Thoughts I Don't Have Time For On The Radio

Is One Enough for Cuban?

2012-01-18T14:49:00.005-06:00

I’ve never seen Mark Cuban happier or prouder than when he was standing behind Barack Obama at the White House earlier this month. Cuban’s title team was there, accepting accolades from the President. I was happy for Cuban. No professional sports owner has had to endure so much pain en route to a championship. He deserved to bask in that glorious moment.

Yet, as I was watching the President butcher Dirk’s name, I couldn’t help but wonder if the Mavs would ever get to go to D.C. again--outside of a scheduled game against the Wizards?

Something else I can’t answer: is Mark Cuban satisfied with just one title? Or, is he as hungry today to win another one as he was in quest of the first one? Human nature would say that he is not. However, there are those rare, ultra-competitive animals in the world of sports who are able to operate outside of normal human nature. Jordan and Kobe. Nicklaus and Woods. Brady and Montana. Merckx and Armstrong (had to work some cycling names in--sue me). They crave wins. They crave championships. They are never satisfied. They are always looking for a new edge. They don’t want to just break records, they want to put those records out of reach.

Does Mark Cuban feel that way? Does Dirk? Here’s cutting them some slack if they don’t. It was long, arduous climb for both to the top of the mountain. So what if they don’t want to summit Everest again? Isn’t once enough?

For most Mavs fans, I would say the answer is yes--once in enough. Dirk cemented his legacy with his championship. Cuban confirmed his methods. Mavs fans will die happy, especially getting a title in a year when most never thought it possible. There are few things more satisfying that that. But Jordan’s tummy wouldn’t be full--not even close. Is Cuban’s?

What makes me question Cuban’s desire at this point is the Tyson Chandler situation. I’m not saying bring back last year’s team. You can move on without Barea, Butler, Peja, Brewer and Stevenson. But short of getting Dwight Howard to move to Dallas, you can not move on with the same ambition without Chandler.

Chemistry matters in the NBA. The 2004 Lakers proved that by losing to a Pistons team that they should have blow out of the water. Even last year's Miami team showed that shear talent can't beat great chemistry. And nobody brought the chemistry of the Mavs together like Chandler. By all accounts, he was the most important chemistry add (on and off the court) in Dallas history.

This is not to say Chandler is Howard or Shaq or Kareem. But the Mavericks searched for 30 years to find a center that could play defense with a passion and an infectious spark. Chandler became the first Maverick center ever named to the NBA’s All-Defense team (and finished 3rd overall in the Defensive Player of the Year voting--something no Mavericks player at any position has ever sniffed). Dirk called Chandler the team’s MVP (obviously Dirk was the MVP, but point taken). Observers around the league agreed that without Chandler, Dallas would have had a hard time winning the title.

The annual NBA GM’s poll was released this week. Their pick to win the West? OKC got 69% of the vote, followed by the Lakers (17%), Portland (7%) and San Antonio (7%). Dallas got no votes? Does that perhaps indicate the value of Chandler? I’ve never seen a defending champion dismissed by the experts quite like this, outside of the Bulls post-Jordan.

Chandler almost single-handedly changed the defensive culture in Dallas. For years the Mavs had good teams, but could never win a title because they couldn’t play front-line defense. Every year we would hear about “the layup drill” it was for the opponents attacking the Dallas basket. Over those years, Cuban overpaid a host of underwhelming centers (Bradley, LaFrentz, Eschmeyer, Dampier, Diop, Haywood). So why not overpay the center that finally locks down the middle and helps you win a title? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Is Chandler still a health risk? Yes. Was it a lot of money for a so-called role player? Yes, but to call Chandler a "role player" is to greatly demean the role that he played in Dallas. Would it have made the Mavs a strong title contender this season? Yes. Are they as good without him? Clearly not.

Maybe Cuban believes that last year was a lightning-in-a-bottle season. Maybe he thinks they got lucky and he doesn’t want to press that luck. The West was down, the Heat hadn’t figured out how to win yet, and a magical chemistry overcame the Mavs for a few months. Serendipity, as Jerry would say. And, maybe he’d be right about all of that.

Maybe Cuban believes that he’ll land Howard and Williams--that those two are dead-set on coming to Dallas to play with an aging Dirk and a young...well, a young...Roddy B? Maybe he’ll pull it off. I would never say never when Cuban is involved.

If saying goodbye to Chandler means saying hello to Howard and Williams, then it was obviously worth parting with Chandler. Anything short of that, however, will leave us all wondering if the Mavs could have squeezed another title out of the Dirk era. Perhaps that doesn’t matter to a lot of folks around these parts. I wish I knew if, deep down, it mattered to Cuban--or if that one trip to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was enough.

Obsessed with 26.2

2011-12-07T08:18:00.005-06:00

As a life-long cyclist, I never had much time for (or much interest in) running. I did, however, always wonder if I could run a marathon. Once I turned 40, I decided to give it a try. This past Sunday (two weeks shy of my 46th birthday), I completed my 8th marathon. I am obsessed with the 26.2 mile distance, and there are many reasons why.

There is a fascinating science behind running a marathon as fast as you can. So many little things go into such a big effort. My first marathon (White Rock, '07) was a blur. I was so nervous about the race that I slept only 45 minutes the night before. Once the race began, the energy gels I had tucked in my waistband immediately fell to the pavement. I started to fall apart at the halfway point. I ran in a panic the entire way. I finished in 3 hours, 29 minutes--shy of my goal of 3:20 (my Boston Marathon qualifying time). I couldn't walk for a few days. I was only starting to understand the difficulty of the process.

Experienced marathon friends of mine had told me "You'll learn something every time you run a marathon, and that'll make you better in your next one." Indeed, over the last few years, through trial and error, I've learned a great deal about my body and my mind. I've learned what kind of training works for me and what doesn't. I've learned what kind of diet works for me and what doesn't. I've learned what kind of mental approach works and what doesn't. It's one big, ongoing experiment, and that's what makes it so much fun. There is nothing more exciting than lining up at the start on race day knowing you are 3 hours away from finding out if your methods and theories will work or not--and finding out just how far you can push your body and your mind. The results can be euphoric or depressing, and that's the beauty of it all.

I got a little better in my second race (Athens, OH, '08). A 3:25, but I fell apart with two miles to go--I had massive hamstring cramp that brought me to a standstill. My third marathon was a disaster (Eugene, OR, '09). I was coming off of a stress fracture in the fall, and my training in the spring had been subpar. But, I talked myself into thinking I could run a 3:20 because I had performed well in some tune-up races. But the marathon is such a different beast from any other kind of foot race. If it were 20 miles long instead of 26.2, it would be considerably easier. Something happens at mile 20. They say the 20 mile mark is halfway in a marathon, and they're right. That day in Eugene I hit the wall so hard at mile 20 that I could barely walk. My hotel was on the race route at mile 22, and with my eyes crossed and my legs and brain feeling like jelly, I quit the race and headed straight to my room.

That fall, I ran the New York City Marathon. I went in with few expectations, and finally ran a 3:20. One of the happiest days of my life--I had finally qualified to run Boston, which I did in '10 and '11. My times in my last few marathons have always been around 3:20, with a best of 3:18 at Grandma's Marathon in Duluth last June. At age 45, I was starting to wonder if I could go much faster. I knew that at some point I was going to start to slow down, I just didn't know when.

So, this fall, I changed a lot--the ongoing experiment continued. After a huge plate of ribs in August--and an afternoon of feeling like crap--I decided to change my diet. I cut out almost all red meat, chicken, pork and dairy. I ate more fresh fruits and vegetables. I also changed my training--instead of running my long, 20 mile training runs at a fast pace, I ran them easy. That plan left my legs fresh for my speed workouts during the week, and it also led to fresh feeling legs on race day. I discovered that I was wearing myself out during training, and often arriving at the start line in less than optimal shape.

I also changed my mindset. I started racing without a watch. This was a major move. I ran a personal best in the half marathon in October with no watch--I just went on feel. It was awesome--very liberating. I recommend it to anyone. I will never run another race with a watch again.

I also read an interview with legendary triathlete Mark Allen (Inside Triathlon, Nov '11) that changed my way of thinking in a race. Allen dealt with a lot of mental demons early in his career. He couldn't ignore the negative thoughts during a race--when he was feeling bad, his mind kept telling him to quit (the same voices most of us hear). He finally figured out how to deal with the bad times during a race--he had to train his mind to to find a certain place:

"Once you give in to the negative thoughts during a race, you almost always slow down--you're almost always done. But, I found it too hard to keep pumping myself up with positive thoughts in a long event. The best place to be is between the two thoughts. It's the most powerful place. There is a silence, and in that silence you find the answers to the problems you may be having. Or you'll just feel an ease, a grace, a calm.

If you can find that space where your mind goes quiet then you don't need a positive thought to keep going--you're not thinking and analyzing and thinking if it's good or not good. You're just there putting one foot in front of the other, and all of the sudden you can feel this ease wash all over you--all over the muscles in your whole body. And then you're not really attached to whether you do your best time or don't do your best time--you're just giving your best effort that you have. And when you're in that space, all of the sudden possibility just opens up for you. And you can just feel it. You feel like "wow, maybe I can" even though you're not really worried if you do or don't. It's just this space that's like awareness--you're aware of everything going on around you but you're calm and not talking and not judging."

Wonderful advice. Advice that I put into practice last weekend. I ran the California International Marathon in Sacramento. I was feeling great in mind and body. We had perfect weather: clear, calm and 40 degrees. I ran with the 3:10 pace group until I had to let them go at mile 20 (halfway!). My goal was to run something under 3:15, but after mile 20 I had no watch and no pace group, so I had no idea what pace I was on. I ran on feel, as hard as I could, just concentrating on putting one foot in front of the other--trying to find the place between the two thoughts. I finished in 3:13:38--a five minute personal best. I was elated. I was also very satisfied to know that my methods and theories had been validated--and happy to know that at almost 46 years old, I wasn't slowing down yet.

So, the obsession with the distance and the process continues. I've told myself that I won't stop running marathons as long as I keep getting faster. So how much faster can I go? Well, if I can keep chopping five minutes off of my time each race, I'll be able to run a near-world record time of 2:05 or so by my 60th birthday. Something to shoot for.

Why I Love and Hate College Football

2011-11-10T10:26:00.008-06:00

Growing up in Oklahoma, I had no choice. College football was the sport. You followed the Sooners. You cheered for the Sooners. You lived and died with the Sooners. OU football was (and still is) the number one religion in the state, and if you weren't a follower, you were excommunicated. I didn't mind, because I truly loved it. There was nothing better than a football Saturday in the fall. Billy Sims and the Selmon brothers were gods to us. Even now, my favorite day of the year is in October when OU plays Texas. The color and energy of that day and that game can't be topped.

College football is a wonderful sport. The stadiums, the tailgating, the uniforms, the cheerleaders, the rivalries, the Heisman, the bowl games, the cheating, the drugs, the child rape scandals. Wait, somehow we just got way off course...

Unfortunately, there is a dichotomy at work here. While the greatness of college football can't be denied, it also can't be denied that big-time college football is the dirtiest, seediest sport in this country. Bar none. The Penn State scandal brings to light just how far a program will go to the dark side in order to preserve its image and its income. We’ve always known that it’s par for the course for programs to cover up paying for players and doctoring grades, but covering up a child rape scandal? Even the biggest college football sceptic couldn’t have thought this was possible.

I don’t ever want to hear “they do it the right way at such-and-such school” again. Nobody does it the right way in college football, where the only way to survive is to do it the wrong way. Dave Bliss was a card-carrying Christian Soldier, but turned out to be the dirtiest coach in the history of college basketball. I was always told that Joe Paterno “did it the right way” at Penn State. We now know how laughable that really was.

Where there is big money at stake, and high-paying jobs at stake, and school pride at stake, there will always be those willing to cheat the system in order to win games. Always.

We’ve heard for years that college football is “cleaner now than it was in the 70’s and 80’s.” That’s just not true. College football is dirtier than ever before, because the stakes are higher than ever before. The NCAA released a study last year: 53 of the 120 FBS schools had been found guilty of major violations from 2000-2010. Almost 50% of programs were dirty in just the last ten years! Common sense tells you that the percentage of guilty programs is probably much higher--those 53 schools were the ones caught cheating, but how many more got away with it? Over the last 75 years, 90% of FBS schools have been found guilty of major violations. In other words, everyone cheats, and most get caught. And yet, the cheating continues.

I call it the mentally-ill world of big-time college football. There is something about a college football program that warps a person's perspective. There are also reprehensible things going on in religion (the many, many sex scandals, most notably in the Catholic Church) and politics (sex scandals, cheating, lying, crime) and big business (corporate greed, cheating, lying, crime). None of it is right. But in the cases of religion (not the football kind) and politics and even some some businesses, we are talking about things that run the world, things that wars are fought over, things that people die for. But college football? It’s a game, or so we are led to believe.

I've known of friendships ended because of college football. We've read stories of beatings and vandalism and even murders over college football. For a frighteningly large number of people, their favorite college football program is more important to them than their family, friends and career--and sadly, they have no idea. They can't see the forest for the trees, unless the trees are killed by a crazy Alabama fan.

I can insult a religion or a political party or a business on our radio show, and I’ll get some feedback. But if I insult the Longhorns, Aggies, or any college football program, I’ll get death threats. I can’t explain what makes people lose their marbles when it comes to their favorite college football team. For some reason, college football bragging rights mean more than doing the right thing. In the case of Penn State, bragging rights meant more than protecting young boys from a serial rapist. How does anyone explain that?

Jerry Sandusky is a monster. We see now that Penn State was willing to go to great lengths to cover up the actions of this monster. Why? Because they didn’t want to soil the great reputation of Joe Paterno and Nittany Lion football. Because they didn’t want to toss a wrench into the money-making machine that is Penn State football. The only way a monster like Sandusky survives for that long is to work within another monster--in this case, the other monster is a big-time college football program.

There are few things I love more than college football. But it’s getting more difficult by the day to keep that love affair alive. Conference realignment, the BCS, drugs, cheating, and the win-at-all-costs mentality make the sport difficult for me to fully embrace. In a professional sport, we almost expect cheating and drugs and scandal. But college football, we are told, is about competition and education and apple pie. Then, we learn about Joe Paterno covering up a child rape scandal. Joe Paterno, who does things the right way.

There is no right way. Not anymore. Not in college football. Not as long as they’re keeping score.

Who Would Have Thought?

2011-10-17T14:44:00.006-05:00

Thirty eight years. That's how long it took the Texas Rangers to win a playoff series. Forty nine years, if you count the Washington Senators era. That's a long period of baseball futility. And now, this. The World Series. Again. A half-century drought, followed by a two year deluge. We must be dreaming.

Two or three years ago, did anyone see this coming? The honest answer is no. It's been an unlikely journey--as unlikely as any I've ever seen in DFW sports history. Consider all of the "who would have thought" examples this growth process has provided:

The Lovable Losers -- The Rangers were the American League version of the Cubs. They were never going to win anything. That was their fate. We had all accepted it. It was good enough just to have baseball in this town, and to be able to go to the Ballpark and eat a hot dog, drink a beer, and watch other good teams come through. The Rangers had never been on anyone's radar as a serious World Series contender. Even going into last season, they were picked by nobody (other than Nolan Ryan) to win the AL West. Spring Training, 2010: who would have thought the Rangers would win back-to-back AL flags?

Nolan Will Lead Them -- When Big Tex was hired as team president, did anyone think it was going to be anything more than just a figure-head role? Help sell a few tickets, sign some autographs, and sit there like you care. Who would have thought that Nolan would prove to be the most important sports hire in this town since Jerry hired Jimmy to coach the Cowboys? Nolan completely changed the culture in Arlington. He demanded more from everyone, and he commanded respect while doing so.

The Kid Turns it Around -- The first two years for John Daniels as Rangers GM were not great. He was just 28 years old when hired, which caused some giggles--and his first few trades caused even more giggles. It seemed he was on the wrong side of everything. Then, in the summer of 2007, the Teixeira trade happened--the Rangers got Feliz, Harrison and Elvis, and the mojo changed for Daniels. Since then, practically everything he's touched has turned to gold: the Cruz deal, the Murphy deal, the Hamilton deal, the Lee deal, the Napoli deal, the Lewis, Vlad and Beltre signings, and on and on and on. Who would have thought that after such a shaky start as GM, he would now be regarded as one of the best, if not the best in the business. And he's stocked the Rangers farm system--the future is bright.

Wash Keeps His Job -- Spring Training, 2010: we learn Ron Washington tested positive for cocaine after indulging at a party during the All-Star break the previous summer. Most thought Wash either would be or should be fired. He wasn't, and the rest is history. Who would have thought that, as he's telling his story to the media that afternoon in Surprise, that 18 months later he would be managing the Rangers in the World Series for the second straight season?

The Comeback -- He always had the ability, but he also had a lot of baggage. Just a few years ago, as he's in and out of rehab (and banned by Major League Baseball), who would have thought that Josh Hamilton would have an MVP trophy on his shelf and would be the dependable linchpin of a Rangers offense that has helped carry them to back-to-back pennants? If anyone saw this coming, raise your hand. I didn't think so. I bet deep-down, Josh didn't either.

These Guys are in the Rotation? -- Again, Spring Training, 2010: who would have thought that relievers CJ Wilson and Alexi Ogando, along with Japanese import Colby Lewis, would turn into consistent, if not dominant, starters in a World Series-caliber rotation? Really? Who saw that coming? Part of the amazing transformation of a once-laughable Rangers pitching staff. Much credit to Nolan and Mike Maddux for helping work small miracles.

Young Again -- Spring Training, 2011: who would have thought the Michael Young story would have turned out this well? It seemed the Rangers had run out of places to play Young, and would make a trade. Young and Daniels had words for each other--it appeared to be a bad situation. But what happens? Young stays, and has one of his best seasons in what has been an amazing career. He turns into even more of a leader, and helps the Rangers put away the Tigers with a strong finish in the ALCS.

Nap Nap -- When the Rangers acquired Mike Napoli, it looked like a nice pickup. Who would have thought it would turn out to be one the best pickups in franchise history? A guy with a reputation as a so-so defensive catcher suddenly blossomed in that role with Texas. Meanwhile, at the plate, he blew away his career highs in HR's, RBI's and batting average. Who would have thought that Napoli would hit more home runs than Hamilton while playing in fewer games? Amazing.

Cruz Control -- Spring Training, 2009: Nelson Cruz is seen as a prospect who may never get it done at the big-league level. He can hit 30 home runs a season in the minors, but bring him up to the show, and he's nothing but a fly-ball out. Then, it happens. Cruz gets it. He figures out major league pitching, at age 28. 33 home runs, and an All-Star game nod. In March of 2009, who would have guessed that Nellie would go on to hit 6 HR's in the ALCS a few years later--a record that may stand forever?

It really has been an incredibly unlikely journey, and I've loved every minute of it. As a card-carrying Dr. Pepper Junior Ranger, I never thought I would see the Rangers in the World Series. And now it's happened twice. For the franchise that could never catch a break, everything is suddenly working out for them. It's a serendipitous time, and nobody saw it coming. Which makes it even better.

All Hail, The Uniform Czar!

2011-09-14T14:05:00.012-05:00

In the first, and perhaps last of a series, I turn this blog space over to a special guest columnist. This week, we hear from an old friend of mine who would like to say a few things about the crazy turn uniforms have taken in the world of college football:

Hello, I am the Uniform Czar, and I am very angry!

(cue thunder and lightning)

I would like to thank Craig for allowing me to be his guest columnist this week on his immensely popular blog. Craig has always been great about honoring my wishes, and about helping me get my message to the public.

Let me start by saying that this is a sad time for the Czar. The 2011 college football season has brought great suffering. Some of the uniforms being worn this season not only fly in the face of tradition and fashion sense, but they are so offensive that they seem to be flipping off Lady Liberty and the rest of this great nation. And I won't stand for it. Which is why I'm sitting down to write this.

(cue rim-shot...I used to want to be a stand-up comedian, please forgive me)

We should have seen these atrocities coming. It started many years ago, with the Hitler of uniforms in this country: Oregon. Phil Knight and his Nike Gestapo started the trend of tricking things up (although I'll admit that Oregon had bad colors to begin with, so they've always been cursed). Under the watch of their evil 'Athletic Director' Knight, Oregon shocked the football world with what appeared to be joke uniforms back in the mid-00's:

There is no doubt that Knight is the Antichrist. He has now taken things to a sickening level, introducing his new Nike Combat series. He has taken some classic looks and turned them into something a DISD school wouldn't wear. He is messing around with the very fabric of the sport (get it!). On opening weekend, we were 'treated' to Georgia's new look. Why would they get rid of those classic, identifiable uniforms in favor of these abominations?

The answer? Because Phil Knight is the devil. He knows nothing about and cares nothing about tradition (because he's from Oregon, a school with zero football tradition, save for Dan Fouts). He care about money and money only. He wants to create new looks that will prey upon the weak-minded video game crowd, hoping to brainwash a new generation of jersey-buyers.

It's not just Georgia he's messing with. His wicked ways have infiltrated LSU, Stanford, Michigan St and Ohio St:

In terms of pure aesthetics, the Czar does not oppose some of these looks. The new LSU uniform is not offensive per say, but the point is this: LSU has one of the most classic looks in college football, so why tamper with it?

Oklahoma St is another big offender. They, like many schools, break the cardinal rule of wearing solids on solids. The only time a team should ever wear solid on solid is white on white. Anything else is right out, like OSU's black on black the other night against Arizona. If your eyes can take it, here are the new OSU looks for 2011:

Someone sent the Czar this work-up of the new Texas Longhorn uniform. Let's all hope they were joking. If not, the Czar will officially concede. I will have lost the battle. I will retire. I will finally move out west and run that small vineyard that I've been dreaming about. If this happens, the rapture will be upon us:

There is some hope, however. If history tells us anything, we may be able to take back ground soon. I remember a very bad time for uniforms in Major League Baseball in the 70's and 80's (remember the horrible Astros and White Sox duds?). Clubs eventually realized the error of their ways, and went back to the more traditional looks that we enjoy today. The same thing happened in the NBA in the 80's and 90's (remember the tie-dye Nets uniforms, or the crazy Nuggets color montage?), and we eventually found our way back to old-school uniforms. It's cyclical, and I feel like we will work our way through this bad patch. It may take ten years, but we'll eventually get back to basics.

We saw an indication that things might not get too out-of-control last week, when Michigan and Notre Dame met. Adidas tricked up each school's look, but not in an overly-offensive manner. They were throwback looks for two teams that already wear throwback looks. In fact, the Czar approved:

The Czar is willing to accept these changes. As with any negotiation, each side must be willing to give a little. I will go along with traditional powers like Michigan and Notre Dame making 'throwback' changes to their uniforms, as long as I never have to set my eyes upon the new Maryland uniforms again. If they aren't the worst uniform of all-time, they are in the discussion:

As the all-knowing, all-ruling and all-conference (back in my days as one heck of a linebacker) Czar, I beg of you: please do not support the new trend in college uniforms. Help me fight the good fight. We can win this battle. Support tradition. Support clean, crisp looks. Support the proper color combinations and the proper jersey/pants protocol. Don't let the Phil Knight influence get to Penn St, or Alabama, or Oklahoma, or USC, or Texas. Let's work our way through the current ugliness. In the end, we may be scarred from our battle, but our country will be better off.

God Bless,
The Uniform Czar

PS: I leave you with my favorite college football uniforms of all-time:

My NFL Picks, in Five Words or Less

2011-09-06T11:24:00.008-05:00

There are dozens of NFL preview magazines on the shelves now, all complete with pages and pages of thoughts on each team. There are hundreds of websites with their own, in-depth looks at the 2011 season. This blog? In keeping with the short attention span nature of today's world, I bring you my 2011 NFL picks, with a brief, five word (or less) thought on each team. Enjoy, hate, or fall into the vast middle ground of apathy through sheer boredom:

AFC West

1. Chargers. It's their year...again.
2. Chiefs. It's not their year...again.
3. Raiders. Just don't finish last, baby.
4. Broncos. Tebow sucks at pro football.

AFC South

1. Texans. Because Wade isn't head coach.
2. Colts. The decline starts.
3. Jaguars. They always bore me.
4. Titans. Odd to not see Fisher.

AFC North

1. Steelers. Mike Wallace for 60 minutes.
2. Ravens (WC). They hate Nasty Nestor, too.
3. Browns. No receivers for Colt.
4. Bengals. A complete mess.

AFC East

1. Patriots. Seven seasons since last title!
2. Jets (WC). Foot fetish still funny.
3. Dolphins. Miami loves Bush.
4. Bills. At least classic uniform returns.

NFC West

1. Rams. Bradford the next great one.
2. Cardinals. Still St. Louis to me.
3. 49ers. Alex Smith experiment, take three.
4. Seahawks. Tarvaris Jackson (cue laughter).

NFC South

1. Falcons. Even more weapons for Ryan.
2. Saints (WC). Jabari lives.
3. Buccaneers (WC). Win ten for Lee Roy.
4. Panthers. Newton era begins and ends.

NFC North

1. Packers. They were shorthanded last year!
2. Lions. Good QB, good defense.
3. Vikings. Missed their window in '09.
4. Bears. Too many ex-Cowboys.

NFC East

1. Eagles. Best in East, but overrated.
2. Cowboys. Looking .500 in the face.
3. Giants. Super Bowl cred fading fast.
4. Redskins. Dan Snyder comedy tour continues.

AFC Championship: Patriots over Ravens.
NFC Championship: Packers over Falcons

Super Bowl XLVI: Packers over Patriots

Final five words: I'm glad football is back.

The Dominoes are About to Fall

2011-08-14T15:23:00.005-05:00

One year after thinking the Big 12 (10?) had avoided implosion, it looks like their foundation is about to be rocked again. Texas A&M appears headed to the SEC, and who can blame them? Forward-thinkers are the winners in today's high-stakes game of college football poker. Cast your gaze twenty years down the road, and you'll be in good shape. Live for today and you're going to get left behind.

Now, the Big 12 is left trying to save a soon-to-be nine team league. This week, finally, there is talk of Big 12 expansion. Where was this talk last summer? Or the summers before that? I never understood how the Big 12 could be OK going forward with a weakened league. Conventional wisdom says that we are heading toward a new Division One in college football, to be comprised of four, 16-20 team super conferences (the SEC, Big 10, Pac 12 and ?). Why, then, would the Big 12 say "we're fine with a shrinking league" and try to go forward with ten schools that already have a very uneasy coexistence?

Some say it's because they wanted fewer schools in their league so that each school's share of the TV money would be larger. This is the most short-sighted view a league could ever take. The Big 12 should have been thinking about expansion five years ago. If they could have brought in a few more big schools and made themselves a super conference, then their TV contracts would be worth much, much more down the road. They could have tried to ad Notre Dame or BYU or TCU or Utah, and they could have dealt from a position of strength. Now, weakened by the departure of heavyweights Nebraska and Texas A&M (and lighter-weight Colorado), they have relatively little power. They are no longer an attractive landing place for big schools, because everyone is afraid the conference is about to dry up and blow away.

Nobody should be upset with A&M leaving. They have a chance to join the best, most stable conference in the nation. They will make more money in the SEC. Their visibility will rise. They have some natural rivals built in with Arkansas and LSU (don't forget that A&M and LSU used to be huge rivals--they've played 55 times, and RC Slocum always used to talk about resurrecting the series). They have always seemed like an SEC-type school to me, anyway. And, don't look now, but Mike Sherman has the Aggies on the rise--they are in just about everyone's pre-season Top 15 this summer. They may not get kicked around in the SEC like many suspect they will.

Likewise, nobody should be upset with Texas and their new Longhorn Network. Both schools are simply doing what they think is best for their programs. For the Ags, it's moving to a much better league. For Texas, it's starting up their own TV network, which will increase their exposure and which should be a profitable venture.

Will the Longhorn-Aggie rivalry continue? I don't see why it shouldn't. Texas A&M says they want to keep playing Texas. They could still play on Thanksgiving Day, and the rivalry would be more bitter than ever. If the Ags want to play Texas at the end of a brutal SEC schedule, then Texas shouldn't have any problem playing A&M at the end of a so-so Big 12 schedule. Plus, many big schools play big non-conference games late in the regular season (USC-ND, Georgia-Ga. Tech, Florida-Florida St, Clemson-South Carolina).

Can the Big 12 survive? Possibly. But, they are behind the curve. They are going to have to scramble. I'm not sure adding Houston or UTEP or SMU is the way to go. The conference will also be faced with the task of keeping schools like Missouri (who would be attractive to the Big 10) once other leagues pick up the pace of their expansion. The Pac 12 will always have their eye on the Texas-Oklahoma prize. And, who knows if Texas would actually think about going independent in football if the Big 12 can't adequately replace Nebraska and A&M? There are so many ways this story can go, which makes it one of the most fascinating stories that this reporter has ever professionally followed.

I'm old school. I wish we still had the Big 8 and the Southwest Conference. But, I'm also a realist, and I realize those days are long gone. I realize now that we are headed toward the super conferences at a much quicker pace than we were even one year ago. So, I'm ready for it to happen--let's quit the shadow boxing and get down to sorting it out. It's the next big step that has to be taken to get us to a college football playoff, so let's do it. And let's thank the Aggies for knocking over that domino.

A Great Tour at a Great Time

2011-07-24T11:13:00.008-05:00

There is no doubt the sport of professional cycling has taken a PR beating over the last 13 years. Once the Festina affair of '98 blew the lid off of the seedy underbelly of doping in the sport, there has been a cloud hanging over it's biggest event, the Tour de France. Just when it seems that things are getting better, Operation Puerto happens, or race leaders/winners like Floyd Landis and Alberto Contador test positive. While cycling is undergoing a cleansing, the Tour got just what it needed this year: a spectacular race with a worthy champion and no doping controversies.

At age 34, Cadel Evans became the third oldest man to ever win the Tour, and the first Aussie (somewhere Phil Anderson is smiling). He's been trying for years, twice finishing second. I used to not be much of an Evans fan, but ever since he won the World Championship with that brilliant attack in Mendrisio, I've come around on him. He'll now go down in the record books as one of the sport's greatest, an all-around champion who can win the biggest one-day events, as well as the hardest stage races. You wouldn't guess it by looking at his slight build and hearing his contralto voice, but Evans proved to be one of the toughest men on earth over the past three weeks.

Evans won this race as the greats of the past have, with consistency and panache. He won stage four by out-sprinting Contador on a steep, uphill finish. He was always near the front on the big climbs, often having to work alone without the benefit of teammate...or a brother (I loved that the Schlecks were always trying to give Evans the old one-two, yet Evans still prevailed) in the high mountains. His rivals refused to help him chase, so Evans just got on with the task at hand and did it all himself. He kept himself close enough to the lead throughout the three weeks, and then finished everyone off with one of the most dominant time trial rides in recent Tour history.

To win the Tour, you must be a complete rider. You must be able to ride with the best uphill, downhill, and in the time trials. Evans can do all three. Andy Schleck can only do one of those. Granted, he does that one thing (climb) better than anyone, but it wasn't enough. Andy lost the Tour on the descents and in the time trials. Andy didn't ride a poor final time trial when he surrendered yellow to Evans, it just wasn't the kind of TT a Tour champion has to ride. The pure climbers who have won the Tour in the last 30 years (Delgado, Pantani, Sastre) have all been able to go downhill fast, as well as ride a competent enough time trial to hold on to the race lead.

Andy Schleck: The New Poulidor?

It should be noted that Andy Schleck is getting better at riding against the clock. His ride in this year's final TT was not as poor as everyone is making out to be: he finished 17th, 2:38 back. Compare that to his final TT last year, when he finished 44th and 6:12 back. Yet everyone says he rode a great TT last year and a poor one this year. In reality, it's just the opposite. What confuses everyone is that Contador rode a very poor TT last year, making Andy's ride look good. But Contador was terrible that day, as was Schleck. This year, Schleck was OK, Evans was phenomenal. OK usually doesn't win the Tour. Phenomenal does.

Will Andy Schleck ever win the Tour? He's finished second three times now. He's 26, so he's got many good years remaining. He's got to get over his shakes going down hill fast, and he's got become a better time trialist. He's clearly got a massive engine, so he should be able to ride faster against the clock. But I can't see him ever being a truly complete rider. Plus, he'll have to face Contador in his prime for a few more years. Andy might get a Tour win at some point, but he's had two golden chances the last two years, and he couldn't do it. How many more golden chances will he get?

Raymond Poulidor earned the nickname "The Eternal Second" because he was always close to winning the Tour, but never did. My guess is that Andy Schleck's career will look more like Joop Zoetemelk's or Jan Ullrich's: a lot of second place finishes, but one Tour win sandwiched somewhere in the middle.

Best Tour in Years

Credit to Tour Director Christian Prudhomme for laying out a great course. The team time trial is always fun. The first week wasn't just a bunch of boring, flat sprint finales--there were plenty of tricky and tough uphill finishes to make it interesting. The second week in the Pyrenees was great, unfortunately the riders rode the stages very conservatively which made for some dull mountain racing. But they more than made up for it in week three. There were more fireworks in the Alps than we've had in some time. The early stages in week three were made interesting by the tricky descents that ended stages and created time gaps. The two big stages ending on the Galibier and l'Alpe d'Huez were brutal tests, and Schleck and Contador attacking so far from the finish on those days were the stuff of legend.

