With the draft just hours away, it's worth mentioning one more time the dangers of taking a high-profile celebrity-athlete in the first round. Think of the money at stake, tens of millions of dollars of guaranteed money for the high first-rounders. Then think of the complete high-profile celebrity-athlete busts. Think of Todd Marinovich, Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, Matt Leinert, and JaMarcus Russell.
What do they have in common? Yes, they are all quarterbacks. Quarterbacks, wide receivers, and running backs are most susceptible to the prima donna syndrome. More importantly, they were all stars at high-profile programs in high-profile conferences. Recruited heavily, they were pampered and worshiped while in high school. In college, they were pampered and worshiped because they delivered. Once they signed an NFL contract and received their guaranteed millions, they had achieved material victory. For them, that was enough. They didn't have the discipline to continue an improvement curve; they didn't have the discipline to work more than party; they didn't have the discipline to persevere. They didn't have the maturity to listen to others. They became exaggerated versions of their former selves: arrogant "superstars."
Now think of Terry Bradshaw and Brett Favre. Okay, they did become arrogant superstars, too. The big difference? They were from smaller, less prestigious colleges and had something to prove to those major universities that overlooked them. They had something to prove to everybody. Therefore, they never lost their work ethic. They had the discipline to improve, persevere, work, and listen to others. They had long careers, some would say too long. Well, that's better than too short.
One last thought. The same principle applies to other high-profile businesses. Think of the film industry. Who are the most successful directors working today? Steven Spielberg and James Cameron. What do they have in common besides a strong work ethic, the discipline to improve and persevere, and the ability to listen to others? They came from modest academic backgrounds. Spielberg is from Long Beach State; Cameron is from Cal State Fullerton. They had something to prove. They are still proving it.
Teams picking in the first round should keep that in mind. It's not where somebody is from, it's how grounded with a will to succeed they are.
Maybe that quarterback from Nevada is a better choice than that quarterback from Auburn.
We'll talk about all those superstars in the NFL who came from big-time illustrious college programs at another time. Enjoy the draft!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Junking the Fiesta Bowl: Conflict of Disinterest
Reporters around the nation are panting heavily at the discovery of a conflict of interest involving NCAA and BCS committee members with the Fiesta Bowl game and Fiesta Bowl events organizations, the very non-profit entities said members are allegedly investigating. Is that really news? When former Fiesta CEO John Junker admitted that gifts he and his cronies heaped on athletic, media, and political power brokers were meant to influence their decisions? When it was disclosed that former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods received $55,000 from the Fiesta Bowl to allegedly provide a rubber-stamped, in-house investigative report last year concluding no improprieties occurred, though Mr. Grant himself had received college football game tickets gratis from Fiesta Bowl officials while in office back in the '90s?
No. The real news would have been if no conflict of interest had been discovered, if Junker & Friends' tentacles had not reached into the BCS and NCAA executive committees themselves. Interestingly, much of this current news and evidence is coming from Playoff PAC, a previously-unknown-to-this-author lobbying group that promotes a playoff system in post-season major college football and the dismantling of the inequitable BCS system. The Playoff PAC forwarded the latest evidence to the AP which ran with it.
First, there was news about the BCS panel entrusted to investigate the Junker-Fiesta Bowl scandal. Of its seven members (including Florida A.D. Jeremy Foley, N. Illinois President John Peters, Stanford A.D. Bob Bowlsby, So. Mississippi A.D. Richard Giannini, Sun Belt Commish Wright Waters, Big East Commish John Marinatto, and Penn State President /BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Chairman Graham Spanier), two admitted to taking advantage of the free junkets offered them by the Fiesta and Orange Bowl organizations. Better yet, BCS Executive Director and smug spokesperson (though not as condescending as The Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee) Bill Hancock confessed to attending the big annual Fiesta Bowl off-season event formerly known as the Fiesta Frolic, where he received (at the very least) free green fees and spa treatments for him and his wife as well as gifts (shirt and shoes, at least) from Nike.
The Frolic, now known by the more sober term Fiesta Bowl Spring College Football Seminar, is a long weekend retreat held every April at a Phoenix area golf resort, bringing together academic, athletic, media, political, and sponsor executives, with host Fiesta Bowl officials keeping everybody happy. Mr. Hancock called the Frolic "a remarkable business opportunity" for college executives to network. Mr. Waters attended at least one Fiesta Frolic as well, wherein the bowl organization paid for two dinners, two nights of lodging, and two days of golf and spa treatments for guests and their spouses.
Mr. Giannini and his wife took a free Caribbean trip, courtesy of the Orange Bowl, with other athletic directors and conference commissioners. When queried, Giannini said, "These trips are an accepted practice and do not violate any rule set forth by any regulatory authority. Until a decision is made that athletic directors traveling to bowl functions be deemed unethical or illegal, these trips will continue because this is where business is done."
One can only imagine what kind of business transpires at the desert frolics and Caribbean carnivals. Could it involve alcohol? Gambling? Sex? Even if it's nothing more than just the bonding of pro-BCS forces, that is depravity and decadence enough.
The latest news came out yesterday, when the AP, courtesy of Playoff PAC, revealed that 9 of the 11 members of the NCAA's own investigative group (the Postseason Bowl Licensing Subcommittee) responsible for the licensing of bowls and currently scrutinizing the Junker-Fiesta Bowl antics attended the 2008 Fiesta Frolic. Now exactly how unbiased and objective will the NCAA investigation and ruling be? How unbiased and objective will the BCS investigation and ruling be?No wonder Mr. Hancock is reluctant to rush to judgment or penalize the Fiesta Bowl. His loyalty was influenced by the man whom Sports Illustrated once called the seventh most powerful man in college football, John Junker.
Do any of these executives on the two committees know anything about the judicial concept of recusing? Whenever there is the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest in a particular case, or where prejudice might exist against one of the parties, a judge will disqualify or withdraw himself or herself from presiding over same. Could media, political, and public pressure force a reconstituting of the committees? Time will tell. Something tells me the Playoff PAC group will stay involved.
Is there any good news coming out of the Fiesta Bowl culture of corruption and cover-ups? There is. The major newspaper of Phoenix, The Arizona Republic, has done an outstanding job so far of preserving its own integrity and watchdog objective status. First, every Fiesta Bowl article in the Republic is accompanied by a closing paragraph that discloses the publisher's involvement with the Fiesta Bowl enterprises. John Zidich has been on the bowl's 25-member board of directors since 2005 and joined the bowl's 5-member executive committee in 2010. They also made it clear that the Republic is a bowl sponsor.
Second, the Republic reporters have pulled no punches so far in carrying the story and doing its own investigation. They are digging deep into the ever-growing scandal. It makes one proud of America and freedom of the press.
One suspects a reason the reporters are so excited about pursuing the story has to do with Mr. Junker's pro-Republican partisanship. One hopes they would be as excited if the ostensibly guilty politicos were Democrat. Still, the stories of fundraisers for Republicans organized by Fiesta Bowl officials are ominous. The stories of Fiesta Bowl staffers being compensated for "encouraged" campaign donations in the form of bonuses are equally disturbing.
Kudos must also go out to the Columbus Dispatch for its open coverage of the Tressel messel at Ohio State. Reporters there are helping to give the beloved Buckeyes another black eye. Terrific!
No. The real news would have been if no conflict of interest had been discovered, if Junker & Friends' tentacles had not reached into the BCS and NCAA executive committees themselves. Interestingly, much of this current news and evidence is coming from Playoff PAC, a previously-unknown-to-this-author lobbying group that promotes a playoff system in post-season major college football and the dismantling of the inequitable BCS system. The Playoff PAC forwarded the latest evidence to the AP which ran with it.
First, there was news about the BCS panel entrusted to investigate the Junker-Fiesta Bowl scandal. Of its seven members (including Florida A.D. Jeremy Foley, N. Illinois President John Peters, Stanford A.D. Bob Bowlsby, So. Mississippi A.D. Richard Giannini, Sun Belt Commish Wright Waters, Big East Commish John Marinatto, and Penn State President /BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Chairman Graham Spanier), two admitted to taking advantage of the free junkets offered them by the Fiesta and Orange Bowl organizations. Better yet, BCS Executive Director and smug spokesperson (though not as condescending as The Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee) Bill Hancock confessed to attending the big annual Fiesta Bowl off-season event formerly known as the Fiesta Frolic, where he received (at the very least) free green fees and spa treatments for him and his wife as well as gifts (shirt and shoes, at least) from Nike.
The Frolic, now known by the more sober term Fiesta Bowl Spring College Football Seminar, is a long weekend retreat held every April at a Phoenix area golf resort, bringing together academic, athletic, media, political, and sponsor executives, with host Fiesta Bowl officials keeping everybody happy. Mr. Hancock called the Frolic "a remarkable business opportunity" for college executives to network. Mr. Waters attended at least one Fiesta Frolic as well, wherein the bowl organization paid for two dinners, two nights of lodging, and two days of golf and spa treatments for guests and their spouses.
Mr. Giannini and his wife took a free Caribbean trip, courtesy of the Orange Bowl, with other athletic directors and conference commissioners. When queried, Giannini said, "These trips are an accepted practice and do not violate any rule set forth by any regulatory authority. Until a decision is made that athletic directors traveling to bowl functions be deemed unethical or illegal, these trips will continue because this is where business is done."
One can only imagine what kind of business transpires at the desert frolics and Caribbean carnivals. Could it involve alcohol? Gambling? Sex? Even if it's nothing more than just the bonding of pro-BCS forces, that is depravity and decadence enough.
The latest news came out yesterday, when the AP, courtesy of Playoff PAC, revealed that 9 of the 11 members of the NCAA's own investigative group (the Postseason Bowl Licensing Subcommittee) responsible for the licensing of bowls and currently scrutinizing the Junker-Fiesta Bowl antics attended the 2008 Fiesta Frolic. Now exactly how unbiased and objective will the NCAA investigation and ruling be? How unbiased and objective will the BCS investigation and ruling be?No wonder Mr. Hancock is reluctant to rush to judgment or penalize the Fiesta Bowl. His loyalty was influenced by the man whom Sports Illustrated once called the seventh most powerful man in college football, John Junker.
Do any of these executives on the two committees know anything about the judicial concept of recusing? Whenever there is the appearance of or an actual conflict of interest in a particular case, or where prejudice might exist against one of the parties, a judge will disqualify or withdraw himself or herself from presiding over same. Could media, political, and public pressure force a reconstituting of the committees? Time will tell. Something tells me the Playoff PAC group will stay involved.
Is there any good news coming out of the Fiesta Bowl culture of corruption and cover-ups? There is. The major newspaper of Phoenix, The Arizona Republic, has done an outstanding job so far of preserving its own integrity and watchdog objective status. First, every Fiesta Bowl article in the Republic is accompanied by a closing paragraph that discloses the publisher's involvement with the Fiesta Bowl enterprises. John Zidich has been on the bowl's 25-member board of directors since 2005 and joined the bowl's 5-member executive committee in 2010. They also made it clear that the Republic is a bowl sponsor.
Second, the Republic reporters have pulled no punches so far in carrying the story and doing its own investigation. They are digging deep into the ever-growing scandal. It makes one proud of America and freedom of the press.
One suspects a reason the reporters are so excited about pursuing the story has to do with Mr. Junker's pro-Republican partisanship. One hopes they would be as excited if the ostensibly guilty politicos were Democrat. Still, the stories of fundraisers for Republicans organized by Fiesta Bowl officials are ominous. The stories of Fiesta Bowl staffers being compensated for "encouraged" campaign donations in the form of bonuses are equally disturbing.
Kudos must also go out to the Columbus Dispatch for its open coverage of the Tressel messel at Ohio State. Reporters there are helping to give the beloved Buckeyes another black eye. Terrific!
Monday, April 25, 2011
Junking the Fiesta Bowl: Big Picture Ramifications
Played to an old Cowboys Junkies soundtrack, the John Junker story looks like a Greek tragedy. Unfortunately, one man's hubris will probably take down more than one individual. In Junker's case, it will either demote or completely exterminate the Fiesta Bowl. In the big picture, it also has serious repercussions for the very existence of the BCS college football postseason, long-term if not short-term.
Why? As surviving Fiesta Bowl officials have already admitted, Junker junkets were legendary in lavishly treating university and conference officials with everything from strip clubs to golf matches with the great Jack Nicklaus. Without even going into Junker's personal spending or political arm-twisting and their probable illegal ramifications, the BCS is seriously tainted by the serious peddling of influence that occurred. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Junker's touch of Croesus was not limited to school and conference officials. His "circle of influence" extended to politicians (who could possibly be voting on the integrity and validity of the BCS system) and members of the media (who could possibly be writing on or speaking about the integrity and validity of the BCS system).
