Okay I haven't posted anything for a while now (I just haven't had the time lately). But here’s a Christmas greeting mixed in with some thoughts on the world of sports from this week.

First off, I know it's a little late in the game, but if anyone is looking for a last-minute gift for the sports fan you know, check out these gift ideas (I wrote the last entry, on "Poker").

Next, I just want to mention my prayers go out to Tony Dungy and his family. Really tough. Especially the timing, just before Christmas. Although, there certainly isn't ever good timing for you to lose your son. I just hope that he feels Christ's presence even stronger at this time. Dungy is a Christian and a man of superb character and known for his work and commitment with "family first" endeavours. I'm sure he'll have a great support. Football will be far from his mind for a while, but hopefully he'll be strong enough in a few weeks to lead his Colts to a SuperBowl win (I'm rooting for them.)

Now, onto some sports commentary, Team Canada announced its roster this week and there were two points of debate: the exclusion of Sidney Crosby and the inclusion of Todd Bertuzzi.

Firstly, I for one think it definitely should have included Crosby. One of the best columnists of our time, Michael Farber of Sports Illustrated, wrote that the exclusion of Crosby from the team effectively downgraded Mario Lemieux's status as one of this nation's icons to just another guy giving his two cents, since Lemieux lobbied for the Kid's inclusion and was essentially ignored. That's an interesting viewpoint, and I don't disagree.

Crosby is the future in hockey, not just in the NHL, but in Canada, and he should be representing the country right now, not four years from now. And I'm not saying he deserves a spot based on his "future". If you look at how he's played this year, I don't know how he really could have done anything more to earn a spot on the team. He doesn't have as many points as some of the other players, but he is also not on a very good team. And yet he is still the leading rookie point-getter and is the reason the Penguins won the games that they have won. I don't care who you leave off, you have to find a way to have him on the team. Or at least on the taxi squad.

Secondly, I don't have any problem with the inclusion of Bertuzzi. In fact, I have a problem with people who have a problem with the inclusion of Bertuzzi. They call him a thug and complain that he does not represent Canada well. Do they really think he's a thug?

What he did was wrong no doubt, but does that act represent the kind of person he is, and thus by extension what kind of team Canada is? I don't think so. I think he has paid his punishment for what he did, and whether or not you think it was enough of a punishment, you have to allow him a chance to move on and redeem himself.

To me there’s no doubt he should be on the team on merit. And I really think he’s a good guy who made one very bad lapse in judgment –- who is not likely to do it again, and that’s the key. I myself wouldn’t say I’m not proud to have him on my team.

Finally, for Team USA, Jeremy Roenick was not selected to be on the roster, but I think he has only himself to blame. And I’m not talking about him playing poorly this year, because perhaps you should give a veteran a spot based on some degree of loyalty and knowing the leadership he’s brought to the table in the past and is likely to do again.

But he kind of shot himself in the foot and backed the selection committee into a corner where they absolutely couldn't pick him for the team when he made comments the previous week saying they had better pick him. Now the committee couldn’t select him because it would be perceived that they’d be doing it because they have no backbone. Plus, how can they trust him to be on their team when he’s effectively putting himself above them and not respecting their authority in a sense. Roenick came out too presumptuous and it cost him.

Well, I tried to make up for a slightly long hiatus here. I hope you weren’t too bogged down. Hey it’s the Christmas holidays.

I wish you a happy one, and many blessings! And remember the reason for the season (a little corny, I know, but with things put in perspective, I had to say it.)

What has suddenly happened in the NFL? For years and years, coaches given a choice to go for the win or the tie at the end of regulation opted to take the conservative route and go for the tie.

Even Titans’ coach Jeff Fisher, after his team infamously came up one yard short of tying the Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV at the end of regulation, said that he would have kicked the extra point and played for overtime. He indicated it would be unfair for him to put all the pressure on his players for one solitary play.

Yet after the decision by Tampa Bay’s coach Jon Gruden Sunday to go for a two-point conversion once an off-side penalty put the ball on the 1-yard-line, that now makes it two weeks in a row that a coach has decided to try to pick up one yard instead of kicking the ball through the uprights for an easy tie, knowing that if they don't make it they will almost certainly lose the game. Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil started it, Gruden followed it up. And both came out victorious.

Gutsy calls. Granted the teams were half the distance to the goal than teams normally are when lining up for a conversion (so you’d figure it would be a much higher percentage bet.) But gutsy still.

Yet it makes me wonder: would the coaches still have done it if the overtime format were not sudden death? That is to say, if overtime guaranteed that each team get a possession instead putting it all at the mercy of a coin flip, would coaches be more inclined to play for overtime?

I’m thinking they would.

