National Sports Bar

NASCAR: The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

2008-05-26T21:36:00.005-05:00

Hello again gentle readers. Yes, I know that it has been a long time since I graced this blog with my presences, however, sometimes, life intrudes. Another reason that I have not written much is because I am a college basketball fan first and foremost, and a simple look at the calender will tell you that my preferred season is long over. Hence, I am writing about the sport that is coming to be the one that I know the next most about - NASCAR. The last time that I wrote about the cars was back in March and quite a bit has happened since then, even though you would be hard pressed to recognize this by looking at the standings.

When the season started in Daytona, it looked as if Dodge had finally figured out the aerodynamic problems that had hindered its stable of teams and drivers for the past three years and would put multiple cars and teams in the chase. Well, that little viewpoint has proven to be short lived. I write this the day after the running of the Coca-Cola 600, and a Dodge just won the race. If not for that, there would not have been another Dodge victory since Daytona. Regardless of yesterday's victory, things have been looking awful for the Dodge's this year. Neither Kyle Busch nor Eliot Sadler have been able to get into the top 20 in the rankings, Ryan Newman has done a freefall (not as fast as Kurt's, but almost) from the top spot at Daytona to out of the chase and Kasey Kahne joined the chase yesterday with his win. From what I hear and read, the problem is that Dodge can't figure out the aero package on their cars. Dodge has plenty of horsepower, but the cars can't stay under control at high speeds in the turns. This requires the drivers to slow down earlier than they should on the straightaways to keep from wrecking. This is a massive problem for Dodge, and not in the way that you may have initially thought. This problem can probably be fixed from an engineering standpoint, but it could be fatal to the manufacturer from a driver standpoint. Some of the best drivers for Dodge will be coming upon the ends of their contracts soon and they may not be willing to stay and wait for Dodge to fix this problem when it looks as if some spots are opening with other teams and other manufacturers. Ryan Newman will be the first driver of any significance for Dodge that will face this decision. If he leaves, you could see the floodgates open behind him.

Where would the Rocketman go? That is not a bad question, so let's take a look at what is out there. Frankly, a new team is about to be created at Richard Childress Racing and that will be a hot ride with a big sponsor since General Mills foods is coming on board. If you are Newman and you see that all of Childress' cars are currently in the chase (solidly I might add) this would look like a pretty good option. Roush racing will probably not be an option since it currently has five teams and NASCAR rules will force it to go to four teams next year. At the beginning of the year anyone asked would have believed that David Ragan would be on the way out. Now, with Ragan on the cusp of the chase, you have to think that the underperforming Jamie McMurray will be looking for a ride. Over at Toyota, Joe Gibbs doesn't have a spot unless Tony Stewart leaves to buy part of Haas-CNC Racing or they add another team. Frankly, I don't see Stewart leaving just yet and I don't see another team coming (although Toyota would give these guys anything that they want at this point). If Newman stays, it may not say anything about where the Dodge's are heading, but if he leaves when there are no other great rides but one out there, then it will say something loud and clear to everyone about the Dodges.

Speaking of loud and clear, the only way you could have missed the fact that Toyota and Joe Gibbs Racing have teamed up is if you have not watched any races this season. This alliance has all three teams it runs in the chase and has led more laps and won more races than any other team so far this year. While they have not won as many races as the Hendricks team did last year at this point, it can be argued that they have been more dominant due to the number of laps lead, which is double the next highest team. Also, remember that Tony Stewart, the two-time champ has not won a race yet and is still in eighth place in points. He has won all of his races but one after May in the past, so his best races are still ahead. With the exception of the first three races when Denny Hamlin had some problems (which he has overcome to rise to fourth in points) the Toyotas of Gibbs have been better cars than anything else on the tracks. Plus, Kyle Busch has shown that Hendricks never should have cut him to make room for Junior, but should have shown Casey Mears the tickets to a truck or Nationwide car instead.

Having said all of this, where are we? Well, you have the three Toyotas of Gibbs in the chase, but this is not really a surprise. Gibbs is a quality outfit and these guys would have been there if they were still in Chevys. Childress has three cars in the chase along with Hendricks. Roush has two (maybe not the exact two you expected, but two nevertheless) and Dodge has one (barely). So, this year's Chase is looking alot like last year's chase judging by the competitors. At the moment, the eventual champ does not look like it will be Jimmy Johnson again as his team looks like they took the offseason off and celebrated instead of preparing. However, when you consider that Gibbs and Hendricks have had the championship six of the past eight years, I have not seen anything so far this season that will change that dominance.

Major League Baseball Update

2008-04-28T20:33:00.004-05:00

I don't know if you have been paying attention to the first month of baseball, but there are interesting developments to start the season. I know it is a long season and there is a lot of baseball left to be played, but there are some teams off to a great start that have been fun to watch.

Going into this week, here are the AL standings with some comments:

AL East: Baltimore and Tampa Bay (you read right) are tied with Boston in first.
AL Central: The White Sox are the only team with a winning record in the division.
AL West: Oakland tied with the LAA Angels in first.

Biggest AL Surprise So Far: The Baltimore Orioles and Tampa Bay Rays are tied for first in the AL East. For perspective, I think it was reported that Tampa Bay has never finished April with a winning record (11-14 last year) and they finished the 2007 season 30 games back at 66-96. Baltimore was 12-14 in April last year and finished 2007 just ahead of Tampa Bay 27 games back at 69-93.

