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

NHL: Should They Stay or Should They Go?

It's been roughly half a week since the NHL locked out its players. Not a lot has happened on the negotiation front, but players are scrambling to find a place to play while there'll be no NHL game. Some players are traveling to Europe (mainly Sweden and Russia), and some are joining together in pockets of the country to train together. Others will play in the AHL, the top minor league affiliate to the NHL, and others will play in other minor league affiliates, primarily the ECHL and CHL. All leagues have their own stipulations before a player can join them though. Where should players go? Well, it depends.

The European leagues are more lucrative, both money and skill-wise, for the locked-out players to go. The top leagues in Europe are Russia's Kontinental Hockey League and Sweden's Swiss A-league offer top dollar and top talent, but they don't come without any restrictions. The KHL allowes only three locked-out players per team, and only one of those can be foreign. The Swiss A-league has similar restrictions as well. They only allow four imported players per roster. Another Swiss league, the Swedish Elite League, does not allow played to join without signing a contract for a full season, meaning that players who sign there cannot return to the NHL if the lockout ends. These types of leagues attract the league's best players. Top players Ilya Kovalchuk, reigning MVP Evgeni Malkin, and Alex Ovechkin have all signed with teams in the KHL. Top players that signed with the Swiss leagues include Rich Nash, Jason Spezza, and Mark Streit.

If players don't get an offer overseas or just want to stay in the states, their primary options are the ECHL and CHL. ECHL stands for the East Coast Hockey League, and they advertise themselves as hockey's "AA" league. It is a 23-team league where less experience hockey players play. CHL stands for Central Hockey League and, unlike the ECHL, it is not affiliated with the NHL. It is an independent professional league that consist of 14 teams. Both leagues have been around awhile as the ECHL recently celebrated 25 years in existent while the CHL celebrated 20. Like the European leagues, there are rules in place to prevent just anyone from joining each league. A pro player that has accrued 260 or more games in the NHL or top European leagues can indeed play in the ECHL. The catch is that a team can have only four players that fit this description. The CHL is a little more lenient as it allows six players per team that have played 301 games or more of professional hockey. The other league that you will see players play in is the AHL, or American Hockey League. Being the NHL's top affiliate, it has the strictest rules for locked-out players to join. Players still on entry-level contracts or were on last year's AHL playoff or "clear day" roster can sign with AHL teams. These three leagues are all obvious for young players who will not make the cut to go over and play in Europe. More experienced players with young families could also join these leagues on one of the two previously listed ECHL and CHL exemptions.

Players who don't join a league are the ones skating and training with each other in pockets of the US. So far players are meeting in Minnesota and Boston to train together. They also hold scrimmages against each other. These players obviously are not making any money doing this, but they do get to play against fellow NHL players more often than the players who are joining leagues. These players are also the ones most willing to play in charity games in the US and Canada. During the last lockout that cancelled the 04-05 season, players participated in charity games in Quebec. Players that decide to train together and play for charity are usually well established players that have families and so they cannot just go and play in a different league during the work stoppage.

The winners of the lockout are obviously the players that have the capability of going overseas to play as they receive the most money and play the most competitive hockey. The downside to playing in Europe is that the players have to pay for insurance as the European contracts do not recognize the NHL insured contract the players have. The losers are the ones that can't even get to independent workouts and must train on their own. I would call it a wash between the players playing in the minors and the players training in groups because players in the minor leagues are being paid minimum wage as both the ECHL and CHL have weekly team salary cups just north of 10,000 dollars. As you can see, there is plenty of hockey to be played this fall. It just won't be televised nationally in the US. Of course this means that the players can afford to sit out longer if needed. It sounds to me like we're in for a long extended offseason. The question remains, though, should they stay or should they go?

References

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8382911/nhl-officially-locks-players-cba-expires
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8403261/playing-europe-russia-easy-accomplish-locked-players
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19310/what-options-do-nhlers-have-in-north-america
http://www.echl.com/history-s12371
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hockey_League

Unwanted: Vince Young

Vince Young is not the best quarterback in the NFL, nor will he ever be. But he is good enough to be employed by a NFL team. He is a poor man's Michael Vick, Robert Griffin III, or Cam Newton. He would make the perfect backup to any of those three guys. He could also serve as the role of Tim Tebow and be the backup and wildcat quarterback. He would probably do better than Tebow at this role because he is a much better passer. Instead he remains on the outside looking in, and I, for one, don't understand why.

