No matter what your thermometer may say, today is an important day for football fans.
For one thing, the NFL's Hall of Fame game is being played tonight between the Dallas Cowboys and the Arizona Cardinals. The game means nothing in the standings, and few starters — if any — will play tonight, but its importance is more symbolic than anything else.
It tells football fans — who have suffered through basketball, baseball, hockey, tennis and golf since February's Super Bowl to get to this point — that football is back.
For another, USA Today released its preseason college football poll today.
And that always has a few eyebrow–raising items.
Like, for example, the fact that the University of Texas, 5–7 last year (including a loss to lowly Kansas), is ranked No. 23.
Considering their records last year, I suppose the rest of the Top 25 deserved to be there — at least, most of them did.
But I can't justify the Longhorns being in the Top 25. Admittedly, Sports Illustrated reports that UT is doing better at recruiting than it has in awhile, and that definitely will be a factor in the future. But it won't have an impact on this season — and it may not have much of an impact on the 2018 season, either.
If Texas is ranked in the Associated Press poll, which will come out shortly before the season begins, my guess is it will be short lived. The Longhorns play at Southern Cal (No. 4 in the USA Today poll) on Sept. 16 and host Kansas State (No. 19 in the poll) on Oct. 7 before the annual battle with Oklahoma (No. 8 in the poll) on Oct. 14 — followed by a home game against Oklahoma State (No. 11 in the poll) and a trip to Baylor.
Showing posts with label Sports Illustrated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sports Illustrated. Show all posts
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The Bowl Edition of My Top 25 Picks
Utah State's Chuckie Keeton can take a step
toward joining the school's all–time greats
in today's Idaho Potato Bowl against Toledo.
Earlier this fall, I speculated about the possibility that Notre Dame and Alabama would meet in the national championship game.
That possibility has gone far beyond speculation. It is a reality now. The Irish and the Crimson Tide will meet in Miami on Jan. 7.
Obviously, they are two storied programs. Between them, they have shared or won outright 25 national championships — and, in a few weeks, they can add another one to the list, no matter who wins the game.
That game has a lot for college football fans to be excited about, but most of the rest of the bowl schedule isn't so appealing.
There are about three dozen bowls now, which means that there are roughly 70 bowl slots available. Yet only eight bowls match teams from the Top 25. Eight other members of the Top 25 are playing unranked — albeit bowl eligible — foes.
When I was growing up, there were far fewer bowls. Even ranked teams — and the rankings in those days only covered the Top 20 — didn't get to play in one.
But with so many slots available, it is just wrong for any ranked team to have to play an unranked one.
This season, third–ranked Ohio State is banned from postseason participation, so that's a valid excuse, but there are so many bowls these days. With all those bowls, it seems to me there is no excuse for a ranked team having to play an unranked one.
Oh, well, that's my rant for today. Here is the bowl lineup that features the ranked teams.
Idle: #3 Ohio State
Today
- Idaho Potato Bowl: Toledo vs. #18 Utah State at 3:30 p.m. (Central) in Boise, Idaho on ESPN: Of all the bowls that have at least one Top 25 team involved, this one has the distinction of being ranked as the least interesting by Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel.
Oh, Mandel ranks about a dozen bowls as being less interesting than today's Idaho Potato Bowl, but it is the least interesting of the bowls that have Top 25 teams playing in them.
And that should tell you something. The numbers tell you something, too.
Both teams rank in the Top 30 nationally in offense. For all intents and purposes, they are about even in that regard. But Utah State is, far and away, the better defensive team.
So I pick Utah State to win.
- Las Vegas Bowl: Washington vs. #20 Boise State at 2:30 p.m. (Central) in Las Vegas on ESPN: These teams actually met once before — in a regular–season clash in 2007.
Washington won that one, 24–10 (one of only four games the Huskies won that year and one of only three the Broncos lost).
Not too long ago, offense ruled in Boise, but the star of this game should be Boise State's defense, the ninth best in the land. It should have no trouble with Washington's 99th–ranked offense.
Washington has a pretty good defense, too — #30 in the nation — but it will be pressed more by Boise State's offense, which is mediocre but still ranked higher (#76) than Washington's.
Of course, it can be argued that Washington faces stiffer competition in the Pac–12, and there is something to that — and the Huskies were on a roll in the second half of the season, winning four straight before losing the regular–season finale to Washington State in overtime.
Boise State went 10–2 and hasn't lost since Nov. 3, when the Broncos lost to San Diego State.
Thing is, though, that San Diego State team lost its season opener — to Washington.
In an upset special, I'll take Washington.
- Military Bowl: Bowling Green vs. #24 San Jose State at 2 p.m. (Central) in Washington on ESPN: Excluding the Idaho Potato Bowl, this game qualifies as the least interesting bowl game featuring a Top 25 team, according to Mandel.
But there is at least one interesting aspect of this game.
When San Jose State has the ball, it will have the nation's third–ranked passer (David Fales) facing the nation's seventh–best defense. That should be entertaining.
And if that battle turns into a stalemate, San Jose State defense (28th in the country) seems equipped to handle Bowling Green's offense (85th in the land).
I favor San Jose State. - Holiday Bowl: Baylor vs. #17 UCLA at 8:45 p.m. (Central) in San Diego on ESPN: This one really has the potential to be a good game.
A couple of weeks ago, UCLA was one win away from playing in only the Bruins' third Rose Bowl in the last 25 years, and Baylor's football team apparently acquired a taste for winning football during Robert Griffin III's Heisman–winning season last year.
RG III, as Griffin is known, is playing for an NFL playoff berth, but, believe it or not, the once lowly Baylor Bears have the nation's top–rated offense. (For the record, UCLA's offense is pretty good, too. It is ranked #20 in the nation.)
"Not only can Baylor [be] counted on to rack up 600 yards, but it could allow as many if not more against the attack–minded Bruins," writes Mandel.
Neither defense has been very impressive so my guess is that the offense that is clicking is the one that will win. I predict that will be Baylor in a high–scoring affair.
- Alamo Bowl: Texas vs. #15 Oregon State at 5:45 p.m. (Central) in San Antonio on ESPN: These teams met twice in the '80s, and Texas won both.
And, frankly, as inexperienced as Oregon State is when it comes to postseason football (well, until fairly recently, that is), it is logical to expect the trend to continue.
However one may feel about the Longhorns, there is no disputing this: Texas is often maligned for going 8–4 (that's a rebuilding season, as far as UT fans are concerned) but it is seldom mentioned that two of the teams that beat the Longhorns are ranked in the Top 12, and all four are playing in bowls.
And Texas has a long history of playing in — and winning — bowl games.
Interestingly, though, the offenses are about even — Oregon State's is ranked 34th and Texas' is ranked 37th.
On defense, Oregon State appears to have a clear edge. The Beavers are ranked 33rd. Texas is 75th.
Even more telling are the details of the matchup when the Beavers have the ball. Oregon State's 15th–ranked passing game could have a big day against Texas' 69th–ranked pass defense.
And that is what I think will happen. I pick Oregon State.
- Chick–fil–A Bowl: #14 Clemson vs. #9 LSU at 6:30 p.m. (Central) in Atlanta on ESPN: This will be the third time these schools have faced each other — each time in a bowl, and each of the first two was won by LSU.
Mandel thinks this will be the fourth–best bowl game, and it isn't hard to see why.
Clemson has a clear advantage on offense; LSU has a clear advantage on defense. Which will prevail?
Well, I've always been a big believer in defense so I will take LSU to win.
- Gator Bowl: Mississippi State vs. #21 Northwestern at 11 a.m. (Central) in Jacksonville, Fla., on ESPN2: Northwestern has been in bowls on a fairly regular basis for the last couple of decades, but the Wildcats haven't won one since Jan. 1, 1949, when they won the Rose Bowl.
Mississippi State, meanwhile, has won its last five bowls. The Bulldogs last lost a bowl game on Jan. 1, 1999 — 50 years to the day after Northwestern's last bowl win.
Obviously, a Northwestern victory would end all sorts of streaks at both schools. And the rankings would suggest that is a possibility. Is it?
Could well be. Northwestern holds the statistical edge on both offense and defense — although it really is only an edge, nothing more.
So I look at each team's record against teams that finished in the Top 25. Mississippi State cruised through the soft portion of its schedule, but then dropped three straight to the ranked teams on their schedule — each by 20 points or more.
Northwestern went 0–2, but one of its losses (to #23 Nebraska) was by a single point, and the other was in overtime to #19 Michigan.
I pick Northwestern to end its bowl skid. - Capital One Bowl: #23 Nebraska vs. #6 Georgia at noon (Central) in Orlando, Fla., on ABC: If you can remember the one and only time these teams met, you really are an old–school fan.
On Dec. 20, 1969, Nebraska routed Georgia in the Sun Bowl.
I don't think it will be nearly that lopsided this time. I think it could be one of the most entertaining of the postseason games.
Nebraska enjoys narrow statistical advantages in both offense and defense — but both teams are in the Top 30 in both categories so we're talking quality on both sides.
Both programs have long, proud traditions so I guess you have to look at the intangibles.
Nebraska seemed to stagger through its Big Ten title game, losing to Wisconsin. Georgia, meanwhile, gave Alabama a down–to–the–wire battle for the right to play Notre Dame for the national title and seems to have the momentum.
I choose Georgia. - Outback Bowl: #19 Michigan vs. #11 South Carolina at noon (Central) in Tampa, Fla., on ESPN: Neither team is a stranger to Tampa.
This is Michigan's fifth Outback Bowl. The Wolverines won three of their first four visits. This is South Carolina's fourth Outback Bowl. The Gamecocks won two of their first three.
They are, however, virtual strangers to each other. The teams met twice in the 1980s with each team winning on the other team's turf. They haven't faced each other since 1985.
If this game had been played when I was growing up, Michigan would have been the overwhelming favorite. South Carolina was seldom invited to a bowl in those days — and even more rarely won one.
But times have changed, and South Carolina showed me that it had some true grit when its top running threat went down with a season–ending injury. The Gamecocks, who were the only ones to beat Georgia until Alabama did it in the SEC Championship game, finished the season 10–2.
