Greed Fuels Presti's Brilliancy

"I was just snooping around ESPN, going from sport to sport. I get to the NBA and for some reason started in the middle of the headlines and worked my way up to the top one, "Thunder deal Harden to Rockets." I was literally stunned. My eyes almost popped out of my head, and if it wasn't 4 AM, I would have screamed, "WHAT??!!!?" (which is what happened in my mind anyways. The scream was so loud in my mind I'm now debated if I actually said it aloud or not..) Thought I'd share this unique reaction. Btw, the Rockets overpaid."

That was my initial reaction to the James Harden trade. I posted that as my Facebook status at around 4 AM this morning. The weird part is that is exactly what happened. I didn't really exaggerate my reaction even though it was 4 AM. Obviously you could have counted me as one of the people that thought the two sides would work out a deal before the extension deadline ended on the 31st. I knew the Thunder wanted Harden to take a discount, and I, like everyone else, thought he was in a good enough situation to accept a minor discount. Apparently, Harden did not agree with the rest of the NBA world. though. The Thunder offered him 55 of the 60 million dollar max on the extension, but he refused the offer. So Thunder General Manager, Sam Presti, did the same to Harden what he did to Jeff Green a few years earlier, he dealt him as fast as he could. Last time around it was the Celtics that ponied up to obtain Green, this time it was the Rockets that really ponied up to obtain Harden (more on this later).

ESPN's Brian Windhorst made this trade seem like a no-brainer in the eyes of Presti. He referred to Presti's philosophy which can basically be described as the old saying 'sacrifice for the greater good.' Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka, Kendrick Perkins, and Nick Collison had all made some type of sacrifice, and it resulted in the Thunder having the ability to keep most of its core intact. Two years ago, Green refused to sacrifice. Presti doesn't have time to deal with greedy players that can't take a little less for the sake of the team. Presti dealing Green set precedent for every future player that didn't buy into sacrificing for the greater good. It's almost as if Harden asked for a trade when he refused to do what the other great players of the team had done before him. Presti's hands were tied. It didn't matter how good Harden was or how well he fit into the Thunder system. Presti made it clear that if you don't want to be a team player in the negotiation room then he doesn't want you to be a player on the court. In a league full of players taking, the two teams with the players most willing to give their team some wiggle room were the teams that made it to the Finals, and those two teams were the Thunder and the Miami Heat. 

What I don't understand is what made Harden think that he was above the Thunder sacrifice rule? He couldn't possibly have thought he was going to get a max deal after both Westbrook and Ibaka signed deals that were favorable to the Thunder. Why did he think he was special? The team can definitely manage without him. He didn't not have the negotiating power of Durant, who is by far the best player on his own team and arguably number two behind LeBron in the entire league. Harden was just the sixth man of the team, a position that isn't that hard to replace. Being only 23, Harden would most likely be able to make up the five million dollars he would have left on the table if he decided to remain with the Thunder. I guess the rumors over the years of Harden wanting to lead his own team were true. Now he gets to be the main man in Houston and he'll be paid like one as well. For those getting ready to blurt out that Jeremy Lin is still the main man in Houston, I'm sorry but you're mistaken. James Harden is now by far the best player on the strangely formed Houston Rockets.

Speaking of the Rockets, you'll notice throughout this article that I have hinted that Houston forked over too much for Harden. If you haven't noticed, then I'm telling you now, Houston gave up way too much for James Harden. The trade officially goes down as James Harden, Daquan Cook, Cole Aldrich, and Lazar Hayward for Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, Toronto's lottery protected 1st rounder, Dallas' top-20 protected 1st rounder, and Boston's second rounder. Even with the two firsts being heavily protected, since when is a good sixth man and bench players worth a good veteran, a promising rookie, and three draft picks? The Magic only got six draft picks for Dwight Howard and half of them won't be used until 2015 or later. Not to mention the group of players the Magic received did not include anyone with nearly as much potential as Jeremy Lamb. I'm sorry Mo Harkless, but you are too raw to be compared to Lamb. The Rockets are incredibly dumb to give up so much for a guy that has been change of pace for Durant and Westbrook for his short career. He doesn't have enough star power to command such a deal. They don't even know if he has what it takes to be 'the man.'

The strangest part of this deal though is that it occurs right before the season. This is obviously because the contract extension deadline is October 31. I find it odd that the NBA has that deadline so late. You'd think that they'd have it before or at the halfway point of the preseason so that traded players would at least get a few exhibition games with their new teams before the regular season. Instead, Martin and Lamb will have to learn the Thunder way on the fly while Harden now has to learn to lead as he goes along. It's not completely unfair to teams that want to trade players they can't extend, however, because the season is 82 games long and all traded players shouldn't take that long to get accustomed to their new surroundings. To the people that want to make a big deal that the Thunder broke up their continuity and now might not be title contenders this year, you are crazy. All the top teams of the West, besides the Spurs, have reconfigured themselves and if you ask me, losing your sixth man isn't that big of a hit. It's not like the Thunder drastically changed their starting lineup like the Lakers and Mavs or completely overhauled their bench like the Clippers did. The Thunder will be fine. As long as Sam Presti is at the helm, it's their way or, in this case, the runway.

References

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8563645/oklahoma-city-thunder-stay-true-their-philosophy-trading-james-harden

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8562868/oklahoma-city-thunder-trade-james-harden-houston-rockets

http://www.prosportstransactions.com/basketball/DraftTrades/Future/Magic.htm

Dreaming a Mega NFL Expansion

The National Football League is by far the best sports league in North America. This is a fact, not an opinion. The NFL makes about nine billion dollars a year. To compare, that is about as much as pro baseball (six billion) and hockey (three billion) make combined. Basketball fans don't get your hopes up either because the NBA is trying to avoid coming last in the ranking, not fighting for first. They make roughly four billion (although with the forming of 'super teams' becoming more common it's only a matter of time before the NBA equals and then passes the MLB). You can't argue against the NFL when they are ahead of the competition by three billion dollars. Now I know what some of you will shoot back with, "Just because it makes the most money, doesn't make it the best." Oh really? So then please explain to me how a sport in which each team plays 24 total games (preseason, season, postseason) makes billions and billions of dollars more than three sports in which each plays four times as many games per year? The only explanation is that it is better.

Now that I've convinced everyone that the NFL is the best, it's time to switch gears to what I really want to talk about, expansion. Right now the NFL is a 32-team, 8-division, 4 teams-per-division league. I would like to know what is preventing it from becoming a 40-team, 8-division, 5 team-per-division league. The way I see it, there are plenty of cities that would be worthy of a NFL team and there are plenty of current NFL backup and unsigned players worthy of starting on a NFL team. Scheduling wouldn't be that big of a problem either as adding eight teams comes down to fitting in four more games a week, which could be done a number of different ways (my favorite is to expand Thursday and Monday night football to two games and give CBS and FOX each another 4:25 game on Sunday). This expansion makes even more sense when you consider that three cities are already dying for a team. Los Angeles has wanted a team ever since the Rams left while the NFL has been hosting games in Toronto and London for several years now with what looks like the goal to put teams there permanently. Throw in another obvious city to put a team, Las Vegas, and you have half the expansion done already. The other four cities would be less obvious, but the NFL could definitely find four good cities (my votes are: Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Orlando, and somewhere in Nebraska).

The main argument against this mega expansion would be that the competition would be severely diluted. My question would be how? From college kids that don't get drafted because they weren't noticed or overplayed in the media to arena league players to players from the Canadian Football league, there are plenty of talented players that could suit up and do well in the NFL. For every Peyton Manning, Adrian Peterson, and Ray Lewis, there is a Tom Brady, Arian Foster, and Cameron Wake. All six of these players are very good football players. The difference between them is that the first three were supposed to be stars while the other three weren't supposed to be anything. But the other three were given a chance and they became stars. Do you know the reason why Foster wasn't drafted? His junior year he had a great year, but he decided to return to college instead of going pro. During his senior year he was got injured and he fell off the map. No team even took a flier on him in the later rounds. He worked his butt off on the Texans practice squad, got his chance to start due to injuries, and the rest is history. Arian Foster can't be the only player that has been overlooked by the NFL. Expanding to 40 teams may force teams to think outside the box when drafting and more hidden gems like Foster would be discovered.

Another common misconception would be that the players would not approve because they'd have to play more games. Yes, more games would be played, but that'd be because of the increase in teams, not an increase in the schedule. The NFL schedule would not need to grow to accommodate more teams. Therefore, players would still be playing 16 regular season games a year. What would change is how often they'd play teams out of their division. With five team divisions, each team would obviously play 10 divisional games and six non-divisional games. I think putting more emphasis on divisional games would make winning the division harder as teams tend to player division rivals a little harder than their other opponents. The Patriots-Jets game last week was proof of this. While the Patriots are the far better team, especially with all the Jet injuries, it still took overtime for them to beat the Jets, 23-20. A potential problem with 10 divisional games would be if a team found a way to sweep their division then they'd have a good chance to make the playoffs even if they lost their other six games. Of course, I would respond by noting how unlikely this would be because coaches would be the first to realize this and spend more time preparing for divisional games, making it much harder to win divisional match-ups. I could also remind you of how difficult it would be to reach the playoffs if a team didn't do very well in divisional play. Either way, playing a schedule with more divisional games wouldn't have as much of an effect on the playoffs as one would think.

