The Show.

Did someone tell the Padres that they were going to make the playoffs? Because it looks like a Macbeth sequel could be brewing in San Diego. The team that rose from the ashes and played steady baseball on their way to what looked like a guaranteed playoff spot is now in a position in which they could experience a tragic collapse; a 162 game schedule can certainly be a curse. They've lead the NL West for nearly the entire season, but as the home stretch is upon them they're realizing that September losses can ruin a very good season. The Padres had a 10 game losing streak that leaked its way into September, and since that losing streak began on August 26th the team has gone just 4-14, and they now hold the division lead by a mere half game, down from 6 1/2 games. So if I'm a Padre's fan and my team misses the playoffs, am I disappointed because of how close they came? Or happy about a great season, particularly after such a bad season last year? A collapse now would be a bittersweet tragedy for fans who might find it hard to complain after last season's heartache but also hard not to complain about how the team should have sealed up it's playoff ticket after leading their division all summer. But regardless of whether San Diego makes the playoffs or not, it's evident that they've turned a complete 180 since last season, and it's important to realize why this turn-around has happened, and why it could serve them well if they do make the post-season.

The turn-around the Padres have had after last season has been nothing short of miraculous. Last year they finished 20 games out of the division lead and 12 games under .500. Their run differential was a -131 by seasons end and their pitching staff's ERA was at 4.37. This year, however, the Padres have managed to take hold of a decent division. A lot of people are wondering how they did this, and I'll admit that it is hard to see. They only have two players batting over .300 and only one player with over 20 home runs. They're not winning with flash or because they have a number of all-stars on the team. They're experiencing success because they've played consistent baseball, and because they have great defense. The pitching staff's pre All-Star game ERA was 3.25 and their post All-Star ERA is 3.42. Their collective 3.31 ERA happens to be the best in baseball. They have 4 pitchers with over 10 wins and they have a closer who has 41 saves in 44 attempts. When you combine this with an offense that averages 4.2 runs a game, you're going to win a good amount of ball games. This is what has made the Padres during the year, but it could also be what breaks them down the stretch. This team has not been streaky at all this year - they'd win three, lose two, win four, lose one, win two, lose two. Its been that way all season for the team until now. This is when it's easy to realize why a 162 game season is a curse. You can be comfortable for 130 games, but if you slip up and lose 20 of your last 30 you could be in serious trouble. The ability to win at the end of a baseball season can be, and many times is, a team's golden ticket to October. However, a teams inability to do so could send them on an early vacation. It's one thing to be good all summer but its another to be good enough to close out the season come fall. Not all teams can do that, and that's what separates good teams from playoff teams.

So with less than 20 games left on their schedule the Padres are going to have to prove that they're a playoff team, which I happen to think they are. They have pitching, and pitching is everything in playoff baseball. But if they miss the postseason, is it a successful year? If I'm a Padres fan and the team misses the post-season I'd be sorely disappointed, not only because they sat atop the division for nearly the entire season, but because it's a team that is well suited for a playoff run. Their offense is mediocre, but their pitching is good enough to carry them somewhat deep into the playoffs. They're a team with dependable pitching, and although their offense is rather average, being able to keep teams off the scoreboard, like they've done effectively all year, will win them playoffs games.

Today marks the official start of football season and a prediction is in order. I won't bother with any tedious, meaningless predictions because there's only one prediction that matters, and that's who is going to make it to the big dance. So here are my Super Bowl predictions, with some key points about why these teams have a shot.


The Baltimore Ravens

- 12th hardest schedule which will help them. They have some easy games but there are tough tests, including one with the Jets, two with the Bengals, one with the Saints, one with the Patriots, and two with the Steelers. This schedule won't prevent them from making playoffs, and their tougher games will help them prepare for the post-season.
- Their defense, which is anchored by one of the most feared linebackers in football, speaks for itself. Only 2 teams gave up less yards than they did last year.
- They have an extremely well balanced offense. Joe Flacco is a proven quarterback and now he has some serious weapons at receiver. Derrick Mason, Donte Stallworth, Anquan Boldin and TJ Houshmandzadeh form a scary set of wide receivers. Plus, their running game is effective too. Ray Rice had over 1,300 rushing yards last year, and with the receivers the Ravens have, they'll be very dynamic offensively.
- They have a strong leadership core and players with Super Bowl experience. This goes a long way in the post-season.