South Carolina comes into this game with the momentum, and I think the Gamecocks will win. - Rose Bowl: Wisconsin vs. #8 Stanford at 4 p.m. (Central) in Pasadena, Calif., on ESPN: The Rose Bowl is the "granddaddy of them all," they say.
It was first played in 1902, and it has been played every year since 1916. For more than half a century, it was exclusively played between the champions from the conferences in which Wisconsin and Stanford compete.
Yet this will be only the second time they have met in the Rose Bowl. Wisconsin won on that first occasion.
They played four other times prior to that, and Wisconsin never lost. The Badgers didn't win them all — the teams tied in 1995 — but they might as well have.
At first blush, it looks like Stanford might reverse that trend this time. Even with Andrew Luck gone to the NFL, Stanford managed to beat highly regarded Oregon and win its division, then win the league championship with its second consecutive win over UCLA.
Wisconsin, on the other hand, wouldn't even have been in a position to play for the Big Ten crown if Ohio State or Penn State had been eligible to do so. Nevertheless, the Badgers were next in line — much to the chagrin, I'm sure, of Nebraska and the Cornhuskers' fans.
It would be folly to underestimate Wisconsin — and it would be so easy to do, with Wisconsin's coach bolting for Arkansas.
Given Arkansas' defensive tradition, though, it isn't hard to see what attracted the Razorbacks' attention. Wisconsin's defense is ranked 13th in the nation.
I'm inclined to think this might be a low–scoring defensive struggle. Stanford's defense is 21st in the nation.
And neither offense has been particularly impressive — but Wisconsin's (#62 nationally) has been more productive than Stanford's (#83).
I pick Wisconsin. - Orange Bowl: #16 Northern Illinois vs. #13 Florida State at 7:30 p.m. (Central) in Miami on ESPN: Of late, the Orange Bowl has been a showcase for teams from lesser conferences (i.e., Boise State, Hawaii) playing teams from elite conferences. Sometimes Cinderella wins. Sometimes she doesn't.
That trend appears to continue this year. NIU is 12–1, but the Wildcats play in the MAC. The ACC, where Florida State plays, isn't on the same level as the SEC, but it is a level or two higher than the MAC.
Sometimes those teams from the lesser conferences make statements in the Rose Bowl. Remember what Boise did to Oklahoma?
OK, lightning rarely strikes twice in the same place. But it has been known to happen.
With that disclaimer, I pick Florida State — with its second–ranked defense.
- Sugar Bowl: #22 Louisville vs. #4 Florida at 7:30 p.m. (Central) in New Orleans on ESPN: Let's see.
Florida, which plays in the SEC (whose champion has won six straight national titles), has the fifth–best defense in the nation.
On offense, Florida has struggled (#102 in the nation), but the Gators do, after all, play in the SEC — and Florida's offense was good enough to beat Texas A&M and future Heisman winner Johnny Manziel. Louisville's offense isn't much better (#47), but the point is that it is better — at least on paper.
On paper, this should be a game that is decided by defense, so I will take Florida.
Fiesta Bowl: #7 Kansas State vs. #5 Oregon at 7:30 p.m. (Central) in Glendale, Ariz., on ESPN: Mandel writes that, next to the national title tilt, this should be the most interesting bowl game. And I'm inclined to agree.
By far, Oregon has the most impressive offense. The Ducks are #4 in the nation; the Wildcats are #55.
Kansas State has the advantage on defense, but it is much more narrow. KSU ranks 42nd in the nation; Oregon is 47th.
I think Oregon's offense may overwhelm Kansas State's defense, and I expect Oregon to take care of business.
Cotton Bowl: #12 Oklahoma vs. #10 Texas A&M at 7 p.m. (Central) in Dallas on Fox: This game got a real shot in the arm when it turned out that the Heisman Trophy winner would be playing in it.
Ever since the matchup was announced, I've figured it will be well attended. Both campuses are reasonably short drives from Dallas, and both schools have large fan bases that will follow them anywhere.
For awhile, there was talk that A&M would be paired with Texas, reviving that old rivalry. But the Cotton Bowl officials instead invited Oklahoma, reviving a series that goes back more than a century but really only began to heat up when the Aggies migrated from the imploding Southwest Conference to the newly formed Big 12 Conference in the mid–1990s.
This will actually be the 30th time the teams have played, and Oklahoma wins about two–thirds of the time. Lately, the Sooners have done better than that, winning eight of the last nine encounters. Current OU coach Bob Stoops beat the Aggies 11 times in 13 seasons.
Both teams have Top 10 defenses — A&M is third in the land, OU is 10th — and either defense is likely to be capable of stopping the other team's offense (OU ranks 44th, A&M ranks 56th).
I think this game could be close and quite competitive. It might even go into overtime. But when the dust settles, I think Oklahoma, with a better defense, will win.
- GoDaddy Bowl: Arkansas State vs. #25 Kent State at 8 p.m. (Central) in Mobile, Ala., on ESPN: At this stage, with only the national title game remaining in the college football season, this qualifies as an are–you–kidding–me? moment.
Could anyone really care who wins this game — outside each school's student body and fan base?
Well, it might be fun to watch, at least when Arkansas State has the ball. ASU is 17th in the country in offense, thanks mostly to its pass–happy ways. Kent State is 74th.
It's hard for me to see, frankly, how Kent State could be ranked in the Top 25 when neither its offense nor its defense could crack the Top 70.
I'm taking Arkansas State.
- BCS National Championship: #2 Alabama vs. #1 Notre Dame at 7:30 p.m. (Central) in Miami on ESPN: This is the big one, the one college football fans have been waiting for.
These teams have played six times in the past, and Notre Dame has won all but one.
Bear Bryant faced Notre Dame in the first four meetings, and Alabama lost all four. I think, though, that he would approve of the defensive nature of this game.
Most college football fans know — or should know — that 'Bama has the top–ranked defense in the nation. But Notre Dame's defense is ranked sixth, and it has overcome numerous challenges this season.
The offenses are good, not spectacular. Alabama's is ranked 40th in the nation; Notre Dame's is 49th.
I think this will be a low–scoring game. It might come down to a last–minute score.
As an Arkansas graduate, I must admit that there is a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing the SEC's streak of national championships grow to seven. And I have friends who went to A&M who wouldn't mind if Alabama won — after all, in addition to having the Heisman Trophy winner, they would also have the only victory over this year's national champion.
But there's another part of me that says Notre Dame is a team of destiny. What other conclusion can one reach after some of their amazing finishes this year?
And that part tells me that, somehow, Notre Dame will find a way to win.
Season: 209–58
Sunday, October 30, 2011
JoePa Makes History
You wouldn't think that there would be anything left for Joe Paterno to accomplish at Penn State.
He's been coaching the Nittany Lions since 1966. Paterno has said that, when he told his father of his occupational decision, his father replied, "For God's sake, what did you go to college for?"
It was a fair question, I suppose, given that Paterno was taking over a program that had been mediocre at best in the previous years.
He began his tenure with a victory over Maryland on Sept. 17, 1966. That win — or the one over Boston College a few weeks later — probably qualified as his signature win in that first season at the helm. All the teams the Nittany Lions faced who had winning records that year defeated Penn State.
The next year, though, after a 1–2 start, Paterno led the Nittany Lions to seven straight wins and a Liberty Bowl date with Florida State (the teams fought to a 17–17 tie).
And the next two seasons were even better for Paterno and his teams. Their record was 22–0, which meant that, entering the 1970 season, they had won 27 of their last 28 games — and might have won all 28 if college football had allowed overtime in those days.
They also won a couple of Orange Bowls in the late 1960s, but they didn't win a national championship.
For a long time, the national title seemed a prize Paterno would never grab. He instructed many great players. He had many great teams. He coached against (and often defeated) the best of his contemporaries — Bear Bryant, Darrell Royal, Woody Hayes, Barry Switzer, Tom Osborne — but he always seemed to come up just short when the national title was on the line.
That changed in 1982, and he won another national crown in 1986.
He's won more bowl games than any other coach in the history of college football.
And now, he's won more games — period.
Yesterday's 10–7 triumph over Illinois was sloppy, but, as Stewart Mandel points out in Sports Illustrated, it was "exactly the type of game Paterno enjoys most" — one in which defense and rushing play prominent roles.
So it was appropriate for the occasion. It was Paterno's 409th Division I victory.
The milestone, in which Paterno passed Eddie Robinson of Grambling, is largely symbolic, Mandel writes, which is a fair conclusion. The Illini appear to have peaked, having been in the rankings a few weeks ago but they've stumbled lately.
Penn State has sometimes been criticized for not playing the toughest of schedules, but Robinson rarely, if ever, faced the kind of programs that Paterno has faced, particularly since Penn State joined the Big Ten nearly two decades ago.
It did seem more important when he surprassed Bryant's victory total a decade ago. Bryant, after all, built his record by beating the likes of LSU and Auburn and Georgia every year — not Rutgers and Syracuse and Temple.
Nevertheless, as Mandel said, Paterno deserves our recognition and praise. "In a sport filled with misguided, misbehaved or flat–out devious individuals, JoePa remains our moral compass, as he has for more than five decades."
He's been coaching the Nittany Lions since 1966. Paterno has said that, when he told his father of his occupational decision, his father replied, "For God's sake, what did you go to college for?"
It was a fair question, I suppose, given that Paterno was taking over a program that had been mediocre at best in the previous years.
He began his tenure with a victory over Maryland on Sept. 17, 1966. That win — or the one over Boston College a few weeks later — probably qualified as his signature win in that first season at the helm. All the teams the Nittany Lions faced who had winning records that year defeated Penn State.
The next year, though, after a 1–2 start, Paterno led the Nittany Lions to seven straight wins and a Liberty Bowl date with Florida State (the teams fought to a 17–17 tie).
And the next two seasons were even better for Paterno and his teams. Their record was 22–0, which meant that, entering the 1970 season, they had won 27 of their last 28 games — and might have won all 28 if college football had allowed overtime in those days.They also won a couple of Orange Bowls in the late 1960s, but they didn't win a national championship.
