The Wealth of Nations

Joe Paterno -- Penn State's iconic head football coach -- has campaigned for a Division I-A football playoff for years.

And when you consider his past, it's easy empathize with: the man has coached five undefeated teams over his forty-four-year career at State College. But of all those perfect seasons, Penn State was voted the National Champion only once.

Unfortunately for Coach Paterno, the push for postseason liberation was almost nonexistent in the 60s and 70s. And as a result, many undefeated, championship-worthy teams at Penn State (and elsewhere) have suffered.

But due to support from tenured figures like JoePa, and as a result of the many deficiencies of the Bowl Championship Series, the FBS postseason has been bitterly contested in recent years.

Whether it be the President of the United States on 60 Minutes, pollsters over the last 15-plus years, or some hot-shot writer-in-training here, or again here, it's hard to find someone that doesn't dream of a playoff at college football's highest level.

However, Paterno's advocacy for change doesn't end with the playoff debate. Ironic as it may be, it's the 83-year-old legend -- a man that has been chastised repeatedly for being cranky, out-of-touch, even archaic -- that's been pushing for two decades to see the Big Ten evolve.

In the twenty years since Penn State accepted an invitation to the Big Ten Conference, Paterno has continually encouraged member university presidents and athletic directors, as well as conference commissioner Jim Delany, to explore the idea of Big Ten expansion.

Those endorsements continue today.

During the annual spring football teleconferences on April 13th, Coach Paterno spoke of what he envisions:

"I think expansion is coming... I think the trend is there's going to be bigger conferences... There's going to be 12-, 14-team conferences, and maybe even 16-team conferences. Do I know what I'm talking about? Who knows... But it would appear to me with the television situation what it is, and the great impact it has on exposure, obviously, and what that exposure does as far as recruiting, I think we're naive if [we] think that we can sit back and watch everybody else move ahead, because they're going to move ahead... We better start thinking about where we're going."

As it's been suggested for years, expanding by one, to a 12-member league, would enable the Big Ten to set up two 6-team divisions, therefore allowing it to hold a conference championship game at season's end.

And for what's it worth, an emphasis on divisional play, based on some geographical border, would alter scheduling for all sports -- especially football and men's basketball, the top two earners (and TV-friendly sports) in college athletics.

The consensus among Big Ten football coaches during the teleconferences: expansion makes sense. In fact, it turned out to be the topic of conversation. And JoePa wasn't the only coach willing to speak up.

Minnesota's Tim Brewster also voiced his support of expansion, reiterating Paterno's long-held stance on the competitive disadvantage that Big Ten football currently faces:

"We're kind of sitting at home watching while [the SEC, Big 12, and ACC] are out there doing some good things and getting a tremendous amount of exposure for their teams and their conference."

But here's the thing about adding just one school: creating a conference championship game would (only) net league members an extra $1 million or so -- chump change -- per institution.

And depending on which university joined, the annual TV revenue per member -- dictated by the Big Ten Network, which some say is the driving force behind the latest expansion -- may go down if that new member doesn't hail from a healthy market.

Expanding by three, however, would help to extend the Big Ten Network's already impressive coverage area, whether it be to the west, with the addition of one or more Big 12 North schools, or to the east, with the addition one or more Big East schools.

In 2009, Big Ten Conference members each received $22 million in shared revenue. Just imagine: a league that comprises three of the four largest TV markets in America. That's where the money is.

Today it appears that adding three (or even five) schools, as opposed to just one, is not only a more profitable venture, but it's also getting the most support from Big Ten talking heads.

Expanding to a 16-member league would have the greatest effect.

The Big Ten would quickly turn into the largest Division I athletic conference, the first true super-conference -- one that stretches across three regions of the map, spanning up to twelve states, dominant in both football and basketball.

And if Big Ten officials could somehow find five schools with membership in the prestigious Association of American Universities, it would be the cherry on top.

But considering the Big Ten's standards -- academically, athletically, geographically, and financially -- which institutions fit best?

The first name that comes to mind, naturally, is Notre Dame. It fits the mold in both the athletic and academic arenas. And love 'em or hate 'em, Irish football lore speaks for itself.

