Gay Games

Every few years the issue of homosexuality surfaces in one of the major sports. Players are asked to explain how they feel about the subject. It’s the same old thing. Until now.

You have to give it to former NBA star Tim Hardaway. He didn’t pull any punches when he explained how he feels. He admitted to being a homophobe and believes that homosexuals don’t have a place not only in the locker room but no place on the planet as well. He hates gays. His words. Granted, he later apologized for saying those things but he made no retraction. He still hates gays. His apology was for so forcefully expressing his opinion. Hardaway meant what he said.

And good for him. I don’t agree with Hardaway nor do I respect people who have such an opinion of other people but I do admire the guy for speaking his mind clearly and plainly. Everybody else dances around the subject. The mighty Lebron James tiptoed around his own homophobia and described the issue as a matter of trust. When this subject comes up athletes almost always mince words. Hardaway gave the media what they wanted: headlines. They tried to make a story out of Lebron’s incoherent mutterings but before the King could be labeled a homophobe, Tim Hardaway stepped up and delivered.

And it’s a non story. Most players don’t have a problem with homosexuality until it is sitting next to them sweaty and naked in the locker room. It’s unsettling to think that one of your teammates might be sexually fantasizing about you as you bend over to pull on your athletic supporter. Lebron’s on point when he talks about trust. If a player comes out of the closet after showering next to you for four years the dynamic of that relationship is going to change. It’s probably harder for men to cope with than women. Men tend to be more protective of their sexuality. There’s more bravado involved. On some primal level men feel violated when they become the object of another man’s desire. In fact, women find sexual attention from men to be a little frustrating if not humiliating, so it’s not unreasonable for a man to find it objectionable.

That doesn’t make homophobia appropriate. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with athletic performance. Tim Hardaway’s issues revolve around homosexuality in general. He made it clear that he wants nothing to do with gays on any level. Lebron’s issues seem to revolve around the locker room. If steps could be taken to ensure privacy, most players would readily accept gay players. It’s all about those naked moments that take place before and after games.

Sure, intelligent people will say that it’s silly. Each team probably has at least one gay player on the active roster. So players should just accept the fact that they’ve been thoroughly examined by a homosexual and probably starred in plenty of kinky fantasies. Based on what we’ve seen throughout history the player who seems most adamant about his heterosexuality is probably the one who his gay. Tim Hardaway’s comments were so forceful it’s likely he is harboring some flamboyant demons who want nothing more than to get out and dance, dance, dance. We’ve seen that before, haven’t we?

Marty Ball

If there were any doubts that Marty Schottenheimer is a lousy coach they should have been erased Sunday as Nate Kaeding’s 54 yard field goal attempt fell about two yards short and three yards right of tying a game the Chargers should have won handily. It might seem convenient to pin the blame on Marty even though the players made more than their share of mistakes on the field. After all it was timely turnovers and penalties that gave the Patriots extra chances to keep the game within reach, but it was a Schottenheimer trademark, poor two minute defense, that made the upset possible. Tom Brady was brilliant at the end of each half when he calmly directed his offense down field to score. It was like déjà vu. John Elway’s legacy was fashioned around the creampuff coverage Schottenheimer employed when he coached the Browns and Tom Brady’s legend was bolstered yesterday.

Ultimately the biggest mistakes were made by the coach. Players often react in a manner that reflects the attitude of their coach and in spite of being heavily favored the Chargers played like underdogs. They seemed desperate even when they had a lead. Could that be because anytime Marty is in the postseason he’s an underdog?

Look at the final play: A 54 yard field goal attempt to tie the game. That’s a long distance for any kicker in that situation but for Kaeding it matched his longest. With 15 seconds left on the clock it would have been advisable to run one more quick play in hopes of picking up a few more yards. Just one yard might have been enough to give the young kicker a sense of confidence going onto the field. The difference between 53 and 54 yards is huge when 54 yards represents the longest kick you’ve ever made. Perhaps it’s only psychological but when it comes to kicking its all about the head. That’s why coaches still see fit to “ice” kickers if they have a time out to burn.

Of course that entire drive might have been different if the Chargers hadn’t burned their time outs prior to taking the field with just over a minute to play. Phillip Rivers was forced to waste one on the previous drive but the biggest waste of a time out, possibly in the history of the game, was when Schottenheimer challenged a turnover early in the quarter. Actually it was a double turnover but there was no reason to suspect that the officials had gotten the call wrong. Even at full speed it was clear Marlon McCree coughed up the ball after picking off Tom Brady. It provided the Patriots with a second chance and they capitalized by scoring, however the lost time out is what really cost the Chargers the game. The challenge reeked of desperation. Schottenheimer was hoping that there would be something on the replay he just wasn’t sure what it would be.

But even before that Schottenheimer demonstrated unnecessary levels of desperation. With plenty of game to play and an easy field goal on the table, Schottenheimer threw caution to the wind and went for it on 4th and 11. Phillip Rivers was sacked providing the Patriots with excellent field position on what should have been only a moral victory in holding the Chargers to three points…Three points that would have forced a tie. Instead the Patriots took advantage of the play and scored three points of their own. Schottenheimer looked ill at ease.

Bill Belichick, on the other hand, was cool and collected the whole time. Even as the underdog facing a ferocious defense and an unstoppable running back, Belichick stayed calm and called his plays. His team took advantage of every mistake and didn’t allow their own miscues to change the way they played. Instead of stuffing the line of scrimmage with players in hopes of stopping Tomlinson, Belichick treated the superstar they way he would treat any other back and resigned his defense to the fact that the Chargers would move the ball. They just had to keep it close. The offense played the same way, knowing that they would take a beating and need to pounce on every opportunity. They avoided costly penalties and stayed focused on the task at hand. In the end, the Patriots did what they had to do and won the game because they played smarter.

It’s too bad. By all accounts Marty Schottenheimer is a great guy. Players love him and he’s one of the more accessible coaches in the NFL. He’s polite and professional with the press and affable with fans. At times he does rub the front office the wrong way and he has been at odds with San Diego’s brain trust. This loss won’t endear him to the management team. Because of the loyalty Schottenheimer inspires in his players and the regular season success he enjoys, San Diego might have to keep him, but will they be able to do it without front office fireworks? Somebody will have to be held accountable for this loss and Schottenheimer might bristle at the prospect of being forced to hand an assistant coach out to dry. There might be no way to salvage this relationship.

And that’s how it has to be. It’s not luck. Schottenheimer is just a lousy postseason coach. The problem seems to stem from employing regular season preparation with post season strategy. Historically speaking, Schottenheimer’s teams consistently fail to match the intensity of their opponents in the playoffs. They don’t make adjustments and fail to execute on critical plays. His playoff teams also make a lot of foolish mistakes. Perhaps the biggest difference between regular season and post season Martyball is the so-called “killer instinct”. During the regular season Marty’s teams will seem dominant achieving victory early and using aggressive defense to quell the threat of a comeback. In the postseason, Martyball gets conservative and his teams seem to play not to lose. Many of his post season losses have come late in games when his opponents have been forced to play from behind.

This Chargers team might be the best Marty has ever coached. Many experts believe that Tomlinson is the best football player ever. That might be premature but he’s certainly a dominant force and unlike Barry Sanders, Tomlinson is surrounded with quality talent. Outstanding talent, in fact, which makes it hard to believe he’s in the same league as Barry Sanders, Jim Brown or Walter Payton. Nevertheless, the guy is good and he demonstrated that yesterday. For some reason, Schottenheimer seemed reticent to put the game on Tomlinson’s back which is another cause for concern. Clearly the Patriots couldn’t stop Tomlinson with their standard defense, so why not hand the MVP the ball 35 times until Belichick had no choice but to load up with a goal line set? It’s not as though you have to keep his legs fresh.

With the NFL being what it is, this might have been the best shot the Chargers and Marty would have had at a Super Bowl win. San Diego’s front office spent heavily in hopes that this team would win it all and free agency will take a toll on this team. If the Chargers clash with Schottenheimer the team will struggle next year (Marty has been self destructive after his ego’s been bruised) and if they fire him you can expect transition to be cruel. Who will replace him? Even if Tomlinson can replicate his performance in coming years, teams are going to find ways to minimize his impact and victories will be harder to come by. It also doesn’t help matters much that the Chargers will be playing a tougher schedule next season. And then you have the steroids issue haunting the defense. Can Merriman stay clean under the rigorous testing he’ll be subjected to over the coming months? Lights out indeed.