Biggest AL Disappointment So Far: The Detroit Tigers. They are 11-15 and 4 games out of first after making several big off-season moves.

Now for NL standings and comments:

NL East: Florida is in first place. Who are these guys?
NL Central: The Cubs are playing well early, but can they survive the June Swoon?
NL West: Arizona is in first place. Young roster with average age of 27.7.

Biggest NL Surprise So Far: The Florida Marlins. Quick, name any player for the Marlins? I can't. Yet, here they are again finding new talent and winning games. The team that finally got a new stadium that is scheduled to open in 2011, when they will also be called the Miami Marlins, always seems to find a way to be competitive.

Biggest NL Disappointment So Far: The Colorado Rockies. After the magical run last year that included baseball playoffs in the snow (boys of summer?), the Rockies are in 4th place in the division, 8 games behind the young D-backs.

Two interesting questions to start the season:

1. Will it be the White Sox v. the Cubs in the World Series?
2. Will the Yankees make the playoffs after getting rid of Joe Torre?

Note to NFL Owners - Draft Brian Brohm First!

2008-04-15T00:12:00.002-05:00

With the NFL Draft fast approaching, many experts seem to think Matt Ryan is going to be the first QB taken. I disagree and urge owners to look closely at Brian Brohm before making your decision for several reasons.

First, Brian Brohm has been raised to be a pro QB. His father pointed him in the right direction. Don't forget that his brother, Jeff Brohm, was also a pro QB. Second, he is a winner. If you like Tom Brady, you have to love Brian Brohm. He led his High School to state championships and led the Louisville Cardinals to the school's first Orange Bowl victory, where he was named MVP. Third, he has character. If you like Peyton Manning, you will love Brian Brohm. He does things the right way and leads by example. He came back for his senior year at UL even though he had a new coach and new system and still excelled. Finally, he is simply better than Ryan. Check the stats. He averaged more yards per game than Ryan (335/321); he had a better TD/INT ratio (30/12 compared to 31/19); has a higher completion percentage (65/59); better yards per attempt (8.5/6.9) and a better QB rating (152/127).

So, if you are an NFL Owner and think you may want to take Ryan over Brohm, do so at your own peril. You may take him and end up with the next Ryan Leaf while some other wise owner waits and drafts the next Payton Manning or Tom Brady, Brian Brohm.

College Basketball Review (and mini look-ahead)

2008-04-11T15:30:00.005-05:00

The college basketball season is over and coaches are changing jobs (Darrin Horn), heavily recruiting (Billy Gillispie), getting pay raises (Bill Self) or making excuses (Bruce Pearl). Here at the bar, it is time for a look back at some of the issues that drew my attention and a (couldn't resist doing this) brief look ahead.

1. The player of the year race was given to a upper classman of lesser talent and I do not have a big problem with that. Tyler Hansborough of North Carolina was the universal player of the year over Michael Beasley of Kansas State. Michael Beasley is more talented, had better stats, took his team to the NCAA tournament (which they would not have gone to without him) and will go pro this summer. Hansborough had lesser, but great, stats with lesser talent on a final four team (named NORTH CAROLINA) and may go pro this summer. Generally, if there is an upper classman that has a great year in competition with an underclassman that has a great year, the upper classman wins. In looking at the body of work, I don't have a problem with the award going to the ACC poster boy.

2. Speaking of the ACC, it was down this past season, way down. No big thing, so was the Big Ten and the SEC, however, in looking at those three conferences, I would say that the SEC has the best chance of raising the conference level the fastest, followed by the Big Ten and then the ACC. My reasoning is based on one simple fact, coaching. I think that the level of coaching in the SEC is higher than that at the other two conferences. In the ACC you have Roy and Coach K followed by schools that have guys that have allowed the game to pass them by (Maryland) or schools that hired people not ready for their position (North Carolina State and Wake Forest) and schools with coaches that have done nothing and should be leaving (Florida State and Virginia Tech). Nobody else in the league makes you worry. In the Big Ten you have Izzo and Matta leading the charge. Indiana just hired a good coach, Purdue has one that appears to be an up and comer and Minnesota and Michigan hired tested veterans that have solid histories. The rest of coaches make you wonder. The SEC though has Billy D. as its longest tenured coach at Florida and has the wild one at Tennessee in Bruce Pearl. Then you have Gillispie rejuvenating Kentucky to add to up and comers at S. Carolina, Arkansas and Mississippi and solid coaching going on at Vandy plus LSU's new hire for a pretty volatile mix. Frankly, until the ACC gets some better coaching at a couple of its higher profile schools (I am talking about you N.C. State and Georgia Tech) that conference looks to remain a two team race every year.

3. The state of Kentucky had three teams in the tournament this year for the first time in quite a while. I can't say that I see it happening next year, even though I have my hopes for at least two of the schools, but it could happen.

4. Officiating was horrible this year and was only made to look good when compared to the level of the announcing that accompanied many of the games. Games were lost with very bad calls at the end of games that should not have happened. Plus, if I hear one more announcer talk about "advantage/disadvantage" one more time, I may shoot someone. That is an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule. Read the rulebook announcers, it may actually help you with your jobs.