For a long time, the national title seemed a prize Paterno would never grab. He instructed many great players. He had many great teams. He coached against (and often defeated) the best of his contemporaries — Bear Bryant, Darrell Royal, Woody Hayes, Barry Switzer, Tom Osborne — but he always seemed to come up just short when the national title was on the line.
That changed in 1982, and he won another national crown in 1986.
He's won more bowl games than any other coach in the history of college football.
And now, he's won more games — period.
Yesterday's 10–7 triumph over Illinois was sloppy, but, as Stewart Mandel points out in Sports Illustrated, it was "exactly the type of game Paterno enjoys most" — one in which defense and rushing play prominent roles.
So it was appropriate for the occasion. It was Paterno's 409th Division I victory.
The milestone, in which Paterno passed Eddie Robinson of Grambling, is largely symbolic, Mandel writes, which is a fair conclusion. The Illini appear to have peaked, having been in the rankings a few weeks ago but they've stumbled lately.
Penn State has sometimes been criticized for not playing the toughest of schedules, but Robinson rarely, if ever, faced the kind of programs that Paterno has faced, particularly since Penn State joined the Big Ten nearly two decades ago.
It did seem more important when he surprassed Bryant's victory total a decade ago. Bryant, after all, built his record by beating the likes of LSU and Auburn and Georgia every year — not Rutgers and Syracuse and Temple.
Nevertheless, as Mandel said, Paterno deserves our recognition and praise. "In a sport filled with misguided, misbehaved or flat–out devious individuals, JoePa remains our moral compass, as he has for more than five decades."
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of
I didn't grow up in a major–league town — or anywhere close to one, so I rarely saw major–league baseball in person.
But a couple of times, when I was about 11 or 12, my family took summer trips to St. Louis, where we went to see the Cardinals play in the old Busch Memorial Stadium.
To a young boy from Conway, Ark., it was like a trip to Mecca — even though I have been a Dodger fan most of my life.
On one of those occasions, we were privileged to see two of the best pitchers of my childhood, Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson, pitch against each other.
That game lived up to expectations. It was a low–scoring pitchers' duel, and it went into extra innings (both Seaver and Gibson had been relieved at that point). Unfortunately, we missed the ending. It was unseasonably cool in St. Louis that evening, and my parents decided to take my brother and me to the motel's courtesy van to listen to the finish and wait for the others to join us.
Consequently, we heard the dramatic finish on the radio — St. Louis' Ted Sizemore hit an inside–the–park home run.
Many years later, when I was working for a newspaper in north Texas, a co–worker of mine and I did a little projecting based on pitching rotations and determined that Nolan Ryan (who had just joined the Rangers) would be facing Boston's Roger Clemens in Arlington. We bought tickets ahead of time — and prayed that nothing (like rain or injury) would interfere.
Ryan and Clemens did face each other that day, as we expected, and that game also lived up to expectations. It was another low–scoring duel, and I later learned that Ryan, who was in his 40s by that time, had been throwing with back spasms since the second inning. He hung in there, though, until the Rangers took the lead with a two–run homer in the bottom of the eighth.
The Rangers went on to win the game.
Those are, without a doubt, the four best pitchers I have ever seen in person (although there was one time when I was visiting some friends in St. Louis and we went to see a Cardinal–Dodger game and we almost collided with Orel Hershiser as he was leaving the stadium and going across the street to his hotel and we were making our way back our car — but Hershiser didn't pitch that day and, besides, that's a story for another time), and those two pitchers' duels were extraordinarily entertaining.
But I will concede that Jim Kaplan just might be right when he writes about a game that was played 48 years ago today and calls it "the greatest game ever pitched."
Now, there have been many games that have been mentioned as the greatest game ever pitched, and Kaplan admits that in an article he wrote for Sports Illustrated.
"Opponents trot out the usual suspects," he writes, "like the 1–0 perfect game Cleveland's Addie Joss threw against the White Sox' Ed Walsh on October 2, 1908; the 26–inning, 1–1 tie pitched in 1920 by Joe Oeschger of the Boston Braves and Leon Cadore of the Brooklyn Dodgers; Harvey Haddix's unprecedented 12–inning, 1959 perfect game that he lost in the 13th; and Sandy Koufax's 1965 perfecto in which losing pitcher Bob Hendley of the Cubs allowed one hit and two base runners."
To use Kaplan's own word, those games — and others — were each "remarkable."
But the game played between the Milwaukee Braves and the San Francisco Giants on this day in 1963 was unique. "There was nothing to compare it to," Kaplan writes.
That's tough to dispute.
"On that day, a pair of future Hall of Famers, one with his best days behind him, the other with his career blossoming before him, engaged in a battle never seen before or since," Kaplan writes. "Spahn, already an icon, had debuted during World War II and was in the midst of his 13th and final 20–win season. Marichal, among the game's new breed of Latin stars who were changing the face of baseball, was en route to his first of six 20–win seasons."
That was similar, I guess, to the game I saw between Texas and Boston. Ryan was nearing the end of his career, Clemens was in the early stages of his.
But they didn't pitch against each other for 15 scoreless innings, as Marichal and Spahn did. A home run did decide the outcome of the Marichal–Spahn battle — but it came from the bat of one of the most prolific home run hitters in history, Willie Mays, who hit the 15th of what would be 38 home runs that season.
(Hank Aaron could have been the hero instead. He was in Milwaukee's lineup that day, but he went 0 for 6.)
I mean, what could possibly top that? Maybe Mickey Mantle bailing out Whitey Ford in a duel with Bob Lemon or something like that.
No such story exists in the annals of baseball, though, so I must conclude that Kaplan is right.
The Marichal–Spahn battle that was waged at Candlestick Park 48 years ago today is the greatest game ever pitched.
But a couple of times, when I was about 11 or 12, my family took summer trips to St. Louis, where we went to see the Cardinals play in the old Busch Memorial Stadium.
To a young boy from Conway, Ark., it was like a trip to Mecca — even though I have been a Dodger fan most of my life.
On one of those occasions, we were privileged to see two of the best pitchers of my childhood, Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson, pitch against each other.
That game lived up to expectations. It was a low–scoring pitchers' duel, and it went into extra innings (both Seaver and Gibson had been relieved at that point). Unfortunately, we missed the ending. It was unseasonably cool in St. Louis that evening, and my parents decided to take my brother and me to the motel's courtesy van to listen to the finish and wait for the others to join us.
Consequently, we heard the dramatic finish on the radio — St. Louis' Ted Sizemore hit an inside–the–park home run.Many years later, when I was working for a newspaper in north Texas, a co–worker of mine and I did a little projecting based on pitching rotations and determined that Nolan Ryan (who had just joined the Rangers) would be facing Boston's Roger Clemens in Arlington. We bought tickets ahead of time — and prayed that nothing (like rain or injury) would interfere.
Ryan and Clemens did face each other that day, as we expected, and that game also lived up to expectations. It was another low–scoring duel, and I later learned that Ryan, who was in his 40s by that time, had been throwing with back spasms since the second inning. He hung in there, though, until the Rangers took the lead with a two–run homer in the bottom of the eighth.
The Rangers went on to win the game.
Those are, without a doubt, the four best pitchers I have ever seen in person (although there was one time when I was visiting some friends in St. Louis and we went to see a Cardinal–Dodger game and we almost collided with Orel Hershiser as he was leaving the stadium and going across the street to his hotel and we were making our way back our car — but Hershiser didn't pitch that day and, besides, that's a story for another time), and those two pitchers' duels were extraordinarily entertaining.
But I will concede that Jim Kaplan just might be right when he writes about a game that was played 48 years ago today and calls it "the greatest game ever pitched."Now, there have been many games that have been mentioned as the greatest game ever pitched, and Kaplan admits that in an article he wrote for Sports Illustrated.
"Opponents trot out the usual suspects," he writes, "like the 1–0 perfect game Cleveland's Addie Joss threw against the White Sox' Ed Walsh on October 2, 1908; the 26–inning, 1–1 tie pitched in 1920 by Joe Oeschger of the Boston Braves and Leon Cadore of the Brooklyn Dodgers; Harvey Haddix's unprecedented 12–inning, 1959 perfect game that he lost in the 13th; and Sandy Koufax's 1965 perfecto in which losing pitcher Bob Hendley of the Cubs allowed one hit and two base runners."
To use Kaplan's own word, those games — and others — were each "remarkable."
But the game played between the Milwaukee Braves and the San Francisco Giants on this day in 1963 was unique. "There was nothing to compare it to," Kaplan writes.
That's tough to dispute.
"On that day, a pair of future Hall of Famers, one with his best days behind him, the other with his career blossoming before him, engaged in a battle never seen before or since," Kaplan writes. "Spahn, already an icon, had debuted during World War II and was in the midst of his 13th and final 20–win season. Marichal, among the game's new breed of Latin stars who were changing the face of baseball, was en route to his first of six 20–win seasons."
That was similar, I guess, to the game I saw between Texas and Boston. Ryan was nearing the end of his career, Clemens was in the early stages of his.But they didn't pitch against each other for 15 scoreless innings, as Marichal and Spahn did. A home run did decide the outcome of the Marichal–Spahn battle — but it came from the bat of one of the most prolific home run hitters in history, Willie Mays, who hit the 15th of what would be 38 home runs that season.
(Hank Aaron could have been the hero instead. He was in Milwaukee's lineup that day, but he went 0 for 6.)
I mean, what could possibly top that? Maybe Mickey Mantle bailing out Whitey Ford in a duel with Bob Lemon or something like that.
No such story exists in the annals of baseball, though, so I must conclude that Kaplan is right.
The Marichal–Spahn battle that was waged at Candlestick Park 48 years ago today is the greatest game ever pitched.
Friday, April 15, 2011
My Last Post (Hopefully) on Barry Bonds
Yesterday, I wrote about Barry Bonds' obstruction conviction (and the mistrial that was declared on the perjury charges).
In that post, I said Bonds should not be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but I conceded that he would remain eligible. Based on his performances on the field, I believe Bonds stopped talking steroids when baseball inaugurated its anti–steroid policy — and, consequently, was never in violation of the policy.