A lot of people will have high hopes for the Chargers next year. Analysts and fans alike will believe that this is the beginning of something special but it seems more like the beginning of the end. The Chargers had their chance and fell short. They can thank Marty Schottenheimer for that.

Mark McGwire belongs in H.O.F.

There's a heated debate in baseball's inner circle. The writers who vote on whether or not a player should get into the Hall of Fame are fussing over Mark McGwire. Some think he should get in. They argue that he was the most formidable slugger of his era and his record breaking 70 home runs in 1998 revived American interest in the sport. Few will offer a counterpoint to McGwire's statistical largess. He was a one-dimensional player but when he was healthy, as was the case in 1998, the man could regularly whack the stitches off the ball. When it came to that single dimension there are few players in history who were more proficient and none in his era.

Of course the argument against McGwire is the question of steroids. Of the voters who intend to deny Mac's induction, the vast majority believe that the specter of steroids have tainted everything the reclusive slugger has accomplished. Because of his ties to Jose Canseco, McGwire's connection to the illegal substances dates back to the late 1980's and the massive physique Mighty Mac was known for was undoubtedly enhanced with illicit chemicals. Nobody disputes this, not even McGwire.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against McGwire was his testimony before congress where he nervously refused to discuss the past or focus on the negative. Clearly Mac wasn't as comfortable with lying as his counterpart, Raffy Palmiero, but Mac was definitely not interested in being truthful either. It's a sad state of affairs when the most honest and respectable man in the room is Jose Canseco, but considering those present were lawyers, politicians and professional baseball players, that was the case.

There are some writers who won't vote for MacGwire on the first ballot, as if there is some special wing in the hall of fame for first ballot inductees. Those who are in this category are actually MacGwire supporters because they believe he belongs in the hall of fame but that his connection to steroids is something he should be shamed over. Apparently waiting six years instead of five is humiliating for a player.

Those who support Mac, regardless of which ballot on which they offer that support, believe he should be in the Hall of Fame in spite of using steroids because Major League Baseball did not have a formal steroid policy in its rule book at the time. Major League baseball did not revise its drug policy to specifically ban performance enhancing drugs until 2002. So technically speaking, McGwire didn't cheat.

The same people will take the argument a step further and challenge anybody to scientifically quantify the advantage steroids provide a slugger like McGwire. They will tell you that it is impossible to determine how many home runs steroids added to Mac's totals each season and some will even try to argue that the extra muscle mass associated with steroid use is actually a detriment to a baseball player. They will trot out the old adages about bigger muscles being slower muscles and bulky physiques being inflexible. There was a time not all that long ago when weight training was taboo for so-called "skill" athletes. Jose Canseco smashed that myth for baseball when he posted his legendary 40-40 season.

The final, and most compelling, defense from those in Mac's corner is perhaps the most logical because it's true. How can you punish MacGwire when we have no idea how many other players were also taking steroids back then? Surely the substance abuse wasn't limited to the Bash Brothers. Recent drug tests have revealed that pitchers seem to realize a benefit from taking steroids and there are people who suspect that Roger Clemens might owe his impressive longevity to some chemical assistance. Scouts have noticed that there are pitchers who entered the league projected as middle relievers who would rely on location and timing to keep hitters off balance only to discover a 98 mph fastball in their arsenal after a few seasons in the minor leagues. Eric Gagne was a mediocre pitcher until he came back from surgery with an extra 10 miles per hour on his fastball.

It's a great point. We have singled out Mark McGwire because he was caught with a legal supplement that is classified as a steroid precursor. Even though Andro was banned from other sports at the time and has since been banned by baseball, Mac had done nothing wrong and even had the bottle of Andro out in the open in his locker. Some suspect the MacGwire was alternating steroid and Andro cycles in order to maintain a much higher level of testosterone in his system, other believe that the Andro might have been a red herring kept on hand to throw investigators off the trail.

You see, steroids are illegal. Even though baseball didn't have a ban on them until 2002, the federal government has had steroids on the list of controlled substances since 1990. So it is true that Mark McGwire wasn't violating any of Major League Baseball's rules, but he was breaking the law. Perhaps Mac made the Andro available after a case of paranoia. Throw off the feds.

It's a tough subject and most of the baseball writers who vote on Hall of Fame selections don't like being caught in the pickle. In spite of the fact that sports writers will call themselves journalists, the reason they choose to cover sports is because they don't much care for the responsibility of covering real news. They like things light and fun. Steroids are heavy and distressing. Steroids require critical thinking, research and journalistic integrity.

Few sports writers are willing to do real work. In sports the facts are logged into the official record of every game and the debates are harmless. Arguing over who the best hitter in the game is easy because it's all about interpreting stats and there really are no right or wrong answers. Sports writing can be a bit like philosophy. Steroids are a serious topic with deadly consequences and your average sports writer isn't ready for it.

So they defer. They hide behind the game and try to focus on statistics. They try to make the argument about what happened on the field. They know that nobody can offer scientific evidence that will effectively quantify the impact of steroids and even if somebody can measure that impact to the inch, those writers know there will be equally compelling evidence to the contrary. So they never have to face steroids.

But that's a cop out. The fact of the matter is that a Hall of Fame induction isn't about science, it is about opinion. There is no rule that mandates certain statistical accomplishments. Players don't have to play for a minimum number years to qualify. The only rule is that players are not to be made eligible for induction until five years have passed since they ended their careers. The logic is that five years gives everybody time to put that player's accomplishments into perspective. Writers like to talk about fixed criteria because it makes their jobs easier, but ultimately induction is completely arbitrary. Sports writers are just too gutless to admit it.

In McGwire's case it is obvious that he took steroids throughout his career. He was a mountain of improbable muscle. The physical transformation occurred quickly and the change was dramatic. He started his career looking a bit like a red-headed bean pole and he finished his career looking like the Incredible Hulk's orange cousin. We don't have any positive tests that prove he took steroids but there is convincing evidence nonetheless. And frankly we don't need proof. Enshrinement is not a right and denying McGwire induction is not a legal matter. It's all about opinion. We can't throw Big Mac in prison based on our proof, but we can certainly sentence him to exclusion from the Hall of Fame.

Steroids are really easy to quantify if you care to be honest about them. They make athletes better. Period. Steroids made Mark McGwire bigger, stronger and faster than he would have been otherwise and his use of the illegal substance extended his career. The increased levels of testosterone help older athletes perform at a level similar to much younger players. Steroids might put athletes at risk for chronic joint and muscle problems but before critical massis achieved they are a veritable fountain of youth. That's why Barry Bonds has better bat speed and hand-eye coordination in his forties than he did in his twenties. His knees are shot, but he can still swing a bat.

Because he took steroids, Mark McGwire played much longer than he would have otherwise. Because he took steroids, Mark McGwire was stronger and faster than he would have been otherwise. You can't separate the two. Mac and 'roids are one. Everything Mark McGwire did was enhanced by his dependency on steroids.

How many of the 70 home runs can we attribute to steroids? All of them. There's a distinct possibility Mark McGwire wouldn't have been able to play major league baseball without steroids and because he started taking them so early in his career nobody can dispute that. Mac might have been a bench coach in Akron in 1998 had he not taken steroids. We don't know for sure. All we know about steroids is that they make people better athletes. Ben Johnson showed us that in 1988.

So the question we face isn't about Mark McGwire at all, it's about steroids. Do we honor what steroids have accomplished in baseball?

Ultimately that answer is yes. Even before the andro was spotted on the shelf in Mac's locker, most people were pretty sure he was juiced but when the subject was broached, sports writers and fans bristled at the slanderous insinuation and defended Big Mac. Why, they lamented, is every muscular athlete dogged with questions of steroids? Why do we want to tear down our heroes?