Speaking of Contador, he was never really himself in this Tour. Why? He probably never thought he would get to race the Tour (his doping hearing was supposed to take place in June), so he raced all-out at the Tour of Italy in May, which he won in dominant fashion. He may not have left much in the tank for July. Or, perhaps he lost too much time because of crashes in the first week. Or, maybe this is the real, non doped-up Contador, who, when clean, is one of the best in the world, but not always the best. Whatever the reason, a below-his-best Contador was still a big part of the race. He helped make it an epic Tour.

French interest in the race was sky-high. Thomas Voeckler's long stint in the yellow jersey was tremendous to watch--he fought as hard as anyone in recent memory to stay in the lead, and kept the jersey much longer than anyone (including himself) thought was possible. It's amazing to consider that in his career, Voeckler has now worn the maillot jaune for 20 days, more than Fausto Coppi, Felice Gimondi, Alberto Contador, or Jan Ullrich. Thomas Voeckler! Teammate Pierre Rolland was a revelation, winning the white jersey for best young rider, as well as the stage to l'Alpe d'Huez. Two other French riders finished in the top 15. For a country that hasn't had a Tour winner since Hinault in '85, the future is finally looking bright.

There were so many other great animators in this race. Mark Cavendish won five stages (20 now in just four years!). The world champ Thor Hushovd won two stages and did the rainbow jersey proud. Fellow Norwegian Edvald Boasson Hagen won two stages as well, and looks like a future superstar. Philippe Gilbert was always mixing it up. Even American Tyler Farrar got his first-ever Tour stage win, while his American team Garmin-Cervelo won the best team competition.

Vive Le Tour

I was reminded of why this is the greatest sporting event in the world. Three weeks of incredible suffering, incredible sports drama, and incredible performances. Three weeks of getting to listen to Phil Liggett. Three weeks of all kinds of weather. Three weeks of crashes and sprints. And, three weeks of HD television pictures of the most beautiful stadium ever created: the French countryside (sorry Jerry, it's even more amazing than your Deathstar--as if he's reading this blog).

Perhaps most importantly, this appeared to be a clean Tour. It looked like the old days of cycling--riders looking exhausted at the end of a tough stage, star riders getting dropped on the climbs, and riders attacking from way out in an attempt to make up lost time. In many ways it was a throw-back Tour. We saw the kind of racing we haven't seen since the 80's--since before EPO. Maybe the great lengths the sport has gone to in order to clean up the peloton are finally working. Maybe.

If a Cadel Evans positive drug test is revealed in the next few days, forget I wrote any of this.

The Experiment is Over

2011-07-19T19:25:00.007-05:00

Last year at this time, the men's World Cup had just finished. I wasn't impressed. The soccer was generally boring to me. Perhaps it was the constant sound of the vuvuzelas coming from the South African crowds, perhaps it was the great lack of scoring opportunities during each game, or perhaps it was that I knew almost none of the players. Whatever the reason(s), I mentioned on the show how the World Cup generally put me to sleep, and that opinion was met with great anger from the soccer community. So, I decided to give the world's number one sport one more chance.

Most of the emails I received from soccer fans actually agreed with me. They said that the World Cup was not the best soccer to watch--that most of the teams played very defensively and they weren't as familiar with their WC teammates as they were with their normal professional club teammates. Many suggested that I watch European pro soccer--the English Premier League, La Liga (Spain), or Serie A (Italy). I decided that the best the league to follow would be the EPL, since everything would be in my language--the broadcasts, the articles, etc. I also decided to pick one team and follow them for the entire season, that way I would get very familiar with the players while seeing every other team in the EPL as they popped up on the schedule.

But which team? At The Ticket, Bob Sturm adopted Liverpool, so I couldn't pick them. Man U are the Yankees of the EPL, so I couldn't pick them. Chelsea is a close second to Man U, so I didn't want to pick them, either. I didn't want to go too far down the EPL table, because I needed a team that would be popular enough to have all or most of their games televised. Arsenal stood out. They are very good, but not the best. They have a colorful history. They have a cool name. And, everyone told me that they played a very wide-open, Euro-style of football that would be exciting to watch. So, a year ago today, I officially adopted the Gunners. The announcement was carried around the world. My one year experiment was underway.

I pledged that I would watch all of the Arsenal games that I could, read as much about them and the sport as I could, and, at the end of the year, I would decide whether the sport was worth my time or not. How did I do? Of the 38 regular season games, I saw 32 of them. I missed a couple due to vacation, and I missed the last three at the end of the season when I lost interest and while the NBA playoffs were heating up. I checked my various soccer websites almost daily. Bob loaned me his copy of Fever Pitch, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I bought an issue of Four-Four-Two magazine and digested it. I gave the experiment all that I had. I left everything out there. It was a remarkable effort.

My conclusion? I really enjoyed the journey, and I now really enjoy the sport. I had a blast. Arsenal was, at times, very frustrating, but they were always interesting and entertaining. Some of my favorite things from my year with the EPL:

The Four Competitions: It's a long season, and with the schedule constantly broken up by the four different trophies that clubs chase, I thought it would be too much. It actually turned out to be one of the most interesting things about the season. The EPL title, the Champions League title, the FA Cup and the Carling Cup all being contested during the same season keeps things lively. Arsenal had a shot to win all four (they didn't win any). Just as you might start getting bored with the EPL regular season, here comes a Champions League game against Barcelona, or the Carling Cup Final, or a game against Man U in the FA Cup. Can't imagine that kind of a season working for an American pro sports league. Maybe that's why I liked it so much-it was different.

The Color and Pageantry: I can't wait to go to an Arsenal game in person. I will do it this season. It's a spectacle on television, so it must be 10 times better in person. I love Euro sports anyway--the signage, the announcers, the uniforms. Again, it's different to what I'm used to watching in this country, so it's stimulating. The fans, the chants, the stadiums--it all captured me.

The Game: I now understand why they call it 'the beautiful game.' It's not always beautiful when watching the World Cup or the MLS, but when you see the best players in the world playing in the best leagues in the world, it's beautiful. The EPL teams, for the most part, play to win. Arsenal's style is great--their passing is precise, they like to get up and down the pitch, and they get a lot of scoring opportunities (although they tend to want to walk the ball into the net sometime, which made me sorry I missed the halcyon days of Thierry Henry). Bottom line: I don't need a lot of goals to make me happy, but I do need a lot of scoring chances, and I got a lot in the average EPL match. I also like the fact that it's a tidy presentation: two, 45 minute, running clock halves. Two hours for a match--never more, never less. The only time you see a commercial during a game is pregame, halftime, or postgame.

The EPL Table: 20 teams. You play each team twice--once at home, once on the road. That's perfect. No divisions. No playoff. Simple. Top team wins the title (the best always wins--no chance of some Wild Card team getting hot and stealing a championship), top four teams qualify for the Champions League (the best of Europe), and the bottom three teams each season--get this--are demoted! The crappy teams get sent down to the minor leagues and the three best from the minors get called up to the show--great concept!

I learned that there is a lot to like about soccer, and I'm just scratching the surface. One problem: I've already become a soccer snob. Just like an NFL fan trying to watch the CFL or the XFL, I can't just sit down and watch any college, low pro-level or women's soccer match. But at least my one year experiment has given me a base of knowledge to work with when discussing the sport.

Soccer didn't become my favorite sport (I would still rather watch a bike race, any NBA game, any NFL game, or any college football game over soccer), but it's now on par with baseball and golf for me, and ahead of hockey and tennis and anything else. It's something that I'll always watch and follow. I'll always be an Arsenal fan.

I also discovered that you are never too old to start following a new sport. It can be invigorating. There is so much great action and drama out there, it's a pity that some people get football or baseball tunnel vision. In fact, I'm thinking about adopting a new sport to watch this fall--maybe curling? Or badminton? Or camel racing?

I was wrong last year when I said that soccer sucks. I should have said cricket sucks.

Christmas in July

2011-06-26T09:42:00.019-05:00

"To say that the race is a metaphor for life is to miss the point. The race is everything. It obliterates whatever isn't racing. Life is the metaphor for the race."

Donald Antrim

The sport of bicycle racing has been my passion since I was 12. I would pedal up to the bike shop and read the European racing magazines. The pictures blew me away--pictures of men who looked like they were suffering in the worst way, riding shoulder to shoulder with the snow-capped Alps as the backdrop. It was a world that few in this country (and nobody at school) knew about, yet in the photos the crowds along the roadside were huge.

The Tour de France, I would learn, was (and is) the world’s largest annual sporting event, with over 20 million spectating in person each year and another one billion watching on television around the globe. It’s a magical, three-week odyssey, circling France--clockwise one year, counterclockwise the next--with a history chock full of incredible stories. Since the mid 90’s, however, we’ve come to learn that many of the riders who authored those incredible stories have had some serious pharmaceutical help.

Pro cycling is, without question, the hardest sport in the world. The Tour is the hardest single event in the world. Many events can rival a single Tour stage in difficulty, but no event demands that you compete at such a high level for three weeks straight. The five-time French Tour champion Jaques Anquetil once said “how can you expect to win the Tour on bread and water alone?” In his day (the 50’s and 60's) amphetamines or liquor helped the riders get over the Pyrenees. Today, it’s EPO or testosterone. Cycling’s governing body has done a better job than any other sport in the world of trying to police the cheats--first-time offenders are banned for two years--but the demands (and rewards) of the sport have the cheats always trying to come up with the next great drug or next great masking agent.

As one of the biggest bicycle racing fans alive, even I have a tough time getting past the sport's dirty recent history. How many Tours since 1991 have been won by clean riders? I’m afraid the answer may be less than five, and possibly less than one. I hate that drug use has sullied such a beautiful sport. But, like a lot of sports fans, I’m able to compartmentalize--like the baseball fan who cheers a bulked-up slugger or the football fan who roots for an impossibly big and fast linebacker, I’m able to watch a bike racer fly up a mountain and still get a thrill from it.

It will be hard to watch Alberto Contador in this year’s Tour, but I’ll still watch. The sport is still a spectacle. The HD helicopter shots of the French countryside are still breathtaking. The bikes are still cool. The voices of Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen are still quite comforting. And, the drama of a battle up l’Alpe d’Huez or a close time trial is hard to beat. Yes, the sport has it’s problems, but which sport doesn’t? And, I’m not alone in feeling this way--20 million will again line the roadside in France, and one billion will again watch around the world.

The Tour is Christmas in July for me. Each day’s stage is a present waiting to be unwrapped. It’s also a trip down memory lane--each summer as I watch the race, my mind's 'refresh' button gets clicked. All of the great moments from Tours past which motivated me through countless miles of my own training and racing are recalled. Merckx or Hinault destroying the field. LeMond vs Fignon. Roche getting oxygen at the top of La Plagne after saving his yellow jersey. Bridesmaid Zoetemelk winning, at last.

I appreciate the fact that I now get to watch televised coverage of the Tour live, every day. When I was first discovering the sport in the late 70’s, I had to wait three months to find out who had won the race--the results were never printed in the sports page and there was no Internet, so I had to wait for the October issue of “Bicycling” magazine to learn who had come out on top. In 1981, NBC did a few minutes on the Tour when Jock Boyer became the first American to ride it (that was also the first time I had ever seen moving pictures of the race), and CBS did weekend coverage of the event in the mid 80’s when LeMond burst onto the scene. Today, we are spoiled.

So what kind of race do we get this summer? Who will win it? How many will test positive? My picks:

1. Alberto Contador. Yes, it's hard to believe the tainted meat story. But it's also hard to deny that Contador is the best bike racer in the world. If everyone is doping, Contador wins. If everyone is clean, Contador wins. He’s one of the best ever. He’s won the Tour, Giro and Vuelta--only Merckx, Gimondi, Hinault and Anquetil have done the career sweep of the three big races. He can’t be dropped on the climbs, and he will time trial better than he did last year (he recently finished 3rd in the Spanish TT Championship). He may be a little tired from winning the Giro in May, and victory in the Tour will not be as easy as it was in Italy, but he’s still the favorite. We’ll have to wait for his August hearing to find out if all these wins count.

2. Andy Schleck. If he doesn’t drop his chain on Stage 15 last year, he probably wins the race. At 26, he’s in his prime--the problem is that Contador is 28 and in his prime, too. Schelck has not been impressive this season, getting dropped on the climbs in California and Switzerland. But we said the same thing before last year’s Tour. He has a way of peaking for this race. He’ll benefit from the team time trial, but most likely lose time to Contador in the individual time trials--and since there is more time to be won and lost in the individual TT’s than in the team TT, the advantage swings to Contador. (By the way, are we all sure the Schleck brothers are clean? If Contador is doping, then how can Andy and Frank match him pedal stroke for pedal stroke? This is the sad thing: nobody in the sport seems beyond suspicion.)

3. Ivan Basso. His entire season has been focused on one last good shot at the Tour. At age 33, he probably won’t be able to climb with Contador and Schelck, but a podium spot is not out of reach.

4. Sammy Sanchez. Underrated rider. Can climb and time trial. Will be a factor.

5. Robert Gesink. 6th last year. Great climber, not much in the time trials. Will win a mountain stage.

I have a feeling that this Tour might be too much for elder statesmen like Levi Leipheimer, Chris Horner, the evil Alexander Vinokourov, and the high-talking Cadel Evans. Oh, and Mark Cavendish will win most of the sprints--he’s got 15 career Tour stage wins, and getting to Merckx’s record of 34 is not out of the question considering Cav is just 26 years old.

I'm glad the team time trial is back--it's poetry in motion. I'm looking forward to the Stage 8 finish at Super Besse. Stage 12 over the Tourmalet and then up to Luz Ardiden is a classic Tour route. And Stage 18, finishing on the mighty Galibier, could be epic.

There you have it. Hope you enjoy the 98th edition of “La Grande Boucle.” I know I will. So will the 12 year old inside me--and he won’t have to wait three months to find out who wins.

Dirk's Place in History

2011-06-14T17:04:00.009-05:00

Let’s face it: it’s all about the ring. People like to pretend it’s not, but if you are a quarterback or an NBA superstar, leading your team to a title is the most important thing.

Baseball players have limited chances to affect the outcome of a game. They may get four at-bats or a few chances in the field. A starting pitcher goes every four or five days. In football, a QB gets 20-50 (or more) opportunities to directly impact the contest. He touches the ball on every snap, as well. Titles matter when judging QB’s--not so much for LB’s or WR’s or anyone else on a football team. In the NBA, everything is centered around your star--they have a chance to impact the game in more ways than any other sports stars, and it's always up to them when the game is on the line. That’s why championships in baseball and for non-QB’s in football are way down the list that determines who gets into the Pantheon of Greats in their sports.

When judging a player, the ring matters to me--a great deal. I look at Dirk differently now. I looked a Garnett and Pierce and Allen differently after they won it all. I looked at Billups differently after his Finals MVP. The playoffs are the ultimate proving ground in a sport where one player can make a monumental difference.

Dirk entered basketball’s Pantheon with his stirring performance in this postseason, which culminated with a title. Following the ’07 season, I had serious doubts as to whether Dirk would ever lead a team to a championship. I’ve been more bullish on Dirk the past three seasons (see previous blog entry), yet still I had a hard time imagining that he would go postal on anyone who got in his way this postseason like he did. The biggest Dirk homers would have to admit that even they didn’t think 57% FG, 73% 3PT, 94% FT and a sweep against the Lakers was a possibility.

Dirk gave us a performance for the ages. Had the Mavs fallen short of a title, the performance wouldn’t have carried anywhere near the weight it does. Dirk’s postseason is one of the four best post-Jordan runs we’ve seen (Shaq ’00, Duncan ’03, Kobe ’09). He was epic, and better late than never. In six weeks, Dirk went from “one of the best to have never won a title” and a top 40 guy, to "member of the exclusive championship club" and a top ?? guy.

So how high does the title push Dirk on the all-time list? Cuban and Carlisle have both recently said that Dirk is a top-10 all-time guy. Many think Dirk is equal to Larry Bird.

Here are my top 20 NBA players of all-time. I'll explain my thoughts and criteria as we move down the list.

1. Michael Jordan. Really, this is one of the easiest decisions in sports. Jordan is the best ever, and the more I consider his regular season and postseason numbers, his epic close-out performances in The Finals and his unmatched desire to win, I don’t understand how anyone could not have him ranked 1st. The Wilt fans are either 1) delusional 2) one of the 20,000 women he slept with or 3) the many who were so put off by Jordan’s HOF acceptance speech that they will never give him any credit at all.

2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. This is the first spot where it gets tough. It’s between Kareem, Wilt and Russell here. I give Kareem the edge. He won more titles (6) Finals MVP’s (2) and regular season MVP’s (6) than Wilt (2-1-4), and he was better all-around than Russell (who was much more limited on the offensive end than Kareem). Kareem is the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, and was as much or more of a game-changer in college and the pros as Russell and Wilt were.

3. Wilt Chamberlain. The most physically dominant player ever (as much so as Shaq, but more skilled). Crazy individual numbers, but the knock against him was his sheer will to win, or lack thereof. Still, he won two titles, and to get into my top 10 you better have multiple championships. Averaging 50 ppg for a season is pretty good, too.

4. Bill Russell. 11 rings (plus two more titles in college). The greatest winner ever. Not a great offensive player, but maybe the best-ever on the defensive end. And a tremendous desire to win.

5. Magic Johnson. Another pure winner. Whatever it took. Five-time NBA champ. When he filled in for Kareem and played center in Game 6 of the Finals his rookie season, he scored 42, grabbed 15 boards and had 7 assists. That performance alone is enough to get into the top 5.

6. Larry Bird. Very close between Larry and Magic, but Magic’s 5 (6 including college, although Bird gets some credit for taking a bunch of total spares to the championship game) titles--many against Bird--make the difference. Bird won 3 NBA titles, and, like Jordan, was a natural. I’ve always thought the Bird-Dirk comparisons were ludicrous--and while I’ll still take Bird, it’s at least a good conversation now. The funny thing is, it’s the color of their skin and hair that seem to stir the debate. They don’t even play the same position. We should compare Dirk to Barkley, Duncan, Malone and Garnett. We should compare Bird to Dr. J, Wilkins, Worthy and Baylor. Do me a favor and google "Larry Bird great passes"--a four minute YouTube video that will show you why Bird and Dirk are not comparable (sorry, I still can't figure out how to add a link on blogspot or I would have given you the shortcut--I suck).

7. Tim Duncan. This is the second spot where it gets tough. It’s between Duncan, Kobe, Shaq and Hakeem. Duncan gets the nod because of his all-around game, and because of the fact that he was a finished product when he entered the league, maximizing his impact. Also, won titles without a Kobe or Shaq at his side--Robinson was aging, and Parker and Ginobili are very good, but not great, players. His four titles trump Hakeem’s two, his three Finals MVP’s trump Hakeem’s two, and his two regular season MVP’s trump Hakeem’s one.

8. Kobe Bryant. The closest thing to Jordan the NBA has ever seen. But not Jordan. Still, five titles...and counting.

9. Shaquille O’Neal. Four rings. Only one regular season MVP--probably should have won five or six.

10. Hakeem Olajuwon. Late bloomer (like Dirk). Two titles, and he completely carried those Houston teams. Gives thanks every day that Jordan played baseball for two seasons.

I think the top 10 are easy, although you may debate the order. Starting with number eleven, we get into guys with one ring. It’s a big group, and it starts to merge with great players who never won a ring. I will lean toward to players with titles as a tie-breaker.

11. Moses Malone. Might be the most underrated player ever. His numbers were ridiculous (in ’82 he averaged 31-15). He won three regular season MVP’s, and one Finals MVP (his only ring, in ’83 in Philly).

12. Oscar Robertson. Won one title, but rode young Lew Alcindor’s coattails to get it. But if you average a triple-double for an entire season, you’re a stud.

13. Jerry West. Many experts have West in the top 10, and if not for the Celtic dynasty, he would have ended up with more than one ring. But he didn’t. Great scorer and clutch performer.

14. Julius Erving. My ABA bias may be showing here, but I say Dr. J won three titles, not one (yes, two were ABA). The ABA was very competitive--the numbers put up in that league should be counted in any career scoring ranking. As a rookie in the playoffs, Erving averaged 33 points and 20 rebounds. His athleticism was breathtaking. As a basketball icon, he probably ranks second behind only Jordan. Not a great outside shooter, but an underrated passer and defender. Three time ABA MVP, once NBA MVP.

15. Dirk Nowitzki. He’s not in the top 20 without his newly-won title, but a championship changes everything. Proved himself to be clutch when it matters the most, and proved to be a leader. If 2011 Dirk had played for the 2006 Mavs, they would have two titles. Possibly the best pure shooter ever, and before he’s done will move way up on the scoring list.

16. Elgin Baylor. Old-timers will crucify me for putting Baylor behind Dirk, but Baylor never won a title or an MVP award. Magnificent talent. Not much footage of him in his prime exists, but I understand he was Dr J-like. In his prime he averaged about 35-15. Yikes.

17. Bob Pettit. One title, two MVP’s. Career 26-16 guy--huge numbers, but I tend to slightly discount the numbers of the old-timers who played in a league full of guys who looked like my dad.

18. Charles Barkley. Had Sir Charles won a ring, he would be pushing the top 10. Too bad, because he was a tremendous force. He accomplished things at 6’4-ish that he shouldn’t have been able to. Could shoot outside, or post you up. Could rebound with the best. Could run the floor and pass. Maybe even better as a broadcaster, definitely worse as a golfer.

19. Karl Malone. I remember Karl for finishing on breaks and for his 18 footer. And for not winning a title. There was just something about him that was amiss.

20. John Havlicek. Never thought he was that great, but I have to acknowledge his accomplishments. 8-time champion and once the Finals MVP. Superb defender. Wins the 20th spot ahead of Bob Cousy, Rick Barry, David Robinson and Isiah Thomas. LeBron and Wade will be in the top 20 one day, just not this day.

So there you have it. Dirk is a top 15 guy. When the Mavs drafted a skinny 19 year old German back in 1998, I think everyone would have taken top 15 all-time. Could he ever be a top 10 guy? He'll need at least one more ring to get there. And if this version of Dirk remains valid for a few more seasons, another ring (or two) is a possibility.

The Evolution of Dirk

2011-05-09T10:54:00.014-05:00

May, 2009. The NBA Playoffs. Dallas vs Denver. That's when I first noticed a change in Dirk Nowitzki. Something was different. He was better. Not that he had turned from a mule into a thoroughbred--Dirk was always a great player. But it was the first time that, after a playoff series loss, I said to myself, "I can't really pin that one on Dirk." Yes, he had a poor defensive series against Denver, but we were used to that. Something had changed for the better on the offensive end (and would soon change on the defensive end as well), but I couldn't put my finger on it.

During the following '09-'10 season, I recall saying on the show many times that I thought it was Dirk's best season ever--even better than his '06-'07 MVP campaign. And then, this past '10-'11 season, he was even better. I've been amazed that he's continued to grow in his 30's. Most stars are what they are by their mid-20's, and they stay at that level until age takes it's toll. Dirk is one of the few stars who has kept improving late in his career. Hakeem Olajuwon and Steve Nash also come to mind, but I think Dirk's late growth spurt is even more impressive.

What is behind the Dirk metamorphosis?

The Knock on Dirk

For years I watched Dirk and found him both a marvel and a frustration. We had never seen a 7-footer who could shoot like that from the outside. We had also never seen an uber-talented 7-footer who could’t dominate inside. We could never understand how year after year in the playoffs, teams could bother Dirk with an undersized defender. Bruce Bowen, Ryan (Ryan!) Bowen, Shawn Marion, Udonis Haslem, James Posey, Stephen Jackson--it didn’t make sense. Why doesn’t Dirk just post these guys and be done with it? A lot of that was because of how he was raised and what Don Nelson did and didn’t require of him early in his development.

I used to also think that Dirk’s light weight was the reason that he wasn’t comfortable in the post. But, notice how Dirk’s dimensions compare to the other great big men in NBA history:

Kareem A-Jabbar -- 7’2, 225
Shaquille O’Neal -- 7’1, 325 (freak)
Wilt Chamberlain -- 7’1, 275
David Robinson -- 7’1, 235
Hakeem Olajuwon -- 7’0, 255
Dirk Nowitzki -- 7’0, 237
Robert Parish -- 7’0, 230
Bob Lanier -- 6’11, 250
Tim Duncan -- 6’11, 248
Bill Walton -- 6’11, 210
Moses Malone -- 6’10, 215
Kevin McHale -- 6’10, 210
Bill Russell -- 6’9, 215

As you can see, Dirk compares favorably size-wise to most of these great big men. Some of those big men were able to live inside without Dirk's size, so what's the difference? These metrics don’t account for strength, and maybe that’s what Dirk doesn’t have--but I doubt it. I think his lack of interior presence has had more to do with a lack coaching--and lack of want-to. But that was Old Dirk. Welcome to New Dirk.

The Numbers

According to the stats, Dirk has been a better postseason player over the last three years than at any time during his career. His recent series against the Lakers was his best ever. Compare his LA series stats with the numbers from the two series that most consider his finest: ’06 vs San Antonio, and ’06 vs Phoenix. Also, compare his numbers vs LA to his low-water mark, the series in ’07 against Golden State:

2011 vs LAL: 57% FG, 73% 3PT, 94% FT
2006 vs SAS: 52% FG, 12% 3PT, 91% FT
2006 vs PHX: 46% FG, 50% 3PT, 89% FT
2007 vs GSW: 38% FG, 21% 3PT, 84% FT

57%, 73% and 94% vs the Lakers? Those are unheard-of-type numbers. Dirk is better now. And, there are more numbers that back this up. Dirk’s TS% (true shooting percentage, a formula which combines FG, 3PT and FT percentages) and his eFG% (effective field goal percentage, which combines all three and gives more weight to the shots that count for more) have both been higher for the last three postseasons than ever before:

2001-2008: Never had a TS% higher than 59% or an eFG% higher than 52%
2009: 63% TS, 53% eFG
2010: 64% TS, 57% eFG
2011: 61% TS, 53% eFG

Clearly, he’s improved his offensive game and efficiency during the last three playoff runs compared to earlier in his career. But how? I went into geek mode this weekend and watched a lot of old Dirk game tape, from the ’03 playoffs against the Kings and Spurs, the ’06 Finals against the Heat, and the ’07 Golden State series. There are many reasons why Dirk is better now, and one of those is direction.

Coaches

Don (and Donnie) Nelson deserve full credit for discovering, drafting, and believing in Dirk. But I believe that, as a coach, Nellie stunted Dirk’s growth. Watching ’03 Dirk, you see a player who was still raw in many ways, but who had developed into a full-blown All-Star. He had become what his Dr. Frankenstein had wanted: a freak show of a 7-footer with a deadly long range shot. Nellie never required Dirk to post up, and never asked anything of him on the defensive end.

Dirk spent a lot of time that postseason living on the perimeter on offense (a common theme, as you’ll see). On defense, he was the definition of flat-footed. He was very poor guarding his man, yet made up for it on the boards--he didn’t rebound well through technique as much as he did through desire (an early indication that he was indeed somewhat comfortable inside).

As we know, Dirk didn’t finish the playoffs that year. In his “Book of Basketball,” Bill Simmons writes “The ‘soft’ tag started in ’03, when Dirk refused to limp around with an injured knee in the Conference Finals...strangely, nobody remembers this decision now.” I’m not sure that’s accurate. I remember Cuban wanting Dirk to play through it, but Nellie thinking it was too risky. I don’t remember if Dirk wanted to play or not. Anyway, that’s where some think the ‘soft’ tag started.

Enter Avery Johnson. Dirk seemed to grow under Avery--he had some of his best years under the Little General, including his MVP campaign. Yet, watching the Heat and Warriors series, there were still some things that needed to be corrected. I watched Games 3 and 4 from the ’06 Finals. We all remember the Game 3 meltdown--Dallas up 13 with 6:30 to play in the game. Do you know how many times Dirk took his smaller defender into the paint during that last 6:30 (while Dwayne Wade was leading the furious comeback by attacking the lane)? Twice. And one of those was with :03 left (which resulted in a trip to the line, where Dirk missed the game-tying free throw). For the final 6:30, Dirk lived on the perimeter. One time he got the ball 15 feet from the rim with little Jason Williams guarding him. What did Dirk do? He passed the ball.

That’s something that has changed. Against Miami, Dirk refused to punish shorter defenders--Haslem and Posey were always able to get position on him (meaning they easily pushed him from 15 feet away out to 20 feet away). Not anymore. Example: the Lakers series, Game 2. Phil Jackson tries to slow down Dirk by putting Ron Artest on him. Dirk responds by telling Jason Terry “I’ve got this--get me the ball,” and he scores easily over Artest from different ranges. ’06 or ’07 Dirk would have passed the ball. Not now. Another example: 4th quarter of Game 2 this year vs Portland. Dirk posts LaMarcus Aldridge (a guy almost his exact size--yikes!) and backs him down--he damn-near looked like Barkley! And, Dirk and Mavs dominate those quarters and protect home-court. (The Denver series in '09 was one of the first times I could remember an opponent trying to get really physical with Dirk and it having no effect whatsoever. Up until then, the knock on Dirk was always "play him tough and tight--he doesn't like that." You don't hear that any longer.)

Game 4 against Miami was bad. It was a 2 for 14 clunker from Dirk (although he did get the line 14 times). His 16 points were not what his team needed from him. They needed their 7-footer to be a 7-footer. He was very much a wallflower in this game--unable to impose his will. By this time, the notion that Dirk was a 7-footer who played like he was 6'9 was cemented.

The 2007 Golden State series was worse. I watched Games 4 and 6 (both Dallas losses). I seemed to recall that the Warriors double-teamed Dirk a lot, but that wasn’t necessarily the case. They did run all sorts of chaotic looks at Dirk, and double occasionally, but it was mainly Stephen Jackson playing a very tight and aggressive man-to-man on Dirk. They clearly flustered him. Dirk was firing up wild, off-balance, on-the-run, fade-way shots from long range, or making wild passes out of perceived trouble. He was rushing when he didn’t need to rush. He never tried to take advantage of his size. In the fourth quarter of Game 4, he was even more of a wallflower than in parts of the Miami series. He was so out of sorts against the Warriors that he shot a near-career low 84% from the free throw line during the series. It was as though Golden State had convinced Dirk that he wasn’t a good player. Nellie’s voodoo brainwashing tactic had worked.

(Two things I noticed while watching that matchup against the Warriors: Avery Johnson was, at that time, the most tightly-wound human being alive. I'm surprised he didn't jump off of the Golden Gate Bridge during that series. And, Mark Cuban had a goatee! I had totally forgotten about that facial-hair experiment of his. But you know what? It looked good! He should have stayed with it.)

Which brings us to Rick Carlisle. Carlisle has been perfect for Dirk--a coach that equally stresses both ends of the floor. It’s no coincidence that Dirk’s three best postseasons (stats-wise) have come under Carlisle, who has positioned Dirk closer to the basket than any previous coach. And, he’s finally playing some defense! During the Lakers series, Phil Jackson openly complained that Dirk was “being too physical with Pau Gasol.” When has that ever been said about Dirk?

Speaking of his defense, the change is noticeable when you watch Old Dirk vs New Dirk. In the past, he would play defense by placing his hand on his man’s hip, giving two feet of space between he and his man, and keeping that distance no matter what the man did--like a dance step (which is fine outside against a quick guy, but not in the paint against a big guy). He would also bend over too much, I thought--making his 7-foot frame more like a 6-9 frame. Fast forward to the Lakers series: Dirk guarding Gasol. He used his chest and legs much more. He bodied Gasol, instead of dancing with him. He got physical. He bumped him. He moved his feet. He refused to give ground. It was a drastic departure (for the better!) from how he used to defend. He’s still not a great defender, but he’s no longer terrible.

Last year at this time, I wrote a blog entry about Dirk’s defense, and how you can’t be weak at the power forward position on defense and still win a title. I said the Mavs needed to get a top-flight defender at center if they wanted to get away with Dirk’s defense at power forward--and they did. Credit Tyson Chandler’s arrival, along with Carlisle’s coaching and Dirk’s late-career desire, as the three factors that have helped make Dirk a better defender.

A True Leader

Remember when Dirk would yell at his teammates, and it just didn’t seem right? Now, it seems right. He now gets on his teammates at the right times, and for the right reasons. It used to be out of frustration only. Now, he chooses his spots, like a leader. I think one reason is that he now gives full effort at both ends of the floor--not to mention the fact that he’s raised his game on both ends, and thus can expect more out of those around him.

There has always been the question of the quality of supporting cast for Dirk, and it’s a legitimate argument. Certainly Chandler is much better alongside Dirk than Raef LaFrentz in ’03 or Eric Dampier in ’06 and ’07. Would the Mavs have won it all those years with Chandler? No. But he would have helped. I also noticed that Terry and Josh Howard has some really poor stretches in ’06 and ’07. But I think that only tells part of the story. When Dirk really started to raise his game to it’s current better-than-ever level it was in 2009--back when everyone was complaining about his supporting cast. Ditto for 2010. So that leads us back to Dirk.

What else happened in 2009? In addition to Carlisle taking over, those were the playoffs when the sordid story of Dirk’s fiancee Crystal Taylor came out. I think this may only be a small part of the puzzle--very small. But, in a way I think that toughened Dirk. I think it made him less trusting. I think the way the public reacted to it pissed him off--or perhaps the fact that it went public at all. If your personal life is picked apart like that by the masses, it has to have some effect on you.