Us NFL fans would undoubtedly welcome more games played each week. Selling us on expansion wouldn't be too hard. However, it might be hard to sell expansion on the existing owners. More teams just means more people to split revenue with, right? This is indeed true, but more teams also means more money. Theoretically speaking, if the NFL makes nine billion dollars in revenue, that means, on average, each team makes 281.25 million dollars. Adding eight teams increases league revenue to roughly 13.5 billion dollars and each team makes 337.50 million dollars, on average. In this instance, the owners make an additional 56.25 million dollars, but in reality they would make much more as TV contracts would have to be re-negotiated to fit the expanded league and merchandise numbers would increase eight times in accordance to the new teams. Plus, the eight new owners would have to pay entry fees to join the league. These numbers would only come into fruition after the league has reached 40 teams. The numbers vary drastically depending on how the league attacks the expansion plan.

Deciding how to expand is the most important part to expanding. There are a number of combinations that could be used to actually bring in the eight new teams. It could be as simple as bringing them all in at once or as complicated as bringing two teams in every few years. If it were me, I would bring in four then wait a few years to bring in the other four. I would do it this way to avoid unfairness in divisional play. The first four expansion teams wouldn't go into their eventual division homes right away, instead forming their own temporary division. This would keep four team divisions across the league, avoiding any complaints of some teams playing 10 divisional games while others still play eight. When the next wave of four teams comes in, each expansion team will go into its respective division and divisional match-ups will rise from eight to 10. I would have a waiting period between the two groups of four teams to allow the second group of teams to build stadiums and prepare for life in the NFL. The first group to enter would obviously include the four teams that were already prepared to enter the league. I think the two group way is the easiest way to do it while avoiding many of the potential problems that come with expansion.

The second most important part of expanding is deciding how the expansion drafts go. To me, this is very simple. All 32 practice squads are fair game while the backups on each team are also fair game. A backup would be defined by the number of snaps a player gets per game. If a player has some type of specialty, like a speed rusher or a third down passing back, they are not considered backups. To prevent teams from saying that all of their backups are specialty players, each team can only have a certain number of specialty players. If a player fails to meet the snaps requirement and isn't designated as a specialty player, then he is eligible to be drafted in the expansion draft. If a team likes a certain player that is eligible and is drafted but they don't want to give him up, then they could give the expansion team that selected him a draft pick that is one round lower than the round he was originally drafted in. For instance, if an expansion team wants to give Jimmy Clausen a shot at starting quarterback but the Panthers don't want to part with him for whatever reason, then the expansion team would receive a third round pick from the Panthers since Clausen was originally selected in the second round. For those thinking, "That's ridiculous Clausen isn't worth giving up a third rounder to keep, he's third string," it becomes easier to giving something up when you know you get to keep something more valuable, doesn't it? Free agents would not be part of the expansion draft and teams would have to negotiate contracts with them either before or after the draft. Also, expansion teams would take on the entire contract of every player they draft in the expansion draft. This wouldn't be a problem though because practice squad players and most backups do not make big money.

This covers most of the important things that would come up if the NFL were to expand. I would like to remind you that this piece is called "Dreaming a Mega NFL Expansion" with major emphasis on the word 'dreaming.' The NFL is not going to expand and while there are always rumors about a franchise in LA or London, the fact is those two cities would obtain a franchise through relocation, not expansion. I wrote this article thinking that it'd be fun if I could write down a NFL expansion plan that didn't sound like complete trash. I believe that most of my points are believable and logical. I chose when to go into detail and when not to keep the article from becoming too technical, to keep it from becoming a legit argument to why the NFL should expand to 40 teams. The article isn't meant to feed into the rumors of potential NFL expansion in the future. I wanted people to know it could happen and it would probably work out fine. I wanted to get people to think of what the NFL will do to keep growing and expanding without much international potential. I wanted people to realize all the talent that's wasted on the bench each week and would happen if they got their shot. I wanted people to dream of a perfect NFL.

My dream went so far I decided to write it down and post it for the whole world to see. How far will yours go?

Yanks Need Reality Check

Today is the off day in the American League Championship Series. The Detroit Tigers lead the New York Yankees two games to none. The Tigers, probably just looking for a split, took both games in New York over the weekend backed by pitching and timely hitting. The Yankees also had the pitching, but the hitting just wasn't there. This is partially false though. This couple sentences describe the box scores of Game 1 and 2, but it doesn't accurately describe what actually happened on the field. The fact of the matter is the Tigers enjoyed immense luck throughout the first two games of the ALCS, and the Yankees could get right back into it once reality sets in for themselves and the Tigers.

The Detroit Tigers are known for Miguel Cabrera and Justin Verlander, first and foremost. They are the iconic stars of Motor City. On second look, you discover they have other great hitters in Prince Fielder, Austin Jackson, and Delmon Young. On third look, you discover they have good pitching behind Verlander in Doug Fister, Max Scherzer, and Anibal Sanchez. But then on the fourth look, you realize that their defense is below average at best. They win their games because of either good hitting or good pitching, rarely good defense. Anybody will tell you this. However, when you look at Game 1 and 2 of the ALCS, they won because of good defense. As of now, Jhonny Peralta should be the front runner for the title of MVP of the series. Peralta, the shortstop that looks like he should be at third, has made three extremely hard plays at short that saved at least four runs in Game 1 and at least one run in Game 2.

 The first play came in the 1st inning of Game 1 with the bases loaded and two outs. Alex Rodriguez hit a bullet in the hole between short and third, Peralta dove to left, got the ball, and made a twisting throw from his backside that somehow made it to second without pulling second baseman, Omar Infante, off the bag. On a scale of 1-10, the degree of difficulty of the play was about 25, and yet he made it. The second play came in the 2nd inning of Game 1 with the bases loaded and two outs again. This time Robinson Cano hit a bullet up the middle that never got to center field, instead hitting off the pitcher's wrist. The ball ricocheted to a charging Peralta who scooped it up and fired to first to get Cano according to the umpire, but replay showed Cano beat out the bang-bang play.  Two runs would have definitely scored on both of these plays, and considering the Yankees eventually lost by two, both plays loom large. Also, if these plays weren't made, extra innings might have not been needed and Derek Jeter might still be playing instead of debating whether to have surgery on his broken ankle or not. The Yankees sleeping bats and Jeter's injury dominated Game 1 headlines, but these two plays were the ones that swung the game in Detroit's favor.

 The third play Peralta made happened in Game 2. It's not quite as pivotal as the first two plays, but it still made a difference. It came in the 6th with runners on first and third and two outs. Russell Martin hit a fast-moving groundball to short. Peralta charged, barehanded the ball, and a made a perfect throw to first to get Martin. While this play happens more often than diving stops and balls going off the pitcher, it still was very difficult, especially in a playoff game in which runs were at a premium (none had scored at that point). If Peralta doesn't make that play, the Yankees would have scored first and the game would have gone into extra innings had the second base umpire not blown a call that resulted in two runs for the Tigers. It would have gone to extras because had the game played out the same way, the Tigers scored in the next inning and it would have been 1-1 without the blown call. Of course, you can't assume the game would have played out the same exact way, but it's only fair or else Yankee fans could assume the offense could have exploded that inning or vice versa for Tiger fans. This play, and the two from Game 1, were not routine plays and luck played a role in all three of them. The Tigers also caught lucky breaks when a ball hit by Austin Jackson in the ball bucket in right field that turned a double into a triple and when Nick Swisher lost a ball in the lights in extra innings which allowed the game-winning run to cross the plate for the Tigers. Lady Luck has clearly been on the side of the Tigers so far.

While Detroit may snap back to reality on defense and in good fortune, the Yankees also need a reality check. They need to snap back on offense. The entire regular season no one was afraid that the bats wouldn't put up runs. Instead, everyone worried whether the starters could hold the lead long enough to get into the back end of the bullpen. The postseason has been the complete opposite, though. The starters have done an excellent job keeping games in range for the potent offense to strike. The problem is the offense hasn't been potent outside the 9th inning. Cano and Swisher entered the postseason hotter than hot and Curtis Granderson did strike out plenty but he still hit timely bombs to left. Now neither of the three can buy a hit. Cano has gone hit-less in 26 straight at-bats, which is a postseason record, while Swisher and Granderson have about five hits between them. Alex Rodriguez has morphed into the 2011 version of Adam Dunn, except with no power. Girardi was so frustrated that after he was done ripping the league for not having replay review he turned to his hitters and said they know how they are being pitched but haven't made any adjustments and they needed to make those adjustments. After listening to John Smoltz on the TBS broadcast say multiple times that the Tigers pitching staff has been throwing breaking balls in hitters counts instead of fastballs, I don't know how the hitters haven't adjusted and started sitting on breaking balls in those counts. I know that's easier said than done, but they haven't even attempted to adjust and they just look foolish out there.