There are plenty of teams that would upgrade by signing Vince Young. The three obvious teams would be the Eagles, Redskins, and Panthers. Losing Vick, Griffin, or Newton would be a disaster for these three teams because their backups are simply not as dynamic as the starters, and so the offense would have to be changed completely. The Redskins have Rex Grossman and rookie Kirk Cousins to backup RGIII. Grossman has never scrambled more than 24 times in a season and Cousins never more than 40 times in his college career. Nick Foles is the backup in Philly while Derek Anderson backs up Cam in Charlotte. Foles is a rookie whose career high in rushing attempts was 43 at Arizona and Anderson tops out at 32 for his NFL career. These four backups would severely damage their teams offenses that are built around mobile quarterbacks. Young has proven throughout his career than he can thrown and run, rushing 83 and 98 times in his first two NFL seasons. Other teams with mobile quarterbacks but not mobile backups include the Tennessee Titans (Locker-Hasselbeck) and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Freeman-Orlovsky).

There are also a few teams that could start Vince Young over their current starting quarterback and be much better. The Arizona Cardinals starting quarterback is John Skelton, now Kevin Kolb after Skelton's injury. While Skelton performed admirably towards the end of last season, I don't think he is the solution in Arizona.  Kevin Kolb has proved to be a bust after performing well in spot starts in Philly behind Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick. Vince Young has a big arm and would probably be a quarterback for star receiver Larry Fitzgerald than Skelton or Kolb. Another team that could start Young would be the Miami Dolphins. The Dolphins clearly did not want to start Ryan Tannehill in his first season. The job was going to go to David Garrard and Tannehill was going to sit back and learn. Instead Garrard got injured and Tannehill played better than Matt Moore and was rewarded the starting job. I feel that once Garrard went down they should have signed Young to see what he could do. There aren't many good targets in Miami, and so having a scrambling quarterback might have helped them out.

Vince Young showed in 2010, his last year with the Titans, that he could be a good starting quarterback. He started nine games, completed nearly 60%, threw for over 1,200 yards, and had a touchdown to pick rate of 10-3. He also cut down on his scrambling to only when it was necessary. He scrambled 25 times for 125 yards that season, but he also fumbled it three times. Fumbling will always be higher with scrambling QBs though, just look at Vick. But then a lack of maturity got him kicked off the team after he threw his shoulder pads into the stands and had a spat with head coach Jeff Fisher. I believe he has matured since then though and that he is still worth a shot. At the very least he would be a good backup as he has more talent than most of the current backups in the NFL. For those who want to point out last year stats with the Eagles, I think that wasn't the real Vince Young. He was trying to hard to take the place of Vick instead of being Vince Young.

Young as a starter probably won't happen though as he is now 29 years old. There are some cases in which older players become starters, like Ryan Fitzpatrick and Fred Jackson in Buffalo, but I think Young's immaturity problems of the past will always haunt him. Still he should be employed by someone just based off what he can bring to the table. Nobody seems to want to take a flier on him though, and so Vince Young remains unwanted with no indications of ever being wanted again.

References

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8403851/vince-young-cites-betrayal-financial-woes
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/9589/vince-young
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/4480/rex-grossman
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/14880/type/college/kirk-cousins
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/14877/type/college/nick-foles
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/8627/derek-anderson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Young#2010_season

Suspended Melky Could Still Win Batting Title

Melky Cabrera was on pace to have the best season of his career. He was the All-Star Game MVP and was, leading the NL Battle Title race. Then he tested positive for having too much testosterone in his body, and he was suspended 50 games. Testosterone is not a steroid nor a 'performance enhancing drug.' Testosterone is already in the body, and the MLB allows players to go over the normal amount by four times. Cabrera eclipsed the allowed amount and was suspended the 50 games time first-time offenders get. At the time, Cabrera had a league-leading .346 average, that number still stands as the best in the National League and commissioner Bud Selig came out today and said if nobody passes him the league would not prevent him from winning the title. Some people are obviously up-in-arms about the possibility of a 'cheater' winning the batting title.