5. Darrin Horn both saved his job and then abandoned his job within a week of each other. After getting WKU to the NCAA tourney for the first time in five years, the team then managed to win two games, making it to the sweet sixteen, and earning Horn a pay raise - from South Carolina. I can't say that I am disappointed to see Horn go as I never say much in the way of bench coaching ability from him and I know that his teams at South Carolina will consistently lose to Kentucky. I am not sure that the administration at WKU tried very hard to keep Horn, but if they did then it is quite a sobering situation to know that the one coach that you thought would stay to build the program up has left for the lowest job in the SEC east at South Carolina. Let's be serious for a moment here, S.C. is not a power and has never really been a power regardless of the "tradition" that Horn claimed in his press conference they had. If WKU can't keep a graduate that came home to coach at the school (assuming once again that they wanted him, which is a big assumption) then it is pretty obvious that they will not ever be able to keep a coach there long enough to rise above the mid-major level.

5. Looking ahead in the old crystal ball, I see different fortunes for our local schools. I see Kentucky have a 20+ win season and winning the SEC east and, possibly the entire conference as they enjoy health. I see Louisville struggling with an all freshman frontcourt, but getting its upperclassmen to take charge by the end of the year in time enough to make the dance. Western will be in the familiar situation of trying to win the Sun Belt in order to qualify for the tournament as Middle Tennessee should be the pre-season favorite.
Nationally, I see LSU becoming a power quickly with its fan base, recruiting base, athletic facilities and (finally) a decent coach in Trent Johnson. I see Florida continuing to be a collection of talented players with little to no heart. The Big East will continue to be the best conference in the nation for another year although it will probably not have any truly elite teams. Ohio State and Purdue will become the class of the Big Ten with Kansas and Texas again being the class of the conference. Out west, UCLA will continue to dominate the Pac 10 while Lute Olsen proves that Arizona really did not miss him last year at all. Of course, all of this presupposes that nothing extraordinary happens, which is never a safe thing.

Oh well, just seven more months until college basketball season starts. Maybe the NBA playoffs will be interesting this year.

Whither the conspiracy?

2008-03-28T14:21:00.006-05:00

I am a huge March Madness junkie. I live and breathe college basketball (you sort of have to if you are born and raised in Kentucky). Hence, the three weeks of the NCAA tournament, as well as the two weeks of conference championships leading up to it, are my favorite time of the year. I take off from work and declare a holiday when the first round begins; I am that big of a junkie.

Today, I wish to point out something that I noticed last year about the tournament that I had never seen happen before and I saw it happen again this year. For the past two years, when the brackets were announced, the best non-BCS schools were paired against each other. When this happens once, it is a coincidence. When it happens two years in a row, you look around and say, "What is going on here?"

Now, I do not know if you (the reader) are a fan of the big schools or a fan of the smaller schools. My two favorite teams come from both, so I can see and argue both sides of this situation. You see, if you haven't already grasped what it means when you pair up non-BCS schools against each other and why it may be important, then I will tell you. By pairing the best non-BCS schools against each other, you insure that one of them moves to the next round - thus insuring a larger payday from the NCAA (this is the conspiracy argument of the big schools). You also insure that less really good non-BCS schools get a chance to knock out big schools early on, depriving them of larger paydays (the little school argument).

In looking at the 2005 and 2006 NCAA tournament brackets, I only found three first round games of non-BCS teams playing each other. In 2005, it was Gonzaga vs. Winthrop. In 2006, it was George Washington vs. N.C. Willmington and Gonzaga vs. Xavier. The rest of the non-BCS schools were matched up against the mid-level teams from the big conferences. Last year, there were four games that pitted some very good non-BCS teams against each other (#5 seed Butler vs. #12 Old Dominion, #8 Brigham Young vs. #9 Xavier, #7 Nevada vs. #10 Creighton and #4 Southern Illinois vs. #13 Holy Cross). Plus, the winner of the Nevada/Creighton game had to play non-BCS power Memphis in the second round, thus eliminating/moving on another non-BCS team. This year, there were four more matchups just like last year (#7 Butler vs. #10 South Alabama, #8 UNLV vs. #9 Kent St., #7 Gonzaga vs. #10 Davidson and #5 Drake vs. #12 Western Kentucky).

Folks, it is apparent that the NCAA selection committee is doing this on purpose. This just doesn't happen by accident as the committee chairman tells the nation each year that the committee works long hours examining each team and tries to make the brackets as fair as possible. My question, the one that I would dearly love to know, is why is the committee doing this?

If you argue for the little schools, then you believe that the committee wants to guarantee that less non-BCS schools can advance to the second and later rounds at the expense of the bigger schools. In looking at the eight teams listed above that had to play each other this year, it is very easy to see all of them beating a lot of the bigger schools that are in this years tournament. They may not be able to beat the elite top four or five, but the others would have been fair game. Thus, you could have had a second and third round filled with non-BCS schools (to the absolute horror of Bob Knight and the evil empire of ESPN, not to mention CBS). CBS loves a Cinderella (it is a grand story for a little while), but no one wants to watch a tournament of nothing but Cinderellas, it is bad for ratings.