While the story remains that the Yankees need to somehow figure out how to hit again, there were other factors involved in the two losses at Yankee Stadium. No one dared say that the Tigers were fortunate that Peralta didn't screw up on any of his amazing plays or when Swisher didn't make that play in right. Someone has to point out that it wasn't all Detroit Tigers and that someone might as well be me. They've had plenty of luck factor into their seemingly insurmountable 2-0 lead in the ALCS. That is a fact. No true baseball fan could look you in the eye and say otherwise. If you don't believe me, then you too need a reality check.

Tebow Better Than 2012 Sanchez

It has become painfully obvious that Mark Sanchez is not the franchise quarterback the New York Jets drafted him to be. He has shown flashes of improvement over the years and he can come through in the clutch, but he hasn't been able to put it all together. Is it entirely his fault? No, he has never been surrounded by a lot of talent, and when he was surrounded by enough to make him succeed, management didn't keep the core intact. Still, lack of talent is no excuse, and Sanchez himself will tell you that. Ryan Tannehill, QB of the Miami Dolphins, has put together a good season so far despite having average targets to throw to. So if Sanchez isn't the answer, what do the Jets do? Well, for starters, start Tim Tebow.

It is well documented that Tebow isn't the best "thrower," as I've heard people term it. Sanchez is a better thrower than Tebow, but does that make him the better option? You could make an argument that Mark Sanchez is a better thrower than Michael Vick, but would Sanchez be starting over Vick in Philadelphia? No, Vick gives the Eagles the best chance to win, which is why he hasn't been benched even though he's struggled this season as well. You could make another argument that Tim Tebow is a poor man's Michael Vick, better at scrambling and making plays than standing in the pocket and throwing. In Denver, Kyle Orton was a much better thrower than Tim Tebow, but he was benched for Tebow. If you ask me, Orton is better than Sanchez, and yet Orton is backing up Tony Romo in Dallas while Sanchez starts over Tebow in New York. My opinion means nothing, but it does bring up a good question, why do the Jets value Sanchez so much?

Through five games, Mark Sanchez has completed 48.4% of his passes. Last season with the Broncos, Tebow completed 46.5% of his passes. Sanchez's numbers would be the same as Tebow's without his Week 1 performance when he completed 70% of his passes against the Bills. But wait, if the only thing Sanchez has over Tebow is being a better thrower and he hasn't thrown the ball well in 4 out of 5 games, then what exactly is keeping Tebow from jumping him on the depth chart? If you are going to throw out a guy that completes only 45% of his passes, why not choose the one that can also run really well? When Sanchez is equal to Tebow in passing numbers, Tebow becomes the better player. Like it or not, Tim Tebow is the better option for the Jets. What makes Sanchez better? The fact that a few years ago he played in back-to-back AFC Championship games? Those teams were completely different from his current team and that's even before the injuries. Besides if the past meant anything in the NFL, then Donovan McNabb would still be starting somewhere.

Starting Tebow may make life easier for Tony Sparano, the master of the wildcat, as well. The only difference between the current wildcat formation and starting Tebow would be Mark Sanchez won't be lined up as a receiver, which is useless anyways. All he'd have to do is throw in a couple option plays, and the Jets offense would be operating full time out of the wildcat basically. Image what Sparano could do with a wildcat-like offense on nearly every down. He'd be in heaven creating crazy passing and running plays, a majority of which I'm sure Tebow could make work. Tebow turned the Broncos offense into winners with questionable personnel around him like aging Willis McGahee, young receiver Demaryius Thomas, and unknowns Eric Decker and Daniel Fells. When Dustin Keller and Stephen Hill return, the Jets offense won't be that much different than Denver's last year.

Like Sanchez, Tebow is not the future of the Jets, but if he wins, why not ride him until he fails? You will never have to worry about an empty stadium because fans will come to watch Tebow alone, wondering if he'd transform into a super quarterback in the 4th quarter and lead his team to victory. Plus his stats wouldn't matter as long as the team was winning games. If he wins, then why not start building around him? It's not like surrounding Tebow with talent will backfire because any QB after him would benefit from the talent. Tebow had some talented people around him while playing for the Florida Gators. During their BCS title run in 2008, Tebow was surrounded by current NFL stars Percy Harvin and Aaron Hernandez. He also had very talented players in Chris Rainey, Jeff Demps, Riley Cooper, and David Nelson. Tebow was pretty good without top talent last season for the Broncos, imagine if a team tabbed him as their starter and then actually started giving him talented targets? He might turn from serviceable to great.

The Jets have nothing to lose by starting Tebow because sticking with Sanchez is getting them nowhere. Let's say they start Tebow for the next five games, just to see what he does with the offense. If it works, you keep going with him. If it doesn't work, you go back to Sanchez or maybe even throw Greg McElroy out there for a few games. As my friend reminded me last night, McElroy played in the SEC in college and did pretty well against those tough defenses. The point is that it won't hurt the team no matter who is behind center because their season is already on the decline. You start Tebow because he proved last season that he could win games, even against Dick LeBeau and the Pittsburgh Steelers mighty defense.

 The only reason Tebow isn't starting right now is because Rex Ryan is stubborn and he refuses to bench a player because the fans and media want him to. Last year, John Fox chose to not be stubborn and it won him the division and a playoff game. A successful Tebow would make management look brilliant for acquiring Tebow and hiring Sparano. Right now both are looking stupid and unwarranted as Tebow averages about seven snaps per game. Mark Sanchez has had plenty of shots to prove that this is his job and he failed. Now give Tebow a shot and let him tebow the NFL. You know he can.

Reference

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/12482/mark-sanchez
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/13200/tim-tebow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Gators_football_team

The Difference Between Valentine and Francona

About a year ago, Terry Francona was dismissed from his position of manager of the Boston Red Sox. The reasoning was because he lost control of the clubhouse and it resulted in a September collapse that left them out of the playoffs. What that means is the young players that he guided to greatness (Pedroia, Youkilis, Ellsbury, etc.) had grown up and no longer looked up to him. They had all made it and were either stars or on the cusp or stardom. Boston management realized this and decided to hire Bobby Valentine to replace him. Valentine is a veteran manager known for managing veteran teams, which Boston became this year. Management wanted Valentine because he commanded respect and was unafraid to speak his mind. He was a leader of men while Francona was a leader of boys.

Last week Valentine was fired. Everyone threw in their two cents on why he got canned. Some were right and some were wrong. Curt Schilling was one of those that was wrong. He said on "Baseball Tonight" that Valentine was doomed from the start and that he was only hired to change the culture in the clubhouse. Change the culture? Oh, you mean clear out the beer and chicken? Any manager could have done that. Heck, Francona could have done that. The real reason Valentine was fired was because he couldn't get the job done. He was brought in to lead an expensive, mostly veteran roster back to the promise land, and he failed miserably. Yes, the team was wrecked by injuries and trades, but the result wouldn't have been much better if there were no changes to the roster. Valentine's outspokenness got him in trouble and a clubhouse that never really wanted him completely turned on him early. This combined with his inability to manage the kids at the end of the season showed management that there was no reason to bring him back. There is a reason he only got a two-year deal. If he couldn't make this roster produce, then they were blowing it up and starting anew, and Bobby V isn't the guy you want overseeing a rebuilding project.

Terry Francona, on the other hand, is the perfect guy to oversee a rebuilding project. Francona is a players manager and a great teacher and guide. Last week the Cleveland Indians began their search for a new manager after firing Manny Acta in late September. The Indians aren't really 'rebuilding,' but they aren't a veteran team either. The job was literally made for Francona. The roster is full of young talent with loads of potential. The front office had two guys in Mark Shapiro and Chris Antonelli that Francona has a great relationship with. To top it all off, Francona's father played his best ball with the Indians many moons ago. The Indians were aware of all of this and that's why they only interviewed two people, Francona and interim manager Sandy Alomar Jr. Alomar couldn't beat what Francona brought to the table, though, even with being a fan favorite from his playing days. Francona essentially won the lotto of baseball jobs. Oh, if you don't believe me when I say he's better with young players, then I'll have him to you himself. During his introductory press conference, he said this, "Dealing with players is fun. Dealing with young players is really fun." Francona has four years to get the Indians to the playoffs. I think: A) there's a good chance the Indians will be in the playoffs next year, and B) Francona will be managing in Cleveland a hell of a lot longer than four years.

