Loaded Tickets: What Am I Missing?

Regular Ticket Price: $25             Loaded Ticket with $10 to Spend:  $35

I'm sure most people are familiar with loaded tickets by now but if not allow me to explain.  Many professional teams are offering regular tickets with money to buy concessions or souvenirs added on.  Except they are not offering a discount on concessions on these loaded tickets.  The customer is essentially prepaying for food and drink and games. 

If someone has actually purchased loaded tickets I would love to hear the advantages of it.  Why would you buy a gift card for yourself before entering the store.  You are committing to spending a set amount before heading into the store.  The only reason I can possibly see for ordering these loaded tickets is for kids.  If you want to give them a set amount to spend and when they are done you tell them that's it but even that is a stretch.

I'm sure I am overreacting as usual but I find the loaded tickets to be insulting to the intelligence of fans.  How dumb do the people who run these promotions think we are.  Maybe they suppose it can't hurt and perhaps they are right but perhaps they could offer loaded tickets at discounted rates and generate more revenue while supplying their fans with some value.

This is not 'Nam, this is Fandom; There are Rules

You know how people say "the clothes make the man?" Well, in a certain way (and if I'm permitted a shameless rhyme), you can amend it to say "the clothes make the fan." Those of us who call ourselves devoted sports fans end up dedicating a significant portion of our wardrobes to attire of our favorite teams. Just like anything else when it comes to fandom, there are rules to be followed when wearing fan attire. I've touched on this before, but at this point it seems something more along the lines of a manifesto is warranted. (And for the record, that is a picture of Brady Quinn's sister Laura, now married to AJ Hawk, at the Fiesta Bowl 5 years ago when she wore the half-Brady Quinn, half-AJ Hawk jersey you see there and became an overnight celebrity thanks to ABC's camera crew. I just wanted to include that picture because I find it funny that she and AJ Hawk probably pretend not to be home these days when Brady calls or wants to stop by. You can imagine it.)

-No cross-pollination, aka wearing two different teams' gear at the same time, unless extreme circumstances call for it. This especially goes out to people who wear an NFL jersey with the hat of the favorite MLB team. Focus on one at a time.
-If attending a game, positively do not wear something that depicts a team from a different sport from the one you are witnessing. No Eagles shirts at Phillies games, no Mark Sanchez or Eli Manning jerseys at Yankees games, etc. One exception would be if attending a college game and wearing apparel of a different program at the same school, i.e. an "XYZ University Basketball" hoodie at an XYZ University football game.
-Avoid wearing multiple articles of the same team's clothing on non-game days. The "decked out" look works for a kid, not an adult. Once again, this is only on non-game days.
-Keep things as authentic as possible, within budget of course. I'm not telling you to drop $175-$200 on an authentic baseball jersey that is so nice that you feel obligated to carry it around in a garment bag (although if you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up), but let's stay away from the Wal-Mart jerseys that make you look stupid. And if you happen to root for a pro team who goes NNOB (no name on back, in uniform speak), then you shall not wear a jersey with a player's name on the back. Obviously with NCAA jerseys it's a different story because you can't buy those jerseys with player names on the back. Since the other three major leagues mandate names on the backs of jerseys, baseball is the only sport where this really comes into play. Mainly, this is a memo to fellow Yankee fans out there: if Derek Jeter simply wears the #2 on his back, then all you should be wearing is the #2 on your back. I'll gladly make an exception for the player t-shirts with a name and number on the back - those are fine. But a jersey with an unwarranted name on the back? Not fine.
-Another big issue while we're on the topic of authenticity: no hats, jerseys, shirts, or anything else that is not in team colors. I can't stress this enough. It's fine if you're a girl and you like Shane Victorino and want to get his jersey or t-shirt; just make sure it's not pink, green, black, or any other color that Victorino himself does not wear out on the field. And do not get me started on the 67,000 different colors you can buy New Era baseball hats in now. I don't care if you want a jet-black Phillies hat because it looks better with most of the clothes you wear. The team chooses their colors, not you. You choose to root for that team, then you commit to those colors. End of story.
-I shouldn't have to say it, but personalized jerseys with your own name on the back are a no-no once you pass age 10.
-Since that last item was definitely the least original in this post, I'll now offer my most original. Say you own the jersey of a player who no longer plays for your team. As long as he is still active and playing for another team, you have to mothball the jersey. You give off an air of indirectly rooting for another team if you continue to wear the jersey. Once that player retires, you can go back to wearing that jersey if the player was worthy enough. As much as I loved my Jason Giambi Yankees t-shirt, it's just best for everyone if that thing stays at the bottom of the drawer while he's still playing elsewhere. Once he retires, the shirt can go back into the gym rotation. A major exception would be if you choose to wear the jersey as a silent protest of your team letting that player go. An example of this would be if you were a 49ers fan and kept wearing your Jerry Rice jersey during his "oh, I guess he wasn't washed up after all" productive few years in Oakland immediately following the end of his 49er days.
-On the matter of throwbacks: toe the line carefully. One time in college, I spotted a kid on campus with a sweet powder blue #19 Lance Alworth Chargers throwback. I stopped him to compliment him on the jersey, but more importantly to ask him what, if anything, he knew about Lance Alworth. I don't even need to tell you how underwhelmed I was by the response. If you are going to wear a throwback, then come prepared with a respectable level of knowledge about whichever player you're wearing. Can't guess within 20 of how many home runs Mike Schmidt hit in his career (548)? Don't know which Super Bowl Roger Staubach was named MVP of (VI)? Then don't wear the jersey. Because I'll find you.

I'm sure there are things that I've left off the list or that you may disagree with, so have at it below if you are so inclined.

Singular Sensations

Winning a championship is the ultimate achievement, no matter what level of what sport you're talking about. In professional and big-time college sports, players and coaches are exorbitantly compensated in the hopes that their ability and expertise can lead to the smorgasbord of confetti, trophy presentations from the commissioner, Queen songs being played on loop, and of course, the ring. If you get there, you're a king, a hero, a winner for all eternity. If you don't, well....not so much. What's interesting is that you can name a good deal of high-profile players and coaches who have gotten a ton of mileage out of one championship. If not for that championship, pretty much all of these guys would likely have a much different legacy.

1. Brett Favre - I hate to do it, but this list has to begin here. Brett Favre conquered some already-existing postseason demons when he led the Packers to victory in Super Bowl XXXI in January of 1997. Since then, he's been known as a World Champion. It was great for him, but not great for the rest of us, since the media uses that Super Bowl as an excuse to give him a pass for all the huge losses over which he has presided in the 13 years since. Just the following year, his 11.5-point favorite Packers were upended by Denver in Super Bowl XXXVII. "Brett" would go on to be, if not responsible for, then at least part of, the following moments:
-Green Bay's first ever playoff loss at Lambeau Field on a frigid Saturday night to a young Michael Vick and the Falcons in the 2002 Wild Card round
-A six-INT playoff loss to the Rams
-The worst interception ever thrown (in overtime, mind you) in the 2003 Divisional Playoffs in Philly, aka the "4th-and-26" game
-His last pass as a Green Bay Packer, which sent the Giants to Super Bowl XLII
-A 1-4 finish that cost the 2008 Jets a playoff spot
-The interception at the end of regulation in last year's NFC Championship Game

I rest my case.