The same question surfaced around Sammy Sosa who also emerged as an impressive slugger who increased his home run total by 30 in 1998 and enjoyed a similar physical transformation to MacGwire's. Sosa began his career as a wiry outfielder with a quick swing and quicker feet. Over the years he went from being a tightly muscled 30-30 guy to becoming a human fire plug who smashed over sixty home runs in back to back seasons. But how dare anybody besmirch the integrity of the game with questions of steroids?

Back in 1998 everybody wanted to celebrate. The issue of steroids was there but it was ignored so we could watch too chemically enhanced cartoon characters bury one of the most melancholy records in all of sports. Roger Maris played the game in an era where players didn't take steroids. It's not that steroids weren't there but back then steroids were widely misunderstood and so were muscles. Baseball players were discouraged from using weights and body-building techniques because the exercise physiologists of the era believed big muscles were stiff and slow. A popular term of the era was muscle-bound. Back then the only athletes who regularly used weight training were football players and that was limited to linemen who required brute strength to finish blocks and tackles.

Maris didn't take steroids but his accomplishment was dismissed, ridiculed and eventually clarified with an asterisk because he played more games than Babe Ruth. Roger Maris was essentially a pariah because he broke one of baseball's most impressive and enduring records by playing every game with honor, class and integrity. But yet we see fit to defend players who voluntarily injected themselves with illegal performance enhancing substances.

The benefits of weight trained weren't fully appreciated until the mid-1980's. As our understanding of physiology grew and people became aware of the factors that influence muscle growth and development, athletes from all sports began to use training methods that included prolific use of weights. With proper nutrition and a combination strength, speed and flexibility exercises bigger muscles meant both strength and speed. Hank Aaron should be miffed that his record is about to be passed by Barry Bonds. Who knows how many home runs Hammering Hank might have hit if he had been encouraged to lift weights, let alone take steroids?

The evidence is readily available in archived footage. Compare athletes from the early 1980's to their counterparts in the early 1990's. What happened? Now you see muscles everywhere. Even golfers are finding that a little added muscle mass is helpful. Brute strength alone won't win tournaments but a little extra muscle certainly separates the top performers from the middle of the pack. Tiger Woods spends a lot of time in the gym hitting the weights. It's no coincidence that he's the best golfer in the world.

So muscles matter and it seems as though everybody came to that conclusion around the same time. How long do you suppose it took for somebody to reach for a bottle of steroids? Steroids make growing muscle much easier.

Jose Canseco used to laugh about how easy it was for him to achieve tremendous gains in the gym with minimal effort. That's why steroids in baseball center around him. His teammates saw how effective steroids were in building muscle, connected the muscle to Canseco's performance and immediately demanded that Canseco share his supply with them. Canseco and McGwire led the A's to three consecutive world series appearances with an impressive 4-0 sweep over the Giants in 1989. Even back then, as people watched the bulging Bash Brothers send hundreds of balls over the fences, the fingerprint of steroids was obvious.

So why not induct McGwire into the Hall of Fame? As a society we have watched steroids become a fixture in every sport and readily ignored the obvious signs. Instead we demand that the various leagues assure us they are testing for steroids and offer up the occasional sacrificial lamb. Even with the testing, which is laughable when compared to international standards, steroids are still rampant because the risk/reward ratio is still favorable. League officials do just enough to satisfy the conscience of the fans who in turn readily accept players back after the minimal punishments are imposed.

Inducting Mark McGwire into the hall of Fame is tantamount to giving steroids a stamp of approval but it seems we have already not only accepted steroids but embraced them. If we don't want to hold players accountable for using steroids while they are playing, why bother pretending it matters five years later. The Hall of Fame is a sham anyway, let MacGwire in and make the circle complete.

BCS lacking this year.

Ok, let’s get real. Even though we can extract a certain degree of satisfaction from the ponderous selection of bowl games, the only games that matter begin this weekend. Even though the BCS has been foisted upon us as something of consequence one of the most compelling match ups of the year has to be Arkansas and Wisconsin. The SEC has been heralded as the toughest conference in country and Wisconsin has been dismissed as lucky to dodge a Buckeye bullet on its way to a top 10 ranking.

We could compare and contrast schedules and talk about quality of competition but the Capital One Bowl is the best put up or shut up game on the menu. If Wisconsin wins the Big 10 carves out a chunk of national respect. The so-called experts who have dismissed the Badgers as a fluke will have to eat a little crow and the SEC will lose a touch of its luster. Don’t count Wisconsin out. The Big 10 might not look great on paper but paper doesn’t tell the whole story. This is a conference that got deeper as the season progressed.

Penn State could score a few points for the Big 10 if they beat Tennessee but this game just doesn’t seem to match up because Penn State has struggled with an erratic quarterback. The defense is solid and they have playmakers on offense but there just isn’t enough consistency there to make Penn State look formidable this year, which really puts the pressure on the Volunteers. They can’t make mistakes or the Lions defense will find a way to win the game. This is a team that shut down Ohio State for three and a half quarters and you have to figure that Tennessee’s defense will give that Penn State offense a little room. Tennessee should win, but they’d better come ready to play.

The biggest disappointment of the weekend might be squandering the impressive assortment of weapons Michigan has brandished all year on a USC team that just doesn’t have the magic of its predecessors. It could be a good game but based on what we’ve seem UCS’s only hope is that Michigan will be so disappointed in missing a second crack at Ohio State that they don’t deliver on the field. Sure, USC’s a good team with some great players but they couldn’t beat UCLA to seal the deal at the end of the year. They either lack discipline or talent. Or both.

Even though the teams are highly overrated, Louisville and Wake Forest make for an interesting pairing. Seeing Wake Forest rise to the top of its conference, albeit a very weak and confused conference, is a nice story and Louisville can move the football a bit. Neither one of these teams has any business being mentioned in the same sentence as the rest of the BCS field but the fact that their glaring weaknesses match up so well means this game could be fun. Sloppy perhaps, but fast paced and fun. Too bad the clout of the BCS is wasted on what amounts to a backyard scrimmage between two conferences full of bad teams.

Boise State can’t claim much of a conference but the fact that this team has been making noise for years makes the Fiesta Bowl a good game. Oklahoma might overpower the potato peelers with a whole lot of Adrian Peterson but we have to see it happen. If Boise State wins, the whole BCS selection process goes out the window. If Oklahoma racks of 500 yards rushing on the way to a 53-17 thrashing, Boise State and the rest of the WAC won’t be allowed to think about a BCS bowl.Ever again. It’s actually a lot of pressure for Boise State. Every non-BCS conference team is hoping Boise State can look respectable. Winning would be miraculous, but they have to keep the margin under three scores.

The most fitting bowl for the LSU Tigers is the Sugar Bowl. The Fighting Irish must look so sweet and tasty. We’re talking about an independent team with three victories posted over historically outclassed service academies and no victories against top ten opponents. As potent as the Brady Quinn led offense looks on the stat sheet, against tough defenses the future first round draft choice has looked more like a future ESPN commentator. Going back to last year’s unwarranted BCS nod against Ohio State, Charlie Weis and Brady Quinn just can’t figure out how to get the best of a good defense. This is an overrated match up because Notre Dame might be the least deserving of all the BCS teams. Charlie Weis must really be a genius because he’s got everybody fooled.

No matter how you slice it, Florida just doesn’t look like a championship contender. Even if they pull off the big upset and dethrone the anointed Buckeyes, the Gators still won’t have anybody convinced that they could get past Michigan. But it’s virtually impossible to see the upset coming. Comparisons have been made between this Florida club and the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes who eventually upset Miami in a pretty intense Fiesta Bowl for the so-called national title. This Florida team isn’t that good.

The 2002 Buckeyes had a great defense that crushed everybody. They made every play. They were almost perfect. They had to be because Jim Tressel’s offense in 2002 was centered around the punt. If he went up by three in the second quarter he’d shut down the offense and start running out the clock. When you consider how awful that attack was (106th overall) it’s a miracle the defense overcame it’s own offense let alone the guys on the other team.

The BCS Trainwreck

Throughout the season Ohio State and Michigan distanced themselves from the rest of the field and positioned themselves as the top two teams in the country. Unfortunately the rest of the contenders all lost games along the way leaving a mess behind, especially if Michigan lost a close game to its rival. We all saw the game of the century unfold as a wild shoot out with number two Michigan falling just short as time expired. It was an instant classic.