Curiously enough, ESPN/ABC media personalities, most of whom are outspokenly pro-BCS bowl/pro-BCS conference homers, shouldn't be the focus of this facet of the investigation. After all, ESPN/ABC personnel are BCS buttboys and buttgals for the most part because ESPN/ABC have a vested interest in the health of the BCS system. It is the network conglomerate gaining the most from the existence of the unfair system. It is the network conglomerate with the big investment in broadcasting rights of the BCS for the foreseeable future. ESPN media personalities have their marching orders from superiors to prop up the flawed BCS institution. Advertising revenues and long-term investments are dependent upon its sanctity.
One would think the media targets of the BCS bowls would be those employed by non-BCS organizations. You hear some of them on local and national radio stations. You see some of them on local and national cable shows. You read some of them on local and national internet and print media sites. Is anybody untouchable? Perhaps the writer in Fargo, or the blogger in Missoula, or the radio guy in Albuquerque are not deemed worthy of lobbying. It's all about demographics and market size.
You can almost picture the elaborate bowl "hosting" that has taken place at some point in the past when a non-ESPN/ABC media personality launches into a monologue extolling the virtues of the BCS bowl system. It appears pretty transparent.
How does the BCS combat its most outspoken critics? They buy them off. Utah and TCU are incorporated into BCS conferences. Future superconferences will probably take care of the Boise States of the world still left in mid-major limboland. Does that make the system more fair? Not if bowl CEO's and committees are greasing all the cogs in the machine to dismiss all talk of a postseason playoff system in major college football.
Those who support a major college playoff system of some type (including President Obama and Senator Hatch) gain momentum from headlines that Junker's questionable activities created. If Congress investigates the disparity of revenues "earned" between BCS and non-BCS schools, who's to stop it from investigating the disparity of revenues "earned" between football factories like Texas and non-factories like Iowa State in the same conference? What can stop it? Perhaps receipts and taped conversations residing in the possession of men like John Junker, current or former BCS bowl CEO's and board members with something on certain politicians.
If bowls' activities in the off-season only involve lobbying efforts to influence political and media personnel, the bowl system is doomed. If there existed these payouts on such a scale in Phoenix, can anybody say bowls in cities with the morals of New Orleans, Miami, and Los Angeles are above suspicion? Food for thought.
Why? As surviving Fiesta Bowl officials have already admitted, Junker junkets were legendary in lavishly treating university and conference officials with everything from strip clubs to golf matches with the great Jack Nicklaus. Without even going into Junker's personal spending or political arm-twisting and their probable illegal ramifications, the BCS is seriously tainted by the serious peddling of influence that occurred. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Junker's touch of Croesus was not limited to school and conference officials. His "circle of influence" extended to politicians (who could possibly be voting on the integrity and validity of the BCS system) and members of the media (who could possibly be writing on or speaking about the integrity and validity of the BCS system).
Curiously enough, ESPN/ABC media personalities, most of whom are outspokenly pro-BCS bowl/pro-BCS conference homers, shouldn't be the focus of this facet of the investigation. After all, ESPN/ABC personnel are BCS buttboys and buttgals for the most part because ESPN/ABC have a vested interest in the health of the BCS system. It is the network conglomerate gaining the most from the existence of the unfair system. It is the network conglomerate with the big investment in broadcasting rights of the BCS for the foreseeable future. ESPN media personalities have their marching orders from superiors to prop up the flawed BCS institution. Advertising revenues and long-term investments are dependent upon its sanctity.
One would think the media targets of the BCS bowls would be those employed by non-BCS organizations. You hear some of them on local and national radio stations. You see some of them on local and national cable shows. You read some of them on local and national internet and print media sites. Is anybody untouchable? Perhaps the writer in Fargo, or the blogger in Missoula, or the radio guy in Albuquerque are not deemed worthy of lobbying. It's all about demographics and market size.
You can almost picture the elaborate bowl "hosting" that has taken place at some point in the past when a non-ESPN/ABC media personality launches into a monologue extolling the virtues of the BCS bowl system. It appears pretty transparent.
How does the BCS combat its most outspoken critics? They buy them off. Utah and TCU are incorporated into BCS conferences. Future superconferences will probably take care of the Boise States of the world still left in mid-major limboland. Does that make the system more fair? Not if bowl CEO's and committees are greasing all the cogs in the machine to dismiss all talk of a postseason playoff system in major college football.
Those who support a major college playoff system of some type (including President Obama and Senator Hatch) gain momentum from headlines that Junker's questionable activities created. If Congress investigates the disparity of revenues "earned" between BCS and non-BCS schools, who's to stop it from investigating the disparity of revenues "earned" between football factories like Texas and non-factories like Iowa State in the same conference? What can stop it? Perhaps receipts and taped conversations residing in the possession of men like John Junker, current or former BCS bowl CEO's and board members with something on certain politicians.
If bowls' activities in the off-season only involve lobbying efforts to influence political and media personnel, the bowl system is doomed. If there existed these payouts on such a scale in Phoenix, can anybody say bowls in cities with the morals of New Orleans, Miami, and Los Angeles are above suspicion? Food for thought.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Phoenix Coyotes and Sacramento Kings: Tale of Two Cities, Continued
As last reported here, two cities were on the verge of losing major sports franchises: Phoenix with its NHL Coyotes and Sacramento with its NBA Kings. Distinctions in the two cases were noted, including the fact that Phoenix is a top ten major market and Sacramento is a small market.
In the past week, there have been two major developments. The Coyotes' drama has occurred on the playing field, or ice to be more precise. They pulled an el foldo against the once-powerful Red Wings in the first round of the NHL playoffs, wimpering away in a 4-0 series. It would have been nice for them to show up. How does losing in such humiliating fashion affect the odds of a move to Winnipeg? It makes the franchise less attractive and endearing for the declining local fan base in Phoenix.
The Kings' drama has occurred off the field, or court as the case may be, since they did not make the NBA playoffs. The NBA board of governors (aka the owners) had meetings in New York City last week, where Kings owners the Maloofs and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson (with representatives of potential new owner Ron Burkle) both made presentations for and against a franchise move to Anaheim. Reportedly, some of the owners even stayed awake throughout the presentations.
NBA commissioner David Stern held a press conference last Friday, April 15, wherein he discussed the status of the Sacramento Kings. For NBA fans in Sacramento and Orange County, the news was mixed. Anaheim did not have a slam dunk as previously believed: there were complications. The press conference was more than window dressing and paying lip service to the city of Sacramento. However, the odds of the team remaining in the capital are slim.
For Anaheim, Stern expressed skepticism on Sacramento's ability to finance and build a new, more profitable arena: "The issue first and foremost in Sacramento is whether there's the will or the ability to build a new arena for the team and other events."
The commissioner also indicated that the Kings are "not forced to stay in Sacramento at all." Other darts thrown against River City? Stern stated that the Southern California market could support another team (much to the consternation of Lakers owner Jerry Buss and Clippers owner Donald Sterling). He also set aside the surprise involvement of billionaire Ron Burkle, saying offers to buy the Kings or move another ailing team to Sacramento "are not high agenda items for the NBA now."
Indeed, Mr. Burkle, who is known for saving the NHL Penguins in Pittsburgh and building them a new arena, let it be known through representatives that he is interested in preserving an NBA presence in Sacramento. The Maloof brothers let it be known they are not interested in selling.
In perhaps the most ominous move he could have made for Sacramento fans, Stern appointed Oklahoma City Thunder owner Clay Bennett to lead a fact-finding committee to Sacramento to see how credible and tangible the Mayor Johnson plan is for building a new arena and building more fiscal incentives for the Maloofs to stay in town. Mr. Bennett was the owner who relocated the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma when Seattle would not kow-tow to his demands for a new arena and other fiscal incentives. Sound familiar?
The league has never failed to approve of franchise relocation requests. There is no precedent for what Sacramento is asking for now.
Still, a few questions were raised, comments made, and actions taken by the owners to create at least some doubt in the pending move. First, they gave Sacramento a two-week extension to May 2 to present a viable new arena plan and incentive package. They similarly gave the Maloofs the same deadline to get their financial ducks in order before formally asking the league for permission to move the team to Anaheim.
In short, the owners want more information on the deal which would bring the Kings to Anaheim. Additionally, they want more information on the Maloofs' overall financial health. Perhaps spurred on by Dr. Buss and Mr. Sterling (who may not welcome another NBA neighbor to split up the huge SoCal revenue pie), there are enough owners who wish to scrutinize the Maloofs further. The Maloofs may shirk off the investigation as a mere formality, but they must be aware of the drama which just occurred up the road at Dodger Stadium.
In Chavez Ravine, Major League Baseball unilaterally assumed control of the Dodgers on April 20, wresting the team away from its incompetent high-roller owner Frank McCourt, who needed an emergency loan to meet the April 15 payroll. The Maloofs sport a similarly ostentatious lifestyle and mounting debts. Of course, there is a difference. Bud Selig and MLB wish to preserve the value of one of their marquee names in a top three market. David Stern and the NBA wish to increase the value of one of its ailing names in a small market or larger market.
Since the Maloofs have not missed a payroll, nor threatened to, Stern & Co. are loyal to them. The NBA sees the injection of capital into the team from Anaheim ($75 million) and Honda Center owner Henry Samueli ($50 million) as welcome progress. However, they probably want some assurance from the Maloofs that the money will be used for the Kings/Royals, not for other expenses such as luxury purchases. The NBA has enough embarrassments to worry about as it is; it doesn't need its own McCourt scenario.
The other glimmer of hope for Sacramento fans concerns the team's television deal if it moves to Anaheim. One popular assumption was that the Kings would gracefully slide into the calendar dates left open by the Lakers leaving Fox Sports this summer. Apparently, that is not a given. On the same issue, the Lakers will probably press the league for reimbursement of its 10% penalty on its new $3 billion, 20-year television deal if a third team enters the SoCal market.
What exactly has Mayor Johnson been doing to strengthen Sacramento's case? He has been gathering financial commitments from local business leaders, including Native American gaming casino owners. The publicly announced totals so far? Just under $10 million. How that total will sway the Maloofs or the NBA to stay in Sacramento, when the Anaheim incentive package is at $125 million and counting, is beyond me. Then again, most things are.
At least Mr. Stern admitted Mr. Burkle has a "good reputation in our industry." At this time, there is no need to focus on the public pension fund scandal or Democrat lobbying business which Burkle is heavily involved with. Why? Perhaps better political connections are exactly what Sacramento needs at this time.
Meanwhile, Mr. Stern said 22 of 30 NBA teams lost a combined $300 million last year. Further, he indicated that the NBA will submit a revised proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement to the players' union within a month or two. If only the owners would change to an NFL model of full-parity revenue sharing.
Off the ice, the NHL Phoenix Coyotes could move back to Winnipeg in the summer, with a mid-July deadline looming overhead. The Canadian city must show a three-year commitment from its season ticketholder base. Winnipeg already sports a good if not huge arena and solvent ownership with the wealthiest man in Canada. Would the third party ombudsman Goldwater Institute just get out of the way? Sometimes war hero Senator John McCain is right.
In the past week, there have been two major developments. The Coyotes' drama has occurred on the playing field, or ice to be more precise. They pulled an el foldo against the once-powerful Red Wings in the first round of the NHL playoffs, wimpering away in a 4-0 series. It would have been nice for them to show up. How does losing in such humiliating fashion affect the odds of a move to Winnipeg? It makes the franchise less attractive and endearing for the declining local fan base in Phoenix.
The Kings' drama has occurred off the field, or court as the case may be, since they did not make the NBA playoffs. The NBA board of governors (aka the owners) had meetings in New York City last week, where Kings owners the Maloofs and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson (with representatives of potential new owner Ron Burkle) both made presentations for and against a franchise move to Anaheim. Reportedly, some of the owners even stayed awake throughout the presentations.
NBA commissioner David Stern held a press conference last Friday, April 15, wherein he discussed the status of the Sacramento Kings. For NBA fans in Sacramento and Orange County, the news was mixed. Anaheim did not have a slam dunk as previously believed: there were complications. The press conference was more than window dressing and paying lip service to the city of Sacramento. However, the odds of the team remaining in the capital are slim.
For Anaheim, Stern expressed skepticism on Sacramento's ability to finance and build a new, more profitable arena: "The issue first and foremost in Sacramento is whether there's the will or the ability to build a new arena for the team and other events."