But the Big Ten has been down this road before:

• As early as 1926, Notre Dame AD Knute Rockne expressed interest in joining the Big Ten -- but conference members weren't interested.
• Flash forward six-plus decades, to 1993, and the Big Ten is approaching Notre Dame -- but the Irish aren't listening.
• So the Big Ten waited another six years: Both sides begin negotiating, the Notre Dame faculty senate gives a near-unanimous 'yes' vote -- but the ND Board of Trustees fears it will "cost us our distinctiveness."
• Then, in 2003, Notre Dame AD Kevin White tells Irish basketball coach Mike Brey to be prepared for a move to the Big Ten -- but Notre Dame changes its mind last-minute.

The point is this: Notre Dame and the Big Ten Conference haven't seen eye-to-eye for generations. What makes things any different today? Dollar signs?

Current Notre Dame athletic director, Jack Swarbrick, may have been hinting at that two weeks ago at the BCS meetings in Phoenix:

"There are things that are large enough to challenge our ability to remain independent and remain in the Big East."

Those things that would have to be large enough are (in my opinion) the scope of the expansion, and how much money would be on the table.

By joining the Big Ten, Notre Dame would at least double its annual TV revenue. By spurning the Big Ten, Notre Dame may pass up a golden opportunity.

But the next time the Big Ten comes knocking, it may be last call -- and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany hasn't been shy about naming other universities the conference is courting.

Looking beyond South Bend, Delany is exploring the option of adding Missouri and/or Nebraska from the Big 12, in addition to a handful of Big East schools -- among them: Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

The repercussions of such a seismic shake-up would certainly affect the other eleven athletic conferences within the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Let's say the five schools mentioned above -- Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse -- all make the move: the Big 12 would suddenly (and literally) become the new Big Ten, while the Big East would find itself with only five football-sponsored universities.

It probably wouldn't be too difficult for the Big 12 to fill the void left by Missouri and Nebraska, as Mountain West and Conference USA members (or maybe even Boise State) would presumably covet such an opportunity.

As for the Big East: it may have to retire from the football business.

Even if it were able to re-coup the loss of three members, by adding three or more new schools from non-BCS conferences, the remaining core in football would consist of Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, South Florida, and West Virginia.

Combining those five football programs with the three best from non-BCS conferences may not be enough -- unless one of them is Notre Dame -- to retain the Big East's automatic BCS bowl bid.

And if Notre Dame does give up its football independence, I wouldn't bet on it joining a watered-down, eight-team football conference -- one that would force it to abandon (or at least halt) annual meetings with Southern Cal, Navy, and a host of Big Ten schools.

In past years, whether Big Ten officials were too selective, or too ambivalent, America's Oldest Conference didn't act soon enough, standing pat while the SEC, Big 12, and ACC expanded to twelve first.

This time around, with colossal cash on the line, I expect the Big Ten to be more assertive.

If you're wondering whether this expansion talk is legitimate, if the wealth of other nations will fall into the hands of the Big Ten, shaking up the landscape of college sports forever, I'd say its probably a matter of when -- not if.

But do I know what I'm talking about? Who knows.

An Open Letter to No. 5

April 9, 2010

Dearest Donovan,

I received a text on Easter that read: "Sad day for the Eagles."

I immediately turned on ESPN, hoping that my little bro' wasn't referring to a trade involving you. But he was. And it was, indeed, a sad day for the Eagles.

You see, I've been watching football -- I mean really watching football -- for half of my twenty-two years on Earth. And of all those years, you're the only quarterback my home team has ever called their starter.



Sure, I remember sitting in the backseat of the car when I was young, the daily topic of conversation on WIP revolving around Randall Cunningham. And who can forget when Ricky Watters and Charlie Garner -- the original Thunder and Lightning -- were running wild?

I was just too young back then, preoccupied with my unrealistic dreams of pitching in the majors, too busy being a kid, playing Sega Genesis for hours on end.

One of my earliest memories -- vivid memories -- dates back to the '99 Draft, when a host of hysterical (not to mention misguided) Philly fans booed the fact that Big Red & Co. chose you over Ricky Williams.

As they say, the rest is history.

In the years since, this franchise has not only been one of the most consistent in the NFL, but it's also been a great source of pride for Philadelphia sports fans everywhere. And whether or not the nay-sayers want to admit it, you're a huge reason why.

They knocked you for your supposed lack of accuracy, for getting injured every few years, for being "too laid-back" and "too muscular," and for never winning a championship.

And while very few will admit it, many knocked you because of the color of your skin.