As for Bobby Valentine, I think it's obvious that his time in the dugout is over. He took a shot at reviving the Red Sox after a year that shocked all of baseball, but he couldn't do it. Everyone should commend him for that because following Terry Francona in Boston was no easy feat from a fan or player perspective. He is great in the booth as a commentator, and after losing Francona I don't see why ESPN wouldn't give Valentine is old job back. The booth is perfect for Bobby V. He gets to watch tons of baseball and share is abundance of knowledge with the world every Sunday night. He also can critique any player he wants from the broadcast and nobody will turn on him. As a member of the media, no one is going to second guess Bobby Valentine. He may know more about the game than every ESPN baseball analyst put together. With Valentine back in the booth and Francona managing the Indians, one could say the last two baseball seasons were destined to happen. I don't believe in destiny, though. I was just showing you the difference between Valentine and Francona.

Reference

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8478982/new-cleveland-indian-terry-francona-hopes-more-rental-manager

Dealing with Non-Stop Basketball

By non-stop basketball, I mean continually playing professional basketball with little or no offseason. I am obviously referring to a NBA season during an Olympic year. During this type of year, the best players don't receive a true offseason, instead going off to represent their country in the summer Olympics. It is a tough grind the next season for all who went, especially right after a lockout-shortened season in which there was more basketball days than days off. It is even tougher for those who played in the Finals. This year four players played in both the NBA Finals and the Olympics, and they are LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden. Now that a new NBA season is right around the corner, their coaches will have to watch their workload.

James has already begun limiting himself in order to stay strong for the entire season. ESPN's Michael Wallace reported early this afternoon that the plan is to rest James during training camp and preseason. Training camp is for guys to get back into basketball shape after summer off, but James is already in basketball shape due to his time in London. Miami Heat head coach, Erik Spoelstra stated that the availability of certain players will vary from day-to-day, and James is included in that. James also might miss the first preseason game against Atlanta. This cautious attitude James and the Heat are taking is to prevent James from overworking himself and then breaking down at some point during the regular season. Back in his Cleveland days, James worked so hard to carry his team that by the time the playoffs rolled around he was spent. Haters will say that he choked during the playoffs as a Cav, but that is obviously not the case as in two seasons with the Heat he has made it to the Finals each year, winning one, with a good supporting cast.

Durant, Westbrook, and Harden are in a different boat than James. No plans of rest have been announced, or rumored, for the trio of stars from the Oklahoma City Thunder. Unlike James, Durant, Westbrook, and Harden are still in their early 20s. I don't think Thunder head coach Scott Brooks is even thinking about resting his three best players during training camp and the preseason. I think he is thinking the opposite because Durant, Harden, and Westbrook are unfinished products. Brooks loves the fact that his three guys got to take part in the Olympics and learn from the best in the game, and now he wants to work hard and continue to develop during camp. James is a complete player who is refining parts of his game, and so he can afford to miss time. The three leading men of the Thunder, however, all have their flaws and areas to work on, and need all the time they can get to improve themselves. Unfortunately, there is no time for rest in Oklahoma City. Should Thunder fans be worried of increased injury risk or ineffectiveness because of the team's go mentality? Nahh.

Sure technically speaking Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden are susceptible to injury or tiredness if they take no breaks before the season after non-stop basketball that started the December before and ended in mid August. But then again everyone is susceptible to those things. Worrying about them would be like worrying if you were going to get fired tomorrow because that could happen too, technically speaking. As a fan, you want to see your team improve, and the only way for the team to do that is too push themselves. If Durant, Westbrook, and Harden walked into camp and sat on the sidelines and said "Nah, we're good. Did you not see us play in the Olympics?", what would the rest of the team think. Well they'd think those three think they are above practice and improvement, and you know how everyone feels about practice. If no one thought practicing was important, then we never would have gotten Allen Iverson's famous press conference that consisted of him rambling in disbelief about why he was fielding questions about practice. Bottom line is practice is very important. It builds team chemistry, it gives everyone a sense of accountability, and leads to player improvement. The Thunder are one of the younger teams in the league, as well, and so practice is even more important for the future of the team.

In conclusion, dealing with non-stop basketball differs with each player. You could have someone like LeBron James who is a veteran that has earned his stripes and deserves some of rest after guiding his team to a title and his country to a gold medal. You also have guys like the Thunder trio who are young players that have earned respect around the league yet still need to do more to get to the next level. You could also argue that they deserve some rest for leading their team to the Finals and helping their country capture gold, but the need to improve outweighs the need for rest. While James has done just about everything a pro basketball can do, Durant, Westbrook, and Harden have barely scratched the surface. You will hear the critics going after the Thunder trio now that LeBron has won his ring because he has finally silenced his critics. Non-stop basketball might be no big deal for the young guns of Oklahoma City, but now they have to carry that momentum into another season. The rested King just has to what he's done for a decade.

Reference

http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/8445323/miami-heat-lebron-james-sit-preseason-opener-maximize-rest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team#Roster

Permanently Fixing the NHL

I was reading Bill Simmons' mailbag from today, and a reader asked him if he'd do a mailbag dedicated to people complaining about the NHL lockout. Simmons answered the question by saying in Canada they are really panicking, and then he sarcastically added that the NHL only has seven Canadian teams. It didn't click until after I finished reading his column, but I thought, "He might be on to something here. If the NHL was more Canadian than American, then lockouts would rarely happen." Here goes my crazily brilliant plan to fix the NHL that in no way would ever happen in real life (but if it did a season would never be lost to a lockout).

Right now there are seven teams NHL teams located in Canada, and they are the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, Vancouver Canucks, Winnipeg Jets, Ottawa Senators, Calgary Flames, and Edmonton Oilers. Since there are 30 NHL teams, that means that Canada makes up just under 25% of the league. This doesn't make any sense considering the fact that hockey is the football of Canada. If the NHL was more Canadian than American, any labor dispute would have to be settled before the season because the league would be wildly popular, as it is now in Canada. I think the NHL should be completely revamped. Instead of being 23-7 in favor of the US, it should be 16-14 in favor of Canada. If there were 16 teams in Canada, the NHL would be ran by a Canadian commissioner, and a Canadian commissioner would never allow a season to be lost to a lockout.

A Canadian commissioner would do wonders for the NHL because he would realize the importance of playing hockey over cancelling it to get the best deal. Just like Roger Goodell knew he couldn't cancel any NFL games last season which resulted in a deal being done in time for a couple preseason games and a full season to be played as scheduled. The popularity of the NFL worked against Goodell and the owners, and the players knew it. A similar situation would happen if there were more hockey teams in Canada than the US. Nothing tops hockey in Canada, which would only make the clamor louder for a deal to be done fast. You thought the replacement ref situation was bad? Try dealing with angry Canadians that are told there won't be any hockey every night because the owners are getting greedy, and hockey would be played every night in Canada with 16 Canadian teams.

The tricky part would be finding a way to put 16 teams in Canada. One way would be to double up in major cities. Six of the seven current NHL teams in Canada are located in the largest six cities in Canada, which is obviously isn't a coincidence. These six cities should have two teams per city much like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago do in some of the other big four sports leagues. This would automatically give Canada 12 teams with doubles in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton. You add Winnipeg and that makes 13. This means leaves only three new cities to enter the league. The three cities I would go with are: Quebec, Hamilton, and Saskatoon. These three cities would be the ideal choices because they are already have NHL-sized arenas. Quebec and Hamilton also have decent size metropolitan areas in the 720,000-765,000 range (similar size to Winnipeg) while Saskatoon is very small at just over 260,000. Saskatoon, however, owns the largest arena of the three and could be the Green Bay of the NHL. OK, so maybe bringing up the number of Canadian teams to 16 wasn't hard after all.

Cutting down the number of US teams, however, would be very hard because US cities are more populated than most Canadian cities. Obviously, you'd have to keep the four US members of the original six hockey teams, which are the New York Rangers, Boston Bruins, Detroit Red Wings, and Chicago Blackhawks. The next two logical teams to keep would be the Buffalo Sabres and Minnesota Wild because of their close proximity to Canada. Two more teams to keep would be the Los Angeles Kings and Dallas Stars because Los Angeles and Dallas are such large cities. The Pittsburgh Penguins, Philadelphia Flyers, and New Jersey Devils would be wise to keep as well due to them being perennial powerhouses. This makes 11 teams that I would keep for sure. Most of the remaining teams are in warm climates, which doesn't make sense in a hockey league, in my opinion. One team that isn't in a warm climate is the Colorado Avalanche, and so I'd keep them. Another team I'd choose to keep is the Washington Capitals because apparently it's mandatory to have a sports team in the capital. I would not choose another current NHL team to keep. Instead, I would choose to put an expansion team in Seattle because I find Seattle to be more of a hockey city than places like Tampa, Phoenix, Anaheim, and San Jose. It is also much closer to Canada than any remaining NHL city in the US.

This new NHL would make much more money that the current league because it is more accessible to the people that truly love hockey, Canadians. Combine more money coming in from Canada with the 14 US teams in which the majority are large cities, and maybe the NHL wouldn't be trailing the NFL, MLB, and NBA in revenue each year. There certainly wouldn't be a lockout every five years either if Canada controlled the league. This idea may be crazy, wild, and insane, but it'd work. Remember, I said this is a way to permanently fix the NHL, and a permanent fix requires an elaborate plan and lots of changes. If you want a quick fix, then I'd start with firing commissioner Gary Bettman.