What people don't know is that testosterone is not usually used to build muscle. Art Wellersdick of Bleacher Report wrote a wonderful article last month on the topic of testosterone use in the major leagues. He says that players use testosterone in the form of cream for recuperative purposes. He says the cream is used after the game to speed up the recovery process of the body. The testosterone boost that the body receives from the cream is only temporary. This means that the effects of the boost are not seen in an actual game. We as fans don't know when or how much of this cream Melky Cabrera, if he did use cream. We also don't know when the drug tests are in the MLB, either, considering they are random, and, well, not knowing is kind of the point

A quick Google search of Cabrera's injuries shows that he injured his hamstring a month prior to testing positive. Could he have been using the extra testosterone to help get his hammy back to 100%? Possibly. He could also been using extra testosterone the entire year. We simply don't know the facts, and you can't throw stones at something you can't see. What we do know is that Cabrera tried to fake a prescription to avoid the 50-game suspension. This is something that we can throw stones at.

Cabrera's elaborate plan to create a website for a fake drug that he had a prescription for was both stupid and desperate. It tells us that he knew he was taking too much testosterone and that he tried to have a plan in place if he were to get caught. I find this to be worse than the actual use of extra testosterone. Every player is allowed to use testosterone boosts barring the don't go over a 4-1 ratio, and so Cabrera using a little extra is not much of a problem. Trying to cover up the fact that he was breaking the rules shows that he was intentionally breaking the rules. It's one thing to have too much testosterone one time, on one test, and fail it, but it's completely different to fail a test and have a fake website in place to defend yourself.

I believe that Cabrera was using testosterone was its normal purpose of recuperation. Melky Cabrera has always been a big man that just never took working out seriously. If you don't believe me, ask the Yankees and Braves. This leads me to believe that if he took the weight room seriously he would not need extra testosterone to get bigger. His power numbers were not high went he was suspended either, which is another indication he wasn't using an outside source to become bigger. This means that what he did on the field is legitimate and he should win the batting title if no one passes him. It is unfortunate that he tried to cover up the entire thing, but lying should not be a cause to strip him of his on-field accomplishments. Yes, in a few weeks the season will end with Cabrera suspended, but being suspended doesn't vacate your statistics, and his stats could make him the NL Batting Champion.

Reference

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8399074/san-francisco-giants-melky-cabrera-likely-barred-national-league-batting-title
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1309550-why-criticizing-testosterone-use-in-mlb-is-hypocritical-and-ignorant
http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/mlb/489/melky-cabrera
http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2012-08-19/melky-cabrera-fake-website-ped-suspension-testosterone-giants

Stop Encouraging Player Death Threats

Over the weekend, miscues by receiver Josh Morgan and kicker Stephen Gostkowski cost their teams the game. This is of course is a myth that comes from people needing to give a reason to why things happen. In reality, no one play costs any losing team the game. If the team played better before said play, then it wouldn't have come down to one play. Angry fans don't think this way though. Besides being angry, they are most likely drunk. Drunk and angry aren't the best of combinations and it usually leads to some crazy things being said, things like death threats. Now that we live in world of social media, we can get a message across a lot easier than in the past, and these crazy things become public. But what's even more stupid is the media shedding light on the death threats and other crazy things being said.

How is that the media doesn't show crazy fans that run across the field, but it will report every time a fan gives a player a death threat? It knows not to encourage people from storming the field, but it doesn't know to discourage people from giving death threats? At least there is humor in watching a person run across the field and seeing three or four security officers sprinting after him. The person, usually a man, then gets tackled and hauled off the field. The crazy fan is all pumped up and gets the crowd into it, and it's pretty good entertainment. There is nothing funny or entertaining, however, when you hear a player and his family get threatened because they made a simple mistake. No player intentionally decides to blow it when it matters the most. The fans know that, but some of the more inebriated ones still go and do something they'll regret in a few days.