That's when the BCS hype machine went into overdrive. A clear number two team had to be picked from the pile of one loss hopefuls and the anointed program was USC. Even though Michigan retained its ranking after the close loss, USC had could convince the voters and the computers it was worthy of a title shot if the Trojans could beat Notre Dame handily. Since Notre Dame was more than a little overrated USC prevailed and secured the second place spot. The BCS title game was a virtual lock with only the lowly UCLA Bruins holding a slim chance in tripping things up.

You see, USC was the only team besides Michigan that has shown enough firepower to challenge Ohio State. The Trojans gave one game away when they looked past Oregon State and struggled with a few games while key players nursed injuries but when the team was healthy they looked unstoppable. Until they faced UCLA. In that final Pac 10 game USC looked very average. UCLA didn't exactly look like a team for the ages, but the underdog did what it needed to do and USC was knocked from that coveted number two spot.

That opened up the debate over who should get a title shot. Michigan's loss was to an Ohio State team that seemed unbeatable all season long and the Wolverines proved to be up to the task. Florida won an allegedly tough conference and suffered only one loss to a team that was supposed to be pretty formidable at the time. In the end it was subjective criteria that won out. Florida got the nod because they hadn't played Ohio State.

After all the games had been played the talking began and the people esteemed to have their opinions factored into the BCS formula fabricated a national title game that made sense on paper. One conference champ against another. That's the way it has to be. Essentially Michigan and Florida were tied for second place so a handful of people who allegedly know what they're doing have broken the tie for us. Thanks. Of course those same people thought USC would beat UCLA and long before that thought Notre Dame would dominate Michigan.

From a marketing perspective it makes sense. Why would anybody pay to see Michigan and Ohio State play round two? Why would the BCS want to offend the other conferences? More importantly, could the Big 10 generate enough revenue on its own to make the BCS title game profitable?

And don't discount the fact that people were thinking about how much more money could be made if the collective fan base of Ohio State and Michigan were spread out over two BCS games instead of just one. We are talking about two universities that have been very large for a very long time and both have a long history of athletic success. That means money. Both have proven themselves capable of carrying a bowl entirely on their own. Ohio State pulls in 80,000 people for its spring intra squad scrimmage! Split the ticket and double the money, right?

Sadly, it's all about money and politics. The fans are subjected to an arbitrary process where talking heads and stuffed shirts dictate the post season. In every other level of college football the champion is determined through a tournament where teams aren't punished for one or two regular season setbacks. It's not a 12 game playoff, it's a six month crap shoot where teams hope that they can avoid injuries, bad calls and unlucky bounces long enough to secure that number one ranking. Is the BCS champion really that good, or just lucky?

Thanks to the BCS we're splitting hairs over Jim Tressel passing on voting in the final coach's poll. Instead of looking forward to seeing if Ohio State can live up to the hype by facing challengers who built momentum throughout the year, we have crowned Ohio State as the champion and allowed one lucky suitor the chance to prove us wrong. Sadly it's Boise State, unbeaten and untied, who will suffer the most. Even if they emerge from the post season the only unbeaten team, they'll still fall short of the national championship. Their fate has been decided on paper.

UCLA proved how faulty that logic is. Nobody gave them a chance. USC fans were booking trips to Glendale and Fox Sports had their BCS Championship graphics package edited and ready to air. On paper the Bruins didn't have a chance, not if USC showed up. The best sports stories are always about the monumental upsets nobody saw coming. It's so pervasive UCLA winning shouldn't surprise us and so important that we shouldn't be eager to settle things on paper.

Until we rectify the problem, we'll never have a real champion at the highest level of college football. Real champions win games not polls.

Michael Vick destined for mediocrity

The Michael Vick experiment is over and the results are in: the NFL has no room for running quarterbacks. Don't get me wrong, Vick can be fun to watch but when he faces a strong defense with enough depth to keep him contained Vick makes mistakes. Big mistakes that result in key losses.

With Vick under center the Falcons have proven themselves to be a classic study in mediocrity and when you look at the big picture of Vick's career he falls far short of the performance standards set by great quarterbacks.

Vick apologists will claim that he plays a different game and that the key is designing the game to his strengths but that's what the Falcons have done and the result is .500 football. Vick can hurt a defense with his feet but his arm tends to let the team down in big games. He's got play makers down field and a solid ground game. The Falcons aren't perfect but a lot of that is thanks to Vick's inconsistent passing and bad attitude. They just don't have the leadership on the field in tight games.

Michael Vick is a remarkable athlete with a powerful arm and his struggles are similar to those experienced by John Elway who became an consistent field general later in his career when his body needed more help from his head. Vick's problem is that he has always been able to make things happen, but he gets stopped when he runs into a good team with smart coaches. Like Elway, Vick seems capable of pulling his team out of deep holes but unlike Elway, Vick's arm isn't as reliable down the stretch. That takes away an aspect of the game that is important in managing the clock. Both quarterbacks share a similar distinction in putting their teams in tough spots. Elway's accuracy and awareness made him a little better at overcoming his mistakes. Even so, Elway didn't win the big games until the very end of his career.

At this juncture, Mike Vick has more in common with Randall Cunningham than John Elway. Like Cunningham, Vick has remarkable athletic ability a knack for making spectacular plays. Both share the distinction of being characterized in enduring highlights that capture the essence of their ability. The fact that both of these players are immortalized for making brilliant plays in virtually meaningless games is telling. You have to make things happen when they matter most and so far Vick seems to come unglued when the pressure is on.

It's not about middle fingers. Vick was frustrated and upset and he vented frustration at people who were heckling him. He may not be a complete quarterback but he's a competitive athlete who hates to lose. He knows he let his team down and it makes him sick. He just has to figure out how to best apply his tremendous skill set. Those who are upset or offended at Vick flipping off the home crowd need to find better things to worry about.

The trick is for Vick to realize that his job isn't to take over the game with his athleticism. It's nice if he can use that ability to buy some time or convert the occasional first down, but a quarterback has to defer to the team. Vick needs to become a secondary play maker and use his ability to showcase the rest of the team. Running for a first down is great but scrambling in the pocket in the hopes of finding an open set of hands 25 yards down field is better. He also needs to develop more consistent touch on his passes and hit those receivers in stride so they can use their ability to make plays after the catch rather then exhaust that ability trying to bring the ball in.

Good coaches know how to frustrate Vick. They take away his options and dare him to take the game over on his own. If the defense is balanced the strategy keeps Vick and the Falcons out of the end zone. Vick will gain yards on the ground but the Falcons sputter in thered zone because they can't stretch the defense deep anymore. That's when the defensive backs can sit on routes and wait for Vick to throw a bad ball. Even though Vick has shown flashes of brilliance, the really good teams know how to rattle him.

The problem goes back to college. Virginia Tech is one of those programs that has to recruit creatively and Vick was attracted to Frank Beamer's team because he knew he would get a chance to start as a freshman and be permitted to make plays. Vick wanted to be a star and Beamer was willing to let him shine. Traditional football powers thought of using Vick as a running back or even grooming him to be a staring QB as a junior or senior. Beamer thought he could ride Michael Vick into championship contention but Vick has struggled with the concept of conforming to the NFL game. College often rewards raw talent; in the NFL quarterbacks make plays with their heads. By the way, Beamer hasn't exactly changed the way college football is played. Virginia Tech hasn't won many big games either. Hardly a coincidence.

The Atlanta Falcons are not in the Big East or ACC and the level of talent Vick is facing is much deeper than he ever witnessed in college. Defensive backs in the NFL are smart enough to know when the QB is still behind the line and athletic enough to bring the elusive Vick down when he does take to the open field. He still makes plays because he is a special athlete, but the pond he's swimming in is bigger, deeper and full of much larger fish. The proof is in the standings. When Vick finally realizes that he isn't bigger than the NFL the Falcons will be dangerous. Until then, fans should get comfortable with 8-8.

B_S Championship

Let me start off by stating for the record that I am a lifelong Ohio State Buckeye fan. My Pee Wee football team was named the Rome Buckeyes, my high school fight song was the Buckeye Battle Cry. I won't claim that I bleed scarlet and gray but I do believe that year in and year out there is no finer college football than what you'll find in the Big 10.