Anything else happen around that time? I think the arrival the year earlier of Jason Kidd helped--a lot. Kidd joined Dallas in time for the New Orleans series in '08, which they lost. But that wasn’t really on Dirk or Kidd--that was all on Josh Howard (who was so bad in that series that the Hornets refused to guard him on offense--he shot 25% from the field against them, so they embarrassingly begged him to shoot). Howard was awful, on and off the court. But Kidd’s presence was helping lay a foundation for Dirk’s growth.

Another thing that happened around that time: Dirk turned 30. I believe that when he hit that age, it started to sink in. He didn’t want to be remembered as soft. He didn’t want to join Barkley and Malone and Stockton as the greatest players to never win a title. A middle-age crisis, if you will. I think it dawned on him that time was running short, and he had better do everything he can--squeeze every last ounce of ability out of that 7-foot body. And he has.

Today, Dirk is better. The stats show that he’s shooting the ball better than ever before. He is now a threat to not only shoot from the outside, but to drive or to post. He’s playing better defense. He’s a better leader. He’s just better. His unusual late-career growth culminated with a series against the Lakers that any NBA 7-footer, past or present would be proud of. Dirk was the alpha-male. Not Kobe. Dirk.

In the past, Dirk simply took what the defense gave him. Now, Dirk takes what he wants. And, what he wants is a ring--and thanks to a brilliant series against the Lakers, that window is still open.

The Giro

2011-05-06T12:34:00.012-05:00

The Tour de France is the world's biggest bike race, and always will be. The Giro d'Italia is Italy's version of the Tour--a three week stage race that takes in all parts of the country. The Giro has always played second fiddle to the Tour, and that will never change. But the Giro is a magnificent race in it's own right, and in many ways it's better than the Tour. (There is a third Grand Tour, the three week Vuelta a' Espana, or Tour of Spain, but it's very spare in comparison to the Tour and Giro)

Until the Armstrong Era, if you were to be considered one of the true greats, you needed to win at least one Giro. Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain--they are all more famous for winning the Tour multiple times, but they also won Giros. Armstrong never cared about the Giro--his fame and fortune were built around only one race--the Tour. Since Armstrong helped take the Tour's popularity to new heights, team sponsors also became much more interested in doing well in France in July as opposed to other races in other months. So, now more than ever, it's all about the Tour. Too bad for the Giro, because in many ways the Italian race embodies the beauty of the sport better than the Tour.

The leader of the Tour wears the yellow jersey, both as an honor and so that spectators can spot him as the peloton whizzes by. In the Giro, the leader wears a pink jersey (insert homophobic joke here). The newspaper that sponsored the Tour was printed on yellow paper, thus a yellow jersey. Same thing in Italy--the national daily sports page was (and is still) printed on pink paper, therefore a pink jersey for the leader. They yellow jersey is the most coveted piece of cloth in cycling, but I like the look of the pink jersey better. I can't explain why, I just think Merckx, Hinault and Indurain (pictured) all looked better in pink (insert second homophobic joke here).

One of the best things about the Giro are the fans. They love cycling in France, but they love cycling in Italy. A typical Frenchman is reserved, while a typical Italian wears his emotions on his sleeve--and it shows on the roadside. The 'tifosi' as they call them, worship the sport like few others. I would say the two countries where cycling is the most popular would be Belgium and Italy. For a decade, the top sports heroes in Italy have been cyclists. The nation was torn in half during the Coppi vs Bartali years, and later during the Moser vs Sarroni battles. Perhaps it's their hot Italian blood, or the always-flowing Italian red wine--whatever the reason, Italian fans get into the sport more than the French. And while the Tour has become a huge international event, the Giro is still very much still an Italian domestic celebration.

The Giro also wins the annual battle with the Tour for the hottest podium girls. Yes, winning a stage is prestigious. Yes, winning a stage can make a career. Yes, winning a stage keeps the director sportif off your back for a while. But it's also a nice reward after a hard day's work to get a kiss (and possibly a happy ending) from one of these race representatives.

Another reason to like the Giro is the fact that the organizers do a better job with the route each year than the Tour bosses. They mix it up--a lot of tough early stages, and tough stages balanced with easier ones throughout the three weeks. The Tour is more locked into the same, predictable formula: eight days of flats, then a weekend in the Alps, then more flats, then the Pyrenees, then flat to the finish. Last year's Giro route was greatly varied, which made for one of the most exciting stage races ever.

And then there is the Italian culture. Every cyclist lives on a diet of pasta, and there is no better pasta in the world than in Italy. The scenery along the route is incredible--whether it's racing along the Mediterranean coast, up the steep Dolomites, or past the Coliseum in Rome, there is always a spectacular backdrop. Remember the movie "Breaking Away?" The main character, Dave Stoller, was obsessed with the Italians and the Italian racing culture. The food. The music. The language. The women. The gold chains. Organized crime. What's not to love about it all?

While LeMond and Armstrong won a combined 10 Tour titles, only one American has ever won the Giro. In 1988, Andy Hampsten (riding for the Dallas-based 7-Eleven sponsored team) braved blizzard conditions over the Gavia Pass to claim the leader's pink jersey, which he never gave up. The storm that day was so bad, and most of the riders so underdressed, that many simply couldn't descend the mountain--their arms and legs trembling so much that they couldn't steer their bikes. Others suffered from hypothermia and frostbite. Many simply quit the race and jumped into the team car. Hampsten kept going, and authored one of the greatest chapters in cycling history.

There will be no American winner this year, and probably not one anytime soon. But if you like events with history, passion and excitement, you'll like the Giro d'Italia. Yes, I'm excited about this race--or is that just a cannoli in my pants?

The End of an Era

2011-04-30T10:15:00.004-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, Sports Illustrated's cover story proclaimed the new "small ball" revolution in the NBA. One of their examples happened to be the Spurs, who this year went to a smaller, higher scoring lineup in order to take more of the focus off their aging big man, Tim Duncan. Duncan, of course, had been the rock of a Spurs foundation that had won four NBA titles since 1999. But Duncan's skills were clearly in decline.

With apologies to S.I., and anyone else who loves "small ball", I will always believe that in the NBA, much like in the mind of a woman, size matters. Give me bigs--young, athletic bigs, preferably--over small scorers. I'll beat you every time. Kids on the playground learn this basic premise at an early age--the tall guys are always picked first when choosing sides.

(Note: There are, of course, occasional exceptions to any rule. In this case, Shawn Bradley would be an example of being the exception to the "always give me a tall guy" rule.)

Spurs "small ball" didn't work too well against a younger, hungrier, and bigger Memphis team. The Spurs joined the Mavs as the only top seeds to ever lose a best-of-seven to an eight seed. The Grizzlies made San Antonio look old, slow...and small. Zac Randolph was a beast and was way too much for the Spurs aging and undersized power forward Antonio McDyess. And, Marc Gasol was too much for Duncan to handle. That's right--Tim Duncan had a tough time with Marc Gasol. Not Pau Gasol. Marc.

It's not that Duncan was awful in this series (12 ppg and 10 rpg). He just isn't the Tim Duncan of old. Now, he's just old Tim Duncan.

In the 2003 playoffs, at the height of his powers, Duncan scored 37 points and grabbed 16 boards in the series-clinching game against the Lakers. That day (and that series), Duncan dominated an in-his-prime Shaquille O'Neal, who found himself matched up with Duncan more than usual, as the Lakers had no answer for "The Big Fundamental" (as Shaq called him).

Fast forward to 2011--the series-deciding game 6 in Memphis. Duncan scored just 12 points and grabbed 10 rebounds, while Gasol had 12 and 14. Gasol was so effective guarding Duncan that the Spurs never ran the offense through the Duncan post--a complete departure from the glory days. Instead, the Spurs had to run everything through Parker and Manu on the perimeter, where they were no match for the young, quick, and athletic Grizzlies. I counted exactly one time that Duncan scored on Gasol from a traditional low-post set. And, I counted exactly one Duncan bank shot--the familiar 16-footer from the side that used to be automatic. Not anymore.

NBA champs are built from the inside out. You have to have big, strong guys inside who can attack the rim on offense and who can get easy, post-type shots in the paint. Those same guys have to be able to defend the rim on the other end. If you have one of those guys, you are golden. If you have two of those guys, you are almost unbeatable (think the current Lakers, or the Duncan/Robinson Spurs). If you have none of those guys, you are this year's Spurs.

I never liked the Spurs chances in this postseason (not that I thought they would lose to Memphis!). The fact that they won 61 games in the regular season was a miracle--one of Popovich's best coaching jobs ever. But they were never going to be a postseason match for the better clubs. Duncan turned 35 this week. When a big man ages, he can lose it quickly. Very quickly. Add to that the fact that the other "bigs" on the SA roster aren't very big at all. McDyess is old and hasn't been a good leaper for years. Matt Bonner will play hard, but he seems more of a 6'7 guy than his actual 6'10. DeJuan Blair couldn't get off the bench in this series. Blair is the Spurs top backup C and PF, but he plays smaller than his 6'7 (which is a generous listing). It got so bad for the Spurs that Popovich gave significant minutes to Tiago Splitter, the Brazilian project who barely sniffed the court during the regular season. Pop was simply desperate for some size to try to slow down the Memphis parade to the rim. He probably would have played Swen Nater if the big Dutchman had been available.

In the post-Robinson years, Duncan was still so dominant that the Spurs could get away with average players alongside him. They won titles with the likes of Rasho Nesterovic, Nazr Mohammed and Fabricio Oberto riding shotgun with Duncan. Everything went through Duncan, and nobody could stop him.

Now, age and mileage have caught up. Last night in Memphis officially marked the end of the Duncan Dynasty. It was an incredible run. Having followed the Spurs since I was a kid (and since they were in the ABA), I never thought I would see them win a championship. Duncan delivered four. It had to come to an end at some point. This is that point.

Duncan has another year left on a big contract. It's likely he'll play next season (if there is a next season), but the title-winning window has closed. Duncan will go down in history as one of the ten greatest players the Association has ever seen. But in this Memphis series, Duncan was just another guy. Zac Randolph was the alpha-male.

In the Duncan era, I've never seen a team make the Spurs work harder on both ends of the floor than Memphis did in this series. Ever. To hell with "small ball"--if Tim Duncan had been 25 instead of 35, the Spurs would have won the series in five games. That's how much a dominant big man means to a team. But, time marches on, and Duncan's march has slowed down to a crawl--and thus all around him slows down, too. The Duncan Dynasty is dead. Long live The Big Fundamental.

Meltdown

2011-04-24T16:17:00.008-05:00

Has any pro sports franchise authored more playoff meltdowns in one five year stretch than these Dallas Mavericks? They already own the greatest collapse in NBA Finals history. Then they became the first #1 seed to ever lose a best-of-seven series to a #8 seed. Last year they lost in the first round as a #2 seed to the #7 seed. Now, following Saturday's historic collapse, they are hunting the trifecta: become the only NBA franchise to lose in the first round as a #1, #2 and #3 seed. Amazing.

There are so many things that are hard to understand about Game 4, and about the Mavs in general. Everyone is talking about how Dallas defended Brandon Roy (or didn't defend him). Everyone wonders why they didn't double him or play a zone. My question is this: why give him the right-handed drive over and over and over again when he burns you every time? The book on Roy may be to force him right, but after he burns you time and time again to the right, how about simply planting your body between Roy and rim? Why do you have to force him to one side? I was amazed at how both Kidd and mainly Marion were encouraging him to drive right, into the lane (where there was never any help defense!), over and over and over--with the same result (Roy making a basket). Maddening. Not to mention, the guy with the worst knees on the floor is the guy who is burning you repeatedly!

Marion's foul on Roy on the three-pointer was comical. So was the Dallas offense for most of the 4th quarter.

I kept waiting for Dirk to get pissed. When a 23 point lead is down to six, that's when your superstar has to take over. That's when Dirk has to say "get me the ball, dammit, and get out of my way!" Your star has to stop the bleeding. Your star has to make a couple of shots in a row to silence the crowd and win the game. Yes, they tried to run the pick-and-roll with Dirk and Kidd or Terry a few times--that's not how you play that situation, in my opinion. If your star is a seven-footer, you post him. Simple. Entry pass, and let him work. Quickly, before the double-team. If the double comes, someone is open, and that someone is found much more easily from the post than the perimeter. How many times did the Mavs do that in the 4th quarter? None. How many shots did Dirk make in the 4th quarter? One. How many turnovers did he have in the 4th? Two. How many shots did he take in the 4th? Three. All absurdly silly numbers--fitting for an absurdly silly loss.

Following the Golden State collapse, which followed the Miami collapse, I said this team had to be gutted. It's been a painfully slow process. So slow, in fact, that the loser mentality has been allowed to seep in and be passed on from season to season. The makeup of a 50-win regular season is always washed away by the ugliness of the playoffs--where the Mavs prove year after year that they've learned nothing. They can play defense, for a while. They attack the rim, for a while. They walk with a swagger, for a while. But at some point during every series, they stop playing defense, stop attacking the rim, and walk around looking dazed and confused. Every year.

One thing every NBA champ has had: a killer instinct. This generation of Mavericks continues to show us that they are devoid of that quality.

And, for those who think I'm just a Spurs homer--some thoughts on the San Antonio-Memphis series. The Spurs are threatening to become the second #1 seed to ever lose to the #8 seed in a best-of-seven. I said before this series started that it would be a very difficult series for SA. Memphis played them very tough in the regular season. They physically beat up the Spurs. I thought this would be a 6 or 7 game series, and it will be.

I don't like this edition of the Spurs. They are very good, but not championship caliber. They don't play defense like they used to, and a big reason for that is because they are a very short team. Tim Duncan is 7ft tall, but in his old-age he plays smaller than that. Antonio McDyess can't leap like he used to, so he plays smaller than his 6'9. Dejuan Blair is a very short backup C and PF, and he can't jump either. Matt Bonner is tall, but plays small. They have very little length inside. They may win this series on moxie and pedigree, but they will probably lose to OKC--and if not, they will definitely lose to Los Angeles.

If, in a few weeks, you think we'll be talking about a Spurs-Mavs Western Conference Final, then you're as insane as a 23 point, second half comeback.

My Playoff Eight

2011-04-13T10:48:00.003-05:00

In the NBA postseason, every coach seems to settle on an eight man rotation. Let's face it: if players 9, 10, 11 and 12 get any significant minutes in the playoffs, it doesn't mean you're a deep team--it means you don't have great quality at the top of your roster. Coaches go with the eight guys (sometimes even just seven) that are their best players, and the guys they can trust in the pressure-packed world of the NBA's second season.

Guessing Rick Carlisle's playoff rotation would be difficult based on how he's handled his roster over the last two months. There has been no rhyme or reason to some of his lineups and playing-time decisions. So, this is my advice to the coach for the playoffs--my Mavericks eight for the postseason...

Starters

PG: Jason Kidd. No-brainer. Highest basketball IQ on the team. Needs to be more assertive on the offensive end, and in many ways is a key to their playoff success. The head of the snake--let's hope he's not worn out (again).

SG: Deshawn Stevenson. Did you know Stevenson shoots better from 3-pt range than Jason Terry? And, he plays defense! The playoffs are all about defense, so starting Stevenson and asking him to be this team's Bruce Bowen makes sense. He also brings some real toughness (not fake toughness, like Terry) to the floor.

C: Tyson Chandler. Will be better for Dallas if he's the Chandler of early in the season and not the Chandler of the last couple of months. Must stay out of foul trouble.

PF: Dirk. (OK, that one was really easy)

SF: Shawn Marion. Need a viable second scoring option in the starting five, plus he's a good defender. Seems to be more engaged when in the starting lineup.

Bench

G: J.J. Barea. I don't like that his size hurts A LOT on defense, but you can't deny that this guy has turned into a pretty solid backup guard. He can be a bit wild, but for the most part I trust him with the ball, and he'll at least try to get to the rim, something sorely lacking on this team.

F: Peja Stojakovic. He's shooting 40% from 3-pt range as a Mav, and he's got tons of playoff experience. He must be this team's bench scoring option. Lord help him on defense.

C: Brendan Haywood. Dallas needs him to start caring. There is too much length in the West and Chandler is too foul-prone to think that Haywood won't need to get significant minutes off the bench.

Buried Alive

Jason Terry. Terry should have been farmed out long ago--with Dampier, Howard, Harris, Stackhouse and the others who were around for the Miami and Golden State meltdowns. What does he give you? 15 points per game off the bench--that's about 7 or 8 made shots a game (unless you need him to hit those shots at big moments in the playoffs--then he disappears). 15 ppg is nice, but what does he give up? He is such a poor defender that it's hard to figure how many baskets for the opponent he contributes to each night--but when you add that number to his high turnover rate and to whatever points the other team gets on technical fouls called on Terry, he turns out to be a negative-sum player. Plus, he's had FOUR freak-out moments in the last two weeks! He does not have a game that is postseason-friendly: he's a very poor defender, he misses clutch shots, he has a high freak-out factor, and he gives away possessions. In a moment of panic, I won't mind Carlisle giving Terry a few minutes to see if he can jump start the offense (if need be), but the more he's on the court, the worse the Mavs chances are. Ground the Jet.

Roddy Beaubois. He's had an opportunity this year, and done nothing with it. He still needs to be a big part of their future (see my previous blog post), but he should be a very small part of these playoffs. It's hard to believe how many steps backwards his game has taken this season--he looks completely lost. He's a turnover machine--and in the postseason, where every possession is like gold, you can't live with a guy like Roddy. I'll put it this way: opposing coaches in the West are begging the Mavs to play Jet and Roddy.

Corey Brewer. I'm OK with Carlisle giving Brewer a few minutes here and there for defensive help and to add some energy. But, like Terry and Beaubois, he's way too streaky to play much in this postseason. He's downright frightening to watch when he tries to handle the ball, and he still looks lost on too many nights.

The White Flag (If these guys have to play much, Mark Cuban will spontaneously combust)

Brian Cardinal
Ian Mahinmi
Kurt Nimphius

I feel for Cuban and Carlisle in that this team would be better if Caron Butler were healthy. Not a title contender, but better. But, he's not here. And, for the last two months, the Mavs have stunk. They've beaten the bad teams, and they've lost to the good teams. Their defense has fallen off dramatically, and they have turned back into a jump-shooting team. There has been bickering amongst the ranks. Their body language has been terrible. They look more primed for a first round exit than ever before. So, desperate times call for desperate (and fundamentally sound) measures.

Bury Jet and Roddy--it's your only chance.

The Future of Roddy B

2011-04-01T12:25:00.004-05:00

The Mavericks don't have many guys on the roster that can be considered building blocks for the next decade. In fact, they have one. Rodrigue Beaubois. With Dirk, Kidd, Terry, Marion, Haywood and Peja all deep into their 30's, and Chandler getting close, the Mavs are a very old team. Except for Roddy, who, at 23, has a long career ahead of him.

But what to do with Roddy? And, what is his upside? In 10 years, will he be looking back at an All-Star career, or will he be sacking groceries in Pointe-a-Pitre?

There seems to be some debate about what position Roddy is best suited for--point guard or two guard. My esteemed and mustachioed colleague Norm thinks Roddy is a two guard. The Mavs have made many personnel mistakes over the years, and it's my opinion that if they groom Roddy to be a two guard, they will be making one of their biggest mistakes ever. He is a point guard, plain and simple.

I am not a fan of short, slightly-built two guards (see Jason Terry). They always leave you at a defensive disadvantage. Most two guards in the NBA are between 6-4 and 6-6. So, if your two guard is 6-0 and skinny like Roddy, he can't guard Kobe. Now you have to try to play musical chairs on defense. I don't like that. Plus, your tiny two guard will always have a much bigger guy guarding him, which means he's got to work much harder on offense to get a shot off. I don't like that.

What I like is the idea of Roddy as the heir-apparent to Jason Kidd at point. Roddy's quickness is exceptional. He's very raw in all other areas of the game, and it will require strong coaching to get Roddy to become anywhere near the player that Kidd was in his prime, but the talent is there. Point guards who are lightning-quick are hell to deal with. Tony Parker turned into a Finals MVP because of his exceptional quickness in attacking the rim. And while Parker is not the best defender, his speed allows him to make up for a lot of mistakes.

The one thing that Roddy B doesn't have right now is a tightness to his game. Fast and slightly built guards (think Parker or Iverson) have very tight games. They have to. Roddy is very loose--loose with the dribble, loose with his jumper, loose with his passing, loose on defense. The first step toward becoming an All-Star point guard will be for Roddy (or the coaches) to tighten up his game. Parker used to be loose. Once he tightened things up, he became one of the best guards in the NBA. Point guards can't give away possessions because of poor ball handling, poor passing, or bad shots. Roddy has a lot to learn.

I love Roddy's upside, though. With that quickness (which can't be taught), he's already got a tremendous advantage. Now, he's got to learn how to control his dribble in traffic. He's got to learn how to make safe passes in pressure situations. When he concentrates, he's got a pretty looking jumper--yet too often it's a bunch of loose limbs going everywhere. But, he has the range--much more range than the Mavs' previous quick-point-guard-project, Devin Harris, ever had. What a deadly combination that could be down the road: a point guard that is a threat to blow by you and get to the rim, or a guy who will sink a three-pointer if you play off of him. That's tough to defend.

What I'm having a hard time measuring right now is where Roddy rates in the all-important basketball IQ department. I tend to chalk up his mistakes to youth, but I can't do that for much longer. I just can't tell right now if he's got a grasp on how the game is supposed to be played. The answer to that, in the end, may be what writes or destroys the legend of Roddy B.

Because of injury, this potential season of growth for Roddy never came to pass. Next year (provided we have an NBA season) must be the year that Carlisle commits to Roddy. It will (probably) be Kidd's last year with the Mavs, and in the NBA. The plan should be for Roddy to be the starting point guard from 2012 on. Carlisle can't let Kidd, or Barea, or anyone else get in the way. When you have one hope for the future on your roster, you are silly not to give him every opportunity to sink or swim. And, for the sake of the franchise, he better be able to swim.

Being from a tiny island where he grew up surrounded by lots of water, I'm betting he can swim.

Bonus note added one day later--free of charge: Roddy has always reminded me of Leandro Barbosa more than Tony Parker. It is this very reason that I believe the Mavs need to try to force the issue of Roddy as a point guard instead of some hybrid small-ish two guard (and Barbosa is 3 inches taller than Roddy!). If you can mold Roddy into a Parker, your franchise has a true building block. If Roddy becomes Barbosa, you have, well, Barbosa--a player with far less impact and value than a great point guard.

One on One

2011-03-03T10:47:00.007-06:00

My beloved NBA takes a beating from time to time. Too many cornrows and tats. Too much flopping and whining. Too much of it not being football or baseball. I'm OK with the NBA not being for everyone, but I'm not OK with one criticism in particular: that too often it's just a game of isolation--of one-on-one.

(Author's note: there is no question that the phrase "one-on-one" has been tarnished over the years--first by the cheesy Robbie Benson movie, and then by the cheesy Hall & Oates song. Please don't let that cloud your vision of this very important sports topic)

Do people realize that one-on-one is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of sport in general? Is there anything more basic than going "mano-a-mano" ("hand-to-hand", as in combat, for those of you who are not bilingual)? Where would sports be without epic one-on-one battles like Ali vs Frazier, Federer vs Nadal, Tiger vs Phil, or Russell vs Wilt? Yes, many of those classic matchups occur in individual sports, but I would argue that team sports are as much about one-on-one as individual sports are. Let me explain...

Some fans have a problem with the NBA too often becoming a game of one-on-one. Do those fans have a problem with the one-on-one matchup of pitcher vs batter in baseball? Why don't people complain about the one-on-one matchup of receiver vs cornerback in football? Or pass-rushing end vs tackle? Why is "one-on-one" a dirty phrase in basketball, but not in any other sport? In fact, perhaps the most basic premise in team sports is the idea of winning your individual battle, isn't it?

In a football game, each player tries to win his little battle so that the play will work. It's a team sport, but each play is just a collection of small one-on-one battles being fought. And, if the battle plan works, it ideally leaves a running back in a one-on-one battle with a safety. We love that, don't we? Yet for some reason, fans ignore the series of picks and passes sometimes necessary to set up the NBA player in a position go one-on-one.

Aren't we all thrilled when Adrian Peterson gets into the secondary with one man to beat? Aren't we all thrilled when it's Cliff Lee vs Alex Rodriguez--one-on-one--in the ALCS? Why can't we be OK with Kobe going one-on-one with Ray Allen in crunch time for all the marbles?

NBA one-on-one gets a bad rap. Why? Is it because people just like to pick on The Association more than the NFL or MLB? Is it because some basketball fans have a puritan view of what they think the game should look like--all Princeton backdoor cuts and so much passing that the ball never touches the court? Truth is, if you watch enough NBA action, you'll see all of that--great passing, backdoor cuts, pick-and-roll, and yes, isolation. But the exaggerated view of "In the NBA four guys get to one side of the court while the star isolates on the other side and simply works one-on-one" seems to be a widely-held belief. Even still, for the sake of argument, let's just say that exaggerated view was accurate--so what? There is a beauty to one-on-one in any sport that fans should appreciate.

We jump out of our seats when a player gets a breakaway in hockey or soccer--when it's just that player one-on-one against the man in goal. For so many NASCAR fans, it's all about their favorite driver vs their most hated driver. Cycling generates the most interest not when two teams are duking it out, but when two team leaders are isolated on a mountainside, duking it out. A footrace may start with 8 or 800 contestants, but it almost always finishes as a battle between two.

Sports is all about one-on-one battles. Even team sports. We embrace the beauty of one-on-one in every sport but basketball--yet basketball is one of the only team sports that just two people can play--basic one-on-one. That can't really be done in baseball, football, soccer, or hockey.

It's time to cut the NBA some slack regarding too much one-on-one play. I'll address the cornrows issue after my next trip to the barber shop.

cc: Larry Bird, Magic Johnson

Radio Ratings

2011-02-27T12:53:00.004-06:00

For those who have been unable to access the updated DFW radio ratings from the DallasNews.com website, here is the story--but first, a question. Why does the Morning News make it so difficult to access content on their site? Wish I had the answer. All I know is that every time I want to read a story, I'm asked to either subscribe or sign in or fill out some form. All I want to do is read, please.

From Barry Horn's Radio-TV column, 2/26/11:

Radio Daze

Latest ratings finally trickled in this week. It’s the January book. The dates are actually Jan. 6 to Feb. 2.

Among men 25-54, the most important demographic in the sports talk world, KTCK-AM (1310) The Ticket reigned supreme weekdays from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. The Ticket’s average share was a 7.9, which made it No. 1 in the demographic among all stations in the market. It won the sports talk gaggle in every hour. ESPN-FM (103.3) scored a 2.9 share, good for 14th. Meanwhile, KRLD-FM (105.3) The Fan, managed a 1.9 share, which tied it for 23rd. It was The Fan’s lowest ranking in the Dallas-Fort Worth market since March.

Some bullet points:

The Ticket’s Dunham and Miller posted the three highest-rated hours at 8 a.m. (10.0), 7 a.m. (8.8) and 9 a.m. (8.7).

ESPN finished behind The Fan all three hours of Ben and Skin. Newy Scruggs topped them from 9 to 11 a.m. with Josh and Elf topping them at 11 a.m.

Josh and Elf then went on to finish behind Colin Cowherd’s tape-delayed show from noon to 2 p.m.

ESPN’s national offerings – Mike and Mike (6-9 a.m.) and Cowherd – were relatively strong performers compared to the Fan’s programming. In the hours Dunham and Miller averaged 8.2, Mike and Mike scored 4.1 while The Fan’s Jagger and Henson were at 1.7.

In afternoon drive from 3-6 p.m., it was The Ticket’s Hardline (8.3), ESPN’s Galloway and Company (2.8) and the Fan’s Richie Whitt and Greg Williams (1.6).

Thanks to the P1's for supporting America's Favorite Radio Station for 17+ years now. In those 17 years, our demise has been predicted by many, but it hasn't happened (yet). There is also a lot of false information floating around out there regarding the ratings--one reason I felt like the facts needed to be presented.

For years, The Ticket was number one using the old diary method. In 2008, the Arbitron ratings service replaced the diaries with the PPM method (a small pager-looking device that detects what station you are listening to), and The Ticket has done even better in that system, despite many who said "PPM will show the truth, and The Ticket will suffer." The truth is, The Ticket is still going strong, thanks to the best and most loyal group of listeners in the country.

Stay Hard!

Great Expectations?

2011-02-15T11:11:00.007-06:00

The defending American League champion Texas Rangers (first time I've ever typed that--looks and feels weird) are entering this new season with a new set of higher expectations--or at least that's what I'm told. Have we forgotten that these are the Rangers?

Are we sure that just because they made it to the World Series last season that everyone expects them to win the World Series this season? Have we forgotten that these are the Rangers?

Are we actually expected to believe that Rangers fans have raised the bar so high that 2011 is a championship-or-bust season? Have we forgotten that these are the Rangers?

As a lifelong Rangers fan, and card-carrying Dr. Pepper Junior Ranger circa 1976, I feel like I speak for Texas fans everywhere when I say that the bar most certainly has NOT been raised. If a Rangers fan is going into this season thinking that the only thing that will satisfy is a World Series championship, then that person is a fake Rangers fan. If a Cowboys fan feels that way, OK. The Cowboys have won 5 titles in the last 40 years--even though the last 15 years have produced more comedy than crowns, there is a history of success and high expectations. If a Mavs fan feels that way, OK. The Mavs have no titles, but at least they win a lot in the regular season and make the playoffs every year--the next step is to win a ring. But the Rangers?

Anyone who thinks this year's Rangers squad will be judged by whether or not they win a championship doesn't understand Rangers history. Yes, Nolan Ryan and Ron Washington will say all the right things--they'll say their goal is to win the World Series (like most presidents, GM's and managers say this time of year). But I think most Rangers fans who don't work for the team and who have followed the club for a while will just be happy with fielding a good team again. Just compete. Since coming to town in 1972, the Rangers have had only 17 winning seasons--17, in 39 years! With that track record, how could any Rangers fan suddenly feel like it's their time to win a title? As Rangers fans, we should be frightened that the baseball gods will realize that last fall was a mistake, and yank the rug out from under us this year as payback.

(Let's be honest about how we all felt last year watching the Rangers in the World Series--it was like being at a party you weren't invited to and you spent the entire time hoping the host didn't realize that you shouldn't be there drinking his free beer. Am I wrong?)

These Rangers will be shooting for their third straight winning season. Do you know how many other times they've done that in franchise history? Twice. 1977-79, and 1989-91. That's it. And, they've never had four straight winning seasons. Why can't we allow the Rangers to walk before they run?

I'm not sure who is raising the bar, but it's not me. It's also not the national media, many of whom are picking the Angels and A's to finish ahead of Texas in the AL West. (By the way, what an advantage for the AL West teams to only have to compete against three other teams to win the division--isn't that unfair? How do clubs in the six-team NL Central feel when they look at the AL West? Only AL West teams start each season with an equal 25% chance to win their division and get into the playoffs--no other teams can say that. Why is there not more outrage over this? Not that I'm complaining, since it helps my team. I just find it fascinating that nobody talks about this) It's also not the Rangers peer group--Lance Berkman said a couple of weeks ago that he thought the Rangers would be just an average team this season. And you get the feeling that, following the Cliff Lee departure, Berkman isn't the only major leaguer who feels that way.

For me, this season will be a success if the Rangers simply battle for the AL West crown until the end--win or lose. Just compete. Just play good, exciting baseball. The euphoria of watching my team play in the World Series last fall has not worn off. It may carry me for a decade before I expect anything more from them. I've experienced way too much losing, way too much bad baseball, and way too much disappointment to be disappointed if this year's Rangers don't win it all.

My battle cry for the '11 Rangers is not "World Series or bust." It's "At least be above average and don't go back to sucking." And that's about as high as I want to raise the bar.

Is Lance In Trouble?

2011-01-24T06:52:00.005-06:00

It's over. The remarkable racing career of Lance Armstrong officially came to end on Sunday, January 23rd. He competed in his final international event, The Tour Down Under. No rider in the history of the sport won the Tour de France as many times. No rider in the the history of the sport made more money. And no rider in the history of the sport was more of a lightning rod.

Now what for Lance? He has talked about entering the Ironman in Hawaii this fall. He'll continue to head his Livestrong Foundation. He may even go into politics. But there is something else that will have to be dealt with in the immediate future.

The Feds are after Lance Armstrong. Bulldog investigator Jeff Novitzky is out to prove that Armstrong doped his way to his seven Tour titles.

The case the government is building is said to dwarf the BALCO investigation in terms of size and amount of work. Sports Illustrated, long a champion of Armstrong's, ran a feature story this week called "The Case Against Lance Armstrong." The French have been after him for years, and are assisting in the investigation.

But what do the Feds really have, and is Lance really guilty?

As of right now, it looks like there is no smoking gun. No positive tests that can be proven to be Armstrong's, no DNA on a needle, no video of him doping, no confession from the man himself. The case Novitzky is building is centered around testimony--multiple sources saying they saw Lance dope, they heard him talking about doping, or they doped with him. But the Armstrong camp dismisses most of these accounts as being from people who are jealous (Greg LeMond), who have no credibility (Floyd Landis), or who are obsessed with bringing him down (Betsy Andreu--and LeMond again).

There is no doubt that Lance has pissed off and pissed on a lot of people over the course of his 20 year career. He was known as a mafia-type boss of his teams. If you crossed Lance, you paid for it. He knows how to hold a grudge.