I guarantee you if you interviewed fans that have left players death threats after the fact, most would say they didn't mean it and that they were very sorry. It's kind of like the chatter back and forth from players during the game. When you're in the middle of a dogfight and things get chippy, you say and do things that you normally wouldn't. The Cutler situation is a perfect example. During the heat of the moment, he got angry at his own lineman and gave him a shove. After the fact nearly everyone was badmouthing Cutler, but the lineman he pushed wasn't even offended. He knew it was spur of the moment and Cutler didn't mean to call him out. The same thing, and more, can be said about angry, usually drunk, fans sending unacceptable tweets.

Hate mail from fans has always been around. Before Twitter, players used to get hate mail at their homes via letters. If you ask me, we are lucky to have Twitter now for fans to (irrationally) vent. Sending players actual mail takes time and effort that drunk people probably aren't willing to do, which means that type of hate mail was from people that truly could have issues. Also mail is physical and something could be put inside to harm the player or his family. Twitter is over the Internet, and nothing can be done to physically harm a player or his family. Players can also choose to not be on Twitter and then never see the death threats, unless, you know, multiple media sources all over the world report them.

Yes, I know by writing this 'anti-encourage death threats' article that I am indeed giving attention to the death threats. I even defend the fans in some points. It's not fair that the media goes after these fans for saying such horrible things and nothing bad gets said about them for giving them unneeded attention. The bottom line is that people say screwed up things in the heat of the moment. They always have, and they always will. Reporting it almost every time it happens is not helping the situation. Let's do the right thing and not give them the time of day. Let's stop encouraging player death threats.

Resources

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8398834/washington-redskins-joshua-morgan-gets-death-threats-twitter
http://bustedcoverage.com/2012/09/17/25-nsfw-patriots-fans-wishing-stephen-gostkowski-would-die-f-bomb-tweets/
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/8395148/jay-cutler-bumped-jmarcus-webb

NFL Must Love Publicity

Add another high profile person to the list of people blasting the NFL and its replacement referees. Former ref, Jerry Markbreit, has specifically called out commissioner Roger Goodell and says he doesn't care, not about the integrity nor the player safety, nor anything. Markbreit is the biggest opponent to Goodell and the NFL yet as he has reffed for 23 NFL seasons, including four Super Bowls. I don't understand how Goodell and the NFL can take all this negative publicity. The only possible explanation is that they must love it.

The NFL fueled the fire yesterday when they came out in support of the replacement referees. In statement made by Greg Aiello, Senior Vice President of Communications, the NFL stated this:

"Officiating is never perfect. The current officials have made great strides and are performing admirably under unprecedented scrutiny and great pressure. As we do every season, we will work to improve officiating and are confident that the game officials will show continued improvement."

The NFL seems to be confused. The regular officials of the NFL make honest mistakes. They know the NFL rulebook like the back of their hand, but they are still human and we all make mistakes. The replacement referees are incompetent. They are making mistakes because they don't know what they are doing. They have only been "trained" for a few months. The NFL is a very elaborate sport. You cannot just take referees from the lower college ranks and make them into NFL officials. The facts are they have not been performing admirably as they cannot get simple things right like the number of timeouts and clock management. To say they are performing admirably is like saying JaMarcus Russell played well for the Raiders.

The 'unprecedented scrutiny and great pressure' the NFL is referring to is their own fault as well. If they thought they were going to have to lock out the referees, then why didn't they start training well before the contract expired in June? It is irresponsible and pathetic of them to wait to the very last minute to start training replacement referees. God forbid they have to pay to train replacements and then they strike a deal with the regular officials before the deal expires. No, no they'd rather let the contract expire, lock out the refs, and then worry about having to train replacements because apparently that's good business logic. The NFL doesn't want to pay a dime more than they need to. It's clear with how long they waited to train the replacements and how long it's taking them to strike a deal with the regular officials.

Now there is not a single person who hasn't had enough of these replacement refs. Coaches, players, the media, ex-refs, etc. all are fed up with the critical mistakes of the replacements. Everyone feels that they can do a better job that these substitutes. What is the NFL doing about all this negative feedback? Nothing. For all the suspensions players get for 'conduct detrimental to the NFL' it seems like the NFL should suspend itself. How is their refusal to get the real referees on the field not conduct detrimental to the NFL? The integrity of the game is compromised. Player safety has been thrown out the window. What's left to screw up? The only thing that the NFL gets out of this is that more people are talking about the NFL. Publicity, albeit of the negative variety, is the only thing the NFL stands to get from all this, besides the small amount of money they'll save by not giving the referees pensions. Nine billion dollar sport, and they can't spend a little money on pensions for the guys in stripes that make sure each game is played fair and square. It's unbelievable.

