Tony Jarboe has, somehow, made it through his first three years at Northwestern. His columns over the course of his first three years have been well received and will continue as he moves into his senior campaign. To read archived "Jabs" columns, just scroll down to "Jarboe's Jabs" (1, 2,3,4, 5 and 6). E-mail Tony at jarboes_jabs@yahoo.com.     

 

THE PAC-16, THE NEW BIG 12, etc… (6-13-10)
The Big Ten has been talking expansion for a little over a year now, and finally that talk transpired into some sort of action with the addition of Nebraska to the Big Ten (the first addition to the conference since Penn State joined in 1990). While so far that is the biggest name to switch conference affiliations, the Pac-10 appears poised to make the biggest splash when all is said and done. They have already picked up the University of Colorado, and in a few days it looks like Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State could join the Pac-10 as well. Texas A & M is looking at both the Pac-10 and SEC. If you’re keeping track at home, that is a 16-team behemoth out west if all the dominoes fall in place for the Pac-10.
If that happens, the Big 12 Conference would likely disintegrate. As it stands now, it is down two members. The only hope Commissioner Dan Beebe has of saving his conference is to add two teams and stabilize the conference. These teams would likely have to come from one of the non-power conferences (Sun Belt, WAC, Mid-American, Mountain West, and Conference USA). Southern Methodist University would be a nice addition to the Big 12 since it has a tremendous tradition and seems to have finally bounced back after receiving the “death penalty” in 1987 (where the football program was terminated for two years due to repeated recruiting violations). While no one can replace the tradition lost by Nebraska, SMU would be a respectable replacement.
If Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A & M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State do jump ship and the Big 12 is no more, the Mountain West will likely fill its void as the sixth power conference, joining the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big East, and Pac-10. Although they don’t have many traditional football powers, they did bring on TCU a few years ago and just added Boise State on Friday. BYU and Utah have also had some success, so clearly there are some strong teams in the conference. If they succeed in luring Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri, they will have a strong group of teams and a legitimate claim to becoming the sixth power conference.
Assuming the Big 12 does fall apart and the Mountain West Conference rises to power, the Pac-10 will be a 16- team super-conference, the Mountain West will have 13 squads, the Big Ten will have 12, while the ACC, SEC, and Big East will remain as they are currently composed. Notre Dame has said previously that if the Big Ten and Pac-10 expand they may be forced to seek conference affiliation. The Big Ten would make the most sense, although Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany has said the Big Ten is done expanding for the next 12 to 18 months.
Super-conferences are the way of the future in college football. By the end of the week, the Pac-10 could be a 16-team conference, and the Mountain West could have 13 teams. Notre Dame will likely join the Big Ten eventually, making it a 13-team league. The eight-team Big East would likely be too small to be a viable conference and could soon fall apart, leaving Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, South Florida, West Virginia, Rutgers, Louisville, and Syracuse looking for new football homes (the Big East could become a basketball-only conference). At this point Pittsburgh would make sense for the Big Ten (giving them 14 teams) while South Florida and Louisville would probably join the SEC (also giving them 14 teams). The remaining four would be a good fit for the ACC, which would join the Pac-10 as a 16-team conference. Baylor and Iowa State, two Big 12 teams who do not currently appear to have any suitors, would certainly catch on somewhere.
Obviously this is speculation, but this seems to be the direction college football is heading. With fewer conferences containing more teams, we will gain championship games in every conference (the Big Ten, Big East, and Pac-10 currently do not have the requisite twelve teams to hold a championship game). Also, more teams mean more opportunities for in-conference primo match-ups, such as USC v Texas or Nebraska v Ohio State. Those games would gain significant national exposure and be great for college football as a whole.
As teams switch conferences, we will hear all about how the new team is a great fit “athletically and academically” with the new conference, when we all know that the primary reason for the switch is money. That said, there will certainly be benefits for fans. College football appears to be on the verge of a monumental shift. Some traditions and traditional rivalries will go by the wayside, but new rivalries will be formed, and the end result will certainly be interesting.
One thing that will certainly happen is that conferences will stop putting numbers in their name. Right now the Big 12 has ten teams, the Big Ten has 12 teams, and the Pac-10 has 11 teams. Can someone in college football learn to count? Please?

 

 

SHOULD HE STAY OR SHOULD HE GO?...6-8-10 
The last thing Tom Izzo needs right now is yet another talking head advising him on how to handle the 5-year, $30 million contract offer from the Cleveland Cavaliers. Many in the media are advising him to reject the offer and stay at Michigan State, where he has been the head coach for the past 15 years.
Obviously $30 million is a lot of money, and I think he would be crazy not to take the offer. Beyond the money though, there are several compelling reasons for Coach Izzo to make the move to Cleveland.
There is an opportunity to coach perhaps the best player in the NBA, LeBron James (provided James stays with the Cavaliers). As a basketball coach that has to be an exciting prospect by itself. As a college coach you have to keep your schemes fairly simple so the players can execute. With James, you can let your imagination run wild, because it seems there is little he cannot do on the basketball court.
Right now, Izzo is regarded as one of the best college basketball coaches. He has been to 6 Final Fours in the past 12 years and won the National Championship in 2000. He has been to 12 straight NCAA Tournaments. He has been there, done that at the college level.
If Izzo made the jump to the NBA and was successful, he would be regarded as one of the best basketball coaches, period. He would join the likes of Gregg Popovich, Chuck Daly, and Bill Fitch, men who had success in college and were able to win championships in the NBA. These men proved they have the basketball smarts to succeed at any level. Izzo could be next.
While the list of reasons to make the jump are enticing, the reasons to stay put are also compelling. Right now, Izzo has it made. He is a local hero in East Lansing, a fan favorite, and can do no wrong in the eyes of the Spartan faithful. He has accomplished what most men only dream of. And if he fails at the next level, he would lose all of that. Rick Pitino and Jerry Tarkanian won championships at the NCAA level but were unable to make the transition to the NBA. Nothing ruins your image faster than an unsuccessful jump.
Perhaps worse, Coach Izzo would be labeled a sellout, fair or not. If Izzo elects to take the money and run, it will be viewed as forsaking loyalty for the almighty dollar. And no matter what he does in Cleveland, he will not be loved the way he is at Michigan State. Look at Phil Jackson. He won 6 NBA titles in Chicago and is greatly appreciated. But he isn’t loved the way Izzo is in East Lansing, or Coach K is at Duke. It seems only college coaches can be loved by their faithful. By going to the NBA, Izzo would be trading that love for money.
Far be it for me to tell Izzo what to do. I would love to see him stay, because he is a great ambassador for Big Ten basketball and a great man. He wins the "right way." According to his Michigan State bio, he has graduated 84% of players that complete eligibility. So his players are successful both on the court and in the classroom.
That said, if Izzo decides to go to Cleveland, I will completely understand. He will be taking on a new challenge and has a chance to coach the best player in basketball. And, of course, the 30 million other reasons for him to go.

 

DARNED IF YOU DO, DARNED IF YOU DON’T…5-31-10
I have a pretty fair complexion and as a result I’m one of those people whose skin has exactly two shades: red and white. I do not tan, bronze, or otherwise turn any color other than bleached and burned. And that leads to a lot of mockery.
Normally I’m pretty good about putting on sunscreen. I usually have to use heavy stuff (SPF 50 or so) when I will be out much. That stops basically all UV rays from reaching my skin, so I can spend the entire day in the sun and still look like an accountant. I have no problem with this but apparently others believe it’s a crime against humanity to be anything but deeply bronzed. I get non-stop comments about “Oh, the whiteness!” or, “Break out the sunglasses!”
So what happens when I venture into the daylight without my trusty sunblock? I found out the hard way during Northwestern’s annual Dillo Day. On Dillo Day, Northwestern has live bands perform on the lakefill for most of the day, so it’s basically a free concert for students to go see. I wandered out to listen to the music for a little bit and played some tennis with some friends. I figured I would only be out for a couple of hours and didn’t need any sunscreen. That was a mistake. I got fried.
In the last day and a half I have been told, “Oh, it looks like you got a little sun!” by no fewer than twelve people. And in case I wasn’t self-conscious enough from hearing a dozen people tell me that, I had one acquaintance walk up to me and say, “Oh my God! What happened?!” Any remaining shred of self-confidence I had was shattered after hearing that.
The worst part was I actually hadn’t been out in the sun that long. I just turn red quickly. I could get a sunburn if I left my room light on too long. And then everyone feels compelled to point out that I am, in fact, very red. Just in case I hadn’t noticed.
This leaves me in a “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” conundrum. If I step outdoors covered in sunscreen I’m mocked for my light complexion. If I forget to lather up, then I’m inundated with comments about “catching a little sun.” I guess you can’t please everybody.  