The commissioner also indicated that the Kings are "not forced to stay in Sacramento at all." Other darts thrown against River City? Stern stated that the Southern California market could support another team (much to the consternation of Lakers owner Jerry Buss and Clippers owner Donald Sterling). He also set aside the surprise involvement of billionaire Ron Burkle, saying offers to buy the Kings or move another ailing team to Sacramento "are not high agenda items for the NBA now."
Indeed, Mr. Burkle, who is known for saving the NHL Penguins in Pittsburgh and building them a new arena, let it be known through representatives that he is interested in preserving an NBA presence in Sacramento. The Maloof brothers let it be known they are not interested in selling.
In perhaps the most ominous move he could have made for Sacramento fans, Stern appointed Oklahoma City Thunder owner Clay Bennett to lead a fact-finding committee to Sacramento to see how credible and tangible the Mayor Johnson plan is for building a new arena and building more fiscal incentives for the Maloofs to stay in town. Mr. Bennett was the owner who relocated the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma when Seattle would not kow-tow to his demands for a new arena and other fiscal incentives. Sound familiar?
The league has never failed to approve of franchise relocation requests. There is no precedent for what Sacramento is asking for now.
Still, a few questions were raised, comments made, and actions taken by the owners to create at least some doubt in the pending move. First, they gave Sacramento a two-week extension to May 2 to present a viable new arena plan and incentive package. They similarly gave the Maloofs the same deadline to get their financial ducks in order before formally asking the league for permission to move the team to Anaheim.
In short, the owners want more information on the deal which would bring the Kings to Anaheim. Additionally, they want more information on the Maloofs' overall financial health. Perhaps spurred on by Dr. Buss and Mr. Sterling (who may not welcome another NBA neighbor to split up the huge SoCal revenue pie), there are enough owners who wish to scrutinize the Maloofs further. The Maloofs may shirk off the investigation as a mere formality, but they must be aware of the drama which just occurred up the road at Dodger Stadium.
In Chavez Ravine, Major League Baseball unilaterally assumed control of the Dodgers on April 20, wresting the team away from its incompetent high-roller owner Frank McCourt, who needed an emergency loan to meet the April 15 payroll. The Maloofs sport a similarly ostentatious lifestyle and mounting debts. Of course, there is a difference. Bud Selig and MLB wish to preserve the value of one of their marquee names in a top three market. David Stern and the NBA wish to increase the value of one of its ailing names in a small market or larger market.
Since the Maloofs have not missed a payroll, nor threatened to, Stern & Co. are loyal to them. The NBA sees the injection of capital into the team from Anaheim ($75 million) and Honda Center owner Henry Samueli ($50 million) as welcome progress. However, they probably want some assurance from the Maloofs that the money will be used for the Kings/Royals, not for other expenses such as luxury purchases. The NBA has enough embarrassments to worry about as it is; it doesn't need its own McCourt scenario.
The other glimmer of hope for Sacramento fans concerns the team's television deal if it moves to Anaheim. One popular assumption was that the Kings would gracefully slide into the calendar dates left open by the Lakers leaving Fox Sports this summer. Apparently, that is not a given. On the same issue, the Lakers will probably press the league for reimbursement of its 10% penalty on its new $3 billion, 20-year television deal if a third team enters the SoCal market.
What exactly has Mayor Johnson been doing to strengthen Sacramento's case? He has been gathering financial commitments from local business leaders, including Native American gaming casino owners. The publicly announced totals so far? Just under $10 million. How that total will sway the Maloofs or the NBA to stay in Sacramento, when the Anaheim incentive package is at $125 million and counting, is beyond me. Then again, most things are.
At least Mr. Stern admitted Mr. Burkle has a "good reputation in our industry." At this time, there is no need to focus on the public pension fund scandal or Democrat lobbying business which Burkle is heavily involved with. Why? Perhaps better political connections are exactly what Sacramento needs at this time.
Meanwhile, Mr. Stern said 22 of 30 NBA teams lost a combined $300 million last year. Further, he indicated that the NBA will submit a revised proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement to the players' union within a month or two. If only the owners would change to an NFL model of full-parity revenue sharing.
Off the ice, the NHL Phoenix Coyotes could move back to Winnipeg in the summer, with a mid-July deadline looming overhead. The Canadian city must show a three-year commitment from its season ticketholder base. Winnipeg already sports a good if not huge arena and solvent ownership with the wealthiest man in Canada. Would the third party ombudsman Goldwater Institute just get out of the way? Sometimes war hero Senator John McCain is right.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Phoenix Coyotes and Sacramento Kings: Tale of Two Cities and Teams
Phoenix and Sacramento. Two cities with professional sports teams in similarly dire situations, but two problem franchises with likely different futures--why is that the case? Does it really mean one league, the NHL, supports failing franchises while the other league, the NBA, does not? No. Both leagues have taken over the operation of financially strapped organizations, most recently the NHL with the Coyotes and the NBA with the Hornets of New Orleans. One must look elsewhere for the distinction in the two cases.
In the simplest terms, one city, Phoenix, is a major market ("major" based upon population, indigenous wealth, and media attractiveness); the other, Sacramento, is not. Therefore, one league will bend over backwards to grab its heels and walk a tightrope to keep the team in a major market region. The other league will become heels and look the other way while the team moves from a small market region to a mega-market area, all the while saying the right things about the tragedy for its local fan base. Of course, owners will vote to approve or disapprove the franchise moves. They have similar agendas: the bottom line.
Slightly more complex is another distinction between the Coyotes and the Kings: the actual ownership issue. With the Coyotes, the NHL owns and operates the team at present. They have been courted for some time by an ownership group in Winnipeg, from where the Coyotes originated as the Jets, and an ownership group in Chicago. The Winnipegans would move the team back to Canada; the Chicagoans would keep the team in the Phoenix area (actually the suburb of Glendale). The NHL would like to sell the team to a financially viable group from anywhere. The NHL was behind the initial exodus of struggling teams from Canada to the southern United States over ten years ago. The league would not like to retreat from its pro-American media policy.
Meanwhile, the Kings currently have private ownership, ownership whose financial empire has endured hard times of late. They need and demand a better bottom line from the region: that means better financing of a city loan, financing of a better arena, and better perks and incentives to stay. The city has not been accommodating up to this time: California has suffered heavily from the recession, and givebacks are political liabilities.
While a move to San Jose or San Diego would be more logical in California, neither region has an individual stepping forward to help facilitate a Kings franchise move. Anaheim does. Better yet, the individual already runs a sports franchise (the Ducks of the NHL) and operates a much nicer arena (the Honda Center) than the Kings have. Better yet, the individual is willing to take an ownership stake in the team. Better yet, the city of Anaheim has authorized a $75 million payout to the team to facilitate the move south. Some of that would pay for arena modifications and improvements for basketball; some of it would help pay off the $70 million loan the Kings owe the city of Sacramento.
I repeat, the Phoenix Coyotes have the support of the NHL to stay in Phoenix, while the Sacramento Kings do not have such support from the NBA to stay in Sacramento. David Stern, NBA commissioner, can say he hopes the Kings stay in Sacramento, but he is also disgusted by the region's reluctance to provide more incentives to the ownership. Meanwhile, the NHL truly wants the Coyotes to stay in the West. The NHL wants the Coyotes to stay in the USA and not return to Winnipeg.
The NHL wants more television exposure and with that, greater advertising revenue. They want more from NBC and ESPN. NBC and ESPN want the NHL in all major American markets before they even consider expanding their coverage of games. The NHL also prefers better home-market cable television deals. Such deals result from larger markets. Phoenix is a top 10 market in the United States; Winnipeg is barely a top 10 market in Canada. Finally, the NHL prefers the Coyotes continue playing in a half-filled beautiful modern stadium, Jobing.com Arena, instead of a 75% full antiquated smaller arena in Winnipeg.
The story is different with the Sacramento Kings. Sacramento is a small market with a relatively small local media revenue stream. More than once, the city and the county have failed to approve of a viable plan for a new bigger and better arena. Power Balance (formerly Arco) Arena is only about 17 years old, but it was built with no frills (wooden floors, really) and not enough luxury suites.
Team-wise, the Coyotes made the NHL playoffs this year, although they have a tough task in facing the Red Wings in the first round. They lost the first game last night, 4-2. The Kings have had brief winning streaks breaking up longer losing steaks, and they will not be in the NBA playoffs. The young, rebuilding Kings made a big comeback from a 20-point deficit last night to force overtime on future neighbors, the Los Angeles Lakers, in probably their last home game at Power Balance Arena, before falling, 116-108.
The Coyotes have been losing approximately $40 million per season, and had three different ownerships before the league finally stepped in and took over in 2009. Even the legendary Wayne Gretzky couldn't turn around the balance sheet. However, the Coyotes do have a great stadium in Jobing.com Arena in suburban Glendale.
The Kings have been losing money, too, although even ballpark figures are closely guarded. They have also had three ownerships since arriving in Sacramento. Everybody wants to criticize current owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, but they are only responding to what the league has forced them to do. If the NBA had a revenue sharing plan like the NFL's, the Kings would not have suffered recent annual losses. The Kings would have been able to afford more free agents and retain more stars. The Kings would have been winning more and continuing the Divac-Webber-Bibbey glory years. However, full revenue sharing is not the NBA model. Instead, the NBA follows Major League Baseball's disparity model, where the rich get richer and the rest struggle to remain competitive and solvent.
The NBA loves major markets. The NBA loves free agents moving to those same major markets. Winning teams in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles generate more buzz. More buzz generates more popularity. More popularity generates more media coverage with better ratings. Better ratings generate better media deals and more advertising. Better media deals and more advertising generate more capital.
Apart from freak situations like San Antonio and Oklahoma City, most small market teams serve as feeders/minor league teams for the major market teams. For example, look at the Utah Jazz. Last year, the small market team had two all-stars and a Hall of Fame coach. Now, all three are gone and the team's winning ways are history.
Last summer, Carlos Boozer became a free agent and signed with Chicago. This season, Deron Williams grew more belligerent, argued with the coach more frequently, and basically forced the coach to quit. Hall of Famer Jerry Sloan quit at midseason because the team's ownership had to pander to and side with the franchise player in the conflict in hopes of keeping him when his free agency commenced (yeah, right).
As a result of Sloan's forced resignation, Utah fans voiced their disapproval of Williams. To eliminate the public relations nightmare, the ownership then had to eliminate Williams in a lopsided trade (which is what Williams wanted all along). Deron Williams is now in the New York media market with the New Jersey (soon to be Brooklyn) Nets. He will get more exposure, more endorsements, and more nightlife in the nation's largest media market. As in baseball, the NBA system is rigged against small market teams.
Sacramento is a small market, and the Kings' likely destination, Anaheim, is part of the huge Los Angeles market. Contrary to what Commish Stern may say, the NBA prefers saturating a mega-media market with three teams (Lakers - Clippers - Kings) instead of supporting a small-market city to retain one team, especially when that city does not build a new state-of-the-art arena or provide other revenue sources to team owners (can you spell "parking rights"?)
With the Lakers leaving Fox Sports West next season, the Kings have a built-in huge home cable network they can plug into. The Kings (soon to be called the Royals once again as befits their Rochester/Cincinnati heritage) will have Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Orange Counties as a fan base.
Additionally, the Kings will play in a much nicer arena at Honda Center, an arena with more luxury boxes. The area has a much larger and more lucrative corporate base that will buy more of those suites.
Phoenix already has a pleasant local television and radio package, befitting the sixth largest metro area in the USA. Winnipeg would not have numbers to match in that department, but they would have an ultra-wealthy new owner and a larger crowd for every home game. Canada should have more NHL franchises, but the NHL leadership, including commissioner Gary Bettman, still wants more teams in the United States. They still think it helps ratings and pleases the larger television networks. Never mind that ice hockey is Canada's national sport and enthusiasm is contagious.
One final note of distinction: in Arizona, the Coyotes have the support of the state governor and U.S. senator John McCain. The great war hero McCain says government givebacks and other fiscal incentives to lure or keep sports teams and other businesses is a necessary evil in today's world. That is how regions lure corporations and sports franchises to their neighborhoods. That is how cities keep baseball teams in town for preseason exhibition baseball. That is how some countries like Ireland lure corporations like Cisco to their locales. Don't be so quick to blame the ownership. Some owners and CEO's are mercenary out of necessity, under pressure from creditors and shareholders.