2. Bill Cowher - He gets a ton of notoriety for his scowl, his facial expressions, and his impressively long 14-year tenure as head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Since he won Super Bowl XL (with the gigantic help from the zebras), the legend of Cowher has morphed way out of control. Of course, he can do no wrong from the comfort of the CBS studios, so his name comes up immediately with every NFL coaching vacancy. Conventional wisdom says he'd be the answer to a floundering franchise's problems. I say he lost four AFC Championship games at home in 11 seasons, and came within a Jim Harbaugh Hail Mary (skip to the 7:30 mark of the video) of losing five. In at least two of those games, he clearly had the better team ('94 vs. San Diego and '01 vs. an upstart New England team that had to bring Drew Bledsoe off the bench to finish the game). Let me be clear - I'm not saying Bill Cowher isn't and wasn't a very good coach, I'm just saying the common perception of him would be totally different if not for Super Bowl XL.

3. Joe Namath - Was he a magnificent thrower of the football? Yes. Did he change the landscape of the NFL forever when he guaranteed the biggest upset in football history to that point when the Jets beat the Colts in Super Bowl III? Yes. Did he win another playoff game after that Super Bowl? No. Did he throw 47 more interceptions than touchdowns in his career? Yes. And finally, did he want to kiss Suzy Kolber? Yes.

4. Mike Ditka - Let me first say that Ditka had arguably the best combination of a playing career and coaching career in NFL history. But similar to Favre, Mike Ditka won a title fairly early in his coaching career and seemingly got a pass for everything after that. Not only do many people give Buddy Ryan an equal amount of credit for the dominance of the 1985 Bears, but Ditka had a 2-5 playoff record in his subsequent years with Chicago, followed by a brutal 15-33 record in three seasons with the Saints where he doubled down on a 9 and got a 2 with Ricky Williams in the 1999 Draft. You wonder how even the Superfans would feel about him if it weren't for 1985.

5. Bobby Cox - He would probably be higher on the list if he managed in a more intense sports city, but I have a feeling Atlanta would still have all the love for Bobby Cox even if his Braves didn't capture the 1995 World Series. The 14 straight division titles are maybe the safest record of its kind, but only one championship in that span is rather underwhelming, especially when you consider how good some of those Braves teams were. A few of those losses you could live with - the 1991 Series vs. Minnesota was as good a matchup as you could find, and they ran into a buzzsaw against the Yankees in 1999. But if you're a Braves fan you really have to shake your head at the 1992 loss to Toronto, the 1996 loss to the Yankees, the 1997 and 1998 NLCS losses to Florida and San Diego, and the 2003 NLDS loss to the Cubs.

6. Peyton Manning - I was reluctant to put Manning on this list because he's still active, but you can't deny how many question marks would still surround him if not for the Super Bowl XLI win four years back. While he's possibly my favorite athlete out of anyone that doesn't play for a team I root for, Manning has a lot of postseason woes to his name. Granted, two losses were the direct fault of Mike Vanderjagt, but that doesn't erase the 41-0 Wild Card rout by the 2002 Jets, the consecutive drubbings in Foxboro the two years after that, the 2007 Divisional Round home loss to a Billy Volek-led Chargers team, and the pick-six to Tracy Porter in last year's Super Bowl. How much of any of that was his fault is debatable, but fortunately in this case the one Super Bowl rightfully puts to bed any doubt of Peyton Manning.

7. Lou Piniella - Sweet Lou was a clutch contributor to back-to-back World Series champions with the 1977 and 1978 Yankees. After becoming one of George Steinbrenner's many managerial victims in the 1980s, Piniella guided the 1990 Reds to a wire-to-wire first place finish and a sweep of Oakland in the World Series. After moving on to Seattle, Piniella's teams boasted one of the top lineups in baseball for nearly a decade but never made it past the ALCS, including the 116-win team in 2001 that got bounced by the Yankees in 5 games. By the end of Sweet Lou's run, which consisted of three woeful years in Tampa and two Division Series exits with the Cubs, his legacy was built just as much upon epic ejections as it was on being a good baseball man.

8. Steve Young - Given the task of replacing Joe Montana, Steve Young was in an almost impossible spot. What made it even worse was that Montana remained on the 49ers for two seasons while Young held the starting spot. Whenever he threw a pick or a bad incompletion, 49ers fans would begin the calls for Joe. Even after Montana was sent to Kansas City, it didn't get any better for Young, especially in the wake of consecutive NFC Championship losses to Dallas. When January of 1995 rolled around and Young finally got the 49ers past the Cowboys and delivered a record 6 TD passes against San Diego in Super Bowl XXIX, there was no more vindicated man in America. Winning that championship of his own allowed people to remember Steve Young as an MVP-type player and not merely the guy who came in for Joe Montana.

9. Eli Manning - This was a toss-up between Eli, A-Rod, and Albert Pujols, but there's too big a faction of people who will never give A-Rod a break and Albert Pujols doesn't really have doubters, so Eli Manning gets this spot due to the sheer size of his stage and his brother's shadow. During the Giants' 2007 regular season, Manning had a few terrible games that caused people to ask whether or not he was adopted. So to do what he did in winning three straight road playoff games and punctuate it with a victory over an 18-0 team in one of the three best Super Bowls ever played is nothing short of remarkable. And while he may never fully escape the identity of "Peyton's little brother," the venom from New York fans and media is likely gone forever.

10. Rick Pitino - This list has been limited to pro football and baseball partially because they are my two areas of expertise, but also because college sports create a different dynamic due to coaches constantly losing their top players to graduation and the pros. Rick Pitino has been all over the map, spending 6 seasons coaching the Knicks and Celtics in between taking three different NCAA programs to a total of five Final Fours. Ever since he was the Providence wonderboy in 1987, Pitino has been one of the most consistent winners at the college level, culminating in his 1996 National Championship with Kentucky. But there were some monumental losses with Kentucky along the way, followed by four horrendous seasons as Celtics coach that are most remembered for this tirade. It's easily conceivable that if 1996 didn't happen, Pitino would be labeled as a guy with a ton of talent at his disposal and relatively little to show for it. The debate should go deeper than that, but I promised myself I'd keep the Pitino section short enough that it could be read in 15 seconds.

In conclusion, I'll admit the list was put together rather hastily and off the top of my head, so if there are any people I omitted or included wrongfully, the floor is yours.

The Trite Utterances of Subpar Sports "Fans," Revisited

By now you know about Braylon Edwards' DWI this past Monday night, in which he blew a .16 BAC. Nearly as bad as the act itself is the common man's reaction where he moans and groans about "oh, he gets to play on Sunday but I'd be fired if it happened at my job," or "who are my kids supposed to look up to?" Let's make it clear. There is no comparing your job to that of a professional athlete. None. They are in two different universes so let's keep them there. We've covered this before so no need to dive back in.

What annoys me is the whole "role model" thing, and don't worry, I'm not going to go Charles Barkley on you. I have a slightly different spin on the matter. If you ask "who are the kids supposed to look up to?" the obvious answer is their parents, but let's keep that aside for the moment. As kids, we all looked up to rock stars, actors, athletes, etc. in addition to our parents - you can't not want to be like the famous people you root for and see on TV or in movies. So let it be a given that kids are going to look up to other people in addition to their family.