That being said, I can turn in a scathing criticism of the program. I think Ohio State willfully arranges for its players to get paid by boosters. I have seen compelling evidence in the form of expensive clothes, nice cars and fists full of cold hard cash at campus bars. Some of the players might have well-to-do parents, but most come from modest means. I believe Jim Tressel facilitated Maurice Clarett's corruption and quickly feigned ignorance when the NCAA caught wind of it. I won't go saw far as to say Ohio State is dirty, but like every major athletic program in the country, Ohio State bends the rules.

I also think the 2002 National Championship was a fluke. The title game against Miami was the real deal and idiots like Dan Lebatard can whine about bad calls all day but the fact of the matter is that Ohio State won fair and square. If they got a phantom call in the end zone it made up for the pass interference Miami got away with on the previous Buckeye possession. The game was fine and dandy...The fluke was in the regular season. The offense Jim Tressel employed was an abomination and had no business wearing the Buckeye colors. It didn't get much better in the following year and we only saw glimpses of the potential this season's team had at the end of 2005. But when you have a complex method for determining a champion flukes will sometimes prevail. Human polls where traditional powers get credit for historical success are bad enough but the computers can't factor in the intangibles.

This year the computers had Rutgers ranked ahead of Ohio State. Whatever formula the programs run to determine the national champion had Rutgers at #2 behind Michigan and ahead of Ohio State. Granted, the big finale between the two arch rivals corrected the obvious error and Rutgers was takento school by Cincinnati but what if Ohio State and Michigan were in different conferences and never played. The computers aren't supposed to factor in margin of victory because the NCAA doesn't want to see teams running up the score for the sake of tricking the computers, but clearly the reason Rutgers crept past Ohio State is because of the compared margin of victory each team had against a common opponent. Early in the season Rutgers clobbered Illinois 33-0 but late in the season Ohio State struggled with the Illini and only scored 17 in what could only be described as a defensive struggle.

Everybody knows that Ohio State got caught looking ahead to and Illinois played it's best game in 10 years in the hopes of making history by upsetting the mighty Buckeyes. Humans understand the psychology of the game and know that the reason we play every game has a lot more to do with what happens inside the head than what goes on down on the gridiron. Computers don't have a program that factors that in. So as far as the computers were concerned Rutgers was better because they beat Illinois by a larger margin. Simple math. 2+2= Huh? A few of those computers might have gone offline when they tried to figure out how Rutgers could get hammered by a team Ohio State easily defeated. Hearts and heads are a part ofthe game you can't quantify. That's why statistical leaders should never be confused with winners. Right, Peyton Manning?

BCS advocates loved 2005 because Texas and USC ran up perfect records to get to the title game. They claim that Texas was the undisputed champ because they beat USC head to head and played a daunting schedule that included a tough Buckeye team in Columbus. That's a fine point except that even the most skeptical experts believed that Ohio State was playing better football than anybody else at the end of the year and that USC and Texas were fortunate to not have to play them. A great case could also be made for Penn State, whose hard-nosed defense could stonewall any offense and give the athletic play makers on offense a chance to win. Even though there were two unbeaten teams at the top of the polls, very little separated the teams on the field.

This year Ohio State is heralded as the best team in the land. Ohio State started the season at number one and never looked back. The offense clicked in all but two games and the defense was stout in every contest except the final showdown with second ranked Michigan. Even though Michigan lost, they played Ohio State so well and the rest of the field looks so mediocre that the BCS still has Michigan ranked number two. The humans who vote on the polls relegated Michigan to third place, but that can be attributed to faulty human logic that demands that all losers be punished. The computers aren't the only flies in the ointment.

Still, when you look at the contenders everybody except Boise State has at least one loss. So whoever gets the nod to play for the title will be less than perfect. USC is the likely beneficiary of this generosity if they can stay on track against Notre Dame and UCLA. Experts don't see them losing but those same experts though Oregon State was a pushover. The Beavers jumped out to a nice lead early and held on for the big upset. Even in their wins USC has looked a little suspect and would be a long shot to give Ohio State much trouble in the BCS title game.

Then you have Florida. People seem to think that the mighty SEC is the strongest conference in the NCAA and therefore feel that Florida deserves a title shot if they win out. The problem is when you really look closely at the SEC it's not that much stronger than the Big 10. Much of the talk about the SEC's depth has more to do with history than it does actual on field prowess in recent years. Alabama used to be a mighty foe, Tennessee was a warhorse fueled by an explosive offense and Steve Spurrier had Florida in the top 5 every year. In the past few years LSU has been a serious contender and Auburn enjoys periodic spurts of greatness but when you compare apples to apples the SEC isn't all its cracked up to be. Wisconsin and Penn State would do just fine in the SEC. It's a tough conference but not nearly as dominant as people hold it up to be.

This year the SEC doesn't look so hot. The teams don't seem to be beating each other up so much as they are shooting themselves in the foot. Florida is inconsistent and has backed into their victories. Arkansas is having a banner year but that might be thanks to the rest of the SEC being a little less than everybody expected. Neither of the SEC's contenders look ready for prime time.

The Big East is a joke. West Virginia is built around two players and Pat White owes a lot of his success to the fact that Steve Slaton draws so much attention. West Virginia was a sprained ankle away from a 2-10 record. Louisville actually managed to stay in the hunt after sustaining injuries to key players but their biggest win of the season revealed a lot of flaws. The battle for the Big East showed the entire country that West Virginia and Louisville were exactly what people thought they were: big fish in a very small pond. The game was sloppy and made it clear that the Big East wasn't going to fare well if one of its teams ran the table. Rutgers enjoyed its best run in almost 100 years but forgot that the season was 12 games long. They fell flat in Cincy and will probably lose big to the Mountaineers.

The other one loss option, provided they pull off the upset at USC, is Notre Dame. Considering the one loss they have was a firm spanking at the hands of Michigan, it would seem ridiculous to send the Fighting Irish to Glendale to battle Ohio State for a rematch of last year's Fiesta Bowl. Interestingly, Ohio State dominated Notre Dame gaining over 600 yards of offense in one of those lopsided contests where the score didn't tell you how humilating it was for Notre Dame. Ohio State is better this year while the Irish might be a little worse.

That leaves Michigan. The Wolverines already had their shot at Ohio State but at the end of the day when you try to select the team most worthy of a shot at the title you have to give them the nod. Their one loss was by 3 points to the top ranked team in the country. Michigan scored 39 points on nearly 500 yards of total offense. When they needed a touchdown in the closing minutes of the second half they marched down field with methodical precision and topped it off with a critical two point conversion. Give them a lucky bounce on the onside kick and the game might have gone into a marathon overtime shootout.

On so many levels it would be wrong to give Michigan another shot at Ohio State. It would be unfair to Ohio State, it would belittle the rest of the NCAA and it could bore fans who got their fill of The Game on November 18th. A rematch might prove to be anticlimactic. But so would a fabricated championship game with the also rans.

The only answer is a playoff system. If the top ranked teams entered into a playoff to determine the nation champion nobody could complain about the match up. People would complain, but they would have no basis. With more than 100 teams in Divsion 1-a, you would still have to use a ranking system to determine your seeding, so keeping the current BCS system in place would be necessary. At the end of the year after all the games are played you take the top 12 teams and pair them up.

Forget about conference champions or bowl preferences. Keep the program simple and give the top 12 teams a shot at advancing. Conference title or not, if you can't make the top 12 you just aren't that good. Teams get shafted a position or two every year but taking the top 12 gives the poll a margin of error. Maybe the #13 team would cry foul but the if that team really had a shot they would have cracked the top 10. The NCAA could impose a rule that suspended any whiners from play for five years.

Most playoff supporters call for a simple eight team bracket, but I think that expanding it is important because we get to honor everybody in the top ten plus two more. The real playoffs start with he top four teams in the BCS who would obviously get a first round bye. That essentially means that the other eight teams would be participating in what amounts to be a play in game. The winner moves on to the second round where they would face one of the top four teams.

