at his last job. He was given a second chance by Indiana, and he threw that away. He deserves to lose his job, and quite frankly, I will be very disappointed if Indiana does not dismiss him. At the same time, it wouldn't be the first time that IU has overlooked a coach's transgressions because that particular coach was successful, and that's something that IU fans need to come to terms with.

The "other" side of the NCAA

If you've been reading this blog fairly regularly over the few months that I've been diligently posting, you'll know that one of my recurrant themes is a strong level of cyncism with regards to the NCAA, mainly relating to what would be termed as the "cash cow" sports, that being major college football and basketball. I feel like that cynicism is pretty well supported by the facts, and I've stated as much on many instances.

That being said, those sports constitute only 2 of the sports and only one of the 88 championships that the NCAA sanctions on a yearly basis. However, unless you have a connection to a lower division school with a solid athletic program, you've probably never really encountered the NCAA at the lower levels. For all my cynicism about major college athletics, I've been exceedingly quick to spout praise for the "real" student-athletes of the lower NCAA divisions in the past.

And for all the evils I see in the NCAA in the cash cow sports, I see so much good resulting at the lower levels and the more obscure sports. I've traveled to 3 men's and 2 women's Division III soccer final fours as a fan, 1 Division III field hockey Final Four as a fan/brother of a player, and seen countless other soccer, field hockey, and basketball playoff games over the last decade. And what I've consistently seen at each step of the road is the NCAA providing a first rate championship experience for these student-athletes whom I have so much respect for.

When people think of NCAA sports, they think of the money making machines that are the NCAA basketball tournament, and college football. And yet the reality is those two sports are just a small piece of the puzzle. Virtually ever other championship the NCAA runs operates at a relatively steep loss. That of course, is made possible by the money that comes in from the cash cows. I've certainly had my complaints for the NCAA regarding D-III tournaments in the past, as occasionally financial considerations clearly do stand in the way of what's truly best for the competition. However, I accept the reality of that, and also see them continuing to make strides to limit those kind of situations. I see, for the most part, a truly geninue effort to reward these athletes for the kind of effort they lay out over their seasons, which, in many cases isn't that much less than their D-I counterparts.

So, while you won't ever see me forgive the NCAA for what I see as fairly dramatic abuses at the highest levels, you can know that I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater by condemning the entire organization as corrupt and money driven. It's become clear to me through the years that the NCAA system benefits far more athletes than it exploits. This, of course, is not a justification for the exploitation, because I'm relatively certain that the students that are currently benefiting from the system could still reap those benefits without the exploitation of the few. It does, however, bring a little bit of balance to the discussion that I often appear to be so one-sided on.

Where were we?

Okay, so it's been a little while, once again. I had a rather busy, but fun, holiday weekend.

The first event, and most certainly the highlight, was Tim, Amanda, and Nathan's visit. I was greatly looking forward to having them at my house Saturday evening through Sunday morning. My anticipation of their visit momentarily turned to horror several hours before their arrival, when I went to take a shower and had no hot water. Now, I've lived in this house for almost 3 years and have never had this happen, and I have overnight guests maybe 2 times a year, so the fact that these things coincided was just bizarre. Fortunately, the pilot was just out on my water heater, so I was able to get it going again well ahead of their visit.

After that momentary stresser, their actual visit was just great. It was so awesome to be able to catch up with old friends, and to get to know little Nathan, who is just about the coolest thing ever. He's really a sucker for anyone who will help him explore by taking him anywhere he points, so I won major points there :) The family also got introduced to my dog, who is uber-hyper around visitors. Chaser was a big fan of Nathan, and Nathan was quite the trooper while Chaser was giving him kisses, until the 2nd or 3rd kiss caused Nathan to lose his balance and bump his head. Needless to say, Chaser was retired to his room for the evening. Thankfully, Nathan was no worse for the wear. He may have learned not to sit on Chaser's pillow, however. Probably not though, it is pretty comfy, after all.

I said goodbye to the Ritters on Sunday morning. Shortly after they left, my new roommate Brad, whose impending presence sparked the remodel of 2 weeks ago in the basement, showed up with all of his stuff, ready to move in. That happened with relative ease, and now we go through the process of adjusting to having 3 guys in the house as opposed to just two. Chaser also has to deal with having a roommate, and I'm not sure he's totally thrilled about the idea at present.