The American without perspective says he can't in good conscience have his kids look up to pro athletes because of people like Braylon Edwards. And that's not incorrect, but I offer this counterpoint. What walk of life, what certain occupation, is totally clean of unsavory people? Police? Um, next. How about doctors and/or nurses? Maybe not. Elected politicians and statesmen? You already know where that one's going. How about the seemingly highest of all callings, the priesthood? Not exactly.

So are pro sports really that especially bad? Every certain sample of people is going to have its share of good and bad, a proportionate number of saints and dirtbags. If you say that you can't let 8 year old Timmy root for the Jets anymore since Braylon Edwards got a DWI, and you wonder who he can ever look up to, then by your logic, there is no one to look up to. And please don't say it's a pro athlete's responsibility to be a role model because of all the exposure and money. If anything, the Braylon Edwards fiasco this week provided an opportunity for parents to talk to their kids about how stupid he was to get behind the wheel, and discuss the hundreds of better ways to have handled the situation. Am I wrong?

The Justifications of Bad Bettors

Football season is here, and, more importantly to some, so are the 5 most active months in terms of sports betting. It's no secret that football is king when it comes to sports gambling in this country, and because of that, everyone wants to get after a piece or two of the action. What's interesting is that with the wealth of information we have at our disposal today when it comes to handicapping games (weather reports, injury reports, team blogs updated round the clock, statistics out the wazoo, etc.), the harder it ultimately becomes to make a good bet, because there's simply too much information out there. Your mind can become clouded quite easily.

That being said, there is no secret formula, and if there were, it would have been discovered by now. All you can ask of yourself is to make an informed decision on which team you want to back, because, hey, it's called gambling for a reason. But what cracks me up is when people think they have everything figured out, when all they're really doing is throwing money around with nothing but hollow reasoning. Bad bettors come in all shapes and sizes, but their justifications seem to fit a select few molds.

-"They were due!" Really? Were they due? You hear this a lot when someone bets on a team thinking they're going to snap a losing streak. Chances are, they're not "due," they just stink. It works the other way too - people try to bet on a hot team to lose simply because they're "due." How many people got crushed on that thinking with the 2008 Lions or 2007 Patriots - it's like a guy who's lost 5 straight $20 dollar blackjack hands and tries throwing $100 on the next hand because his luck has eventually got to change. Obviously, streaks come and go, but if you're throwing money out there with only the logic that a team is "due" and nothing else, you might as well go play roulette. (An exception would be when a team is blatantly underperforming or overperforming its talent level, i.e. last year when the Broncos started 6-0 and the Titans started 0-6. It was clear the Broncos were not that good and the Titans were not that bad. But tread that line carefully.)

-Basing this week's game too heavily on last week's game. How many times do you hear "they're mad after getting blown out last week," or "they had an emotional win last week and this will be the letdown" from dimwits that you work with or hear on the radio. People who say this have never played real football before. It's one thing to be extra motivated for a game, but let's make something clear: you always have to be "mad" when you step on a football field. If you're not in some sort of altered mental state, you're going to the hospital. The team that's supposedly "mad" in a game after a 35-point loss was probably just as "mad" when they took the field before that very 35-point loss. I find it hilarious when uninformed people try to all of a sudden enter the psyche of a group of coaches and athletes they've never met personally. One exception is a blatantly disadvantageous travel scenario or short week, especially if team turmoil is somehow involved (i.e. 2008 Thanksgiving, the Cardinals had zero chance coming East to Philly on about two days' rest from their game that past Sunday).

-Finding asinine stats to back up whatever conclusion you want to believe in. Stats are there to allow you to draw a conclusion, not the other way around, because there are so many numbers at our hands that you can hand pick and manipulate almost any stat that supposedly supports your thinking. Covers.com, the website I like to go to for spreads and other information, has on each matchup page a sometimes-useful "trends" section and lists the ten prior meetings between the teams in question (which does you zero good if you have interconference opponents who meet every four years - yeah, those times when Miami and Minnesota met in 2006 and 2002 are really going to help me find an edge for Week 2 in 2010). Some people put so much stock in this stuff, it's amusing. I'd like to meet the guy who reads a stat like "Tampa is 6-1-1 against the spread in its last 8 daytime home games when getting 1.5 points or more" and takes something so obscure as reason enough to plunk money down on the Bucs. That guy is out there somewhere. Hell, that guy is everywhere.

-Blind faith in your own team/blind hatred for your team's rivals. Fandom and betting are a tough mix. I'm not saying you have to ever bet against your favorite team or bet for your most hated team, but money tends to stay in the pockets of those who are objective. Don't allow your biases (and we ALL have biases) to distort your vision. For instance, Dallas has opened between an 8- and 9-point favorite at home against Chicago this coming week. Does the fan in me think they can beat the Bears by double digits? Yes. But the observer in me knows the team is poorly coached, lacks discipline, and most of the time does not do the little things right. I wouldn't even bet on them this week with someone else's money. Show me a guy who bets with his heart instead of his eyes and ears, and I'll show you a guy who helped build Vegas.

In conclusion, all you can ever want is to be above .500. And yes, sometimes lucky is better than good. We're all guilty of this stuff from time to time (you're talking to a guy who once lost $50 in Vegas two years ago because he thought he had a feeling about Boof f*ing Bonser and the Twins in a late May game against the Tigers. The Twinkies only lost that game for me by about 16 runs). But, until next time, remember that there is a difference between a losing bet and a stupid bet.

What Is Your Event?

Tailgating is something I had long misunderstood and perhaps still do. Before I drank at all, I was mystified by people drinking themselves into a stupor and stumbling into an event.  It was and still is all the more peculiar when you are going to a sporting event you have shelled out good money for. Why anyone would want to pay $100 to go to a football game drunk and not remember what happened is beyond me.  They are fraud fans. 

If tailgating is your event, fine. I think its perfectly reasonable to drink before a concert because

A. It's not that important to me
B. Concert's generally consist of standing around and listening to music not played as well as on a CD.

I am not a major music fan, so for me drinking before a concert isn't a big deal.  People who tailgate and get wasted before games are generally not major fans of the teams they are watching.  The drinking may even be the only reason they are there.  I suppose I just get frustrated seeing people falling over themselves drunk.  It's really only funny after the bars are closed, not at 4 PM.   If you are going to drunk at a sporting event you should do your best not to annoy those around you who care about the result.

Let me make it clear that having a drink or two before the game is fine.  I generally do not do it unless I am at a soccer game because I want to entertain my guest and get them buzzed to sing and chant.   If you get hammered before a game you care about your a jackass.

Unofficial Sports Holidays

We love our Holidays in America. It's a time to eat, drink, be merry, see family and friends, and take extra days off from work so you end up screwing all the people you work with who didn't take off and have to cover for you (ok, this post is going in the wrong direction. Recalculating route. Please wait one moment.)

----------------

So like I was saying before, there are certain days out of the year that universally ring out as sacred on the sports fan's calendar. Super Bowl Sunday. New Year's Day. Thanksgiving. The first weekend of the NCAA Tournament. The Kentucky Derby on the first Saturday in May. Memorial Day Sunday and the Indianapolis 500. Baseball's Opening Day in April. Even the NFL Draft has gotten big enough to warrant a mention in this conversation. Surely there are more, but you understand what I'm getting at. But there are several other, slightly less ballyhooed days or weeks out of the year that provide a comparable amount of intrigue and action. In this piece I'll offer my 7 Unofficial Sports Holidays, events that you really look forward to or take enjoyment out of, sometimes without even really knowing it. (Why 7? Because it's Mickey Mantle's number. And it could also be a great name for a boy - or a girl.) And before any of you fans of the Ryder Cup or any other periodic international competitions object, only events that happen once per year were eligible.