The Green Bay Packers

- Aaron Rogers has figured it out. Last year he had a 30/7 TD to Int ratio. In the beginning of last season it was hard to watch him because he got sacked so much, but as time went on he has been able to use his feet more, making him more of a threat.
- Rogers has great receivers around him and Ryan Grant is a pretty effective running back.
- They don't have an overly-tough schedule, but there are certainly some important tests for them including two with the Vikings, one with the Jets, one with the Cowboys, and one with the Patriots.
- Green Bay had one of the best defenses in the league last year - the only team that gave up less yards than them were the Jets.


Super Bowl Champion: Ravens

Now, let it be understood that I don't think these two teams are the best in the league, and yes I do understand that it's sacreligious to bet against the Colts right now. In my opinion however, these two teams are well-tailored for a title run, and if they manage to stay healthy they should both have very good shots at making it to the big dance.



Agree? Disagree? Let your voice be heard by leaving a comment with your opinions.

International basketball tournaments are not fun.

If you ask the casual sports fan if he/she has been paying attention to the FIBA World Championships going on right now in Turkey, chances are the answer will be no. However, if you asked that same apathetic person how they think the tournament is going, I'd be willing to bet that they'd have the same answer as most other people, which would be some form of, "The US is probably winning, right?" Anyone with any basketball knowledge would assume this, and this assumption is going to be right about 95% of the time. It's that 95% of the time that makes any world basketball competition uninteresting. At the FIBA tournament currently going on, the US has won every game by an average of about 30 points. They did have a scare from Brazil, but overall it has proven, thus far, to be an uninteresting, trite basketball tournament. Now, I don't want to sound unpatriotic, but does anyone else kind of want the US to lose?

In my opinion, the US should never lose a basketball game. That's not to say that there aren't any good teams out there besides the US, but it is to say that when you match teams up on paper no one can come remotely close to the US. Now of course games aren't won and lost on paper, which is why the game is played, and as fans there are many instances where we watch in hopes of the paper being wrong. We watch because we don't always want to see the best team win. If the best team always won, regardless of the sport, boredom and disinterest would inevitably ensue. Predictability is the death of excitement, and that's what we get in world championship basketball. We know what's going to happen so we either don't pay attention at all, or we do pay attention but don't really care when what we expect to happen happens. Have you watched a UConn women's basketball game in the last two years? It's uncomfortably boring, not because what they're doing is boring, but because you know what's going to happen. It's too predictable. This is what makes the upset so appealing.

Now, I'm not sure if I want the US to lose as much as I just want to see something different and exciting. In fact, if it were any other country I'd want the same thing - it just happens to be the US in this particular instance, which probably makes me look like an ungrateful, unpatriotic traitor. However, I want to assure everyone that the reason for my craving an upset is not to see the US fall, but rather to see someone else triumph. During the 2004 Olympics people were shocked. Not only did the US lose, but they lost 3 times. They ended up receiving a bronze medal which was a tremendous disappointment, but in a way it was somewhat refreshing. Having this happen restored some passion, although mostly negative, into a sport that had been painfully predictable for far too long. Also, losing every once in a while makes you appreciate winning that much more. Simply put, the US winning will not turn my attention to the FIBA World Championships. The US losing, however, would certainly peak my interest.

To me, pure dominance in a sport is not as interesting as a well-balanced field. Watching a team that always wins takes the excitement out of the game, and we watch the game for the excitement. We watch to see, regardless of what the stats might be on paper, who the better team is on any given day. However, one good thing about such dominance is that the longer it stretches, the more excitement there is when defeat finally occurs. As previously stated, when people pick the US to win a world title, 95% of the time they're going to be right. I may stand alone in wanting the US to lose, but I want them to lose because that 5% is the epitome of why sports are great. That 5% that says, "regardless of everyone's opinion of who the best team is, they can still lose," makes fans passionate about the sport. So although my chances aren't great, I'm going to sit and hope that team USA losses. As well as the UConn women's basketball team.