Even so, it still doesn't seem fair to me that Bonds' records — which were achieved through artificial assistance that is now expressly prohibited and upon which the case for his enshrinement in the Hall will rest — should be allowed to stand.
It seems (at the very least) inconsistent to me that the same sport that would not recognize Roger Maris' single–season home run record without an asterisk (to indicate that it was achieved in 162 games, not 154) will one day welcome Bonds into its Hall of Fame with open arms, well aware that he never would have done most of the things he did if not for steroids.
But that does not bother me as much as it once would have because, as I said, I am indifferent to Bonds now.
I also expressed my hope that I would not feel compelled to write about Barry Bonds again, but, nevertheless, today I read a column by Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman, who defended Bonds' eventual (and, I presume, inevitable) enshrinement in the Hall.
In general, I have a lot of respect for Sports Illustrated. I'm a football fan, and I enjoy reading Peter King's writings on the subject for SI. And I have enjoyed reading the other writers on the staff over the years as well.
Beyond the writing, I appreciate the quality of SI's photography (no, I'm not talking about the swimsuit issue, although it is hard to ignore the quality of those photographs). It often captures the emotions that SI's writers — as gifted as they are — are unable to express adequately.
And Heyman is no wet–behind–the–ears sports writer, either. He covered the Yankees for Newsday. He was a baseball columnist for The Sporting News. He's been with Sports Illustrated since 2006.
I would not question Heyman's credentials or his knowledge. Thus, when he writes that he believes Bonds compiled enough Hall–worthy numbers before he began taking steroids (Heyman thinks Bonds started taking steroids in 2000; I think it was long before that) to make moot the point that "not all his numbers are legit," I accept that his conclusion is based on facts — and what Heyman believes to be facts.
"Unless a voter makes a moral judgment," Heyman writes, "the question voters need to ask ... is whether those drugs helped transform the player into a Hall of Famer."
In Bonds' case, Heyman doesn't think the drugs transformed him. He believes Bonds was already there. I disagree.
We disagree on some other points, too. For example, Heyman writes that Bonds is "one of the three greatest players I ever saw in his prime, along with Alex Rodriguez and Rickey Henderson."
I guess that surprised me more than anything else because Heyman is close to my age, and I can remember several ball players who I thought were better than any of those three.
Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were both far better home run hitters than Bonds or Rodriguez, and they had to bat against far better pitchers. So, too, did Mickey Mantle.
Lou Brock was a better base stealer than Rickey Henderson — who didn't have to steal against the cannon–armed catchers Brock did.
And I know Heyman is old enough to remember guys like Roberto Clemente, Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Reggie Jackson, even Pete Rose (who is deservedly banned from baseball but also deserves to be mentioned in this conversation).
I could keep going, but I think the point is made.
As I said yesterday, though — and as I repeated today — I'm indifferent to Bonds now. I don't feel a need to quibble over when he started using steroids. I have my own opinion about that, and it is enough for me. I don't need to persuade others.
I agree when Heyman observes that the standards for enshrinement in the Hall are much lower than they are in a court of law, and that is as it should be. "Scoundrels and cheats are already in," he writes. "So are foul–tempered jerks. Bonds may be all three."
Granted. When the Hall of Fame balloting takes place, it is hardly the College of Cardinals choosing the next pope.
I would like to think, though, that when someone is chosen for a sports hall of fame, he is being chosen in part because he is the kind of person parents would like their children to emulate. He should be honored for his achievements, but it would be nice if he was not a scoundrel, a cheat, a foul–tempered jerk.
Unfortunately, though, if you make that a requirement, you'll have to eject some Hall of Famers like Ty Cobb, who weren't great people but they were great ball players.
So the Hall of Fame isn't ideal. Neither, for that matter, is the criminal justice system.
The difference is that the criminal justice system does keep trying to improve.
In that post, I said Bonds should not be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but I conceded that he would remain eligible. Based on his performances on the field, I believe Bonds stopped talking steroids when baseball inaugurated its anti–steroid policy — and, consequently, was never in violation of the policy.
Even so, it still doesn't seem fair to me that Bonds' records — which were achieved through artificial assistance that is now expressly prohibited and upon which the case for his enshrinement in the Hall will rest — should be allowed to stand.
It seems (at the very least) inconsistent to me that the same sport that would not recognize Roger Maris' single–season home run record without an asterisk (to indicate that it was achieved in 162 games, not 154) will one day welcome Bonds into its Hall of Fame with open arms, well aware that he never would have done most of the things he did if not for steroids.
But that does not bother me as much as it once would have because, as I said, I am indifferent to Bonds now.
I also expressed my hope that I would not feel compelled to write about Barry Bonds again, but, nevertheless, today I read a column by Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman, who defended Bonds' eventual (and, I presume, inevitable) enshrinement in the Hall.
In general, I have a lot of respect for Sports Illustrated. I'm a football fan, and I enjoy reading Peter King's writings on the subject for SI. And I have enjoyed reading the other writers on the staff over the years as well.
Beyond the writing, I appreciate the quality of SI's photography (no, I'm not talking about the swimsuit issue, although it is hard to ignore the quality of those photographs). It often captures the emotions that SI's writers — as gifted as they are — are unable to express adequately.
And Heyman is no wet–behind–the–ears sports writer, either. He covered the Yankees for Newsday. He was a baseball columnist for The Sporting News. He's been with Sports Illustrated since 2006.
I would not question Heyman's credentials or his knowledge. Thus, when he writes that he believes Bonds compiled enough Hall–worthy numbers before he began taking steroids (Heyman thinks Bonds started taking steroids in 2000; I think it was long before that) to make moot the point that "not all his numbers are legit," I accept that his conclusion is based on facts — and what Heyman believes to be facts.
"Unless a voter makes a moral judgment," Heyman writes, "the question voters need to ask ... is whether those drugs helped transform the player into a Hall of Famer."
In Bonds' case, Heyman doesn't think the drugs transformed him. He believes Bonds was already there. I disagree.
We disagree on some other points, too. For example, Heyman writes that Bonds is "one of the three greatest players I ever saw in his prime, along with Alex Rodriguez and Rickey Henderson."
I guess that surprised me more than anything else because Heyman is close to my age, and I can remember several ball players who I thought were better than any of those three.
Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were both far better home run hitters than Bonds or Rodriguez, and they had to bat against far better pitchers. So, too, did Mickey Mantle.
Lou Brock was a better base stealer than Rickey Henderson — who didn't have to steal against the cannon–armed catchers Brock did.
And I know Heyman is old enough to remember guys like Roberto Clemente, Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Reggie Jackson, even Pete Rose (who is deservedly banned from baseball but also deserves to be mentioned in this conversation).
I could keep going, but I think the point is made.
As I said yesterday, though — and as I repeated today — I'm indifferent to Bonds now. I don't feel a need to quibble over when he started using steroids. I have my own opinion about that, and it is enough for me. I don't need to persuade others.
I agree when Heyman observes that the standards for enshrinement in the Hall are much lower than they are in a court of law, and that is as it should be. "Scoundrels and cheats are already in," he writes. "So are foul–tempered jerks. Bonds may be all three."
Granted. When the Hall of Fame balloting takes place, it is hardly the College of Cardinals choosing the next pope.
I would like to think, though, that when someone is chosen for a sports hall of fame, he is being chosen in part because he is the kind of person parents would like their children to emulate. He should be honored for his achievements, but it would be nice if he was not a scoundrel, a cheat, a foul–tempered jerk.
Unfortunately, though, if you make that a requirement, you'll have to eject some Hall of Famers like Ty Cobb, who weren't great people but they were great ball players.
So the Hall of Fame isn't ideal. Neither, for that matter, is the criminal justice system.
The difference is that the criminal justice system does keep trying to improve.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Tiger Blood
Someone is going to win the Masters today.
It ain't gonna be Tiger Woods, writes Gene Wojciechowski for ESPN.com.
But it might be Rory McIlroy, who staked out his advantage in the first round and has built it into the "largest lead Augusta National has seen since that remarkable day 14 years ago," writes John Romano of the St. Petersburg Times.
Anyone who is old enough to remember the 1997 Masters remembers the way Tiger Woods dominated the field. He was the youngest golfer ever to win the Masters, a mere 21, but that was probably the least of his accomplishments on the day he won his first green jacket.He's won three more since then, and he's won every other major multiple times.
Tiger continues to cast an enormous shadow over this tournament — even though he has only won it once in the last eight years — but that shadow seems to be receding.
Tiger goes into today's final round trailing by seven strokes. He had a seven–under round one day in 1997 en route to his record–setting triumph in the Masters, and he flirted with it the next day so he is — or, at least, has been — capable of that.
But, in order for a 65 to result in at least a tie with the current leader, that leader would have to do something he hasn't done in the first three days of this tournament — break even.
In fact, even if the leader duplicates his worst round of the tournament (yesterday's two–under 70), Tiger would need to shoot a nine–under 63 to match him — and he would have to hope that the other golfers who stand between him and McIlroy don't have record–smashing afternoons of their own.
It just seems to me that there are too many obstacles between Tiger and a fifth green jacket. And even if there were no other golfers between Tiger and McIlroy, the greatest of the obstacles would remain: If Tiger ever shot a 63 (in a major or even a non–major), he hasn't done it recently.
So I would have to conclude that Wojciechowski was right — but we won't know that for sure until later today.
We'll also have to wait until later today to find out if Sports Illustrated's Joe Posnanski was right a couple of days ago when he observed that first–round leaders seldom win it all.
"In the last 25 years, there have been a total of 41 first–round leaders, including ties," he wrote. "One won the Masters. One. More first–round leaders over the last quarter century have finished in 21st place than first. Only 17 of the 41 first–round leaders even finished in the Top 10."
Let me amend what I just said. Posnanski clearly is right about the tournament's recent history. What remains to be seen is whether McIlroy will overcome it.
Going into today's final round, McIlroy has a chance to make that two first–round leaders in the last quarter century who have made their leads hold up long enough to win a championship.