 

THE CURSE OF CHICAGO…5-24-10
An interesting graphic flashed during Game 4 of the NHL Western Conference finals showing the longest championship droughts of the four major sports. Two of them, the Cubs and Blackhawks, currently reside in Chicago and a third (the Arizona Cardinals) have ties to the Windy City (they were the Chicago Cardinals when they won their last championship in 1947).
This is not to say Chicago is a long-suffering city by any means. The White Sox won the 2005 World Series, and in the 1990s the Chicago Bulls decimated any and all comers en route to six championships. So compared to, say, Cleveland, Chicago fans have no right to be going on a, “Whoa is me!” Self-Pity tour. Even so, it’s interesting that the longest droughts in three of the four major sports belong to teams with Chicago ties.
I really believe these teams are cursed. Not the supernatural type of curse dealing with billy goats or anything like that, but the curse of poor owners. Chicago is a huge city with very passionate fans. They will show up, win or lose. Why spend the money to build a good team if you don’t have to? That was the mentality of the Cub's owner Chicago Tribune for many years and “Dollar Bill” Wirtz (owner of the Blackhawks before passing away in 2007). Likewise, Bill Bidwell (born in Chicago but never owned the Cardinals during their Chicago days) has a reputation as being “frugal,” to put it nicely. He took the team over from his dad, Charles, who bought the team in 1932 in Chicago. It might just be a coincidence that some of the cheapest owners in all of sports are from Chicago, but there may be something more.
This is not to say frugality is a bad thing (or that all Chicago owners are cheap). Indeed, some teams can thrive in difficult economic situations, such as the Minnesota Twins and Oakland A’s through much of the 2000's. A couple million dollars spent on good management can be as effective as several million dollars in salary. However, what the Tribune, Wirtz, and Bidwell had was not economic frugality through necessity, it was a choice. They didn’t want to spend money on players, on management, on their stadium, or anywhere else. This is where it becomes difficult as a fan, because you know there are so many potential economic resources out there, if only the owner would go out and spend them. It can become a pretty hopeless situation.
What happens after an extended period of frugality? All three of the above franchises seem to be making strides towards ending their respective droughts. Following Wirtz’s death in 2007, Rocky Wirtz took over as Chairman of the Blackhawks. His first move was to televise home games, something his father refused to do. The Blackhawks have spent freely the past few off-seasons and are now four wins away from hoisting their first Stanley Cup since 1961.
The Cubs and Arizona Cardinals are still a few years away, but seem to be moving in the right direction. A local family, the Ricketts, bought the team from the Tribune recently and have indicated they are willing to spend enough to keep the Cub’s payroll, “near the very top of the league.” Obviously good management in spending those dollars is another ingredient to success, but this is at least a step in the right direction for Cubs fans.
Even Arizona has shown signs of life. Since Bill Bidwell took control of the Cardinals in 1967 they have made the playoffs just six times. However, two of those times were in the past two years, after his sons have taken more control of day-to-day operations. Arizona has seen a bump in payroll since Bidwell’s sons have taken over, ranked eighth in payroll for the past two years, after spending many years in the lower half.
It remains to be seen whether the increased spending will help the Blackhawks, Cubs, and Cardinals end their respective droughts. However, they all seem to be taking steps in the right direction. After years of frugality and fan frustration, new ownership regimes seem to be taking cues from their followers and spending the money necessary to contend for a championship. Fans are no longer content just to show up and root for a failing team. Chicago fans seem to have risen up and demanded more from their owners. Now maybe, just maybe, Chicago teams won’t litter the top of “Longest Championship Droughts” lists.

 

STEALING SIGNS...5-16-10
Philadelphia Phillies' bullpen coach Mick Billmeyer caused quite a stir this week when he was caught using binoculars to look towards the home plate area of Coors Field while his Phillies were batting. The Rockies, reasonably enough, suspected he was stealing signs. The umpiring crew told him to stop, and he did. The end, right?
Not so much. The Rockies lodged a formal complaint with Major League Baseball, who then issued a stern warning to the Phillies. The Mets and Marlins, two division rivals of the Phillies, have also accused Philadelphia of stealing signals. I find it outrageous that they would do such a thing!
No, not the Phillies. The Rockies, Mets, and Marlins! What are they complaining about? Sign stealing is a part of baseball. In his 1962 autobiography “Veeck as in Wreck,” owner Bill Veeck wrote, “I doubt if there is one club that hasn’t tried (stealing signs) at one time or another.” It’s just part of the game.
In 2001, baseball banned the use of electronic equipment to transmit signals, but other than that, teams are free to steal signs however they please. As writer Paul Hogan notes, the Rockies should have taken care of this issue the old-fashioned way: call for an outside pitch during a crucial situation in the game, then put the ball right in the batter’s ear. Problem solved.
I’m not suggesting a beanball war by any means, but rather than complaining to the media (and sounding like sore losers), these teams should take matters into their own hands. A fastball to the side of the head is a much clearer message than empty words from the Commissioner’s Office.
Why do teams use hand signals in the first place? So the other team doesn’t know what’s coming. So why wouldn’t the other team try to decode those signs? Baseball is a game of inches, and any advantage you can get (such as knowing what’s coming) can have a big impact on the outcome. You just have to make sure your gestures are clever enough so the other team doesn’t know what’s coming.
If you think the other team has figured it out, switch up your motions and throw a fastball at them to discourage them from stealing your signs again. It’s really that easy. Best of all, it doesn’t sound like sour grapes. So Rockies, Marlins, and Mets, switch up your signs. If you’d like, feel free to break out the binoculars and give Philadelphia a taste of its own medicine. Stealing signs is no more against the rules than stealing a base. It’s what good teams do to gain an edge. Stop going to the media, and start taking matters into your own hands!

 

 

CELL PHONES: CAN’T LIVE WITH OR WITHOUT THEM…5-10-10
Has there ever been a device that society as a whole finds more annoying than the cell phone? Everyone has stories about “that guy” who was talking obnoxiously loud and giving you a blow-by-blow account of his hemorrhoid problem.
Despite the fact that most of us find cell phones (or at least cell phone users) so annoying, just about everybody has one. How can a device that is so universally despised be so popular?
That’s because its never us who is annoying. It’s always someone else on the cell phone being loud and obnoxious.
What about when we use our cell phones in public? Do we really think that we alone have mastered the art of not bothering other people? Probably not. Now, by speaking in hushed tones and limiting your conversation to only a few minutes, it is acceptable to use your cell phone in certain places. For example, talking on your cell phone on a public sidewalk or in a building’s lobby is ok. In a restaurant, theater, or church, not so much.
So when is it acceptable to use a cell phone in public? A lot of it depends on the situation. If it’s a matter of life or death (or possible injury), all rules go out the window. Yes, it would be nice if you could find a private place so you don’t disturb others. But in the end, you are allowed significant leeway with cell phone use.
However, most conversations aren’t that urgent. Sometimes they are important (for example, those dealing with projects at work) but aren’t life or death. In these cases the rules adjust accordingly. You can take those calls in quiet places (such as restaurants or theaters) but only AFTER you step outside. If you must, call the person back when you reach a private place. Do not disturb those around you. They don’t care about your work, let them enjoy their evening in peace.
Then you have the social calls. These are calls from long lost friends or family just wanting to keep in touch or say hello. Very nice calls, and there is certainly a time and a place for them. But that time in place is not when you are with others. When you are with friends, acquaintances, family, coworkers, etc., social calls are inappropriate. It is permissible to answer to say you will call them back. The art of the face to face conversation has been lost somewhat, because we as a society have become used to talking on the phone and texting with others rather than visiting in person. If you have the opportunity to visit with people around you, take advantage of it! You will have plenty of opportunities to talk on the phone later.
Texting is nearly as big of a problem. Yes, it is a little less intrusive, and you can text and carry on a verbal conversation with someone else simultaneously. But it’s difficult to have any sort of a thoughtful discussion while texting. As with talking on the phone, you will have plenty of time to text later. Enjoy the company of the people you are physically with. Besides, it’s annoying for them to sit there and feel like they have to wait for you to finish talking or texting with someone who is not there with you.
For the most part, people seem to be adapting a code of courtesy when it comes to cell phones. However, those are mostly unwritten rules, and clearly there are still some people out there who have failed to adopt any code of rules governing cell phone usage, written or unwritten. These rules are not set in stone but should serve as a guide to aide your decision on whether or not to answer that next cell phone call.