7. NFL Schedule Release
I must first say that I'm not the biggest fan of this day myself, because it's become way too much of an event in recent years. What used to make for an interesting, break-up-the-boredom conversation piece in the newspaper (remember those?) is now Exhibit 1A in how ESPN can ruin anything by turning it into an hour-long prime time special (see "James, LeBron"). Nevertheless, there is a certain magnitude to the NFL schedule release. It provides a road map through the autumn and winter months for many Americans. Vacations and road trips are planned immediately thereafter for specific weekends to get out and see your favorite team. Conversely, you cross your fingers that weddings, family reunions, and other certain events fall on your team's bye week. StubHub sees traffic that would crash many a website. And, last but not least, we all play the asinine game of "ok, Kansas City at home - that's a win. Minnesota on the road - that's probably a loss" trying to predict our team's final record 3 months before training camp even opens. Honestly, none of us can resist doing it, but I learned to take any April predictions with a shaker of salt way back when I predicted the 1997 Cowboys to go 13-3, only for them to come in slightly under that at 6-10.

6. The Day of Nothing
Also known as the day after the MLB All-Star Game, this Wednesday in mid-July is the answer to the popular trivia question of "what is the only day out of the year when none of the major American professional sports are in action?" I've always taken some sort of solace in the Day of Nothing. Being a sports fan can be a bit of a grind sometimes, especially if you're a day-in, day-out baseball seamhead like me and the pennant races are just starting to bubble. The Day of Nothing offers a nice little chance to recharge your mental batteries, especially after staying up the night before to see the end of the All-Star Game because MLB is still trying to pull off the gimmick of having it decide home field in the World Series about 4 years after the novelty of it wore off, but I digress. A big part of being a sports fan is maintaining perspective on the rest of life, and the Day of Nothing is a day to remind yourself of all the other crap there is to do out there in the world.

5. Big East Tournament
I've spoken several times in this space about how I despise the period of time from early February to mid-March. The regular season in the NBA and NHL are lost on me, and I'm not enough of a college basketball fan to even try to really sink my teeth into it until well after Presidents' Day. While the Big East Tournament is not the official end to the Winter Doldrums, it is something of a wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee moment. It's probably the first sporting event after the Super Bowl that I make it a point to watch. Of course, it does help that in the past few years the Big East has become the premier conference in college basketball, so its tournament is now a clash of titans who are very likely to be making hay in the Big Dance, all under the bright lights of the Garden.

4. Michigan/Ohio State - the Saturday before Thanksgiving
For Kevin, it's quite possible that this day supersedes Christmas, New Year's, and July 4 put together. But I put the annual Michigan/Ohio State football game on here because even the casual college football fan makes it a point to tune in, and the fact that it takes place on the same day every year can really give it holiday status. The tradition and history surrounding this rivalry is college football at its best, and for my money it's still the best rivalry out there despite the downturn that the Big Ten has taken in the past few years. For years, this game would not only decide who the Big Ten would send to the Rose Bowl, but it would also considerably narrow down the National Championship picture, given that the Wolverines and Buckeyes would very often be two of the top 3, 4, or 5 teams in the country when they'd line up across from each other in Ann Arbor or Columbus. Add in the unfortunate fact that this game now also marks the approximate anniversary of Bo Schembechler's passing on the eve of the 2006 matchup, and you have a day that remains significant regardless of the two teams' records.

3. Saturday at Augusta
They call it "Moving Day." The third round of The Masters is obviously not as big as the fourth round, but it is arguably more compelling because Saturday is the real chance for those in contention to make their run at the green jacket. Why Saturday and not Sunday, you ask? Because the traditional pin placements for the third round are much more conducive to scoring than they are in the fourth round. If you're behind in The Masters on Sunday and need some birdies, you're going to have to make some of the trickiest approaches and most delicate putts of your life. To come from more than a few shots down on Sunday essentially requires either turning the back nine into a video game the way Phil Mickelson did in 2004, or having the extreme fortune of the guy you're chasing being Greg Norman. The M.O. for Sunday is mostly to play for pars and not implode. However, Saturday is the day. Saturday is the day when a guy barely above the cut line can fire a 66 and find himself within 3 of the leaders. It's also the day when any two-round flukes get put to bed, because you can't handle Augusta on luck alone for 72 holes. In addition, Saturday's round is also the first chance that many of the working population get to sit down and watch a full round, when you consider that the first two rounds are mostly over by the time the average person gets out of the office on Thursday and Friday.

2. MLB Trading Deadline
You may be a bit surprised that I have the MLB trading deadline so high on the list, given how much we have all spoken out against the overload of hype, rumors, and speculation. But baseball's trading deadline has a bit more to it. I thoroughly enjoy the "should we go for it this year, or build for the future?" dilemma faced by teams teetering around .500 in late July. In a certain respect, the trading deadline is where seasons can really get started (see the 2004 Astros and Carlos Beltran) or end in a hurry (see the infamous 1997 "White Flag Trade" executed by a White Sox team that was only 3.5 games out of first). It's also where one team can trade for a veteran player and be giddy that they've just found their missing link to the World Series, only to look back years later and lament the fact that they traded away a future Hall of Famer. My favorite example of this is the 1990 trade where the Red Sox got reliever Larry Andersen (yes, that Larry Andersen) for the stretch run, and all they had to give up was some first baseman with a weird batting stance named Jeff Bagwell. Oops. Since baseball in so many aspects is an individual sport, a player switching teams midseason has much, much less to learn in order to be a productive member of his new team. Unlike football or basketball where a new player needs to be taught a ton of plays and progressions, baseball is little more than "ok, pal, here's the bunt sign, here's the take sign, here's the steal sign, and Eddie the clubhouse guy over there will tell you where the best places are to eat. Go get 'em." This, plus the absence of a salary cap, is why baseball is the only sport whose in-season trade deadline consistently provides meaningful trades.

1. FCS Semifinals and Finals
There is a big part of me that likes to call these two weekends the most enjoyable football you'll watch all year. Taking place around the third and fourth weeks of December, they fill that void between the end of the FBS regular season and the beginning of the bowl season. Obviously the talent is not at a BCS level, but as recent I-AA triumphs over high-profile Division I programs have illustrated (sorry Kevin), it's not garbage either. Guys playing I-AA ball (as the FCS was formerly known) are mostly tough SOB's who lack either the size or the 40 time to play at the top level, so what you end up getting is pure football played by evenly matched teams. And not to mention, some of these games turn into absolute beauties, the kind of 31-28 battles that have plenty of scoring but enough defense to keeps it from taking on a video-game cheapness. Watching these two rounds was especially a highlight during college, since they'd coincide with reading days (aka sit around and not study) right before finals.

Honorable Mention: Pitchers and Catchers, National Signing Day for college football and basketball, the Army-Navy game in December, Wild Card Weekend, the NBA Slam Dunk Contest (when the best players participated), the Home Run Derby (ditto), and the Mike and the Mad Dog Super Bowl Trivia Contest (it's not nearly the same since Mike and Dog split) the week immediately following the NFL Conference Championship games.