In Sacramento, no governor or U. S. senator could be bothered with the Kings threat to relocate. First, the team would be staying in California. Second, none of them are avid sports fans like McCain. Third, they act from political expedience, not from the heart. While the Maloofs will be presenting their case for relocation to the NBA Board of Governors in New York today and Friday, only the Sacramento mayor, former NBA star Kevin Johnson, will be presenting the case for retention of the Kings. He will do this while admitting there is no new definitive stadium plan and no taxpayer and bond bailout plan in place to counter gains the Kings will make from a move to Anaheim.
What's the point of building a new arena in Sacramento when there isn't the clientele to fill more luxury suites? What's the point of building a larger arena when they can't fill the old one now? What's the point of building a larger arena when the NBA's anti-revenue-sharing policy and Kings' financially imperiled ownership prohibits them from acquiring great free agents who can put more fannies in the seats?
Sacramento's arena, Power Balance, isn't that old, but it does lack state of the art amenities. It isn't cool, and for the team owners who can also claim Las Vegas's Palms Hotel in their holdings, it really isn't cool.
Of course, the unexpected could still happen. The Coyotes could wind up moving back to Canada this summer and the Kings could wind up staying in Sacramento. After all, miracles do occur. Then again, it is likelier that the only miracles involving these teams in the near future will be the Coyotes beating the Red Wings in their opening playoff series and the Kings getting the first draft choice in the lottery.
David Stern has a press conference scheduled for tomorrow in New York, presumably with something to say about the future of the Kings. Senator McCain has forced fly-in-the-ointment third party the Goldwater Institute to sit down with the governor, NHL representatives, city of Glendale officials, and representatives of the Chicago ownership group in the near future to discuss the fate of the Coyotes. Good luck, teams. More importantly, good luck fan bases.
In the simplest terms, one city, Phoenix, is a major market ("major" based upon population, indigenous wealth, and media attractiveness); the other, Sacramento, is not. Therefore, one league will bend over backwards to grab its heels and walk a tightrope to keep the team in a major market region. The other league will become heels and look the other way while the team moves from a small market region to a mega-market area, all the while saying the right things about the tragedy for its local fan base. Of course, owners will vote to approve or disapprove the franchise moves. They have similar agendas: the bottom line.
Slightly more complex is another distinction between the Coyotes and the Kings: the actual ownership issue. With the Coyotes, the NHL owns and operates the team at present. They have been courted for some time by an ownership group in Winnipeg, from where the Coyotes originated as the Jets, and an ownership group in Chicago. The Winnipegans would move the team back to Canada; the Chicagoans would keep the team in the Phoenix area (actually the suburb of Glendale). The NHL would like to sell the team to a financially viable group from anywhere. The NHL was behind the initial exodus of struggling teams from Canada to the southern United States over ten years ago. The league would not like to retreat from its pro-American media policy.
Meanwhile, the Kings currently have private ownership, ownership whose financial empire has endured hard times of late. They need and demand a better bottom line from the region: that means better financing of a city loan, financing of a better arena, and better perks and incentives to stay. The city has not been accommodating up to this time: California has suffered heavily from the recession, and givebacks are political liabilities.
While a move to San Jose or San Diego would be more logical in California, neither region has an individual stepping forward to help facilitate a Kings franchise move. Anaheim does. Better yet, the individual already runs a sports franchise (the Ducks of the NHL) and operates a much nicer arena (the Honda Center) than the Kings have. Better yet, the individual is willing to take an ownership stake in the team. Better yet, the city of Anaheim has authorized a $75 million payout to the team to facilitate the move south. Some of that would pay for arena modifications and improvements for basketball; some of it would help pay off the $70 million loan the Kings owe the city of Sacramento.
I repeat, the Phoenix Coyotes have the support of the NHL to stay in Phoenix, while the Sacramento Kings do not have such support from the NBA to stay in Sacramento. David Stern, NBA commissioner, can say he hopes the Kings stay in Sacramento, but he is also disgusted by the region's reluctance to provide more incentives to the ownership. Meanwhile, the NHL truly wants the Coyotes to stay in the West. The NHL wants the Coyotes to stay in the USA and not return to Winnipeg.
The NHL wants more television exposure and with that, greater advertising revenue. They want more from NBC and ESPN. NBC and ESPN want the NHL in all major American markets before they even consider expanding their coverage of games. The NHL also prefers better home-market cable television deals. Such deals result from larger markets. Phoenix is a top 10 market in the United States; Winnipeg is barely a top 10 market in Canada. Finally, the NHL prefers the Coyotes continue playing in a half-filled beautiful modern stadium, Jobing.com Arena, instead of a 75% full antiquated smaller arena in Winnipeg.
The story is different with the Sacramento Kings. Sacramento is a small market with a relatively small local media revenue stream. More than once, the city and the county have failed to approve of a viable plan for a new bigger and better arena. Power Balance (formerly Arco) Arena is only about 17 years old, but it was built with no frills (wooden floors, really) and not enough luxury suites.
Team-wise, the Coyotes made the NHL playoffs this year, although they have a tough task in facing the Red Wings in the first round. They lost the first game last night, 4-2. The Kings have had brief winning streaks breaking up longer losing steaks, and they will not be in the NBA playoffs. The young, rebuilding Kings made a big comeback from a 20-point deficit last night to force overtime on future neighbors, the Los Angeles Lakers, in probably their last home game at Power Balance Arena, before falling, 116-108.
The Coyotes have been losing approximately $40 million per season, and had three different ownerships before the league finally stepped in and took over in 2009. Even the legendary Wayne Gretzky couldn't turn around the balance sheet. However, the Coyotes do have a great stadium in Jobing.com Arena in suburban Glendale.
The Kings have been losing money, too, although even ballpark figures are closely guarded. They have also had three ownerships since arriving in Sacramento. Everybody wants to criticize current owners Joe and Gavin Maloof, but they are only responding to what the league has forced them to do. If the NBA had a revenue sharing plan like the NFL's, the Kings would not have suffered recent annual losses. The Kings would have been able to afford more free agents and retain more stars. The Kings would have been winning more and continuing the Divac-Webber-Bibbey glory years. However, full revenue sharing is not the NBA model. Instead, the NBA follows Major League Baseball's disparity model, where the rich get richer and the rest struggle to remain competitive and solvent.
The NBA loves major markets. The NBA loves free agents moving to those same major markets. Winning teams in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles generate more buzz. More buzz generates more popularity. More popularity generates more media coverage with better ratings. Better ratings generate better media deals and more advertising. Better media deals and more advertising generate more capital.
Apart from freak situations like San Antonio and Oklahoma City, most small market teams serve as feeders/minor league teams for the major market teams. For example, look at the Utah Jazz. Last year, the small market team had two all-stars and a Hall of Fame coach. Now, all three are gone and the team's winning ways are history.
Last summer, Carlos Boozer became a free agent and signed with Chicago. This season, Deron Williams grew more belligerent, argued with the coach more frequently, and basically forced the coach to quit. Hall of Famer Jerry Sloan quit at midseason because the team's ownership had to pander to and side with the franchise player in the conflict in hopes of keeping him when his free agency commenced (yeah, right).
As a result of Sloan's forced resignation, Utah fans voiced their disapproval of Williams. To eliminate the public relations nightmare, the ownership then had to eliminate Williams in a lopsided trade (which is what Williams wanted all along). Deron Williams is now in the New York media market with the New Jersey (soon to be Brooklyn) Nets. He will get more exposure, more endorsements, and more nightlife in the nation's largest media market. As in baseball, the NBA system is rigged against small market teams.
Sacramento is a small market, and the Kings' likely destination, Anaheim, is part of the huge Los Angeles market. Contrary to what Commish Stern may say, the NBA prefers saturating a mega-media market with three teams (Lakers - Clippers - Kings) instead of supporting a small-market city to retain one team, especially when that city does not build a new state-of-the-art arena or provide other revenue sources to team owners (can you spell "parking rights"?)
With the Lakers leaving Fox Sports West next season, the Kings have a built-in huge home cable network they can plug into. The Kings (soon to be called the Royals once again as befits their Rochester/Cincinnati heritage) will have Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Orange Counties as a fan base.
Additionally, the Kings will play in a much nicer arena at Honda Center, an arena with more luxury boxes. The area has a much larger and more lucrative corporate base that will buy more of those suites.
Phoenix already has a pleasant local television and radio package, befitting the sixth largest metro area in the USA. Winnipeg would not have numbers to match in that department, but they would have an ultra-wealthy new owner and a larger crowd for every home game. Canada should have more NHL franchises, but the NHL leadership, including commissioner Gary Bettman, still wants more teams in the United States. They still think it helps ratings and pleases the larger television networks. Never mind that ice hockey is Canada's national sport and enthusiasm is contagious.
One final note of distinction: in Arizona, the Coyotes have the support of the state governor and U.S. senator John McCain. The great war hero McCain says government givebacks and other fiscal incentives to lure or keep sports teams and other businesses is a necessary evil in today's world. That is how regions lure corporations and sports franchises to their neighborhoods. That is how cities keep baseball teams in town for preseason exhibition baseball. That is how some countries like Ireland lure corporations like Cisco to their locales. Don't be so quick to blame the ownership. Some owners and CEO's are mercenary out of necessity, under pressure from creditors and shareholders.
In Sacramento, no governor or U. S. senator could be bothered with the Kings threat to relocate. First, the team would be staying in California. Second, none of them are avid sports fans like McCain. Third, they act from political expedience, not from the heart. While the Maloofs will be presenting their case for relocation to the NBA Board of Governors in New York today and Friday, only the Sacramento mayor, former NBA star Kevin Johnson, will be presenting the case for retention of the Kings. He will do this while admitting there is no new definitive stadium plan and no taxpayer and bond bailout plan in place to counter gains the Kings will make from a move to Anaheim.
What's the point of building a new arena in Sacramento when there isn't the clientele to fill more luxury suites? What's the point of building a larger arena when they can't fill the old one now? What's the point of building a larger arena when the NBA's anti-revenue-sharing policy and Kings' financially imperiled ownership prohibits them from acquiring great free agents who can put more fannies in the seats?
Sacramento's arena, Power Balance, isn't that old, but it does lack state of the art amenities. It isn't cool, and for the team owners who can also claim Las Vegas's Palms Hotel in their holdings, it really isn't cool.
Of course, the unexpected could still happen. The Coyotes could wind up moving back to Canada this summer and the Kings could wind up staying in Sacramento. After all, miracles do occur. Then again, it is likelier that the only miracles involving these teams in the near future will be the Coyotes beating the Red Wings in their opening playoff series and the Kings getting the first draft choice in the lottery.
David Stern has a press conference scheduled for tomorrow in New York, presumably with something to say about the future of the Kings. Senator McCain has forced fly-in-the-ointment third party the Goldwater Institute to sit down with the governor, NHL representatives, city of Glendale officials, and representatives of the Chicago ownership group in the near future to discuss the fate of the Coyotes. Good luck, teams. More importantly, good luck fan bases.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Masters Golf Tournament: Fourth and Final Day Observations
Sunday's final round at Augusta National provided all of the greatness and trainwrecks one could hope for. Greatness came in the form of Charl Schwartzel, who emerged from the pack on the back nine to earn his first Masters green jacket; the trainwreck came in the form of three-round leader Rory McIlroy, who receded into the pack with a National Geographic Explorer triple bogey on the 10th. He followed that with a bogey on 11 and double-bogey on 12. For all intents and purposes, there was a fork in him: he was done. Unlike Tiger Woods, McIlroy was not rude in a 19th hole interview.
McIlroy's final round 80 put him in good company with Sam Snead and Ken Venturi--other third round leaders who fell from the top on a Sunday at Augusta National. Both went on to win the Masters later in their careers. The lesson? McIlroy will be back. Then again, Greg Norman's Fosbury Flop of '96 led to zero green jackets.
It is easy to disparage McIlroy's Sunday performance, which was the worst of the 49 playing, but at least he led or co-led the tournament for 63 holes. Who laid the real eggs over the weekend at Augusta? Who were the turkeys of the 2011 Masters?
Colombia's Camilo Villegas finished dead last of those who made the cut, with a 76 on Sunday and six-over 294 total. South Africa's Ernie Els and Australia's Aaron Baddeley finished tied for 47th, with five-over par totals of 293. Three Americans contended for the dubious moniker of worst of the weekend: Matt Kuchar, Rickie Fowler, and Bubba Watson. Watson's 78 was the second worst score of the day.