We'll find out if he is able to do it later today.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Crunching the Numbers
Lists — and I'm speaking of "best of" lists here, the ones that are based on the personal preferences of the individual or group who compiled them — are meant to provoke arguments.
It's really why they exist.
If, for example, I say that I think "Citizen Kane" is the greatest movie ever made (which I do), I am sure to encounter arguments from others — from people who don't share my appreciation for the pioneers or the historical context of motion pictures, from viewers who think that any film that is devoid of "action" and/or splashy special effects (and thus must depend on dialogue) is inferior, even from folks who refuse to watch a black–and–white film (and consequently deprive themselves of many of the greatest movies ever made — talk about being color blind).
Such people might recommend some worthy alternatives for consideration. Others might not. But the point is that it's all opinion. No one is right. No one is wrong.
In almost every such debate, there are just far too many variables to consider. And the value I will give to one variable almost certainly will not be the same value that others will give to it.
Sports are particularly vulnerable to this kind of debate that no one can win.
It seems, for example, as if I have heard people debating the merits of different generations of baseball players all my life. When Hank Aaron was about to surpass Babe Ruth as all–time home run king, I heard people arguing about which one was a better home run hitter.
It was tougher in Ruth's day, I heard some say. The ballparks were bigger, and the leagues were smaller. The talent wasn't as diluted, which meant the pitching was almost always tough, no matter who you played.
Besides, the schedule was shorter. Who knows how many home runs Ruth might have hit if he had been able to play in eight more games per year?
Yes, the Aaron supporters would say, the league was smaller — and road trips were shorter. At the most, Ruth might have to travel half the length of the continent, but Aaron, who spent most of his career in Atlanta, played in a division that required him to travel to the Pacific coast frequently. That much travel is bound to take its toll, yet Aaron played in the majors for more than 20 years.
Well, this flight of fancy was inspired by a recent pair of posts on the Sports Illustrated web site.
These posts were dedicated to the best pro football players ever to wear each number, and they were divided in two lists because a single list of every jersey number from 00 to 99 was just too bulky.
Actually, it was pretty big at 00–49 and 50–99, too. Frankly, I would have preferred four lists. At least. But it wasn't my call.
Nor was it my call which players were named the best to wear their numbers. I agreed with many of the choices, but I disagreed with some.
For example:
It's really why they exist.
If, for example, I say that I think "Citizen Kane" is the greatest movie ever made (which I do), I am sure to encounter arguments from others — from people who don't share my appreciation for the pioneers or the historical context of motion pictures, from viewers who think that any film that is devoid of "action" and/or splashy special effects (and thus must depend on dialogue) is inferior, even from folks who refuse to watch a black–and–white film (and consequently deprive themselves of many of the greatest movies ever made — talk about being color blind).
Such people might recommend some worthy alternatives for consideration. Others might not. But the point is that it's all opinion. No one is right. No one is wrong.
In almost every such debate, there are just far too many variables to consider. And the value I will give to one variable almost certainly will not be the same value that others will give to it.
Sports are particularly vulnerable to this kind of debate that no one can win.
It seems, for example, as if I have heard people debating the merits of different generations of baseball players all my life. When Hank Aaron was about to surpass Babe Ruth as all–time home run king, I heard people arguing about which one was a better home run hitter.
It was tougher in Ruth's day, I heard some say. The ballparks were bigger, and the leagues were smaller. The talent wasn't as diluted, which meant the pitching was almost always tough, no matter who you played.
Besides, the schedule was shorter. Who knows how many home runs Ruth might have hit if he had been able to play in eight more games per year?
Yes, the Aaron supporters would say, the league was smaller — and road trips were shorter. At the most, Ruth might have to travel half the length of the continent, but Aaron, who spent most of his career in Atlanta, played in a division that required him to travel to the Pacific coast frequently. That much travel is bound to take its toll, yet Aaron played in the majors for more than 20 years.
Well, this flight of fancy was inspired by a recent pair of posts on the Sports Illustrated web site.
These posts were dedicated to the best pro football players ever to wear each number, and they were divided in two lists because a single list of every jersey number from 00 to 99 was just too bulky.
Actually, it was pretty big at 00–49 and 50–99, too. Frankly, I would have preferred four lists. At least. But it wasn't my call.
Nor was it my call which players were named the best to wear their numbers. I agreed with many of the choices, but I disagreed with some.
For example:
- At #5, Donovan McNabb was listed as the best to wear that number. He's had a great career, but how on earth can anyone take him over Paul Hornung, who didn't just play in NFL championship games but won four of them and was on the team that won the first Super Bowl?
- At #9, I have a problem with taking Sonny Jurgensen, who had some great numbers but never won the Super Bowl, over Jim McMahon, who actually won a Super Bowl.
- I really have issues with #12.
Sports Illustrated picked Tom Brady over Terry Bradshaw because Brady allegedly won in a "tougher era."
Really? Tougher than beating the Dolphins of the early '70s? Or the Raiders throughout the decade? Or the Oilers, who mounted serious challenges from within the division after Earl Campbell joined the roster? Or the Buffalo Bills when O.J. Simpson was in his prime?
Or Dallas' Doomsday Defense in two Super Bowls?
Or Minnesota's Purple People Eaters in one?
In all, Bradshaw won four Super Bowls in six years. How many has Brady won?
There were other great players who wore #12, too — Roger Staubach, Bob Griese, Joe Namath. I'm sure you could get arguments in several NFL cities. But I'm convinced that Bradshaw deserves to be 12's representative in this list. - I live in Dallas, but I wasn't born and raised here so I don't feel any special attachment to the Cowboys, least of all Deion Sanders. And I really don't think he deserves to be listed as the greatest to wear #21. I'd rather list the runnerup, LaDainian Tomlinson, or Cliff Branch or even Jim Kiick.
Maybe that's just personal preference, though. - I can live with the choice for #32 — Jim Brown — even though I'm sure it was a tough call. After all, guys like O.J., Marcus Allen and Franco Harris wore that number, too.
But Brown was the best. - Now, #33 is a real generational clash. SI went with Sammy Baugh and listed Tony Dorsett as the runner–up. I hadn't been born when Baugh was playing, but I remember watching Dorsett on TV.
I know Baugh was probably the best passer of his era, but all I've seen of him are film clips.
- At #52, I think I would replace Ray Lewis with Mike Webster. If it's about the numbers, I'm more impressed by Webster's four Super Bowl rings — a noteworthy achievement for a man who played a position as physically demanding as center.
And some people would tell you he was the best ever to play his position. - As good as Otto Graham was, I don't really think he deserves to be listed at both of the numbers he wore in the NFL — first #60 and then #14. Give #60 to Chuck Bednarik or Tommy Nobis. Or give #14 to Y.A. Tittle or Ken Anderson.
- It had to be a close call in selecting #74.
Sports Illustrated went with Merlin Olsen, but, really, I think I would have gone with Bob Lilly. I saw both of them play on TV when I was a child, and I thought Lilly had more of an impact. Heck, even Sports Illustrated chose him as one of the 10 most revolutionary defensive players ever. - Another close call at #75.
SI went with Deacon Jones, a decent choice. But I would have preferred the runnerup, Mean Joe Greene.
Must have been a tough choice. Howie Long also wore #75, as did Jethro Pugh and Forrest Gregg, who played an important role in the success of Green Bay's power sweep in the 1960s. - At #85, I'm baffled why Jack Youngblood got the nod over Nick Buoniconti.
Sure, Youngblood was a great player. But why take him over Buoniconti, the middle linebacker for Miami's great No–Name Defense that quietly kept the Dolphins undefeated in 1972? - And #99 is purely a personal choice.
Warren Sapp got the nod from SI. And that's fine. But Dan Hampton wasn't even the runnerup. Jerome Brown was.
And Mark Gastineau wasn't even mentioned!
I know, Gastineau never played in a Super Bowl. And Sapp and Hampton each won one. But Gastineau and his sack dance breathed new life and energy into the NFL after its strike–shortened 1982 season. Some people didn't like it. But it sure got people's attention.
Some people thought he was a jerk. But he was never as bad as Brian Bosworth.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Not Your Typical Super Bowl
It probably should have been obvious when the conference championship games were over, but the 44th Super Bowl — and that reminds me, don't you think it is about time to dispense with the Roman numerals? — isn't going to be your daddy's Super Bowl.
For one thing, the teams aren't your usual suspects, if such a thing exists in pro football. Certain teams — New England, Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Francisco come to mind — have been there more often than most, but the Colts will be making only their second appearance in the last 40 years and the Saints will be playing in their very first Super Bowl.
For another, the two teams with the best records in their leagues will be facing each other. That doesn't happen very often. Since the NFL introduced playoff seedings in 1975, the top two seeds have met eight times. On six of those occasions, the NFC's representative was the winner — which may be good news for New Orleans.
Something else to keep in mind. There is usually little news of any real significance from either team in the traditional two–week period between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl.
But this year may be different. There is already talk that Indianapolis may have to play without defensive end Dwight Freeney, and most NFL fans would probably tell you that Freeney is the best defensive player in a game that seems top heavy with offensive stars. Peter King of Sports Illustrated says that, if Freeney can't play, it will make running the offense much easier for New Orleans. And he's right.
How much does Freeney mean to Indianapolis? Well, Scouts, Inc. came up with rankings for all the players who are expected to suit up for Sunday's game. Colts quarterback Peyton Manning was rated "best player on the planet." There are probably some dissenters scattered around the country, but I'm inclined to go along with that. The next six were judged the "elite players." Freeney was one of those six.
Most folks probably wouldn't argue that point, either. Freeney was responsible for 13½ sacks this season as well as 24 tackles, 19 of which were solo efforts. That's going to be tough to replace.
We'll see if that is a decision the Colts are forced to make.
For one thing, the teams aren't your usual suspects, if such a thing exists in pro football. Certain teams — New England, Pittsburgh, Dallas, San Francisco come to mind — have been there more often than most, but the Colts will be making only their second appearance in the last 40 years and the Saints will be playing in their very first Super Bowl.For another, the two teams with the best records in their leagues will be facing each other. That doesn't happen very often. Since the NFL introduced playoff seedings in 1975, the top two seeds have met eight times. On six of those occasions, the NFC's representative was the winner — which may be good news for New Orleans.