 

FIRE THE COACH!...5-4-10
Sportswriters love to talk about the head coach of a team.  He is credited for every win and blamed for every loss.  The answer to every mediocre season is always the same: Fire the coach!
    It’s true, the coach can have some impact.  For instance, I’d rather have Buddy Ryan (successful NFL coach) than Buddy Teevens (disastrous tenures at Temple and Stanford).  But except in the most extreme cases, who the coach is doesn’t make much difference.
    In Chicago a huge controversy is brewing over what to do with Bull’s coach Vinny Del Negro.  After months of debate, Chicago decided to fire him.  In his two seasons as a Bull’s coach (and his first two seasons as a head coach), Chicago has gone 82-82 with a 4-8 playoff record.  Not great. But not bad.  Yet the newspapers are filled with talking heads claiming that he should be axed.
    Firing a mediocre coach is one thing, but there must be a clearly better alternative out there.  Otherwise you are making a change just to make a change.  The problem is that, after firing a coach, most teams just go to the “Coaching Carousel” to get another coach.  These are tried and true names who have a track record of being average.  Thus they are the “safe” picks who will most likely not be awful.
    This is absolutely the wrong way to solve such a problem, for either the Bulls or any other team.  The Bulls have a guy who, after two seasons, is pretty much the textbook definition of “average.”  In two years he has produced an average record with what appears to be an average amount of talent.  It’s unlikely any of the coaches being mentioned as possible replacements would be able to get significantly better results.
    So why keep Del Negro?  He has only coached for two years and thus has much to learn.  If he is already producing average results, it’s likely that in a few years he would be a much better coach.  Further, he has a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the team than any of the other would-be coaches.
    I applaud the Bulls for taking a chance on a guy.  They brought in Vinny Del Negro from Phoenix where he was an assistant.  He had never been a head coach in his life.  Regardless, the Bulls took a chance on him rather than bringing in a “safe” retread coach.  While the results haven’t been wonderful, he seems to be on the right track as a head coach.  Given a few more years with this team, he could likely achieve great results.
    This change, like the vast majority of coaching changes, is nothing more than a “Cover Your Butt” move.  Management wants to give the appearance of “doing something,” so a coaching change is a nice, relatively simple action that shows the fan base, “Hey, we’re trying to win!”  However, the actual results on the field will likely not be noticeably different.
    A coach is an easy scape goat when things go wrong.  Except in extreme cases, a coach is only as good as the talent around him.  Sure, occasionally something will click and a coach will take a band of vagabonds deep into the playoffs.  But normally a coach is nothing more than a reflection of the collection of talent he has to work with.
    More teams should take a chance on rookie coaches.  Most likely, as with Del Negro, the results will be average at first.  But given a few years to develop, these coaches would likely succeed.  Much more likely than a retread coach.  So rather than picking from the “Coaching Carousel,” teams should seek fresh, new talent.  After all, in 1989 the Bulls promoted a young assistant by name of Phil Jackson to the head coaching position without any previous experience as an NBA head coach (he had been a head coach in lower-level leagues).  Six championships later, that looks like a pretty smart move.  The great ones have to start somewhere.  It might as well be with you. 

 

 

 

TURNING JOY ROBOTIC…4-18-10
Athletes, both college and professional, are routinely criticized for their perceived “me-first” attitudes. Often, the criticism is well deserved. Who wants to see a running back thump his chest after a 2-yard gain, or a basketball player flex his muscles following a dunk when his team is down by 20? Certainly, all leagues should emphasize a team-first approach and discourage excessive self-promotion.
But how much too much control? The NCAA recently banned players from writing messages in their eyeblack and, starting in 2011, an excessive celebration penalty on a touchdown can nullify the touchdown.
Previously, players had used their eyeblack to give shout-outs to friends and family, their home area code, or even bible verses. This is similar to baseball’s 2006 ban when players were no longer allowed to write messages on the outsides of their caps.
The reasoning is at least understandable. These are team sports that we are talking about and any writing on their apparel makes their uniforms so they aren’t, well, uniform.
However, the players should be allowed at least some leeway to express themselves. Such messages are typically shout-outs to someone close to the player, or a tribute to someone who has recently died. Far from self-promotion, such messages promote someone or something else. If anything, such messages are a sign of humility, an indication that the athlete is thinking about someone other than him or herself. Such messages should be encouraged rather than banned.
The celebrations are another issue. If you are going to crack down on celebrations, taking points off of the board is certainly the way to do it. But is it necessary? I’ve used this space before to criticize receivers such as Chad Ochocinco who shamelessly promote themselves. However, scoring a touchdown (particularly in a close game) is an exciting event and deserves to be celebrated within reason. Fans love college football for it’s “purity” and the fact that “the players do it for love of the game rather than the love of money.” A crackdown such as this brings the college game more in line with the NFL and makes the players seem more like joyless robots who simply do what they are told to do without a hint of emotion. When it comes to the NFL, I would like to see a certain “professionalism” among the athletes (no excessive celebrations) but in the NCAA these are college kids. Let them have some fun! Sure, there can be a thing as too much celebrating, but even then the penalty should only be in terms of yards, not points. Such a penalty will take away some of the joy of watching college football and add a certain “professional” quality to the game which will detract from the experience. Even professional athletes should be allowed to at least pay tribute to those closest to them (i.e. by writing on their baseball caps). It makes the players seem more human and reminds us that the athletes are (almost) just like you and me.
In it’s most recent rulings, the NCAA seems to be cracking down on the individuality of its athletes and conveying a more professional image. If these were pro athletes, that would make sense. However, these are still college kids. They should be allowed at least a little leeway to express themselves. Fans love seeing the unrestrained joy of these young men and women as they accomplish things most of us can only dream of. While these bans are well-intentioned, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. So, to the NCAA rules committee, continue to allow players to pay tribute to others through their eyeblack, and don’t take points off the scoreboard for excessive celebrations. Such rules make the college game feel a little too professional.

DRAGGING MAIN IS A DRAG...4-11-10
Dragging Main was always a foreign concept to me. Sure, I had heard about it and how everyone in my town used to do it. In a small town with not a whole lot going on, it was the thing to do. And it wasn’t just people in town. Folks from surrounding areas would drive down to join in the "fun."
Unfortunately, police eventually shut it down. Gangs from a nearby town came in and ruined it for everyone. So, much to my dismay, I never got to enjoy the "thrill" of driving up and down the main street in town while waving at my friends as we passed each other. Until now. On Friday the tradition was revived for one night only so my generation could finally discover what all the hype was about.
Although to say, "everyone was doing it" may be a slight exaggeration, it isn’t much of one. Cars stretched from one end of town to the other going both directions on the town’s main road. When I came home for the weekend I thought I left behind the Chicago traffic. Apparently I brought it with me. Never before had I been stuck in traffic in a town with less than 5,000 people.
Other people came out just to watch the shenanigans. They parked along the side of the road, pulled out some lawn chairs, and watched as friends and neighbors drove by at a snail’s pace. I never really thought of "Dragging Main" as a spectator sport. In terms of thrill, it ranks somewhere between "watching paint dry" and "watching grass grow.
Dragging main is one of those experiences that’s good to do once in your life, but once is enough. I generally like to drive with a purpose, something other than just to wave and honk at my friends. Plus, I just don’t like traffic. No one does. So why would you purposely go to a place where you knew there was going to be heavy traffic?
Although dragging main isn’t for me, it’s easy to see why people do it. It’s the same reason most small-town denizens go to high school football games in the fall. It’s the place to be. It’s an event that really brings the town together. And that’s what I love about Small Town, USA.