You can explain away the individual accusations: LeMond never had time to bask in the afterglow of his wonderful career--the year he retired, Armstrong rode as the World Champion and already America had it's next LeMond. There were also the stories of LeMond feeling as though Lance never paid him enough respect--and of course the fact that Lance went on to break most of Greg's records. Landis has no credibility--he lied about doping, swindled half a million dollars out of innocent people for his defense, then, when he had nowhere else to go and was broke, admitted he took drugs and tried to take Lance down with him. Betsy Andreu says she heard Lance in the cancer ward admit to doctors that he had taken every performance enhancing drug imaginable. The doctors present deny that, and Lance claims Andreu is obsessed with him (she apparently blogs about Lance non-stop).

But what about the argument that where there is so much smoke, there must be fire? Everyone who finished on the podium with Lance during his 7 year Tour-winning run has tested positive for doping. How could Lance beat all of those doped-up guys if he was clean? And what about the suspicious lab tests from the '99 Tour, or the early 90's USA cycling teams? (For the record, Lance's camp claims the samples are too old, or not his, or call into question the chain of custody--all valid) And it's more than just LeMond, Landis and Andreu who have stories about Lance. Could so many people be lying?

Lance, of course, has his backers. For every one person who says Lance doped, there are ten former teammates or coaches or friends who say they never saw any sign of it. That's where the Feds need a smoking gun to get a conviction. As a friend of mine who is closer to the situation than I am pointed out, the Feds will not go after Lance for doping--they'll go after him for perjury. They will hope to get Lance to testify under oath that either A) he doped, or B) he didn't--but then hope to have enough testimony from others that he did. Or hope to have a smoking gun that catches him in a lie. Or, at the very least, hope Lance takes the fifth, thus creating Mark McGuire-like speculation that he's hiding something.

Do I think Lance doped? I think there is a very good chance that he doped before his cancer diagnosis. The 90's were a filthy time for the sport. Everyone did it. Unnatural performances occurred. There was no test for EPO. The sport changed. After cancer? I would like to think he didn't--could someone who cheated death really pump themselves full of dangerous chemicals? Could someone who is an inspiration to millions of cancer survivors really risk his reputation and risk flushing his Foundation's work down the toilet? Could the most tested athlete in the history of the world really be that good at dodging positive results when everyone around him gets busted? It all seems far fetched--but possible.

Then there is the theory that Lance is his era's Babe Ruth. He is Jordan, Gretzky, Bolt, Phelps, or Tiger. That he was simply that talented and more driven than those he raced against. Do we think that every legend dopes, or are there simply athletes that come along who happen to be superior to everyone else?

Lance seems very confident that his name will be cleared. Many of his fans feel the same way. I don't think there is a smoking gun, and I don't think Lance will shock us with a confession, therefore it's my guess that nothing will stick. He'll move on. His reputation will take a temporary hit, but if he's cleared, his image as Tour winner and cancer fighter will remain, and that will be his ultimate legacy.

Having said that, if he enters the Ironman this fall and wins it by an hour, we'll need to revisit the subject.

A Sign Of Things To Come?

2011-01-13T10:56:00.007-06:00

I am not a gambler. I've been to Vegas once, and I can't imagine losing my hard-earned money on a sporting event. But, I do like to study the trends that gamblers use when they pick games. One trend says that NFL teams tend to cover the spread at a high rate the week after they lose their starting quarterback. The thought is that losing their leader galvanizes the squad. They focus harder. They prepare more diligently. They rally. The remaining healthy players know that they have to raise their play in order to pick up the slack.

When Dirk Nowitzki went down with a knee injury last month, I thought we would see the Mavs play well in his absence. I thought the wounded animal theory would apply. I thought that there was enough talent and chemistry present to overcome the temporary loss of their leader and best player. I was wrong.

As of this writing, the Mavs have gone 2-6 without Dirk, with one of those wins being against the D-League Cavs. Yes, the Caron Butler injury figures into the equation, too. But I heard one analyst say that losing Dirk and Caron is like the Thunder losing Durant and Westbrook. I disagree. OKC is a team that goes eight players deep--that's it. Dallas was considered, at the start of the season, to be one of the three deepest teams in the league. Plus, OKC is top heavy. Jeff Green is a fine player, but after that the Thunder don't have a Hall of Fame point guard, a Sixth Man of the Year who is supposed to be good for 18-20 a night, a four-time All Star Forward, and the two best centers in the history of their franchise. Kidd, Terry, Marion, Chandler and Haywood should be enough to prevent implosion. They have not been. Perhaps these Mavs have been exposed as not having as much beyond the Big German as we thought they might.

In 2005, the Spurs lost Tim Duncan for a 13 game stretch. They went 9-4. They proved (to themselves, most importantly) that they could win without their leader, which boosted the confidence of every player on the squad. Once Duncan returned, they went on to win the NBA title. Those Spurs lost arguably the best player in the game (at that time), yet they kept on winning. They proved that they had the foundation of a championship team. They worked harder. Role players stepped up. They refused to check out and wait for the return of their leader.

In any sport, when a team's leader goes down because of injury, it exposes the ability and character of the rest of the players. On the surface, this season's Mavs looked to be deep and talented and capable of making a run at The Finals. In reality, are we seeing that (behind Dirk) the scorers are, at best, aging and inconsistent? Are we seeing that if the team has to rely on defense to win that they can't? Are we seeing that the two centers are more limited than we care to admit? I'm afraid the answer is yes to every one of those questions.

I thought the most revealing game in this stretch without Dirk was the first game--against Toronto, and before Butler got hurt. The Mavs lost to a bad Raptors team. They had no fight that night. That was their first game without their leader--the game they were most likely to rally and play well. Instead they fell flat. That may have been the night that the true character of the team was revealed.

In the postseason, as usual, most teams will try to take Dirk out of the mix. If Dirk can't respond to that challenge, then the abilities of his teammates will make or break the series. That's why the last few weeks have been a bad sign.

A team's results after losing their leader will very clearly illustrate whether that team has championship mettle or not. Unfortunately for the Mavericks, the last couple of weeks without Dirk may have given us a strong indication that they are not title timber. I'm just glad I didn't bet on that fact, or I might have had to start charging people to read this crappy blog.

(Disclaimer: If Dallas goes to San Antonio Friday without Dirk and beats the Spurs, then ignore this post.)

Learning To Like A New Sport

2010-12-15T17:33:00.009-06:00

I've been a fan of Arsenal and the English Premier League for five months now. The quick backstory: after being unimpressed by anything I saw in the World Cup, soccer fans encouraged me to follow the EPL. They promised a much more exciting and higher quality brand of soccer than that of the WC--so I promised to pick a team to follow for an entire year and really try to get into the sport.

I chose Arsenal because they were good, but not the best. They would be on TV every weekend. There was a great book written about their history--Fever Pitch--which I read and which really helped me learn about what it meant to follow not just Arsenal, but any EPL side. I also chose the Gunners because they had a reputation for playing a style of soccer that was pleasing to the eye--lots of nifty passing by highly skilled international athletes. And, they just seemed cool--a cool name, cool uniforms, cool history. So far, my choice has been a great one.

I'M A GOONER

I'm keeping my promise. I've seen every league game this season, plus a couple of the other trophy contests. Just last week, Arsenal sat atop the standings (or table, as it's called). Even though I've only been a fan for five months, it still made me swell with pride to see them in first place this deep into the season. But, they lost 1-0 to hated Manchester United, which again brought up the subject that haunts Arsenal: they can't win the big one. In their last 12 against Chelsea or Man U, they are 0-11-1. So, that is the mountain they must climb.

To my eye, Arsenal needs three things (other than health). They need a bit more offensive firepower (I don't understand why Walcott doesn't play more--they say he's he fastest player in the EPL and a good goal scorer). They need a bit more toughness on defense. And, they need a really good goal keeper. They seem to be very close to having all of that, but it's just not quite happening for them.

I've really enjoyed the personalities on the team, from the smooth Cesc who is a passing savant, to the cocky Nasri, who can be a brilliant goal scorer. Their coach, the Frenchman Arsene Wenger, spiced things up this season by having an affair with a French female rap star 35 years his junior. Good stuff!

It's only been five months, but I can't imagine rooting for another team. I chose wisely. My next objective is to see a game at the Emirates Stadium. One day.

LIKES AND DISLIKES

Above all, I'm really enjoying the color and pageantry of the league. The history, the stadiums, the uniforms, the international flavor, and of course the raucous crowds. I'm also digging the athleticism of the players--I've always known they had tremendous stamina, but they are also gifted athletes who have to be much tougher than you might think.

The television coverage of the EPL, and soccer in general, is tremendous. I never realized just how much soccer you can watch if you want to--if you have the right channels. Between certain Fox and ESPN channels, you can watch practically every EPL game each weekend. Amazing. And the coverage is top-notch. The graphics, camera angles, replays and announcers are all terrific. Ian Darke is the best play by play man I've heard, although the guy who sounds like Michael Palin is great, too.

I also like that you have no commercial breaks during each half--it's a tidy, less than two hour investment to make for every match.

The game itself I rate as good to very good. It's not football or basketball in terms of how it sucks me in. However, the EPL was a good tip--it's light years more entertaining than the World Cup. There are plenty of scoring chances in each game. There are usually enough goals. There are organized possessions and constant attacking, which is great. The passing and dribbling can be mesmerizing. I would rather watch Adrian Peterson rip off an 80 yarder, or Kobe make some crazy under-the-backboard-spin-around dunk--but I have to admit that the two goals that Nasri scored against Fulham this month had me jumping off the sofa.

To be honest, I've come around on most of the things I used to dislike about the sport. I don't really like draws--I would prefer a shootout--but I understand they have a place. I used to hate the flopping, but I'm used to it now. I also used to not understand, at all, offside--but I think I get it now. Soccer is like any sport--the rules are the rules, but the interpretation can vary from official to official.

THE SOCCER BONUS

I love my job. I love that I have to watch the Cowboys and Rangers for work. But, I'm also finding that I love watching Arsenal because I don't have to talk about their games on the radio. It's a bit of a release for me, in the same way that pro cycling is. They are escape sports--they are contested in lands far, far away, and I like that. I like that the average guy walking down the street has no idea that Arsenal finished second in their Champions League group, or that Philippe Gilbert won the Tour of Lombardy this fall. It's one of the reasons that, when I was a kid, I was so drawn to the Spurs--because they played in the ABA, and nobody at school new that league existed.

Five months. Not a long time, but I'm happy to report that I'm hooked. In five more months, five more years--even twenty five more years--I think I'll still be hooked. I just hope by then the Gunners have given me at least one trophy to cheer.

Advice For LeBron--And The Heat

2010-11-29T10:52:00.011-06:00

I have turned on LeBron. One year ago, I worshiped the guy. Now, following his dissing of his hometown, his one hour TV special to announce the dissing of his hometown, his giving himself the nickname "King James", and his stupid new Nike commercial, I've grown to dislike him very, very much. I used to think of him as perhaps the greatest physical talent I had ever seen on the court--a down-to-earth guy who would win many titles. Now, I think of him as an egomanical coach killer.

So, it is with great hesitation that I offer this advice to LBJ. Nothing would please me more than to have the Cavs finish with a better record this season than the Heat--but that's not going to happen. What also isn't going to happen is Miami winning the title. Unless they follow my plan.

There are a few guys in the league who I've always thought were out of position. Two guys in particular who play the 2 & 3 spots that I've always thought should be point guards. One is Brandon Roy--he was a point guard for half of his four years in college at Washington, and when you watch Portland games he does more ball handling and playmaking (especially in the 4th quarter) than anyone on the team, including the always overrated Andre Miller. Roy's rookie year I thought he was Portland's point guard, because that's what it looked like on the court and because Jarrett Jack sucked. For his career Roy averages 5 assists per game, an has a great feel for the art of passing. The Blazers have nothing to lose, having not won a playoff series since '00--although I understand that Roy's knees are bad, and playing point might be too much. However, playing the off guard position requires you to chase guys like Kobe and Wade and Manu night after night, which isn't exactly a vacation for your knees.

But I digress, because it's the other guy in the NBA that should be playing point for his team that I really want to discuss: LeBron. He currently leads the Heat in assists at 8 per game. Imagine what kind of assist totals he would rack up if he went Magic Johnson on us? It's soon-to-be Miami head coach Pat Riley's job to talk LeBron into being his team's Magic. In fact, that's what Riley and LeBron both mentioned as a big factor in his choosing Miami--he didn't want to worry about how many points he scored, he just wanted to set up Wade and Bosh. So why not do it? Right now James and Wade are each averaging 22 ppg. Who exactly is setting up whom?

The Heat have no point guard. They are a mess right now, with everyone worried about deferring to everyone else. Nobody on the team wants to be seen as a ball hog, so they all go overboard to please their teammates. Giving LeBron the point guard duties would establish desperately needed order. LeBron is, along with Jason Kidd, the most gifted passer in the game today. His ball handling is good, not great--but Magic wasn't exactly Curly Neal. As long as you know how to take care of the rock, you don't need to be an otherworldly dribbler to play an effective point. And, Magic was 6'9 (soft), LeBron is 6'8 (chiseled)--both a matchup nightmare with the size to see the whole court.

Plus, Wade is the Jordan-esque closer on that team, not LeBron. Things would work a lot better if it was James setting up Wade for the kill. LeBron looked like he might become a Jordan-esque closer, but that was just for one night in Auburn Hills in '07. He never got there again.

I really believe that LeBron would put up Magic-like numbers if he played the point--he would average 18 points and 12-15 assists per game. I think he would love it. And, taking over the most unselfish position on the court would do wonders for his image.

We would also find out if LeBron is a winner or not. Magic was great because, above all else, he had a burning desire to win. We don't know if LeBron has that. We don't know anymore if LeBron is a classic leader, or just a spoiled talent. Moving him to point would answer a lot.

But, since it's my great desire to see the Heat fail, I hope that they don't read this blog.

We've Never Seen Anything Like These Cowboys

2010-11-08T11:08:00.006-06:00

The 2010 season has, quite simply, been the worst Cowboys season of their 51. Two other poor campaigns come to mind: 1960 and 1989. However, there were no expectations for either of those squads. In 1960, the Cowboys were a first-year expansion team with some former Giants assistant named Landry coaching them--they were expected to go 0-12, and they went 0-11-1. 1989 was Jerry and Jimmy's first year--they were expected to fall on their faces, and they did, going 1-15.

2010 is different. This team was thought by many--locally and nationally--to have the most talented roster in the NFL. This team was picked by many--locally and nationally--to represent the NFC in Super Bowl 45 at the Deathstar. The Cowboys strutted around training camp like the cock of the walk. Wade Phillips was noticeably relaxed and overconfident. Stephen Jones confided in those who would listen that "we really have something special here." So how did it go so wrong? For me, it all started back on the second weekend of this calendar year.

January 9th, 2010: Mission Accomplished

Dallas 34, Philadelphia 14. The Cowboys win a playoff game. Wade raises the "Mission Accomplished" banner. He gets the monkey off of his back. So does Romo. So does the rest of the team. And, because they have a head coach who doesn't know how to drive a team or demand excellence from a team, they think they've arrived.

From that point forward, they put it on auto-pilot. They thought they had figured it out. They thought they would follow a natural progression upward. Never mind the fact that Minnesota beat them one week later 34-3--they saw that as a small speed bump on their road to next year's title. The organization was so impressed with itself for winning a playoff game that they forgot to do what any champion does: work harder in the face of success. This year's training camp was a joke, and everyone noticed except for Wade.

I believe that I can make a solid argument for Wade being the worst coach in Cowboys history. First, we eliminate Landry, Jimmy and Barry, because they all won Super Bowls. Campo? Terrible record, but he had awful rosters to work with. Parcells? Never won a playoff game, but rebuilt a bad team into a good one. Gailey? Got a team in demise, unlike Wade, who got a team on the rise. Plus, Wade was the head coach for Jerry's most disappointing moment as owner (the playoff loss to the Giants in '07), most embarrassing moment as owner (the 44-6 loss to Philly in '08), and the most embarrassing season he's ever presided over as owner (2010). Jerry said all of that, not me. Wade was brought in here to take the franchise to the next level up. Instead, he's dragged it down to it's lowest low in 51 seasons.

An Enema, Please

This franchise is a mess. We all know it starts with Jerry admitting he's Al Davis and stepping aside. But, we also all know that will never happen. Modern medicine and extreme wealth will keep Jerry alive for at least 30 more years, and he's not going to give up his GM title until he croaks.

Getting rid of Wade and getting a taskmaster head coach in place is step one. Letting that coach evaluate talent is step two--along with revamping your scouting department (how silly does it look now that they told us in '09 they were drafting for special teams?). Unless Jimmy or Bill has been in charge, the talent evaluation has sucked. Too often they look at athletic ability only and ignore the fact that the player might have a low football IQ (Felix Jones), might not be very tough (Mike Jenkins), might be more interested in making rap videos than playing hard (Marty B), might be more interested in celebrating mundane plays than focusing on the big picture (Igor Olshansky). It's got to change

As our buddy Mike Lombardi always tells us, the best teams are honest with themselves about their talent. But that won't happen around here as long as Jerry is in charge of the talent.

Jerry has a huge decision to make in the next few months regarding his next coach. Paul Sullivan writes in his new book "Clutch" something that I think directly applies to Jerry. He says "You cannot be clutch when you are making business decisions to advance your personal standing--or get revenge for being slighted." Since the day Jerry fired Jimmy, this is what he's tried to do--prove to people that he can build a champion without Jimmy's help. Prove to people that he's a football man. Prove that he can evaluate talent. Prove that he can juggle everything that people say he can't. Get revenge on the people who have slighted his abilities as a GM. He makes his business decisions based on advancing his personal standing--in other words, his ego.

That ego is responsible for poor talent evaluation now coming back to haunt them. That ego is the reason the most uninspiring and underachieving head coach ever was hired four years ago. That ego is the reason the Cowboys are now the laughing stock of the pro sports world. Have we ever seen a team, in any sport, with such lofty expectations turn into such a joke so quickly? No, we haven't. The Cowboys are making history of the wrong kind. The sad thing is, Jerry has no idea why.

Finally

2010-10-13T12:18:00.007-05:00

Two significant things happened to me in 1976. Each cemented me as a life-long Rangers fan. Both happened on the same summer trip, from OKC to Dallas, where I spent a couple of weeks with my cousins.

First, we all joined the Dr. Pepper Junior Rangers--we got an official club identification card, a cheap batting glove, and some general admission tickets with severe restrictions (I think we could only go see day games against the Twins or Indians). I felt like part of the team--I was a Junior Ranger. It sounded like I was in the farm system. Certainly all of us Junior Rangers would grow up and one day become Senior Rangers! Isn't that the path that Fergie Jenkins followed?

The second occurrence made an even greater impact: I went to my first Rangers (and first MLB) game. June 25th. My Uncles Don and Ronnie took a bunch of us cousins to old Arlington Stadium. We sat down the third base line. It was a doubleheader against the White Sox. Gaylord Perry pitched and won game one. Toby Harrah hit a grand slam. I'll always remember how the giant Texas scoreboard in left flashed "GRAND SLAM" and how the place went crazy. I got a game program, and for the next year or two, I memorized every inch of every page. I fell in love with the old logo--a baseball wearing a cowboy hat. I fell in love with the Rangers.

Never did I, or any of the 29.049 there that night, think we would have to wait through the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's before we would see our Rangers win a postseason series. No modern day fan of any pro franchise has been forced to wait like that. But this October, our suffering was rewarded. God Bless Clifton Phifer Lee.

I was born in Amarillo and grew up in OKC, so I always tried to root for the teams that were geographically closest to me. That meant growing up a Sooners fan, a Cowboys fan, a Spurs fan (remember, it was the 70's--they were the closest NBA team since there were no Mavericks), and a Rangers fan. I've been blessed--I've seen the Sooners, Cowboys and Spurs win 13 championships in my lifetime. But being a Rangers fan balanced things out, and kept me in touch with fans whose teams don't win much--or ever.

The Rangers won a division series, not a World Series--but it sure felt like the latter. To watch Cliff Lee shut down the Rays while wearing "Texas" across his chest was almost too much--I almost sports cried. It made me think of all of those Rangers teams, players and skippers who paved the way for Lee's heroics. Here's to the heroes of my childhood--the 70's and 80's: Billy Martin and the great '74 squad with Hargrove and Harrah, Burroughs and Fergie. The late 70's teams that I was sure would win it all--Scoop Oliver, Richie Zisk and Bobby Bonds at the plate; Matlack, Blyleven, Perry, Alexander, Medich, Lyle and Kern on the hill. The great Buddy Bell (thanks to Sunny and Buddy for making the All-Star game most years, and giving the Rangers their only national publicity each season), Pete O'Brien, and Mickey Rivers (what--we got the Yankees center fielder?!). Charlie Hough, who threw knucklers each half inning, then smoked in the dugout the other half of the inning--and who kept us in every game he pitched. Oddibie and Inky, Boo and Hoss. They may not have delivered like the boys did in Tampa, but they were a part of the process, the journey.

We know the Cowboys mean a lot to folks around here. But, until this week, I never realized how much the Rangers mean as well. I've heard from so many people who were also Junior Rangers, who also used to sit in those vast outfield bleachers at the old park on hot summer nights cheering a Rangers team that was 20 games out. I've heard from so many Rangers fans who shed a tear when the Tampa series ended because their father or grandfather, who loved the Rangers and took them to games in their childhood, didn't live to see this day. It wasn't a title--it was a moment. A moment that really touched a lot of people.

Fernando said to me the other day "I pity the people who don't like sports." Amen. They are missing so much. Moments like game 5. Moments that make the journey seem worth while. Moments that you never think will come, but they do. Finally. Now, if only I could get that call-up to the bigs from the Junior Rangers, my baseball life would be complete.

The First Month of Fall Sports

2010-10-04T19:05:00.012-05:00

First Month of the NFL

Through four weeks, I don't think I've ever seen the league so mediocre. We have 13 teams at 2-2, and more (who had the bye last weekend) that could be 2-2 soon. We have one unbeaten team, and it's the friggin' Chiefs. Everyone's favorites, the Colts, Cowboys, Jets, Packers, Pats, Saints and Vikes, look at best good--and at worst very average. There are no super teams, at least not yet.

My former colleague at The Ticket, Jimmy Christopher, once famously said (during a Ticket Ticker!!) that "parity is for pussies", and I couldn't agree more. I hate parity. It wreaks of the Pussification of America scourge that rewards every kid in the race with a ribbon. It also makes for some poor quality, watered down football--as we have witnessed so far this season.

What I like about letting nature take it's course in sports (as opposed to forced equality) is that it creates great teams and crappy teams. Yes, you'll get some blowouts each week when a super-power hammers a winless squad, but you'll also get more high quality games when the super-powers meet each other. And your the quality of play in the post-season will be much better. Additionally, the occasional dynasty will surface, which makes for better sports drama. It's always fun to see if David can beat Goliath, and it's always fun to watch Goliath battle Goliath. Without that dynamic in sports, we don't have great upset stories, or great championship rivalries. Every sport needs its Yankees or Lakers, its Tiger or Ali.

Can't wait for this season's AFC title game between the Chiefs and Texans. Wow.

First Month of College Football

I want to rant about something that is plaguing college and pro football. Stupid coaches calling stupid time outs one second before the stupid kicker tries a stupid field goal. Can we please put an end to this? It's the most chicken sheet thing in sports since Hack-a-Shaq. I love it when it backfires, like it did two weeks ago on Sean Payton. I love it when a kicker nails it on that first try, then shrugs his shoulders and nails it again after the stupid time out. Just about every coach out there has tried this at least once, and I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror after the game. It's not smart coaching--it's a childish game of gotcha.

Another college observation: after attending my 28th OU-TX game in the last 31 years, I hit my knees and asked Jesus to never move that game from the Cotton Bowl. No game can match that one for atmosphere (although I hear Army-Navy is amazing--got it on my bucket list). The Fair makes it. The split stadium makes it. The history of the place makes it. Hope it never goes home-and-home, and really hope it never goes to The Deathstar. Pro football stadiums are no place for classic college rivalries.

First Month of the EPL

After adopting Arsenal and watching them for a month, I have to say that I'm really enjoying the sport (and the EPL in particular). I still can't sit down and watch a random West Brom-Wigan match, but I'm all about the Gunners.

The EPL is so much more enjoyable than the World Cup. The players are better, the game is faster paced, the passing is better, and there are many more shots on goal that in the WC. As Fernando put it, the teams in the EPL play to win, while the teams in the WC played not to lose. Right on. And when your game is low scoring to begin with, playing not to lose can really put a guy like me to sleep. But there has been no napping for me during Arsenal games--they are a pleasure to watch with their precise passing and (sometimes, not last weekend) high scoring.

I was disappointed that Arsenal had to play at Chelsea last weekend without Fabregas, Walcott, and van Persie (Almunia not so much). That's like my Spurs playing the Lakers without Duncan, Parker and Ginobili (or at least close). Fabregas is a passing savant, like Magic or Kidd--they are a completely different team when he plays. Without him, they struggle for scoring chances.

I'm also being exposed to the other teams and other great players around the EPL for the first time. I really enjoyed watching Drogba play last weekend. In addition to being great, he seemed cool--always helping up Arsenal players, patting them on the back, etc. Seems like he really respects his opponents, yet during the course of play wants to cut off their family jewels. Admirable combo.

(Random observation from the Arsenal-Chelsea game: the British play by play announcer sounded exactly like Michael Palin doing a Monty Python bit. I loved it!)

Learning the game, and the EPL, has been a blast so far. It's not yet in my top 5 favorite sports, but it's climbing fast. I still can't figure out offsides to save my life, but I'm picking up everything else pretty quickly. I've also been reading up on the history of the league, which has helped a lot. Maybe best of all, I can sit through an entire EPL game without a coach calling a time out right before a penalty kick.

My Exclusive 2010 NFL Predictions

2010-09-07T19:44:00.006-05:00

I like to think that when Andy Williams sang the opening line of his Christmas classic, that he was really thinking about the start of the NFL season. In my mind, and I think in Andy's as well, it really is "the most wonderful time of the year." So, buoyed by the excitement and enthusiasm of a new season, let's run through each division en route to my highly anticipated and sure to be much-talked-about Super Bowl pick.

I struggled with one thing: the fact that we have 40%-50% turnover each year among playoff teams. I could only come up with 3 new playoff teams for this season--a turnover of just 25%. I just couldn't talk myself into 3 more new playoff teams, but I'm afraid history tells us it will likely happen.

AFC West

San Diego (11-5)
Denver (8-8)
Oakland (6-10)
Kansas City (6-10)

The Chargers are very clearly the class of this otherwise weak division. Has their window started to close a bit? Maybe. But they still have a great QB in Rivers, and should easily take the division. The Dumervil injury will really hurt Denver--I think the best they can do is equal last year's 8-8. Oakland and KC have a long way to go. Campbell is not the answer for the Raiders, just as he wasn't the answer for the Redskins.

AFC South

Indianapolis (12-4)
Houston (9-7)
Tennessee (8-8)
Jacksonville (6-10)

The Colts are an easy pick here. They are a machine: the most consistent team in the NFL, and will make the playoffs for the 10th straight season (the current longest streak in the league). Houston might be a very good team, but no team has a more difficult schedule. I don't like the Titans as long as Vince Young is their QB--he's too unstable to make them a solid pick. The Jags will not make the playoffs, and will not sell out a game all season.

AFC North

Baltimore (10-6)
Pittsburgh (9-7, wild card)
Cincinnati (9-7)
Cleveland (5-11)

The Ravens went 9-7 with a brutal schedule last year, and I think they're poised to go at least one game better with a slightly easier slate this season--Boldin will help a sometimes stale offense. If the Steelers can go 2-2 during Big Ben's suspension, they can get to nine wins. The Bengals will be fun to watch, but in the end I'm not sure they're a playoff team. Eric Mangini has felt from day one of the Holmgren era that he's not long for the Browns world, and he'll be proven correct when he's fired at the end of the year, if not sooner.

AFC East

New England (11-5)
New York Jets (10-6, wild card)
Miami (7-9)
Buffalo (3-13)

I like the Jets, but it seems a lot of people have them rated too highly. Sanchez was terrific last season, but let's see him do it again before we stick them in the Super Bowl. I think Belichick will sell his soul to the devil to shut Rex Ryan up. This should be the most entertaining divisional race in the AFC because of that--the old guard Pats trying to hold off the upstart Jets. What about Miami? Was that 11-5 season two years ago a fluke? I think it may have been, and last year's 7-9 is probably a more accurate picture of this team. The season will be so long for Chan Gailey in Buffalo that he may just paint the dog's toenails red and move to Alabam'.

NFC West

San Francisco (9-7)
Arizona (8-8)
Seattle (7-9)
St. Louis (3-13)

This is the most boring division in football, hands down. Give me a boring 49ers team to edge out a now-boring Cards team. Anderson instead of Warner will cost the Cards a few wins. Carroll will work some magic with the boring Seahawks--just some. Sam Bradford will be really good eventually for the boring Rams, but will have a very long season in '10.

NFC South

New Orleans (11-5)
Atlanta (10-6, wild card)
Carolina (8-8)
Tampa Bay (4-12)

The Saints will be good-to-great again, but it's been 13 years since we had a repeat champion in the NFC. They are building something nice in Atlanta, they just need a little more defense to be really scary. Is Matt Moore the answer in Carolina? Is Josh Freeman the answer in Tampa? I can't say yes to either.

NFC North

Green Bay (12-4)
Minnesota (9-7, wild card)
Chicago (9-7)
Detroit (3-13)

The Pack's offense is downright frightening, and on defense Dom Capers has made a difference (they led the NFL in run defense in '09--the first time in franchise history they had done that). They are a bit of chic pick this year, but I'm falling into the trap--the 10th easiest schedule this season helps. Plus, I think the Vikes fall back a bit: the Rice injury is huge, no more Chester Taylor, Percy Harvin's migraine headaches, and another year of age on Brett Favre. Can Martz fix Cutler in Chicago? As a former Cutler fan, I'm now very skeptical. Detroit still sucks--they are 3-37 in their last 40 games!

NFC East

Dallas (10-6)
New York Giants (9-7)
Philadelphia (8-8)
Washington (6-10)

Dallas is the clear favorite. However, since the day it came out, I have feared their schedule. It's the 3rd most difficult in the NFL. I actually think the Cowboys could be better than they were last year, but have a worse record--which will cost them home field in the playoffs. I think NY again misses the playoffs. The Giants have not been the same since Burress shot himself in the leg, and since Spagnuolo left their defense--plus, Jacobs seems to be wearing down a little bit from all of the contact. I still think Eli is terrific, but I don't love his cast. I don't trust Kolb in Philly. The Redskins have a long way to go. Check the history of Super Bowl winning coaches when they try it again at another stop--it's awful. I think Shanahan will struggle to build something in Washington, unless an Elway (not an old McNabb) lands in his lap.

AFC Playoffs

Pats over Steelers
Jets over Ravens

Colts over Jets
Pats over Chargers

AFC Championship: Colts over Pats

NFC Playoffs

Vikings over 49ers
Cowboys over Falcons (Dallas wins a first-round home game, just like last season)

Packers over Vikings
Cowboys over Saints (Dallas beat NO in the dome last season, and will do it again)

NFC Championship: Packers over Cowboys (the tough schedule costs Dallas home field, and winning at Lambeau in January is too much to ask)

Super Bowl XLV

Colts over Packers (Manning doesn't throw a costly 4th quarter pick this time, and gets his second title)

2011

Work stoppage. So, enjoy this season.

Greatest Rangers Team Ever?

2010-08-26T13:43:00.006-05:00

The Metroplex hasn't had Rangers Fever like this in more than a decade. In fact, in their almost 40 years in North Texas, the Rangers have fielded few teams with this much potential. If this current team stays on course for the next month, then we'll all be wondering if it might not be the greatest Rangers team ever.

I did this a few months ago when we all had Mavs Fever after the big trade with the Wizards. I took the current team and matched them up with the two best teams from two different eras from the franchise's past. So, let's do that with the Rangers, and hope for a better postseason result from our baseball team than we got from our basketball team.

The other candidates? I've chosen the 1999 Rangers, who won the AL West (for the third time in four seasons) with a club record 95 wins. The 1996 Rangers were also considered to represent this era, but most feel the '99 version was better. There were really no teams from the 80's worthy of being included in this experiment (save for maybe '86), but from the 70's there were three: 1974, 1977, and 1978. The '77 team won 90 games and were led by Gaylord Perry and Bert Blyleven on the mound. The '78 team featured newcomers Al Oliver, Richie Zisk and Jon Matlack, and won 87 games. But I'm going with the '74 squad, led by Billy Martin--they won just 84 games, but finished only 6 back of the World Champion Oakland A's in the AL West.

Let's go position by position and see what happens.

Catcher

2010 Bengie Molina/Matt Treanor
1999 Pudge Rodriguez
1974 Jim Sundberg

Clear advantage to the '99 squad. Pudge was the AL MVP in '99, and when you talk about the greatest catchers of all-time, he's right there with Bench and Berra and whoever else you want to consider. Sundberg was a tremendous defensive backstop, but falls way short of Pudge at the plate. The Molina/Treanor tandem does not figure into the mix here.

First Base

2010 Mitch Moreland/Chris Davis/Justin Smoak
1999 Lee Stevens
1974 Mike Hargrove

Hargrove hit .323 and was AL Rookie of the Year, never struck out, had a high on base percentage, and fielded the ball well. Big Lee Stevens out homered Hargrove 24-4, out RBI'd him 84-66, and had a higher slugging percentage. Again, the 2010 Rangers don't compete here. Tough call, but I'm going with Hargrove, who I think was simply a better all-around player than Stevens. But it's very close considering the two seasons involved. Advantage 1974.