References

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8435690/welcome-elaborate-chat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indoor_arenas_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hockey_League

Bo Porter the Correct Choice for Astros?

Last night multiple baseball reporters announced that the Houston Astros decided to hire Marquis "Bo" Porter as their next manager. Porter played pro ball for nine years, three of which for major league teams. The teams that gave him a shot were the Chicago Cubs, Oakland Athletics, and Texas Rangers. He retired from playing the game in 2003, at the age of 30. His coaching career started two years later.

Porter started his coaching career with the Class A Greensboro Grasshoppers, a minor league affiliate of the then-Florida Marlins. He was the team's hitting coach. He was promoted to manager of the Class A-Advanced Jamestown Jammers the following season. In 2007, he broke into the majors has a coach, serving as the Marlins third base coach and outfield/baserunning instructor. He did this job for three seasons before accepting the same position for the Arizona Diamondbacks. When manager A.J. Hinch was fired and bench coach Kirk Gibson was promoted, Porter became the bench coach. This was in July of his first season in Arizona. The Diamondbacks fired him after the 2010 season.

He interviewed for the managerial position for the Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates. He was a finalist for both jobs, but the Marlins decided to go with Edwin Rodriguez, removing his interim tag. Porter removed his candidacy for the Pirates job by accepting the third base coach position for the Washington Nationals. He interviewed to be the manager of the Astros after they fired Brad Mills in mid-August. He became a finalist along with Tony DeFrancesco, the interim manager in Houston; Dave Martinez, Tampa Bay Rays bench coach; and Tim Bogar, Boston Red Sox bench coach. In a press conference this morning, the Astros announced that Porter will be their next manager.

It is an interesting choice for the Astros considering he only has one year of managerial experience, and only seven years coaching overall. He is very young for a manager, just turning 40 over the summer, but he does fit in with the new wave of less experienced hires that we saw this season when the Chicago White Sox hired Robin Ventura and the St. Louis Cardinals hired Mike Matheny, neither of which had any managerial experience. As previously noted, Porter managed for year in Jamestown in 2006. That season the Jammers went 33-39. Notable major league players that were on the team are Logan Morrison, Chris Coghlan, and Scott Cousins. The majority of the players he managed never made it past the lower minor league classes, though. In Houston, he will get to guide young players again, just a bit older this time around.

The Houston Astros will be moving to the American League West next year, part of the agreement in the recent sale of the team. Oddly enough, they hired Porter, who has never been affiliated with an AL team before. Obviously he has been involved in a game with a DH as he played for the A's and Rangers, and there are interleague games in both the majors and minors, but it could be something to watch for as he has been coaching on National League teams. If he had been taking notes from the managers of the teams he has worked for, then all the notes have to go out the window since managing in the AL is quite different than the NL. There will be more interleague games in the future with the Astros move to the AL making the two leagues an even 15 teams, but still the majority of the games he will manage will be with a DH, which is the exact opposite of what he's been involved with so far as a coach.

I applaud the Astros decision to hire Bo Porter because they did not need a manager with a lot of experience to take over what will be a very young team for many years. It gives the manager room to grow with his players in a low-expectation environment. It is the perfect place to bring in a guy at a low cost and see what he can do for a few seasons. Management knows that it won't be able to compete right away with the Rangers, A's, or Los Angeles Angels, and so why spend a lot of money on a guy that's been around the block a few times. I think the move to the AL will help Porter as well because it is easier to manage in the AL than the NL. In the NL, you have to worry about the matchups more and the decision of when to pull the pitcher for a pinch hitter, if necessary. In the AL you still have to play the match ups as well, but it won't come at the expense of a pitcher and position player in the same move. In the end, the Astros found the right man for the job, young and eager to prove himself.

References

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8430173/houston-astros-name-washington-nationals-bo-porter-manager-report-says
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/portebo03.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Porter
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/teams/stats.asp?Y=2006&T=10257

Revis' Spot Goes to Joe McKnight

After it was announced that Darrelle Revis would be lost for the season with a torn ACL, the assumption would be that the New York Jets would look for a veteran free agent corner. If not, then they'd at least find a young corner off a practice squad. But there were no headlines involving the Jets working out corners nor did they sign one off a practice squad. They did, however, sign running back Jonathan Grimes off the Houston Texans practice squad. When I saw the Jets Twitter account announce the signing, I immediately replied, "But he's not a cornerback." Little did I know the Jets already had the man who'd take Revis' roster spot. That man would be running back Joe McKnight.

McKnight is the definition of a fringe player in the NFL. He does not have one job. He is on the team because he can do many different jobs. He can return both punts and kicks, and when he's not he serves on the punt and kick teams. He is a running back both in regular sets and special sets, like the wildcat. He can lineup at receiver. He has been successful at each job, too. Last season he returned a kick for a touchdown, blocked a punt, and forced two fumbles, showing off his special teams skills. On offense, he caught 13 passes for 139 yards, and seven of those passes went for first downs. Now, head coach Rex Ryan wants to add a defensive role for McKnight to try.

McKnight obviously won't replace Revis on the field, that job goes to Kyle Wilson. McKnight will be taking Wilson's spot as third corner though, according to ESPN's Jane McManus. McKnight did not play corner at his alma mater, University of Southern California, and he obviously hasn't played in the NFL as the Jets have been his only team. This means that McKnight will have to learn how to be a corner from scratch, which is not a good sign for Jets fans. You don't usually want the #3 guy on your corner depth chart to be learning the position as he goes. McKnight does have a good frame though at 5-11, 205 pounds. That is basically the prototypical body of a cornerback. He is also fast, agile, smart, and tough. He has proved his speed and agility by having the ability to return a kick for a touchdown. He had proved his toughness and intelligence by flying down the field on a kickoff and forcing two fumbles last year. He could turn into a decent corner, maybe even a good one, but is it worth it?

We are entering Week 4 of the NFL. Players are just about used to playing and practicing every week, and the offenses and defenses start to click. Week 4 is when teams start to show what they are really made of. There is no more rust and should be no miscommunications; in other words, there are no more excuses, which brings up back to McKnight. Is it really smart to throw a running back in at corner? He'd be the target of every offense. Offenses would take their best receiver and put him in the slot, presumably forcing Antonio Cromartie to the slot with him and McKnight to the outside. Once teams force McKnight outside all they'd need to do is put a burner opposite him who is decent at double moves, and McKnight will have no chance, either he'd give up the big play or commit pass interference trying to stop the big play. Meanwhile, a real corner would have much less problem guarding any receiver.

The one disadvantage to bringing in a cornerback is that he won't know the playbook. He would have the skills necessary, but would need to get caught up in the language. This is one the reason I can see Ryan trying to fix his problem from the inside. The problem is that he picked the wrong player. McKnight is in deeper than a new corner because he doesn't know the position or the playbook. Being a offensive player who also contributes on special teams, there was no need for his to look the defensive plays, but now he does. If Ryan wanted to convert a player, but not use a backup safety? Safeties around have to cover receivers occasionally and it'd be much easier to move from one position in the secondary to the other. McKnight could then learn how to be play safety, which is an easier job to learn, especially free safety. Ryan chose to convert McKnight to corner though, and it probably has a lot to do with McKnight being a fringe player. Ryan and McKnight both know that if he can learn this role then he could potentially become indispensable. How do you get rid of a guy that can play offense, defense, and special teams? You can't, and Rex Ryan wants that guy. Ryan has done some crazy things in the past, but this one might be just crazy enough to work.

References

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8428252/rex-ryan-says-new-york-jets-rb-joe-mcknight-work-cb
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/13209/joe-mcknight
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/13209/type/college/joe-mcknight

Sheed a Fit for Knicks?

The Twitter account known as Knicks Analyst has reported that the New York Knicks are interested in yet another old veteran. This time the Knicks are going after retired Rasheed Wallace, who is apparently interested in attempting a comeback. I replied to the tweet quite shocked and he got back to me saying, "it's looking like it might actually happen." The Knicks bench sounds like it could age another 38 years.

Wallace "retired" from the NBA in 2010, last playing on the 2010 Boston Celtics team that battled the LA Lakers in the finals. I use the quotes because his numbers were down in his only season with the Celtics and they were going to buy him out. Once the C's bought out his contract, Wallace officially announced his retirement. I don't think he wanted to retire though. I think he only retired because no team wanted him. Well, now it looks like the Knicks want him, but is he a fit in New York?