As we close in on this year's MLB playoffs it's important to look back at positive aspects of the year's regular season, and the most notable aspect (to me at least) was the pitching. It has been a while since we've seen such a dominant season from the mound. 5 no-hitters were thrown this year, 2 of which were perfect games. Actually, there were 6 no-hitter's in my book, but unfortunately my book is different from the history books. The last time there were at least 5 no-hitters in a season was all the way back in 1991, and while it's evident that this year was a special year for major league pitching in general, it's the timing of this historic season makes it that that much more significant.

For the past decade the issues of baseball have mostly been a result of players - power hitters in particular - taking steroids. The game's integrity has been, and still is, put into question because of a player's ability to gain an unfair advantage by using illegal substances. The solutions to steroid-related issues have spanned but there is no way to eliminate the statistics a player accumulates whether on steroids or not, and because of this absence of a resolution it has been unclear whether an end could be put to steroids. Its also been unclear, if an end could not be reached, which direction steroids and the players who used them would steer the future of baseball. The past decade has been riddled with many issues stemming from steroid use, but this year has been a major victory for baseball in the sense that what has dominated the media hasn't been steroid use, but rather pitching. The overall statistics of pitchers may or may not be similar to years past, but it's important to recognize that the attention of the baseball community has been somewhat steered away from the presence of illegal substances in the game - a focus which has become the norm for many fans. In fact, when Armando Galarraga was stripped of a perfect game by a bad call it seemed to stir more emotion than when A-Rod hit his 600th home run, a feat that only a few have ever achieved. People were angry that Galarraga didn't get what he deserved, and they simply didn't care when A-Rod hit his 600th because they all knew it was a tainted achievement. To me, this restores my faith in the integrity of baseball and its fans. It's clear that people - the media, fans, etc - want to see players succeed if they deserve to succeed. It's easy to think that steroids will inevitably invade and conquer the record books, but this year has been a refreshing one in the sense that the success has come from the mound rather than the plate where said success has been and is, at times, tainted, as in A-Rod's case with his 600th home run. Now of course pitchers can do steroids as well, and as far as I know the pitcher's who have had success this year may have steroids to credit, but at the moment it seems as if most pitchers - namely those who have thrown no-hitters this year - are clean.

The important part of this year - the part that people should remember, regardless of stats and speculations - is that it was a year not dominated by what has become regular attacks on the integrity of baseball. We, as fans, have become used to instances of cheating in the game, but a victory has been won for baseball and its fans this year as we learned that although cheating may always be part of the game, it doesn't have to define the game.

Roberto Luongo might be giving up his captaincy.

The Canucks goaltender, who was named captain in 2008, has dealt with distractions because of his role as the teams captain, and as a result he may be stepping down as the team's leader. He's still going to take a couple weeks to let the team and management know his decision, but for the sake of a goaltender's right to be a captain I really hope he keeps the job. NHL ruling states that a goaltender can't wear the "C" on his jersey because goalies can't take ceremonial faceoffs or argue with refs after questionable calls. Despite these restrictions, the Canucks still named Luongo the captain - the team ended up not putting a C on anyones jersey, and Luongo has a C on his helmet. The Canucks were right to make Luongo the captain, and though many skeptics will banter on and on about why a goalie shouldn't be a team's captain, I think there are some very good reasons for why goalies should be captains.

Luongo is the first goalie to be a captain of an NHL team in over 60 years, and he's only the 5th goalie to be captain of an NHL team. The instance of having a goalie as a captain is very rare, but also refreshing. Goalies are often under-appreciated in terms of their leadership qualities and overall value to a team. Being a goalie is not like any other position. If you're a forward or defenseman and you make a mistake it doesn't always turn out for the worst. However, if you're a goalie and you make a mistake the puck is in the back of the net. The role of a goaltender is perhaps the most important in all of sports, and with that in mind why wouldn't you want a goalie to be a captain? To be a great goalie you've got to be consistent under pressure - who better to lead a team than someone who demonstrates a value like that?

Of course I'm not saying that all goalies should be captains, but what I am saying is that goalies, for whatever reason, seem to be overlooked when it comes to leadership roles on a team when in fact they're nearly always the backbone of every team. Games are won and lost with defense and there's no role more important to a team's defensive capabilities than that of a goaltender. So for the previously stated arguments I hope Luongo keeps his role as captain. It's good for the Canucks if he's their leader, it's good for hockey to have some diversity, and it's good for goalies when people see that they're capable, and oftentimes deserving leaders.