If you argue for the big schools, then you believe that the committee wants to guarantee that, at least some, non-BCS schools advance to the next round to have an opportunity to become that Cinderella story that everyone talks about. You say that the committee has caved in to the desires of CBS to have a few of the "little guys" move on to spice up the bracket. You argue this because you believe that with a few days of preparation to get ready, the big schools are not going to lose very many games to the non-BCS teams as their talent is lesser than that of the big schools.

Why does this all matter, well, I will tell you why - it is money. While the NCAA is supposed to be about amateur athletics, it is truly a giant business. CBS paid over a billion dollars for the rights to broadcast the tournament, and they want a good product for that investment. The last figure that I heard claimed that each team making the tournament received one million dollars. Each round that a team advances, increases the payday. Universities have shown themselves to be very greedy when it comes to this kind of money (remember, the BCS was created so that the top conferences would not have to share television and bowl money with smaller schools) so all of the schools are looking at this situation and wondering just who is coming out the best. Frankly, I am wondering that as well.

Technical Difficulties

2008-03-26T20:41:00.003-05:00

For those of you who know me, it will come as no surprise when I say that I am not a NASCAR fan. True, I do write about the sport on this blog, but I am not a fan. The NASCAR fan is my wife, "Honey". Because of Honey, I watch a lot of cars making a lot of left turns throughout the year and I have developed a grudging respect for the sport. I mean, c'mon, it takes some skill and talent to drive a car through heavy traffic at 160+ miles per hour for five hundred miles. Regardless of the skill of the drivers though, it has become apparent to me that NASCAR will never become a mainstream sport in this country unless it makes a few changes in its marketing. I do not mean marketing the way you may initially have thought. No, anyone who has been to a race (and I have been to a few) can see that NASCAR knows how to market its drivers as it sells everything that exists with driver numbers and faces plastered everywhere. What I am talking about is television.

For whatever reason, NASCAR markets itself in a way that can only be viewed as retarded on television, and since the old TV is where most people go for information, entertainment or to simply numb their mind, NASCAR needs to make some changes if it wants to be considered a major sport in America. Thankfully for them, I am here to tell them a few things to change to get them moving toward that goal.

First, pick a network (preferably broadcast, not cable) and stick with it. Currently, NASCAR has a television package that uses the FOX network for the first half of the season and then switches to ABC and its affiliated networks for the last half of the season. Unlike pro football where you know that the NFC is always on FOX, you have to grab a schedule and a calendar to see what station to turn your TV to. I know that different conferences of one sport use different networks and no one seems to mind. The difference here is that their is only one race per weekend, not multiple races or games. Just like NBC once was considered the network of pro baseball with its game of the week, NASCAR should try to do the same. By the way, even if NASCAR is intent on dividing the season in half between two networks, fine, just require the main branch to carry all of the races. In the first half of the season (when FOX is in control) the race could be on a FOX channel or FX or TNT or TBS. ABC does the same thing as you may find the race randomly placed on ESPN without any good explanation as to why.

The other big thing that NASCAR needs to do is set a uniform start time for all races. We all know that (barring a Saturday night race under the lights) a race is going to take place on Sunday, unfortunately, we never know when. I challenge you to pick a race, any race, and give me the start time to within fifteen minutes without checking a schedule. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to get back. . . . . . Done? You weren't even close were you? A Sunday race is as apt to start at noon as it is 2:30 or 1:15. Heck, if it is a race on the west coast, it could start in the late afternoon there, which means it is the evening on the east coast. How is anyone supposed to make plans for their Sunday when they never know when the race is going to come on? I'll tell you how they make their plans. Judging by TV ratings last year, they made their plans without watching the race!

NASCAR is trying its level best (at least it says it is, although the above policies make me wonder) to increase its fan base and make its sport more mainstream. That can not, nor will it happen until it addresses these problems with its broadcast. Look, the diehard race fan (Honey), will make sure she takes the time out of her life to find the race and watch it. The casual fan, or someone like me, is not going to look through every channel to find it nor am I going to worry about when it comes on. If it is on when I get back from church, then I will watch some of it. Otherwise, I will do other things with my family and not give it another thought. Continuity is a good thing and NASCAR needs to learn that.

Deep Thoughts From the Weekend

2008-03-17T15:53:00.005-05:00

I did not feel like writing a full blown page on any of these issues, but it seemed a shame not to at least mention them for discussion as I think that each are interesting in their own way.

1) What about the SEC basketball tournament from this weekend? I started watching the thing on Thursday when it began and there were good games both that day and the next. The real crazy stuff happened on Friday night when a tornado hit the Georgia Dome in Atlanta and messed up the scheduling for the tournament, forcing the Georgia Bulldogs to play two games in one day. Georgia won both, as well as the championship the next day, when they were the underdog in every game. Frankly, winning two games in one day against superior teams just boggles my mind and I give all types of credit to Georgia for this feat.

2) The evil empire had its talking heads going full force this weekend as the NCAA tournament pairings were being announced. ESPN must have believed that it did not have enough nonsense being spouted by "said heads" so they brought in Bobby Knight to add even more nonsense, and boy did he deliver. His viewpoint (which he backed off of after one night) was that there should be no automatic qualifiers and the NCAA tourney committee should simply choose the best 64 teams regardless of conference affiliation since most of the champions from the small schools are not as good as the average schools from the BCS conferences. WOW! Sounds like Bobby is still a little bitter about losing to some of those smaller schools back when he used to get teams into the tournament. This is just more of the big conference bullshit that has been put out for years where the big schools argue that if the little schools had to play in their conference, then they would do not better than them; or, if the big school played in that little school's conference, it would have just as good of a record. This is quite some argument when one considers that none of the big schools will play games on the home court of the little schools, nor will they even schedule the better little schools to come to their court if the little schools have a strong team. Just more elitist claptrap from a BCS conference supporter.