It's a League Game, Smokey

As we go further and further into the chasm of adulthood, many of us will try to find any way that we can to give ourselves a taste of being a kid. One of those ways to rekindle the good old days is signing up for recreational sports leagues, either an interoffice league at work or a weekend league with friends. When you get down to it, we're all there to try to recapture the time when our little league games where the highlights of the week, when being the guy who batted third or played shortstop was the most important thing in the world. Of course, nowadays it's just beer-league type stuff, a diversion from the routine, a few hours out of the week to scale back the hastiness of everyday life. And while above all else the name of the game (no matter what game you're playing) is having fun, that does not make it OK to blatantly suck and bear no regard for winning.

There's a few people like this on every team, whether it's softball, basketball, volleyball, you name it. They are there "just to have fun" and will remind everyone of that fact with a goofy smile and a shrug of the shoulders every time a botched play draws their teammates' glare. I'm sorry, but "just wanting to have fun" is not a blanket excuse for habitually poor play and/or disregard for fundamentals and strategy. You don't hear people say "wow, look at that, Joe out there has misplayed 3 fly balls this inning and somehow managed to strike out in slow pitch, but he's just here to have fun so it's OK." No, it's not OK. If you put the uniform on and step onto the field/court/rink, your job is to help your team. Fun is a by-product. You know what's fun? Playing well is fun. Winning is fun. Watching your team lose because a mongo wearing the same uniform as you forgot how many outs there were? That, my friends, is not fun.

I'm not saying to treat winning or losing like life or death, because that extreme is even worse than not caring. But just have a clue and take things somewhat seriously. If you fail to do that, you're wasting the time of others who actually care. You're probably the same guy who plays blackjack and doesn't hit a 14 when the dealer is showing a face card. Not to mention, playing on a company team can be politic city, so you can even be damaging your career. I think that's what grinds my gears the most about this matter - why do you sign up for something where you are, in essence, voluntarily embarrassing yourself in front of people whose opinions may matter? On the scale of office unpopularity, being that guy who everyone hopes isn't up to bat next or doesn't get the ball hit to him is only slightly better than being the smelly guy. That's right, the smelly guy. (this is where you nod your head and chuckle in agreement)

Bottom line? If it were just about fun we wouldn't keep score or standings. I'm not saying you have to be an A+ athlete to be on the field, because honestly if any of us were all that good we wouldn't be playing in a simple rec league. What I am saying is to know your limitations - I played intramural basketball in college and my only real value to the team was giving breathers to the guys who were actually good. So when it was a tight situation late in a game, I took myself out. If we lost, at least it wasn't going to be because I traveled. So if you are admittedly not that great a player (and being able to admit it is 90% of the battle), don't trot yourself out to left field in a tie game in the 7th inning, because the ball is going to find you, and odds are, you are not going to catch it.

Go Ahead and Tase Him, Bro

Did he deserve it, or was it excessive force? That's been the big question for the past 24 hours or so, with the explosion of the story of a kid running onto the field at Citizens Bank Park during Monday night's Phillies/Cardinals game and proceeding to be given a torso full of taser by the cops. Media outlets of all shapes, sizes, locations, affiliations, and genres have since run with this issue in one way or another. Naturally, it is our obligation to weigh in while this story is apparently such a hot-button issue (or at least before the news cycle renders it an afterthought, likely by week's end).

The jackass deserved it. I don't want to hear crying from him, from his friends, his mom, the ACLU, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or whoever the hell else has an opinion. I don't want to hear it. It is made abundantly clear from the time you're about 4 years old that you don't belong out on the field during a game, and if you're stupid enough to run out there, then you have it coming to you. Above all else, there is a practical issue here, a matter of safety. Players, coaches, and officials stand out on the field in front of thousands of (possibly inebriated) spectators. To say they're somewhat exposed and/or vulnerable is not a stretch. Don't believe me? In recent years there have been not one, but two incidents of fans leaving the stands and attacking on-field participants, not to mention the famous Rick Monday incident in 1976. I don't care if everyone says this 17-year-old douche in Philly last night was just a harmless class clown. I'm sure that's all he is. But there's no way of knowing that when he comes charging out of his seat and darting around the outfield, resisting the apprehension of the cops.

There's more to it than the "protect the players, coaches, and umps from lunatics" angle. What gets me so riled up when someone pulls a such a stunt is that they refuse to understand it's not about them. There were nearly 45,000 people in the stadium that night, and they paid to see a game between arguably the two best teams in the National League, not to see a skinny kid with a gigantic nose run around. Sure, we all laugh and cheer if we're at a game and an idiot runs onto the field, but at least with me I get enjoyment out of seeing the guy get caught. Just like the "Don't tase me, bro!" moron that gained national fame a few years ago, anyone who runs out onto the field like that is trying to make themselves the spectacle instead of just minding their business and being a spectator. You want to be a spectacle? Then make a nice catch of a foul ball, or something, anything else that doesn't interfere with the game.

So, until next time, don't cry police brutality on this one. It's not like this guy was an innocent bystander that got the voltage from some asshole cop on a power trip, nor did they keep tasing the kid until his heart stopped. Once he was down, that was the end of it. He made the decision to run out onto the field, so let the consequences be what they may.

Fan Foul: Wearing Neutral-Team Attire to a Game

So I'm watching the Yankees/Angels game yesterday afternoon, and something peculiar catches my eye. A ball was popped foul into the stands just off first base, and I spotted a guy sitting in the 2nd or 3rd row, decked out in authentic Padres attire, hat and jersey both. I guess he took a wrong turn on the way to San Diego, wound up in Anaheim, and figured he might as well still go to a ballgame. That's got to be the only explanation, right?

Unfortunately, no. There's an inordinate number of people out there who, when attending a sporting event, find it OK to rock the gear of a team who isn't even involved in the game. If it's just a hat, that's no big deal, since a hat is everyday attire that you can pretty much wear anyplace. I'm talking about being fully garbed - hat, jacket, jersey, etc.- in team apparel, wearing your undying support for a team other than the two that are playing right in front of you. I see, I get it, we are all now aware that you are a fan of Team X even though you've somehow procured tickets to witness a game between Team Y and Team Z. On the scale of annoying fan habits, this is very high, right above kids who wear their Little League uniform to a game, and right below anyone who tries to start a wave.

I remember being at a Cowboys/Eagles game back in '94 or so and standing in the bathroom line next to some whiskey tango-looking dude decked out in Steelers gear from head to toe, and that includes those "so terrible they were awesome" Zubaz pants that were all the rage 20 years ago. The thought that immediately crossed my mind was "if this guy is such a huge Steelers fan that he feels it necessary to dress like this, then why is he here for Cowboys/Eagles at the Vet when he could be watching his own team play as we speak?" And remember, this was way before you could follow an out of town game on your phone, the only way you could find out what was going on around the league was the score updates in the Jumbotron during timeouts and between quarters. I think that's what gets me the most - wearing a neutral team's apparel has an undertone of "this isn't the place I really want to be right now."

Can someone please explain to me why people do this? Is it some form of quiet protest to the fact that you're watching teams besides your own? Is it a way to disassociate yourself from the fans that you sit among? Is it some feeling of pressing obligation to wear fan apparel whenever setting foot in a stadium or arena, like it's some exclusive club that won't let you in if you don't fit the dress code? (By the way, if you answered "yes" to that last one, then you probably wore your NFL team's jersey last Thursday night for the first round of the draft, didn't you?)