Who can take away several positives from the 2011 Masters? Start with the winner Schwartzel (66-274) and proceed to Adam Scott, Jason Day, Luke Donald, Geoff Ogilvy, Angel Cabrera, Bo Van Pelt, K. J. Choi, Ryan Palmer, Lee Westwood, ultra-veteran Fred Couples, and low amateur Hideki Matsuyama. Even Rory McIlroy should walk away with many lessons learned. First and foremost: avoid hitting bad shots!
Drama? Immediately after McIlroy's self-destructive act on the 10th, Tiger had a chance for an eagle on the 15th due to a sensational second shot. However, he missed the routine putt and settled for a birdie. Meanwhile, other players were making great shots of their own. Adam Scott and Jason Day scratched and clawed to the end, while Bo Van Pelt and Luke Donald had some great holes. Angel Cabrera's comeback story was halted in its tracks. Perhaps he was thinking of dinner. Geoff Ogilvy's run, like Tiger's, came up short.
Thus, it was Schwartzel's day. After shooting 34 on the front nine, the 26-year-old Charl scored an amazing 32 on the back nine. Sure, McIlroy lost it. More importantly for the excitement of the game, Schwartzel went out and won it. Apart from one bogey on the 4th, he played perfect golf on Sunday.
South Africa, with Louis Oosthuizen, Retief Goosen, Trevor Immelman, Schwartzel, godfather Ernie Els, and grandfather Gary Player, can now claim to be the third most powerful golfing nation. Australia, led by Adam Scott, Jason Day, and Geoff Ogilvy, isn't far behind. Nor is Spain, with Masters vanishing act Alvaro Quiros, serial disappointment Sergio Garcia, Jose Maria Olazabal, and Miguel Jimenez.
A big positive in Butler Cabin occurred when amateur Matsuyama of Japan won the low amateur trophy. The young golfer said all the right things: returning to school, volunteering time to the earthquake/tsunami relief effort, and only later turning pro. How refreshing! Then again, perhaps his English translator was making up all of the politically correct answers as he went, while Matsuyama was actually talking about spending the next six weeks in Las Vegas on a bender with Anthony Kim.
Additionally in the cabin, Mickelson was an enthusiastic valet for Schwartzel, and Schwartzel was a gracious, modest family-oriented champion.
The back nine excitement was helped immeasurably by the excellent television direction and expert commentary. This combined with the great play by many down the stretch and a tight bunching at the top made the 2011 Masters a benchmark in showcasing golf's dynamics. At the end, Australians, South Africans, Americans, and Englishmen dominated the leaderboard.
K. J. Choi and Angel Cabrera had a few mishits to fall off the pace. Meanwhile, Geoff Ogilvy, Bo Van Pelt, and Jason Day enjoyed hot streaks at the right time to become legitimate contenders. Tiger kept flirting with more birdies, but his putter proved disappointing again.
It was Schwartzel who had the hot hand at the right time: all round long. Not only did he open with a birdie-par-eagle, but he finished with four consecutive birdies to win.
Does anybody understand why Tiger Woods received a standing ovation after parring the 18th and finishing at the time one behind the leader, Adam Scott? Is he really an underdog? Is he really a victim of circumstance? This is a man who not only fired his wife and severed his family, but also fired his swing coach. This is a man who claims he has changed on the course, but as John Feinstein pointed out, he really hasn't improved relations with fans and colleagues. He really hasn't improved his personality, but he has improved his golf game. Tiger is almost all the way back. More majors should come his way.
On the opposite end of the spectrum of public relations, Gary Player remains a true ambassador of the game. Class and enthusiasm ooze from his pores. Fortunately, most young golfers follow the Player model, not the Woods model.
McIlroy's final round 80 put him in good company with Sam Snead and Ken Venturi--other third round leaders who fell from the top on a Sunday at Augusta National. Both went on to win the Masters later in their careers. The lesson? McIlroy will be back. Then again, Greg Norman's Fosbury Flop of '96 led to zero green jackets.
It is easy to disparage McIlroy's Sunday performance, which was the worst of the 49 playing, but at least he led or co-led the tournament for 63 holes. Who laid the real eggs over the weekend at Augusta? Who were the turkeys of the 2011 Masters?
Colombia's Camilo Villegas finished dead last of those who made the cut, with a 76 on Sunday and six-over 294 total. South Africa's Ernie Els and Australia's Aaron Baddeley finished tied for 47th, with five-over par totals of 293. Three Americans contended for the dubious moniker of worst of the weekend: Matt Kuchar, Rickie Fowler, and Bubba Watson. Watson's 78 was the second worst score of the day.
Who can take away several positives from the 2011 Masters? Start with the winner Schwartzel (66-274) and proceed to Adam Scott, Jason Day, Luke Donald, Geoff Ogilvy, Angel Cabrera, Bo Van Pelt, K. J. Choi, Ryan Palmer, Lee Westwood, ultra-veteran Fred Couples, and low amateur Hideki Matsuyama. Even Rory McIlroy should walk away with many lessons learned. First and foremost: avoid hitting bad shots!
Drama? Immediately after McIlroy's self-destructive act on the 10th, Tiger had a chance for an eagle on the 15th due to a sensational second shot. However, he missed the routine putt and settled for a birdie. Meanwhile, other players were making great shots of their own. Adam Scott and Jason Day scratched and clawed to the end, while Bo Van Pelt and Luke Donald had some great holes. Angel Cabrera's comeback story was halted in its tracks. Perhaps he was thinking of dinner. Geoff Ogilvy's run, like Tiger's, came up short.
Thus, it was Schwartzel's day. After shooting 34 on the front nine, the 26-year-old Charl scored an amazing 32 on the back nine. Sure, McIlroy lost it. More importantly for the excitement of the game, Schwartzel went out and won it. Apart from one bogey on the 4th, he played perfect golf on Sunday.
South Africa, with Louis Oosthuizen, Retief Goosen, Trevor Immelman, Schwartzel, godfather Ernie Els, and grandfather Gary Player, can now claim to be the third most powerful golfing nation. Australia, led by Adam Scott, Jason Day, and Geoff Ogilvy, isn't far behind. Nor is Spain, with Masters vanishing act Alvaro Quiros, serial disappointment Sergio Garcia, Jose Maria Olazabal, and Miguel Jimenez.
A big positive in Butler Cabin occurred when amateur Matsuyama of Japan won the low amateur trophy. The young golfer said all the right things: returning to school, volunteering time to the earthquake/tsunami relief effort, and only later turning pro. How refreshing! Then again, perhaps his English translator was making up all of the politically correct answers as he went, while Matsuyama was actually talking about spending the next six weeks in Las Vegas on a bender with Anthony Kim.
Additionally in the cabin, Mickelson was an enthusiastic valet for Schwartzel, and Schwartzel was a gracious, modest family-oriented champion.
The back nine excitement was helped immeasurably by the excellent television direction and expert commentary. This combined with the great play by many down the stretch and a tight bunching at the top made the 2011 Masters a benchmark in showcasing golf's dynamics. At the end, Australians, South Africans, Americans, and Englishmen dominated the leaderboard.
K. J. Choi and Angel Cabrera had a few mishits to fall off the pace. Meanwhile, Geoff Ogilvy, Bo Van Pelt, and Jason Day enjoyed hot streaks at the right time to become legitimate contenders. Tiger kept flirting with more birdies, but his putter proved disappointing again.
It was Schwartzel who had the hot hand at the right time: all round long. Not only did he open with a birdie-par-eagle, but he finished with four consecutive birdies to win.
Does anybody understand why Tiger Woods received a standing ovation after parring the 18th and finishing at the time one behind the leader, Adam Scott? Is he really an underdog? Is he really a victim of circumstance? This is a man who not only fired his wife and severed his family, but also fired his swing coach. This is a man who claims he has changed on the course, but as John Feinstein pointed out, he really hasn't improved relations with fans and colleagues. He really hasn't improved his personality, but he has improved his golf game. Tiger is almost all the way back. More majors should come his way.
On the opposite end of the spectrum of public relations, Gary Player remains a true ambassador of the game. Class and enthusiasm ooze from his pores. Fortunately, most young golfers follow the Player model, not the Woods model.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The Masters Golf Tournament: Third Day Observations
Rory McIlroy finished with a flurry of three birdies on the back nine Saturday, giving the young man from Northern Ireland a commanding four-shot lead heading into Sunday's Masters competition. With Saturday's two-under 70, McIlroy's three-round total of 204 is beyond impressive. If he were to win, he would be the second youngest Masters champion in history, after Tiger Woods. Perhaps the 30-foot putt he sank on the 17th will be considered the stroke that sealed the deal. Perhaps not.
Apparently, American players' whining about the toughness of Augusta National finally stuck with the PGA, for the course is playing more forgiving for the second consecutive year. Balls are not rolling back into the ponds like in years past. Greens are stickier, too. Thus, while the average scores of the leaders continue to retreat towards par, with McIlroy down to a four-under daily average, the tournament's winner will finish with a double-digit score below par.
The biggest surprise of Saturday was not McIlroy's stability at the top of the leaderboard; it was putty-faced, sausage-shaped Angel Cabrera's 67, giving the 2009 Masters champion a share of second place and a final pairing with McIlroy today. Cabrera gives couch potatoes everywhere hope: at least he does not look capable of running a mile. He does know the course, however, and it would be foolish to rule the wiley Argentine out.
Though McIlroy shows no signs of slippage in concentration, technique, or physical effort, several international golfers besides Cabrera are in a position to pounce if the 21-year-old young gun's nerves and knees turn to jelly. Momentum is not with Korea's K. J. Choi, who shot a 71, or Australia's Jason Day, who posted a routine 72 Saturday. Both of them remain capable of another low score, however, and both are within striking distance four back at 208.
Momentum is with Cabrera, South Africa's Charl Schwartzel (68-208), Australia's Adam Scott (67-209), and England's Luke Donald (69-209), all coming off hot rounds Saturday. Any of them can win it.
Naturally, the media loves to tease the viewership by mentioning the possibility of big finishes by Tiger and Phil, but realistically they are each just too far back to contemplate a fifth and fourth green jacket, respectively. Again, Tiger's putter betrayed him as he betrayed his wife. His two-over 74 left him with a 211 total, seven behind the leader. Meanwhile, Mickelson's adventurous driving and mediocre putting gave him a 71 for a 213 total, nine shots back.
Stinky scores were turned in by Lee Westwood (74-213), Alvaro Quiros (75-213), Ricky Barnes (75-214), Sergio Garcia (75-215), Rickie Fowler (76-215), and Ernie Els (76-221). Els proved that playing without a partner in a major tournament round does not improve one's score due to less distractions. Solo rounds give golfers too much time to think without distraction, and too much time to dialogue with their caddies. That's trouble.
Questions for Sunday's final round:
1) Is Rory McIlroy mentally tough enough to pull off
the victory most pundits have predicted of him?
2) If not, will it be another young player, or a veteran
former winner like Cabrera who is presented with
the 2011 green jacket?
3) Who will have the lowest score today?
4) Of the leaders, who will implode and have the
highest score?
5) How embarrassing a finish will it be for Americans
cumulatively on the leaderboard?
6) What ridiculous percentage of unwarranted
facetime will Tiger Woods receive once he's
mathematically eliminated from receiving another
green jacket?
7) To what degree of self-congratulatory banter will
Jim Nantz sink today as he brings down an
otherwise stellar CBS broadcasting crew?
Expect the unexpected at Augusta National today: meltdowns and trainwrecks are usually more fun to watch than untouchable great performances. Expect great shots and terrible shots, good decisions and horrible decisions. After all, we are talking about the Masters on Sunday. Whoever can string together the most great shots and good decisions will win.
Why can't all televised golf tournaments follow the Masters' lead in restricting advertising to four minutes per hour? Everybody does not own a DVR.
Enjoy the tournament.
Apparently, American players' whining about the toughness of Augusta National finally stuck with the PGA, for the course is playing more forgiving for the second consecutive year. Balls are not rolling back into the ponds like in years past. Greens are stickier, too. Thus, while the average scores of the leaders continue to retreat towards par, with McIlroy down to a four-under daily average, the tournament's winner will finish with a double-digit score below par.
The biggest surprise of Saturday was not McIlroy's stability at the top of the leaderboard; it was putty-faced, sausage-shaped Angel Cabrera's 67, giving the 2009 Masters champion a share of second place and a final pairing with McIlroy today. Cabrera gives couch potatoes everywhere hope: at least he does not look capable of running a mile. He does know the course, however, and it would be foolish to rule the wiley Argentine out.