Seemingly the only thing that will make the NFL speed up negotiations with the refs is if the players and coaches strike or if the fans boycott, neither of which is possible. Every NFL player would not be willing to stop playing just because the wrong referees are out there, and there is no way a boycott of the fans will reach large enough numbers to affect the league revenue. We are all just going to have to sit out. Sooner or later the NFL or refs will crack and the real refs will be back on the field. Until then the NFL will bask in all the publicity it receives, positive, negative, or indifferent.

Reference

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8396189/former-referee-jerry-markbreit-blasts-nfl-roger-goodell-use-replacement-officials

Yunel Escobar Suspended

The Toronto Blue Jays announced earlier this afternoon that they have suspended shortstop, Yunel Escobar, for 'displaying an unacceptable message on his eye black during a major league game.' The unaccepted message he displayed was the Spanish phrase 'Tu ere maricon.' This phrase can be taken many different ways depending on what Spanish-speaking country you come from. Escobar is from Cuba, and according to two separate Cuba experts, the phrase is a slur that refers to homosexual man and is highly offensive. I would like to know Escobar's thought process before deciding to display that message publicly.

Yunel Escobar is 29 years old and is originally from Havana, Cuba. He has played in the majors for five years with the Atlanta Braves and Blue Jays. Prior to this he spent three years in the Braves minor league system. I would expect something so immature as putting an offensive phrase on your eye black to be done by a much younger player. But Escobar is nearly 30 years old, and he has established himself in the major leagues. What did he expect would happen after he essentially putting the phrase 'You are a faggot' on his face? Did he think that nobody would see the phrase and want to know what it meant? Well this afternoon all questions would be answered during his press conference, hopefully. John Dujay, of o.canada.com, was nice enough to provide the Internet with what he said through a translator.

“I am sorry for the actions the other day. I liked to ask for the apology of the blue fans. It was something I put on my face as a joke. It was nothing intentional directed at anyone in particular. I don’t have anything against homosexuals; I have friends who are gay. In reality I would like to ask for the apology for all the people who are offended by this. I am sorry, I didn’t mean for this to be misinterpreted by the gay community.”

Well that wasn't an explanation. That was the generic 'oops I screwed up' apology that we hear so often from star athletes and celebrities. You put a phrase that could be translated into English as 'You are a faggot' on your face as a joke? Are you kidding me? You are from Cuba. You know better than Americans how offensive that phrase is and yet to still put it on your face. Then when you inevitably got caught, you use the excuse it was just a joke? Do you think Americans are stupid? You think you can pawn it off an a 'just kidding' moment, and we will say, "Oh, OK, Don't worry everyone, he was only joking." Now you've not only insulted gays worldwide, but you've insulted Americans with your excuse.

He also said he didn't mean for it to be misinterpreted. There is a problem with that statement, a major problem. The phrase was not misinterpreted at all. It was interpreted the only way it could be interpreted. The phrase does not have a double meaning, one offensive and one humorous. It only has one, very offensive interpretation. He knows it, I know it, everyone with Internet access knows it. If it was truly misinterpreted, then he would have provided what he actually meant. Since he did no such thing, then it was not misinterpreted. Yunel Escobar is not sorry what he did because what he did was blatant. Yunel Escobar is sorry for getting caught.

The three-game suspension he received by the Blue Jays was not enough. Three games is a slap on the wrist. There is no excuse for what Escobar did. He is not young and immature. He was not coerced in any way. Homosexuality is a sensitive issue, especially the use of the word 'faggot,' and he not only displayed that word, he displayed in the most visible place he could. The Blue Jays have 17 games and are not in playoff contention. There is no need for Escobar to play again this year, and so he should have been suspended for the remainder of the season. I am very surprised the MLB did not step in and say three games was too lenient. Major League Baseball should have made an example of Escobar. Stupidity like that should not be tolerated. Instead, Escobar will be back to work in three days. Three days off in the middle of September will do more good than harm to a baseball player. But I guess the Blue Jays or the MLB were not out for justice on this rainy Tuesday.