After church in the evening, I treked down the road to Shippensburg to spend the night with my folks, in advance of an early morning dentist appointment. There's no better way to celebrate President's Day than to get a tooth filled, if you ask me. Okay, I might be lying about that. However, I did enjoy the rest of the day, which involved spending time with the folks around the house, and then going out with my sister and brother-in-law to celebrate my sister's birthday. We had been planning on celebrating on her actual birthday last week, but a long standing tradition of bad winter weather occuring on her birthday reared it's ugly head.

So, after all of these various interruptions to my routine, and the corresponding interruption to posting on this blog, I'm pretty sure I'm back for a good long stretch at the helm of the blog. I've got a really awesome commentary on the "other side" of the NCAA that I'm ready to crank out, either later tonight, or tomorrow.

On my night with Carrie.... (and Keith, sort of)

Okay, so I sound terrible today, but I am feeling much, much better. I can take the "playing hurt" designation off of myself.

Anyhow, I had a terrific time at the Carrie Underwood/Keith Urban concert last night. I did underestimate just how bad traffic would be getting to the Giant Center. It's usually a 20 minute trip from my house, I left a little over an hour early, and yet I still wasn't quite to my seat when Carrie sang her first notes. It was a pretty cool feeling when I walked in and handed the guy my ticket and he was like "You're on the floor" and pointed me where I needed to go, and then when the usher down on the floor kept taking me further and further up, till we finally got to the 5th row. Right before we got to my seats she told me "If you go back upstairs for some reason, make sure you keep your ticket stub, because there's no way they are going to let you back up here without it". Awesome. I was probably about 15-20 feet back from the main stage, and similarly far awy from the middle section that led out to a secondary stage in the front. Unfortunately, in my still somewhat ill state, I was foggy enough to believe that when they said "no cameras", they actually meant it, so I didn't get anything in the way of pictures. I tried a few shots with my camera phone, but the lighting just overwhelmed that little camera.

Carrie put on a heck of a show. Not that I didn't know this already, but the girl can flat out sing. There are lots of people that sound awesome on their albums, but she was just incredible live, and I don't know that I had a real concept of just how good her voice is prior to last night. Terrific. And of course, she was rather easy to look at as well. Very classy dress though, which is one of the things I appreciate about her, as opposed to many other female music stars. The crowd was much more subdued for Carrie's set than I would have expected, especially since I was so close to the stage. On a normal night, I think I would have been disappointed by that, but since I was playing hurt, I was grateful that I didn't have to stand for the duration of the concert. I'm sure the woman in my row that was on crutches felt the same way.

I'm not the biggest Keith Urban fan, but the man is a ridiculous performer. The crowd was NOT subdued for his set, and I was on my feet for as long as I stayed. It was interesting being submerged in a sea of middle aged women who all suddenly started behaving like middle school girls when Keith came out. Some people had cut out a ton of construction paper hearts that they wanted everyone to hold up at the end of his first number, for Valentine's Day. I was given a heart, but did not hold it up, because, well, I'm a guy, and I'm not gay. Something about a guy holding up a heart at another guy.... yeah. Lots of people did go along with it though, and Keith was quite amused at the stunt. Like I said though, outstanding performer, seriously rocked the place out while I was there. I left midway through his set, because as I said, I'm not his biggest fan, it was already past ten, I was already feeling tired due to being sick, and I knew if I stayed to the end, it might be close to 1 until I got home between getting out of the arena and the massive traffic jam. Had it been a Friday night show, I would definitely have been there for the duration regardless, but the sensible adult in me took over. By the time I got home, I almost had all of my hearing back.

This was actually the first concert I'd seen at the Giant Center. I'd seen several at the old Hersheypark Arena, and that big concrete silo was just a terrible venue because of how bad the acoustics were. If you didn't know the songs, you were out of luck because you had zero chance of making out the lyrics. Much better experience at the Giant Center.

Overall, a high quality way to spend an evening.

Devean George? Really?

Okay, so I'm still playing a little hurt today. Fortunately for you all, I decided to follow the sage advice of Roger Clemens' mom, and take a B12 shot to keep me going. Can't disappoint my loyal readers, nor can I bring myself to disappoint Carrie later tonight...

As you might imagine, sports radio was hot and heavy with talk regarding yesterday's Congressional hearing with Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. However, I've already spent enough time on that story for my tastes, so I'm going into a different direction, and will instead hit up the NBA.