Second Base

2010 Ian Kinsler
1999 Mark McLemore
1974 Dave Nelson

Kinsler, despite his constant injury issues, wins here. When healthy, he one of the most prolific offensive second basemen of his generation. He's also turned into an outstanding fielder, having dropped the error bug of his youth. McLemore was steady, but not spectacular. Nelson could field and run, but he carried a very light bat. Advantage 2010.

Shortstop

2010 Elvis Andrus
1999 Royce Clayton
1974 Toby Harrah

Harrah was an All-Star three times for the Rangers in the 70's. He hit 21 homers in '74, stole 15 bases, but hit just .260. Harrah was always among the league leaders in errors, too. Clayton hit .288 with 14 HR's in '99, and was solid. But Elvis might be the best defensive shortstop in baseball--at age 21. Like Ozzie Smith, anything you get at the plate with Elvis is icing on the cake--and his .280 average is pretty sweet icing. Advantage 2010.

Third Base

2010 Michael Young
1999 Todd Zeile
1974 Lenny Randle

Young is one of the best hitters of his era, but struggles in the field at third. Zeile went 24-89-.293 in '99--pretty solid--yet, he also led AL 3rd basemen in errors that season. Lenny Randle once punched manager Frank Lucchesi, so he doesn't enter the mix here. Nice year by Zeile, but Young is starting to put together the type of resume that, if he plays long enough, will encourage Hall of Fame consideration. And, Young's numbers by the end of the year should trump Zeile's from '99. Advantage 2010.

Left Field

2010 Josh Hamilton
1999 Rusty Greer
1974 Alex Johnson

Johnson was a good hitter--once won a batting title with the Angels. Greer was a fan favorite who played a great left, and went 20-101-.300 in '99--very impressive. But as good as Johnson and Greer were, Hamilton is on another planet. He's putting together possible the greatest individual season in Rangers history. He should win the batting title--easily--and his power numbers are huge. Hamilton runs and fields very well, and is turning into a real leader on the team. Advantage 2010.

Center Field

2010 Julio Borbon
1999 Tom Goodwin
1974 Joe Lovitto

None of the three put up any offensive numbers worth discussing, other than Goodwin's 39 stolen bases. Goodwin could also cover a lot of ground in center--he's the best defensive player of the three. Advantage 1999.

Right Field

2010 Nelson Cruz
1999 Juan Gonzales
1974 Jeff Burroughs

Now we've got some offensive numbers to talk about. Burroughs won the AL MVP award in '74 (25-118-.301). Gonzales did not have his best year in '99, but was still a force at the plate (39-128-.326). Cruz has been great, but has missed too much time due to injuries. Close call, but Juando wins over Burroughs. Advantage 1999.

Designated Hitter

2010 Vlad Guerrero
1999 Raffy Palmeiro
1974 Jim Spencer

Despite the fact that he may have been on roids, Raffy wins. His 47-148-.324 season might almost make Josh Hamilton blush. Vlad has been nice, but his numbers aren't anywhere near Raffy's. Spencer was just 7-44-.278 as part-time DH/1B. Advantage 1999.

Starting Pitching

2010 Lee, Lewis, Wilson, Hunter
1999 Helling, Sele, Burkett, Morgan
1974 Jenkins, Bibby, Brown, Hargan

Is this the area that gives Rangers fans so much hope for this season? Those four names have all been good to great. The '99 starters had a combined ERA in the 5.00's (different era, I know, but still...). The '74 staff was top heavy, with Jenkins winning 25 games and posting an ERA of 2.82--the best pitching season in club history. Bibby won 19 for the '74 squad, Brown and Hargan won 13 and 12 with ERA's in the 3.00's. That '74 staff was damn good, and I would take Fergie over any one of today's Rangers, including Lee. Very, very close call. But, based on wins, strikeouts, shutouts (different eras, I know) and ERA of the four names in each group, I have to go advantage 1974. Fergie might have been the tiebreaker.

Bullpen

2010 Feliz (cl), Francisco, Oliver, O'Day
1999 Wetteland (cl), Zimmerman, Venafro, Crabtree
1974 Foucalt (cl), Merritt, Stanhouse, Broberg

Wetteland was huge with 43 saves, and his setup crew was good. Foucalt had just 12 saves, but when Jenkins and Bibby are finishing damn near every game, you don't have many chances. Feliz has been incredible--a Mariano Rivera in the making. By season's end he may have more than 43 saves. The 2010 middle relief has been incredible--if there was a tie here, they break it. Advantage 2010.

Manager

2010 Ron Washington
1999 Johnny Oates
1974 Billy Martin

I'm not a huge Wash fan, but he's doing something right. I think he's more a product of some genius work by Ryan and Daniels, and perfect timing. Oates was a manager's manager, and is the most successful manager in club history. Billy Martin, however, wins here. Martin was volatile, but a genius. Advantage 1974.

The Final Score

2010 5
1999 4
1974 3

It's official--this year's Rangers squad is the best in club history. It was actually a close race between the three eras, but the current day team wins out. The pitching, both starting and bullpen, has been great. The defense is much improved. Yes, they are benefiting from a weak division (what might that '74 team have done without the A's in their way?), but they are making the most of it.

Keep in mind, these results are as of 8/26/10. If the bottom falls out and this team stinks it's way through September and October, then we'll re-think things. But I don't see that happening--do you?

My First Date With Arsenal

2010-08-15T20:08:00.004-05:00

This weekend was all about EPL in our household. "Eat, Pray, Love" starring Julia Roberts for my wife, and the opening weekend of the English Premier League for me. I think I had more fun.

I was pretty excited about seeing my newly adopted Arsenal Gunners play a match that mattered. I had watched a couple of the preseason "friendlies" as they are called, but that's like watching preseason NFL football--you know it doesn't matter, so you are quickly bored. By the way, there are WAY too many "friendlies" in soccer--just like we have too many NFL preseason games, too many college football bowl games, and too many Globetrotters games each year. Give us a break. Let us enjoy the stuff that really matters, and quit the sham that is exhibition sports. And in the case of the Globetrotters, at least give them someone else to play besides the Generals so that buying into it isn't so difficult.

This weekend's action had the same feel to it that the opening weekend of the NFL has--except that it's only been a two month off-season for the EPL, and the NFL makes us wait seven months (have I really just made a 10 month commitment to a sport that I might not like?). I watched the EPL preview show on the Fox Soccer Channel (which is now in HD--thank God), and I've read up as much as I could on my new team. Arsenal hasn't won anything in the last four seasons (except that glorious weekend last month when they retained the prestigious Emirates Cup), but they are highly thought of which makes it fun to watch a team that may be on the cusp of something big. I was ready to go.

The Gunners were taking on Bob Sturm's Liverpool club. A classic Musers vs BAD Radio clash, and a classic season opening matchup of two sides who are almost always among the best in the league. The game was 0-0 at the start, and 0-0 at the half (what have I gotten into, again?). Liverpool scored quickly to open the second half, and in the last minute of action, Arsenal got a cheap goal to tie the game at 1-1. I was thrilled with the cheap goal--there is nothing worse than losing your opener in any sport. Today, I learned to appreciate kissing my sister.

Other thoughts from my first regular season Arsenal watch:

Is there a sport where going a man down matters less than in soccer? A Liverpool chap was red-carded (kicked out) late in the first half, which meant the Reds played with 10 men to Arsenal's 11 the rest of the way. "We'll kill them!" I thought, thinking of my Gunners now on a hockey-like power play for the second half. In reality, you couldn't tell a difference. Instead of being a man down, Liverpool looked like they were three men up.

The flopping is outrageous!! Don't these guys know that we have instant replay and can clearly see that they were not touched?? They will writhe around in pain as though they've just been Joe Theismann'd. Floppers in the NBA are actors, but they are Oscar winners compared to soccer guys. The cheap playlet often ends with a stretcher being brought out--I've never seen that during an NBA game--I think even Rudy T. walked off under his own power.

The atmosphere at the stadium looks great. The fans are singing and chanting all game long. Is it because they are drunk, or bored, or simply because they're such great fans? I'm thinking all of the above.

Penalty kicks and free kicks are fun. Corner kicks, however, are incredibly overrated. How many times does a team convert a corner--once in 100 tries? There were a ton of corner kicks in the Arsenal game today. The announcers would build them up, and then every time the ball would be poked 600 feet into the air and nobody would ever come close to scoring a goal. Corner kicks are not what they are cracked up to be.

I love Arsenal's road uniforms. I love their home look, too, And I like Liverpool's red. In fact, soccer uniforms, in general, are really cool. Looking forward to watching games each week just to take in the uniforms, stadiums, etc.

I noticed one thing today that may be the key to enjoying soccer. It's the struggle. It can be so frustrating to watch a soccer match because so much goes on, but so few points are put on the board. When your team falls behind 1-0, it seems as though they have to climb Everest to get that equalizer. It's really, really hard to score a goal, and that's frustrating to watch. But maybe that's also the beauty of it all.

So far, so good. I think I'm going to like this. At the very least, I know I'll end up liking in more than a Julia Roberts movie.

Was It A Good Tour?

2010-07-25T20:35:00.005-05:00

The man who we all thought would win the 2010 Tour de France, Alberto Contador, won. He was far from dominant, yet nobody was able to take advantage of his less-than-stellar form. Contador didn't win a single stage. He struggled in the final time trial (when is the last time a Tour winner finished 35th in the final time trial--never??). The Spaniard was very beatable this July, but nobody was good enough or lucky enough to knock him off.

It was a very entertaining three weeks, yet the Contador/Schleck battle almost got a little stale to me, with neither able to drop the other on the climbs. The fireworks we all waited for in the mountains never really came about because the two were so evenly matched. Still, the race produced some interesting twists and turns, good story lines, and a result in doubt until the final weekend.

I loved the route of the Tour this year. The cobbled stage was great. There were enough flat stages for the sprinters, but not enough to bog down the flow of the race. There were rolling stages with tricky finishes like the one to Mende. The Alps did not disappoint, and the four days in the Pyrenees were terrific. Thumbs up to the race organizers for finally understanding how to lay out a three week stage race and keep it interesting--something they have had a tough time doing since 1989.

One thing we will all remember about this Tour: crashes. They were everywhere, and costly to many of the GC contenders. Frank Schleck broke a collarbone. Cadel Evans broke an elbow. Lance Armstrong crashed three times on the stage to Avoriaz, basically taking him out of the race in week one.

Could Lance have mustered a challenge had he not hit the pavement so often during that stage? What if he hadn't flatted on the cobbles? I think the answer is no. As good as I felt about his chances to podium before the race, I thought it became apparent during the event that his age had caught up to him. He had one great moment--the prologue. But after watching him for three weeks, two things stuck out to me...

One--his cadence in time trials is not what it was. He used to turn the gear at what seemed like 150 rpm. Now, it's more like a normal 90 rpm. I don't have a answer for that, other than to say his system is not trained like it was to put so much pressure on his aerobic engine. Second--he lacks that pure power and pure explosion in the mountains. At 28, Lance could accelerate and ride away from the best climbers in the world. At 38, he seems to only be able to follow wheels--and just for a while before having to give in and go at his own pace. He's still good at climbing and good at the time trials, but he's not great anymore--understandable for a racer of his age and recent retirement. It makes his 3rd place last year look even more impressive.

Many of us were fooled by Lance's good June results, but in hindsight perhaps we should have looked at his entire season for a better indication of what his Tour would be like--underwhelming. That's OK--I think he's done enough over his career for us to not worry about a 23rd place finish this year. And, as some consolation, Radio Shack won the team competition, giving Lance one last appearance on the podium in Paris, which was cool.

If Lance had been a few years younger, or come to the race in great form, he would have smashed Contador. For whatever reason, Alberto was below his level from last year. Maybe Schleck made him work harder than expected in the mountains. Maybe his race build-up was less than it should have been. Maybe he was ill. In the end, it was one of the least-impressive Tour wins ever. Add to that the controversy over not waiting for Andy on the Port de Bales, and you have a race that Contador would probably like to have a few do-overs in. I can't help but think that somewhere the likes of Merckx and Hinault are thinking "35th in the last time trial and he won the race--I would have crushed him!"

Will Andy Schleck win this race next year? I'm not so sure. Everyone is raving about his final time trial and how much he pushed Contador, but he finished 44th! I thought it was much more that Alberto had a bad day than Schleck having a good day. Andy will have to greatly improve his time trialing still to beat Alberto, because I don't think he'll ever be able to just ride away from him in the mountains.

Get ready for the Contador vs Schleck show for many more Tours. They are both young enough to be at the top for another 7-10 years. Basso? Menchov? Sanchez? Evans? I just don't see another real challenger to Contador's throne outside of Andy. And, there don't seem to be any really bright young hopes on the horizon. Of course, five years ago we didn't really know the names Contador and Schleck, so you never can tell.

Now, anybody up for the Vuelta?

2010 Tour de France Preview: Does Lance Have a Chance?

2010-06-29T18:21:00.017-05:00

"Few things can bring the country of France to a standstill. The start and end of world wars. A revolution. And, every summer, in the heat of July, a bicycle race, as millions line to roads just to catch a glimpse of the two wheeled missiles and the gods who ride them"

Jorgen Leth from the film "23 Days in July"

Stage 3. This early battleground could tell us a lot about what kind of a race this will be. Stage 3 finishes with seven sectors of cobblestone roads, some of which are very difficult. Traditionally, thin climbers (like defending champion Alberto Contador) have trouble riding the cobbles. In 2004, Spanish climber Iban Mayo lost huge chunks of time to Lance Armstrong on a similar cobbled stage. If Armstrong and his team can make Contador suffer on this stage--and take some time from him--then we could have a wild and dramatic race.

Before we get to how I think it will play out, let's look at the favorites.

Alberto Contador

Two-time winner of the Tour, and acknowledged best stage racer in the world. He has started four grand tours, and won them all. He chalked up some impressive early season wins in this year, and three weeks ago he won the l'Alpe D'Huez stage of the Dauphine. At 27, he is at the height of his powers. His team (a weakened Astana) is a question mark, but his ability is not. His only real weakness may be his impatient nature and lack of tactical nous.

Lance Armstrong

Seven-time winner. 3rd place last year after 3 years in retirement. Slow start this year, but in June finished 3rd in the Tour of Luxembourg and 2nd in the Tour of Switzerland. He's 38, but has said in the last week that he feels 28 again, and that his training and test times are close to where they were at his peak (at least on the climbs). Has a very strong, albeit very old, Radio Shack team. His time trialing has slipped--a lot. But, he's the smartest racer in the bunch, and may be peaking at the right time.

Andy Schleck

2nd place last year. Regarded as the 2nd best climber in the world, behind Contador. Not much of a time trialist, and not much in the way of race results this year. Crashed in training last week--scratched up. Has put all of his 2010 eggs in the Tour basket. May be the only rider in the world who can ride away from Contador in the mountains, and is backed by a strong Saxo Bank squad. He's 25 years old--should be coming into his peak as a rider.

Frank Schleck

Andy's brother, who has been better than Andy this season. Recently won the Tour of Switzerland, and was second in Luxembourg. Improved time trialist, gifted climber. May be a better bet this July than his brother. Also races for Saxo Bank. Frank seems to be a better all-around rider than Andy, yet always seems to sacrifice himself for his bother at the Tour. With his form this season, it may be the other way around this time.

Ivan Basso

Former Tour of Italy winner, then suspended two years for doping, and now recent Tour of Italy winner (two months ago). Does he have enough in the tank to win the Giro in May and then be competitive at the Tour? We'll see. If on form, he's a great climber and a good time trialist. Liquigas team is strong. Basso is this Tour's dark horse/wild card--he could be very good, or very bad.

Others:

Cadell Evans, Denis Menchov, Carlos Sastre, Bradley Wiggins, Christian Vandevelde. If anyone other than one of these ten riders wins the Tour, I will walk down Greenville Ave in a bra and panties.

How I Think It Will Play Out

Fabian Cancellara (Saxo Bank) will win the prologue time trial, and the first yellow jersey. He will then try to keep yellow on Stage 3 over the cobblestones. Saxo Bank will have to be careful not to burn themselves out early helping Cancellara, as they'll need to save energy for the Schleck brothers and the mountains in the final two weeks. But they'll have yellow for a few days early.

Radio Shack will set a torrid pace on the cobbles near the end of Stage 3. Armstrong is good on those roads, and I think The Shack will try to rip the race apart. Contador knows this, but that doesn't matter--can he do anything about it? He trained a bit on the cobbles this spring, but he's never raced on them--big difference. I see him losing a couple on minutes on this stage. And that will set the stage for a delicious final two weeks. If Amrstrong is not able to pick up any time on Contador on this stage, then the race may be over.

The Alps come first this year, with one mountain top finish. The Pyrenees are more difficult, but will Ccontador be able to control himself until the final week? Will he need to make up time on Armstrong sooner that he thinks? I'm sure, given his mindset, that Contador will try to take time at Avoriaz, the first mountain top finish--Stage 8. If Contador has trouble dropping Lance on this stage, then lookout. If Amrstrong is climbing as well as he says, then this stage should be very interesting.

Stages 16 and 17 are brutal Pyrenean climbing stages. Most feel that Contador will stamp his authority on the race here, in the mountains that border his native country. I think we may have three or four men (Contador, Armstrong, and the Schelck brothers) all within a minute of each other at this point. Whoever can handle the Tourmalet the best will emerge as the likely yellow jersey in Paris. Safe bet here is Contador. He should leave the mountains with a couple of minutes advantage on his rivals, and he should add to that in the final time trial the day before the race ends.

My final picks:

1. Contador
2. Armstrong @ 3:00
3. F. Schleck @ 3:15
4. A. Schleck @ 4:00
5. Evans @ 5:00

(If I had just a little more faith in Conatador, I would pick him to win by 10 minutes. This is the year he should be able to do that, but part of me doesn't trust him, and part of me believes the way the Tour is raced these days--with race radios and director sportif's controling almost everything--that the days of the Merckx-like 10 and 20 minute gaps are over)

It's hard to pick against Contador--he's in his prime, he's had a nice season so far, he's motivated to beat Lance, and he's the best in the world. Lance will put up a good fight--he probably knows he can't beat Contador straight up, but over three weeks, anything can happen. Contador could crash, test positive, have one really bad day, get sick--anything can happen.

I expect Lance to be better than last year in the mountains, but I worry about his time trialing. You can win the Tour if you're in the top 5 in the time trials, but you can't finish 15th in the time trials as he's been doing. Lance can get time on the cobbles, stay close in the mountains, limit his losses in the time trials, and finish on the podium again.

I like Frank Schleck better than Andy this year, but Frank and Andy have a way of throwing away their own chances in order to help each other. If Frank gets greedy and doesn't worry about Andy, he can finish in the top 3. Andy could be playing possum, but something just doesn't look or feel right about him this season.

Cadell Evans is a cagey, gutsy rider who has twice finished second in this race. He'll ride well again. It will be good to see the world champion's jersey racing to win the Tour de France--we haven't seen that since the 90's with Abraham Olano and Greg LeMond.

It will be a fascinating three weeks. With Lance and Alberto on different teams this year, the race should be much more interesting than the '09 edition. This will be Lance's final Tour, and I think he'll go out with a bang--another podium finish, and a fight with Contador through the final week. But, in the end, 27 year old legs beat 38 year old legs.

The World Cup, From The Outside Looking In

2010-06-24T16:29:00.009-05:00

I have never been a soccer fan, though not for a lack of trying (more on that later). I have no bias against the sport. I do not hate soccer. I do not hate soccer fans. Or soccer balls. Or soccer moms. On the show this week, we've taken a lot of grief from irate soccer fans who think we deserve a red card for our take on the world's most popular sport. Allow me some time to explain...

I have always been a fringe sport/Olympic sport fan. Like any good American, I've always enjoyed football, basketball and baseball. But I've also always loved learning about sports that most Americans don't know much about. If you've listened to our show for any amount of time, or read this blog, you know that cycling is my passion. Since childhood, I've also always followed and/or played tennis, golf, World Cup skiing, track and field, triathlon, surfing, motorcycle racing, F1--you name it, and I'm open to watching it, learning about it, and trying it.

I would stack my love for and knowledge about international sports up against anyone at The Ticket. Nobody was more into the Winter Olympics than I was. Bob has me on soccer, boxing and hockey. Corby has me on soccer and golf. George has me on golf and swimming. Norm has me on horse racing and gambling. But I'm guessing I've got everyone on most of the sports I listed above, and then some. As a kid, I thought it was great that everyone in school knew who Roger Staubach was, but that I was the only one who knew who Bill Rodgers was. Everyone knew of Larry Bird, but I was the only one who knew of Dave Scott. Everyone had heard of Pete Rose, but no one had heard of Niki Lauda. Walter Payton, Reggie Jackson, Dr. J? That's easy. But how about Laurent Fignon, Gustav Thoni and Guillermo Vilas? I knew them all, because I loved all sports.

Which brings us to soccer. I tried to play it as a kid. I lost interest in a hurry. Not being able to use your hands was a big drawback, I thought. It just didn't have the constant, hands on (sorry) excitement that other sports did. As an adult, I tried watching it, but it never hooked me. I tried getting into the World Cup in 1994 when the U.S. hosted the event--I even went to a game at the Cotton Bowl. Fun atmosphere, but it never grabbed me. I've tried (maybe not hard enough--still more on that later).

So, against that backdrop, and armed with that information--here are my unbiased, non-sarcastic, from the heart observations on the sport of soccer and the World Cup.

THINGS I LIKE

1. Commercial free halves. Greatness. No other sport gives you that bang for the buck. You invest 110 minutes total and it's over. You have zero commercials per half. There is not another sport in the world that can make that claim. I love it.

2. The passion. I would stack the passion of the soccer fan up against the passion of any other fan from any other sport. I've never experienced anything like standing on the side of a mountain road during the Tour de France--the fans are insane. But I hear that the soccer fans at a Premier League game are just as nuts, if not nuttier. I would like to experience that one day.

3. The international flavor. I love any event where, in the stands, you will hear 10 different languages being spoken and see 10 different flags being waved. I enjoy the political/geographical rivalries. I enjoy countries whose hatred for each other goes back centuries. You don't get that in many sports. I also love the color--the jerseys and logos, etc. Very rich.

4. The history. While the game itself doesn't reel me in, the history of the sport does. I like reading about Pele and Beckenbauer. I like looking at the list of the Cup winners. I like the stories behind the stories. Any sport with a thick, global history and with lots of characters and intrigue is ok by me.

5. The United States climb to dominance. Soccer is one of the few sports remaining that we haven't figured out. We've reached the top of the mountain in just about everything else, but the road map to international soccer success is still confusing to us. I like that we are a hungry nation. America is usually at it's best when it's hungry.

THINGS I DON'T LIKE

1. The lack of scoring opportunities. My biggest beef with the sport. There is too much time where the ball is being kicked around at midfield, or kicked out of bounds, or when play just bogs down to the point that you realize nothing exciting is going to happen in the next minute, guaranteed. However, in other sports, there is almost always a chance for a score or something dramatic at any moment. In baseball, every pitch gives you a scoring opportunity. In football, every snap delivers the promise of something big. In basketball, almost every trip down the floor results in a payoff. Even in a slow sport like golf, every single stroke for Tiger counts towards his score--every swing could win or lose the tournament. Every one. Yet, in soccer, I would estimate that you get a legitimate scoring chance once every 5-10 minutes. Not enough, for this reporter.

2. The clock. "Extra time" is the most unstable thing in international sports. Can you imagine watching an NFL game where time was kept on the field and basically hidden from the players and fans? How outraged would we be? I don't understand why the clock can't start at 45:00 and count back, and be stopped when the official wants it stopped. It would make the game much easier to follow, instead of forcing fans to constantly do math and then guess at how much time might remain.

3. The flopping. I don't like it in the NBA, and I like it even less in soccer. At least in the NBA they get right up. In soccer, they bring out a stretcher. Really??

4. The ABC/ESPN announcers. The American announcers (save for a few) act like they've been around the sport forever--they haven't. The Euro announcers that they've imported for this event sound like they would rather be somewhere else. That doesn't get me fired up. Heck, we get so few scoring opportunities, I want those announcers losing their sheet in those moments.

5. The hyperbolic soccer media and fandom. Claiming that the extra time goal against Algeria was one of the greatest moments in U.S. sports history is a bit of a stretch to me. Likening it to the Miracle on Ice (Mike and Mike, Matt Laurer, and dozens of spare soccer scribes) is a joke. The Miracle on Grass? Come on. Should the U.S. beat Spain in the semi-finals on a last-second goal, then yes, let's all roll out the Lake Placid comparisons. But not beating Algeria (who didn't score a goal in any of their three World Cup games) in the preliminary round. As one listener said, it was the equivalent of Texas beating Iowa State 3-0 on a last second field goal. Nice, exciting win--but not epic.

MY PLEDGE

Then again, maybe it's me. So, as an olive branch to the soccer fan who thinks I haven't given the sport a chance or who thinks I haven't thought out my "soccer is boring" opinion, I offer this...

I've been told by many of you via email that the World Cup is not the best soccer to watch--that big-time European pro soccer is. So, I will get into Euro soccer for a season and see if it grabs me. I'll pick one team to follow (suggestions, please), and I will watch all of their games. I will read about it. I will talk about it. I will corner Bob at work and make him answer my questions, at gunpoint if that's what it takes. I will give it an honest effort. I will update my findings along the way. If, at the end of that season, it still hasn't grabbed me, then you'll just have to accept that one of the worlds best sports reporters finds the world's most popular sport boring.

So, let's get going. Let me know which league and team I should follow. Let me know when and where I can watch them. Let me know which websites are the best to keep up with them. I even pledge to attempt to see a game in person, if possible. It's just my way of showing you that I don't hate international sports, and that I don't hate soccer. I just don't get it. Yet.

Conference Realignment and The Year 2025

2010-06-10T16:00:00.007-05:00

In sports, like in life, things change. The NFL used to be a 10 team league. The NBA used to be an 8 team league. The NHL used to be a 6 team league. They are not anymore. Things change.

College sports conferences used to be very small and very regional. The Big 6 became the Big 8. The Southwest Conference was 7, then added Tech and Houston. The Pac 8 added Arizona and Arizona St. to form the Pac-10. The Big 10 has grown. The SEC has grown. Things change.

Now, things are really changing. The demise of the Big 12 is the first step in what I believe will be a radical and total reshaping of Division One college football. Think about it this way: things have changed very rapidly in the last 15-20 years. In that time, the Big 12 has come and gone. Other conferences like the WAC and Mountain West and Big East and ACC and C-USA change seemingly all the time. The Big 10 is always looking grow. The haves want more, and they want to distance from the have nots. And it's going to happen in a big way, sooner than you think.

Consider the panic that has set in during the last week. You will, from here on out, see teams constantly trying to set themselves up in a super-conference. Nobody will want to be left out, which will cause things to happen at a rapid pace.

I believe we are headed for four, 20 or 22-team, super-conferences. By the year 2025 at the latest, things will look something like this:

The Pac-20

Northwest Division
Washington
Washington St
Oregon
Oregon St.
Boise St.

California Division
USC
UCLA
Stanford
Cal
San Diego State

Mountain Division
Arizona
Arizona St.
Utah
BYU
Colorado

Southwest Division
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.

The Big-20 (formerly the Big-10)

Plains Division
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Missouri

Lakes Division
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Syracuse
Cincinatti

Northeast Division
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Boston College
Rutgers
West Virginia

Valley Division
Notre Dame
Indiana
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue

The SEC

West Division
Arkansas
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss. State

North Division
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
Louisville
South Carolina
Maryland

South Division
Clemson
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

East Division
Florida
Florida St.
Miami
Duke
North Carolina
NC State

The Super-West

Patrick Division
Kansas
Kansas State
Colorado State
Air Force
Wyoming

Adams Division
UNLV
Nevada
Fresno
Hawaii
New Mexico

Smythe Division
Baylor
SMU
TCU
Houston
UTEP

Norris Division
Marshall
Memphis
Ohio
Tulsa
Southern Miss

(Late editor's note: I just realized that the Super West might really suck in football, and nobody will think they deserve a Final Four bid. I may have to change out a few teams to create balance)

That's it. That is your new Division One. Each football team will play 11 games--4 or 5 against your division mates, 4 or 5 others against rotating members of your super-conference, and a few non-conference games. Then, at the end of the regular season, each conference will have a playoff featuring the four division winners to determine who goes to college football's Final Four.

The Final Four, of course, will feature the four conference champions. The schools will love this format because each conference will make lots of money with their own, four-team playoff. College football will make a ton of money in the end with the Final Four. We will have a playoff, conferences will make a ton of cash, and everyone will be happy--everyone except the former division one schools who got left out. I can't really see that any of the schools left behind would have much of a case, based on program success, revenue, stadium, size, etc. Anyway, that's life. Things change.

Given the events of the last 7 days, the exact configuration of each conference is of course subject to change. I may not hit on all of the teams and their exact landing spots, but I am confident that we will be looking at this kind of set-up. And perhaps a lot sooner than 2025, because things change. They always have in conference and league lineups, and they always will.

Floyd The Fraud

2010-05-22T11:12:00.006-05:00

In July of 2006, American cyclist Floyd Landis gave us a thrill. He dominated a mountain stage of the Tour De France--an epic, Merckx-style, solo breakaway. He won the stage, and the yellow jersey. That was the last good day in the life of Landis.

Soon after that stage win, it was revealed that he had tested positive for testosterone. He was stripped of his Tour win. He was banned by the UCI, cycling's governing body, for two years. He had hip surgery. He was without a team. His wife left him. All the while, he maintained that he had won the '06 Tour without drugs. He wrote a book, "Positively False", proclaiming his innocence for 250 pages. He fought his suspension in court, but it was costly. He went through his life savings. He started the "Floyd Fairness Fund" and raised over $500,000--all donated by people who believed that Landis was telling the truth.

He claimed that he had taken a shot of whisky the night before his stage win, saying that's what caused the positive test. He then claimed the French labs had botched his samples. He then threw Greg LeMond under the bus during his protest trial, when it came out that Landis had blackmailed LeMond, using a story LeMond told Landis in confidence about his being sexually abused as a child. Landis lost his court appeal. Landis had lost everything.

He went away--for a while. He's raced (poorly) for domestic teams the last couple of years. Then, this week, his name resurfaces. After four years of proclaiming his innocence, he now says he was lying. He says he did dope during the '06 Tour. He says he doped as far back as 2002, with all of his then-US Postal Service teammates, including Lance Armstrong. He even went as far to say that the UCI accepted money from Armstrong to cover up a positive doping test during a race in '02. Strong accusations. Or are they, when they come from a scumbag like Landis?

Some specifics from the Landis emails to cycling officials are hard to believe. He claims he went to Armstrong's home to pick up his first dose of EPO, and that Lance met him in the hallway, with his then-wife watching, and gave him the drug. As much as Armstrong is tested and watched, would he really serve as the guy on the team who hands out the EPO to his teammates? Would he really store it in his home, where drug testers show up, unannounced, 50 times a year? Would he really hand out EPO so casually at his home, like he was handing out candy to neighborhood trick-or-treaters on Halloween?

Armstrong's team released a series of emails that Landis had sent to Lance, and to other cycling officials--including some to the organizers of the Tour of California, trying to blackmail them into letting him race in their event. Clearly, Landis has hit rock bottom. He also appears to have lost his marbles. He has no career, no money, no family, no friends, and no credibility.

What if he's now telling the truth? Too late. Had he come forward with these accusations the day after he tested positive in '06, a lot of people would have listened. Now, he's seen as a bitter, axe-grinding, has-been who is simply trying to drag the cycling world into the gutter with him.

And to top it all off, Landis has no proof of any kind. It's just his word against US Postal's word, and as Armstrong said this week, "We like our word."

Armstrong has had to fend off drug rumors before. There is always speculation, but never any evidence or proof of any kind. No doubt, cycling has been a dirty sport--filthy, in fact. But it's also been the most vigilant sport in the world when it comes to testing and penalizing it's athletes. Practically every big name in the sport in the last 10-12 years has failed a drug test--except for Lance. Is he just a genius at staying ahead of the posse? Maybe. Or, perhaps he's just that one-in-a-million athlete, like Jordan or Gretzky or Merckx, who is simply better than everyone else.

Only Lance and a precious few of his confidants know the truth. From the outside, all we have to go on are the test results. Armstrong has, by 100 miles, been the most tested athlete in the world for the past decade. He's never failed one. Those are the facts. Odds say that at some point he's tried something illegal to improve his performance. But the odds also tell us that he's a genetic freak--the same freak that, since he was a teenager, has been head-and-shoulders better than just about everyone else in his sport. Are we to believe that he was doping at age 15 when he would show up at the Tuesday Night Crit in Richardson and blow away the field? I doubt it. Odds also tell us that when you train harder, plan better, and out-think your opponent, you have a better chance to win. Lance has always done those three things.

Armstrong has superior genetics and a clean testing record. Landis has a history of lying, blackmail, and positive dope tests. So who should we believe? Once again, Armstrong ends up the winner. In this case, a yellow jersey for Lance, and scarlet letter for Landis.