Reference

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/801809--blue-jay-slur-we-know-it-s-stupid-but-how-stupid

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/_/id/28662/yunel-escobar

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/escobyu01.shtml

http://o.canada.com/2012/09/18/yunel-escobar-press-conference/

Clips Keeping Up

The Los Angeles Clippers announced a few days ago that they reached an agreement with free agent forward Matt Barnes. The Barnes addition adds to a revamped Clipper bench that includes Lamar Odom, Grant Hill, Jamal Crawford, Willie Green, Ronny Turiaf, and Ryan Hollins. The moves are more in line with the New York Knicks than the Brooklyn Nets or their city rivals, the Lakers, but I think it makes the Clippers a much better team. The bench is becoming a more important part of a NBA team.

Last season, the Clippers bench was a mix of solid role players and young players not quite good enough to start. The latter were Eric Bledsoe and Nick Young and the former were Kenyon Martin, Reggie Evans, and Mo Williams. The problem with this bench was that each of these players had defined specialties, and aren't all-around players. Martin and Evans were rebounders while Young, Williams, and Bledsoe were scorers. Sure they could all do other things besides their specialty, but not very well. Lamar Odom is a true all-around player as he can score, assist, and rebound very well. Grant Hill is very similar to Odom, as well. Barnes is an elite defender and a 3-point specialist. As you can see, they've added people to the bench that can help in more ways than one. They've made their bench more complete.

They have also made the team more versatile. Right now their starting five is Chris Paul and Chauncey Billups in the backcourt and Caron Butler, Blake Griffin, and DeAndre Jordan in the frontcourt. But say you are facing a team with an elite shooting guard or small forward, like LeBron, Durant, or Kobe, and you want a good defender on them. Billups is playing out of a position at the shooting guard and Caron is just a decent defender. Well, Odom, Barnes, and Hill have all started in the past. If you want a feisty defender on LeBron, Durant, or Kobe, then you can have Billups (or Caron) come off the bench and you slide Barnes into the starting lineup. Billups and Butler are veterans who would understand coming off the bench a handful of games so that the team matches up better against an opponents star player. A potential downside to this is that Bledsoe, who would suffer the most from this switch, might not be too happy seeing his minutes dramatically decrease because he is young and probably not as understanding as veterans like Billups and Caron.

Besides becoming more complete and versatile, they have added much-needed length, as well. Last year, no bench player on the Clippers was over 6-9. They were undersized in the frontcourt with Evans and Martin. Now they have Odom (6-10), Turiaf (6-10), and Hollins (7-0) in the frontcourt, which would certainly bode well when they have to face the newest Laker, Dwight Howard. They have also gotten taller at the guard position with the adds of Crawford, Green, and Barnes. Last year their back up guard was Mo Williams, who like Billups was playing out of position. With this newly acquired height, the Clippers should be better defenders.

While they didn't form a big three or four, like the Nets and Lakers, they did improve their basketball team. I think this should be enough to make Chris Paul re-sign in the offseason. Remember, he is not signing an extension this year because there is more money and years if he waits til the end of the season. Paul re-signing in L.A. was virtually a lock anyways, but adding the veterans that they did this offseason will only help the Clips retain him. It wasn't anything eye-popping, but the Clippers did keep up this offseason. Next we'll find out if they can keep up on the court.

References

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/8378626/free-agent-matt-barnes-signs-los-angeles-clippers
http://espn.go.com/nba/team/depth/_/name/lac/los-angeles-clippers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Los_Angeles_Clippers_season#Roster

Schiano Exposes the NFL

I did not see the last play of the Bucs/Giants game live. Luckily we live in the age of the Internet, though, and I watched the play multiple times in a clip from NFL.com and a gif I found in a Google image search for the play. After seeing the backlash on Twitter throughout the day and reading ESPN's Dan Graziano's blog about it, I was expecting it to be this crazy, uncalled for play in which a Buc defender somehow hits Eli before he kneels. But it wasn't anything like that. Eli was knocked over by his own offensive line who didn't block on the play. If the line did their job, then this wouldn't even be an issue. I don't care if it's the victory formation, you still have to block.