Furthermore I propose only seeding the top four. Spread them out so the one and two would face each other in the title game. The rest of the teams could be paired according to regional interest and would be played at the home field of the team who had the better record or by poll position if the records are identical. This would cut travel costs down and give the hosting team an opportunity to generate some extra revenue. In fact, the second round could be played on the home fields of the teams who made the top four with the semifinal and championship games played at nuetral bowl-oriented sites.

The various nefarious bowl committees would be livid. That's because they make a ton of money with the status quo. There's a distinct possibility that the convoluted system also keeps some of the college football analysts employed because the general public thinks they need an expert to decipher the rankings. However, one only need look at the NFL playoffs to realize the potential a post season would bring.

That leaves the argument that these are students who can't afford to miss that much class, which is a crock because most of these so-called students don't take demanding course loads. Furthermore we are only talking about adding an extra couple of games. If the NCAA opted to embrace the playoff system the regular season could be trimmed to 11 games by eliminating one of the cream puffs and the duration of the season could be reduced by dropping the bye week some teams schedule. When Ohio State made its title run in 2002 they finished the season 14-0. Texas had to play an extra game in the form of a conference championship game in 2005. Teams are already playing extra games, so why not dispense with the pretense and welcome a new era in Division 1-a football where the national champion actually earns the title on the football field?

History Unfolds on a Saturday Afternoon.

Ohio State and Michigan share one of the most storied rivalries in all of sports. For more than 100 years Ohio State and Michigan have been facing each other on the football field which makes this series almost as old as football . There aren't any trophies in this one. No jugs, or hatchets or bags of magic beans. Nevertheless, the players always play this game as though everything they stand for is on the line. Often, this game is a heart breaker. One of the teams will come in with a sterling record while the other has wallowed through a miserable season wrought with adversity only to win decisively as though the rest of the season never happened. They often say you can throw the records out when arch rivals meet but they never tell you that this is the rivalry that makes the adage true.

On November 18th this legendary contest will have an added twist: Ohio State and Michigan are both unbeaten, untied and ranked first and second in the nation respectively. Moreover, both teams are entering the game healthy and playing extremely well. It's unlikely you could examine the history of college football and find two teams playing at a higher level than these two are right now. These teams aren't just the best teams 2006 has to offer, both of these teams are as top to bottom dominant as college football teams get.

That's bad news for the BCS. After Saturday one of these teams is going to fall out of the so-called National Title picture. At best the loser might find themselves at #3 but after the polls are turned in and the equations are calculated the loser find themselves playing in a bowl they simply can't get excited about. The BCS people will hope and pray that they can generate enough hype about USC, Notre Dame or Florida to get the nation excited about who ever survives the formula to play Saturday's winner, but everybody know that the real title game is being played this week, not in January.

Saturday's contest will be epic. There is no question in anybody's mind that these two teams are the very best in college football and when you factor in the intense rivalry you are guaranteed that both teams are going to bring their level best for four quarters. That will make it hard to get anybody excited for the holiday exhibition that the BCS will become.

That's why we need playoffs. It's a shame that the top two teams in the country have to face each other before the predetermined national championship game. The winner of this game will prove that they're the better team, but some how the BCS will determine that the loser is worse than somebody else. It's simply not fair. A playoff system would force teams to prove their worthiness on the field in head to head competition. If Ohio State beats Michigan that shouldn't automatically elevate USC past the Wolverines. Let USC prove they're better than Michigan by beating them on the field, not in some arbitrary formula.

Tiger Woods: Best Ever

Sports fans love to compare superstars. These comparisons are always subjective and subjected to various stretches of reason, but the discussion is fun in spite of the fact that there is never a definitive answer. It's all about banter. In reality the very idea of comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain is ridiculous. They played in different eras, under different rules and faced different obstacles. Never mind the fact that they played different positions, and if you want to talk about the different positions try quantifying the value of an offensive lineman in football. Impossible. Then we have those inane discussions where we try to transcend specific sports and speak in general terms about athletics. Crazy.

However at the age of 30, Tiger Woods has made a strong case for being dubbed the greatest athlete of all time. No, I can't crunch statistics to support that claim, my argument is esoteric. Before you dismiss me as one of those golf fanatics let me point out that I am loath to call most golfers athletes. Too many fat old white guys with a two-pack-a-day problem succeed in golf for it to be confused as an athletic pursuit, but Tiger Woods is different. Tiger has that quality that we rarely see in athletes. The fact that most of us have enjoyed three such athletes in the last 15 years is a anomaly. Tiger is cut from the same cloth as Michael Jordan and Lance Armstrong...all three sharing the combination of admirable and deplorable traits that add up to athletic dominance. Yes, I said deplorable...sadly, a lot of what makes these guys great athletes also makes them lousy people. You can't be a great athlete without being a little selfish and egotistical.

Instead of wasting time arguing how Tiger compares to Joe Montana (who owes everything to Jerry Rice and Bill Walsh) I'll address a subject much closer to home: Jack Nicklaus. The Golden Bear is revered as the greatest golfer of all time and holds a lofty perch on almost anybody's all-time athlete list. He dominated golf for years, holding records for winning the most majors of any other golfer. Jack was impressive. Being from Columbus I can't help but be all too informed of how brilliant he was. To the point of nausea. Big town, small minds.

Tiger's well short of Jack's big stage accomplishments. With his recent British Open victory Tiger can only claim 11 majors to Jack's 18. Few people will argue that Tiger's best golf lies ahead of him since most golfers are at their best when other athletes are hanging on too long, but what Tiger has already accomplished is more impressive to me.

My point is that you simply can't compare Jack and Tiger stroke for stroke. I submit that you can't do that in any sport. Jim Brown's career rushing average is extremely impressive but he was a freak of nature in an era where football was still rather primitive. The same holds true for Jack...except Jack's advantages weren't physical, at least not in the manner Jim Brown's were, Jack was an elite golfer who had access to equipment, training and assistance few of his contemporaries had. Tiger faces a field of golfers who have access to everything he does. Many of the golfers Jack beat golfed as a hobby in hopes of finishing high enough to get a sponsorship and make a career of golf. Now, sponsors are abundant, purses are rich and simply qualifying for the PGA tour virtually guarantees a comfortable living.

Golf gets more exposure now than it ever did and that brings in more money. Since Tiger is already getting his share, more money is going to weaker golfers, that money is being invested in personal trainers, personal swing coaches, nutritionists and psychologists. In Jack's day the weaker golfers got day jobs and golfed with clubs straight of the shelf. Now, everybody has custom clubs that are specifically designed to enhance strengths and minimize weaknesses of each golfer. While one might think that the elite golfers benefit from those perks, the reality is a golfer as fundamentally sound as Tiger simply can't gain as much of an advantage as those with more glaring deficiencies. He's ahead of the curve and therefore can't get much help from custom clubs or special instruction. It's like a corked bat might help Omar Vizquel turn a couple of doubles into home runs, but a slugger like Manny Ramirez isn't going to benefit from a few more inches of loft. Tiger can only be hurt by inferior equipment, not helped by better gear.

But perhaps the biggest hurdle Tiger has faced is the fact the golf has conspired to beat him. The PGA and its member courses have tinkered with various holes to make them a little more difficult to play. Since the general idea is to lengthen holes while narrowing the fairways, long driving golfers are forced to use more finesse to work their way to the pin. This practice was referred to as "Tiger-proofing". When Tiger first burst onto the scene people were in awe of his drive. He turned 450 yard par fives into par threes by chipping to within 4 feet of the pin on his second shot. Tiger could accurately drive the ball 300 yards every time, now it seems every hole has some sort of hazard or at least a bad lay at that 300 yard marker.

Tiger's not the only guy to have a 300 yard drive, but he's one of the few heavy hitters to bring a formidable short game to the table. Before he came along the only golfer that combined tremendous power with such refined skill was Jack Nicklaus. The difference is that every club manager didn't spend 10 million bucks trying to take Jack's game out of the equation. There was never any "Bear-proofing". They might have softened up a few sand traps here and there, but we've seen wholesale changes in golf since Tiger came along. Even stoic Augusta National, home of sexism and bigotry, dared lay waste to Bobby Jones' legacy in order to lengthen the course and tighten up the approaches.