 

 

TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING…4-4-10
Every January talking heads from every corner of the sports world gripe and moan about college football’s BCS system for determining champions. “We need a playoff system,” they chime in unison.
This year’s NCAA Tournament just goes to show that, yes, a playoff system could be just what college football needs.
Exhibit A is Butler. They won both the Horizon League Tournament and the regular season championship. Yet, because they were beating up on teams such as Wright State and Illinois-Chicago, nobody (including yours truly) thought they had a shot once they started playing with the big boys. We were mistaken. The Bulldogs have won 25 games in a row and have definitively proven they can keep up with any team in the country.
Similarly, in college football last year you had Boise State and TCU, two football teams from smaller conferences, that had perfect regular seasons. Yes, they were playing against weaker opposition than, say, Alabama and Texas. But the fact remains that they were perfect and could not have done any better during the season. Yet, when it came to select teams for the championship game, they were left out in the cold.
Teams from smaller conferences deserve a shot at the championship, too. It’s likely Butler will get crushed by Duke in the championship game, and I doubt Boise State, as good as they are, would be able to defeat Alabama. But that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a chance to do so.
However, the basketball tournament also needs a little bit of a makeover (and no, I don’t mean the current expansion proposal to 96 teams). The key to constructing a playoff system is exclusivity. 65 teams is just way too many. Realistically, there are only a few teams that enter the tourament with any hope of winning the whole thing. While it was thrilling to watch Northern Iowa beat Kansas, did anyone in their right minds believe the Panthers would go on to win the NCAA championship? No. They were a decent team that played out of their minds and caught a great Kansas team on a bad night. Weird stuff happens. That sort of randomness needs to be eliminated from championship tournaments as much as possible. Otherwise you end up with two good-but-not-great teams playing for the ultimate prize. Regardless of who wins, the result is unsatisfying because you don’t believe the best team won. That’s what happens when you have too many teams in a tournament. It is more opportunities for the best teams to lose out by some fluke event, thus allowing mediocre teams a better shot to win it all. Is that really what we want?
The NCAA tournament needs to cut back. Perhaps start at the Sweet 16. Most teams in the NCAA tournament have no chance of winning the championship. So why not filter those teams out? Only let the teams with an actual shot of winning into the tournament. Yes, part of the excitement of March is seeing the “Cinderella” teams and watching “David beat Goliath.” But those happen every single year. Doesn’t that make it less special?
This “Sweet 16” Tournament will be comprised of the regular season champions of each of the six “power conferences” (Pac-10, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, Big East, and SEC). The remaining 10 teams will be chosen by a committee, as is done now. Preference will be given to teams from smaller conferences that won both the regular season and tournament championships. This allows the best teams in college basketball a chance at the championship while eliminating many of the fluky events (such as Northern Iowa beating Kansas) that can lead to a dissatisfying championship result.
College football, if it does ultimately move to a playoff system, also must be careful to limit the field. An eight-team field would be just about right. The six power conferences again get automatic bids for their champions. The remaining two slots will be decided by committee. First preference goes to teams from smaller conferences with perfect records, with independent teams such as Notre Dame, Army, and Navy also being eligible. This year, for example, TCU and Boise State would have drawn the two “at-large” bids in the college football playoffs.
Playoffs are a fantastic and thrilling way to choose a champion. But they must be done well. If the playoffs are too large, undeserving teams get a shot at the championship while deserving teams are eliminated by improbable events. When it comes to the NCAA Tournament, less is more. Fewer teams should be granted bids to the Big Dance. This way a bid is truly something special, and the field will be comprised only of teams that actually deserve to be there.

TURNCOAT TONY...3-28-10
I did a terrible thing this week. I don’t know what I was thinking or why I did it. I still can’t believe I did it, keep trying to make myself believe I didn’t do it. There were too many witnesses, so there’s no denying it.
I wore the colors of my school’s arch-rival. I went to watch Northwestern’s nemesis, the University of Illinois, in action at the National Invitational Tournament. My grandparents took my cousins and me to a game at the Assembly Hall to watch the Illini take on the Dayton Flyers. I dressed up in team colors and happily went along for the ride.
Despite the fact that Illinois is the interstate rival of my (soon-to-be) alma mater, I have never hidden my affection for the Illini. I grew up 30 miles from the U of I campus and was raised in a family that bleeds orange. For the first 18 years of my life, I lived and died (mostly died) with the Fighting Illini. Although Northwestern is still my team, I still maintain a strong affinity for Illinois. Once Northwestern was knocked out of the NIT, it was only natural that I started rooting for Illinois.
For that I won’t apologize. But how far is too far? Watching on TV and rooting from a distance is just fine, but if it’s not really “your team,” perhaps it isn’t ok to go and wear their team colors, especially if that team is your arch-rival. While I certainly root for the University of Illinois, I am not a die-hard fan like most of the other orange-clad denizens dotting the Assembly Hall that night. Is it ok to dress like one?
Is it ever ok to wear another team’s colors, particularly if that team is your arch-rival? It’s not as though the Illinois- Northwestern rivalry is on par with, say, Duke-North Carolina (in fact, U of I fans will root for Northwestern when they aren’t playing each other and vice versa). However, they are still rivals. Is what I did treachery, or is all forgiven because of my historical ties to Illinois? Email me at  jarboes_jabs@yahoo.com with your input. For what it’s worth, Illinois lost that night, suggesting that perhaps it’s bad karma to root for a rival. Maybe I should start rooting for the Yankees...

 

 

“MY BRACKET” OR “MY FANTASY FOOTBALL TEAM”…3-22-10
Is there any faster way to kill a conversation than, “Well my fantasy football team…?” Fantasy football is widely panned, and rightly so. Millions love to talk about their fantasy teams, but no one else cares. Many gallons of ink (both real and virtual) have been spilled mocking fantasy football. As sportscaster Bill Rogan says, “My fantasies have nothing to do with football!”
NCAA Tournament brackets are just as bad. When was the last time you were watching an upset brewing and you DIDN’T hear someone lament, “Oh no! This will kill my bracket!” I’m sorry, I don’t care about your bracket. And you probably don’t care about mine. Seriously, what do you say to someone who is devastated that their predicted champion lost in the second round? Maybe, “Nice try, Nostradamus.” But really, does anyone care? Weird stuff happens in March. All of us have been burned at some time or another by a top-seeded team that petered out early. Worse yet are the braggarts that love to tell us about the 14-over-3 game that they called (while failing to mention that was the ONLY game they picked correctly).
The only positive to the NCAA bracket talk is that most people actually do fill out an NCAA bracket, whereas fantasy football is still a relatively niche activity. Thus people are more likely to at least be able to relate to the joy of picking that surprise upset, or the crushing feeling of your predicted champion bowing out early. However, just because I can relate to the feeling doesn’t mean I want to share in it. You fill out your bracket, I’ll fill out mine, and we can laud or (more likely) lament our brackets in private. Besides, normally your bracket is one of those things you really don’t want people to know about.
Just as nobody really wants to hear about your fantasy football team, no one wants to hear about your bracket either. Yes, its fun to do and is an activity that lends itself quite nicely to gambling. But I don’t care whether you did very well or very poorly, and neither does anyone else. So please, please, just keep it to yourself.

 

APPRECIATING DOMINANCE…3-8-10

            Normally I consider myself a pretty well-versed sports fan.  I can discuss baseball, football, and most college sports reasonably well.  I follow basketball a little bit and even try to keep up with hockey and NASCAR.  Yet when it comes to women’s college basketball, I’m stumped.