Something else to keep in mind. There is usually little news of any real significance from either team in the traditional two–week period between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl.
But this year may be different. There is already talk that Indianapolis may have to play without defensive end Dwight Freeney, and most NFL fans would probably tell you that Freeney is the best defensive player in a game that seems top heavy with offensive stars. Peter King of Sports Illustrated says that, if Freeney can't play, it will make running the offense much easier for New Orleans. And he's right.
How much does Freeney mean to Indianapolis? Well, Scouts, Inc. came up with rankings for all the players who are expected to suit up for Sunday's game. Colts quarterback Peyton Manning was rated "best player on the planet." There are probably some dissenters scattered around the country, but I'm inclined to go along with that. The next six were judged the "elite players." Freeney was one of those six.
Most folks probably wouldn't argue that point, either. Freeney was responsible for 13½ sacks this season as well as 24 tackles, 19 of which were solo efforts. That's going to be tough to replace.
We'll see if that is a decision the Colts are forced to make.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Wild-Card Weekend Is Upon Us
As I have mentioned here before, I admire the writing of Sports Illustrated's Peter King. He writes very insightful articles about pro football, and he asked an intriguing question in his preview of this weekend's wild–card games:
"When's the last time you recall all four wild–card games being so competitive you wouldn't be surprised to see the road team win any one?" He then proceeds to pick the road teams in two of this weekend's games. I'm with King on that one. In fact, as you will soon see, I have picked three of the four road teams to win this weekend.
Personally, I have often felt that home field was overrated, and King kind of affirms that in his piece. "Two roadies won last year," he writes, "and three won in 2005. This year, I don't care what Vegas says. It's even–steven across the board entering the weekend."
The New York Giants won the Super Bowl two years ago after beating Tampa Bay, Dallas and Green Bay on the road in the NFC playoffs. In 2005, the Pittsburgh Steelers became the first team in two decades to win three road games en route to the Super Bowl (which they also won).
In fact, I have wondered if the practice of giving a first–round bye to the big winners during the regular season hasn't been a detriment, not a benefit. Consider the recent teams that have advanced to the Super Bowl (whether they won or lost) in spite of having to play in the first round: Arizona had to play on wild–card weekend last year. As mentioned previously, the Giants were a wild card two years ago and won it all. So did the Indianapolis Colts, who were not a wild card but had to play one in January 2007. I mentioned the 2005 Steelers. Carolina played in the wild–card weekend following the 2003 season. The 2001 Ravens had to play in the first round. So did the 1999 Tennessee Titans.
Seven of the last 10 Super Bowls have featured a team that did not get a first–round bye. Four of those seven were won by the team that didn't get the bye week. When you consider that four teams get a first–round bye every season, and they get that bye because they are one of the top two winningest teams in the conference, it logically follows that they probably went into the playoffs among the favorites to at least play in the Super Bowl, if not win it all.
That means that, in the last 10 years alone, at least 16 teams that probably were considered one of the favorites to win a Super Bowl did not, and at least 28 teams that were favored to at least play in a Super Bowl did not.
Why do I believe having to play in a wild–card game is not the kiss of death that many seem to think it is? Because I believe a bye week at this stage of the season is useful only if a team is banged up and needs a little extra time to get over its bumps and bruises.
If the team is in fairly good health, my thinking has been that a bye takes a team out of its rhythm. It retards a team's momentum. And I believe New Orleans and Indianapolis, who rested their starters when there was nothing left to play for, may pay a price for doing the smart thing and protecting their top producers.
But that's a subject to be addressed as we go deeper into the playoffs.
TODAY
Season: 180–78.
"When's the last time you recall all four wild–card games being so competitive you wouldn't be surprised to see the road team win any one?" He then proceeds to pick the road teams in two of this weekend's games. I'm with King on that one. In fact, as you will soon see, I have picked three of the four road teams to win this weekend.
Personally, I have often felt that home field was overrated, and King kind of affirms that in his piece. "Two roadies won last year," he writes, "and three won in 2005. This year, I don't care what Vegas says. It's even–steven across the board entering the weekend."The New York Giants won the Super Bowl two years ago after beating Tampa Bay, Dallas and Green Bay on the road in the NFC playoffs. In 2005, the Pittsburgh Steelers became the first team in two decades to win three road games en route to the Super Bowl (which they also won).
In fact, I have wondered if the practice of giving a first–round bye to the big winners during the regular season hasn't been a detriment, not a benefit. Consider the recent teams that have advanced to the Super Bowl (whether they won or lost) in spite of having to play in the first round: Arizona had to play on wild–card weekend last year. As mentioned previously, the Giants were a wild card two years ago and won it all. So did the Indianapolis Colts, who were not a wild card but had to play one in January 2007. I mentioned the 2005 Steelers. Carolina played in the wild–card weekend following the 2003 season. The 2001 Ravens had to play in the first round. So did the 1999 Tennessee Titans.
Seven of the last 10 Super Bowls have featured a team that did not get a first–round bye. Four of those seven were won by the team that didn't get the bye week. When you consider that four teams get a first–round bye every season, and they get that bye because they are one of the top two winningest teams in the conference, it logically follows that they probably went into the playoffs among the favorites to at least play in the Super Bowl, if not win it all.
That means that, in the last 10 years alone, at least 16 teams that probably were considered one of the favorites to win a Super Bowl did not, and at least 28 teams that were favored to at least play in a Super Bowl did not.
Why do I believe having to play in a wild–card game is not the kiss of death that many seem to think it is? Because I believe a bye week at this stage of the season is useful only if a team is banged up and needs a little extra time to get over its bumps and bruises.
If the team is in fairly good health, my thinking has been that a bye takes a team out of its rhythm. It retards a team's momentum. And I believe New Orleans and Indianapolis, who rested their starters when there was nothing left to play for, may pay a price for doing the smart thing and protecting their top producers.
But that's a subject to be addressed as we go deeper into the playoffs.
TODAY
- New York Jets (9–7) at Cincinnati (10–6) — Of the three playoff games that are rematches of games played last week, this one seems to be the most likely to produce a duplicate result. By the time last Sunday's game between the Jets and the Bengals began, the results of all the other games were known, and the Bengals had nothing to play for. The Jets did, and it showed in the final score — a 37–0 triumph. The game provides an intriguing contrast. When the season began, the Bengals had the hot hand, winning seven of their first 10 games. But, at season's end, the Jets were the hot team, winning five of their last six. Since Thanksgiving, Cincinnati lost to three playoff teams and only managed wins over Detroit and Kansas City. The last time the teams played in Cincinnati was on Oct. 21, 2007. The Bengals prevailed, 38–31, but the Jets have won two in a row at home against the Bengals since then. Can they win at Cincinnati for the first time since September 1997? I think they will.
- Philadelphia (11–5) at Dallas (11–5) — As members of the same division, these two teams are familiar foes. They play each other twice a year, and they just played at Cowboys Stadium last Sunday. In that game, Dallas won, 24–0, giving the Cowboys two victories over the Eagles during the regular season. Now they must try to make it three victories, which is a difficult task. And the Cowboys need look no further than their own postseason experience for examples of just how hard it can be. Two years ago — the last time Dallas was in the playoffs — the Cowboys faced the New York Giants in the playoffs after beating them twice during the regular season. The Giants won, 21–17, and went on to the Super Bowl, where they upset the previously unbeaten New England Patriots. And, in 1998, the Cowboys beat the Arizona Cardinals (who were in their division at the time) twice during the regular season, then lost to the Cardinals in the playoffs, 20–7. Until this season, there was considerable talk about the Cowboys' "December jinx," although that talk seems to have been dispelled by Dallas' 3–2 record last month (including a victory over previously unbeaten New Orleans). Nevertheless, some folks in Dallas will remind you that the Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in more than 10 years. I predict the Eagles, who had won six in a row before tumbling against Dallas last Sunday, will bounce back and win the game.
- Baltimore (9–7) at New England (10–6) — The way I see it, there are three things to keep in mind in this game. First: Location, location, location. The Patriots have been absolutely awful on the road, which is where they will have to play next week if they beat Baltimore. But, against the Ravens, New England is playing at home, where the Pats are 8–0. Baltimore, meanwhile, is 3–5 on the road, and the Ravens lost at New England earlier in the season, 27–21. So, on the basis of location, the Pats should be favored. Second: Statistics. The Patriots are third in the NFL in total offense (the Ravens are 13th) and pass offense (the Ravens are 18th). Baltimore does have the advantage in rushing offense, ranking fifth in the NFL while the Patriots are 12th. Baltimore has the edge in team defense (third in the NFL, compared to 11th for New England), passing defense (eighth in the NFL while New England is 12th) and rushing defense (fifth in the NFL; Patriots are 13th). New England's margin on offense is more pronounced than Baltimore's is on defense — although, if Baltimore has the lead late in the game and needs to run the ball to control the clock, the Ravens seem to be in a better position to do so than the Patriots. That doesn't seem likely to me, though, so I'll give the edge to New England. Third: Postseason experience. It can be argued that today's Ravens have more recent postseason experience than the Patriots. New England, after all, did not qualify for the playoffs last year while Baltimore, in spite of being the sixth seed, defeated Miami and Tennessee on the road and stayed within striking distance of Pittsburgh in the first half of the AFC title game. Will the weather be a factor? Well, it's expected to be cold (predicted high of 24°) and windy (the wind chill could be as low as -1°) but sunny. That's a little colder than it is expected to be in Baltimore tomorrow (28°, sunny, not as windy). The Ravens may notice the weather, but I doubt they will be affected by it. I think they are more likely to be affected by the atmosphere. History has shown that it is very tough for the visiting team to win at New England, especially in the playoffs, and I'll give the home team the edge in this one.