But that's not the half of it. Jack Nicklaus is a legend, but he was far from being a celebrity. Sure, golf fans will debate it but Jack's not, nor was he ever, as universally recognized as Tiger Woods. Even in his prime, Jack never saw the kind of crowds following him around the course that Tiger sees today. That's pressure. When Jack's dad died, people weren't sticking cameras in his face to get him reacting to a question about what his father meant to him. Tiger is essentially an A-list celebrity. And he doesn't like it.

Yes, that's the price he pays for the hundreds of millions of dollars he clears each year and at the end of the day he knows it's worth the sacrifice, but Tiger is not a media whore. He does his interviews after an event and disappears. He could have dated big name celebrities, done a reality show or even shot a thousand more commercials but Tiger seems genuinely uneasy with his celebrity status. He doesn't want it getting in the way of his golf.

With his rapid rise to mega-stardom, one would expect him to get distracted; after all, he's been striking balls since he was 3, but Tiger has remained focused. For a while it looked like he was getting sloppy, but once he adjusted to the changing courses and put his driver on the shelf he's been the top golfer in the world. He's that good. Instead of letting "them" take his game away, he went to work and proved that he can win regardless of the conditions. Make him shoot the back nine with a ping pong ball and he'll figure out how to bring it home 3 under for the day.

Tiger has faced all the big pitfalls. At 30 he lost his dad and responded by winning the British Open with that same stoic determination that made him impossible to beat a few years ago. He's gotten married, dealt with fame, fortune and negative publicity. And did I mention that he's a black man playing one of the whitest sports in history? Tiger is so cool and collected that most people forget he's black. Race shouldn't be a challenge or an issue, but we all know that it is. Tiger's probably heard more than his fair share of epithets on the course and you know he's read plenty of death threats from the sick pigs we share a planet with. With each obstacle he seems to get a little tougher and more determined. He's at an age when most golfers start contending for championships and he already has 11 majors to his name. Even though he'll eventually erase all doubt, there's little question that he's already accomplished more than anybody could have expected. He's the best and getting better.

Indians not much of a rival for the Yankees

In Cleveland fans consider the New York Yankees to be bitter rivals. Some commentators dismiss this talk as the rampant animosity the rest of the league feels toward the most successful franchise in baseball. Everybody, they will tell you, hates the Yankees.

This is true. Part of it is the consistent success the Yankees enjoy but the hatred goes much deeper than just jealousy. Fans loath The Yankees because they have always been able to get away with the sort of roster moves that would ruin other teams. George Steinbrenner buried the Yankees in mediocrity for most of the 1980's but managed to buy his way out in the 90's. We have seen him make huge mistakes in recent years but it seems that he always has the money to buy himself a competitive team. They might not win the World Series every year but they're in the hunt every single season. The Indians made a few mistakes in the 1950's and paid dearly for the next 40 years.

Of course we are also talking about New York City. Two things that are hammered at the world by mass media are New York City and Southern California. Through books, movies, television and magazines we are constantly reminded that the vast majority of the people living in the US just aren't smart, sexy or sophisticated enough to handle life in those locations. The Yankees are the flagship enterprise of New York arrogance. If you don't hate them, you're admitting that you aren't worthy. You have no self esteem.

But the Indians might have a good case for claiming a rivalry against the mighty Yankees. Some fans would insist that it dates back to the 1940's but The Indians weren't exactly a post season fixture back then either. They won the World Series in 1920 and 1948, lost it in 1954 and spent the next half century waiting until next year. As a long time Tribe fan I can only attest to the misery. The Indians have been inept at their best and embarrassing at their worst.

Nope. If we're going to claim that a rivalry exists we have to show cause in the modern era and with the Indians spending the second half of the 1990's as a playoff regular this is where you can start to make the connection. Of course, even that is a stretch considering the Indians never managed to win a World Series while the Yankees claimed four rings. However, it's not just about post season success, regular season numbers come into play.

Since 1995 the Indians have played the Yankees 104 times. They have won only 40. That's not including the current 2006 season which is far from over and fans might point to the 19-1 beating the Yankees endured on the 4th of July, but at the time this article was being written the Yankees were on their way to drubbing the Indians 9-3 in the eighth on July 5th. Even if the Indians manage to pull it out and win three in a row against this so-called rival, they will only match their best winning streak against the Yankees since 1989. It's been 16 years since the Indians have swept a series. Hardly the stuff of bitter rivalries.

Not only have the Indians failed to post a .500 record against their hated counterparts over the past decade, season by season, regardless of how dominant the Indians have been, the Yankees have always been competitive either taking the season series or splitting it. The 1994 Yankees went 9-0 against the Tribe before that season was halted. In 1995, when the Indians were one of the best teams in the history of the game, Cleveland went 6 and 6 against the Yankees. The best the Indians could do in 2000 was split the series 5-5 with the Yankees coming out ahead every other year. In fact the Indians are well over 1000 losses in the all time series. Rivalry?

Now fans will tell you that the stats don't tell the whole story, but what other story do you have? It's not like the Indians have stolen any titles from the Yankees. The playoffs haven't exactly been a regular hangout for the Indians. Cleveland got the best of the Yankees in the 1997 Divisional Series, but New York returned the favor by beating the Indians in the ALCS in 1998. In either case the Yankees enjoyed the last laugh because they won it all in 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000. The Indians essentially served as a doormat so Atlanta could finally win a World Series in 1995 and of course who could forget how the lowly Florida Marlins backed into a world title after the Indians piddled away a win in 1997? Even when you throw out the stats and just look at the big picture the Indians look less like a rival and more like that old college buddy who always lays down a week's pay on poker night.

Sadly the Indians just don't have any rivals. They haven't been good enough to foster any real animosity on the field. They haven't established themselves as a force to be reckoned with and they haven't spoiled anybody's season. Other than their own. The closest they came was last year when they clawed their way into a battle for the AL Central title that Chicago thought it had in the bag all season. With a week left to play and a winner takes all series on the line the Indians folded up shop and handed the White Sox a title. In fact, one could argue that the Indians gave the Sox the jolt they needed to get in gear for the playoffs. Had the Indians failed to force Chicago to play for something at the end of the season, the White Sox might have been flat in the playoffs. That's hardly the stuff of rivalries. A rival doesn't want to send you a championship ring for being such a great practice squad.

There are those who will say I'm being too hard on the Indians. Others will claim that I'm not a true fan, but history doesn't lie. The Indians stink a lot more than they shine and lousy teams don't have rivals. Especially rivals who seem to have a shot at winning a title every year. Tribe fans should keep this in perspective before talking smack.

Soccer: Global waste of time.

Every few years, when the World Cup activity begins to peak, everybody gets excited about soccer. Granted the rest of the world calls it football but here in the U.S. we ugly Americans call it soccer because we already have a game we call football.

Let me say that I respect a lot about soccer. It requires tremendous coordination, astounding stamina and a considerable degree of toughness, although there are some teams and players who engage in unflattering antics to gain a strategic advantage. Soccer doesn't allow for timeouts. The clock always runs and play is continuous. Players who are ejected can't be replaced so it's not unusual to see a team play short a player or two. Of course, there also aren't that many fouls that will result in ejection. In fact, most fouls aren't really penalized. A team is awarded a free kick for most infractions but that free kick rarely offers a team a decided advantage.

Soccer scores are low. Not only are the scores low, but the number of shots taken on goal are low as well. The entire game is about moving the ball and gaining position. The rules favor defense and the aspect of soccer that infuriates Americans is the rather common 0-0 tie. In fact, the administrative wing of Major League Soccer has offended purists by tweaking certain rules to avoid the dreaded tie in the US vertsion of this global sport, The tie is a most incestuous offense in American sports. We have overtime. On rare occasion an NFL game that fails to produce a winner after a sudden death period will get recorded as a tie, but that's a rare occurrence. In fact, the last bastion of the American tie, NCAA football, adopted an overtime policy that not only makes a tie virtually impossible, the shootout method used in college actually makes for some exciting offensive possessions. A game deadlocked at 14 can balloon into a 48-46 nail biter thanks to some creative overtime rules.

Americans like offense. Maybe we have too many diversions and deriving entertainment out of a pitching duel or a defensive masterpiece is too much to ask the modern sports fan. Maybe we are just a bunch of ignorant slugs who refuse to show the rest of the world respect. But perhaps it is possible that soccer really does stink. The rest of the world can be wrong.