Wallace was a starter for the majority of his career as his 33.1 career minutes per game stat indicates. His season with the Celtics was the first season he played less than 27.5 mpg. It was also the first time he was used as a reserve, averaging only 22.5 mpg. He still put up decent numbers though. He averaged 9 points per game to go with 4 rebounds, 1 assist, and 1 steal. He struggled at shooting the 3 though, an area he usually excelled at. He shot a mere 28% from downtown in 2010 compared to a 34% career average. But in the playoffs he pulled the old switch-a-roo, his minutes, points, rebounds, assists, and steals were down while is 3-pt percentage rose. He shot 35% from behind the arc during the playoffs in only 17.1 mpg. He only averaged 6.1 ppg, and 3 rpg. As for assists and steals, his numbers didn't top 0.5 in the postseason (0.4 for each). He still performed admirably for a 35-year old against a Laker team with much younger big men, Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum, and Lamar Odom.

Right now the Knicks list Kurt Thomas as the backup to starting power forward Amare Stoudamire. Thomas is two years old than Wallace, but is not attempting to come out of retirement. He has played decent minutes for the Blazers last season and around the same as Wallace for the Bulls the year before that. Overall Thomas has logged much less floor time than Wallace over the course of his career. While Wallace averaged 33.1 mpg for his career, Thomas has surpassed that only twice in a season, both times coming in his last go around with the Knicks. Thomas is also two inches shorter than Wallace and not a three to shoot the 3. In eight less average minutes, Thomas' numbers are roughly half of Wallace's, which is a normal start-to-bench player stat differential.

While adding Rasheed Wallace would be interesting, I think Kurt Thomas is still a better option for the Knicks. I like Wallace's ability more, but Thomas is the better fit. He is more used to the reserve role, somewhat making a career out of it, and has been playing consistent reserve minutes since he entered the league nearly 20 years ago. Wallace has also been known to cause locker room problems. Upon hearing the news that the Knicks might get Wallace, I immediately texted my former college roommate who is a die hard Knicks fan. The first thing he mentioned was that he was worried about Wallace messing up the locker room, so that is definitely a factor. Fans would love screaming "SHEEEED" during games, but sorry Knicks fans, I just don't see Sheed as a New York Knicks.

References

https://twitter.com/Knicksanalyst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasheed_Wallace#Boston_Celtics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NBA_Finals
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/846/kurt-thomas

ND Foolishly Ends Rivalry with Michigan

11 days ago, the University of Notre Dame announced it was leaving the Big East for the ACC in all sports except hockey and football. The catch was that Notre Dame had to play five games a year against ACC opponents. In college football teams play 12 regular season games, meaning they still get to keep their football independence on a 7-5 ruling. It also means they get to handpick seven opponents each year. Shockingly, Michigan will not be one of those eight schools once the 2015 season rolls around.

Notre Dame athletic director, Jack Swarbrick, handed Michigan athletic director, David Brandon, a letter exercising a three-year out clause in the contract between the two schools. The school ran until 2031, but on a three-year rolling basis. This means that either school could opt out of the contract if they gave the other school three years notice. The letter was given to Brandon on the field before the kickoff on their Week 4 game, meaning that Notre Dame will be freed of the contract after the 2014 season. Michigan head coach, Brady Hoke, called the breakup "unfortunate," which is putting in lightly in my opinion.

The rivalry between the two teams dates back to the 1800s, 1887 specifically. While there were breakups in the past, they have played regularly since 1978 and yearly since 2002. The rivalry is arguably one of the best in college football as it pitted the two teams with the highest winning percentages in football. Michigan has won 74% of its games over the lifetime of the program while Notre Dame has won 73%. It is a classic rivalry full of some much history. The kind of game where a grandpa could tell his grandson stories about the two teams from when he was a young man. The kind of game that makes college sports so exciting. A game that will be no more after 2014.

Swarbrick provided no reason in his decision to end the rivalry. He did, however, shed some light on which rivalries he wanted to keep. He stated that he thought the most important yearly rivalries for the Fighting Irish to keep were against Navy, Stanford, and the University of Southern California. While I understand the significance of the Navy game, I do not know what is special about the Stanford and USC rivalries. Even if there is no specific history, Stanford and USC are both elite teams and two great teams to play each year, especially if the team is in contention for the BCS title. Playing well against those two teams surely proves that you could fight for a title. But why can't Michigan be kept on that list?

Notre Dame gets to play seven teams of its choosing. Of those eight slots, three are already filled by Navy, Stanford, and USC. Another slot gets filled early on in the season by a team that isn't very good. It's like a tuneup game. This year their tuneup game came Week 2 against Purdue, a team that only went .500 in the 2011 regular season. This leaves three slots left. Michigan could definitely fill one of those slots, leaving the remaining two open for change each season. Michigan is nowhere near a bad team, and so it isn't like keeping on Michigan would prevent them from booking an elite opponent. Michigan is an elite opponent that just happens to have a historic rivalry with the team. Keeping them on the schedule seems like a no-brainer. Am I the only one that seems this?

The Michigan rivalry was not just historic for Notre Dame, it was also a money-maker. Each team has a massive stadium. Michigan Stadium holds a whopping 109,901 people, making it the largest stadium in the country. Notre Dame Stadium holds a respectable 80,795. Each year both teams make hundreds of thousands, if not millions, at the gate, regardless of whose the home team. The game is also nationally televised each year, adding more money to each team's bank account. At a time where schools are jumping conferences to make more money, Notre Dame among them, you'd think Notre Dame would keep this game for the money it brings in alone. When you add the history, it's simply foolish for Notre Dame to end this rivalry, foolish for themselves and foolish for the fans.

Reference

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8423552/notre-dame-fighting-irish-opts-series-michigan-wolverines

Marlins: Ozzie Problem

The Marlins loaded up this season trying to build excitement for the future. There were a lot of new changes for the Florida Marlins: new stadium, new name, new logo, new jerseys, new players, and a new manager. The name seemed to work (Miami Marlins). Two of their three key free agent acquisitions panned out (Jose Reyes and Mark Buehrle). The logo and jerseys could have been better. The stadium should have been smaller. But most of all, the manager search could of, and should of, extended longer.

The Miami Marlins didn't just sign new manager Ozzie Guillen, they traded for him. You know, that thing teams do with players. Well the Marlins decided to do it with a manager. Guillen, the longtime Chicago White Sox manager, had lost control of his promising 2011 White Sox team. The team wound up 3rd in the AL Central at 79-83. It was the third time one of his teams went other .500, the others being 2007 (72-90) and 2009 (79-83). Under .500 three times in five years is not very good, especially when each team was competitive. The Marlins ignored all this though and acquired him anyways. I guess they figured that a change of scenery would get him back on track. Well, it didn't.

A mere week into his first season, Guillen angered a lot of people in Florida when he came out in support of Fidel Castro (kind of). In an interview with Time magazine, Guillen had this to say about Castro:

"I love Fidel Castro ... I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that motherf-er is still here."

While this is technically support, it is more of a backhand compliment. Guillen didn't say he loved Castro for the evil he has done, but because he's dodged death so long. It is still wrong to say, especially in Florida where there are many Cuban-born people. The Marlins suspended five games for the comments. Upon return from suspension he took a vow of silence, including using Twitter, of talking about anything other than baseball.

The rest of the season hasn't been great for Guillen, either. Besides a terrific May in which the Marlins went 21-8, the Marlins have been under .500 every other month. Management started dumping salary in late July. Anibal Sanchez and Omar Infante were sent to the Tigers and Randy Choate and Hanley Ramirez were sent to the Dodgers. Once this happened, the Marlins essentially threw in the white towel on the season, and the speculation about Guillen being fired started. Guillen has stated he's not worried about being fire and that he actually believes he'll be the Marlins manager next year. When asked again about his job situation, Guillen said, "If Jeffrey doesn't think I'm doing the job I should do ... it's not the first time he's fired a manager. Look yourself in the mirror and ask why so many (expletive) managers come through here." A comment that obviously angered his boss, and owner of the Marlins, Jeffrey Loria.

Most recently a player has spoken out against Guillen. Former Padres closer, Heath Bell, who lost the closer job in Miami earlier this season, described Guillen unkindly. Though his comments about his manager were indirect, he was clearly referring to him. He had this to say about Guillen:

"It's hard to respect a guy that doesn't tell you the truth or doesn't tell you face-to-face...It's just one of those things that -- what you see is what you get. I'm not going to be two-faced. I'm not going to sneak around your back and say this and that."

Bell is clearly bothered that he never got the chance to regain his closer job. His numbers are not good and haven't been good all season. But his quote indicates that Guillen might have told him one thing and acted in a completely opposite manner. If this is the case, that something you don't do as a manager. Hard to get the team behind you when they don't trust you.

The writing has been on the wall for awhile now in regards to Guillen's job status. If management was going to give him and the team a second chance, they wouldn't have started dumping players in July. Also, Guillen was going to need a phenomenal season in order to keep his job after his Castro comments. Without that phenomenal season, there is no justification for keeping a man that has fallen out of favor with a majority of your fan base. Management announced recently that more salary would be dumped in the offseason, which is another reason to start over at manager as well. Guillen is not kind of manager to preside over a rebuilding project. Considering that Robin Ventura, a rookie manager at all baseball levels, is guiding basically the same White Sox team to the playoffs, I think Guillen can't even manage a good team anymore. The outspoken Guillen has run his course in the major leagues. He led the White Sox to a title in 2005, now it's time he leads Twitter in most outrageous tweets.