The current BCS system is such a problem, not only because of what it is, but because of what it could be. Fans are deprived year in and year out of what they really want - a playoff. We've seen what a playoff can do for a sport, and for a school. Just look at March Madness. Everyone loves it, even if they're not basketball fans. It's one of, if not the, most exciting event in sports. With that in mind, it's easy to see why football fans would want the same type of system in college football. There would be excitement, upsets, pride, and best of all, the political aspect of the BCS' current selection process - in which Boise State can go undefeated and not get a sniff at the title game - would be eliminated.

Of course, with the bowl system there is somewhat of a postseason for most teams, but honestly, does anyone care at all about the papajohns.com bowl? How about the AdvoCare V100 Independence bowl? From a fan's standpoint, these games are meaningless. Yes, a team will win, but what does it really mean if you win the papajohns.com bowl? That's not what teams want, and no fan wants to represent their team by saying, "we won the papajohns.com bowl in 2008! Remember??" No one remembers. But what people will remember is a team that upsets a #1 seed on its way to football's Final Four. If you're a sports fan you'll never forget the name George Mason. Now let's imagine if basketball had a bowl system in 2006. George Mason would've gotten stuck in something like the JG Wentworth 877-CASH-NOW bowl or something dumb like that. If this happened, whether they won or lost, would anyone remember that today? The answer is no, but that's not what happened, and because of basketball's postseason system, we will always remember a team like George Mason.

It works in basketball and it would work in football. Make a 16 or 32-team field and seed each team. Teams outside the 32-team field can compete in bowl games, which would be somewhat of an equivalent to the NIT. Have a playoff where teams who deserve a shot at the National Championship will get that shot. Then we'll see if they're really good enough to make it. There won't be any "what if's" which are so prevalent in college football these days.

When you take a look at the current postseason system in college football it's clear that its major flaw is inequality. How many seasons does Boise State have to go undefeated until they can get in the Nation Championship game? I'm not a Boise State fan, but it's the principal I'm getting at here. Teams that deserve a shot at the title should get that shot. No more policits, reputations or TV ratings on the line. Give the schools and their fans what they really want - a legitimate, fair chance at being the undisputed best team in college football.

Today is a day that will go down in football history as two of the greatest players in the game are inducted into the Hall of Fame:

22 - Emmitt Smith

- All-time leading rusher (18.355 yards)

- All-time rushing touchdowns leader (164)

- 3-time Super Bowl champion

- Super Bowl champion, Super Bowl MVP and regular season MVP in 1993

- 8-time Pro Bowler





80 - Jerry Rice

- All-time leader in touchdowns (208)

- All-time leader in reception touchdowns (197)

- All-time leader in receptions (1,549)

- All-time leader in total yards (23,540)

- 3-time Super Bowl champion






It's worth noticing that the numbers these players accumulated and the records they broke clearly set them apart from anyone else who ever played the game. However, something that the modern era sports fan can appreciate, perhaps more than said numbers, is the way these two players played the game. These are two guys who played the game the right way. They kept their mouths shut and played hard. They played for their teams and cared about winning. They were honest with themselves, their teams and their fans. They stayed true to the integrity of the game. Today, we're surrounded by players who reach monumental achievements, but the means by which they achieve these feats are questionable, and when we're not hearing about cheaters, we're hearing about egomaniacs. Smith and Rice were two players that set the record straight about what a professional is. There are players today - whose heads are nearly too big to fit in a stadium - that will never come close to what these now hall-of-famers achieved.

So on a day where numbers speak for themselves, records are acknowledged and careers are remembered, know that the way these men played the game is what truly sets them apart from others, and hope that today's athletes can take a page or two from the examples laid out by two of the greatest players football has ever seen.

I don't know what's going on right now, but the way it used to go in sports was something like this: a star player would get drafted/signed by a team, and the team would then proceed to build around that player. Once this happened, the team would grow, mature, and possibly become contenders, and from contention would potentially come a championship. That's the way it was.
Now, we have something different - particularly in the world of basketball - that goes a little bit like this: a star player will get drafted/signed by a team, and the team proceeds to build around that player. As this happens, the star player determines whether the team has a shot at contention or not. If the player believes they do have a shot, he'll most likely ask for better players around him. If the player does not believe his team has a shot at contention, he'll do what Chris Paul did just recently and ask to be traded so he can play alongside another superstar.