- Green Bay (11–5) at Arizona (10–6) — Pat Kirwan of NFL.com says the key to this game is the ability to get to the quarterback, and he may have a point. Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers did get sacked 50 times this season, and he was sacked more than twice as often in games the Packers lost. But bear in mind that Green Bay's defense appears to be better than Arizona's. The Packers have the best team defense in the NFC and the best run defense in the NFL. And, while the Green Bay pass defense is ranked second in the NFC, Arizona's is ranked 11th. Add to that the fact that Green Bay has beaten Arizona severely twice this year — once was in the third week of the preseason, so it didn't count in the standings, and the other was last weekend. This is the playoffs, and the Cardinals may have Anquan Boldin back from injury — although NFL.com suggests that it is unlikely he will play. Apparently, he's still hobbling around, but he's a factor whenever he is in the lineup. I think the game will be closer this time, but I'll stick with the Packers, who are probably the hottest team on the NFC side of the playoffs.
- In the NFC, Green Bay will play Minnesota for the third time this season, and Philadelphia will travel to New Orleans in a rematch of their Week 2 meeting.
- In the AFC, the top–seeded Indianapolis Colts will play host to the New York Jets, who handed them their first loss of the season a couple of weeks ago, and San Diego will play host to New England in what would be the first postseason game that is not a rematch of a regular–season contest.
Season: 180–78.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Sure Enough ...
No sooner had I written about the possibility of Brett Favre signing with Minnesota ...
Well, he did it. Today. I'm sure the TV crews will be on hand for his return to Green Bay with the Vikings.
Of course, this is nothing new. He's done this before.
Judd Zulgad reports, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, that it was "now or never." I'm not sure "never" is in Favre's vocabulary.
But it might be after he faces some of the defensive players in the NFC North this fall. Especially the ones in Green Bay.
Well, I don't wish anything bad for Favre. I've been a Packer fan most of my life, and I will always appreciate what Favre did for my team. When the Packers play the Vikings, I will pull for the Packers, as always. But I will enjoy watching Favre do what he does on a football field. I can't deny that. I have enjoyed watching him play football for a long time now.
It's hard not to enjoy watching him play. And it's hard not to be thankful that he will be playing for one more season.
But I agree with one of my favorite sportswriters, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who says it is a mistake.
And even if you are a diehard Brett Favre fan who only cares about seeing him play and doesn't particularly care which team he plays for, you have to agree that there is some sense behind King's words: "I'd have waited until [quarterback] Sage Rosenfels struggled — if he struggled — and then made the call to Favre. By doing it now, [head coach Brad] Childress loses Rosenfels and [quarterback] Tarvaris Jackson; how can they ever trust anything he says now?"
I'm with him on that one. I think Childress has sown the seeds of dissension — and, at the age of 40, it is far from certain that Favre can hold up for the entire season. That "could come back to haunt him if Favre's body breaks down," King writes.
I'm with King all the way. As I say, I don't wish for anything bad to happen to Favre, but I was 40 once and I know my body couldn't do the things it could do when I was 25. And I am certainly not an athlete. It's bound to be more pronounced with them.
And we all saw Favre's December collapse last year. If that happens again, how much confidence will the other QBs on the Minnesota roster have when they're called upon to take over for the team's alleged savior?
I think Minnesota sold its soul for a chance to win a Super Bowl with a 40–year–old quarterback calling the signals. Maybe it will work out. But my hunch is that it won't.
I agree with Peter King. I think it is a mistake.
Well, he did it. Today. I'm sure the TV crews will be on hand for his return to Green Bay with the Vikings.
Of course, this is nothing new. He's done this before.
Judd Zulgad reports, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, that it was "now or never." I'm not sure "never" is in Favre's vocabulary.But it might be after he faces some of the defensive players in the NFC North this fall. Especially the ones in Green Bay.
Well, I don't wish anything bad for Favre. I've been a Packer fan most of my life, and I will always appreciate what Favre did for my team. When the Packers play the Vikings, I will pull for the Packers, as always. But I will enjoy watching Favre do what he does on a football field. I can't deny that. I have enjoyed watching him play football for a long time now.
It's hard not to enjoy watching him play. And it's hard not to be thankful that he will be playing for one more season.
But I agree with one of my favorite sportswriters, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who says it is a mistake.
And even if you are a diehard Brett Favre fan who only cares about seeing him play and doesn't particularly care which team he plays for, you have to agree that there is some sense behind King's words: "I'd have waited until [quarterback] Sage Rosenfels struggled — if he struggled — and then made the call to Favre. By doing it now, [head coach Brad] Childress loses Rosenfels and [quarterback] Tarvaris Jackson; how can they ever trust anything he says now?"
I'm with him on that one. I think Childress has sown the seeds of dissension — and, at the age of 40, it is far from certain that Favre can hold up for the entire season. That "could come back to haunt him if Favre's body breaks down," King writes.
I'm with King all the way. As I say, I don't wish for anything bad to happen to Favre, but I was 40 once and I know my body couldn't do the things it could do when I was 25. And I am certainly not an athlete. It's bound to be more pronounced with them.
And we all saw Favre's December collapse last year. If that happens again, how much confidence will the other QBs on the Minnesota roster have when they're called upon to take over for the team's alleged savior?
I think Minnesota sold its soul for a chance to win a Super Bowl with a 40–year–old quarterback calling the signals. Maybe it will work out. But my hunch is that it won't.
I agree with Peter King. I think it is a mistake.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The Brett Favre Saga
In my last post, I tended to be somewhat dismissive of Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports for his attitude toward Brett Favre.
I admit that I haven't followed Doyel closely, but my sense, from reading his article, is that he doesn't like Favre, has never liked him and feels the NFL will be better off when he is gone. I could be wrong. I certainly have been before.
Today, someone who does have my respect, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, weighs in on the matter.
King acknowledges that he was wrong last year when he wrote that Favre had hung it up for good "and I could well be wrong again."
There is plenty of speculation these days about how Favre feels about the Green Bay organization. If there is lingering bitterness, perhaps it will subside when Favre thinks about what the Packers did for him.
Think back. Favre only had one scholarship offer — from Southern Mississippi — which he took. He was taken in the second round of the 1991 draft by the Atlanta Falcons. But Atlanta coach Jerry Glanville wasn't sold on him and said it would take a plane crash for him to put Favre into a game. It didn't take anything quite that dramatic, but Favre's single year in Atlanta was hardly distinguished. His first pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown. He only made four pass attempts with the Falcons and none were completed to a teammate.
The Packers picked up Favre in an offseason trade, and he went on to play 16 seasons with the Packers. Initially, he didn't impress the Packer faithful, but he came in for the injured Don Majkowski in 1992, and, like Lou Gehrig taking over for Wally Pipp, proceeded to shatter the existing record for consecutive starts.
King says he has had three conversations with Favre since he announced he was retiring from the Jets, "and he hasn't conveyed any hatred or venom toward the Packers in any of them. But it's also a topic I haven't probed him on either."
My sense, from what King writes about Favre, is that the man is uncertain about what the future holds. Well, a lot of people feel that way. King writes that he believes Favre "will always feel that for all the years he spent in Green Bay, he deserved to go where he wanted, instead of where the Packers wanted to send him." Perhaps that is true. But I don't think the Packers can be blamed for feeling that, without their intervention in 1992, Favre may never have had the kind of career that he had.
They had a mutually beneficial relationship, the Packers and Favre. But, like all such relationships in professional sports, it had to end.
I do find myself sympathizing more and more with those who feel we've passed the time when Favre should gracefully accept the fact that every professional athlete must eventually accept — that even someone who plays the game with the boyish enthusiasm that Favre has reaches the point where the years have taken their toll. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he can walk away from the game without having had any major injuries. There is no guarantee that he could still do that, at the age of 40, after playing one more season.
I admit, I feel the same sense of loss I have felt when other players I admired ended their careers. It is inevitable. And when Favre is no longer playing, when his retirement is finally official, I will be sorry to see him go.
I will always be grateful for the memories he gave me, as I'm sure other Packer fans will. But I don't blame the Packers for believing last year that their future lay elsewhere, and I feel that Aaron Rodgers showed potential last year as Favre's successor.
As for whether Favre has hung it up for good, that's something only he can answer. Is he going to come back and play for Minnesota? I don't know. I hope not.
But if last year taught us anything, it is that Brett Favre will do things his way.
I admit that I haven't followed Doyel closely, but my sense, from reading his article, is that he doesn't like Favre, has never liked him and feels the NFL will be better off when he is gone. I could be wrong. I certainly have been before.
Today, someone who does have my respect, Peter King of Sports Illustrated, weighs in on the matter.
King acknowledges that he was wrong last year when he wrote that Favre had hung it up for good "and I could well be wrong again."
There is plenty of speculation these days about how Favre feels about the Green Bay organization. If there is lingering bitterness, perhaps it will subside when Favre thinks about what the Packers did for him.
Think back. Favre only had one scholarship offer — from Southern Mississippi — which he took. He was taken in the second round of the 1991 draft by the Atlanta Falcons. But Atlanta coach Jerry Glanville wasn't sold on him and said it would take a plane crash for him to put Favre into a game. It didn't take anything quite that dramatic, but Favre's single year in Atlanta was hardly distinguished. His first pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown. He only made four pass attempts with the Falcons and none were completed to a teammate.
The Packers picked up Favre in an offseason trade, and he went on to play 16 seasons with the Packers. Initially, he didn't impress the Packer faithful, but he came in for the injured Don Majkowski in 1992, and, like Lou Gehrig taking over for Wally Pipp, proceeded to shatter the existing record for consecutive starts.
King says he has had three conversations with Favre since he announced he was retiring from the Jets, "and he hasn't conveyed any hatred or venom toward the Packers in any of them. But it's also a topic I haven't probed him on either."
My sense, from what King writes about Favre, is that the man is uncertain about what the future holds. Well, a lot of people feel that way. King writes that he believes Favre "will always feel that for all the years he spent in Green Bay, he deserved to go where he wanted, instead of where the Packers wanted to send him." Perhaps that is true. But I don't think the Packers can be blamed for feeling that, without their intervention in 1992, Favre may never have had the kind of career that he had.
They had a mutually beneficial relationship, the Packers and Favre. But, like all such relationships in professional sports, it had to end.