Though McIlroy shows no signs of slippage in concentration, technique, or physical effort, several international golfers besides Cabrera are in a position to pounce if the 21-year-old young gun's nerves and knees turn to jelly. Momentum is not with Korea's K. J. Choi, who shot a 71, or Australia's Jason Day, who posted a routine 72 Saturday. Both of them remain capable of another low score, however, and both are within striking distance four back at 208.
Momentum is with Cabrera, South Africa's Charl Schwartzel (68-208), Australia's Adam Scott (67-209), and England's Luke Donald (69-209), all coming off hot rounds Saturday. Any of them can win it.
Naturally, the media loves to tease the viewership by mentioning the possibility of big finishes by Tiger and Phil, but realistically they are each just too far back to contemplate a fifth and fourth green jacket, respectively. Again, Tiger's putter betrayed him as he betrayed his wife. His two-over 74 left him with a 211 total, seven behind the leader. Meanwhile, Mickelson's adventurous driving and mediocre putting gave him a 71 for a 213 total, nine shots back.
Stinky scores were turned in by Lee Westwood (74-213), Alvaro Quiros (75-213), Ricky Barnes (75-214), Sergio Garcia (75-215), Rickie Fowler (76-215), and Ernie Els (76-221). Els proved that playing without a partner in a major tournament round does not improve one's score due to less distractions. Solo rounds give golfers too much time to think without distraction, and too much time to dialogue with their caddies. That's trouble.
Questions for Sunday's final round:
1) Is Rory McIlroy mentally tough enough to pull off
the victory most pundits have predicted of him?
2) If not, will it be another young player, or a veteran
former winner like Cabrera who is presented with
the 2011 green jacket?
3) Who will have the lowest score today?
4) Of the leaders, who will implode and have the
highest score?
5) How embarrassing a finish will it be for Americans
cumulatively on the leaderboard?
6) What ridiculous percentage of unwarranted
facetime will Tiger Woods receive once he's
mathematically eliminated from receiving another
green jacket?
7) To what degree of self-congratulatory banter will
Jim Nantz sink today as he brings down an
otherwise stellar CBS broadcasting crew?
Expect the unexpected at Augusta National today: meltdowns and trainwrecks are usually more fun to watch than untouchable great performances. Expect great shots and terrible shots, good decisions and horrible decisions. After all, we are talking about the Masters on Sunday. Whoever can string together the most great shots and good decisions will win.
Why can't all televised golf tournaments follow the Masters' lead in restricting advertising to four minutes per hour? Everybody does not own a DVR.
Enjoy the tournament.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The Masters Golf Tournament: Second Day Observations
Friday provided more thrills, chills, and spills at the Masters, as the field was cut to 49 for the weekend. As predicted, the leaderboard didn't dip under par as spectacularly as the first day, although there were still some spectacular scores posted by the likes of veteran Fred Couples, mid-career Tiger Woods, and youngster Jason Day. The leader now has a daily score average of five under par, not seven under. Scores should continue to retreat towards a slightly below-par average.
First-day leaders Rory McIlroy and Alvaro Quiros did not collapse as cynics expected, with McIlroy having a terrific front nine of 33 before returning to mortality with a back nine 36. He leads with a 134 total, 10 under par. Quiros struggled at times, but finished with a one over 73 and 138 total.
Australian Jason Day lit up Augusta National with an 8-under 64, leaving him only two behind McIlroy at 136. K. J. Choi missed an easy putt on the 18th, leaving him with a 137 total, three behind the leader, and a pairing with Tiger Woods today.
The two big American stories were Woods and Fred Couples. After a dodgy front nine, where he had three bogies after seven holes, Woods found his old short game groove. Several birdies later, he finished with a 66, tying him with Choi at 137. Couples had a hot start to the day, but had a rougher back nine to finish with a 68 and 139 total: not bad for a 51 year old.
Skilled veterans working themselves into contention while slipping under the media radar included Geoff Ogilvy, Lee Westwood, Jim Furyk, and Steve Stricker. At least one of them will make things hot for young McIlroy and Day.
Some lifetime-exemption status former Masters champs, including Craig Stadler, Jose Maria Olazabal, Tom Watson, Ben Crenshaw, Sandy Lyle, and Mike Weir, did not make the cut. Other big names finding a premature end to Augusta in 2011 were Graeme McDowell, world number one Martin Kaymer, Vijay Singh, Rory Sabbatini, Padraig Harrington, Sean O'Hair, Hunter Mahan, Zach Johnson, and Retief Goosen.
Questions for Saturday:
1) Will average scores continue to retreat towards par
golf?
2) Which golfer or golfers will have the hot hand in
round three?
3) Which of the steady veterans will emerge as a legit
Sunday contender?
4) Which of the young guns will have the biggest fall?
5) Will Fred Couples remain a contender, despite the
middle-age ailment of a bad back?
6) Will Tiger Woods emerge from his bachelor cave
rut and take control of the tournament?
7) Will Phil Mickelson find driving consistency and a
putting touch before it's too late?
8) Will Ernie Els be able to survive a round where he
plays alone, the odd man out of the Saturday
pairings?
There are many deserving players out there, and it's not too late for a Japanese golfer to shoot his way into contention. That would still make the best story and the best aftershock Japan could ever imagine.
First-day leaders Rory McIlroy and Alvaro Quiros did not collapse as cynics expected, with McIlroy having a terrific front nine of 33 before returning to mortality with a back nine 36. He leads with a 134 total, 10 under par. Quiros struggled at times, but finished with a one over 73 and 138 total.
Australian Jason Day lit up Augusta National with an 8-under 64, leaving him only two behind McIlroy at 136. K. J. Choi missed an easy putt on the 18th, leaving him with a 137 total, three behind the leader, and a pairing with Tiger Woods today.
The two big American stories were Woods and Fred Couples. After a dodgy front nine, where he had three bogies after seven holes, Woods found his old short game groove. Several birdies later, he finished with a 66, tying him with Choi at 137. Couples had a hot start to the day, but had a rougher back nine to finish with a 68 and 139 total: not bad for a 51 year old.
Skilled veterans working themselves into contention while slipping under the media radar included Geoff Ogilvy, Lee Westwood, Jim Furyk, and Steve Stricker. At least one of them will make things hot for young McIlroy and Day.
Some lifetime-exemption status former Masters champs, including Craig Stadler, Jose Maria Olazabal, Tom Watson, Ben Crenshaw, Sandy Lyle, and Mike Weir, did not make the cut. Other big names finding a premature end to Augusta in 2011 were Graeme McDowell, world number one Martin Kaymer, Vijay Singh, Rory Sabbatini, Padraig Harrington, Sean O'Hair, Hunter Mahan, Zach Johnson, and Retief Goosen.
Questions for Saturday:
1) Will average scores continue to retreat towards par
golf?
2) Which golfer or golfers will have the hot hand in
round three?
3) Which of the steady veterans will emerge as a legit
Sunday contender?
4) Which of the young guns will have the biggest fall?
5) Will Fred Couples remain a contender, despite the
middle-age ailment of a bad back?
6) Will Tiger Woods emerge from his bachelor cave
rut and take control of the tournament?
7) Will Phil Mickelson find driving consistency and a
putting touch before it's too late?
8) Will Ernie Els be able to survive a round where he
plays alone, the odd man out of the Saturday
pairings?
There are many deserving players out there, and it's not too late for a Japanese golfer to shoot his way into contention. That would still make the best story and the best aftershock Japan could ever imagine.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Masters Golf Tournament: First Day Observations
The first day at Augusta National is over, and an American is not in the lead. Instead, the lead at a remarkable seven shots under par is shared by a pair of twenty-somethings: 21-year-old Rory McIlroy of Northern Ireland and 28-year-old Alvaro Quiros of Spain. The opposite of Samson, McIlroy chopped off his long hair early in the week, and it resulted in his lowest score ever at the Masters. Of course, "ever" in his case means three years. Ever improving and currently ranked ninth in the world, McIlroy did not make the cut last year.
Matt Kuchar and Ricky Barnes were the lowest-scoring Americans, three shots back with four-under 68's. Phil Mickelson, as erratic as he was off the tee, shot a respectable 70 thanks to an unbelievably accurate chipping game. Tiger Woods showed traces of his former greatness, winding up at 71, one below par.
It's no surprise to find Europeans and South Africans well represented on the leader board, but Koreans Y. E. Yang and K. J. Choi are doing well so far, too. No question, after the recent troubles in Japan, the sentimental favorites have to be the Japanese contingent. Amateur Hideki Matsuyama shot an even par 72 round, Ryo Ishikawa shot 71, and Hiroyuki Matsuyama shot 70, leaving all three in contention after the first day.
It was great to see octogenarian Arnold Palmer and septuagenarians Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus ambulate around for ceremonial par three's and first tee shots. Even if real history is no longer taught in public schools, it's nice to see real history respected at Augusta.
It was great to see brilliant sports author John Feinstein providing expert commentary on the Golf Channel. It was great to hear the brilliant CBS golf crew melding with Augusta National once again. Yes, even Jim Nantz is tolerable when he's not fawning over old college chum Fred Couples or gushing over yet another corporate sponsor. The insufferable New Age somnambulist music has been reduced before and after commercial breaks, and the breaks are short and few in number during the ESPN broadcast. Well done.
Points of interest on Friday:
1) Will non-Americans continue to dominate the
leader board?
2) Will Asians continue to dominate the amateur
leader board?
3) Will Japan stay represented on the leader board?
4) Will Tiger, Phil, or both make a charge?
5) Will a senior like Couples or Watson make a
charge?
6) Which early leader will do a Greg Norman
collapse?
7) How many of the lifetime exemption, former
Masters winners will make the cut?
We don't know who will be on the leader board after Friday, but one thing is certain: the scores will not be so low. No PGA or local Augusta official wants a winning score of 28 under par, which is what McIlroy and Quiros are on pace to do. The majors are supposed to be tough, not duplicates of Phoenix or the Bob Hope. Scoring conditions were ideal on Thursday: warm, sunny, and calm, with sticky slow-for-Augusta greens and easy pin placements. Nothing can be done about the weather, but greens will be dried out if possible and pin positions will be much tougher.
This doesn't mean the leaders will come back to the pack, but it does mean repeating the feat of 65 will be extremely unlikely. On Friday, Augusta National will be tougher for everybody. Enjoy the greatest show in golf.
Matt Kuchar and Ricky Barnes were the lowest-scoring Americans, three shots back with four-under 68's. Phil Mickelson, as erratic as he was off the tee, shot a respectable 70 thanks to an unbelievably accurate chipping game. Tiger Woods showed traces of his former greatness, winding up at 71, one below par.
It's no surprise to find Europeans and South Africans well represented on the leader board, but Koreans Y. E. Yang and K. J. Choi are doing well so far, too. No question, after the recent troubles in Japan, the sentimental favorites have to be the Japanese contingent. Amateur Hideki Matsuyama shot an even par 72 round, Ryo Ishikawa shot 71, and Hiroyuki Matsuyama shot 70, leaving all three in contention after the first day.
It was great to see octogenarian Arnold Palmer and septuagenarians Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus ambulate around for ceremonial par three's and first tee shots. Even if real history is no longer taught in public schools, it's nice to see real history respected at Augusta.
It was great to see brilliant sports author John Feinstein providing expert commentary on the Golf Channel. It was great to hear the brilliant CBS golf crew melding with Augusta National once again. Yes, even Jim Nantz is tolerable when he's not fawning over old college chum Fred Couples or gushing over yet another corporate sponsor. The insufferable New Age somnambulist music has been reduced before and after commercial breaks, and the breaks are short and few in number during the ESPN broadcast. Well done.
Points of interest on Friday:
1) Will non-Americans continue to dominate the
leader board?
2) Will Asians continue to dominate the amateur
leader board?
3) Will Japan stay represented on the leader board?
4) Will Tiger, Phil, or both make a charge?
5) Will a senior like Couples or Watson make a
charge?
6) Which early leader will do a Greg Norman
collapse?
7) How many of the lifetime exemption, former
Masters winners will make the cut?
We don't know who will be on the leader board after Friday, but one thing is certain: the scores will not be so low. No PGA or local Augusta official wants a winning score of 28 under par, which is what McIlroy and Quiros are on pace to do. The majors are supposed to be tough, not duplicates of Phoenix or the Bob Hope. Scoring conditions were ideal on Thursday: warm, sunny, and calm, with sticky slow-for-Augusta greens and easy pin placements. Nothing can be done about the weather, but greens will be dried out if possible and pin positions will be much tougher.