            The one think I do know?  The UCONN Huskies are good.  Really good.  They just tied an NCAA Division-I record by winning their 70^th game in a row.  One more win and they surpass the 2001-2003 UCONN squad for the longest streak in D-I history.  Yes, they have won 70 games in a row twice this decade.  Not too bad.

            And this streak isn’t thanks to a bunch of lucky bounces going their way or a string of buzzer-beating threes.  Think more Sherman ’s March to the Sea.  According to ESPN, during the streak the Lady Huskies have won by an average of 32.8 points.  Now, to be fair, UCONN does struggle more against top-ranked opponents.  Their margin of victory against Top-25 teams is only 26 points per game.

            Betting on a UCONN victory is like betting on the sunrise.  Barring some great cataclysmic event, it’s just going to happen.  The ladies of UCONN will almost certainly bring home another championship this year.  Last year they ripped through the NCAA tournament (average margin of victory: 25 points) and it will probably be worse this year.

            Normally I’m not a women’s basketball guy.  But the dominance UCONN has displayed this decade is a once-in-a-lifetime event.  Coach Geno Auriemma has won 85 percent of his games at UCONN, going 716-122.  That’s something most people can’t do in a video game (without cheating), never mind real life.

            So do yourself a favor and check out the UCONN women’s squad at least once during the NCAA Tournament.  All good things must come to an end, and eventually this streak will, too.  And when it goes away, it’s unlikely we’ll ever see anything like it again.
 

 

NO LONGER THE BIG THREE AND A HALF?...3-1-10

               For the longest time, people joked that American sports revolved around the “Big Three-and-a-half,” with baseball, football, and basketball representing the “Big Three” and hockey being the “half.”  That joke may be no more.

            Olympic hockey was the buzz around Northwestern’s campus, the blogosphere, and sports pages everywhere.  When was the last time hockey got this much buzz?  Probably never.

            I’ve been to a few hockey games and occasionally watch it on TV, but am at best a casual fan.  Before the Olympics I had never heard of US goalie Ryan Miller.  Now he is a household name because of his superb play throughout the tournament.

            While there were a few players coming out of nowhere (Brian Rafalski and Zach Parise were scoring machines for the US), the stars also came out and did their thing.  Sidney Crosby, Pavol Demitra, Dany Heatley, and Marian Hossa, all well-known in NHL circles, all performed strongly throughout the tournament.

            This is a late Christmas gift for NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman.  People in the US are finally caring about hockey again, feeling a nationalistic surge after watching the surprising US team topple Canada once and come thisclose to doing it again and bringing home the gold.  Bettman and the NHL marketing department can now ride the wave of popularity and promote both the established stars (Crosby, Hossa), as well as the unexpected heroes of the tournament (Ryan Miller).

            I’m curious to see the reaction that guys like Rafalski, Parise, and Miller will get as they travel to opposing arenas.  I hope fans will at least acknowledge their strong Olympic performance by cheering for them during player introductions.  Then the fans can feel free to root for the home team to knock their heads off.

            Why was Olympic hockey so much more popular than the NHL?  One obvious reason is nationality.  During any international tournament there is always national pride on the line.  Thus it gives Americans a chance to come together and cheer with one voice, standing behind one team.

            Quality of play is another factor.  Because there were only 12 teams in the tournament, only the cream of the crop got a chance to showcase their skills.  Most rosters (especially Canada’s) included a number of All-Stars and several relatively well-known players.  When you tuned in, you knew you were in store for a treat.

            Length is another thing the Olympic tournament has going for it.  The tournament was over in two weeks, which is long enough to hold peoples’ attention.  The NHL season, by contrast, seems to drag on and on.  Plus, after the initial seeding was set, the tournament became single elimination.  In that style of play, anything can happen.  The fans eat this action up because David can take down Goliath anytime anywhere.  Look no further than the NCAA tournament.

            So hockey can be popular in the United States.  However, it needs to remember that less is more.  The current size of 30 teams is difficult to support.  Hockey is more of a niche sport in the United States and can’t be treated as mainstream.  Contraction seems inevitable if hockey is to become popular in the United States.  This way the remaining teams will have a better pool of talent to draw from, making the games more compelling for fans to watch.  Further, both the regular season and playoffs need to be shortened.  Sixteen of the thirty NHL squads make the playoffs.  While I am normally a proponent of a more exclusive playoff club, I think the NHL needs to go the other way: everybody gets in.  Use the regular season to determine seedings (similar to the Olympic format) and then play a single-elimination tournament style to determine the champion.  This will get fans from every NHL city into the action and provide thrills and chills of under-dog upsets normally reserved for the NCAA Tournament.  I realize this is a radical idea and probably not one the NHL would seriously consider.  But it’s a proven format for drawing fans, and one that a sport struggling for ratings should think about.  To answer my original question, no, hockey has not graduated to one of the “Big Four”, but if marketed properly it can become an extremely popular niche sport in the north, similar to the following NASCAR has in the south.

 

 

 

RUSHIN' THE COURT...2-14-10
Last week the University of Illinois took down the then-#5 Michigan State Spartans. After the victory, Illini fans rushed the court to celebrate. ESPN analyst Dick Vitale was critical of the Orange Krush, saying the risk of injury was too great and that people should celebrate from their seats.
Similarly, the University of South Carolina was fined $25,000 by the Southeastern Conference for allowing fans to rush the court following their victory against top-ranked Kentucky. SEC commissioner Mike Slive said, "The security and protection of our student athletes, coaches, officials, and fans is our primary concern."
I understand the safety concern. To an on-looker, a court-rushing looks like a mosh pit, just begging for someone to get trampled.
However, as a veteran court-rusher myself (ok, I’ve done it once in my life) I have seen that there really is little injury risk involved. Even in jubilation the fans are considerate to one another. There isn’t a bunch of pushing and shoving (at least at the court rushing at Northwestern) and I could only find one instance where a fan was injured during a court-rushing celebration (Erica Tuff at Syracuse in 2003). I’m sure there have been a few more injuries, but it is a very rare occurrence.
Fans take court-rushing seriously. I have never seen an instance where fans rush the court in a victory that I did not think was rush-worthy. It is a tradition that should be reserved for only the most impressive victories (never more than twice in a four-year period). But it should absolutely be allowed.
It is a fantastic "only-in-college" experience that you will never have again. It gives you an opportunity to bond with your fellow fans and the players who made that victory happen. And you will remember that win for many years to come.
So to Mr. Vitale, Mr. Slive, and anyone else who thinks rushing the court is too dangerous: Your concerns are understandable. However, the fans act in a responsible manner and minimize the injury risk. Please give these fans an opportunity to celebrate a monumental win with their fellow fans and players. They will likely never have such an opportunity again.

 

THE CIRCLE OF LIFE…2-7-10
Economists occasionally refer to Kondratiev waves, the economic cycles that occur every fifty years or so, consisting of alternating periods of high growth and slow growth. In college we experience similar cycles, just smaller. Every four years there is a 100-percent (or near 100-percent) turnover of the student population, so every four years the cycle begins anew.
As a freshman at Northwestern I would routinely receive help from upper-classmen on assignments. Charged with going out and interviewing sources, I would have difficulty convincing anyone to talk with me. In those situations, I usually managed to find a junior or senior Journalism Major kind enough to let me interview them, because they remembered their younger years.
And so continues the circle of life at Northwestern. Last week, a freshman, Stephanie, asked me to go on camera and be interviewed for her project. Remembering my early years, I agreed to help this poor girl out. After all, it would only take a few minutes and would help her out immensely.
Stephanie’s assignment was about the cold weather and how people were dealing with it. This was the kind of story I hated to do. It was cold, so no one wanted to talk to you, and people rarely said anything insightful about the weather. I tried to be interesting, but there are only so many ways to say, “It’s cold. This sucks.” Still, interesting or not, I played my part in the cycle, helping aspiring journalists, just as I was helped and just as someday Stephanie will help others.
This the sort of help isn’t limited to the journalism field. The older, experienced vets help out the young pups, who are willing and eager to learn. As those young pups become old dogs, they in turn help out the rookies, training and mentoring them. It’s the way knowledge and industry secrets are passed from generation to generation.
While I might not exactly be a “seasoned veteran” in the journalism industry, I have been around Northwestern long enough to be able to assist the freshmen through their early years of journalism classes. It leaves me with a warm, fuzzy feeling, knowing that I was able to assist someone the way someone helped me many years ago (ok, three years ago). Helping aspiring journalists at Northwestern is part of the circle of life. The self-perpetuating cycle (both in journalism and in other industries) of assisting the young helps ensure trade tips and tricks are not lost and the industry as a whole continues to thrive.