3) I am going to do a little bragging now. In my second article on this blog I talked about a change in the hierarchy in NASCAR. Specifically, I argued that we could be looking at an end to the dominance of Hendricks' Motorsports. Well, if you check the standings after yesterday's Bristol race you will not find Jeff Gordon, Jimmy Johnson or Casey Mears in the top twelve drivers qualified for the chase. Not only is Hendricks not the dominant team in NASCAR, it is not even the dominant Chevy team, that honor goes to Richard Childress Racing. Hendricks, it seems, took the offseason off, literally. While its competitors were figuring out how to make their cars better, Hendricks believed that their equipment was so much better that they could celebrate the two championships in a row instead of upgrading and it has now caught up with them. I would say that they are about a couple of months behind and that they will probably make a push with their cars around late June or July, however it may be too late by then to matter.

4) Do you like the drivers in the chase for the cup in NASCAR right now? I hope so, because since the Chase was created a few years ago, 75-80% Of the cars that were in the top 12 (used to be top 10, hence the percentage range) after Bristol made the official chase. When you look at the ones that are in the top 12 right now, the weakest cars would appear to be the #8 position of Ryan Newman and the #12 of Martin Truexx, Jr. That doesn't leave many spots for Jimmy Johnson, Jeff Gordon, Denny Hamlin or Carl Edwards to fight over.

5) I know that people tend to forget the past and glorify the present. It is human nature and it happens in sports all the time. Look at any of those greatest player lists that you see and it is skewed by the living memory of the person putting the list together as he will recall the great all-americans that he has seen and only the greatest of the great from the past will be mentioned. Having said this, I would still have to say that we are seeing the performance of, what I believe history will declare, the best player to ever be, when we see Tiger Woods take a course. Seven titles in a row after this weekend. Tied for third all-time in tourney titles and second for grand slam events. He is truly unreal.

There now. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Coach of the Year

2008-03-12T20:38:00.002-05:00

As many of you probably already know, Billy Gillespie of Kentucky and Bruce Pearl of Tennessee were voted as co-coaches of the year in the Southeastern Conference by the coaches themselves. To most of the people in the dixie, this has been met with a chorus of yawns and a startled, "Huh, what, is it football season yet?". However, in the state of Tennessee, the people are going apeshit.

Bloggers, reporters and just general cro-magnons with access to computers are flaming everyone and everything by screaming that Bruce Pearl was absolutely jobbed by having to share the award with Billy Gillespie. Their argument seems to be that his team won the conference, was ranked no. 1 for one week this year and the team is the most successful (so far) that it has ever been (that didn't take much to accomplish either by the way). Furthermore, his not winning the award outright just goes to prove that the other coaches are envious of him and do not like him.

To these people I would say this, "Are you on crack? Is the sky blue in your world or is it some funky shady of neon to you?". Look, I like Coach Pearl. I think that he is fun, energetic and good for college basketball and I hope that he stays at Tennessee for quite a while. But really, c'mon now, this is just a little too much. He had the most talent in the conference coming into the season and he did exactly what everyone expected him to do, win. Tennessee did not win overwhelmingly, but they did win the conference by what, one game? I think that he did a very good job as it is difficult to get a team to win when it should, but that is nothing like what Gillespie had to do. He had the leftovers from a team that hadn't finished with ten conference wins in two years nor had been in the top two of the SEC east in that long as well. In fact, you would have to go back four years to find a Kentucky team that won 12 games in the SEC. He did this with talent that encouraged Tubby Smith to leave for Minnesota and one freshman (albeit a great one) that he persuaded to come to Kentucky over Florida and Duke. What he accomplished in the conference was much more difficult to do that what Pearl did. As for the other coaches not liking Pearl, well, the must like him more than Billy Donovan of Florida as this is Pearl's second top coach award and Billy (he of the last two national championships) has not won it yet.

I, agree that there was a theft in the coach of the year award in the SEC this year. I just disagree with all of the Tennessee fans as I think that the other coach got jobbed.

Enough with the ESPN lovefest

2008-03-07T09:32:00.003-06:00

I don't know about you guys, but I am sick of the lovefest and butt kissing going on in the media, especially the evil empire (aka, ESPN) with Brett Favre. C'mon people get real here. He was a very good quarterback, a great leader, but nowhere near one of the best of all times. Heck he is not even one of the best two in today's game. Don't agree, OK, you can honestly tell me that you would have rather had Favre running your team than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Yeaaaahhhhh Right.

Now don't go thinking that I am hating on Brett. I have enjoyed watching him at Green Bay during his career. But let's be honest, he is nothing more than Dan Fouts or Dan Marino with a Super Bowl ring. Think about it, those guys were gunslingers who carried their teams to AFC Championships by making their offences potent while having woefully bad defenses. Neither of them ever had a Warren Sapp on the other side to lead the "D". Give either of them a top five defense and maybe they have one ring like Favre does. In fact, they could have had more when you consider that Favre is the all time leader in interceptions and an argument could be made that he cost the Packers at least one trip to another Super Bowl with bad interceptions.