This doesn't mean the leaders will come back to the pack, but it does mean repeating the feat of 65 will be extremely unlikely. On Friday, Augusta National will be tougher for everybody. Enjoy the greatest show in golf.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
NCAA Basketball Tournament: Tenth Day Lowlights and Lowerlights
Last night's title game was a game for the ages, if you love hand- and body-checking defenses and bricklaying shotwork. Connecticut smothered Butler, 53-41, with a stifling interior defense and its own sluggish offense. For once, Butler faced a team more aggressive than they. As the officials had decided to "let them play" except for the most egregious offenses, Butler's hopes quickly faded. It didn't help that the Bulldogs missed easy layups and open looks, either.
It wasn't going to be easy for Butler to win even if the Bulldogs were hitting their shots, but it was going to be impossible if they weren't. In the first half, Butler scored 22 points, breaking the 20-point barrier thanks to a couple of three-pointers. Fortunately, the Huskies were playing with equal offensive incompetency, winding up with a miniscule 19 at the break.
What could the coaches say at halftime? Both teams had already proven they could score consistently in cavernous Reliant Stadium in Houston in the semifinal games Saturday. So sight lines, depth perception, and unusual backgrounds were not an excuse. Jim Calhoun told his Huskies to "outwork them." Brad Stevens was extremely pleased with the Bulldogs' defensive efforts, including box-out defensive rebounding and aggressive offensive boardwork. Perhaps he was sugarcoating what was painfully apparent to any casual observer: the Bulldogs were denied the paint on offense due to Husky length and athleticism, so they needed to hit the three consistently. If none of their shooters found a groove, it was going to be a long second half. It was an interminable second half.
Perhaps Coach Stevens should have focused more on adjusting his offensive game plan to generate more open looks from higher-percentage distances. Stevens has been lauded for his great game plans in high-stakes games. A great game plan was not apparent last night, although lack of execution made it look worse than it really was. Great halftime adjustments were also not apparent, for the Bulldogs scored even less after the intermission, a paltry 19.
Meanwhile, UConn's Kemba Walker and Jeremy Lamb led the Huskies to a near-normal 34 second-half points. After two exciting semifinals Saturday, the title game was rather anti-climactic. Sir Charles Barkley called the game "ugly." It was.
Butler made only 12 of 64 field goal attempts, winding up with an all-time title game low of 18.8 shooting percentage. This included an unbelievable 9 of 33 from three-point range. What's unbelievable? They kept launching from outside instead of working inside, even though most shots were bricks.
How bad was it? With the transformation of the Bulldog sharpshooters into myopic gunslingers, the phrase "throwing the game" came to mind. Yes, Las Vegas had said only a VCU title would "hurt the house." Still, a collapse like this had not been seen since the Cardinals drafted Matt Leinert. Was somebody given an offer he couldn't refuse?
Relax. No game was thrown. Instead, legs had become jelly. Butler lost a step. Butler lost loft on jump shots, so the shots lost lift. Therefore, shots banged off front rims. Butler's short bench and both-ends-of-the-floor-all-out-effort game plans had finally caught up with them: the team's first eight were physically fatigued and emotionally drained. Coach Stevens went no deeper on the bench. Putting frosting on the Husky cake, the power conference officials' promotion of aggressive play allowed UConn to outphysical Butler.
How bad was it? The 12 field goal Butler total was the second worst ever recorded. Matt Howard was 1 of 13, Andrew Smith was 2 of 9, and Khyle Marshall was 0 for 2. The guards fared no better, led by Shelvin Mack's 4-for-15 performance. The other guards were a combined 5 for 25. Pathetic.
How bad was it? The Bulldogs were outrebounded, 51 to 40, having no answer for UConn's tall timber and aggressive elbow-flying style. UConn outscored Butler 26-2 in the paint. The Three O's (Okwandu, Oriakhi, and Olander) had 10 blocks for the Huskies.
How bad was it? The only drama in the game's last 10 minutes concerned focusing upon the coaches' futures: would Coach Calhoun retire after a storybook postseason run of eleven consecutive victories and would Coach Stevens follow Shaka Smart's lead at Virginia Commonwealth, signing an extension to remain with Butler? Calhoun says he wants to keep coaching at age 68, but if the NCAA investigation intensifies and sanctions go beyond the three-game coaching suspension, he may decide to throw in the towel.
Stevens, poker face and all, has not given a clue as to what his next move may be. He can afford to wait for an ideal scenario: replacing retiring legends at Duke or UNC, for example. Why would he risk that possibility by taking on a power conference bottom-feeder program like Utah in the interim? (Utah just hired a Montana player and coach who had a spotty record with the Bucks of the NBA.)
Still, recruiting remains an uphill battle at Butler. The Bulldog inside game was dreadfully and brutally exposed by UConn last night. Can Stevens recruit forwards to replace Hayward and Howard, or was he lucky to get two consecutive overachieving shooting stars and power rebounders in a row? Can he recruit a center so Andrew Smith can return to the far end of the bench where he belongs? What are the chances he can recruit another late-blooming shooting guard like Shelvin Mack, presuming Mack skips his senior season?
Here are five bad things about UConn's victory:
1) The two-year Cinderella story of Butler ended poorly.
2) A coach in trouble with the NCAA won his third title.
3) A team from the overhyped Big East conference won another NCAA title (which still does not justify said conference receiving eleven tournament bids).
4) A team from ESPN's backyard won another title: this time it wasn't the women.
5) The BCS college football system dodged another
bullet with this power conference win in basketball.
One good thing about UConn's victory: the tournament is over and all attention can shift to Augusta for golf and the NBA for jockeying of playoff seeding positions.
Congrats to Jimmer Fredette of BYU for adding the Naismith Player of the Year award to his AP Player of the Year. Could the John Wooden Player of the Year honor follow? Time will tell.
It wasn't going to be easy for Butler to win even if the Bulldogs were hitting their shots, but it was going to be impossible if they weren't. In the first half, Butler scored 22 points, breaking the 20-point barrier thanks to a couple of three-pointers. Fortunately, the Huskies were playing with equal offensive incompetency, winding up with a miniscule 19 at the break.
What could the coaches say at halftime? Both teams had already proven they could score consistently in cavernous Reliant Stadium in Houston in the semifinal games Saturday. So sight lines, depth perception, and unusual backgrounds were not an excuse. Jim Calhoun told his Huskies to "outwork them." Brad Stevens was extremely pleased with the Bulldogs' defensive efforts, including box-out defensive rebounding and aggressive offensive boardwork. Perhaps he was sugarcoating what was painfully apparent to any casual observer: the Bulldogs were denied the paint on offense due to Husky length and athleticism, so they needed to hit the three consistently. If none of their shooters found a groove, it was going to be a long second half. It was an interminable second half.
Perhaps Coach Stevens should have focused more on adjusting his offensive game plan to generate more open looks from higher-percentage distances. Stevens has been lauded for his great game plans in high-stakes games. A great game plan was not apparent last night, although lack of execution made it look worse than it really was. Great halftime adjustments were also not apparent, for the Bulldogs scored even less after the intermission, a paltry 19.
Meanwhile, UConn's Kemba Walker and Jeremy Lamb led the Huskies to a near-normal 34 second-half points. After two exciting semifinals Saturday, the title game was rather anti-climactic. Sir Charles Barkley called the game "ugly." It was.
Butler made only 12 of 64 field goal attempts, winding up with an all-time title game low of 18.8 shooting percentage. This included an unbelievable 9 of 33 from three-point range. What's unbelievable? They kept launching from outside instead of working inside, even though most shots were bricks.
How bad was it? With the transformation of the Bulldog sharpshooters into myopic gunslingers, the phrase "throwing the game" came to mind. Yes, Las Vegas had said only a VCU title would "hurt the house." Still, a collapse like this had not been seen since the Cardinals drafted Matt Leinert. Was somebody given an offer he couldn't refuse?
Relax. No game was thrown. Instead, legs had become jelly. Butler lost a step. Butler lost loft on jump shots, so the shots lost lift. Therefore, shots banged off front rims. Butler's short bench and both-ends-of-the-floor-all-out-effort game plans had finally caught up with them: the team's first eight were physically fatigued and emotionally drained. Coach Stevens went no deeper on the bench. Putting frosting on the Husky cake, the power conference officials' promotion of aggressive play allowed UConn to outphysical Butler.
How bad was it? The 12 field goal Butler total was the second worst ever recorded. Matt Howard was 1 of 13, Andrew Smith was 2 of 9, and Khyle Marshall was 0 for 2. The guards fared no better, led by Shelvin Mack's 4-for-15 performance. The other guards were a combined 5 for 25. Pathetic.
How bad was it? The Bulldogs were outrebounded, 51 to 40, having no answer for UConn's tall timber and aggressive elbow-flying style. UConn outscored Butler 26-2 in the paint. The Three O's (Okwandu, Oriakhi, and Olander) had 10 blocks for the Huskies.
How bad was it? The only drama in the game's last 10 minutes concerned focusing upon the coaches' futures: would Coach Calhoun retire after a storybook postseason run of eleven consecutive victories and would Coach Stevens follow Shaka Smart's lead at Virginia Commonwealth, signing an extension to remain with Butler? Calhoun says he wants to keep coaching at age 68, but if the NCAA investigation intensifies and sanctions go beyond the three-game coaching suspension, he may decide to throw in the towel.
Stevens, poker face and all, has not given a clue as to what his next move may be. He can afford to wait for an ideal scenario: replacing retiring legends at Duke or UNC, for example. Why would he risk that possibility by taking on a power conference bottom-feeder program like Utah in the interim? (Utah just hired a Montana player and coach who had a spotty record with the Bucks of the NBA.)
Still, recruiting remains an uphill battle at Butler. The Bulldog inside game was dreadfully and brutally exposed by UConn last night. Can Stevens recruit forwards to replace Hayward and Howard, or was he lucky to get two consecutive overachieving shooting stars and power rebounders in a row? Can he recruit a center so Andrew Smith can return to the far end of the bench where he belongs? What are the chances he can recruit another late-blooming shooting guard like Shelvin Mack, presuming Mack skips his senior season?
Here are five bad things about UConn's victory:
1) The two-year Cinderella story of Butler ended poorly.
2) A coach in trouble with the NCAA won his third title.
3) A team from the overhyped Big East conference won another NCAA title (which still does not justify said conference receiving eleven tournament bids).
4) A team from ESPN's backyard won another title: this time it wasn't the women.
5) The BCS college football system dodged another
bullet with this power conference win in basketball.
One good thing about UConn's victory: the tournament is over and all attention can shift to Augusta for golf and the NBA for jockeying of playoff seeding positions.
Congrats to Jimmer Fredette of BYU for adding the Naismith Player of the Year award to his AP Player of the Year. Could the John Wooden Player of the Year honor follow? Time will tell.
Monday, April 4, 2011
NCAA Basketball Tournament: Ninth Day Highlights and Lowlights
We're down to two, as in the number of teams left in the Big Dance. Praise must go to the officials for calling the two semifinal games consistently. Players on both sides were equally bloodied in the loosely called contests. Praise does not go to the smarmy Jim Nantz of CBS, although his assistants were competent. Why doesn't the great Gus Johnson or marginally great Marv Albert get a chance to call the Final Four?
Both games were interesting and even exciting in stretches. In the first, Butler beat down Virginia Commonwealth, 70-62. After a slow start, VCU roared out to an 11-5 lead. In many ways, it was the last roar. Butler, after settling down and reducing its turnovers, gained a 34-28 halftime lead due to stifling defense, hustle for loose balls, and aggressive rebounding.
In the victory, Butler had a 16 rebound advantage. Shelvin Mack again had the hot hand, with 24 points on 8 of 11 shooting. Matt Howard, Mr. Hustle, had a poor shooting night, 3 of 10 from the field, and was in foul trouble, but he did make 11 of 12 free throws. Scrappy guard Shawn Vanzant was only 3 of 11 shooting from the field, but he had floor burns, 4 rebounds, and was 4 of 4 from the foul line. He also hit a clutch three down the stretch, winding up with 11 points.
The other two big contributors for Butler were Khyle Marshall with his 9 rebounds and Zack Hahn with his 4 boards and 8 points, including two huge treys. Center Andrew Smith missed some easy buckets, but he sparred inside, clutching 7 rebounds. Ronald Nored and Chase Stigall were a combined 0 for 8 from the field. The scrappiness and defense were great, but the Bulldogs will have to have better overall shooting if they are to beat Connecticut.