Everyone who is ripping Schiano says that he should have gracefully given up. They said that what he ordered to do was unnecessary and pointless. They said his explanation of playing to the final whistle was bull. They summed up the play as bush league. But why is it all these things? There was still five seconds left in a one possession game. Anything can happen in the NFL. If they get Eli to fumble, that'd have one play to try to get it into the end zone. Since Eli kneeled it at the Giants 30, a score after a fumble wouldn't be completely out of reach. This is not about a cheap play, being a sore loser, or anything like that. This is about football etiquette.

Nobody can give me a good reason why Schiano should have just lied down in that situation. The game wasn't a blowout, and so that final play mattered. Why is that once the offense goes into victory formation, the defense automatically has to give up? This is the National Football League, the toughest sports league in America. In no other league is a team forced to give up. I can understand if it's a blowout and it is impossible for a comeback, but as long as a comeback is in the realm of possibility coaches should do what they can to try and spark one. If bull-rushing an offense line to try and get to the quarterback is what you need to do, then do it. None of this bull of 'the game is over, accept the defeat.' This isn't pee-wee football, let them play to the final whistle. The reaction to this play is what's bush league.

People who are against this play also called it an injury risk. Really? Every play during an NFL game is an injury risk. Do you want the losing team to kneel the ball too then if there was five seconds left? No, you would have called for a Hail Mary. A Hail Mary is just as unlikely as inducing a fumble on a kneel down, and even more of an injury risk. When there it's the 4th quarter of a blowout, do you want the losing team to just run out the clock? No, you expect them to try and score. But why? The chances of them pulling ahead or tying it are slim, and so it becomes an injury risk to score in garbage time. Yet I've never heard either of these two situations questioned. If you're afraid of injuries, then you shouldn't be involved with the NFL, period.

The biggest fallacy about this situation is that the offensive line didn't block, which is what resulted in Eli getting knocked over. It wasn't like Schiano had his guys doing insane things to try and get to Eli, like jumping over the line. Schiano just told his guys to basically do what they normally do, which was to try and get past their blockers, and they did it. The result was that it caught this Giants line off guard and they fell back into Eli. If Eli had gotten injured, it would have been the line's fault for not doing what they are paid to do. Why didn't they block? Did Coughlin tell them not to? Does no team block while in victory formation? If so, does everyone accept that fact but me? I feel that victory formation in a one possession game is the most important time to block.

Schiano, albeit inadvertently, proved that the NFL is going soft. Since when do coaches cry when the opposite coach does something unusual to try to win the game? Did anyone hear Tony Dungy cry when Sean Payton broke normal NFL etiquette and onside-kicked to start the second half of the Super Bowl? If you want to get technical, the sole point of the coin toss is to see who gets it first in each half. But if the team who receives first onside-kicks to start the second and recovers, then what's the point of doing the coin toss? The coach who gets it first in the second half plans on getting the ball. So, technically, what Sean Payton did was unfair and bush league as well. If losing teams must allow the winning teams to kneel the ball without incident, then why wasn't Payton supposed to abide by the coin toss and kick the ball to the Colts? Payton was celebrated and Schiano is being criticized even though the both did the say thing--think outside the box. There is nothing in the rules that says that when a team is in the victory formation the defense must stand there and allow them to kneel the ball. Just like there is nothing in the rules that says the team who is going to receive the ball in the second half must actually receive the ball. Schiano went down fighting and Coughlin left crying, but the seemingly everyone sided with the crybaby. The fact of the matter is that the NFL is getting softer and softer and we need guys like Schiano to prevent the league from becoming a glorified flag football league. Schiano > Coughlin, period.

References

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/43240/greg-schiano-is-just-way-out-of-line
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=709&tbm=isch&tbnid=MdtdKQ5QLztMmM:&imgrefurl=http://www.businessinsider.com/video-was-this-hit-on-eli-manning-a-cheap-shot-2012-9&docid=bmbpXotDhnSLDM&imgurl=http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8311/7993699453_5ded032083_o.gif&w=560&h=315&ei=uYFXULiAM-i00QHbuICQCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=396&vpy=430&dur=1050&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=181&ty=100&sig=113664646156409173863&page=2&tbnh=119&tbnw=211&start=15&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:15,i:144