Does this seem wrong to anyone else?

I singled out Chris Paul only because this happened recently with him, but he's not the only one bailing on his squad for hopes of playing somewhere better. This seems to be happening a little too frequently in the NBA, and there's something unnatural about it all. When a team selects a franchise type player, they're offering more than a spot on the team and a contract. They're giving him their trust. They're putting their beliefs in him. They're saying, "We think you can give this team, and this city, what it has been striving for - a championship." And that's what this all comes down to. Winning championships. But isn't there a line that differentiates winning a championship from earning a championship? When LeBron James soiled what little legacy he had with "The Decision," it was clear that he was quitting on Cleveland because he knew he couldn't win there. Now, there's nothing wrong with going somewhere if you want to win, but LeBron's situation is slightly different. He left a team, which he turned into a contender, and a city that proclaimed him as a savior so he could join forces with other superstars. Now, the only reason he did this was so he could win championships, and the reason he wants to win championships is so he can be in the conversation when people talk about the best players in history. We all know, including LeBron, that he would never be in that conversation if he didn't win. Now he's going to a place where he will most likely win, but this takes us back to the difference between winning and earning a ring. Imagine what a story it would be if LeBron had won with the Cavs. If he, the hometown hero, brought that team up from the ashes and gave that city - probably the most championship-deprived city in the country - what they've wanted for so long. It would have been like a fairy tale. That story would be great, but that story no longer exists. The story now is of a player who manufactured a championship (or championships) which will cause his legacy to be tarnished. If that's what he wants to do then it's fine, but he can't expect to be in the same conversation as Michael Jordan, even if he does win 6.

It's as if players are picking teams when it should be the other way around. With this system, all the front office of a team needs to offer is a working printer and a pen so they can slap a big contract in front of a player. With players essentially coordinating their destinations with each other, a lot is taken away from the natural attainment of a player: the negotiations, the plea's, the cries for help that a team would normally have to display if they really wanted a player. Now, if a superstar wants to win, he doesn't have to carry a team and a city. He simply has to jump on a plane so he can share the load with other superstars.

When you look at the legacies of some of the greats - the Jordan's, Johnson's, the Russell's, the Bird's, the Bryant's - one of the best things about their legacies is that they were true franchise players. They stuck with their teams, through good and bad, and their legacies will live on with their team's colors forever. They carried their teams to the promised land with hard work. They wore their colors with pride because those colors were a part of who they were as players. No one looks at Jordan as a member of the Wizards, because he is and always will be a Chicago Bull. That's where his legacy was formed. People will see LeBron as a member of the Heat, but no one will forget how he failed as a Cavalier, and how he abandoned a team and a city for something he thought was better. He may be part of a winning legacy in Miami, but the legacy he left in Cleveland will never leave him.

With the recent re-signing of New Jersey Devils left winger Ilya Kovalchuk, questions regarding the abnormal length of hockey contracts seem to be rising. Kovalchuk signed a record setting 17 year deal - yes, 17 years - in which he'll earn $102 million. The length of this deal surpasses the previous NHL record of 15 years, which was set when the New York Islanders signed goalie Rick DiPietro in 2006. In sports we usually see a contract signed for somewhere between 1 to 5 years, but it has become prevelent in hockey for teams to sign players for (really) long-term contracts. So why is this happening?

Ever since the NHL implemented a salary cap, teams have experienced a major limit on what they can spend on contracts. The first year of the salary cap allowed teams $39 million in cap space, and the maximum amount a player could earn in a year was $7.8 million. This past season, the cap was around $56 million per team, and a player could earn $11.36 million. The principals of the salary cap are pretty basic, but we're seeing these long-term contracts defeat the purpose of the cap. If I'm a GM within the system that's now in place, I can say to a player, "I can't give you a 3 year deal for $50 million, but I can give you a 10 year deal for $90 million." Now on the flip side, if I'm a player and I hear that, which deal sounds better? Obviously the one that offers more money. We've seen these deals take place across the league in recent years. Here's a quick list of some of the recent long-term signings:

- Marian Hossa (Blackhawks) - 12 years, $63 million
- Henrik Zetterberg (Red Wings) - 12 years, $73 million
- Vincent Lecavalier (Lightning) - 11 years, $85 million
- Alex Ovechkin (Capitals) - 13 years, $124 million
- Mike Richards (Flyers) - 12 years, $69 million
- Ilya Kovalchuk (Devils) 17 years, $102 million

A big reason we're seeing this trend is that a long-term contract is a way to beat the salary cap. One of the biggest reasons a salary cap is instituted is to keep big market teams from essentially buying the players needed to become and stay dominant, but when teams are allowed to spread their spendings out over years and years a serious flaw is exposed. Of course, there is a lot of risk when it comes to these signings. Take Rick DiPietro. He signed a 15 year contract worth $68 million with the Islanders in 2006, but the decision for the Islanders go through with this signing is not panning out for them whatsoever. In the last 2 years DiPietro has played a combined 13 games due to injury. However, despite the risk of a player not reaching his potential for any number of reasons, the strategy of utilizing these long-term contracts makes sense from a financial stand point.

As teams continue to find ways to beat the salary cap, it becomes clear that the league needs to take action if they want to have a cap in place that is actually effective. The next step for the NHL should be to limit the number of years a team can sign a player for. In the NBA a team can sign a player for a maximum of 6 years, and this has made it so teams can't beat the cap by paying a player over an abnormaly long time . With a rule like this, not only would we see a salary cap that is much more effective, but we would also see free agents more frequently, thus leading to more oppurtunities for teams to improve, and if that happens, we'll see a better league all together.

After being subjected to the obnoxiously over-hyped display of big-headedness known as, "The Decision," sports fans will soon be forced to saddle up once again and prepare for another inevitably agonizing and drawn-out decision, because it's almost football season, which can only mean one thing: Brett Favre's retirement decision.

Now, if this decision process goes the way I think it will, it'll be a bit like this: speculation will arise about Brett's plans for next year (thanks to the unnecessary interest ESPN continually seems to have) and attention will be turned to Brett. Brett will then assure everyone that he hasn't made up his mind yet. Training camp will come along and everyone will say, "Uh oh, Brett Favre isn't at training camp, does this mean he's not playing this year?" Then, with very convenient timing, Brett will decide that he wants to play football again, and despite missing training camp the Vikings will welcome him back with open arms.

Sound familiar?

Ever since he originally "retired," it has become a pattern every year for Favre to pull something like this, and in the process he has become one of the most disliked athletes in all of sports. There was once an integrity to retiring where an athlete decided that he could no longer play a game for one reason or another, but now we see it being used as a reason to miss training camp. What Favre is doing is smart for him: he holds out until he misses training camp, and when he wants to come back he makes a team feel really lucky to have him, but as a fan I think what he's doing is wrong for many reasons, and when the day comes that he actually does retire, fans will sigh with relief rather than gasp with disbelief.

What's really hard about this situation as a fan though is that there are now two Brett Favre's - a then Brett Favre, and a now Brett Favre.

The then Brett Favre was an American hero. He was hard working. He was a warrior, and he did his work with a smile on his face. He was a leader and he was the guy you wanted on your team. He was the epitome of what American sports enthusiasts valued. Now, this isn't to say that he isn't those things today, but the now Brett Favre is hardly likable. He seems selfish and it's hard to root for him. I'm sure there are many Favre fans out there still, but I think I speak for many when I say Brett Favre ruined Brett Favre for me.
The truth of the situation is that Brett has taken football and made it about Brett. Now, instead of hearing about what teams are doing heading into training camp, we're hearing about what Brett Favre is doing heading into training camp. Instead of hearing how teams plan to improve during training camp, we're hearing about whether Brett Favre's body can withstand another NFL season. This is the way it has been in recent years, and it seems to be headed in the same direction for the foreseeable future.

So to all the sports fans out there who wish to stay informed, use this post as a warning to run for cover from the downfall of information and speculation that will inevitably rain upon your television's and radio's as Brett Favre once again takes over pre-season discussions. We've seen this charade before and the ending has been the same. I'm not saying that the same thing is going to happen, but I'd say the chances are pretty high.