And I'm not just some fat NASCAR hick upset because ESPN is cutting into my Dale Jr. coverage. I hate NASCAR. In my mind the only good thing about it is that it allows inbred hicks a mindless source of entertainment. Studies have shown that incidents of incest have decreased in the past 10 years and that's thanks to NASCAR.

No, I actually know a good bit about soccer. I can't name more than four players, but I officiated high school soccer for a few years and even coached a youth team. It's a great sport from a participation perspective, but so is synchronized swimming, track, gymnastics and wrestling. None of them are that appealing from a spectator's perspective. Not unless artificial drama is added. That's why we have the WWF and why boxers will pretend to hate each other. Hype rules. Football makes it's own, baseball has history and basketball has some hard-core street values instilled in it. Soccer is a bunch of sweaty Euro-trash drones running around on a field all day. Hockey at least speeds up the game with the ice.

To me, it wouldn't matter if the U.S. managed to entice its best athletes into soccer and field a good team. MLS could find new revenue sources for payroll and lure the best players in the world to play here and I would still pass on the free tickets to watch the Columbus Crew play. It's not the quality of play that discourages me, but the quality of entertainment. Soccer is boring. It's like one of those "films" that critics laud but regular lugs like me find pretentious and pedantic. Can we blow something up once in a while? Soccer is the art piece of the sports world and like great art, I like to appreciate it from a theoretical perspective. Don't expect me to pay money to visit a museum. I'll meet you at the brewery down the street. Nuture your cultural side while I load up on barley and hops and we'll talk about who had more fun. I got ten bucks on the beer. That's ten bucks I won't spend on soccer tickets.

Shaq shows why he's not the best

Shaq describes himself as dominant. And there's no doubt about that. Even at the end of his career the big guy can still move some bodies when he gets a mind to. Unfortunately there is a lot more to NBA basketball than knocking people down. Especially in the playoffs where talent evens up a good bit.

Miami caught a break in game 3 of the finals, but so far Shaq has been mediocre at best. Dallas has zeroed in on shutting him down, forcing the rest of the Heat to beat them and until game 3 it wasn't happening. And while Miami won a game, it wasn't like they punished Dallas for picking on Shaq. They sneaked past a Dallas team that might have gotten a little unfocused.

The bottom line is that the problem lies with Shaq. It always has. As dominant as the guy can be, teams have proven time and time again that you can beat Shaq if you foul him hard and send him to the line. With a career free throw percentage a shade over 50%, it's just good basketball economics. Shaq with the ball in the paint equals two points nine times out of ten. Shaq on the line needs four shots to score two points. On a good night a couple of nights ago he was 0-fer.

This is the finals and Shaq is making a little more than a quarter of his free throws. 27%! He's supposed to be a great basketball player, but do great players go 6 for 22 from the free throw line? Miami as a team is only hitting about 55% from the stripe which is about what Dallas is shooting from the field.

As dominant as Shaq is, I can't give the man his due because he has dismissed one of the most basic aspects of the game: That 15 foot set shot they let you take whenever you get fouled. Shaq's taken a lot of trips to the free throw line in his career and has visited the charity stripe 22 times in three finals games. Every one of those missed shots is a missed point. In the finals those points might add up to another victory. In his career those missed free throws amount to a career's worth of points that could be added to his legacy.

But that's only part of the story. If Shaq made more free throws he'd get fouled less and that would mean more access to the basket. What's the point in sending the guy to the line and wasting those fouls if he's going to score the points anyway? Why risk fouling the guy when he's got a good look and risk that three point play?

Shaq's free throw woes have hurt his teams and they have hurt his career. He's tired and showing his age. Not uncommon for a man of his size, but if Shaq didn't take such a pounding night after night he'd be in better shape. In fact, he might have enough juice left in him to play more minutes in these finals. The fact is, if Shaq made free throws, he'd be better off.

It wasn't an issue in LA. The Lakers had enough talent around Shaq to easily offset his missed opportunities from the line and Shaq was a younger player who could power through those hard fouls and come up big with rebounds and blocks. Now Shaq doesn't do nearly as much away from the ball and Miami is paying the price in the finals. Dallas can see when the ball is heading to Shaq and they employ the latest version of Hack-a-Shaq when he gets it. It's working like a charm.

Getting to this point is a fine accomplishment and Dallas is a more experienced and better rounded team. They should win and Miami shouldn't be disappointed if they come out on the short end, but it would be a shame if the Heat lost because Shaq couldn't deliver crucial free throws when they matter the most. Shaq has always claimed that he sinks those buckets when they matter. So far, he's 6-22 in the finals. Does it matter yet?

'Roid Rage

In case you missed it, baseball took another shot on the chin this week when news broke of the plight of Jason Grimsley, a journeyman relief pitcher who has not only been availing himself of performance enhancing drugs, but also dabbling in the trade. So much so that the IRS is all but living with him as they investigate his finances and business ventures.

This is not a surprise. Sure, there are those who donned the blinders early on and insisted that steroid use was sporadic and easily identified, but the reality is that in the absence of strict regulations men who get paid for athletic performance will cheat. Period. While smearing a booger on a ball might help it break a little harder and corking a bat could help the ball clear that right field wall if you hit it just so, steroids leave nothing to chance. They simply make athletes better. All the time.

Media clowns like Peter Gammons have long ignored the reality of steroids and allowed the public to believe that it was only the beefy sluggers who would benefit from steroids, but the truth is that the players who benefit most are those who need to recover faster. That's how steroids work. They elevate hormone levels and allow the body to generate muscle faster, this increase stamina and durability while decreasing the amount of time an athlete needs to recover from intense activity. Now that the steroid scandal has revealed that steroids are being taken by players at every position, the media hacks who fed the denial are now wagging the finger of shame. These so-called reporters have rather intimate relationships with players. They are in and out of locker rooms and see these guys up close everyday. Shame on them for not reporting the story of steroids as it unfolded. Instead they helped sweep the problem under the rug until there was so much crap under it that the story had to break. Now everybody wants to be stunned.

Let's be honest about steroids. Anybody who knows about sports from a participation level knows that steroids are there. I witnessed extensive steroid abuse by football players at a division III college. Those players had nothing to gain from steroid use. None of them were going to see an NFL scout at any of their games, but they still loaded up on steroids so they could be bigger stronger and faster. Coaches knew but looked the other way. The tests are easy to beat. Even the more stringent international tests can be fooled, but those used domestically are a sham. They can't detect Human Growth Hormone at all and it is easy to mask most of the contemporary steroids that are in the market today.

Baseball isn't the only place steroids are in play. Just because the NFL claims to have a testing program in place doesn't mean that 75% of the players in the NFL aren't on steroids. When a 250 pound linebacker runs the forty in 4.4 seconds something isn't right. The same is true when a wide receiver manages to bench 400 pounds. But the NFL isn't where it starts. Some players begin taking steroids in high school but most learn about them in college. Big time college football is rampant with steroids. Pick any of the top ten teams and watch how the players develop over the course of four years. Sure, it's natural for an 18 year-old to pick up a few pounds over three or four years of college, but some of these guys are gaining 50 or more pounds of solid muscle. One highly touted linebacker started his college career as a 215 pound freshman and managed to get up to 250 pounds by his junior season.

And don't think that they stop there. Have you noticed how muscular players in the NBA have become? Do you think that steroids might have something to do with the above-the-rim antics we see so often on ESPN? Until they start employing some serious testing we should simply assume that everybody is taking them. I love Lebron, but he's totally unnatural. I would hate to see him test positive for steroids and I hope that he's just a freak of nature but the reality is that in the back of my mind I suspect that he's taking some kind of supplement that enhances his physical performance. Golf? Why not? Hasn't the average drive gone up drastically in the past 10 years or so?

For now baseball is under the gun. Bud Selig's decision to ignore the blatant abuse of steroids by players like Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire encouraged other players to follow suit and the problem got so far out of hand that Congress stepped in. Now we have a dramatic story unfolding involving some obscure middle reliever and dozens of players he did business with. While the hoards of sports media personalities are all doing their level best to appear shocked the only real surprise is that this story didn't break 10 years ago.