References

http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/guilloz01.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozzie_Guill%C3%A9n

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIA/2012-schedule-scores.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIA/2012-transactions.shtml

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8420672/miami-marlins-heath-bell-says-hard-respect-manager-ozzie-guillen

Should 2011, 2012 NFL Seasons Have Asterisks?

10 years from now there will be things we can say with relative certainty. For instance, I'll be 32 years old and at the very least will have a Bachelor's and Master's degree to my name. We know that current NFL stars like Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Ray Lewis, and Troy Polamalu will be retired. Coaching gurus Bill Belichick, Tom Coughlin, and Mike Shanahan will bow out of the game (most likely). Certainty isn't guaranteed for all things, though. For example, we don't even know where the Super Bowl will be held 10 years from now. We also don't know how the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be viewed.

Last season was marred by the NFL locking out the players. Yes, all games were played on schedule, and, yes, the playoff teams were mostly predictable, but neither of these things mean the season went unaffected. Without training camp and with fewer preseason games, teams were left to come together, or gel, during the season, when the games matter. It did not bode well for young or revamped teams. The Philadelphia Eagles stick out when you talk about teams not gelling. Their defense, which was basically overhauled, looked lost and confused early on in the season but came on strong towards the end, after they figured things out. The lack of an offseason also saw injuries soar and some teams were completely ruined because of them. The Kansas City Chiefs and Chicago Bears come to mind when you talk 2011 injuries. The Chiefs were devastated by injury within the first two weeks and only saw more as the season went on while the Bears lost their two best offensive players, Matt Forte and Jay Cutler, late in the season. Both teams had a good shot at making the playoffs, but neither did.

This season is being ruined by the NFL lockout out the referees. This time teams got a normal offseason and preseason to gel, but now they have to deal with the incompetence of replacement refs. The sub refs are so bad that I don't even need to get into what they have done wrong. All you have to do is watch any game played so far or click into the NFL section of any sports news site, and you will see and hear these replacements being bashed by everybody. As it's been stated multiple times, these subs affect the flow of the game and how teams go about their business. It is now much harder to be an up-tempo team with the sub officials taking their time to get things straightened out. The calls themselves are just awful as well. Never have I heard the word 'phantom' be used for anything besides a ghostly evil thing. This year I have heard used multiple times to describe a penalty that physically didn't happen, but was called, on the field. Every part of the game is being destroyed by the lack of proper officiating, and every team with a loss so far this season, which is every team besides Houston, Arizona, and Atlanta, could cite questionable officiating as a major reason to why they lost.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the last year-plus of football has not been what it could have been. The league locking out the players and refs is not helping to build the NFL brand. Years from now the lockouts will still be talked about. This will not be a two year thing. What happened before and during these past 20-something games will not just vanish into thin air, forgotten by all. It will be talked about for years and years. They probably become case studies in classes referring to what happens when employees get locked out. These lockouts will be black marks on the NFL forever. People will criticize commissioner Roger Goodell for having back-to-back lockouts. He should have learned from the mistakes of the first. The players didn't just let the owners walk all over them. There was give and take from both sides, and a pretty fair deal was reached. Instead of being more willing to compromise with the officials, the NFL is again trying to railroad them into its terms. This is not how a business is run. Business requires give-and-take, not just take. If corporations could just demand things from their employees, then the word 'negotiate' would have never made it to the English language. Right now the NFL is unwilling to negotiate, and its product is suffering because of its own stubbornness and poor business skills.

All of this leads to one, semi-obvious question: "should asterisks be put next to the 2011 and 2012 seasons?"  It's a good question because the play on the field was, and is, clearly affected by these lockouts. I do not think the 2011 season should have an asterisk. Lockout or not, injuries are part of the game and you cannot prove that the lockout increased the injury rate, or decreased it for that matter. Also gelling and becoming a team is what teams have to do every season and even if it takes four or five regular season games to do so a team would still have a decent shot of making the playoffs. The 2011 season, while clearly affected by the lockout, was basically a regular season in the NFL. This season, however, should definitely have an asterisk next to it. The sub refs are far too inconsistent to be compared to the regular officials. This season is nothing like a normal NFL season. Nobody knows what will be called each week penalty-wise, and it's very hard to prepare a team when you don't know how the rules will be enforced week-to-week. It's not hard to realize that this season is tainted, though. If I were an NFL owner, I would not want to be Super Bowl champion this year. Whatever happens come February will be overshadowed by the replacement refs of September and October, and it won't just be this season. It'll be forever.

Chad Johnson Will Return

Chad Johnson was a great wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals. Sure he was outspoken and sometimes posed as a distraction, but each year he would negate the distractions he caused with his game. Six of his seven 1,000 yard seasons came consecutively from 2002-2007. Something went wrong with Johnson just before the 2008 season. Some say it's because he didn't have Carson Palmer throwing him the ball that year, but good receivers churn out good seasons not matter who's throwing it to them. I don't think it was Palmer being MIA that produced Johnson's worst statistical season since his rookie year. I think his cockiness finally overcame him.

Just before the 2008 season started, Chad Johnson officially changed his name to Chad Ochocinco. "Ocho Cinco" was what Johnson called himself, and it is Spanish for "8, 5." Well it caught on with the media and so Johnson decided to actually make it last name. The result was disastrous for his NFL career. In his four seasons as Ochocinco, he only had one 1,000 yard season and never eclipsed 72 catches in a season. The only two times he never bettered 85 receptions in a season as Chad Johnson was his rookie and sophomore campaigns. I think Chad thought that no matter what he did or said in the media, he would always produce on the field. When he didn't produce, he tried being the exact opposite of himself, quiet and reserved, and that didn't work either. His problem was that he forgot how to be himself. He was either too outspoken or too quiet, never somewhere in between like he was when he was at his best.

Ochocinco caught a break last season. He was traded to the New England Patriots and got to work with an elite quarterback in Tom Brady. Unfortunately, the lockout gave Ocho and Brady little time to gain on-field chemistry. Since Brady had so many other reliable targets, Ocho rarely saw the ball come his way, and he finished the season with only 15 catches. The good news was that those catches were fairly deep as he averaged 18.4 yards per catch. 13 of his 15 receptions resulted in first downs. It's a small sample size, but last season Ochocinco showed he could still be a down field threat. This offseason the Patriots signed Brandon Lloyd which left no reason for Ochocinco to remain on the team, and so they cut him. I would say that if no lockout took place, Ochocinco would have had a great 2011 season and still be a Pat as we speak.

The Miami Dolphins, badly needing receivers, signed Ochocinco shortly after the Pats cut him. Not surprisingly, he was the best receiver in camp for the Dolphins and was looking to be a top target for Fins QBs. But again something happened with Ochocinco. He had gotten married to reality star, Evelyn Lozada, over the summer and three weeks after the marriage changed his name back to Chad Johnson. The reason for the change is unclear as some say Lozada forced him to while others say he did to get back to old self. In mid-August, just days after coach Joe Philbin told Johnson to tone down his act, Johnson was arrested for domestic battery. He and Lozada got into an argument and Johnson became so angry that he headbutted her. The Dolphins cut him almost immediately after the arrest, and Lozada filed for divorce three days after the assault.

Johnson laid low until today, which was his day in court. He pleaded no contest to a domestic violence charge and received one year probation and is forced to take anger management classes. Today was also the day his interview on Showtime's "Inside the NFL" aired. It might have even been live, I don't know much about the show. During the interview Johnson bared his heart and soul to hosts James Brown and Chris Collinsworth. He said he has lost everything and that he can no longer be that 'same fun guy.' He went on to say that now he has to go out and prove a point and that it was an 'honor' to be a married man. He said that Lozada was the person that 'completed his world, completed him, period,' and he know understood what it was like to lose something that you love. He concluded the interview with saying that he had to work on himself. Brown had asked him if he could repair his relationship with his now ex-wife, and he said responded by saying there is nothing left to say to her and that he has to use his actions because actions speak louder than words. I watched the entire interview, and at no point did I think, "Wow, he's just throwing out a sob story that he hopes everyone will believe.'  He seemed honest and sincere throughout, and blamed his recent troubles all on himself.

I think the assault and subsequent fallout with his wife was the wake up Johnson so desperately needed. I think he's finally took a step back and looked at himself and said, "Who am I? This isn't the real Chad Johnson." Plenty of players have come back from far worst scrutiny than Johnson has received this summer. Michael Vick, Adam Jones, and Donte Stallworth, to name a few, have all made mistakes but were accepted back into the NFL. Vick and Jones are still playing while Stallworth kind of floats around the league and goes where he is needed. If Vick can make a comeback after leading a dog-fighting ring, Stallworth after vehicular manslaughter, and Jones after multiple arrests and league suspensions, then Johnson should have no problem returning to the league. Chad Johnson will return to the National Football League if he wants to, and a team will sign him if he cleans up his act and works hard on the field. All he has to do is be himself, not Chad Ochocinco, just Chad Johnson.