However, the numbers speak for themselves: a higher career passer rating than Marino, Kelly, and Staubach -- a higher career completion percentage than Unitas, Elway, and Moon -- and, up until two years ago, the greatest career touchdown-to-interception ratio in history.

But in Philadelphia, it never seemed to be enough. Many fans believed you needed to win a championship to validate your career.

I was not one of those fans.

Is Dan Marino -- a man with identical career numbers and Hall of Fame status -- considered a bum for not winning a Super Bowl? Of course not.



Then again, this wouldn't be the first time that bitter Philly fans fail to see the big picture: Many of them didn't like Mike Schmidt, thought Bobby Clarke was a prick, and believed that Allen Iverson was nothing but a thug during his first stint in Philadelphia.

Then, in typical Philly fashion, these cowardly fans were back on the bandwagon.

Today each of those names are considered among the few greatest in the rich history of Philadelphia sports. In fact, their names are synonymous with the teams for which they competed.

Someday, yours will be, too. You're not only the best quarterback in Philadelphia Eagles history, but I'd argue you're among the greatest in League history.

I'll never forget sitting in the rain at the Vet with my dad, watching you pick apart the Cardinals on a broken fibula. I'll never forget 4th and 26, or your ridiculous numbers the following season, the only year you ever played with an All-Pro wideout.

I appreciate the hard work you put in during your eleven seasons in Philadelphia. I appreciate you keeping us in contention for so long, and for not complaining about your subpar help. I appreciate you for being a class act, for having a sense of humor, and for being a leader/mentor to all the young talent you left behind.

I promise: someday my brethren will appreciate you, too.

For now, I wish you the best of luck (and health) over the remainder of your career. And if the Eagles struggle in the near future, I'm rooting for the Redskins to win it all. You deserve it, man.


Many Thanks,
Kyle T. Rounds

The Five Pillars

I don't know about you, but I'm a huge fan of the NCAA Tournament.

My earliest memories date back to '96 -- the year in which the Pitino-led Kentucky Wildcats breezed through the bracket, crushing each team they faced.

The following year, Dad and I were glued to the TV for the entirety of the Big Dance. That was the year that Lute Olsen 's Arizona Wildcats, a four seed, won it all by barely pulling out each of their games.

Flash forward three years, and I'm persuading my seventh grade classmates to get in on the opportunity of a lifetime -- my first NCAA Tournament pool. The buy-in? Three dollars.

Since then, I've filled out at least one bracket every year. And although I've only won one March Madness pool -- thanks in large part to Michael Kelly, who barely edged me out in both 7th and 8th grade -- I typically finish near the top of the leaderboard.

In middle school I relied on two things when filling out my brackets: 1) the little knowledge I had, and 2) my gut feeling. Sure, I still rely on them today -- but I also look at a lot of statistics.

While numbers don't always spell out who's going to beat who, they certainly help in understanding how teams match up against one another. The key, however, is knowing which aspects of the game are most important.

So a couple years ago, feeling that half of the first round matchups were too close to call, I decided I was going to first determine which stats make the most difference, and in certain games, let those statistics pick winners for me.




I came to the conclusion that five statistical categories -- which I'll call "The Five Pillars" for the sake of this post -- are the most tell-tale figures:

1. scoring margin
2. offensive field goal percentage
3. defensive field goal percentage
4. rebound margin
5. assist-to-turnover ratio
   

In the spring of 2008, the first year this statistical inquiry came into play, the numbers said that Kansas -- which ranked in the top eight in each of The Five Pillars at season's end -- was the best team in the country. So I picked the Jayhawks to win the National Championship.

Memphis ranked especially high in each category as well. Their average ranking in The Five Pillars was 18.0 -- the second best average of the entire field. So I made the Tigers my runners-up.

Naturally, these two teams met in the Title Game, and Kansas won. And I won (well, tied) the pool I entered.

You may say that Kansas and Memphis, both top seeds in their respective regions, were no-brainers -- common picks -- to meet in National Championship Game. And you'd be right. In fact, the guy I tied with had the same two teams on his final lines.

But if you look at the key statistics I'm making a case for today, you'd notice that the other Final Four teams -- North Carolina and UCLA, both of which were also top-seeded in their regions -- were a step behind Kansas and Memphis.

My sleeper pick that season was tenth-seeded Davidson. Led by the hot hand of Stephen Curry, I picked them to knock off Gonzaga, Georgetown, and Wisconsin before losing to Kansas -- my favorite to win it all -- in the Elite Eight.