There's a week left until the trading deadline, and there's been a flurry of activity by the Western Conference contenders. It all started 2 weeks ago, when the LA Lakers snared forward/center Pau Gasol from the Memphis Grizziles. That move was followed last week by the Phoenix Suns sending Shawn Marion to Miami in exchange for center Shaquille O'Neal. And last night, the Dallas Mavaricks thought that they had pulled off their big splash deal, agreeing to send a package of players to New Jersey for All-Star point guard, Jason Kidd. They thought that, until word came last night that Dallas reserve forward Devean George, one of the players being sent to New Jersey, had exercised his right to refuse a trade. George does not have a no trade clause, however, an obscure rule allows him to veto a trade because he is on a one year contract with the same team he ended last season with. Were he traded, he would forfeit his "Larry Bird" rights, which impact the amount of money he can make on his next contract.

I sincerely hope that for Devean George's sake, this is some kind of posturing for some leverage, and that he will ultimately approve the deal. First of all, this really doesn't make a lot of sense, since George had expressed a desire to be traded if his playing time didn't increase. Secondly, I understand the financial considerations, but does he REALLY want to stay in Dallas and be the guy who stands in the way of the Mavericks acquiring Kidd? Rightly or wrongly, the Mavs fans clearly believe that Kidd is the missing piece they need to contend for a championship. By standing in the way of that, he's dooming himself to playing in front of a hostile home crowd for the rest of the season. I would also imagine he'll face some difficulty within his own locker room and the organization at large. I know this much, if he's intent on holding firm on this, he's gonna need to do something a little better than last night's 0 for 11 shooting performance.

I have a sense that this is probably just posturing, and that he'll eventually sign off on the deal. If not, he'd better pray that the Nets and Mavs find a way to get the deal done without him. Even then, I'm not sure that will allieviate the ire he draws from the fans. I'm also guessing that, if he ultimately stays in Dallas, the Mavs won't exactly be eager to lay out the biggest possible contract for him in a sign and trade, so those precious Larry Bird rights might not be as valuable as he thinks.

Desperate to move on...

I'm feeling a bit under the weather today, so I didn't know if I was going to make it to the blog tonight, but I feel like I just HAVE to post a few thoughts on what went on in DC today with the Roger Clemens hearing.

First of all, from a Congressional perspective, this hearing was utterly worthless. At least in past hearings, while I never thought Congress should have been involved, it was clear that hearing was meant to investigate the larger problem of steroids in baseball. Today's hearing basically boiled down to an investigation into steroid allegations against one player. Such investigations are what we have the Justice department for, and the reality is that even the Justice Department wouldn't typically get involved in investigating one drug user. In fact, in this case, the statute of limitations has already expired, so there really is no place for the federal government to get involved. Or at least there wasn't. Clearly, someone perjured themselves today. To the credit of the committee, their comments indicated that they were prepared to call off the public proceedings, but Clemens' team insisted that they needed this forum. I would advise Congress in the future to not bow to the wishes of a famous baseball player when determining how to spend their time and my money.

Secondly, for as much as Clemens apparently wanted this hearing to go forward, today's developments weren't positive for him. McNamee is clearly a questionable witness, but the depositions and today's hearing brought probably the most believeable figure in the case (Andy Pettitte) in, and he's backing up McNamee's story. No matter how compelling Clemens is (and that's debateable), the case is quickly becoming one where either Clemens is lying, or everyone else is lying. The medical testimony relative to the abcess that Clemens had on his backside at one point in Toronto wasn't particularly helpful to his cause either. One thing that was clear to me is that he has no chance of winning his defamation suit against McNamee, and I would be surprised if that suit even goes forward.

McNamee's image was not helped today either, however. He admitted to several instances of lying, and conceded that he didn't give all the information he had to the investigators at first. At the same time, we've learned that Chuck Knoblauch, the third player McNamee implicated in the Mitchell report, has said that McNamee was telling the truth, which means that in order to believe Clemens, you'd have to believe the McNamee was telling the truth about everyone except him.

Lastly, it seems pretty clear to me at this point that a perjury investigation is coming from the feds, which is the primary reason why I didn't want these proceedings to go forward. It's time to move on, but that just isn't going to happen. Let's remember, Barry Bonds was hit with a perjury indictment 2 1/2 years after his grand jury testimony, so the chances of a quick resolution seem to be pretty slim. Perjury is a crime, but the bottom line in my book is these proceedings should never have taken place, and so I'm fairly certain there are a number of things I'd rather have the Justice Department looking into than whether Roger Clemens lied about steroid use in the context of a pointless Congressional hearing.

I'm strongly considering moving to a remote island until Clemens' seemingly inevitable perjury trial is over.