 

 

 

UNEXPECTED SUCCESS…1-25-10
From an early age, I was always told to expect success.  I was told to think positively and to plan for the future with the assumption that I would be successful.  Apparently Northwestern’s Athletic Department never got the memo.

To be fair, it’s easy to expect failure when you’ve been mediocre (or worse) for so long.  An 846-1346-1 (.386 winning percentage) all-time record does not inspire confidence.  That’s why Northwestern is so utterly unprepared for its recent run of success.

During my first two years here, Northwestern basketball was not just bad, it was awful.  The crowds reflected it.  Usually the student section was a little over half full, and we rarely had more fans than the opposing team did; even Cornell outdrew us.  However, I enjoyed it.  Going to the games was a breeze.  The shuttles to the game were nearly empty, and I had my choice of seats at the games.  Plus, Northwestern ran plenty of promotions just to put some butts in the seat.  I got lots of free things just for showing up. No longer.  At 14-5, the ‘Cats have had no problems attracting fans, and that’s become a problem.  The student section holds only a few hundred fans.  I haven’t had a good seat yet this year.  I’m always forced to the back of the stadium because so many fans are packed into the student section.  The entire arena holds just over 8,000 fans, by far the smallest in the conference.  For years, that was adequate.  No longer.

Traffic is also a problem now.  The parking lot only has a few entrances, meaning all the traffic is funneled into a very small area.  Yes, all sporting events have problems with traffic.  But Northwestern is especially ill equipped to handle even smaller crowds because of the limited parking.

Northwestern also needs to run more shuttles, both before and after games.  The shuttle makes several stops en route to the stadium, and by the last few stops, the shuttles are often too packed for anyone else to get on.  Yes, the people waiting will eventually get to the stadium, but often they are left for an empty shuttle to come. waiting for a long time

After games is even worse.  Unless you dash out the doors as the clock hits zero, you are in trouble.  Northwestern only runs four shuttles, holding 50 or 60 passengers each.  Students get stuck out in the cold for 45 minutes or more waiting for the shuttles to come back.

Northwestern University needs to make games more fan friendly, especially for students.   Northwestern needs to install more near the stadium, so cars can get in more quickly, easing traffic problems.  They also need to run more shuttles so students don’t have to wait out in the cold nearly as long.  Dealing with the cold when you have no other choice is one thing.,  but how much are you willing to suffer in order to go to a game?  If Northwestern expects to continue to do well, they need a larger stadium as well.  8,000 fans simply isn’t enough for a team from a major conference.  Certainly it’s unreasonable to expect Northwestern to fill a 16,000-seat stadium, but an extra one or two thousand fans is reasonable.  The student section especially needs to be expanded.   parking lots

 

AN EXTRA-JUICY BIG MAC…1-17-10
            Where were you at 8:18 PM (CST) on September 18, 1998?  That was the moment that Mark McGwire swung his mighty bat and for the 62^nd time that season he hit a ball that didn’t stop until it disappeared beyond the outfield wall.  The stadium erupted, the city of St. Louis celebrated and I, a ten-year-old boy, stood up and cheered, fists raised triumphantly.  He had done it!  Mark McGwire held the single season home run record!

            That moment, and that entire summer, has now been tainted.  Big Mac admitted to taking steroids this week, although this came as no surprise to most.  Both he and fellow Maris chaser Sammy Sosa have long been suspected of juicing.  Even so, it was a relief to hear McGwire finally come out and admit the truth.  

            Following the 1994 players’ strike, fans left baseball in droves.  Many people were brought back to baseball in 1998, enthralled by the chase.  I had enjoyed baseball previously, but that summer my relationship with the National Pastime evolved into something more.  It was true love.

            And why wouldn’t it be?  After all, the men chasing the record were Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.  One a member of my beloved St. Louis Cardinals, the other was on the hated rival Chicago Cubs.  To boot, McGwire was one of the truly nice guys in baseball.  He did a lot of charity work, said all the right things, and seemed to embrace his job as a role model for youngsters like me.

            We now know that that magical summer was aided by steroids.  McGwire admitted to being on the juice and Sosa is widely suspected of it.  And yet, even though this is what drew me into baseball, I’m not upset.  

            For better or worse, steroids were part of the game in the 1990s.  McGwire was one of many players that took them during that era.  Does that make it right?  No.  But we need a better way of dealing with the 1990s rather than just banning everyone than a universal ban on anyone suspected of juicing.  Sports writers are arguing that anyone on steroids should be kept out of the Hall of Fame and their statistics should be stricken from the record books.

            McGwire was still one of the best players of the era.  Just as batting averages from the late 1920s and early 1930s are viewed with skepticism, so too should home runs from the 1990s be looked at critically.  There have been offensive ebbs and flows throughout the history of baseball.  You just have to take those numbers in the proper context.  31 home runs was more impressive in 1981 (Mike Schmidt led all of baseball with that total) than in 2001 (Bob Abreu, Cliff Floyd, Magglio Ordonez, and Miguel Tejada tied for 36^th in baseball with that total).  

            There is no way of knowing who was on steroids and who wasn’t (except for an admission like McGwire’s).  And if admitted steroid users are barred from the Hall of Fame (as certain Baseball Writer’s Association of America members want), then there will be NO incentive for players to come clean. It is the job of those writers and baseball historians to put on-the-field events in proper context, not to jump up on their soapbox and claim moral superiority over steroid users.  Thus, writers should do everything they can to ENCOURAGE such admissions, so we know how to view their stats.  McGwire, without the steroids, is a first-ballot Hall of Famer.  He should still go into the Hall.  On his plaque, write that he admitted to using steroids.  That way, fans know that his power numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.  Regardless, McGwire was still a standout player in his era, steroids or not.  

            There are many players in the same boat as McGwire, too many to name here.  The BBWAA should keep these players out until they admit to using steroids (provided there is sufficient evidence).  Then, after the admission, the player should be admitted with the denotation that they admitted to using steroids.  Baseball is for the fans.  So it should be up to the fans to determine how much to ding a player for using performance enhancing drugs.

            Regardless of what happens from here on out, I’m proud of Mark McGwire for coming out and admitting he did steroids.  I hope the BBWAA will now do the right thing and put the deserving Hall of Famer in Cooperstown.  What he did required an inordinate amount of character.  And by putting him in, the BBWAA will encourage other such admissions so we as fans can see the fuzzy era of the 1990s just a little bit more clearly.

 

 

 

 

WILL WORK FOR FOOD...1-10-10
I’m at the point in my college career where dreams and reality collide. Going into college, the world is your oyster. You can do anything you set your mind to. You want to cure cancer? Go for it! You want to be the CEO of Wal-mart? The job is yours.
Now graduation approaches. Having spent the last month-plus searching for jobs, I now think I’d be lucky to become a cashier at Wal-mart, never mind the CEO. Unfortunately, ten percent of America can empathize with my plight. However, the statistic that “one in ten Americans is unemployed” really doesn’t mean much unless you are among them. In this economy, job openings are like fumbles at a football game. The moment one comes out, there is a pile of bodies on top of it with each person scrambling to get it.
Actually, that wouldn’t be a bad idea. When there’s a job offer, the employer throws an object (a stapler?) on the ground and all the unemployed people gather around and dive on it. Whoever comes up with the object gets the job.
As it is, we all fill out résumés and cover letters telling why we’d love to work for XYZ Company. Would-be employees have to emphasize their strengths to the company and figure out ways to separate themselves from the pack. It’s a long, frustrating process that ends up requiring a lot of work for very little reward. I’m at the point where I’m excited to get a nibble from just about anyone. Pretty soon I’m going to have to offer to start paying people to let me work for them.
I’ve searched the Northwestern career website, other career sites and a bevy of individual company websites looking for just about any job I’m qualified to do. After thirty applications and only a few small nibbles, the search will go on. It may not end until graduation or beyond.
This is not to say I have completely given up on my dreams. Sure, I may still end up being the CEO of Wal-mart one day. I just have to start at the bottom to reach the top.