Davidson's average rank was 40.0 in The Five Pillars. Regardless of seed, that was one of the better averages in the entire nation -- which gave me good reason to believe that Davidson could make some moves in the tournament. And luckily, I was dead-on in my prediction.

Not convinced of my theory yet? It's cool -- I was skeptical at first, too.

So I looked back to the 2006 NCAA Tournament -- the year that little George Mason of the Colonial Athletic Association, an eleven-seed, knocked off Michigan State, North Carolina, Wichita State, and Connecticut on their way to the Final Four.

That year George Mason's average ranking in four of The Five Pillars (excluding assist-to-turnover ratio, as it wasn't an official statistic until '08) was actually a tad higher than Florida and UCLA, the two teams that eventually met in the Title Game.

No one -- except maybe a few George Mason students -- picked the Patriots to reach the Final Four. But if I'd thought of The Five Pillars a couple years earlier, I may have.




So based on these indicators of basketball vitality, which double-digit seeds have the potential to pull off a George Mason-like run this year? Here are a few that may have a little Cinderella in them...

• Murray State: One of the sexy names in college basketball this year, Murray State has a better average ranking in The Five Pillars than three of the #1 seeds -- Duke, Kentucky, and Syracuse. The Racers are incredibly deep, with ten players who average at least 10 minutes per game and six who average at least 9.5 points per game. But despite the impressive statistics, and how winnable their first two games appear, the Racers haven't been tested all that much this season. Their toughest opponent, Cal, which beat them by five, is an eight-seed in this year's tournament. Here's the bottom line: Murray State certainly has a chance to advance to the Sweet Sixteen. But without big game experience, I wouldn't recommend getting too high on them.
  

• St. Mary's: Led by 6'11" center Omar Samhan, St. Mary's College is fully capable of making a run in the first weekend of the tournament. In a season in which the Gaels ranked near the top of virtually every statistical category, they capped it all off by beating rival Gonzaga in the West Coast Conference Championship Game. They shoot the ball well from everywhere -- short range, long range, and the foul line -- and shut down the three-point shot, forcing opponents to make a tough decision: pull up for a mid-range jump shot, or take the ball inside to the aforementioned Samhan. At 20.9 ppg and 11.0 rpg, Omar Sahman is one of the rare "twenty and ten" guys in college basketball. And if St. Mary's is going to pull off a couple upsets in the first weekend, his play is going to be a big reason why.

• San Diego State: The Aztecs are battle-tested, having played ten games against five teams in this year's field. They shoot the ball well, play good defense, and dominate in the rebounding department -- three characteristics of very good teams. But what also bodes well for San Diego State is the fact that their opening round opponent, Tennessee, despite loads of athleticism, isn't a very good rebounding team. This is a big reason why many people -- including me -- expect the Aztecs to win at least one game. And when one considers the parity among the lower portion of the Midwest region, a run to the Elite Eight wouldn't be so surprising. At the same time, a first round exit, in my opinion, is just as likely. Buyer beware.
  

• Utah State: One of the most statistically impressive teams in the land, Utah State has the second-best national average in The Five Pillars. Their first round opponent, Texas A&M, is not so impressive on paper. If the Aggies of Utah State can get by the Aggies of Texas A&M in the first round, neither Purdue nor Siena pose insurmountable challenges in the second round. But for how good this deep Utah State team looks on paper, they were inconsistent this season, going just 2-3 versus Tournament-bound teams, including a 1-2 record versus New Mexico State -- a team that probably wouldn't even be among the field of sixty-five had they not upset Utah State in the WAC Championship Game last week. Utah State has a chance to make a nice run this weekend -- but like San Diego State, proceed with caution.

Now that I've shed some light on a few teams that may be sleeping giants, here are few teams that may be sent home sooner than expected...

• Kansas State: With an average ranking of 79.6 in The Five Pillars, the highest number among teams seeded third or higher, Kansas State is the first team I'm putting on upset alert. If recent history tells us anything, I may not be so crazy, either, as no Final Four team in the last two years has had this high an average ranking-- and it's not even close. While the Wildcats surely have a potent offense, with an athletic lineup that can rebound and block shots, they struggle mightily with free throws, turnovers, and defense -- so much, in fact, that they rank 200th or worse (out of 334) in each of these areas.
  