Yet, despite all of this ESPN decides to treat us to a lovefest with full coverage of all the tears and everything and then have the nerve to try and say he may be one of the best alltime quarterbacks. ALLTIME? Hello, McFly is anybody home? Favre was a great quarterback; why can't we just let it end at that?

What do Coaches know about rankings?

2008-03-03T20:14:00.003-06:00

At a recent press conference, Rick Pitino was asked whether the lack of respect in the Coaches Poll would be used to motivate his team. He replied,

"I don't, because I have no respect for the coaches' poll," he said.

"The bottom line is coaches aren't paying attention," he said. "Nor should they. I'm not blaming the coaches. They give it to an assistant coach, most of them, and the assistant coach is breaking down 100 films and watching recruits."

Pitino said, "It's of no value."

Just glancing at this week's poll makes me wonder if Rick Pitino is right.

Tennessee beats Memphis, in Memphis no less, but loses a close one to a good Vanderbilt team, at Vandy. There is no shame in this split of back-to-back road games against ranked in-state rivals. Yet, Tennessee drops from number 1 to number 4 behind Memphis who stayed at number 3. Interestingly, Tennessee did not garner one first place vote.

Speaking of Vandy, Vandy drops from number 14 to number 16 after beating the Nation's top ranked team at home, and losing a heart-breaker at Arkansas when one of the players called a time-out they did not have.

Speaking of heart-breakers, Marquette was in great position to beat number 10 Georgetown but for a questionable foul called against them against a three point shooter, who then calmly hit three free throws to send the game into OT and eventually a victory for the Hoyas. You may be thinking that since Vandy dropped two spots for a bonehead play at the end of the game so would Marquette. No. Marquette moved up one spot from 21 to 20.

Just think, this is one of the polls used in the BCS formula.

Big W's Quick Hits - NBA

2008-03-03T09:18:00.003-06:00

There are two things bothering me about the NBA these days. First, the "Superman Dunk" by Dwight Howard is not worthy of the hype. Is it me, or did he not even make it close to the rim when he threw the ball in? I think there is an argument that it wasn't even a dunk. I mean, I have seen Dr. J leave from just past the free throw line and make it to the rim. I saw Jordan soar to the rim from the free throw line and make it to the rim. So, when this guy puts on some kids' Superman pajamas and can't even make it to the rim, I'm just not that impressed.

Second, have you ever noticed where the NBA allows some people to buy seats at a game? Jack Nicholson notwithstanding, there are usually 6-10 seats on either side of the scorer's table where fans can sit. Then you get to the coaches and the bench. This really bothers me, and wonder how coaches feel about it. They are trying to coach, and end up sitting next to some fan. For example, when Phil Jackson sits on the bench, it is almost as if he does not have enough room to do so from the lack of room thanks to the fans sitting almost right next to him. When they get up to walk down the sideline, they are coaching directly in front fans - literally. I have no problem with floor seats across from the benches, hello Spike Lee, but putting the fans between the teams and the scorer's table just doesn't seem like a great idea.

Crime and punishment

2008-02-29T10:31:00.005-06:00

I recently took part in an online discussion about on a sports topic and thought that I would carry part of that discussion over to this site as I see it as an indication of where our society stands on a different but related issue. The discussion that I took part in was about whether or not the University of Kentucky (the big blue, my other alma mater) should allow a kid that is facing drug related charges to play on the basketball team.

As background, the kid's name is Bud Mackey and he was the star point guard for the defending state champion Scott County team. He was considered a top 100 prospect and, after not being recruited very much by Tubby Smith, took a scholarship offer from Kelvin Sampson and Indiana. Early this school year, young Mr. Mackey got charged with possession of cocaine at his high school and possibly a dealing charge as well. He withdrew from that school and is now enrolled at a school in Ohio to finish out the year. Indiana, by the way, withdrew their scholarship offer to him soon after the charges came were filed.

The story gets interesting because it was recently reported that Mr. Mackey recently posted on his MySpace page that he was going to be a Kentucky Wildcat next year and this information has had cat nation in an uproad with some lambasting the coach for even considering the kid as a possible player and others defending the coach and saying that UK needs all the help it can get.

Those were the dominant positions in the argument that I joined at the other web site and if you wish to see the entire article and argument follow the link that is provided. My view is a little different, so I will try to set it forth and also explain why this argument has relevance to society as a whole.

First, UK should not take the boy on for the team if his court case is still going on. I think that is a no-brainer. If a regular player on the team had something similiar happen, there would be a suspension until the case was over, guilty or innocent. If the boy gets a guilty, then the discussion is moot as he will have some time to serve in "the stony lonesome" as a judge I used to know would say. If he comes out of the case with a not guilty or a dismissal, then there is absolutely no problem as we are innocent until proven guilty and he has come out innocent and should be treated as such.

The big question is what to do if he gets a guilty for some drug charges, like possession and is allowed to stay out of jail (a very real possibility if you know what happens in criminal courts these days). Many say that he is tainted, he should never be allowed to go to UK and that UK would be tarnishing it's grand reputation by allowing him to "start over". I am not so sure. First, UK's reputation isn't so grand as it is quite possibly the most penalized school in NCAA history and UK has had its share of rogues on the team in the past.