I do find myself sympathizing more and more with those who feel we've passed the time when Favre should gracefully accept the fact that every professional athlete must eventually accept — that even someone who plays the game with the boyish enthusiasm that Favre has reaches the point where the years have taken their toll. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he can walk away from the game without having had any major injuries. There is no guarantee that he could still do that, at the age of 40, after playing one more season.
I admit, I feel the same sense of loss I have felt when other players I admired ended their careers. It is inevitable. And when Favre is no longer playing, when his retirement is finally official, I will be sorry to see him go.
I will always be grateful for the memories he gave me, as I'm sure other Packer fans will. But I don't blame the Packers for believing last year that their future lay elsewhere, and I feel that Aaron Rodgers showed potential last year as Favre's successor.
As for whether Favre has hung it up for good, that's something only he can answer. Is he going to come back and play for Minnesota? I don't know. I hope not.
But if last year taught us anything, it is that Brett Favre will do things his way.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Who Will Be the No. 1 Pick?
The NFL holds its annual draft this weekend, and observers have been speculating for weeks about who will be the No. 1 pick by the Detroit Lions.
The Lions, as you may recall, failed to win a single game last season. In fact, since the Lions lost their last regular–season game in 2007, they have now lost 17 consecutive games.
And it's even worse than that. The Lions' 7–9 record in 2007 was Detroit's best season since 2000 — when the Lions finished with a 9–7 record. They haven't been in the playoffs since 1999, and they haven't won a playoff game since 1991 (and that, incidentally, was Detroit's only playoff victory since winning the 1957 NFL championship).
Since 2000, Detroit has compiled a record of 40–104–0.
The consensus appears to be that Detroit has been negotiating with University of Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford. He's got a good arm, but Detroit has no line to speak of, which means Stafford (or whoever is calling the signals for the Lions next season) will have to throw on the run ... A LOT.
Stafford should be used to that, though. Georgia had little on the offensive line during Stafford's tenure there.
The best available offensive lineman appears to be Baylor's Jason Smith, and Sports Illustrated's Peter King thinks he will go second, when the St. Louis Rams make their pick. Smith seems like a good fit for the Rams, who cut the aging Orlando Pace last month.
But the team that could really use Smith is Detroit. Until the Lions get some big, strong linemen to provide protection for both the running and passing games, it won't matter how many marquee names the Lions put on their roster. The quarterback won't have time to look for the open receivers, and in the 10 years since Barry Sanders retired, Detroit hasn't found any running backs who can make things happen in spite of any weaknesses on the line the way he could.
Michael Rosenberg of the Detroit Free–Press says Stafford is going to be a Lion, like it or not — even though, I believe, Detroit already has four quarterbacks signed to contracts.
"The Lions apparently believe Stafford will be a franchise quarterback," Rosenberg writes, "and when you are that deeply in love, you don't worry about the price of roses."
Still, a lot of unforeseen things can happen in the NFL draft. Mike Florio of The Sporting News provides a rundown on the top storylines heading into the draft, and he points out that trades, drama and risk are key factors.
But that's true every year.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Sports and Drugs — An Unending Story
The recent revelations of Alex Rodriguez's steroids use in 2003 have prompted me to revisit the issue of drugs and sports.
I was particularly struck by an article that ran in Sports Illustrated nearly a year ago, when Brett Favre's "retirement" from pro football was on the cover.
The article was written by Jack McCallum, and it essentially told readers not to blame sports for the prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs.
"We are a juiced nation," he wrote, making the point that there is a lot of money to be made. McCallum went on to quote Dr. Mark Gordon, a member of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, who said a 2004 study indicated that more than $1 billion was spent annually on legal human growth hormones (HGH). "And it's safe to assume it's gone up in the last four years," Gordon told McCallum.
It's hard to argue with some of McCallum's conclusions about steroids use in other segments of society — Hollywood, for example, where a plastic surgeon told McCallum, "If you're an actor in Hollywood and you're over 40, you are doing HGH. Period. Why wouldn't you? It makes your skin look better, your hair, your fingernails, everything."
McCallum wrote that "steroids are all over the culture," and I'm sure that is true. And surveys suggest that the lure of the good looks that steroids can produce is more enticing to young people than the desire to excel in sports. I was a teenager once myself, and, while I was never inclined to play football in high school, I did wish I possessed the sexy body that I believed the girls wanted. If steroids had been around in those days, I might have been tempted to take that shortcut if I had believed that it would mean I could have any girl I wanted.
But medical science is providing more and more evidence that steroids use can have deadly consequences — whether the objective was to be more sexually appealing or to be the next Babe Ruth.
Peer pressure isn't just tough on adolescents, who tend to think they are indestructible, anyway. Adults are subject to even more pressure — to keep up with others, to constantly compare themselves and their accomplishments to others.
No one likes to get older. But it's a natural part of life. Some steroids have a legitimate role to play — but that's a decision for a qualified physician to make, in relation to recovery from an injury. The unauthorized use of steroids, whether administered by a coach or a teammate or the athlete in question, needs to be stopped.
Sports boards and organizations need to focus their efforts on cracking down on this, even if means toppling all the Alex Rodriguezes from the pedestals on which they are perched. Baseball is paying for two decades of neglect. The other sports need to follow its lead and put the well being of their athletes ahead of trophies and revenue.
But even if the subject of steroids is adequately dealt with, sports still will need to be diligent about responding to the presence of anything that gives even a subtle hint of the existence of cheating.
It's a problem with no ultimate resolution, a story without an end.
I was particularly struck by an article that ran in Sports Illustrated nearly a year ago, when Brett Favre's "retirement" from pro football was on the cover.
The article was written by Jack McCallum, and it essentially told readers not to blame sports for the prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs.
"We are a juiced nation," he wrote, making the point that there is a lot of money to be made. McCallum went on to quote Dr. Mark Gordon, a member of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, who said a 2004 study indicated that more than $1 billion was spent annually on legal human growth hormones (HGH). "And it's safe to assume it's gone up in the last four years," Gordon told McCallum.
It's hard to argue with some of McCallum's conclusions about steroids use in other segments of society — Hollywood, for example, where a plastic surgeon told McCallum, "If you're an actor in Hollywood and you're over 40, you are doing HGH. Period. Why wouldn't you? It makes your skin look better, your hair, your fingernails, everything."
McCallum wrote that "steroids are all over the culture," and I'm sure that is true. And surveys suggest that the lure of the good looks that steroids can produce is more enticing to young people than the desire to excel in sports. I was a teenager once myself, and, while I was never inclined to play football in high school, I did wish I possessed the sexy body that I believed the girls wanted. If steroids had been around in those days, I might have been tempted to take that shortcut if I had believed that it would mean I could have any girl I wanted.
But medical science is providing more and more evidence that steroids use can have deadly consequences — whether the objective was to be more sexually appealing or to be the next Babe Ruth.
Peer pressure isn't just tough on adolescents, who tend to think they are indestructible, anyway. Adults are subject to even more pressure — to keep up with others, to constantly compare themselves and their accomplishments to others.
No one likes to get older. But it's a natural part of life. Some steroids have a legitimate role to play — but that's a decision for a qualified physician to make, in relation to recovery from an injury. The unauthorized use of steroids, whether administered by a coach or a teammate or the athlete in question, needs to be stopped.
Sports boards and organizations need to focus their efforts on cracking down on this, even if means toppling all the Alex Rodriguezes from the pedestals on which they are perched. Baseball is paying for two decades of neglect. The other sports need to follow its lead and put the well being of their athletes ahead of trophies and revenue.
But even if the subject of steroids is adequately dealt with, sports still will need to be diligent about responding to the presence of anything that gives even a subtle hint of the existence of cheating.
It's a problem with no ultimate resolution, a story without an end.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Peter King's Random Thoughts About the Super Bowl
Peter King is an excellent, entertaining writer.
And, for years now, I have enjoyed reading his "random thoughts" and his "10 things I think I think" columns that he's written for Sports Illustrated.
This week, as he prepares for this Sunday's Super Bowl between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals, he has posted a "Ten Things I Think I Think during Super Bowl Week in Tampa" that should be read by every football fan — and, if you aren't a football fan but you're planning to watch the game, anyway, you probably should read it, too.
His first item probably makes the most sense to me. "I think I wish the NFL would stop using the Roman numerals," he writes. This year's game is the 43rd Super Bowl — and, instead of calling it Super Bowl XLIII, King says it should simply be called Super Bowl 43.
I agree. Using Roman numerals made sense when the game was young — and I'm old enough to remember those days. I was in first grade when the first Super Bowl was played. But now that we've nearly had as many Super Bowls as we've had presidents, it's time to modernize it.
King's other observations are probably more suited for the hard-core football fans. And, while I consider myself a hard-core football fan, I understand that millions of non-football fans will tune in to the game — because it's the "in" thing to do or because they want to see the ads that are being shown this year or because they want to watch the halftime show with Bruce Springsteen.
Whatever motivates you to watch the game, make sure you have something to nibble on. And enjoy yourself!
And, for years now, I have enjoyed reading his "random thoughts" and his "10 things I think I think" columns that he's written for Sports Illustrated.
This week, as he prepares for this Sunday's Super Bowl between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals, he has posted a "Ten Things I Think I Think during Super Bowl Week in Tampa" that should be read by every football fan — and, if you aren't a football fan but you're planning to watch the game, anyway, you probably should read it, too.
His first item probably makes the most sense to me. "I think I wish the NFL would stop using the Roman numerals," he writes. This year's game is the 43rd Super Bowl — and, instead of calling it Super Bowl XLIII, King says it should simply be called Super Bowl 43.
I agree. Using Roman numerals made sense when the game was young — and I'm old enough to remember those days. I was in first grade when the first Super Bowl was played. But now that we've nearly had as many Super Bowls as we've had presidents, it's time to modernize it.
King's other observations are probably more suited for the hard-core football fans. And, while I consider myself a hard-core football fan, I understand that millions of non-football fans will tune in to the game — because it's the "in" thing to do or because they want to see the ads that are being shown this year or because they want to watch the halftime show with Bruce Springsteen.
Whatever motivates you to watch the game, make sure you have something to nibble on. And enjoy yourself!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