• Marquette: Undersized and undermanned, the Marquette Golden Eagles have relied heavily on three-point shooting this season. While they've been quite successful in this aspect of their game, we all know the rule: If you live by the three, you die by the three. And often times, Marquette has died by the three. Their three-point field goal percentage was 40.6% this season, which ranks 6th in the nation. But in nine losses versus teams in this year's Dance, the Golden Eagles shot just 34.4% -- which, if they'd shot at this percentage all season, would rank 154th in the nation. Marquette's first round opponent this weekend, eleventh-seeded Washington, defends the three very well and is a much better rebounding team. If you're looking for an upset among the 6/11 matchups, this may be your best bet.

• Oklahoma State: Despite being seeded seventh in the Midwest region, the Cowboys' average ranking in The Five Pillars (106.2) is far lower -- by nearly thirty -- than their first round counterpart, tenth-seeded Georgia Tech. What's worse is, none of The Five Pillars are Oklahoma State's greatest weaknesses. They especially struggle to block shots and defend the three. And as far as size, the Yellow Jackets tower above the Cowboys in both the frontcourt and the backcourt. OK State may match up closely depth-wise, but their first round draw isn't a very good one, as Tech features a bigger, defensive-minded lineup with multiple NBA-ready players. Each of the 7/10 matchups in this year's Tournament are close calls -- but I believe Oklahoma State is the most likely to lose their first game.

• Purdue: The fourth-seeded Boilermakers have their hands full in the first round when they take on Siena. But even if Purdue can get by the Saints, one of the most successful "mid-majors" of the last few years, their second round game won't be any easier. After a season-ending knee injury to do-it-all forward Robbie Hummel, Purdue finished the year by losing two out of five games. But here's the kicker: Both losses came at home against the only Tournament-bound teams of the bunch -- fifth-seeded Michigan State and eleventh-seeded Minnesota -- by an average margin of 18 points. Sans-Hummel, this guard-heavy squad is vulnerable in the frontcourt. Their lone big man, JaJuan Johnson, will have his hands full against either of Purdue's potential foes in round two, assuming they make it that far, as both Texas A&M and Utah State feature bigger forwards that can out-rebound the Boilers.

It ought to be noted that The Five Pillar Theory does not always indicate which teams are poised to make a run in the NCAA Tournament.

For instance, just two years ago, twelfth-seeded Villanova -- with an average ranking of 146.6 in The Five Pillars -- upset fifth-seeded Clemson -- with an average of 89.4 -- in the first round of the Tournament.

In other words: While The Five Pillars can absolutely help in picking certain games, these five statistics -- scoring margin, offensive field goal percentage, defensive field goal percentage, rebound margin, and assist-to-turnover ratio -- are not the only factors that affect the outcome of a basketball game.

But if you're having a difficult time filling out your bracket this year, consider looking at The Five Pillars -- among other statistics -- when making a decision.

Consistency Is Key

Consistency is important in sports -- from one play, game, or season to the next.

In recent years, consistently great athletes (such as Martin Broduer, Tim Duncan, Derek Jeter or Peyton Manning) have kept their teams in championship contention season after season.

Teams that are good year-in and year-out obviously have a better chance to reach their ultimate goal -- winning a championship.

And unless they have a run like that of the Chicago Blackhawks, in which the NHL franchise made the playoffs for twenty-eight consecutive seasons without winning a single Stanley Cup title, this goal is usually realized.



As of this morning, the seventh of March, there were four teams in the National Hockey League with a goal differential between seventeen and twenty-two.

Three of these four teams -- the Colorado Avalanche, Los Angeles Kings, and New Jersey Devils -- have either 79 or 80 points in the standings, and are almost certainly playoff-bound.

However, the last of this bunch -- the Philadelphia Flyers -- have just 70 points. They are not only far (7 points) behind the Ottawa Senators, the team just ahead of them in the Eastern Conference standings, but they're currently fighting for position with five other teams (separated by 5 points) for seeds six through eight in the East.

The Flyers, Devils, Kings and Avalanche are equal by nearly every statistical measure. Sure, each of them has their weakness -- but overall these four teams are parallel to one another.

So what separates the Flyers from the pack? Why do they stand nine or ten points behind the others, playoff lives on the line?

Your answer, ladies and gentlemen, is consistent scoring.

The NHL average for scoring this season is 2.86 goals per game. As of today, the Flyers average of 3.05 is good for seventh in the league and first among the other three teams with a scoring margin in the plus-20 range.