References

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8406775/chad-johnson-gets-probation-domestic-battery-case
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/2584/chad-johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(wide_receiver)
http://newsone.com/2043926/chad-ochocinco-johnson-interview/

Prokhorov is Russian Mark Cuban

12 years ago, Mark Cuban bought the lowly Dallas Mavericks. He was young billionaire who make his billions during the dot com boom of the late 90s. I say young because rarely do you hear a man barely over 40, Cuban was 41 at the time, having a net worth over a billion dollars. It is also rare to have a 41-year old man buy a sports team without any help from other investors, but Mark Cuban was one of them. Since owning the Mavericks, he has been loud, outspoken, and unpredictable. He chooses to sit among the Mavs fans, wearing team jerseys than to sit in a suit in a sky box high above the court. His tactics have worked as the team has won nearly 70% of their games, made it to the playoffs every year, and went to two NBA Finals, winning one in 2011, since Cuban has owned the team. There has never been an owner quite like Mark Cuban, until now.

In 2010, exactly a decade after Cuban entered the league, the New Jersey Nets were sold to Russian billionaire, Mikhail Prokhorov. Prokhorov had just celebrated his 45th birthday a week before the sale became official. He became a billionaire at a much younger age than Cuban. He went to school to work in the finance world and within a few years of graduation he was head of the Board of the MFK bank. After the collapse of the USSR, Prokhorov took advantage of the unregulated industries that were owned by the USSR. The industry he went after was the precious metal industry. He was the chairman of Polyus Gold, Russia's largest gold producer and most recently he chaired Norilsk Nickel, the world's largest producer of nickel and palladium. He then created a private investment fund, ONEXIM Group, in 2007. His purchase of the Nets came three years later along with half the project of building an arena in Brooklyn, known today as the Barclays Center. He resigned his position at ONEXIM in 2011 to focus on politics.

Like Cuban, Prokhorov did an unheard of thing in buying an American sports franchise with no other investors involved. Prokhorov's purchase of the Nets came at a time where nearly every of team sold was sold to a small group of wealthy men, not just one person. Prokhorov has also been outspoken since buying the Nets. Upon approval of him becoming the new majority owner of the team, he declared that the Nets would be NBA champions within five years. He even got into a war of words with Cuban over which team would sign star point guard, Deron Williams, in the offseason. He restated his five year plan today at the grand opening of the Barclays Center, saying that everything was going to plan. He also profoundly stated that he thought Nets General Manager, Billy King would be G.M. of the Year and that the Barclays Center was the best arena in the world. The latter, of course, was most likely another shot at the New York Knicks as Madison Square Garden is largely regarded as the best arena in the world. His first shot at his team's new crosstown rival was referring to Knicks owner, James Dolan, as 'that little man.'

The one difference between Cuban and Prokhorov is the way they carry themselves at owners. Cuban seems to take a more blue-collar approaching being among the fans, cheering and screaming, while in a t-shirt and jeans. Prokhorov takes the more white-collar approach attending games in expensive suits and never leaving his luxury box. Don't make this minor detail into something big because it is not. When Cuban called Prokhorov the derogatory version of the word 'cat,' Prokhorov simply shrugged it off by saying, "I think he is confused. I don't like cats." Prokhorov may act more like a billionaire than Cuban, but he is just as outspoken and fearless as Cuban. He even challenged Cuban to a kickboxing match, saying he would 'crush' Cuban during his and Cubans war of words over who would sign Williams. Prokhorov also understands how hard it is to run a NBA franchise. He said today while at the Barclays Center that 'it is easy to build a strong team, but very difficult to make a championship team.' I don't know if the Nets will be NBA champions in three years, but I do know that Mark Cuban will have competition as the most outspoken owner for many years to come. Another loud billionaire has burst onto the scene, and his name is Mikhail Prokhorov.

References

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/8406682/barclays-center-opening-new-jersey-nets-owner-mikhail-prokhorov-promises-title-soon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Prokhorov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/18446448/prokhorov-says-he-will-crush-cuban-at-kickboxing-if-mavs-sign-williams

Rejuvenated Ichiro Should Lead Off

Ichiro had two more hits today against the Toronto Blue Jays capping a two-day hitting clinic that he'll remember for quite some time. Three games were played during the two days, and Ichiro went 9-12 with three doubles, one homer, four runs batted in, four runs scored, and four stolen bases. It was vintage Ichiro and it was exactly what the Yankees for looking for ever since they acquired him from the Seattle Mariners. Coming into tonight's game, Ichiro has hit .317 with nine doubles, a triple, and three homers in Yankees pinstripes. He now has played 54 hits in 54 games as a Yankee. He only has 16 runs though, and it prompts the question, should he return to role of lead-off hitter?

Lead-off man has been Ichiro's role for the majority of his major league career. This year he basically split time hitting first and third for the Mariners. Before being traded to the Yankees he had to agree that he would be fine with batting at the bottom of the order. He spent the majority of his short Yankee career batting eighth and ninth. This is because his numbers were way down in Seattle, hitting only .261 as a Mariner. Now that he has gotten used to New York and found his swing, a climb in the order might be in order. The problem is that the Yankees current lead-off man is Derek Jeter, who found his swing in April and hasn't lost it since.

Moving Jeter down to the hole might not be a bad idea though. The Yankees current 2-hole batter is Nick Swisher, who is not your typical guy to bat second. Swisher is a corner outfield-first baseman that has no speed and a lot of power. He fits better as a middle-of-the-order kind of guy. Jeter, on the other hand, its for contact and still has good speed despite his advanced age. His 15 homers shows that he still has some pop in his bat. Jeter is the perfect 2-hole hitter. Now that Ichiro has found his swing, he and Jeter could be a deadly 1-2 punch at the top of the Yankees order. When you add Robinson Cano, the usual 3-hole hitter, to the mix, then you get three of the best pure hitters in the game starting off each game for you.

Another thing Ichiro brings to the table that Jeter doesn't is stealing. Ichiro has 10 steals as a Yankee already and 25 for the season. Derek Jeter has only stolen nine bases the whole season. This means that if Ichiro gets a hit, Jeter will automatically have an easier at-bat because the pitcher will have to worry about Ichiro at first. If Ichiro does steal after reaching base, Jeter will have a chance to drive in a run every time he gets up, and with the way Jeter was hit he'd drive Ichiro in more times than not. This gives the Yankees a way to score besides the home run, something they desperately need. Manager Joe Girardi realizes this and that's why his team is second this month in steals with 20.

The argument against this would be that with Ichiro batting 8th or 9th, Jeter gets the chance to drive him anyways. This is true but the chance for Jeter to drive him in comes in the third or fourth inning rather than the first. This doesn't do the Yankees any good as their average pitching staff could give up three or four runs by the time Ichiro steps to the plate for the first time. The Yankees want to strike first, and they could every night with the small-ball combo of Ichiro-Jeter to start each game. If I were Girardi, my lineup card would look like this every night:

RF Ichiro (L)
SS Jeter (R)
2B Cano (L)
3B Rodriguez (R)
1B Swisher (S)
CF Granderson (L)
C Martin (R)
DH Ibanez/Jones (L/R)
LF Nix (R)

Jayson Nix is good enough to play every night as long as Mark Teixeira is out. He came play every infield position and the corner outfield positions. He is a sound fielder and a decent hitter with OK speed. Putting him at the bottom of the order makes up for bumping up Ichiro to the top of the order. There is no need to have Casey McGehee in the game over Nix as he does nothing better than Nix. Also notice that this lineup is very balanced, meaning there isn't any lefty or righty heavy parts to it. I have put in parentheses which side he player bats from to make it easier to see. A balanced lineup makes it harder for the opposing manager to play the matchups. Having Swisher and his good eye 5th in the lineup means that Granderson will have a chance to get another RBI as he as morphed into a homer-or-strikeout batter this season. The DH spot is weak in my lineup with both Raul Ibanez and Andruw Jones slumping as of late, but the Yankees bench is fairly deep and so McGehee, Chavez, or Eduardo Nunez could also slide into the lineup.

I think runners would be on base more often in my lineup than the one Girardi puts out each night. Simple logic tells you that the more times you have runners on base, the higher the chance you have at scoring. With Ichiro returning to vintage Ichiro and Jeter already being vintage Jeter, I think it's time to see what they can do as a tandem. C'mon Joe, do what you've been tempted to do ever since you got Ichiro, have him lead off. You know he can do it.

Reference

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/4570/ichiro-suzuki
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/stats/_/id/4570/ichiro-suzuki
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/4570/ichiro-suzuki
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/3246/derek-jeter