All Hail, The Uniform Czar!

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:

The Experiment is Over

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.

Dirk's Place in History

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.