It just looks stupid, like you're trying to force your allegiances on an indifferent group of people, or you're clamoring for attention because you're being different. Oh, so you're from St. Louis, taking a summer ballpark tour up the Eastern seaboard? That's great, hope you have fun, but that doesn't entitle you to wear a Pujols jersey to a Phillies/Braves game or an Ozzie Smith throwback to a Yankees/Royals game. No one cares that you're not from around here or that you're a Cardinals fan. They didn't buy tickets in hopes of meeting a Midwesterner, they came here to see a sporting event. I know you may feel a bit left out if your team isn't one of the two in the building, but it won't kill you to just wear normal clothes.

The Trite Utterances of Subpar Sports "Fans," Volume Two

(Before reading this, take a gander down at our Bracket below and provide some input, as much or as little as you want. And remember it's all in good fun and that you can't have a blog in March without having some sort of tournament bracket.)

I would have included this in the "Saturated" post from a few weeks back, but today's issue has grown to warrant its own space. For years we've been hearing the "professional athletes are overpaid, blah blah blah blah blah" refrain, and I don't know about anyone else, but this garbage makes my ears bleed. It's a major go-to phrase for those who make a pastime out of complaining about things they are never going to be able to change. It's a major go-to phrase for those who wish to treat all levels of sports like they are tee-ball and refuse to accept the fact that pro sports are businesses - hence the use of the word "professional."

Of course, that's not to say that there aren't individual athletes who are overpaid. I'd be stupid to try to say that. But you can find people who underperform their compensation at any workplace. I'm talking in general terms, not of individual athletes but of the overall salary scales of pro sports. The vast majority of these guys really do earn their money. Even a dream job is a job. There are levels of pressure and expectations that you or I do not see at our offices. Too often we watch a game for 3 hours out of the day and think that's all there is to it. We forget about the hours spent practicing and training just to get to this point, and how the work only gets harder once you're there. We've all had bad days at our jobs, but I doubt we ever got booed by 50,000 people or had scathing articles written in the paper about us the next day as a result.

Simple business thinking dictates that employees are paid based on the value of the efforts and services they provide. Why did Peyton Manning get paid $14 million this year for his endorsements alone? Because up on a high-floor office somewhere at the headquarters of Mastercard/Sprint/Gatorade/DirecTV, groups of people sat in a room and agreed on the projection that paying Peyton Manning $x to do commercials for their products would ultimately generate $x + $y in additional revenue, with "y" representing a worthwhile profit margin. It's just like how a film studio chooses to throw $20 million at Tom Cruise for a movie on the thought that his name and performance will put at least another $20 million worth of asses in the movie theater seats to go see it. Remember, whether you are a master at throwing a football or bringing a written character to life on screen, it's all entertainment. All in the game, right?

On the same note, a teacher making $45k a year is paid such an amount of money because the numbers dictate that his or her teaching services are worth in the neighborhood of $45k a year to the town and school district. That number is found essentially in terms of the town's basis of tax revenue, as well as the intangible "good name" asset for a school district that a well-performing teaching force creates. You become known as a town with very good schools, and guess what - more families want to live there, thus generating more tax dollars, and allowing the township to charge higher tax rates in the future and being able then to pay its teachers, police, firefighters more. That sound you hear is supply shaking hands with demand.

What I'm really tired of is when people give the old "(insert athlete name here) makes more money in a week than a teacher or patrol officer do in a year!" argument. Listen, no one is saying that teachers, firefighters, police, etc. don't perform a much nobler task than pro athletes do. It's the replaceability factor, technically known as opportunity cost. If I decide to leave my job, it is not going to break the company's back to hire and train a replacement. Same goes for a bus driver, construction worker, or stevedore. It's not that the hard-working everyday Joe is of little worth and easily dispensable, it's just that, when it comes to our own individual lines of work, none of us possess skills to nearly as a high a level as professional athletes do.

Think about it. These athletes are among the several hundred best in the world at their craft. What do you think the world's few hundred best lawyers make in a year? Or the few hundred best investment bankers? It's got to be on par with the few hundred best baseball players or football players. So let's not treat athletes as if they're the only ones out there making tons of money. What it comes down to is, enough people place sufficient value on the display of athletic excellence and top-level competition that they decide to part with considerable money in order to spectate.

You personally may think ticket prices are too high, but no one's holding a gun to your head and making you order season tickets. Because if you don't want to pay those prices, I'm sorry, but there are droves of people standing behind you in line who will, provided the product is good. That's how Major League Baseball last year achieved the fourth-highest regular season attendance level in its history despite poor economic conditions. At least with sports there are low cost viewing alternatives like TV and radio, unlike Broadway, where the only way to see it is live so if you don't want to pony up half your next paycheck for tickets, you're S.O.L.

So before this gets too long (as you can see I'm not into the whole brevity thing lately), I leave you with this: find something to complain about other than professional sports. These salary amounts didn't come from nowhere, but not one dime has to come from your pocket if you don't want it to. But before you get to saying, "why don't we pay our teachers $2 million a year?" just remember that if we ever chose to, then get ready for a tax bill so big it wouldn't be able to fit in your mailbox. Just throwing that overlooked nugget out there.

The Trite Utterances of Subpar Sports "Fans", Volume One

The word "fan" is short for "fanatic." Thus, there is no such thing as a "casual fan." Casual fanatic? That's an oxymoron, it doesn't work. Casual follower, casual supporter, casual observer? Fine, fine, and fine. Should you dub yourself an actual fan, then you need to back it up. You need to know your team's players (I'm talking uniform numbers, ages, college attended if applicable, other organizations played for if any, and what their typical statistical seasons look like), coaching staff, front office figures, history (can't stress that enough), strengths, and weaknesses. You also must know virtually as much about your team's rivals - like they say, keep your friends close and enemies closer. Immerse yourself in the daily goings-on of the seasons. The more time and energy you invest, the more you get out of it on the good days, and the more right you have to be critical on the bad days. But even fandom has a limit. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand. Across this line, you do not - you DO NOT refer to your team as "We."

The notion of "we" struck a chord with me when I was 12 years old and read this Rick Reilly column in SI about the Chicago Bulls dynasty. Reilly waxes poetic here:
"Most of all, I'm sick of Bulls fans. I'm sick of every fat, balding dry cleaner from Rockford wearing a number 23 jersey, screaming, 'Yeah, baby. We did it!' No, sir, you did not do it. They did it. You ingested nine Stroh's and three brats and sat in your Barcalounger screaming things nobody could hear, including your wife, who left in March."

With few exceptions, "we" is something said by a follower of sports who ultimately does not get it. It is a term used by bandwagon jumpers and by all others who lack perspective in one way or another. It is something said by people who own a green alternate t-shirt or jersey of their team even when the team has no green in its color scheme, just so they can wear it on St. Patrick's Day. It's for people who buy the authentic hat but never take the stickers off of it or wear it enough to break it in. It's for people who go to a bar clad in their team's gear yet have their backs turned to the TV on which their team is currently playing. It's for chowderheads up in Boston to say things like "we gat Lestah stahtin' tonight, and we gat Pahhpullbahhnn too!"