The Mavericks Paradox: Their Greatest Asset Is Also Their Greatest Weakness

2010-05-02T11:32:00.010-05:00

Here we are yet again, left sorting through the wreckage of the latest Mavericks playoff disaster. What is left for them to not accomplish? They've authored the greatest collapse in NBA Finals history. They are the only team in modern NBA playoff history to lose in the first round as a 1st AND 2nd seed. Expectations are consistently high for the franchise each postseason, and those expectations consistently come crashing down like the Hindenburg each year. So what is the problem?

A Different Animal

Dirk Nowitzki is one of the 50 greatest players ever. He's a future Hall of Famer. He's one of the most destructive offensive forces in the history of the game. He is also the only constant in a decade's worth of Dallas playoff failures. Coaches, point guards, wingmen, centers, bench players--they've all been switched out dramatically over the past 10 years, but the team's leader and superstar has stayed the same--and so has the end result each year.

What Dirk gives you on the offensive end (and even that can be somewhat limited, as we'll get to in a moment), he also takes away on the defensive end and in the leadership department. He presents a real challenge for a franchise that tries to build around him--can you win a title when your best player is your worst defender? And not just your worst defender--he's a guy who plays power forward, which is traditionally a very important defensive position. Practically every NBA champ has had a power forward who was able to get down and dirty--able to defend the rim, clean the glass, play good/great man to man defense, and be an enforcer. Sometimes you can get away with an average defender at power forward and still win a title, but you better have Russell or Kareem or Shaq as your big man, not Haywood and Dampier.

Your best player can't be your worst defender. Your best player must lead by example. Kobe, Duncan, Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Walton--they were all able to hold their teammates to higher standard because they were playing at a high standard at both ends of the floor. Even Magic and Bird, not world-class defenders, were still very smart, very hard working, very effective defenders. Teammates respected them and listened to them because they knew they were squeezing every last ounce of defensive ability out of their DNA. Their teammates would think to themselves "I can't slack on defense because he's not slacking, and I don't want to let him down--or have him get pissed at me and kick me in the nuts on national TV!"

Does Dirk have that kind of respect? Can Dirk ever jump on his teammates for not playing defense? I don't think so--because HE doesn't play defense. So, Dirk can't feel comfortable assuming the Kobe-Duncan-Jordan role of true leader, demanding excellence on both ends of the floor. That is a huge fundamental problem. Teams need to be led. They need to be led by their superstar. They need to be led vocally and led by example, and those two are not mutually exclusive.

Dirk: Power Forward?

Every year in the playoffs, games turn into a layup drill for the Dallas opponent. Why? One big reason is because the Mavs have a 7 foot power forward who plays like a 6'8 small forward. Let's face it--Dallas would be a considerably better team if Dirk had stopped growing at 6'8. That would allow him the ability to play the 3 (the position that his game his designed for), and the Mavs could go and get a true power forward to play alongside the center of their choice--greatly fortifying thier interior defense. We all get upset with Haywood and Dampier for not protecting the rim enough, but consider their plight: they have no power forward to help them. Even a great defender like Duncan has struggled to control the paint without a Robinson or Horry or other long defender to help.

Watch the tape from any playoff series (last year's Denver series was a great example). Most of the time you will see a flat-footed Dirk on 'defense'--reaching instead of moving his feet, not blocking out, not rotating in time, and generally playing sub-par man to man and help defense. It's my opinion that, unless you put Dwight Howard next to Dirk on that front line, you can't win an NBA title with your best player playing front-line defense like that. NBA champs always do two things well: protect the rim, and attack the rim. Dirk rarely does either.

Dirk: Unstoppable on Offense?

Pro-Dirk historians will look back at this latest playoff series and cry "it wasn't Dirk's fault--he averaged 27 points and 8 rebounds per game!" It's what they always do--point to his series averages, but it's a tremendously shallow look at his impact on a series.

Look at his game-by-game in this series for a better idea of his impact against the Spurs. He had a poor game 2 (Mavs loss at home), a poor game 4 (Mavs loss) and a poor start and finish in game 6 (Mavs loss). And, he was barely double-teamed the entire series.

Game 6 is a prime example of the Dirk myth. History will show that he scored 33 points on 13 of 21 shooting--great numbers, no doubt. But the box score doesn't show that Dirk lost his composure in the first 16 minutes of the game, and helped dig a giant hole for his team in an elimination game. Silly fouls, missed shots, poor defense, and lots of yelling. Not any way for a superstar and leader to respond. And, while he was great in the third quarter helping the team comeback to tie the game, in the final 7 minutes of the fourth quarter, Dirk made only one shot, and wasn't exactly a huge help on defense. It was a two-point game with 7 minutes to play, and then Dirk disappeared. The pro-Dirk historians will, a few years from now, simply remind you that Dirk scored 33 that night, and that it wasn't his fault. I would strongly disagree.

That 18 footer, which is money in the bank during the regular season, is not a lock in the playoffs. Teams apply a bit more pressure, which makes that shot a bit more difficult, as do the circumstances. If Dirk could take it to the rim on a nightly basis, like he did in game five of the Spurs series, his legend might have a happier ending.

The Solution?

Make no mistake: Dirk is THE reason that Dallas has won 50 games for 10 straight seasons. Not Nellie, not Cuban, not anyone else--Dirk is the man. For the regular season. It's hard for any of us to criticize Dirk because he's such a nice guy and such a great asset to the Mavs and the community. But you would be ignoring the elephant in the room if you think that he is not a primary reason for their playoff failures. NBA basketball changes in the postseason--regular season heroes often can't duplicate their greatness in the second season. Karl Malone, George Gervin, Patrick Ewing--and Dirk, are prime examples of that.

It's simple: you can win a title with Dirk on your team, but you better go and get LeBron or talk Bill Russell out of retirement (and into a fountain of youth), or it's not going to happen. You need a transcendent player or truly dominant center to win with Dirk. The Big German is what he is--that will never change. And something else will never change--to win in the NBA, your best player can't be your worst defender. It undermines his leadership credibility--and that is what is known as a fatal flaw.

How The Mavs Can Get Back In The Series (maybe)

2010-04-27T07:10:00.005-05:00

Long odds, yes. Probably not going to happen. But if the Mavs are to win three in a row against the Spurs they must:

1. Think defense, not offense. Everyone, including Rick Carlisle, is obsessed with getting offense on the floor. I say the Mavs offense is at it's best when they get stops and can run--when they play defense. So, Carlisle should be thinking about having his best defenders on the floor as much as possible. Less Terry and more Marion in the 4th quarter. Even think about Stevenson for a few minutes here and there to shut down a hot Spurs shooter. Good defense leads to transition offense which leads to a faster tempo.

2. Less JJ Barea, less Dampier, less zone defense, less small ball. Championship teams don't get away with playing 5'6 guards, bad centers, tricked up zones, or tricked up small ball. Be an NBA team.

3. Dirk must be more assertive. Catch and immediately shoot over the smaller defender, or catch and immediately drive around the larger defender. Don't dilly-dally. Don't triple pump fake. Don't wait for the double team to fluster you--fluster them!

4. Attack the rim! Good Lord, we've been saying this for a decade now. Good things happen when you attack the rim. The Mavs are the best free throw shooting team in the NBA--take advantage of it! Why won't Jason Kidd attack the rim? They are running him off the three point line, so why not take that big body into the paint and see what happens? Ginobili is not THAT much quicker than Kidd, yet he gets to the rim at will.

5. Be clutch. Biggest difference in these two teams so far. Parker, Ginobili, Hill--they are making their clutch shots. Dirk, Kidd, Butler, Terry--they are missing their clutch shots. It's about being mentally tough. Step up. Be clutch. The game will likely be in doubt in the final two minutes--it will again come down to poise.

Can all of this happen? A lot of it is up to Carlisle, so I don't know. A lot of it is up to the players to change bad habits, so I don't know. And if this is a lost locker room--if Marion and Butler are upset with their minutes, of if every player thinks the refs are out to get them, of if they doubt their teammates--then none of it matters.

We'll find out soon enough.

Running Boston

2010-04-21T11:49:00.006-05:00

There aren't many sporting events in this country that are more than 100 years old. The Kentucky Derby, the World Series, the Rose Bowl--and the Boston Marathon. For 114 years in a row, the Boston Marathon has been contested on Patriots Day, a New England tradition. Two and half years ago, when I started running, Boston became my obsession. This week, I realized my dream of taking part in the spectacle.

I had always wanted to run a marathon by the time I was 40. One day, I realized that I was 41 and that I hadn't yet checked the marathon off on my bucket list. So, I started training in the fall of '07 for the Dallas White Rock Marathon. To give me something to shoot for, I decided I would try to qualify for Boston, which meant I needed to run a 3 hour, 20 minute marathon. That fall, I took a weekend trip to Boston--I ran parts of the course, I went to the Bill Rodgers running store, I learned the history of the race. In short, I was hooked. I had to get there. I had to experience it. I had to be a part of the legend.

It took me four tries, but last fall I qualified for Boston by running a 3:20 in the New York City Marathon. I trained hard this winter and spring, and felt like I could run faster at Boston. What I didn't realize until after the race was just how tough the Boston course is. Nothing but up or down. 32 hills along the way, some as short as 100 yards, some as long as almost a mile. They take their toll. Running downhill fast forces your quads to serve as brakes, while they double as engines on the uphills. There are no flat spots on the Boston course. The cumulative effect gets you.

Luckily, there is a wave of energy that you can ride to counteract the difficulty of the course. The crowds were amazing. Loud. Drunk. A solid wall of humanity on both sides of the road from the start village of Hopkinton to the finish in downtown Boston. There were 26,000 runners, and probably one million spectators.

Along the way you run through small New England towns like Natick (the home of Doug Flutie) and Wellesley (the home of Wellesley College, an all-girls school whose students line he road begging for kisses from the runners). After the halfway point, you head into Newton, where the famous Newton Hills start--a series of four big climbs that make or break the race for just about everyone. Then, it's past the drunk frat guys at Boston College, through JFK's hometown of Brookline, into Boston heading past Fenway Park, and down the finishing straight on Boylston Avenue.

I went through the halfway mark in 1 hour, 36 minutes. On pace for a 3:12, but knowing that I would probably slow a bit over the final 13.1 miles. I thought I could run a 3:15 at the start of the day, but once I hit the Newton Hills I knew that wasn't going to happen. My quads were toast. It felt like I was running on two stone pillars. The hilly course had caught up with me. The last of the Newton Hills is called Heartbreak Hill, for obvious reasons. I poked up this climb. At the top, I was so trashed that I seriously wondered if I could even break 3:30, or 3:40, or 4 hours. It felt like the final few miles were going to be a death march.

My secondary goal was to run a 3:19--set a personal best, and better my time from NYC. I did the math--I would have to run 8:00 minute miles for each of the final four miles to get a 3:19. I had averaged a 7:20 pace for the first 17 miles of the race, yet the thought of running 8:00 miles seemed impossible to me at this point. I dug deep, yet could only manage an 8:13, then an 8:07. I was falling behind my needed pace. Two miles to go, and I gave it everything I had. The next mile was a 7:49, and the final mile was a 7:35. I "sprinted" the last 300 yards, and finished in 3:19:38--with absolutely nothing left in the tank. I was really happy that I had broken 3:20 on such a tough course. And happy to qualify to run Boston again next year (if I can shave one hour off of my time, I could actually keep up with the Kenyans--something to shoot for I suppose).

There is something incredibly satisfying about finishing a marathon. It's even more satisfying to finish the most prestigious marathon in the world--and to do it in your personal best time. I will never be a part of World Series, Kentucky Derby, or Rose Bowl history. But now, I'm a very small part of the history of the Boston Marathon--the world's greatest foot race. Finally.

Quick Thoughts on Mavs vs Spurs

2010-04-16T17:52:00.003-05:00

On paper, this looks like a really close series. I would be surprised if it didn't go six or seven games. There are a few key areas, matchups, and players that I think will swing the series one way or the other. They are:

1. Who stops Dirk? The Spurs no longer have Bruce Bowen or Robert Horry or David Robinson--no shut down defender and no athletic big alongside Duncan. Dirk should have his way with the Spurs in this series. Duncan won't guard Dirk much--he can't chase Dirk all over the place. Matt Bonner will probably see some time guarding Dirk, as will Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess. The only one of those who can cause any problems for Dirk would be Jefferson, but he's been such a bust this year in San Antonio, I wouldn't expect much out of him in the postseason. Gregg Popovich does not like to double team, so I'm guessing that he plays Dirk straight up with one of those three guys--and because of that, Dirk should have a very high-scoring series. In the playoffs, you go as far as your star carries you--and Dirk should be able to carry Dallas against the Spurs.

2. Kidd vs Parker. Which point guard imposes his will on the series? Parker always lights up Dallas, and Kidd has been playing great basketball since the big Wiz trade went down. Offensively, Kidd can punish Parker by backing him down, but Parker can return the favor by blowing by Kidd on the other end. Parker's play has been good, not great, this year--and I still don't think he's found his stride since returning from the injury. Kidd seems to be very motivated. Advantage: Kidd.

3. Manu vs Matrix. Ginobili has been playing out of his mind for the last month and a half. If he keeps it up, he could be enough to tilt the series to the Spurs. I'm guessing we will see a lot of Marion on Manu. Marion has been great at shutting down big scorers (think Durant). Whoever wins this battle might just see his team win the war.

4. Small Ball? There is a thought that the Spurs will go small: Parker, Hill, Manu, Jefferson, and Duncan. Jefferson plays Dirk, and the Spurs try to out-quick and out-athlete the Mavs. It could work. Or, they could get killed on the boards. Could also make for a VERY entertaining series.

5. Benches. Both teams have good benches. If Jason Terry is hot, the Mavs have a great chance. If Terry lays bricks, it will be a tough series for Dallas. If the Spurs get consistent three-balls from Mason and Bonner, and get dirty work on the glass from Blair, they have a good chance. Will Roddy B. get to play? I don't think so--not much more than a couple of minutes a half. Put it this way--if he plays a lot, things may not be going well for Dallas. In the last five games of the regular season, when the push for the number two seed was on, Roddy didn't play much at all. I think that tells us what Carlisle thinks about having him on the floor when it matters.

In the end, I'm taking Dallas in seven. I've watched each team very closely this year--I bet I've seen 75% of both team's games. The Spurs have been very good lately, beating the Lakers, Celts, Magic, Cavs, Suns, and Thunder. That's huge. But Duncan has lost a step, Parker doesn't look right, Jefferson still looks lost, and--most importantly--they don't play defense like they used to. The Spurs have the experience and moxie and head coach to win a series like this, but I think Dallas is the more complete team--and they have the home court. This is the best Dallas team I've seen (at least on paper) since the late 80's, and I don't expect them to lose in the first round.

My April Sports Wish

2010-04-05T19:19:00.011-05:00

A couple of years ago a friend of mine invited me to attend a charity dinner in Fort Worth. The guest of honor was American cyclist George Hincapie. It was great to meet him. I've followed his career closely since reading an article about him in the now-defunct Winning magazine, circa 1990. Then, he was a 17 year old phenom from New York City (of all places for a road cyclist). Now, he's one of the most successful road racers in US history.

Hincapie doesn't win the Tour de France, so the casual sports fan in this country doesn't know his name. But they should. In Europe, he's one of the most respected riders in the pro peloton. He's finished 13 Tours de France, serving as support rider to, most notably, Lance Armstrong. Hincapie is a great all-around rider--he can sprint, climb pretty well (for a big man), and time trial. But his strength is in the one-day, cobbled classics.

In pro cycling terms, the 'classics' are famous, old, one-day races over a variety of terrain and road types. They differ greatly from stage races (like the Tour de France, which are contested over many days or many weeks). One day races are typically long (150 miles or more) and very fast. They are held early and late in the cycling season, so the weather is often brutal. The biggest of the one-day classics are held in Italy (Milan-San Remo and Tour of Lombardy), Belgium (Tour of Flanders and Liege-Bastogne-Liege), and France--where this weekend, the most famous of all the classics will be held for the 108th time.

PARIS-ROUBAIX

The race from Paris to Roubaix is called "the Queen of the Classics" for good reason. It's the most difficult, most prestigious, most unique bike race in the world. It actually starts in the town of Compiegne (just north of Paris), and finishes 175 miles later in the velodrome at Roubaix. Along the way, the riders will tackle 28 different sectors of cobblestones--roads originally designed for cattle, certainly not for bicycles. The cobbles make the race legendary. They rattle the riders right down to their fillings. Flats and crashes happen--a lot. If it's dry, the racers choke on dust--if it's raining, they ride through mud and over cobbles as slick as ice. It takes great strength and great luck to win the race--and George Hincapie has come very, very close. But he's never won.

Paris-Roubaix is Hincapie's passion. It's the race he wants to win the most. He's finished 2nd, 4th (twice), 6th (twice), and 8th. He makes it his priority each season, but each season he comes up short. Thus, my sports wish for April: I wish George Hincapie would win Paris-Roubaix. He's won the cobbled classic Ghent-Wevelgem, and he's had some great rides in the Tour of Flanders, but Paris-Roubaix is HIS race. He was born to ride it, and born to win it. He's got the power to stay at the front of the race, and the bike handling ability to stay upright on the cobbles. But something always gets in the way--maybe he's the victim of an ill-timed flat, or team tactics that conspire against him. Sometimes just one or two riders are simply better that day. That's bike racing. But Hincapie is owed one, and I hope that debt gets paid this weekend.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

Hincapie is 36 years old. He's still one of the best in the world, but he knows that Father Time will soon step in. The good news is that older riders have traditionally done well in Roubaix. The French legend Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle was like Hincapie--always close, but could never win "The Hell of the North". But, Duclos-Lassalle persisted, and he finally won Paris-Roubaix when he was 38. Then he won again the next year, at age 39.

Hincapie has great form right now. Last week he finished 4th in Ghent-Wevelgem and 6th in the Tour of Flanders. He has a good team to support him this weekend. He is motivated. He is still young enough. This could be the year.

I might even sports cry if I see Big George punch the sky on Sunday. And I won't be alone.

A Clearer Picture of the Mavs

2010-03-28T14:53:00.009-05:00

This recent, short, two-game road trip crystallized a couple of things for me about this Mavs team. In particular, two players actions spoke volumes about how much post-season playing time they should get. I will be forwarding this blog post to Rick Carlisle, in the hopes that he heeds my sage advice.

Thursday night in Portland, one moment stood out. It told us all we need to know about Erick Dampier. First quarter, Blazers guard Andre Miller has the ball. Miller drives the lane. Dampier is standing in between Miller and the rim. Miller decides to take the ball right at Dampier. What does Big Damp do? HE TRIES TO TAKE A CHARGE!! That's right, the biggest man on the court planted his 7'0, 265 pound body down low and tried to draw a charge from a 6'2, 200 pound point guard. Amazing. Oh, and by the way, Miller made the layup while Damp was called for a block. And-one for Miller. Nice.

First of all, I can't recall ever seeing a center try to take a charge from a point guard. You rarely see a center try to take a charge from anyone. Centers, when attacked, are supposed to do one of three things: 1) try to block the shot 2) stand tall with your arms straight up to form a wall (not with your arms at your side like Dampier played it) 3) try to murder the guy. Attempting to draw a charge is a tactic usually reserved for smaller players who have no hope of stopping the incoming attack, and is certainly never an option for a center when trying to stop someone half his size.

It's no coincidence that Rick Carlisle took Erica out of the game after that play. Erica has not seen the court since. She got 8 minutes against Portland, and a DNP-coach's decision against Golden State. I hope that, at that moment, Carlisle realized he's got a wuss in Dampier. And nobody wants to go into the playoffs with a wuss getting quality minutes. As Jerry, a good P1 with a good basketball brain said to me, "It was the worst thing I've ever seen on a basketball court, and Damp should be buried on the end of the bench for it!"

The Portland game looked like any game from the Denver playoff series last year. The game was too fast and too athletic for Dampier. He doesn't know how to impose what little will he has in a battle like that. Give me lots of Haywood (or hell, even Najera, who at least cares) over any glimpse of Dampier.

Saturday night in Oakland, the Mavs took apart the Warriors. Roddy Beaubois went off, scoring 40 points on 15-22 shooting and 9-11 from behind the arc. It must be noted that Golden State is the worst defensive team in the NBA--Don Nelson is their coach, so of course they are. But, 40 points is 40 points. Beaubois is the Mavs' most electrifying player. He's the best on the team at getting to the rim. He is the player on the roster that, outside of Dirk, strikes more offensive fear in the hearts of opponents than anyone else.

Beaubois has convinced me--he deserves playoff minutes. He should get 20-25 minutes every night from here on out during the regular season, no matter how he looks. He should then get JJ Barea's postseason minutes. If I'm Carlisle, I'm going to win or lose with my best players. Barea is not one of his best players. Beaubois might be. You're not going to beat the Lakers or (fill in whichever team you want: Portland, Utah, Denver) with Barea getting significant minutes. Barea on the floor causes other teams to salivate over the possibilities of mismatches. Beaubois on the floor makes other teams nervous. Give me the latter.

I realize Roddy is a rookie. He looks lost at times--on both ends of the floor. But he's got loads of ability. He's 6'1-ish, but plays taller. Barea is 4'11, and plays shorter. Coaches don't usually don't like to play rookies in the playoffs, but what do the Mavs have to lose? They are not the West favoites, so why not?

There are some other issues with this team that will greatly impact what kind of a playoff run they are able to make. Dirk, Jet and Kidd still have obvious defensive weaknesses that may be hard to hide. Haywood's recent decline in production makes you wonder. Butler has been good one game, bad the next. The adrenaline shot from the trade with the Wiz has worn off. Many problems to solve, but they're not the only good team with problems. I'll blog more about those issues closer to the playoffs.

But we can start here: more minutes for Roddy B, fewer minutes for JJ, and zero minutes for Erica. Coach Carlisle, you've been advised.

The NCAA's Missing Ingredient

2010-03-24T11:08:00.012-05:00

The NCAA Basketball Tournament is still a wonderful sporting event. Lots of drama and lots of fun. But there is something missing, and eventually it's going to hurt this great event. That missing ingredient? Names. Big names. Legends.

This event was built on legends. Russell, Chamberlain, Baylor, Lucas and Alcindor all won NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player trophies. They, along with other legends like Oscar, West, and Wooden, laid the tournament's foundation back in the 50's and 60's. Legends like Bill Walton and David Thompson took us through the 70's. Then, in 1979, Magic met Larry in the title game, and the rest was history. The NCAA Tournament was on the map, with a bullet. Popularity soared--because of the big names "Bird" and "Johnson".

The next decade saw names like Isiah Thomas, James Worthy, Ralph Sampson, David Robinson, Danny Manning--and literally hundreds of other recognizable faces--help vault the tourney to just-behind-the-Super-Bowl-in-popularity status. It seemed like each year we were treated to big names doing something huge: Michael Jordan's title-winning jump shot to beat Georgetown, Darrell Griffith dunking all over UCLA, Larry Johnson dunking all over everyone, Goliaths like Ewing and Olajuwon going head-to-head, phenoms like Lee and Tisdale going head-to-head. Webber, Laettner, Brand, Camby, Bibby, Hill--names that thrilled us in college and went on to (in most cases) thrill us in the pros.

Now, look at some of the players who made All-Tournament teams from the 00's--guys who were among the five best players in the tourney that year:

Dane Fife
Kyle Hornsby
Lonny Baxter
Chris Wilcox
Loren Woods
Keith Langford
Gerry McNamara
Will Bynum
Luther Head
Luke Schenscher
Goran Suton
Kalin Lucas
Wayne Ellington

Yes, we did have Carmelo Anthony, Derrick Rose, Deron Williams, Al Horford and Joakim Noah also make All-Tournament squads in the 00's. That would be the All-DECADE team, which couldn't hold a candle to the 1982 All-Tournament team:

Jordan
Perkins
Worthy
Ewing
Sleepy Floyd

Even more shocking: the players who played college basketball that year who did NOT make the All-Tournament team:

Olajuwon
Clyde Drexler
Dominique Wilkins
Terry Cummings
Ralph Sampson
Paul Pressey
Dale Ellis
Keith Lee

In one year (82), we had more big names play in the NCAA Tournament than we did in one decade (00's). That's a problem.

Note: Even though he is my all-time basketball kryptonite, I must acknowledge the sour-faced Tyler Hansbrough. He, at the very least, stayed in school for four years, gave fans someone to love or hate (mostly hate), and put up great numbers and won a title. He was a throwback to the good 'ole days of college basketball. So, as much as it hurts to say, here's to you, Tyler. Don't sweat it that you're averaging a whopping 8 points and 4 boards a game for the crappy Pacers.

And, because we had giants back then, we also had the opportunity for great upsets. We won't see anything like NC State knocking off the Phi Slamma Jamma Cougars or little Villanova beating Ewing's Hoyas ever again. Why? Because today Olajuwon and Ewing wouldn't stick around long enough for a good team or a good story line to be built around them.

Think about it: we never got to see LeBron lead Ohio St to the Final Four. We were cheated out of that sports memory. How great would that have been? Is there any doubt he would have had a Magic-like effect on his college team of choice, and thus given us a Magic-like college memory? Not just LeBron--we never got to see Kobe, or KG, or Howard--basically today's NBA All Star team--put on a college uniform (a big thank you to Melo for going to Syracuse and supplying us with one of our few big name moments from the last ten years).

The one-year rule helps a little, but not much. Great players like Kevin Durant bolt for the NBA so quickly after their freshman year that it's hard to imagine that they found their way into a classroom. So what's the point? It's a silly rule that I think may do more harm than good to the schools. It's a rule that I'm sure will soon be challenged and probably won't be around much longer--especially if more players bolt to Europe for the year.

So, we're stuck. Stuck with getting our college basketball thrills from the likes of Ali Farokhmanesh. Something tells me that, as I look at my basketball spice rack, "Farokhmanesh" won't make as tasty of a tournament stew as "Jordan" would have.

John Wall, you're our only hope.

The Best Mavs Team Ever?

2010-03-10T16:56:00.014-06:00

I've always been hard on the Mavericks. What people don't realize is, I've always been hard on every NBA team. It's my sport. It's my league. It's my passion. I'm harder on my favorite team, the Spurs, than I am on any team. It's hard for me to watch (Benny) Hill and (Jackie) Mason fire up bricks at crunch time for this once-proud organization. If I did a talk show in San Antonio, people would think I was a Spurs hater--"You grew up in Dallas, go back home you Mavs lover!" is what I would hear. Truth is, I'm not a Spurs hater, or a Mavs hater, or a Lakers hater. I'm a guy who has followed the NBA all of my life. I love everything about the sport and the league. I think I know what makes a good coach, player, and team. It's not my job to be a cheerleader. It's my job to critique teams--to let you know which players and moves I think help lead a team to a title, and which will lead a team down the path to destruction. I consider my thoughts and opinions to be tough NBA love.

So, it may come as some surprise when I say that I love this current Mavs team. Finally, I see a Dallas team that looks like a real basketball team. A real point guard, a real off guard, a real center. No more stupid Nellie ball, or small ball, or teams that more resembled Fat Albert's gang than an NBA contender. This post-trade deadline Mavericks squad is the real deal. Not perfect, but much more of a joy to watch than any recent vintage Mavs squad.

Could they be the best Mavs team ever? Only the next two or three months will tell us the truth. But I think they're in the running. So much so, that I would like to compare this current squad to the two other teams from Mavs' history that I consider to be the best: the 1988 team that lost to the Lakers in the West Finals, and the 2006 team that blew it against Miami in the NBA Finals. This 2010 version of the Mavs has a long way to go before they equal what those other two teams did, but I think they've got a good shot to do so.

Keep in mind, the '88 Mavs won 53 games in a super-competitive era in the NBA--Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celts, the Bad Boy Pistons, Jordan and the Bulls coming into their own, Hakeem's Rockets, Barkley's Sixers, Wilkins' Hawks, Malone's Jazz. Winning 53 and making the conference finals in '88 was hard work.

Meanwhile, the '06 Mavs played in a less-competitive time. LeBron wasn't LeBron yet, Kobe's Lakers were way down, The Pistons stumbled, the Suns played zero defense--there just weren't that many good teams.

Let's take this position by position:

POINT GUARD

'10: Jason Kidd, '06: Devin Harris, '88: Derek Harper

Kidd is one of the five best point guards ever, and playing at a very high level right now. He is certainly the straw that stirs this Mavs drink. Harris had a good postseason in '06, but was very young and too often made the wrong decision. Harper was terrific--17 ppg and 8 apg, plus solid defense. But the nod goes to the Hall of Famer. ADVANTAGE: 2010

OFF GUARD

'10: Caron Butler, '06: Jason Terry, '88: Ro Blackman

Butler has been a great addition--he can create his own shot, attacks the rim, and has a smooth jumper. And he's tough-minded. Terry was very good offensively in '06, but a huge defensive liability, and seems better suited to coming off the bench. Blackman was a stud--wonderful mid-range jumper, quick, smart, and clutch. Nobody was bigger in the 4th quarter on that '88 team than Ro. ADVANTAGE: 1988

SMALL FORWARD

'10: Shawn Marion, '06: Josh Howard, '88: Mark Aguirre

Marion is not The Matrix anymore, but he's been really good for this squad. He's a very good defender, and has been a good teammate. Everyone knows how I feel about Howard. It's no coincidence that the Mavs started playing great ball the moment Howard left town. He was good in '06--not great, but good. However, he gagged late in games in the Miami series--missing free throws and making stupid plays. No team will ever win anything with Josh Howard getting a lot of minutes. Aguirre was controversial, but there is no denying that he was a game-changer. He averaged 25 ppg in '88, and was one of the most dominant scorers of his era. ADVANTAGE: 1988

POWER FORWARD

'10: Dirk Nowitzki, '06: Dirk Nowitzki, '88: Sam Perkins

'10 Dirk is better than '06 Dirk. I think in the last four years Dirk has improved more than most realize. He's better than he was in '06, and even '07 when he won the MVP. He's more of a post player now. He's a better passer now. He's a better clutch shooter now. He takes fewer wild 3's now. He's better. And he's much better than Perkins, who was a nice player, but no Hall of Famer. ADVANTAGE: 2010

CENTER

'10: Brendan Haywood, '06: Erick Dampier, '88: James Donaldson

Tough call here. Haywood has been solid--10 & 10 every night, with a lot of energy and solid defense. In other words: a presence. Dampier is the classic NBA underachiever. Donaldson was a giant--a true space eater. He gave you 8 ppg and 10 rpg and some toughness against guys like Kareem. Haywood gets it easy night in and night out compared to the guys Donaldson had to play against (in addition to Kareem, he had to deal with Hakeem, Laimbeer, Parrish, Ewing, and Moses, to name a few). Because of the competition faced, slight edge to Big James. ADVANTAGE: 1988

BENCH

'10: Jason Terry, Erick Dampier, JJ Barea
'06: Jerry Stackhouse, Gana Diop, Marquis Daniels
'88: Roy Tarpley, Detlef Schrempf, Brad Davis
.

Wow. Not even close here. Tarpley averaged 13 ppg and 12 rpg OFF THE BENCH! Schrempf was a lethal shooter, and Davis has his number retired! 1988 wins this battle with ease, while 2010 comes up short to 2006 because of Barea. But it's close. ADVANTAGE: 1988

COACH

'10: Rick Carlisle, '06: Avery Johnson, '88: John Macleod

Carlisle is good. Really good. But he's never taken a team to the NBA Finals, which both Johnson and Macleod ('76 Suns) did. Avery, though, was in way over his head against Riley in the '06 Finals. Avery has a good basketball brain, but was green then--plus I don't know about his people skills. Macleod did a good job, but I can't say he was a better coach than Carlisle. Can't decide. ADVANTAGE: None.

Add it up. The 1988 team was the best in Mavericks history. They win 4 of the 7 positions. Their depth was tremendous, and they won big in a wildly competitive NBA era.

Next best? Well, they may not make it as far as the '06 team, but I believe that the 2010 Mavs would beat the 2006 Mavs in a seven game series. Notice: the '06 team did not win any of the position battles, and I would take the '10 Mavs starters over the '06 Mavs starters at EVERY position. This year's post-trade Mavs are simply a more complete team than the '06 version. They are a smarter team. Their star player is better, they have a better floor general, and a better big man. Now it's up to them to go out and prove how good they are. A long win streak in March means nothing if you are sitting at home in May.

The Greatest Dunkers of All-Time

2010-02-23T16:51:00.028-06:00

Two things got me thinking about this topic. 1) The Slam Dunk Contest at the AAC during All-Star week, and 2) last week's blog post about attacking the rim. In response to one commenter, I asked him to list his top 50 dunkers ever. Then I thought "Wait a minute. I'm the seasoned, professional reporter here. Why don't I compile MY list of the greatest dunkers ever?" I talked myself into it.

I decided that ranking the top 50 would be too much. Does anyone, even an expert like myself, really know who the 47th and 48th best dunkers would be, and why I would put them in those slots and in that order? How about a simple top 10--with a few honorable mention categories? Sound good? It better, because that's what your about to sink your teeth into as long as you stay with this now world-famous blog.*

*World famous? I received an email from a reader in--get this--Canada! He was very complimentary of my work. Reaching across borders to promote world peace through sports observations--that's what I do.

My credentials: I've been studying dunks and dunkers for almost 40 years. I played countless games of pickup ball in college with my roomies against 8th graders on the dunkball courts in Denton (by Denia Rec Center--8 1/2 foot rims--perfect for 6 foot white guys to throw down on). I also (in college) was able to dunk a tennis ball on regulation 10-foot rims. I've seen every dunk contest from the original ABA classic in Denver to the recent farce in Dallas. The dunk is still the best moment in sports for me--better than a home run, a running back hitting the seam, a Tour stage winner punching the sky, or a close-up of a cheerleader's heaving bosom.