To me though, the bigger issue is the societial one. When has a person been punished enough? If I did something wrong when I was growing up, I got punished for it once, not over and over again. One mistake (or action if you do not like the word "mistake" here) should not lead to being punished multiple times. My dad, who is a big law and order, hang the crooks by their thumbs kind of a guy always told me that once someone had been punished for their crime, that should be the end of it. If a convict has served his sentence then we should let him go on and move on with his life and not hold that prior act against him. Once we sin and repent, God forgets and lets us move on. Merle Haggard sang an old song that talked about being a "Branded Man" not allowed to move on with his life after being in jail. Too many times, I have seen someone who has done something wrong not be able to move past that as society would not let them.

I know that there are repercussions for our decisions and Bud Mackey will have many to deal with for many years. I just do not see why not being allowed to play a game for Kentucky is one that he should have to face. These schools are not charities; basketball has turned into a business and they are looking for the best "employees" they can get to make that business profitable. If you look at playing basketball for UK as being a job, then I can see no reason at all for denying him a chance. If, however, you think of playing ball at UK as something holy, a gift from God himself, well then, I guess we can't let this sinner into heaven.

How much is "good enough"?

2008-02-25T20:56:00.003-06:00

Quiz time! Random (alright maybe not so random, just stick with the story) college basketball coach has been with his school for five years. He is now in the midst of his fifth straight winning season, his fourth straight twenty win season and fourth consecutive year of finishing in the top three or four of his conference. The coach is young, energetic, likes to recruit (seems rather decent at it too) and his teams play a fast paced game. Sound like your version of a dream coach?

In the words of Lee Corso of the evil empire (ESPN), "Not so fast!". What if I told you that the school where he was coaching is the University of Kentucky or North Carolina? Now what? Is what I described above enough to keep him? Well, for Kentucky, it wasn't enough to keep a coach that had won a national championship ten years earlier, had gone to an elite eight three years earlier and had won multiple conference championships. Those schools expect to compete for national championships and when the program does not appear to be headed in that direction, they make changes.

But lets change the scenario a little bit since we are obviously not talking about those schools. What if I told you that this coach has yet to win his conference? Now what? For many schools, this is not a huge issue either (just look at teams such as Iowa with former coach Tom Davis or Notre Dame with Mike Brey or many other middle of the pack BCS conference schools). If your college is a football school such as Alabama or Florida State, you really don't care what the basketball coach does, so long as he is does nothing to discredit the school. Twenty win seasons and at-large invites to the NCAA tournament are gravy to those places.

So lets change things up a bit more. Our coach is not at a football power, but is at what some people refer to as a mid-major. In fact, he is at a mid-major with a rich basketball tradition and he has not made it to the big dance in any of his years as a head coach. Now what do you say? The scenario that I put forth is playing out for all of the public to see and for an administration to decide upon very soon at Western Kentucky University.

Coach Darrin Horn is in his fifth year there and, unless his team wins the Sun Belt tournament, as an underdog, he will miss the NCAA tourney again. Horn has had seasons of 15-13 (8-6 conference), 22-9 (9-5), 23-8 (12-2), 22-11 (12-6) and currently is 22-6 (14-2). He has had at least one preseason all Sun Belt Conference player every year of his tenure and currently has one of the best players in both Sun Belt and WKU history in Courtney Lee. Yet, once again, he must win his conference tournament or know that the season will be considered a waste. Yes, a waste. Unfair as it may seem, WKU wants to play for conference championships and win them. People in Bowling Green have not forgetten that in the three years prior to Horn taking over, Western had won three straight conference championships.

So, what do you think about it? Frankly, I think that Horn is (and should be) coaching for his job in the coming days. To me, it defies the mind to believe that this team has not been to the NCAA tournament in the past five years. Call me spoiled if you wish, I like to think that I have high expectations for my alma mater. This is not the Sun Belt Conference of old. Go to the conference website and look at the greatest players in conference history. Barely any have played during the past five years. Darrin Horn has been coaching during a time period when the Sun Belt has gotten progressively weaker and has not been able to win a championship, even though he has had what could turn out to be WKU's alltime leading scorer during this time.

I could spout off on many reasons why I think Horn should be gone, there is no need. The only opinions that matter belong to the administration at Western. Those folks need to decide if twenty wins per year and a decent showing are good enough or not. To me, I say no.

The X Factor

2008-02-25T12:01:00.004-06:00

Now that we are getting closer to one of the best annual sporting events, March Madness, it is not too early to begin our conversation about it. While most want to talk about "Bubble" teams, I want to discuss the higher seeds and one in particular. Without major shocking developments, the top four seeds will likely be one of these eight teams: Tennessee, Memphis, Duke, UNC, Texas, Kansas, Xavier or UCLA.

Top seeds speak for themselves and have always made it to the Round of 32. However, it is the 2 seeds that may prove exciting this year. The number 2 seed that no one wants to play right now is not Memphis, Duke or Kansas. I submit it is Xavier. The Musketeers have won ten in a row against the best in the A-10 (which is better than you think this year) including at Rhode Island and at Dayton this past week. They have won 16 of their last 17. They do not rely on one player, or just shooting the three. In fact, they go about ten deep and have six players who average scoring in double figures. They have a young coach in Sean Miller who can recruit and who is now being rumored for the IU job. Why not? The last successful Xavier coach, Thad Matta, also left for the Big Ten.