Let's make it clear. Unless you are on the roster or work for the team in a capacity larger than taping ankles or scanning ticket stubs, there is no "we." Stop trying to put yourself on the level of the most skilled athletes in the world, because, (brace yourself for this) that's not what you are. I am the biggest Cowboys and Yankees fan you will meet, but I understand that when either one of my teams win, it's because of a catch Jason Witten made in traffic and a big fumble forced by DeMarcus Ware, or because of a 2-out knock by Derek Jeter and a Houdini act pulled in the 6th by Andy Pettitte. It's not because of anything I did (my superstitious habits notwithstanding), it's all because of things they did. And interestingly enough, how often do you ever hear people say "we" in regards to their team after a bad game or bad season? It seems that "we" becomes a "they" pretty quickly when the other team has a bigger number on the scoreboard.

There are exceptions, like I said before. I don't mind someone saying "we" if they are related to someone on the team, or if they are a retired iconic figure for a certain team (i.e. if Bill Russell wants to refer to the Celtics as "we," it's not a problem). If you root for a college team and are currently enrolled at that school, then say "we" all you want. After you graduate, you have a few year grace period to say "we" as long as there are still guys playing on the team who were there when you were in school. After that, your alma mater's teams cease being a "we" or "us."

And finally, if you are a member of the media, saying "we" is forbidden - even if you work for a local network, even if you work for a local network as devoid of professionalism as those in the Philadelphia market. Mitch Williams makes himself sound like the biggest moron homer in the world when he refers to the Phillies as "we" while working as television analyst. There's no place for that on the radio, on television, or in print media (remember what that is?). Can't have it, no matter the forum.

All I ask is that you listen to yourself when you speak. When you do so, not only will you sound more articulate, but it will also give you a new found outlook on the way people express themselves. Plus it lets you enjoy the pastime of making fun of those who fail to listen to the words that come out of their very own mouths. A dual-serving purpose if I've ever seen one.

Analogy of the Week

Today marks the start of a new series of weekly installments that will showcase the best analogy (idiom, metaphor, or even hyperbole, we don't discriminate here) generated that week by either myself or one of our other esteemed contributors*. Without further ado, the Analogy of the Week is:

A defense that can pressure the quarterback without blitzing is like a girl who looks good without makeup.

As the gears grind in your heads processing that one, it should all make sense very quickly. A defense that does not rely on the blitz to get to the opposing QB allows itself to do what its players were put on the field to do. Linemen rush, apply pressure and break the pocket. Corners cover. Linebackers and safeties read keys to sniff out the rest of the play. Excessive blitzing will backfire on you sooner or later (see the Jets' loss to the Colts in the AFC title game) if your opponent is prepared for it. A team that relies on the blitz to play effective defense is usually trying to mask some other weakness.

A girl who can look good even without makeup allows herself to be a complete person and bring all redeeming qualities to the table with equal emphasis. That's not to say she presents herself like a 13 year old tomboy, it just means she does not need to rely on getting totally dolled up and accessorized to make a solid self-presentation. Think Jennifer Aniston vs. J-Woww from Jersey Shore. Not the best example but it's workable. Both are very attractive in their own right, yet given the choice, you always take the one with an arsenal that goes beyond implants, eye shadow, and hair extensions. And just like a over-blitzing defense will eventually get burned, the J-Woww type girl will eventually have to deal with the lights turning on once the bar closes (or as I like to call it, "The Moment of Truth"). And finally, if I'll be allowed an unsubstantiated generalization, the girl without 9 lbs of Clinique on her face is much more likely to have a decent personality and intelligence level, while the concealer queens are usually the ones trying to compensate for the fact that they don't know the difference between Penn and Penn State.

The moral of the story is substance will take you farther than flash.

*Partial credit to Ryan, aka NotAsGoodAsYouThink's #1 Fan, whose analysis of the Jets/Colts game planted the seed for this analogy. And before I go, I will point out that you can make the same comparison by replacing a blitzing defense with either a homer-reliant baseball team or a basketball team that can't win without the 3-pointer.

Save Your Money...Don't Go to the Major Event

Thinking of going to the Final Four, the BCS Championship, or the Super Bowl? Save your money, it probably isn't worth it unless your team is playing. The two biggest reasons for the letdown is the atmosphere and your seats suck worse than you could have imagined. I'm sure Lou can second this concept, having attended a Super Bowl.

Avoid Neutral Predetermined Locations

Corporate "Champions" have a hold on so many seats at the Final Four that if you get public seats to the game you can watch them milling behind the scenes and stuffing their faces while the game is going on. You see because its a great idea to have a basketball game on a football field and stick the paying customers so far out of the way they have a better view of the corporate tents then the game.
The atmosphere blows at these games because the real fans have little time to snatch up tickets and make travel plans. Many of the tickets have been distributed to the corporate sponsors coaches and other people that care little about the teams.
I have sat in the last row behind the basket at these events and also in obstructed view seats. I don't usually buy into watching the game on TV but in these instances it can be ideal.

Pro Sports win here
Having been to the 1993 NLCS Game 1, 1993 World Series Game 5, and NHL Eastern Conference Finals game 6, I can say that its better to these pro events as opposed to NCAA tournament regional semi finals and finals. The atmosphere is better because its filled with raucous home fans willing their team to victory.

Go to a rivalry game
Shell out your cash to go to a on campus rivalry game and you won't regret it. The exchange between fans no matter if its football or basketball its awesome. Feel the hatred in the building and the shift in emotions hindging on each big play and witness the fans chanting as the clock runs down. Immerse yourself in the true culture of the real fans and you will have a more enjoyable time. Even a titantic NFL clash like a divisional game probably packs more atmosphere punch then the Super Bowl. Spend your money wisely.

NFL Overtime - The Rebuttal

Part of the appeal of a multi-person blog is the opportunity for contrasting viewpoints and light-hearted debate, despite how much the three of us have in common. KG posted some intriguing thoughts on overtime in the NFL below, so go read that before reading this.

OK welcome back. The best aspect of KG's post was that he managed to inject new ideas into a seemingly tired debate. However, I still feel obligated to look at the "pro" side of NFL overtime in its current, sudden-death format, and offer only a slight tweak that could placate many of the arguments that the coin toss ends up being way too much of a deciding factor.

First, the conundrum for a defense under the current overtime format is this: after 60 minutes of defending one goal line, they essentially now have two goal lines to defend - both the actual goal line and the yard line that marks the entry of the opposing kicker's range, usually between the 35 and 30 yard lines. This leaves defenses with something of a catch-22, since the deep halves/thirds/quarters (depending on the coverage scheme) must still be respected while at the same time not leaving soft spots in the zone where offenses can get those 10-15 yard chunks that just bleed you to death when only a field goal is needed.

Without getting statistical, we can point to the following factors, among others, that further work against the defense in an overtime setting: the collective improvement of NFL kickers in the past decade and a half (this postseason notwithstanding), the prevalence of FieldTurf and retractable roofs that provide optimal planting and kicking conditions, the increasing amount of quality pass-catching tight ends in recent years (to find those 8-10 yard soft spots in zones), and the onslaught of rules that facilitate success of the passing game (watch a replay from a game 15 years ago or older and look at how receivers could get mugged without penalty before the ball was released).