But despite having one of the most prolific offenses in the league, the Flyers erratic scoring leaves them on the outside looking in when it comes to the Stanley Cup Finals picture.



Here's how the Flyers scoring breaks down this season:

• 15 games (23.8%) in which they've scored zero or one goal(s)
  
• 24 games (38.1%) with two or three goals
• 14 games (22.2%) with four or five goals
• 10 games (15.9%) with six-plus goals

Considering the Flyers' 3.05 goals per game average I mentioned above, as well as the 2.86 league-wide average, it's no surprise that the Broad Street Bullies have scored either two or three goals in the majority of their games.

But compared to the other twenty-nine teams in the NHL, the Flyers 38.1% in the 2-3 goal range is low. And as you would probably guess, this figure is the lowest when compared to the other three teams in this study -- the Devils, Kings and Avs.

Their scoring, on average, breaks down as follows:

• 17.7% of games with zero or one goal(s)
• 47.9% with two or three goals
• 29.7% with four or five goals
• 4.7% with six or more goals

Eternal optimists will rationalize the Flyers' 38.1% in the 2-3 goal range. They'll say that their numbers are better because of their potential to score a handful of goals on any given night, as evidenced by the ten games in which they've tallied six or more scores.

That's great and all -- but those percentage points have to go somewhere. While the Flyers surely have the ability to rack up lots of goals, they've also been held to less than two goals far more often than the others.

Until they start to get consistent production from their offense, the Flyers will remain on the bubble in the Eastern Conference.

Crime and Punishment

This morning I made breakfast for my mother. It was her birthday.

Just as she and I were finishing up, my grandmother stopped by the house. The three of us sat around for a while, drinking coffee and bullshitting. Then my sister walked in the door.

"Did you watch the Tiger Woods press conference?" she asked.

"No, I didn't. Damn. I forgot all about it," I told her.

Being the sports fanatic I am, I never (and I mean never) miss one of these fallen-star-apologizes-to-the-public-for-misstep-type episodes. It's hard not to. Besides the historical significance, and the fact that it's live, I'm always intrigued by the aura surrounding such events.

I watched every episode of the Roger Clemens saga unfold. I tuned in when Michael Vick apologized. But my personal favorite was the Alex Rodriquez/Peter Gammons interview. In fact, I must have watched it five times within the two hours after it aired.

Why? Because the singularity of these moments are undeniable.

Not that I promote press conference-worthy poor behavior from those in the spotlight, but I like to read someone's body language, listen to the tone in their voice, and see for myself just how sorry they are.

Plus, it's fascinating to see fiery, egotistical mega-stars look human once in a while. It helps to keep my imagination (and therefore my expectations of such persons) in check. After all, while the expression may sound trite, no one is perfect -- regardless of how the media portrays them.



As for the Tiger press conference this morning, I certainly hadn't intended to miss it. It could have simply been a matter of me forgetting. Or maybe I'm just tired of this broken record of a story.

Either way, I suppose it proves how little I care about Tiger Woods' personal life, or what he has to say to the world about his highly-publicized sexual encounters.

Though I strongly disagree with his actions, I have no problem with Tiger Woods the person. He did nothing to hurt me. Am I disappointed in him? Sure. But I'm disappointed in any one of the six billion-plus earthlings that consciously hurts another human being.

I'm interested in Tigers Woods the golfer. I don't want to watch him have sex. I want to watch him dominate on Sundays. I want to see him break every golf record that stands unbroken today.

I liked Tiger Woods before news of his car crash on Thanksgiving night, and I'll stand by him in the future. Why shouldn't I? I know many good people who have committed (or been an accessory to) adultery, some who've torn families apart. As a matter of fact, we all do.

That's why I don't understand the animosity towards Tiger. How can someone have such a high approval rating one day, and then such a low approval rating the next?

Here's my theory: Because most people are unhappy (to some degree) with the lives they lead, they feel it's necessary to inject drama into everyday life. They get far too high when something positive happens, and then far too low when something negative happens.

This surely keeps things interesting -- but at what cost?

These melodramatic individuals -- which, incidentally, are the majority of Americans -- let their emotions get the best of them, leading to rash behavior. Instead of taking the time to think rationally, they finger-point and blurt out whatever is running through their senseless minds at the moment.