 

 

THE PRICE OF PERFECTION...1-2-10
Indianapolis Colt’s Head Coach Jim Caldwell took some heat last week when he pulled Peyton Manning and several other starters from the game against the Jets. The Colts were up by five at the time with 20 minutes to play. New York came back to win the game and blemish the record of the previously unbeaten Colts.
Caldwell’s thinking is crystal-clear. The Colts have already sewn up home field advantage throughout the playoffs, so there was no reason to risk injury to his star players. If Peyton Manning were to get hurt in Caldwell’s pursuit of perfection, he would be fired on the spot. The ultimate goal is the Super Bowl, so why do anything that might compromise your ability to reach the top?
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with Caldwell. Just win the Super Bowl. However, we aren’t talking normal circumstances here. We are talking perfection.
Just two teams in the Super Bowl Era have had perfect regular seasons: the 1972 Miami Dolphins and 2007 New England Patriots. Of those, only Miami followed that up by winning the Super Bowl (the Patriots lost in the Super Bowl to finish 18-1). Had the Colts kept the pedal to the metal, they could have become just the second perfect team in NFL history. They would have been remembered forever. And, as a bonus, the living members of the 1972 Dolphins would stop celebrating each season when the last undefeated team went down.
If the Colts end up 15-1 and win the Super Bowl, they will be known as a great team. Had they gone 16-0 and won the Super Bowl, they would be known as perhaps the greatest team. A team wins the Super Bowl every year, so, while it’s a very worthy goal, it isn’t that special. Have a perfect season and win the Super Bowl? Now that is something worth truly celebrating.
 < Coach Shula says, "The Colts wimped out."
Some fans are also miffed about paying full price to see the game (it was a Colt’s home game) only to see their team “give up” and pull its starters with twenty minutes to play. Do the fans get a third off their tickets since they only saw two-thirds of the game? Obviously not. So it’s not just his team’s standing that Caldwell is hurting. He is also hurting his fans.
So while I understand Caldwell’s decision to bench his starters and maximize his chances of winning the Super Bowl, he frittered away an opportunity to do something even greater. 

CHRISTMAS GIFT BUYING MADE EASY…(12-27-09)
There are three main levels of people for whom you normally buy gifts during the Christmas season: friends and close family, acquaintances, coworkers, and extended family, and those whom you have never met in your life but must now buy a gift for through some sort of gift exchange.
As luck would have it, there are also three levels of gifts that we can give people. The first I’ll lump together as “things”: clothes, jewelry, books, etc. To purchase one of these for someone, you should be intimately familiar with that person. You know their likes and dislikes very well and can thus pick out something they will like reasonably well. This sort of gift should ONLY be purchased for those in the first group, friends and close family. Once you get into the later groups, you don’t know that person well enough to be able to purchase something that is not a complete waste of $10. So what is one to do?
Once you reach the second level of people, the acquaintances, coworkers, and extended family, you are entering “gift card” territory. You don’t know exactly what they want, but by getting a gift card (rather than cash), you show that you put some thought and effort into their gift, and you know their tastes well enough to get them a card to a store they visit frequently.
It’s that pesky third level of people that really create the hassle during Christmas. Most families and work places have some kind of gift exchange or Secret Santa program where folks buy little token gifts for each other. It was set up with good intentions, because who doesn’t like to receive a gift? The problem is that the drawing is a crapshoot, and you may end up with Bob over in accounting, whom you never even knew existed. What do you get guys like that?
This is why God invented cash. If you want to get fancy, maybe you can buy him a gift card to a popular restaurant. But your best bet is cash, because then they can spend it on whatever they’d like. The trouble is this tends to be frowned upon because it appears you didn’t put much thought into the gift. If you don’t know the guy, it doesn’t matter how much thought you put into it. It’s a complete crapshoot whether he likes it or not. So, save the time and worry, and just give him cash so he can spend it on whatever he pleases.
So there you have it. Starting next year, your Christmas shopping just became a whole lot easier. Get the usual gifts for those you know well, gift cards for those you are semi-familiar with, and cold, hard cash for those you don’t know. You’re welcome. 

 

MO’ LOVE FOR MO…12-19-09
New York Yankees closer Mariano Rivera (affectionately known as “Mo”) recently won two prestigious honors: ESPN’s Pitcher of the Decade and the Sporting News Pro Athlete of the Year.
Mariano Rivera is a great closer. He’s one of the greatest of all time at his craft and is certainly worthy of enshrinement in the Hall of Fame when his career is over. But Pitcher of the Decade?
As ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick readily admits, 154 men pitched more innings than Rivera in the 2000’s. 154! I know Rivera pitched very important innings (the 9^th inning of close games) but the significance of those innings is not enough to overcome the 1,400-inning gulf between Rivera and those at the top of the list. Inning for inning, Rivera was among the most effective pitchers in baseball. But he impacted far fewer innings than most starters.
Putting it another way, Rivera pitched in 713 innings during the 2000s. During that same stretch the Yankees played 14,580 innings. So Mo had some sort of an impact on slightly less than five percent of his team’s total innings during the decade. Less than five percent! How on earth can a guy be named the pitcher of the decade if he is only a factor in 1/20^th of his team’s innings?
There are any number of pitchers who would have been a better choice for this honor. Crasnick mentions Johan Santana and Roy Halladay as Rivera’s closest competition. Randy Johnson won three Cy Young Awards during the decade, and Roger Clemens pulled in two. Despite tailing off towards in the later years (Clemens hasn’t pitched since 2007), both would have been fine choices for Pitcher of the Decade. All of the above provide both quality and quantity of innings pitched, whereas Rivera provides only quality. No matter how effective Mo was (and he was VERY effective), other pitchers provided more to their teams by throwing many more innings while still being effective.
At least for Pitcher of the Decade, the number of candidates is limited. The winner has to be a pitcher (obviously) who pitched in all or most of the decade from 2000 to 2009. So the fact that the ballot was fairly limited at least somewhat excuses the puzzling selection of Rivera for the honor. But the Sporting News folks have no such excuse. Of every professional athlete in the country (and probably the world), they selected Rivera, who, may I remind you, impacted less than five percent of his team’s innings! Imagine if Kobe Bryant came in only for the last two and a half minutes of a basketball game. Or if Peyton Manning came in only for the final Colt’s drive of a close football game. Think they would still be viable candidates for MVP?
This is the same sort of impact Rivera is having for the Yankees. He pitches very effectively when called up. But he participates in so few innings that he should not have even been considered for either award. He’s great at what he does. But that doesn’t mean he is the greatest pitcher of the 2000’s, or anywhere close to being the greatest athlete of 2009.

GOING BOWLING...12-13-09
The Northwestern football team is headed for post-season play once again, this time meriting an invitation to one of the prestigious New Years’ Day bowls, the Outback Bowl. This is the same bowl that eschewed Northwestern last year and selected Iowa, whom Northwestern had beaten earlier that year and had one less win than the Wildcats.
This year, the shoe is on the other foot. Northwestern leapfrogged Wisconsin (who had one more win than the Wildcats) and are going to Tampa for the Outback Bowl. My guess is that the Outback committee was concerned about how well Northwestern fans would travel, given their poor home attendance. After seeing the purple-clad fans flock to San Antonio for last year’s Alamo Bowl, however, their concerns were alleviated. This time they jumped at the chance to bring Northwestern to Tampa Bay.
Obviously I’m happy about this. Northwestern played well this year (for the most part) and deserves a chance to prove itself in a big bowl game. However, I still don’t like the bowl system as constructed because money still plays much too big a role in determining who plays where.
Ostensibly, the purpose of the bowl system is to reward players for having a good season. Really, of course, it’s about the money. Committees choose their matchups based on which teams will draw the most fans and bring the highest ratings.
It’s not that I’m upset that it’s all about the money. After all, it benefitted Northwestern this year. But please, please stop talking about the purity of the college game. No, the players don’t get paid (well, most of them don’t), but money is still a huge factor in all facets of the college game.
Short of everyone suddenly deciding to stop watching college football altogether, this isn’t going to change soon. People are willing to spend big bucks on college football, so the NCAA wants to cash in. I’m not going to sit here and whine about "the good ol’ days" or speak wistfully of how college players "do it the right way" and "play for love of the game." No, college is about money, just as the pros. It’s just the players themselves don’t get paid in college. They are playing for the right to earn a big payday in the NFL.
I am not against the bowl system at all. It does act as a reward system for good teams. It’s just driven by money. That’s fine. Let’s just not act like it’s anything other than a money grab.