Xavier is a tough out. Don't forget that Xavier always seems to play well in the Tourney. They made the Sweet 16 for the first time back in 1990 and lost to Texas. They made the Elite 8 in 2004, losing to Duke in a great game. Last year they lost at the last second to Ohio State. In fact, they have only lost to a 1 or 2 seed each time in the Tourney since 1993, with the exception of Maryland in 2003 who was a 6 seed.

So, if Xavier is named a 2 seed, think again before you say that Regional bracket is the easiest. They may just end-up being the X Factor in San Antonio.

A change in the hierarchy?

2008-02-18T14:47:00.002-06:00

Well, I have to say that I am unsure what to think about the new Nascar season at this point. It is not that I believe that some drivers have lost it, or that some new guy has shown up to be a hot rookie that dominates, it is what happened at Daytona yesterday that has me guessing.

Specifically, I am referring to the Dodge cars. Look, the fact that Jeff Gordan and Jimmy Johnson did not do well is not a gigantic surprise. I mean, c'mon, after the last couple of seasons, they had to have some bad luck sometime. No, what I found to be interesting is that six of the top eight cars were Dodges. The other two, Toyota. The Toyotas were not that big of a surprise to me though since they were with the Joe Gibbs team. JGR has good teams, good drivers and good engines, which is what you need to make it in Nascar.

Dodges though, have not really had that for awhile. Oh, I know, some will point at Kurt Busch and say he is a former champion and others will point at Kasey Kahne and Ryan Newman and say that they have been major players for quite awhile now. Hell, some will even point at the retired Rusty Wallace. To all of them I say, well, I don't say much of anything. Busch won his championship in a Ford, Wallace never won a championship, Newman hadn't won a race in two years and Kahne was just flat out awful last year. In fact, most Dodges looked bad last year in "Car of Tomorrow" races. Well, the "Car of Tomorrow" is now the car of today and the Dodges (multiple teams by the way) looked strong.

That multiple team thing is what really caught my eye. This was not a situation where Jack Roush got all four of his Fords in the top ten and the next best Ford was in thirtieth place. No, there were at least three different Dodge teams in the top ten yesterday. Now, does this mean that Dodges will have a great year, that Dodges have figured out restrictor plate racing at the big tracks (finally) or that this year's Daytona was a fluke? Me, I am going with this being a good year for Dodge and I will tell you why.

Sometimes you will see a team figure out the proper setup for their cars at a type of track (superspeedway, intermediate, small or roadcourse). When a team figures that out, usually you see a gradual improvement by that team over a season and then great finishes for a couple of years until technology makes their setup obsolete. When this happens, teams do not share that information with other teams. They know that the information is short term and may be their only opportunity to catch a few wins on everyone. Yesterday's race did not fit this scenario. Yesterday we saw a strong performance by the cars of one manufacturer spread out over multiple teams. This means one thing, the cars are better. When the cars are better, their has been a higher level of committment by the manufacturer to improve aerodynamics and engine power across the board.

I am not saying that I believe that Chevy is in for a bad year, nor am I saying that Ford is either (although I do think Ford is in for a long season for other reasons). I simply believe that we will see more top tens this year for Dodge than we have in the past two years combined (big statement and we will see if they can back me up on this). Will that mean a championship for Dodge? I don't know if I will go that far as I think that both Tony Stewart and Kyle Busch in the new Toyotas are going to have a lot to say about that. However, much as I dislike him, I have to acknowledge that Kurt Busch is a heck of a driver when he has strong equipment, and this year he may finally have it.

Hoosier daddy now?

2008-02-15T21:22:00.002-06:00

Well, one could say that the University of Indiana asked for this. I mean, after all, when they hired Kelvin Sampson to be their head coach he was having troubles with a NCAA investigation about impermissible phone calls. Frankly, if you are looking for a new girlfriend that won't cheat on you, you do not start by attempting to get one to cheat on her current man to be with you.

Now the Indiana faithful have to determine what truly matters to them. Do they want the possible tournament wins that this team and coach could bring them or do they want to disassociate themselves from a man that is now deemed to be a massive cheater? The simple way to handle this would be to suspend Sampson pending the results of their own internal investigation. However, the simple way is usually never taken when big money is on the line. Do not forget that each round of the NCAA tournament is worth more than one quarter of a million dollars to the advancing school in pure revenue alone. The administration at Indiana may simply keep Sampson and say to the world, "Innocent until proven guilty". To do this however, when their own preliminary investigation from a few months ago showed that he had violatedNCAA rules, would show them to be hypocritical from the world view that most of their fans and supporters have taken for years.

"Hypocritical?" you ask. Yes, hypocritical I say. I have heard what the fans of the red nation have said about Illinois when Lou Henson was coach. I have seen the sneers from numerous hoosiers when looking at Michigan and its fab five. I have felt the vitriol directed toward the southern neighbors in Kentucky for their heathen cheating ways. Now that the birds have come home to roost, I am quite interested in seeing what happens and how this is handled. From the way things stand now, it appears that what to do is not so easy to decide when you have a top 15 team and your best players will be gone at the end of the season. Yes, I am quite interested in seeing what happens at Indiana.