Take the Tiger situation, for example. Angry people all over the country insisted that Tiger Woods was a wimp, a sissy, a coward, a coached-up PR droid that was too [insert your favorite phrase or adjective here] to hold a Q&A at this morning's press conference. They felt that a prepared speech wasn't enough.

Whoa, let's back up for a moment.

Now that we've come to realize that we all know at least one genuinely good person that's cheated on his/her spouse in the past, let's think about how many of those people have had to sit down in front of millions upon millions of viewers on both the television and the Internet in countries all over the world.

My guess? Zero.

However, that was only step one in the long line of punishment (fair or not) that Tiger Woods will walk. Personally, I believe that what Tiger did today was more than enough. Did he have to apologize to the public? No. Does he have to explain himself? Of course not.

There are many people who suddenly hate The World's Greatest Golfer. The funny thing is, many of these same people thought so highly of him just a few months ago.



Now of these Tiger-haters, I'm going to assume that the majority is Christian. Living in the United States of America, that's a fair assumption, no?

Well if that is indeed the case, how can so much hatred, ridicule and judgment be placed upon Tiger? As I'm sure any Bible enthusiast could tell you, quoting the book of Matthew (in modern English): "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

Despite my many reservations for this holy book, that certainly seems like one fine rule to me. Yet most Americans (the majority of which are Christian) can or do not follow this simple creed, the so-called word of god.

But before I branch off even further, exposing the many contradictions in America's holy book, let me re-focus my attention to the problem at hand...

In situations like this, the Tiger Woods scandal, the general public (for reasons that are beyond me) feels this arrogant entitlement. It wants to know everything about everything, immediately. It has no patience for a lapse in time nor a lack of detail.

I wonder where this sense of entitlement arises. It's as if Tiger and Elin Woods' marriage has some bearing on us, the public, and we therefore need to know every detail of this never-ending story.

It's one thing if our government is lying to us, and we demand from it the truth. But to expect the same from a professional golfer seems utterly silly.

Undoubtedly, this wouldn't be the story it is today if the person in question wasn't the world's most recognizable athlete, as very few people on the planet command this much media attention.

But does Tiger's worldwide popularity give us a right to pry into him?

Even if this story never reached the eyes and ears of the public, Tiger Woods was in trouble. He did the crime (or crimes, I suppose) and would have to deal with the consequences of his actions, regardless of whether or not we, the public, knew about them.

It's difficult to decide whether or not the punishment matches the crime when it comes to moral dilemmas such as this -- because honestly, who's to say? But it's hard for me to imagine that Tiger Woods deserves to be judged by the general population the way he has.

Balance of Power

The last few seasons of NBA play have moved professional basketball to the forefront of the American sports scene -- just beyond baseball and far ahead of hockey in both television ratings and the sale of merchandise.

Sure, The Association experienced some lean years around the turn of the millennium, which is often attributed to the end of the Chicago dynasty. But the truth is, while Jordan's Bulls were surely the best team of the 90's, the NBA was loaded with legendary players and teams throughout the decade.

The end of the Jordan era in Chicago was just the tip of the iceberg. Perennial powers across the map (the Houston Rockets, New York Knicks, Phoenix Suns, Utah Jazz, and the artists formerly known as the Charlotte Hornets and Seattle SuperSonics) all fell by the wayside around the same time.

When countless Hall of Famers-to-be retire, and an influx of teenage streetballers think they can run with the big boys, that type of thing is bound to happen. But like the economy, the NBA talent pool has proven to be cyclical, refreshing itself in no time.



Today, 2010, is a new age. The days of B.H.G.W.A. (Ball-Hogging Gunners With Attitude) who play little, if any, defense are long gone. In today's NBA, the best players can do it all.

A new generation -- from Dwight Howard and Rajon Rondo in the East, to Chris Paul and Brandon Roy in the West -- has matured quickly, providing the league with a number of marketable young stars.

Meanwhile, all-time greats such as Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Steve Nash, and Dirk Nowitzki (to name a few) are still playing at a very high level in what many consider to be a young man's league.

That's not all. I can't forget to mention the '03 draft class featuring Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, and LeBron James. These players, drafted in the same month that ratings for the NBA Finals reached an all-time record low, have since helped to restore the NBA's shimmer.

But James, Cleveland's do-it-all hometown hero, is of a different breed. Arguably the world's best player, he transcends basketball.