I've taken into account not only a player's ability and artistry, but his place in dunking history. So, with apologies to LeBron, Kobe, Shaq, and Darrell Griffith, here is the list:

THE TOP TEN DUNKERS OF ALL-TIME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF ALL-TIME

10. SPUD WEBB

I struggled with putting Spud in the top 10, but decided that what he did in the 1986 Dunk Contest was enough to earn this spot. His dunks would have been pedestrian had they been performed by a 6'7 guy, but because they were done by a 5'7 guy, they were spectacular. My friends and I were punching each other in the shoulder (and sometimes accidentally in the face) after each of his dunks. Couldn't believe it. I'm not sure if inch-for-inch he had the greatest hops ever, but he's got to be in the discussion. Gets the nod over Nate Robinson because Nate has a whopping two, maybe three, inches on The Hutch's own.

9. DARNELL HILLMAN

Nicknamed "Dr. Dunk", Hillman was better known for his huge afro (which was actually voted greatest afro in ABA history at the ABA Reunion in 1997). Hillman was 6'9 and a could dunk with either great grace or great force. He was a wonderful defender, and had he been a better offensive player (10 ppg and 7 rpg career averages) his legend as a dunker would be even larger than his afro.

8. DARRYL DAWKINS

One of the great power dunkers ever, with one of the greatest nicknames ever--Chocolate Thunder. I loved Dawkins. All he wanted to do was tear down the backboard, and he did just that in 1979--he dunked so hard that he shattered the glass in Kansas City, sending the late (now, not then) Bill Robinzine realing in a sea of fiberglass bits. Dawkins had nicknames for all of his specialty dunks, and he called that one his "Chocolate Thunder-Flying, Robinzine-Crying, Teeth-Shaking, Glass-Breaking, Rump-Roasting, Bun-Toasting, Wham-Bam, Glass-Breaking-I-Am-Jam." How can you not love a guy like that? For good measure, he broke another backboard three weeks later, prompting the league to issue fines for any more broken backboards. His power dunks also helped bring about the collapsable rim. Talk about an impact dunker. (Odd note: Darryl Dawkins never appeared in a dunk contest, yet Johnny Dawkins did)

7. SHAWN KEMP

Had more ferocious dunks than (insert baby joke here). Was a man-child. Dunked harder than even Dawkins did. Posterized so many players--it's impossible to count them all. 6'10, 280, and ridiculously explosive. If they had a little wattage counter on the rims, I'm sure Kemp would have recorded the most powerful dunks of all-time. I'm also sure that Kemp made more than one NBA player cry after slamming on him.

6. JASON RICHARDSON

I wish Richardson were a more complete player, because he's one of my favorite pure athletes to watch. He moves with an ease that is mesmorizing. He's a former Dunk Contest champ, and that's probably his lasting legacy. Important note: Richardson is 6'6, which I believe is the perfect height for a dunker. Tall enough to perform any dunk with ease, yet short enough to make it look like you are really flying through the air. This dunk-height theory of mine can't be disputed.

5. VINCE CARTER

You can argue that Carter is the most accomplished dunker ever, and you would have a pretty good argument. He really is a phenominal throw-down artist. He's a cut above Richardson as a player, and a dunker. But each will have a similar legacy--one of spectacular dunker and not-so-spectacular winner. But this is just about dunking, and trying to pick Vinsanity's best dunk is a futile effort. There is a 100-way tie for first. I think he has the most Dunk Contest-like-dunks performed in actual games than any player in history. 360, windmill, reverse, tomahawk--YouTube his dunks and you will see an endless loop of these types and more. Most of them finished on Dikembe Mutombo.

4. DAVID THOMPSON

You think Brent Musberger goes crazy over Colt McCoy? Then you never heard Brent do a David Thompson game in the 70's. Thompson splashed onto the NBA scene right when Star Wars came out, and DT quickly earned the moniker "Skywalker" (a nickname that Kenny Walker never should have accepted, just like Jerry Reynolds never should have been called "Ice"). I bet Brent called Thompson "Skywalker" no less than one million times during the random Nuggets vs Whoever game I was watching when I was 12. But it worked on me. Having never seen Thompson play in college, and having only read about him and listened to the his games on the radio during his ABA days, I was in love.

Two legendary Thompson dunk stories:

1) The alley-oop was invented for Thompson. At N.C. State, Monte Towe and Thompson perfected the lob pass to the rim (by Towe) and the catch and flush (by Thompson). Nobody had done this before, and it became an unstoppable staple of the Wolfpack offense. Unfortunately, Thompson played college ball during the period when the dunk was outlawed (post Alcindor)--the worst rule in the history of college sports. So the in-game alley-oops were finished with Thompson catching at the rim and laying it in. But that rule led to my favorite dunk story of all-time...

2) Thompson's senior year. He hasn't dunked in a game all year, because of the rules. Early in the 2nd half of a late-season game against UNCC, he drives the length of the floor, rises, and slam dunks. He gets a technical foul, and the basket doesn't count. But the home crowd goes absolutley bananas. To try to comprehend the crowd's euphoria, think of it this way: you are married to the hottest woman on earth, but on your wedding day you are told you can't touch her for 5 years. Then, after 3 years of having to live with her and look at her but not touch her, she surprises you in the bedroom one night when she pounces on you and asks you to make love to her. This is the feeling of surprise/ecstasy that the Wolfpack faithful had that night. They knew they had one of the greatest dunkers ever on their team, but they never got to see him dunk. Then, out of nowhere, he flips the bird to the NCAA and dunks--hard--in a game. I would have paid a lot of money to be there that night.

Oh, and Michael Jordan has said that David Thompson was his idol growing up. Enough said.

3. JULIUS ERVING

My favorite dunk ever was authored by Dr. J. It happened in January of 1983 (not in the playoffs as many think) in a game between the Sixers and Lakers in Philly. Erving steals the ball at midcourt, has only Michael Cooper to beat, takes a wide angle to the rim, cups the ball, rocks the cradle, and delivers the single most beautiful dunk in NBA history as he rises while Cooper ducks out of the way. The crowd goes ape.

Here is a link to utter perfection

I love the poetry of the motion--the crowd rises, the Doc rises, Cooper fades, the flash goes off right as he dunks--it's perfect. It will always be my favorite dunk.

Erving was the first legendary dunker. His exploits at the ABA Dunk Contest in '76 are well known; his famous take-off-from-the-foul-line-dunk is probably the most famous dunk ever. He had massive hands which allowed him to do crazy things with the ball. We missed his best stuff (or stuffs), which occured when a younger, higher-flying Erving dominated the ABA.

2. MICHAEL JORDAN

Air. Jordan. You know the rest of the story.

1. DOMINIQUE WILKINS

My pick for the best all-around dunker in the history of recorded time. His nickname says it all: The Human Highlight Film. He was so explosive, his dunks so violent, his hops so great, and his moves so many that he earns the coveted top spot in my rankings with ease. Nique seemed to hang in the air longer than any of the great dunkers. His signature dunk was the double-pump, where he would go up for the dunk, bring the ball back down as far below his waste as he could, then bring it back up for the actual stuff--sometimes doing this while adding the 360 element to it.

Wilkins was born to dunk. He never seemed at ease doing anything else on the court--didn't have a smooth jumper, looked uncomfortable on defense--but when he dunked, it was sublime. If I could only watch one person dunk for the rest of my life, it would be Nique.

Coming Soon: The Best White Dunkers (Brent Barry, Rex Chapman, Dan Marjle), The Best Lebanese/Greek Dunkers (Rony Seikaly and nobody else) and The Best Mavericks Dunkers (Tony Dumas) and The Best Dunkers Drafted By The Mavericks Who Never Played For The Mavericks (Terence Stansbury).

Attacking The Rim

2010-02-16T12:06:00.010-06:00

If I were an NBA coach or GM, I would build my team this way (in no particluar order after number one):

1. Big Man. You build from the inside out. Give me one that plays defense, rebounds, has a low-post game, and can pass from the post. Yes, I know these players only come along once every 10-20 years, but that's where I would like to start.

2. Long Athletes. I love the Lakers front court. Gasol, Bynum, Odom. So many long and talented limbs. It's a tall man's game, folks (unless you are too tall and non-athletic, like Shawn Bradley, Chuck Nevitt or Manute Bol).

3. Great Defenders. I'll take one at any spot.

4. Selfless/Smart Players. High hoops IQ, put the team first, work for the best shot, and all of that crap.

5. Guys who ATTACK THE RIM. The number one trait I look for in an offensive player.

Every team should be built with the idea that they are going to defend the rim and attack the rim. Everything else falls into place if you can do these two things.

Getting to the rim is what it's all about. Really. It's no coincidence that the two best players in the NBA are also the two guys who can get to the rim anytime they want to: LeBron and Kobe. When you attack the rim, it opens a world of basketball doors. It makes you scary to defend. If they are worried about you getting to the rim, it gives you more room to launch a jumper. If other defenders are worried about you driving, the might leave their man to help, which means you've got someone to pass to.

Once you get to the rim, you usually win. It was either Darrell Royal or Woody Hayes (or some other old coach that feared the "forward pass") that once said "When you pass, three things happen, and two of them are bad (incomplete, or interception), so that's why we run the ball." That football philosophy is applicable when talking about getting to the rim in hoops, although I would expand it and flip it and say six things can happen, and four of them are good. The list:

1. You can make the layup or dunk (good)
2. You get fouled (good)
3. You get your sheet blocked (bad)
4. You get called for an offensive foul (bad)
5. You draw other defenders, giving yourself a chance for an easy assist (good)
6. You send a message to your opponent and your teammates that you are not afraid to attack (good)

It's all about getting high percentage, or easy, shots. Every NBA champ has had multiple guys that could get to the rim. As a coach, I would demand it. I want my point guard getting there whenever possible. I would want my wings making it a priority. I would tell my big men to attack the rim as though the rim just attacked their mother. It's all about mind-set. If my players had that mind-set--wanting to attack that rim and get dunks or draw fouls, I would feel great about my title chances. I want a pack of wild dogs who get after it on both ends.

It's why I love watching LeBron and Kobe. It's why I loved those 00's Spurs, with Parker and Ginobili living to get to the rim. It's why I hide my eyes when watching jump-shooting teams settle over and over and over for lower percentage shots.

From Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball":

"The fall-away jump shot is a passive/aggressive shot that says more about a player than you think. Jordan, McHale and Hakeem all had great fall-aways, but they were just a part of a larger arsenal. But five stars in the past 60 years have been famous for either failing miserably in the clutch or lacking ability to rise to the occasion: Wilt, Elvin Hayes, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing and Kevin Garnett. All five were famous for their fall-aways, and took heat because the shot took them out of rebounding position. If it misses, it is almost always a one-shot possession. On top of that, it never leads to free throws. It's the worst shot possible for a big man because it moves you away from the basket instead of toward it. It's one of many reasons that Tim Duncan became more successful than Garnett--because he makes an effort to plant his ass down low and take high percentage shots, where Garnett settles for fall-away 18 footers"

Wonderfully put. A fall-away says "I'm afraid to fail." Attacking the rim says "You are mine, bitch!" Attacking the rim says you are going to take matters into your own hands. It takes more effort, but the rewards can be many. It takes guts, skill, hard work, and determination. Traits you better bring to the table to start with, or I won't have room for you on my team.

The Mavericks have a problem in that they don't have many guys who attack the rim. Roddy Beaubois is the best--by far--but he's a rookie who gets limited minutes. Newcomers Butler and Haywood might help in that department. Kidd is too old to do much attacking these days. Terry is too in love with his jump shot. Marion is no longer "The Matrix". Dirk is Dirk. Dampier isn't sure where the rim is. It's a problem.

But that's just me. In the end, I'm not an NBA coach or GM. I'm an AM radio hack, so take my opinion for whatever you think it's worth. But know this: if I were a 6-8 black man, the rim wouldn't stand a chance.

Sizing Up The Mavs At The All Star Break

2010-02-07T10:16:00.011-06:00

2010 has not been kind to the Mavericks. After a great start to the year, things seem to be coming apart. The All-Star break is a good time to evaluate a team--plus we're close to the trade deadline, which could shake things up, for better or for worse. Here are, in my opinion, the biggest problems facing the Mavs right now:

AGE

When Jason Terry was inserted into the starting lineup a couple of weeks ago, it gave Dallas five starters who were all over the age of 30. That's not good. Terry (32), Kidd (36), Dampier (34), Dirk (32) and Marion (31) comprise the oldest starting five in the NBA. I think this is the biggest reason for their recent defensive woes. Rick Carlisle has played these guys a lot of minutes. When you try to milk minutes out of old legs, they get tired. The first place that shows is on the defensive end, especially in players who aren't good defenders to begin with (like Jet and Dirk).

This is a problem that will not get any better, as these players only get older by the day and deeper into the season. When April rolls around, and the intensity gets cranked up a notch or two, the age of this starting five will be even more exposed. A trade to bring in young legs would help.

THE CORE

Following he collapse in Miami, I thought the Mavs needed to take a serious look at their core players. Something was clearly not right. But they stayed the course. Then, after the collapse the next season against Golden State, they REALLY needed to do something to shake things up. They didn't, until midway through the following season when they traded Harris for Kidd. This helped, but you were still left with Dirk, Damp, Josh, Stack, and Jet. There is no way they could take the court each night, look at each other, and not think about Miami and Golden State. They had let each other down in huge ways. The core needed to be busted up. Keep Dirk if you like, but it was time to surround him with fresh faces.

Today, the Mavs still have Dirk, Josh, Jet and Damp. Key figures in their recent playoff failures. Mark Cuban and Donnie Nelson have held on to an ultimately unsuccessful core for too long. Which brings us to...

JOSH HOWARD

As I've said before, nobody has done more to bring down the Mavs franchise on and off the court in the last four years than Josh Howard. His play has now fallen off so much that the only reason another team would want him is because of the team option on his contract for next season. Cuban and Nelson should have moved him three years ago. If not at that time, then certainly two years ago after the New Orleans playoff debacle. In that series, Howard let the world know that he and every NBA player smokes pot. He defied the head coach by passing out birthday party invitations in the locker room after a LOSS. He shot 25% from the field in that series, and was so bad that the Hornets didn't even guard him when he had the ball. They were BEGGING him to shoot. Not sure I've ever seen an "all-star" treated like that in a playoff series. Ever.

Unbelievably, Cuban and Nelson could have traded Howard a year and a half ago for Ron Artest. Yes, Artest is a nut-job, too. But at least he's a nut-job that can play defense, rebound, and bring a tough-minded attitude to a team. Artest is a good enough player for the World Champion Lakers to acquire, but in the eyes of the Mavs he wasn't good enough to trade Josh Howard for? I still can't get my mind around that.

So, Mavs fans are left with a guy who used to be good, but who is killing them now. He doesn't rebound anymore (used to average 6 rpg, now down to 3 rpg). He occasionally plays defense, but not like he used to. He's always getting hurt. He's a brick layer. He hardly ever attacks the rim. He has, by a mile, the lowest basketball IQ on the team.

Everyone should have seen it coming. Most importantly Cuban and Nelson.

Josh slid in the draft because there were questions about his mental makeup. In the early days, he was always losing his cool. Throwing his headband or mouthpiece. Getting an untimely technical foul. Then we had the New Orleans series. Then we had the You Tube National Anthem comments. Then we had the drag racing. All the while, the bone-headed moments on the court kept mounting--inexplicable passes, dribbling the ball out of bounds, ugly shots. He has been a major drain on this team for years. Fingers crossed that before the trade deadline he becomes someone else's problem.

KEEPING DIRK HAPPY--AND IN DALLAS

In the last couple of weeks, Dirk has looked discouraged to me. He was late for shootaround the other day, was benched, and the Mavs proceeded to lose at home to the T-Wolves. A real low point in the season. Two days before that low moment, Cuban said that his team "sucked" and that he was thinking about making changes.

Dirk has an option at the end of this season. He can leave Dallas if he wants to. He has always maintained that he wants to end his career in Big D, but he also wants to win a title. Cuban has a huge decision to make: does he try to pull of a huge move this month to better the team for the rest of this season, or does he wait until the summer and try to bring LeBron (.001 percent chance), Wade, or Bosh to put alongside Dirk? Play for this season, or hold your cards for much talked about summer of 2010? It's the biggest decision Cuban has faced in a long time.

A P1 emailed me with a good point the other day. He said the Mavs look like Minnesota looked about two years before they traded Garnett. A mess around their superstar. KG kept playing hard, like Dirk, because that's what the greats do. But you could tell that KG was frustrated, and you can tell that Dirk is frustrated. You hear it in his post-game comments. You see it in his body language. You can see him thinking "this sucks", just like Cuban, and just like most Mavs fans.

The Tall and Short of Winning a Super Bowl

2010-02-03T17:38:00.008-06:00

Saints quarterback Drew Brees can make history Sunday. He could become the first Dallas-born quarterback to win the Super Bowl (NOTE: There is some Obama-like discrepancy about Brees' birthplace. Some records say Dallas, others say Austin. But, unlike Obama, we are sure Brees is an American citizen, so that's that). He could also reverse a trend that has been growing for the last 15 years--the trend that says if you're a signal caller shorter than 6'3, you're not winning the Lombardi Trophy.

Much like the trend of overweight coaches not winning it all (exposed on this very blog two weeks ago--and something that will continue with either the fit Caldwell or the svelte Payton winning this weekend), this quarterback/height trend cannot be ignored, and will not be ignored by this reporter.

Brees stands 6'0. He also stands to tie the record for shortest quarterback to win the big game. The last time a quarterback as short (relative term here) as Brees won the Super Bowl was Joe Theismann in 1983 with Washington. The only other Super Bowl winning quarterback who measured 6'0 was KC's Len Dawson in 1970.

Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have been getting taller and taller. Since the 6'2 Kurt Warner won it all in 2000, no one shorter than 6'3 has led his team to the title. That list includes recent giants Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger and Brad Johnson (all 6'5), as well as Eli Manning, Trent Dilfer and Tom Brady (6'4).

Why do tall guys seem to have a much better chance than shorter guys? Pretty simple, methinks. The average size of an NFL lineman has grown quite a bit in the last 15 years, so to see the defense (and your receivers) over those monsters up front, you better be pretty tall. Not that a shorter QB can't succeed, it's just simply more difficult for him to see the lanes and hidden defenders when he's having to stand on a phone book to throw.

Being a quarterback in the NFL is a tall man's job. There is a reason that no QB under 6'0 has won the Super Bowl. If you are a Doug Flutie (5'10), it's going to catch up with you. If you are an Eddie LeBaron (5'9), you should think about elevator shoes. It's the reason that scouts drool over a college thrower who stands 6'5. It doesn't always work out for that kid--but as they say, you can't coach height.

Super Bowl winning quarterbacks are getting taller. There is no doubt about this. In the 1960's and early 1970's, the aforementioned 6'0 Dawson, along with Bart Starr, Earl Morrall and Bob Griese (all 6'1) and Broadway Joe (6'2) won titles. Then, over the next ten years, the SB winning QB's grew, led by Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw, Ken Stabler, and Jim Plunkett (all 6'3). Doug Williams was the first 6'4 QB to win it all, matched a few years later by the 6'4 Troy Aikman. Only Theismann, Joe Montana (6'2) and Jim McMahon (6'1) brought the average down a bit during the 80's.

Average height of Super Bowl winning QB's by decade:

1960's: 6'1
1970's: 6'2 1/2
1980's: 6'2 1/2
1990's: 6'3
2000's: 6'4 1/2

So, Drew Brees has his work cut out for him. I guess there is a chance he could grow a few inches before the game (that's what she said), but probably not. So, based on this theory, I'll take the 6'5 Manning and the Colts to win, 34-24.

Hope you enjoyed this tall tale.

The Two Ways Lance Can Win The Tour

2010-01-24T16:22:00.011-06:00

The pro cycling season opened last week in the warmth of the Australian summer at the Tour Down Under. Lance Armstrong finished 25th--a good result considering it's not a race that necessarily suits him, and not a race that he was using for anything more than training.

Armstrong's goal this year is simple: win the Tour de France, or, if that can't happen--make sure Alberto Contador doesn't win the Tour de France.

Armstrong doesn't like Contador very much. Let me rephrase that--Armstrong hates Contador with a passion. The two fought via Twitter last year after a very tense three weeks as "teammates" in the Tour. Lance didn't like some of the attack-as-you-please tactics of Contador, saying that Alberto was too often going against team orders. However, if Lance had attacked like Contador attacked, he would have been praised as "ballsy" and "hammering home his authority" on the peloton. In reality, Contador was, by far, the strongest rider in the race. Lance didn't like that, and Contador didn't like it that Lance didn't like that.

TOUR DE FRANCE 2010

Lance is 38 years old. His best days are behind him, but he can still produce some good ones (he finished third last year in the Tour after three years off--I don't have room on this blog to tell you how impressive that is). He might--might--be able to win the Tour this year. But, Contador is 27 years old and in the prime years of a stage racer's career. Contador is the best climber in the sport, and outside of Fabian Cancellara, the best July time trialist in the sport. That's a tough combination to beat. But there are two ways for Lance to take down Contador (not including a Contador crash, injury, or positive dope test).

First, beat him head to head. This, of course, is the way Lance would want to do it. In his perfect scenario, he finds his 28 year old legs. He steals a minute or so during the early cobblestone stage, where the Spanish climbers (like Contador) traditionally get bounced around. He then climbs with the best, always marking Contador. He then is able to ride just as well, if not a little better than Contador in the time trails. In the end, he's able to squeeze out a one minute or so overall advantage and wins his 8th Tour. That is the recipe for Lance to win this summer. He won't drop Contador in the mountains, or beat him by minutes in a time trial. He must take a few seconds here and there and have those seconds add up. In the old days, Lance could win the Tour by 8-10 minutes. Those days are gone.

There is a much higher chance of Contador beating Lance by 8 minutes overall than there is of Lance beating Contador by 8 minutes. Lance knows this.

THE OTHER WAY HE WINS

Lance's new team, Radio Shack, is good. Very good. It's basically last year's Astana team, which dominated the race. Cycling is a team sport, and this year Lance's team could beat Contador, even if Lance can't.

Lance would rather finish first himself, but I believe that he would also really enjoy it if one of his Shack teammates won the Tour just because that would mean that Contador wouldn't win the Tour. I almost think that, at this stage of his career, making sure Contador doesn't win is just as important as Lance winning himself. Two reasons for this: Lance hates Alberto, and he knows that Alberto is the only rider in the sport that could challenge his record 7 Tour wins. It's about revenge, and about preserving his legacy.

I envision a scenario this July where team Radio Shack attacks Contador left and right--on the flats and in the mountains. I can see them sending Leipheimer, then Kloden, then Lance, then whoever else, on repeated attacks--forcing Contador to counter each move or risk losing his chance to win the race overall. Contador may be up to the task, but even the strongest guy is sometimes no match for a really strong team.

It would still kill Lance to see Leipheimer or Kloden on the top step in Paris, but not as much as it would kill him to see Contador there. And, in the end, Lance has won enough. He might actually find a different form of competitive pleasure by orchestrating a team win that ultimately rewards a teammate with cycling's top honor instead of getting all of the glory himself. Especially if it knocks Contador down a peg or two. Now THAT would be something worth tweeting about.

Can An Overweight Head Coach Win The Super Bowl?

2010-01-19T05:37:00.023-06:00

Two months ago, a P1 emailed me with a theory. He wondered if Wade Phillips could lead Dallas to a championship. Not because of Wade's abilities as a motivator or strategist, but because of his weight. The listener pointed out that no overweight coach has ever won the Super Bowl.

So far this post season, Wade Phillips and Andy Reid have been eliminated. That leaves Rex Ryan as the heavy torch bearer for overweight coaches. If the Colts and their normal-weight coach Jim Caldwell eliminate the Jets this weekend, it will be another blow to high BMI coaches everywhere.

Why does this theory hold water? Is it because players will never fully buy what you are selling if you don't look the part? The players spend most of their time working out and staying fit, so does it wear on them to have to take orders from someone who looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy?

Back in the day, the first thing the Cowboys had to do when they reported for training camp was run "The Landry Mile". Coach Tom Landry, who was eternally fit, required the players to run a mile in 6 minutes or less. Landry could do it, and he expected his athletes to at least be in as good of shape as he was. Do you think those players respected their coach--especially the ones that Landry beat in the mile?

Not every Super Bowl winning coach has looked like Usain Bolt. But, none have looked like Wade or Rex, either. The evidence follows.

Weeb Ewbank won a title with the Jets, but was just old and stocky:

Hank Stram, champion in 1970, was also stocky, but not fat:

The first coach that everyone brings up when discussing overweight Super Bowl winners is John Madden. However, photographic evidence shows that Madden was big and had a strange body, but in his first few years with the Raiders was not overweight:

Even when Madden won the Super Bowl in 1977, he was not Phillips/Ryan-like. He looked more like an offensive lineman:

When Bill Parcells was in Dallas, he was definitely overweight. But not when he was winning Super Bowls with the Giants:

One other coach that some bring up is Mike Holmgren. Today? Overweight. Back in 1997 when he lead Favre and the Packers to the title? Not overweight:

As you can see, the odds are stacked against those who stack their pancakes too high.

Coming soon: Can a really tall coach win soccer's World Cup?

Dirk vs Bird Part 2

2010-01-13T11:43:00.011-06:00

Since there was a lot of good feedback on the first Dirk-Bird blog, and since I have even more thoughts about this topic, I thought I would present the sequel and explore some of what has come up since the blockbuster original posting.

THE DNA THEORY

I think some players have it in their DNA to be great, to be leaders, to be killers, to be champions. Bird had it. Dirk? Not so sure. Duncan has it. Robinson? Don't think so. Magic had it. Gervin? No. This is the backbone of my argument.

The Sturminator thinks that if Dirk had played on the '86 Celtics in place of Bird that they would have won the title. Well, on paper that looks great. You replace one HOF'er with another. You replace one great forward with another. One great shooter with another. Why wouldn't it work? Because of the DNA factor.

On the '86 Celtics, Bird led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists, steals, 3 pt shooting, Basketball IQ, leadership, drive, kicking ass, and everything else. Dirk would have led the team in scoring and 3 pt shooting, but what else? It was in Bird's DNA to drive a team, to get after teammates, to make those around him better. Would Dirk have been the straw that stirred that drink? I don't think so. Would Dirk have led that team in assists or steals? No way. Take the greatest passing forward ever off of that team and they are still champs? I don't see that.

I see Dirk and David Robinson as comparable in many ways. Both HOF'ers. Both were unguardable in their primes (Robinson won a scoring title and scored 71 points in a game). Both physical freaks--Robinson the best running 7 footer ever, Dirk the best shooting 7 footer ever). But I don't think that if you replaced Bird with Robinson that Boston wins the '86 title. They would have a better chance, maybe, because Robinson was such a great defender, but it wasn't in Robinson's DNA to be the difference maker. Duncan filled that roll for Robinson.

Bird = Duncan. Dirk = Robinson. It's about having it in your DNA to make others around you better. Bird took Indiana State (who??) to the NCAA title game. Bird, in his rookie year in Boston, without McHale or Parrish or Johnson or Ainge, made a 29 win Boston team a 61 win Boston team and took them to the Conference Finals. That's special. That's something you have in your DNA. Duncan has it. Magic had it. Players like Gervin or Robinson or Dirk don't have that. It's the difference between being a top 15 player and a top 50 player.

THE TOP 15 ALL-TIME PLAYER THEORY.

In the last 50 NBA seasons, 41 championship teams had one at least one of the top 15 all-time players on the roster. Basically, you have to have one of those once-or-twice-a-generation-players on your team to win the title. There are exceptions, or course, but it's easier to win it all with one of the true greats as opposed to having your best player being one who ranks 16th - 50th.

The consensus top 15 players in history would be (in no particular order)
Jordan
Russell
Wilt
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Oscar
West
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Moses
Kobe
LeBron
Havlicek (I would also be OK with either Elgin Baylor or Dr. J at number 15--doesn't really alter the numbers or theory, so it doesn't really matter. I guess it's the top 14 that really matter, but since that's not a nice, round number, let's just roll with Hondo)

At least one of these guys were members of 41 of the last 50 champions. Recently, at least one of these names appeared on 17 of the last 19 title team rosters. In other words: you better have a transcendent player on your team or your title odds get a lot longer.

Bird, without question, is a top 15 guy. Dirk is a top 50 guy, but not a top 15 guy. Put Dirk alongside a top 15 guy, and he would be golden. Like putting Robinson (top 50) alongside Duncan (top 15) made him golden.

The theory is that you just can't take someone from outside the top 15, swap them with someone inside the top 15, and get the same result. Swap Dirk for Bird, and suddenly the '86 Celtics don't have a top 15 guy on their team, making their championship odds much longer. But, swap Bird for Dirk on the '06 Mavs, and suddenly they have a much greater chance of winning it all.

Top 15 guys are almost always glue guys. Guys who have winning and leading and delivering in their DNA. Wilt may be the one exception, but he was so supremely talented and physically dominant that by osmosis he got a couple of titles along the way.

In the end you can play all of the "what if" games you want, but that doesn't obscure that the greatest of the great in NBA history were blessed with "it"--that elusive quality that is sometimes hard to understand or quantify. And if your favorite player wasn't born with "it", that's OK, and that's the point of the Dirk vs Bird blog post. My favorite player was Gervin, but he didn't have "it". He was a guard, like Magic. He was tall, like Magic. He was black, like Magic. But I don't pretend that you could swap Gervin for Magic and still win 5 titles--or even one title--with those 80's Lakers. Gervin and Magic were both HOF'ers, but their games were different--their hoops DNA was different. Bird and Dirk are both HOF'ers, but their games are different--their hoops DNA is different. It just doesn't make sense to think you could swap those players and get the same results.

THE GREAT WHITE HOPE THEORY

Since Bird, we have had to endure hearing about "the next Bird" every few years. Tom Gugliotta, Keith Van Horn, Adam Morrison, Danny Ferry, Detlef Schrempf--and Dirk. In fairness, Dirk is WAY better than all of those guys put together. But he's not Bird. Dirk's game and Bird's game don't even resemble each other, so why the comparisons? As P1 Tom put it: "If there were a black guy with Dirk's game, would they compare that black guy to Bird?" The answer, of course, is no. But since Bird, everyone has been falling all over themselves to find the next Bird. And the two prerequisites seem to be that the player must be white, and must be a shooter. No need to look beyond that!

THE WEAK SUPPORTING CAST THEORY

So Bird had a great supporting cast in Boston and Dirk had nothing to work with in Dallas? How do we know? It's my theory that supporting casts, in many cases, are only as good as the star player makes them.

For example: How was Bird's supporting cast his rookie season? It was the same roster that went 29-53 the year before. Bird won 61 with them--as a rookie! How was Bird's supporting cast at Indiana State? It's pretty clear that Bird had that rare ability to make something out of nothing.

Robert Parrish was good at Golden State. Then he started playing with Bird, and became an HOF'er. Kevin McHale probably would have been great anywhere, but he was drafted by Boston and had his game lifted by Bird from the start. Would he have been an HOF'er if he had been drafted by Cleveland? Don't know. But if you flip it, you can certainly see that if Bird had been drafted by Cleveland, somehow he would have won titles there because he would have lifted them like he did Indiana State and the '80 Celtics. Or put Bird on the '06 Mavs--does he make Harris and Howard and Stack and Terry and Damp better? I would say yes, because that's what Bird was all about. I can't see Bird letting Howard get away with his crap, especially in '08. Can you imagine Bird's reaction if Howard had handed him an invitation to his birthday party during the New Orleans series?

Dirk makes those around him better, for sure. But he doesn't raise his teammates level the way a Bird or Magic did. That's just not his game. His game is: Being an unstoppable offensive force, a nightmare offensive matchup for other teams, a 7 footer that does things we've never seen 7 footers do, a good rebounder, and an overcusser (especially early when he learned English cuss words). It took me a while, but I've finally come to terms with who he is, and that's more than enough for me. I don't need to try to make him Larry Bird, and neither should you.

And yes, Bob, I would be happy to discuss this on your show one day. However, since we were both born with Got-To-Be-Rightus in our DNA, I'm pretty sure we will either end in a stalemate or come to blows. Or both.

Dirk vs Bird: Enough Already

2010-01-10T09:38:00.062-06:00

Sparky Anderson was once asked to compare Thurman Munson to Johnny Bench. Sparky replied "Don't embarrass any catcher by asking me to compare him to Bench." This wasn't a slap at Munson, it was just the truth. Bench was the best, and no catcher was going to compare.

I feel the same way when I hear the constant comparisons of Dirk Nowitzki to Larry Bird. In fact, it may be the sports topic that most makes me want to end my 25 year non-vomit streak (and I grew up hating the Celtics!).

The subject is, in fact, the reason that I started this blog. I was listening to BAD Radio one day, and heard the King of Blogging, Bob Sturm, utter the phrase "Put Dirk on those Celtics teams with Parrish and McHale and he would probably have a couple of rings." After calling a wrecker service to come and tow my car out of the ditch that I had driven into upon hearing that, I emailed Bob. I love Bob. Bob's sports brain is huge (quickly). But I told him that I thought his comment gave too much credit to Dirk, and not nearly enough to Bird. I told him I had many thoughts on this topic, and that I should probably start a blog so that I could get all of my thoughts on this subject out in a way that I can't do on our radio show. A few weeks later, voila--I'm blogging! Oh crap! What have I done?