How good was the Butler defense? While Jamie Skeen and Bradford Burgess got their points, Brandon Rozzell, Joey Rodriguez, and Ed Nixon were a combined 3 of 18 from the field, including several questionable three-ball launches. The Bulldogs are quicker than they look.
That's a good thing, for UConn is even quicker. Against Kentucky, the Huskies escaped with a 56-55 win largely because the Wildcats couldn't hit the side of Zenyatta's barn. Credit must go in part to the stifling UConn defense, but Kentucky was also missing a lot of open looks. How bad was it? The Wildcats only made 21 of 62 shots from the field, led by star Brandon Knight's 6 for 23 performance. The most important statistic? Terrence Jones was 0 of 5 from the free throw line.
UConn didn't shoot much better, but Kemba Walker was quicker to the ball and the basket than any Wildcat. Walker finished with 18 points and 6 boards, Jeremy Lamb was 12 and 9, Alex Oriakhi was 8 and 10, and Roscoe Smith was 6 and 8. Kentucky deserves credit for coming back from a 10 point halftime deficit, but UConn was the better team.
Shed no tears for Kentucky or Virginia Commonwealth. Kentucky's coach John Calipari has another monster recruiting class coming in next fall. Meanwhile, VCU's coach Shaka Smart, who also won five games in the tournament having started in the First Four, can write his own ticket out of Richmond to a power conference bottom-rung school. After the riots last night, getting out of town might happen sooner than later.
Now we have Butler and Connecticut in the title game tomorrow night. I predict it will be close. I also predict the power conference officials will make it mighty tough for the Bulldogs to prevail. Why? A Horizon League national champion in basketball would give BCS bashers in football a lot of ammunition. At this time, with what's happening in Phoenix related to the Fiesta Bowl, bowl system bashers do not need more ammunition. Enjoy the last game!
Both games were interesting and even exciting in stretches. In the first, Butler beat down Virginia Commonwealth, 70-62. After a slow start, VCU roared out to an 11-5 lead. In many ways, it was the last roar. Butler, after settling down and reducing its turnovers, gained a 34-28 halftime lead due to stifling defense, hustle for loose balls, and aggressive rebounding.
In the victory, Butler had a 16 rebound advantage. Shelvin Mack again had the hot hand, with 24 points on 8 of 11 shooting. Matt Howard, Mr. Hustle, had a poor shooting night, 3 of 10 from the field, and was in foul trouble, but he did make 11 of 12 free throws. Scrappy guard Shawn Vanzant was only 3 of 11 shooting from the field, but he had floor burns, 4 rebounds, and was 4 of 4 from the foul line. He also hit a clutch three down the stretch, winding up with 11 points.
The other two big contributors for Butler were Khyle Marshall with his 9 rebounds and Zack Hahn with his 4 boards and 8 points, including two huge treys. Center Andrew Smith missed some easy buckets, but he sparred inside, clutching 7 rebounds. Ronald Nored and Chase Stigall were a combined 0 for 8 from the field. The scrappiness and defense were great, but the Bulldogs will have to have better overall shooting if they are to beat Connecticut.
How good was the Butler defense? While Jamie Skeen and Bradford Burgess got their points, Brandon Rozzell, Joey Rodriguez, and Ed Nixon were a combined 3 of 18 from the field, including several questionable three-ball launches. The Bulldogs are quicker than they look.
That's a good thing, for UConn is even quicker. Against Kentucky, the Huskies escaped with a 56-55 win largely because the Wildcats couldn't hit the side of Zenyatta's barn. Credit must go in part to the stifling UConn defense, but Kentucky was also missing a lot of open looks. How bad was it? The Wildcats only made 21 of 62 shots from the field, led by star Brandon Knight's 6 for 23 performance. The most important statistic? Terrence Jones was 0 of 5 from the free throw line.
UConn didn't shoot much better, but Kemba Walker was quicker to the ball and the basket than any Wildcat. Walker finished with 18 points and 6 boards, Jeremy Lamb was 12 and 9, Alex Oriakhi was 8 and 10, and Roscoe Smith was 6 and 8. Kentucky deserves credit for coming back from a 10 point halftime deficit, but UConn was the better team.
Shed no tears for Kentucky or Virginia Commonwealth. Kentucky's coach John Calipari has another monster recruiting class coming in next fall. Meanwhile, VCU's coach Shaka Smart, who also won five games in the tournament having started in the First Four, can write his own ticket out of Richmond to a power conference bottom-rung school. After the riots last night, getting out of town might happen sooner than later.
Now we have Butler and Connecticut in the title game tomorrow night. I predict it will be close. I also predict the power conference officials will make it mighty tough for the Bulldogs to prevail. Why? A Horizon League national champion in basketball would give BCS bashers in football a lot of ammunition. At this time, with what's happening in Phoenix related to the Fiesta Bowl, bowl system bashers do not need more ammunition. Enjoy the last game!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Ohio State Tattoogate, Part 3: The Messel with Tressel Grows
There have been three further developments in The Ohio State University's ongoing Tattoogate scandal since I last reported. First, the school announced that linebackers coach and co-defensive coordinator Luke Fickell was promoted to assistant head coach and interim head coach during Jim Tressel's (at this time) five-game suspension. Coach Tressel's comment? "I have tremendous confidence that Luke will take care of things just as they should be." Presumably, what "should be" does not include permanently replacing Tressel.
Second, it was disclosed by the Columbus Dispatch that Coach Tressel quickly forwarded the Tattoogate e-mails he had received in "confidentiality" from the concerned local alum/attorney to quarterback Terrelle Pryor's "mentor." Said mentor was identified as Ted Sarniak, a glass factory owner from Pryor's hometown in Pennsylvania.
This revelation makes Tattoogate messier on two fronts. First, it means Coach Tressel lied about the reason he lied to his school and the NCAA at the March 8 press conference. In case you forgot, Tressel claimed he held the tattoo parlor/OSU player transactions information to himself for nine months in order to maintain confidentiality and to preserve the sanctity of an ongoing federal drug trafficking investigation. Well, he let a wealthy businessman-booster crucial to Pryor's recruitment to OSU in on the problem early. Why?
Coach Tressel's credibility lies in ruins (pun intended).
Which brings us to the second negative aspect of the revelation: just how involved are the Buckeye boosters with the program? Mr. Sarniak had loaned Pryor a Corvette for his senior high school prom. Mr. Sarniak had accompanied Pryor on his official recruiting visit to Columbus. Mr. Sarniak had dined with two Buckeye assistant coaches the night before Pryor made his official visit to Ann Arbor. You do the math. Worst of all, the revelation shows that Coach Tressel has greater trust in and is closer to a booster than he is to his own administration, school attorneys, or NCAA investigators. If that supposition is untrue, then it's a worse conclusion: Coach Tressel believes a wealthy Buckeye booster has more influence and control over one of his star players than he, the head coach, does. Why? Again, you do the math. Are there other "mentors" helping and guiding other star Buckeye players?
The third major development poses another question. Apparently, according to CBSSports.com, The Ohio State University knew before the March 8 conference that Coach Tressel had forwarded those e-mails to Mr. Sarniak. When Coach Tressel had reluctantly (with an "Uh-huh") affirmed forwarding the e-mails, it was athletic director Gene Smith who had cut off the reporter and Tressel, changing the direction of the conversation. Now, the appearance is one of obfuscation. Since both Mr. Smith and the school president were singing Coach Tressel's praises and providing ringing endorsements of his character at the conference, just how much did they know and when did they know it?
The NCAA investigation will really clamp down like punk rockers The Clash now on Ohio State. First, usual ally Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney will be hard-pressed to defend the Buckeyes now, since he told investigators off for being so lenient on Auburn in the Cam Newton case. Second, these two infractions, one by the players and one by Coach Tressel, occurred within five years of the NCAA penalizing the Buckeyes for the Coach O'Brien-Boban Savovic basketball infractions.
The Buckeyes are repeat violators. The ultimate NCAA sanctions will be severe because of this. The only way the school can mitigate damages is to sever its relationship with Coach Tressel, and possibly with athletic director Gene Smith as well. The University of Southern California did the right thing in severing its ties with former athletic director and playing legend Mike Garrett, and replacing him with Mr. Legal Eagle and playing legend Pat Haden. How soon will Ohio State follow suit?
Would you like a single ray of sunshine in this case? Local Columbus journalists are providing solid investigative reporting. They don't want to be the laughingstock of the sports world. Yet, imagine the pressure put on them by superiors and advertisers and readers to "look the other way."
The outlook is gloomy. In December of 2010, Ohio State was able to keep its roster intact for the Sugar Bowl due to heavy lobbying by Commish Delaney and Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan. With the Fiesta Bowl/John Junker scandal exploding (more on that next week), not a single bowl representative can afford to come to the aid of the Buckeyes this time. As a result, expect forfeitures of all 2010 season victories at the very least. What else? Keep reading this blog for further revelations as the NCAA and The Ohio State keep wresseling with the Tressel Messel.
Second, it was disclosed by the Columbus Dispatch that Coach Tressel quickly forwarded the Tattoogate e-mails he had received in "confidentiality" from the concerned local alum/attorney to quarterback Terrelle Pryor's "mentor." Said mentor was identified as Ted Sarniak, a glass factory owner from Pryor's hometown in Pennsylvania.
This revelation makes Tattoogate messier on two fronts. First, it means Coach Tressel lied about the reason he lied to his school and the NCAA at the March 8 press conference. In case you forgot, Tressel claimed he held the tattoo parlor/OSU player transactions information to himself for nine months in order to maintain confidentiality and to preserve the sanctity of an ongoing federal drug trafficking investigation. Well, he let a wealthy businessman-booster crucial to Pryor's recruitment to OSU in on the problem early. Why?
Coach Tressel's credibility lies in ruins (pun intended).
Which brings us to the second negative aspect of the revelation: just how involved are the Buckeye boosters with the program? Mr. Sarniak had loaned Pryor a Corvette for his senior high school prom. Mr. Sarniak had accompanied Pryor on his official recruiting visit to Columbus. Mr. Sarniak had dined with two Buckeye assistant coaches the night before Pryor made his official visit to Ann Arbor. You do the math. Worst of all, the revelation shows that Coach Tressel has greater trust in and is closer to a booster than he is to his own administration, school attorneys, or NCAA investigators. If that supposition is untrue, then it's a worse conclusion: Coach Tressel believes a wealthy Buckeye booster has more influence and control over one of his star players than he, the head coach, does. Why? Again, you do the math. Are there other "mentors" helping and guiding other star Buckeye players?
The third major development poses another question. Apparently, according to CBSSports.com, The Ohio State University knew before the March 8 conference that Coach Tressel had forwarded those e-mails to Mr. Sarniak. When Coach Tressel had reluctantly (with an "Uh-huh") affirmed forwarding the e-mails, it was athletic director Gene Smith who had cut off the reporter and Tressel, changing the direction of the conversation. Now, the appearance is one of obfuscation. Since both Mr. Smith and the school president were singing Coach Tressel's praises and providing ringing endorsements of his character at the conference, just how much did they know and when did they know it?
The NCAA investigation will really clamp down like punk rockers The Clash now on Ohio State. First, usual ally Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney will be hard-pressed to defend the Buckeyes now, since he told investigators off for being so lenient on Auburn in the Cam Newton case. Second, these two infractions, one by the players and one by Coach Tressel, occurred within five years of the NCAA penalizing the Buckeyes for the Coach O'Brien-Boban Savovic basketball infractions.
The Buckeyes are repeat violators. The ultimate NCAA sanctions will be severe because of this. The only way the school can mitigate damages is to sever its relationship with Coach Tressel, and possibly with athletic director Gene Smith as well. The University of Southern California did the right thing in severing its ties with former athletic director and playing legend Mike Garrett, and replacing him with Mr. Legal Eagle and playing legend Pat Haden. How soon will Ohio State follow suit?
Would you like a single ray of sunshine in this case? Local Columbus journalists are providing solid investigative reporting. They don't want to be the laughingstock of the sports world. Yet, imagine the pressure put on them by superiors and advertisers and readers to "look the other way."
The outlook is gloomy. In December of 2010, Ohio State was able to keep its roster intact for the Sugar Bowl due to heavy lobbying by Commish Delaney and Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan. With the Fiesta Bowl/John Junker scandal exploding (more on that next week), not a single bowl representative can afford to come to the aid of the Buckeyes this time. As a result, expect forfeitures of all 2010 season victories at the very least. What else? Keep reading this blog for further revelations as the NCAA and The Ohio State keep wresseling with the Tressel Messel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)