If "King James" played football, his size and strength would match up with the game's biggest defensive ends, his speed and explosiveness with the most athletic wide receivers, his awareness and savvy playmaking with the most cerebral of quarterbacks.

Combined with these undeniable skills, James' down-to-earth personality and good sense of humor have not only led to infinite endorsements -- which, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, make him the world's second-most "powerful" athlete -- but they also set an example for young players.

But while all of these ingredients certainly make the NBA an attractive commodity to the casual basketball fan, it's hard to imagine the sport taking over as America's favorite any time soon.



I could go on forever about why football (our sport of choice in the U.S.) is so appealing, or why the NFL reigns supreme in a country that, for the most part, likes both suspense and violence in its entertainment. But I'd be wasting my time.

Fully-padded men smashing into one another is the nature of football. On the other hand, calling a foul when someone attempting to pass or shoot is simply touched is the nature of basketball. This will never change. We need to look beneath the surface.

As far as I can tell, one noteworthy, underlying factor that separates the NFL from the NBA is competitive balance. The NFL has it. The NBA does not.

For starters, check out the NBA standings...

As of February 6th, there were only six teams with a win percentage at or above .500 in the Eastern Conference. Meanwhile, there were eleven such teams in the Western Conference. This imbalance is typical around the NBA.

(In case you're unfamiliar with how seeding for the NBA postseason works, eight teams from each conference advance to the playoffs -- the three division winners from both the East and West, plus the five best records among non-division winners in each conference.)

This means that, as of February 6th, the Chicago Bulls -- 8th in the East at 23-25 -- have a chance to win a championship, while the Houston Rockets -- 9th in the West, the stronger of the two conferences, at 27-22 -- watch the playoffs on TV. It just doesn't seem fair.

And it's not. But let's keep it real: the Chicago Bulls do not have a legitimate shot to win a championship anyway. A team in their position (sub-.500 yet playoff bound), which we see every year in the Eastern Conference, is usually nothing more than a warm-up series for the East's top seed.



So what can be done about this East/West imbalance?

The NBA could copy the NFL's blueprint, implementing a new playoff format that features just six teams from each conference. This would limit the number of mediocre teams that advance from the East, and reward each conference's top two seeds with a first-round bye.

And it makes even more sense when one considers that no team seeded lower than No. 4 in its conference has advanced to the Finals over the last decade.

But the problem with this format is that -- instead of two, three, or four good teams from the West missing the postseason each year, which is an absurdity to begin with -- as many as five, six, or even seven quality Western Conference teams could be home for the playoffs.

Now that we can rule out that idea, how about realigning the divisions, swapping one or two teams from each conference?

Though it may seem like a logical solution, realignment is not sensible from a geographical perspective. Plus, it makes it difficult to maintain historical rivalries within each conference.

How about this novel idea: eliminating the NBA Draft lottery. Instead of giving the team with the worst record only a twenty-five percent chance of landing the top pick in the draft, how about giving them a one-hundred percent chance?

I understand why the NBA introduced the weighted draft lottery in 1990: It wanted to prevent teams from intentionally losing their remaining games. But while I'm sure that it's not always easy to prove such a thing, wouldn't a fine for teams that tank their season be as effective?

The NFL doesn't hold a draft lottery. The worst team selects first, the best team selects last. Over the years, this has helped to sustain competitive balance. And I'm not just talking about balance between conferences. I'm talking about balance from top to bottom.



From 1999 to 2008, the team with the worst record in the NFL each year -- and therefore the top pick in the subsequent draft (minus the Panthers in '02 due to the expansion Texans) -- improved its win percentage by an average of 29.4 percent. Rounded up, that's an average turnaround of five games. In the NFL, that's a huge difference.

Over that same span, the team with the worst record in the NBA improved its win percentage by an average of 15.8 percent from one season to the next. Rounded up, that's an average turnaround of only thirteen games -- not nearly as impressive as the about-face we've seen over the last decade from the NFL's worst.

As is the case with anything, eliminating the NBA draft lottery alone will not make the NBA more balanced. But considering those staggering numbers, it could help.

Whether or not the generation before me wants to admit it, the NBA is a quality product. It's as healthy as it's been in years, young people love it, and I would estimate that it's -- as far as popularity goes -- the fastest-growing sport in the world.

But until NBA officials figure out a way to make their league more balanced as a whole, it has no chance to overtake football as America's favorite sport.