I totally see where anyone is coming from when they make the "change overtime!" argument. But let us also not forget that it's not as if a defense has no chance to make a stop or even create a turnover to win the game. Just take the Green Bay/Arizona Wild Card game from a few weeks ago. How many people thought Green Bay had that shootout won as soon as they won the toss, only for this to happen? Other memorable instances of the defense making a play to win an overtime game can be seen here, here, and here. So while the fans of the team who loses the coin toss may groan, it's not exactly like the 11 defenders about to go back onto the field are slumping their shoulders in automatic defeat.

I believe that to break a tie in a football game, you just need to play more football, exactly the way it had just been played for 60 minutes. You lose the coin toss and have to kick off? Ok, say it's returned out to the 25. It's easy, just don't give up 40-50 yards to the offense and then your own offense will get its shot. In yesterday's NFC Championship, New Orleans netted 219 yards of offense in 14 possessions during regulation. Take out the two ditched series at the end of each half and the Saints gained 214 yards on 12 possessions - about 17.83 yards per possession. Had Minnesota's defense maintained that level of performance for one overtime series (and not spotted the Saints 17 yards' worth of penalties), the Vikings offense would likely have gotten its chance with the ball.

I don't hate college overtime, but I just think it belongs in college. It cheapens the regulation part of the game and inflates everyone's statistics, which, in the pros, equate to money. Players make big contracts based on their stats and can you imagine the grappling between owners and agents over a running back who scored 15 touchdowns in his contract year but 7 of them took place in a college overtime setting? Plus, with all the Collective Bargaining Agreement problems that are going on as it is, such a radical change to overtime will not be approved by both sides anytime soon, so it's best left out of the conversation. Most of those collateral elements don't exist or don't matter as much in college as they do in the pros.

The prospect of playing an additional full 15-minute quarter without sudden death is too much; it's like making two heavyweights go another 3 rounds to solve a split decision. The game is brutal enough for the players as it is, and extending it any more than necessary will just create more long-term health problems (another post eventually coming about this). I used to like the idea of a 6-point threshold to end a game (where the first team to score six points in overtime wins, not just the first to score, period), but then I thought of situations where a team would take an intentional safety just to buy itself field position (i.e., backed up against its goal line and already down 3 points, so that the 2 points don't matter anyway), and that does not sit well.

KG mentioned how he liked extra innings, and I agree with that. Extra innings in baseball captures the best of both worlds - the game is not altered and both teams get their chance at bat. Shootouts in soccer and hockey are entertaining, but they're just as much a measure of "let's get this thing over with because it may never end" as they are to decide which is the better team. So, if I were to make any change to overtime in the NFL, I would allow each team to have possession once, and if the score is still tied after each team's possession (which would be like the first "inning"), it then goes to sudden death. That way, the gameplay is manipulated as little as possible, and we can all stop claiming that a game can hinge on a coin toss - although we have no problem with it hinging on an ambiguous side-view spot of a ball surrounded by a pile of 15 or more gigantic men, or a subjective definition of what constitutes "pass interference," but I digress.

License and Registration, Please - Part Two

Yesterday we looked at my rudimentary solution to the "crowded gym full of January piss-ants that are either 20 lbs overweight or 20 lbs underweight and don't know what the hell they're doing in any regard" issue. Today we'll apply the same principle to golf. I totally respect why certain upscale courses won't let players above a certain handicap play. Of course that's totally unfair to do everywhere, but some form of education/licensing system would be very beneficial. It wouldn't have to be rocket science, just play a few pitch and putt rounds (with either a knowledgeable friend or family member as your "sponsor" or with a golf equivalent of a personal trainer), learn the nuts and bolts, pass the short written test, and you've got another shiny little card for your wallet.

I'm lucky to have been taught the game at a very early age (6) by my father, and I will say right away that most people are not in that boat - they teach themselves, or pick the game up as a teenager just for shits, or get mildly into it as an adult partially because a lot of their friends play.

However, once you pull into the parking lot of an honest-to-God golf course, the question of where/when/how you began playing is moot. If you do not adhere to the game's written rules of etiquette and do not engage in "Ready Golf" (outlined impeccably by John I here), then you, yes YOU, are harming those who plunked down decent money and chose to invest 3-4 of the precious non-working, non-sleeping hours out of the week on the condition that the game will be played correctly and respectfully.

Since John I explained "Ready Golf" from atop Mt. Sinai already, I need not go too much further into its detail. And since standard golf etiquette can be Google'd (or better, Wikipedia'd), I need not delve extensively into that. But I must point out specific, common-sense type issues that will trim valuable time off of your round, get you into a better rhythm (spelled it right on the first try!), and maybe, just maybe lower your scores.

--The first player in the group to sink the ball on a hole is responsible for replacing the flag stick after all others are done. Grab it quietly after your putt and hold it, waiting for the others to hole out.
--ALWAYS have a spare ball on you. The group behind you will scorn your whole family if they see you searching fruitlessly for a ball in the weeds or trees, and then run 50 yards back to your cart to grab another ball so you can take your drop. Cardinal sin.
--Practice is for between rounds, not during rounds. If you need to take a practice stroke or two on a delicate pitch shot or an awkward putt, fine. But otherwise, no practice swings. I mean it. Try not taking practice swings the next time you play - I guarantee you that you will not throw up a horrid number and that the world will not end either. But you will shave incredible time off your round and may even find it a more effective habit. Too often, people waste their good swings on practice strokes, only to top that 6-iron into the drink anyway. See ball, align with target, center yourself, deep breath, swing. That's it. I know the pros on TV take practice swings, but they also post 67s on championship courses like you or I break wind. Until you're THAT good, no practice swings. At least pretend to be an athlete and have some muscle memory.
--Always be looking behind you. This especially applies on weekends and other busy days. If you shank your tee shot into a brush while a foursome is standing with their arms folded at the tee box behind you, have another ball on you (remember?) and look for your original for about 30 seconds before just taking a drop and moving on. Penalty stroke or no penalty stroke depending on whether or not you would have had to punch back out into the fairway if you ever did find your tee shot.
--On the green, always ask a person with more than a 10 foot putt if they want you to tend the flag. I still remember a guy who once pulled the stick on a par-3 when I was 50 feet out and instead of asking if I wanted it tended, just dropped it on the fringe and ambled over to his own ball. Yeah don't worry pal, this 50-foot snake job just might as well be a gimme anyway. I now have a voodoo doll of this asshat.
--Head on a swivel when about to hit the gas on the cart. You don't want to be gunning it in the golf cart right in the middle of someone else's backswing or putt. If necessary, wait a moment before going if someone within 100 feet or so is about to play a shot.
--Understand that walking renders you a second-class citizen. Most places will only allow walking during off-peak hours anyway, but if you don't want to have to constantly be letting people play through, then pony up the extra cash for a cart.
--And, for the last time, TURN THE DAMN CELL PHONE ON SILENT AND DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF THE BAG. If a call is that important that you need to take it (or worse, make it) on the course, then you shouldn't be playing golf today anyway. It's good to have in case of an emergency and that is it.

That's all for today without making this segment unbearably long. Remember, the less time on the course usually means the better round you've had. You don't have to be a scratch player to get 18 holes in under 4 hours. My old man and I have had plenty of 2.5-3 hour rounds in which neither of us broke 90. And if you need any further motivation, playing smarter gets you to the 19th-hole beers in less time as well.

Tomorrow, we take a look at casino gambling in the final part of the series.