  

WE CAN COUNT TO FOUR!...12-6-09
Watch a few college football games, and you’ll notice that, without fail, one or both teams will hold up four fingers at the end of the third quarter. I contend this is the players’ way of showing their intelligence, proving that the academic system is working just fine for them.
The real reason teams hold up four fingers is to signify that it is now the fourth quarter, and the fourth quarter is different. What happened during the first three quarters is irrelevant, and anything can happen in the fourth. It’s a psychological thing that reminds players to stay strong for fifteen more minutes.
This, along with a number of other football traditions, is just plain dumb. No, the fourth quarter is not different from the other three. The same rules still apply as before. The basic concept is still to get the ball across your goal line while keeping your opponent from doing so. The fourth quarter is fifteen minutes, just like the other three. Mostly, its just a psychological ploy for teams that sucked eggs during the first seventy-five percent of the game. "Ok, we couldn’t beat the Little Sisters of the Poor the way we’ve been playing, but now it’s the fourth quarter! Anything can happen!"
Sure, fourth quarter comebacks can happen (especially in close games), but I guarantee its not because the guy at the end of the bench held up four fingers. It’s because the team that was behind outplayed their opponent. At the college and professional level, everyone wants to win and is playing hard and all of that good stuff. Whenever a coach talks about guys "never giving up", it’s just a bunch of crap. They won because they played better and probably caught a few lucky breaks along the way.
Holding up four fingers isn’t the only stupid psychological stunt that football teams use. I love how some coaches will futilely call running play after running play straight up the middle for no gain so they can "wear out the defense and show they control the ground". Yes, you will wear down the defense eventually. But by then you’ll be down 35-0 and have gained exactly zero yards on offense. Hey coach, try passing the ball occasionally! You might accidently score a touchdown!
Football players love conveying this "tough" image, so they do goofy things like wearing short sleeves in cold weather. Because nothing says "toughness" and "unity" like the entire team coming down with pneumonia. I’m sure teams look across the field and see their opponents wearing short sleeves in cold weather and say "Oh no, they have short sleeves on! They’re too tough for us! We’re screwed!"
I know football players want to be seen as tough, as never giving up, and as playing the game "the right way". But can we please eschew these stupid traditions? Instead of focusing on holding up four fingers, maybe worry about catching the darn football? Instead of wearing short sleeves and looking tough, why not wear long sleeves so you can actually practice on Monday (rather than having the whole team down with the flu). It’s not that I want football players to be wimps. I admire it when guys are able to play hurt. But why not be considered "tough" for the way you play rather than what you wear?
Football players and coaches are all about portraying an image of toughness and never giving up. In the end though, it all comes down to wins and losses. I don’t care how "tough" my team is. Give me a wimpy, passing, long-sleeve wearing 10-2 team over a tough, running, short-sleeve wearing 2-10 team any day of the week.

 
CAN YOU SAY THAT? …11-27-09
I was listening to a Chicago-based sports radio station during a sports update, and the commentator was running through the news of the day, including announcing that Albert Pujols had won his second consecutive Most Valuable Player award. The commentator further said he was the first to win back-to-back MVP awards since Barry Bonds won four straight from 2001-2004. So far so good. But the announcer wasn’t done just yet. He went on to say “You wonder if that’s all they have in common.”
The insinuation was clear. The commentator (didn’t catch his name) was trying to link Albert Pujols to steroids.
This was a blatant attack on one of the game’s best players and a clear disregard for acceptable journalistic practices. Look, I’m the last guy who wants to be getting up on a soap box and calling out other journalists. But there are some things that no one in this field should do.
I realize that Albert Pujols may not be the most popular guy in Chicago. He’s been torching Cub pitching (and just about everyone else) for the past nine years. Worse, he’s been doing it for the hated St. Louis Cardinals. But that doesn’t give you a right to link him to steroids without the slightest bit of evidence.
Albert Pujols has never flunked a drug test. His head hasn’t blown up three sizes in the past few years. He didn’t have a sudden power spike (not that this itself is indicative of steroid use, but it’s a possible indicator). There has not been one iota of evidence that Albert Pujols has ever used steroids other than the fact that he has been really, really good. Sadly, this in and of itself is enough to indict athletes for some people. They couldn’t POSSIBLY be this good without artificial enhancement.
Journalists have a lot of power. People hear what they say, and they are able to shape public opinion to a degree. Any comment like that, even an off-hand one, has the power to tarnish a guy’s reputation. That’s why it is imperative that journalists use this power wisely.
The commentator is allowed to think whatever he wants. But when he is on the air as a journalist, he should exercise caution. Opinion-makers obviously have a little more leeway (i.e. I think so-and-so is on steroids because of this, that, and the other thing), but straight news anchors, such as this particular commentator, should just stick to the facts. If he wants to think a guy is on steroids, fine. He just shouldn’t do it over the airwaves. As Ben Parker said on “Spiderman”: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

 

 
 

 

MAC ATTACK IS BACK…11-2-09
When I first heard the whispers that Mark McGwire was about to be named hitting coach of the St. Louis Cardinals, I was skeptical to say the least. Since his retirement in 2001, he has made only a few public appearances, most notably the one before Congress at the steroid hearings in 2005. McGwire is just a private guy. I couldn’t imagine him willingly accepting the public scrutiny he would certainly undergo if he were to take the coaching position.
But the whispers become a dull roar, which quickly transformed into a full-fledged media storm. Sure enough, the next day confirmation came that Big Mac would indeed be the new hitting coach.
As a Cardinal fan this pleased me to no end. Obviously, McGwire was known for his power. But he also hit for a decent average for most of his career, and more importantly he was a patient hitter. He would wait for his pitch, or take the walk if he didn’t get what he was looking for. Of course, when he did get the pitch he was looking for he would whack the ever-loving crap out of it. Baseballs he hit were more smashed than frat guys on homecoming weekend. Add to that the fact that he was already giving private lessons to several players on the Cardinals, and he seems like the perfect coach.
Plus, McGwire will be the first coach who could probably perform better than some of the players he coaches. Think about it. Bottom of the ninth, two outs, runner on first. Instead of “Put me in, coach!”, players will be saying “Put in the coach!” Think McGwire couldn’t put one out? I wouldn’t bet against him.
This is a bold move by the Cardinals. They are potentially getting a great coach, but they are certainly creating a firestorm. Any time you mention McGwire, there is always the requisite mention of performance-enhancing drugs. Did he take them? Maybe. His testimony before Congress did little to erase doubts.
Since then, however, it has become clear that, even if McGwire did use steroids, he was far from the only one. Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmiero, Manny Ramirez, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez are a few of the other high-profile players to be linked to performance enhancers. Is it right? Is it an unfair advantage for these guys to be able to use such drugs?
Sports writers and fans love to climb on to their soap box and shake their finger at players who do drugs. But in the long run, is it really that big a deal? I’ve written before about steroids, how they really are not that serious a problem. Do they help? Yes, but for every Barry Bonds, there are ten Jorge Piedras, guys who take performance-enhancers to just try and crack a big-league roster. Steroids can only help so much.
So whether McGwire took steroids is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. The only thing I care about is whether Big Mac can help the St. Louis Cardinals become a better offensive club. The Redbirds made a gutsy move. Now lets see if it pays off.