Disclaimers before launching into this comparison (or non-comparison): Dirk is greatness. Dirk is the best Euro ever. Dirk is the best shooting 7-footer ever. Dirk is one of the most unique NBA'ers ever. Dirk is approaching Roger Staubach in the "Most Beloved Metroplex Athlete Ever" category. Dirk is a nice guy. Dirk is THE reason that the Mavs have been a 50+ win team for a decade (even though he does have a fatal flaw that I will detail in a later blog posting). I love watching Dirk play. But he is not Larry Bird. Not even close. Just like Josh Howard is not Michael Jordan (OK, I admit that there is a much bigger gap between Josh and MJ than between Dirk and Bird. I just wanted to write that line to solicit some groans from basketball fans). The purpose of this post is not to take shots at Dirk, but to remind everyone of Bird's greatness, which time has caused many to diminish.

So, let's get into it.

HOW THEY ARE ALIKE

They are both tall. They are both white. They are both blonde. They are both great outside shooters. They both have funny accents.

HOW THEY ARE NOT ALIKE
(Insert unfair photographic evidence to help my argument)

1. THEIR BACKGROUNDS

When Larry Bird was 20 years old, he was leaving the University of Indiana because he felt out of place. He started working on a road crew for the state, working in ditches and bad weather, repairing potholes and such. He already had a huge chip on his shoulder, and this time period between IU and eventually enrolling at Indiana State just made him hate us all a bit more.

Also during this time, his alcoholic father committed suicide. His family was dirt-poor. Bird has said that his rough upbringing motivated him throughout his career.

Conversely, when Dirk was 20, he was drafted and signed a multi-million dollar deal in the NBA. He was a golden child, and now a wealthy NBA prospect--a German who was learning how to enjoy our Western ways and our American women. No chip. No ditch digging. No poor, broken family. He didn't hate anyone. The world was his oyster (I've never really known what that saying means, but that hasn't stopped me from using it).

This difference can't be underestimated. Bird always felt like he had something to prove. Bird was driven by that chip on his shoulder. Bird was bitter. Not that Dirk didn't work at his game early on (although not nearly as much as he has worked on it the last few years), but traveling and drinking with Steve Nash occupied a lot of his time.

Hungry athletes are usually better competitors. Especially those that don't get full after one great meal.

2. THEIR NUMBERS

In "The Book of Basketball" (a must read for any NBA fan), author Bill Simmons points out that Dirk's 2006-07 MVP season was statistically not as good as Bird's NINE best seasons. Think about that.

During each player's prime years, Bird was better in just about every individual category. Points per game (Bird averaged more than 28 per game three different times, Dirk never has averaged more than 26.5 per game), field goal percentage (Bird was over 50% five times, Dirk once), rebounds (Bird averaged 10+ per game six times, Dirk zero), and assists and steals (not even close--advantage Bird). Their career 3pt shooting, free throw shooting, and blocked shot numbers are a draw. Dirk has no advantage in any category.

3. THEIR GAMES

Bird was superior to Dirk in every area of the game, except for pure shooting, where I would call it even. Bird was three inches shorter than Dirk, but a better rebounder--he knew where to be and how to box out. Bird was 100 times the passer than Dirk is--he saw lanes and angles that few ever did. How often did you hear someone say "Bird must have eyes in the back of his head!". Do they ever say that about Dirk?

Defensively, Bird wins again. This area is Dirk's biggest downfall. Bird was not a superior defender, but he wasn't a liability. He out-thought the opponent. He outworked the opponent. Defense is not always about athletic ability, but about smarts and hustle. Bird had smarts and he hustled. You could never go to sleep on Bird when he was defending you. He wasn't a shut-down guy, but he would make you pay if you gave him a chance. He played the passing lanes well.

If you want to see what kind of a defender Dirk isn't, just watch any of last year's playoff series with Denver. You'll understand.

4. THEIR LEADERSHIP

As if Bird didn't have a large enough lead in the comparison, this is where it turns into a rout. The two players who demanded the most out of their teammates in the history of the league were Michael Jordan and Larry Bird. We have never seen competitors like those two.

To Bob's original point: If you replaced Larry Bird with Dirk Nowitzki on those 80's Celtics teams, they would not have one a single title. I really believe that. Bird was the ultimate glue player. Dirk is not a glue player. Bird was the ultimate hard-ass on his teammates. Dirk is not a hard-ass. Bird's game was tailor-made to bring out the best in McHale and Parrish and the rest of those Celtics. Dirk's is not. Not to mention how awkward it would be to play Dirk at small forward on that Boston team (you weren't really thinking about benching McHale, were you?).

I'm the all-time George Gervin homer, but I wouldn't make the argument that if you replaced Kobe with Ice that the Lakers would have won four titles in the last decade. In fact, I don't think they would have won any, even with Shaq. Gervin was great, just not in a Kobe way. The same way Dirk is great, just not in a Bird way.

Flip it around: Put Bird on the 2005-06 Mavs, and there is no way in hell they lose that series to Miami. There is a zero percent chance that up 2-0 and up 16 points in the 3rd quarter of game three that Bird would have let that team lose that series. Never, ever, ever. Dirk was taken out of his game by the Heat in that series. Nobody on that Miami team would have taken Bird out of his game, especially when spotting him a nearly insurmountable lead. I'm sorry, I just can't see Udonis Haslem or James Posey getting to Larry Legend.

Three rings for Bird, none for Dirk. And if you take a trip to Bizarro World, where their career paths would be flipped, I would imagine that the title count would be the same. Dirk still has a chance to win one--but that window is closing fast. Had it happened in '06, the comparison would be somewhat valid. Somewhat. It didn't, though--and that falls directly on Dirk's shoulders. Just like the 80's Celtics successes are a credit first and foremost to Bird.

5. THEIR PERSONALITIES

The reason Bird was such a great leader (and as a result, a great champion) was his personality. He was always the first to gym. In fact, he would routinely get to the Garden so early that the floor wasn't down yet for that night's game--so instead of shooting he would run laps around the concourse. Once the floor was down, he would shoot for hours. Dirk is a gym rat, too, but not to the degree that Bird was.

Bird would not accept anything less than 100% effort from his teammates. Dirk is a quiet, peace-loving guy. Bird would yell at a teammate. Bird would shove a teammate. Bird would make his teammates better. Dirk, in turn, only yells at his teammates indirectly, and usually when a game or series is already lost.

Bird was a trash talker, an intimidator. Dirk is neither. I've always loved the story of Bird telling Chuck Person before a Christmas Eve game that he had a present for him. Then, during the game, Bird launched a three pointer from right in front of the Pacers bench. Before the ball went through the net, he turned to Person (who was sitting on the bench) and said "Merry Fucking Christmas" as the ball then swished behind him. DAMN! I wouldn't want to play that guy! There are no stories like that about Dirk. Not that you have to be a prick to lead a team to a title--it's just another example of how Dirk is not Bird.

(There is another item worth discussing, but I don't have the issue completely fleshed out. It's the idea that a white Euro or Eurasian dude playing a North American sport just doesn't have the same killer instinct that a North American--i.e. American or Canadian--does. I hear this all the time about the Euro hockey players. The theory centers around Euros seeing Olympic Gold as their ultimate sports dream, where North Americans see winning a Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Series or NBA title as their ultimate sports dream. I've heard it before about Dirk, but I'm not sure it applies. I think Dirk may have that killer instinct even though he's very white and very Euro. But I'm not sure. It's certainly not the psycho-killer instinct that Bird had, so again, advantage Bird. Still--an interesting topic that will be explored in a future blog posting on this very site.)

LET'S ALL AGREE TO GIVE DIRK A BREAK

Stop doing this to Dirk. Stop comparing him to Bird. I even heard Rick Carlisle tip-toe into the subject not too long ago--and he played with Bird! I understand it's a coach's job to pump up his players to hyperbolic proportions. But come on. I feel bad for Dirk every time someone tries to compare the two, because I know that there is no way Dirk will ever live up to being Bird. Can't we all just be happy with the incredible career that Dirk has put together? Let's just compare him to other Mavericks. He wins there. Let's compare him to other Euros. He wins there. Let's compare him to his peers in today's game. He wins a lot of those battles. But let's stop comparing him to Larry Bird. There is no comparison.

Plus, I want to try to run my non-vomit streak to 50 years. I have a better chance if I never hear "Dirk" and "Bird" in the same sentence again (after, of course, this sentence).

Amen.

How To Fix The Bowls

2010-01-06T05:28:00.008-06:00

30 years ago, when I was a small human, college bowl season was the most wonderful time of the year. I would get a large poster board, list all 15 bowl games (complete with team logos and stadium information), and hang it on my bedroom wall. I would then watch each and every game, filling in the final scores on my big board. New Year's Day was the crescendo. Four big games--Rose, Cotton, Orange and Sugar. Afterwards, I would be spent, but happy.

Today? Like most sports fans, I couldn't care any less about the bowls, save for the BCS National Championship game. Today we have 34 bowl games. One matters. 33 games that nobody cares about. And, beginning on December 19th, the bowls come at us thick and fast in no particular order of importance. The GMAC Bowl sandwiched between the Orange and BCS Title game? The Alamo Bowl AFTER New Year's Day? The Gator Bowl ON New Year's Day? Are they just TRYING to piss us off at this point?

Bonus points if you know where the Emerald Bowl, EagleBank Bowl or International Bowl are played. Bigger bonus points if you can name the teams that played in them. 34 bowl games means we have 68 of the 119 division one football teams being rewarded with postseason play. 60 percent of the teams go to a bowl game. If we were to invite the same percentage of teams to the NCAA postseason basketball tournament, it would go from a field of 64 to a field of 200! We are to the point where some teams exit their bowl game with a losing record. Why would a .500 team be invited to a bowl game? Why would a team that lost as many as it won deserve a reward?

The single worst term in sports today is "bowl eligible". What does that mean? That you went .500? It means even less now that teams don't have to have at least 6 wins over division one teams. That's right, you can schedule as many games as you can against The School For The Blind and those wins (if you can beat TSFTB) count toward being 'bowl eligible'. Simply ridiculous. If I were a coach or athletic director of a team that was 6-6, I would never, ever accept a bowl bid. It's humiliating.

HOW TO FIX IT

I present to you my five step program to fix the bowl games--to restore interest and credibility to college football's postseason:

Step One: No Bowls. 16 team college playoff. It will never happen.

Step Two: Since Step One will never happened, we cut the number of bowls from 34 to 15. In 1979, we had 15 bowls. Perfect. Not too many, but enough to make the schedule seem full. No trash teams. No .500 teams.

Step Three: Return to playing the games in order of importance. Bring back meaning and prestige to playing on New Year's Day. Don't play the PapaJohns.com Bowl after the Rose Bowl! Spare bowls early, big bowls late. Simple.

Step Four: Since the NCAA will ignore Steps One, Two and Three, let's at least eliminate all 6-6 teams. If you are 6-6, you are the epitome of mediocre. You have no business in the postseason. Go back to practice and work harder on becoming a winner who deserves something.

Step Five: Since the NCAA will ignore Steps One, Two, Three and Four, I introduce my most radical thought. If you are a 6-6 team and you are invited to a bowl game, you may accept the bid. However, if you lose your bowl game, you will not be eligible for a bowl game the following season, no matter what your record. It will make coaches and athletic directors think twice about rewarding mediocrity. Can you imagine the embarrassment of accepting a bowl bid at 6-6, losing that bowl, then going 12-0 the next season and not being able to play in a big BCS bowl?

THE FUTURE

I realize my plan has zero chance. It makes too much sense. I love college football, but my love is fading more and more each season. The NCAA is the single most screwed up entity in sports. The messy bowl system is just a small part of their problems.

The NCAA is actually considering adding a few more bowls. Ludicrous. How far are we from seeing 118 division one teams (not all 119--that would be silly) invited to a bowl? You laugh, but if the NCAA approves 5 more bowl games, we will be near 80 teams going to bowls. 80. Out of 119. Unreal. The NCAA has effectively taken all of the meaning and prestige out of playing in a bowl game. It means nothing.

It all falls in line with the trend in America these days. Reward the winners AND the losers. Everyone in the race gets a ribbon--the top three, the middle three, and the bottom three. It teaches nothing. No reason to try harder, little Jimmy who finished in 9th place--here's a ribbon! No reason to try harder, Texas A&M--you went .500, so here is a bowl bid!

Bear Bryant is rolling over in his grave. And my eyes are rolling into the back of my head as I try to stomach Idaho vs Bowling Green in the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl.

The Gortat Mystery

2009-12-21T11:20:00.021-06:00

April 30th, 2009. The day that changed the way Marcin Gortat was viewed. Dwight Howard was suspended for one game for a wild elbow to the head of Sam Dalembert during the Orlando/Philly playoff series. The Magic started Gortat at center in game six, and he responded with 11 points and 15 rebounds. The rest is history.

Gortat becomes the next Wilt Chamberlain, in the estimation of some. The Dallas Mavericks make him target number one in their offseason talent hunt. The Mavs 30 year search for a center was about to end! Gortat would come in to Big D and push Little D (or Erica, or Big Tamp, or whatever you like to call Erick Dampier) to the bench where he belongs.

But, in the eleventh hour, the Magic matched the Mavs offer. 5 years, $34 million. Gortat was bummed, and so was Dallas. I wasn't. I never got the Gortat fuss. Allow me to explain.

THE TROUBLE WITH NUMBERS

Gortat has some redeeming qualities. He's pretty athletic for a 7 footer. He's not bad on defense. He can rebound. He also has some liabilities--for example: anything on the offensive end. He is a garbage man, at best. He is a good backup, center. That's it.

However, last summer all I kept hearing were Gortat supporters offering up his points-per-48 minutes and rebounds-per-48 minutes numbers. Drove me crazy. "He averages 17 rebounds per 48 minutes! Don't you see, he's Bill Russell all over again! Except that he's white and Polish!" Projecting numbers for backups is as close to an inexact science as we have in sports. Do you realize how many variables go into projecting a backup as a starter? What if he doesn't have the stamina to play 40 minutes a night? It's easy to have your motor running hot for 15 minutes a contest--you don't have to pace yourself and you can go balls-to-the-wall while you're in the game.

Plus, what Gortat did in his 15 minutes a night off the Orlando bench may not be what you would get out of him as a starter with another team. Don't you think that when Dwight Howard leaves the game and Gortat comes in that there is a natural tendency for the opponent to say "Whew, glad Howard's gone for a while" and slack off just a bit? I've always thought that Gortat has taken advantage of that. Yes, he's put up decent numbers when he starts--all FOUR of his career starts. Too small of a sampling to think that he could be a productive, 35 minute, 82 game starter, I think.

In fact, if the Mavs had landed Gortat, I don't think he would have ever put up a season close to Dampier's best (12 ppg, 12 rpg). We'll never find out, thankfully. The Magic rescued the Mavs by matching the offer. Which brings us to this season...

GORTAT 2009: MISSING IN ACTION

There was talk this summer after Gortat was retained by the Magic that some secret deal had been cut with another team, and that Gortat would be dealt on December 15th. That date came and went, and Gortat is still in Orlando. Might he be dealt this year? Sure, although GM Otis Smith says he's not trading Gortat this season (we know how that goes). But while still with the Magic, Gortat is watching his playing time dwindle, barely getting on the floor in the last two weeks. This season he's averaging a whopping 3 points and 3 rebounds per game. Nice. Stan Van Gundy says that Gortat has no spark. Some say it's because he wants out of Orlando. Others say it's because this summer's run with the Polish National Team took a lot out of him. I say it's because he's one of the most overrated big men I've seen in a long time. I don't dislike Marcin, I just disliked knee-jerk observers claiming that Gortat was the Mavs missing link.

If Gortat were the great player in waiting that many believe him to be, then why wouldn't Orlando play him more? Because they don't want to hurt him in case they trade him? Really? If Gortat were so great, as I was told last summer, then why wouldn't Van Gundy stick he and Howard out there together, just for a while? Duncan/Robinson, Gasol/Bynum. If you have two good/great big men, why not play them together more? Is the answer that Gortat is not that good? Is the answer that Gortat is nothing more than a decent backup center, whose legend grew out of control last summer because of one good playoff game?

Gortat may enjoy a long and lucrative NBA career. It's my bet that he does so as a backup. If another team takes a chance on him as a starter, I would wager that about 50 games into that experiment the GM who made the move to get Gortat will say to himself "WTF?" I'm just glad it won't be Donnie Nelson dropping that F-bomb on himself.

(If Gortat goes on to greatness, then ignore the above rant.)

That's it. And speaking of F-bombs: in the immortal words of Barry Switzer, "Merry F'ing Christmas!"

Dear Jerry, Please Coach

2009-12-15T11:05:00.038-06:00

It would be the greatest sports story in the history of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. And it's the sports headline that I hope we see in about three weeks time: "Jerry Jones Fires Wade Phillips; Names Himself New Head Coach".

Can you imagine the mileage we would get out of this story? Newspaper columnists would write non-stop on the subject. Talk radio would explode. Dale Hansen would implode. Ozarka and Evian stock would soar as football fans everywhere would spend countless hours discussing the move around the water cooler at work. It would get more play than the Tiger story. Who says you need sex to sell? Jerry's insanity would trump Tiger's wood.

I pray each night to Baby Jesus that this scenario comes true. In my line of work, this kind of a story would be pure gold--better even than Mark Cuban appearing on Dancing With the Stars or Tom Hicks getting a sex-change*.

*Cuban appearing on DWTS did occur, however the Hicks sex-change is only a hypothetical as of now.

WHY IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN

Jerry is not fooling anyone. He IS the Cowboys head coach, just not in title. He is also the owner, president, general manager, chief mouthpiece, chief motivator, and official sideline patrolman. He has given some titles away in order to make the Cowboys look like a balanced organization. However, most of those titles were given to people whose last name also happens to be "Jones" and who directly sprang from Jerry's testes, so there is no danger of anyone questioning his authority.

Jerry's current head coach in title is nothing more than a defensive coordinator who gets to play dress up on Sundays. Wade Phillips even gives us a hint as to what goes on behind the scenes at Valley Ranch. On more than one occasion during his press conferences, Phillips has quipped "I can't answer that question until I find out what Jerry has to say," or "whatever Jerry says, that's what I think." And he's not kidding. Not one bit. Phillips doesn't have the power to poop without Jerry giving him the OK. Not that Wade would know what to do with any power, but that's for another blog post.

In other (normal) organizations, the head coach is the one who decides which players belong on the 53 man roster. He decides which players will start. He decides which players will be punished. He decides everything that has to do with the work week practice schedule, the travel schedule, the game day routine and lineup, and so on. That's the way it was when Landry and Johnson coached the Cowboys. The players knew who to answer to: the coach. Today's Cowboys? The players have no coach to answer to. Jerry decides lineups. Jerry decides fines. Jerry decides roster moves. All of the things that Landry and Johnson did in the past, Jerry does today.

JIMMY'S SHADOW

From the moment he fired Jimmy, Jerry has been obsessed with getting credit for being a "football man". That credit was not given when Jerry and Barry Switzer hoisted a Super Bowl trophy in Tempe, as everyone simply dismissed the accomplishment with the "that's still Jimmy's team" thought. So Jerry's quest to escape the Jimmy shadow continued. Yet, since the time that "Jimmy's" team gradually dissipated, Jerry hasn't a single playoff win to show for it.

When Jerry was hired, he promised to be involved in everything including the "socks and jocks" (note: many believe that he would be best suited sticking to that promise and working as the team's laundry man). Indeed, Jerry has been in on everything and every decision in his 20 years with the Cowboys. So why not go all the way with this philosophy?

COACH JERRY

There is no doubt in my mind that Jerry has thought about coaching. He thinks he can do it all. He played at high level in college. He's been around the NFL for 20 years. He always says he's learned a lot from coaches like Parcells and Johnson. He's obviously comfortable on the sidelines, where he stands around and occasionally gets in the ears of the players--like a coach would. He gives the team halftime pep talks in the locker room--like a coach would. He wears coaches attire at practice--like a coach would. He makes all of the personnel decisions--like a coach would. HE THINKS HE'S A COACH! It's painfully obvious. Jerry is not fooling anyone.

He knows his idol Al Davis was a coach. He knows the two things he hasn't done in the NFL are play and coach. He's too old to play, but not too old to coach. He wrestles with the good and the bad that his becoming head coach would bring. He would love the limelight. He would hate the laughter. He would love running a practice. He would hate the laughter. He would love leading the team out of the tunnel and onto the field. He would hate the laughter.

Deep down, he thinks he could do it. He thinks he would be successful. That's how successful people generally think. They believe that they will always be able to make it work. If the bottom falls out on this season--and it's looking like it will--wouldn't this be the perfect time for Coach Jerry? Wade is proving that he's a good defensive coordinator, but someone who is uncomfortable in the role of a leader. Jason Garrett is proving he's not ready to be a head coach. Mike Shanahan, Bill Cowher and Mike Holmgren all want too much control.

Jerry is the only perfect coach for Jerry. Coach Jerry won't mind if Owner Jerry joins him on the sideline or usurps his power. Coach Jerry will agree with every move that GM Jerry makes. Coach Jerry won't mind President Jerry stealing the spotlight.

It's all too serendipitous, given the fact that next season's Super Bowl will be played at Jerry's new stadium. In Jerry's dreams he leads the Cowboys to a championship at his own stadium. And after the game, the crowning moment occurs: Jerry gets to hold up the Lombardi Trophy--by himself. No Jimmy, no Barry, no Jimmy shadow. Just Jerry Jones, Owner, President, General Manager, and Head Coach of the Dallas Cowboys

EPILOGUE

I realize that this Jerry-coach thing will never happen. I also realize that, either way, the Cowboys are doomed. As a fan once told me: "The Cowboys won't win another title until Stephen Jones' weekly duties include placing flowers at a certain tombstone in a certain Highland Park cemetery."

Who Is Kevin Durant?

2009-12-05T14:48:00.044-06:00

I was watching the Thunder play the Celtics last Friday night. I realize this makes me a complete geek, but that's beside the point. It was interesting to watch Kevin Durant against a good defensive team like Boston. He had 36 points, and no assists. I like watching him play. He's exciting, seems like he has a good head on his shoulders, and is well liked around the league. Yet there are some diverse opinions out there on Durant: is he the next Kobe, or is he destined to become just a great scorer who never does much else? Is he a Jordan in the making, or is he the second coming of World B. Free?

After about two years, it looks like he was a much better pick than Greg Oden. At the time, I said I would take Oden, mainly because I believe you build champions from the inside out. I never thought Oden would be a big scorer, but I did think he could be a Bill Russell/Bill Walton-type. I thought he could give you 17 points each night, with a lot of boards and a lot of defense. Unfortunately for Blazers fans, Oden is looking too much like Sam Bowie--he appears extremely fragile. Meanwhile, Durant is already a force. But who is he?

I know who he is. I've shared this thought many times on the radio show, but never had time to go in-depth about it. Kevin Durant IS George Gervin. But is that a good thing?

ICE AND ME

First of all, full disclosure (not the book by the same name about the history of SportsRadio 1310 The Ticket--published by Benbela Books and available at book stores everywhere for $24.95). Disclosure about my basketball background: I grew up the biggest George Gervin fan in America. I worshiped the Iceman. He was unique. He was a trendsetter. He was unstoppable. He was skinny. He was my first real sports idol. I couldn't wait for the paper each morning to check out his box score. Of course, I had listened to the game the night before, so I knew what he had done--but I still loved seeing it in print. Gervin, 14-24, 10-11, 38 pts. Night in, night out.

Gervin started his career (at age 19, just like Durant) in Virginia and then San Antonio in the ABA as a small forward. When the Spurs were absorbed by the NBA, Gervin became a shooting guard. The league had never seen anything like him. A 6'7 guard. He was the first true big guard. Before him, shooting guards were 6'4. Gervin was a big guard before Magic. And the bank was always open for Ice--only Sam Jones ever used the glass more effectively than Gervin.

I feel like I am qualified to compare modern day players to Gervin. There never has been anyone like him. Until now. Durant and Gervin are so similar it's scary. Above all else, Durant is a pure scorer, like Gervin was. Both are so thin, you wonder why a pick has never broken them in half. Gervin was 6'7, 180 pounds. Durant is 6'9 and listed at 230 (I don't think so! If he's a pound over 215 I would be shocked). Durant has the narrowest shoulders in the history of the NBA. Only former Pacers/Knicks great Louis Orr was skinnier than Gervin and Durant (Orr was 6'8, 175).

Their early career numbers are almost identical. Through their first few seasons, each averaged around 23 ppg. Gervin pulled down 7 rebounds per game, Durant 6 rpg. Each posted negligible numbers in assists (about 2 per game), steals (1 spg) and blocks (1 bpg). Both shot between 46% and 48% from the field, and both shot about 85% from the line. Durant can smoothly score from anywhere, like Gervin. Durant is explosive, but doesn't possess Lebron-like explosiveness. Durant is not a superior athlete. Neither was Gervin. Ice dunked a lot in the early days, like Durant, but was never considered a great athlete. Gervin did possess a dazzling array of post moves, which he used to abuse smaller defenders. Durant doesn't have these post moves, or the finger-roll, or the cool nickname. Other than that, Durant is Gervin.

THE PROBLEM WITH BEING GERVIN

The Iceman was never much interested in defense. Or passing. Or rebounding (as his career went on). Durant isn't much interested in defense. Or passing. Or rebounding (when you are 6-9 and playing 40 minutes, 6 rebounds should accidentally fall your way). And this is the problem. The Spurs loved having Gervin--on one end of the court. He was a nightmare match up for the other team. But, he was a nightmare liability for the Spurs on defense. All Ice wanted to do was score. All Durant wants to do is score.

Gervin's great scoring never got the Spurs past the Conference Finals. And it wasn't because he had a bad cast around him. He always had at least one other 20 ppg scorer with him (Kenon, Silas, Mitchell). He even had a good big man for a few years in a later-day Artis Gilmore. But when your leader, your star, doesn't play defense, you have a problem (Dirk?). Gervin's four scoring titles were great, but zero NBA titles leaves a void on your resume.

Is Kevin Durant destined to have a George Gervin-like career? If so, that's not bad. He'll win his share of scoring titles. He'll be an perennial All-Star. He'll probably end up in the Hall of Fame. But, to be considered a true great, he'll have to start paying attention to all aspects of his game. To be mentioned in the same breath as Jordan or Kobe, he'll have to become a better defender. He should be a better rebounder than both. And for now, he's nowhere near the assist man than Jordan was and that Kobe became.

SO WHAT WILL HE BE?

Given his build, I'm not sure Durant will ever be a great defender. He's not a very strong man. Remember the story out of the draft camp in 2007, when it was reported that he couldn't bench press 185 lbs? But what's more concerning that his physical limitations is his mind set. Does he have the Gervin-McGrady-Dantley scoring-only mind set? If so, that can be a hard habit to break.

Wayne Winston, the former Mavericks stat guru and advisor, is not high on Durant. Winston was interviewed last month on TrueHoop, and was asked about building a championship team. He was offered the hypothetical of taking Kevin Durant, for free, to add to his team. He said no. He said "I would not sign the guy. It's not inevitable that he will make mid-career strides. He would have to improve a lot to help a team." And that's the ultimate question about Durant: will he be a superstar who makes everyone around him better, or will he be a superstar who makes everyone around him just sit back and watch him operate one-on-one?

If I had to bet, I would bet that Durant finishes his career as Gervin or McGrady, not Jordan or Kobe. To my eye, there is just something missing. I saw the same thing when he was at Texas in big games. Every time I watch him, I just don't see how he makes those around him better. How can you play 40 minutes against a team like Boston with the ball in your hands every possession and not record a single assist? It's the Gervin curse. It's not a bad curse to have--it will make you a ton of money and get you to Springfield. But it won't put you in the pantheon of the greats who are called "champions".

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to plan my social calendar for next Friday night. Looks like the Pacers host the Nets--I think I can catch that one!

THE END

Basketball IQ

2009-12-02T10:57:00.005-06:00

For my first entry, I've chosen a basketball topic that I enjoy enough to blog about: the basketball IQ of a player.

You hear that term a lot. I think it's perhaps the single most important quality in today's NBA player. There is a fine line athletically between Kobe Bryant and Corey Maggette -- in fact, almost no difference. What makes Kobe so much better than Corey? Basketball IQ. Not to diminish ability: no doubt that there is a wide gulf between LeBron James and J.J. Barea. But, as someone wise once told me as I lined up for a bicyle race against guys who had bigger lungs and stronger legs than I did, "It's not always the strongest guy, but the smartest, who often wins the race". Let's start with that thought.

THE GOLD STANDARD

In my lifetime, the smartest players to have laced them up are Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Also possessing the NBA's equivalant of a genius IQ would be Michael Jordan, John Stockton and Tim Duncan. There are others, but let's use these five as an example of The Gold Standard. Not that these guys never committed a turnover or made a mistake, they just made fewer than the rest. These five also were able to elevate their play and thought process during the most high-pressure moments. Each of these Gold Standard players exhibited the same abilities and instincts. They all had/have that innate sense for when to pass and when to shoot. They could all make the great pass. They could all make the big shot. Not freaking out at crunch time is huge when determining a hoops IQ.

The smartest players are always able to think two or three moves ahead of the opponent, and all of these players had/have that. That's how you win a chess match, and that's how you win a basketball game. It's the reason Larry Bird was a good defender and rebounder: he was always two or three steps ahead (mentally and thus physically) of everyone else on the court. Magic and Stockton could see passing lanes that most point guards couldn't even dream about.

Jordan aside, none of these players were ever considered overly physically gifted. Duncan is not the quickest/strongest big man. Stockton was small. Magic was slow. Bird was slow and pasty. But their basketball IQ's were through the roof. Jordan knew when to give it up at crunch time to John Paxson. Magic knew when to toss the baby hook. Only Bird could have stolen that ball against Detroit. Duncan plays defense through fundamentals and thought process to the point of perfection. Opponents hated playing Stockton because they couldn't stand the way he guarded them, which on the surface never made sense because he was tiny and (relatively) slow.

ALL OF THE ELEMENTS

Thinking a few steps ahead of your opponent is maybe the most important, but not only factor that makes up a players basketball IQ. There are many other factors, such as the ability to deal with teammates, coaches, and refs. Knowing how to practice. Knowing how to live your life away from the court so that it doesn't interfere with your play (diet, rest, focus). And of course, simply knowing the game inside and out...from the fundamentals, to being able to read and react to a defensive set, to knowing how much time is left in a possession or a quarter. A lot of this sounds basic, but you would be amazed at just how few players can think about all of these things simultaneously each trip down the court.

THE MAVERICKS AND BASKETBALL IQ

All of this brings us to our home team and their IQ. For years, I've preached about the collectively low basketball IQ of the Mavericks, and how that needs to be addressed. Finally, this off season, Mark Cuban agreed with me. He told us on our radio show just before the season started that one of the biggest differences between this year's Mavs and past teams would be a higher basketball IQ. Good! So, has that really been the case?

The addition of Jason Kidd two seasons ago helped this team -- a ton. I rank Kidd as one of the smartest players in today's game. He would be just below genius level, in my book. I've seen a couple of brain-fart moments at the end of big games, and that keeps me from putting him at the Magic/Bird level. But he instantly raised the Mavs basketball IQ when he joined the team. He makes Magic-like passes. He is still a good defender at age 37 because he knows where to be, knows how to play the passing lanes, and knows what his opponent is thinking. I love watching Kidd play. He gets it. On the Lewis Terman IQ scale, Kidd would fall into the "very superior" category.

Of the other regulars on the roster, I would put Dirk one level down, but still at "superior." He has grown into a very smart player. He still struggles defensively night in and night out, and there is no reason for that. That's what takes his ranking down. He's every bit as physically gifted as Larry Bird, so there is no reason he couldn't defend like Bird. Comes down to basketball IQ. Plus, I'm not always comfortable with his decision-making down the stretch, although it's much better now than it was a few years ago. But, in general, he's a smart-to-very smart player.

The next level on the Terman scale is "average." This is where we find most of the Mavs. Terry, Barea, Dampier, Gooden -- all average. I also put Shawn Marion at this level. He's a pretty smart defender, and also has a decent offensive sense. But I still wonder about the intangibles. Someone close to the Suns recently told me that many on that team say Marion routinely vanished at crunch time, especially in the playoffs. That's low basketball IQ stuff. So his grade is balanced by the good and the bad.

So are the Mavs smarter this year? Maybe, but it's not necessarily by addition. I think it's by subtraction. No Josh Howard. He's basically not played this year, and that's a good thing for Dallas. Howard has, in my opinion, one of the lowest basketball IQ's I've ever seen. The stupid passes, stupid shots, stupid birthday parties, stupid things that come out of his mouth, etc. Is there a worse player on the team to be inbounding the basketball at crunch time? No player has done more to damage the Mavericks on and off the court since the Miami series than Josh Howard. On the Terman scale, he ranks in the "feeble-minded" category. Unfortunateley, he will be a big part of this team, if healthy, going forward.

I would rather have Bob Ortegal playing 2-guard for the Mavs in the postseason than Josh Howard. At least Bob knows how the game is supposed to be played.

THE END?

That does it for my first-ever blog. I'm certainly not the strongest or smartest blogger in the race, but I've got a lot of basketball thoughts bouncing around in my little brain, and I'll try to post them here from time to time. Or maybe not.

Since I've never blogged before, I don't really know how to end this. So I'll go with the old standby:

The End.