And if that’s the case, it provides an interesting argument for/against changing overtime.

One problem with overtime is that it can be anticlimactic. Games that head toward overtime usually have a furious finish as one team rushes to tie it up in a two-minute drill. But then the game slows right down, because the team that wins the coin-toss now has plenty of time to work with.

But having the sudden-death format seems to encourage coaches to go for the win at the end of regulation, which maintains the climactic nature of the finish. Actually, it raises the level to its highest because it's do-or-die on one play.

As for the overtime format, there has been a lot of criticism of it in the past, and it crops up in particular when games are decided on the first possession in overtime. This was the case earlier this season when the Seahawks lost to the Redskins without ever getting to touch the ball. (Note that it was against the same Redskins that Gruden made his decision not take a chance in overtime.)

The league seems to consider the issue every off-season but votes at the annual spring meetings have always fallen against changing the format. Thus it is here to stay, at least for now.

But if a change to allow both teams at least one possession in overtime is ever adopted, as a number of teams -- including the Chiefs -- have lobbied for in the past, it would be interesting to see if coaches make the same decision that Vermeil and Gruden made the last two weeks, or go the conservative route and play for an equitable overtime.

--------

Speaking of conservative calls, the Eagles lost in dramatic fashion and though the talk has been mostly about the ill-advised decision to throw the ball with a six-point lead, I think the turning point of the game actually came a little earlier in the game. It was a more subtle decision by Andy Reid that may have cost them.

Near the Cowboys goal-line with just over nine minutes left Reid, who has never been accused of taking a conservative approach to the game, made a decision which head coaches make time after time but which always makes me cringe. Facing 4th-and-goal from the 2-yard-line and up by 10 points, he sends the kicking unit in.

Now that may seem like the standard decision but in my humble opinion, it’s the wrong one. If they go for the touchdown and make it, the team goes up by 17 points making it a three-possession game with less than 10 minutes left. That pretty much puts the game away.

On the other hand, kicking the field-goal turns the game from a two-possession game into… well, still a two-possession game. And that turned out not to be enough as the Cowboys scored two touchdowns to win by one point. Had the Eagles picked up those two yards that would not have been the case.

Now suppose you take the worst-case scenario and the Eagles don’t make the two yards for a touchdown. It would still pin Dallas deep in the zone leaving them with bad field possession, which is important in a two-possession game with nine minutes left.

On the ensuing kickoff after the field goal, the Cowboys returned the ball to the 33-yard-line. So the time it would have taken to gain those 30-plus yards -- if they would have at all -- may have been enough that the Eagles wouldn’t have needed to try to complete a pass for a first-down to end the game. Instead, they may have been able to simply run the clock down to double zeroes.

Of course, hindsight is 20-20. But it’s always about risk versus reward. If Vermeil and Gruden were able to gather that the reward of going for it outweighed the risk, Reid should have been able to as well.

And let the outcomes of those games be a reminder to coaches faced with a similar situation in the future.

Well I have to say that the reports of the Philadelphia Eagles’ death have been greatly exaggerated.

After the team’s second consecutive loss to drop to .500, a lot of people are saying that the Eagles are in trouble. Sure they are at the bottom of the NFC East (something they’re certainly not familiar with having won the division the last four years.) But it’s by just one game, and they’re only two games back of the division-leading Giants, whom they haven’t even played yet.

And most importantly, they have yet to play a home game against a divisional opponent. They have four more such games, and if they were to win them –- not that farfetched –- they’d be in the driver’s seat of the division. In addition, they have a home game against the Packers and a road game against the Cardinals, both of which are almost gimmes this year.

I can’t see them finishing less than 10-6 this year, and f they do manage to sweep the Giants, the division is theirs.

Having said that, the loss of Terrell Owens hurts. Really hurts. I’m sorry, but I won’t say their better without him. Although I have supported T.O. in the past, I’m not saying I support him now. They probably did the right thing in suspending him, and really had no choice.

But I’m upset with the Eagles that they didn’t have a contingency plan. It’s not like this is coming by surprise. They knew what they were getting into when they signed him. And to not have a plan to deal with the “T.O. factor” –- which means either doing as much as possible to make sure he stays in their lineup, or to have a backup in place in case he doesn’t –- is extremely unfortunate.

They now have a gaping hole at a position at which they’ve had a gaping hole for years which is why they went after Owens -– and why I wasn’t opposed to it, even though I really disliked him and didn’t like the thought of him being on “my” team –- in the first place.

It’s worse now because of the early season losses of Todd Pinkston, Freddie Mitchell and Correll Buckhalter. As good as Brian Westbrook is, I don’t know if he’ll be enough. Yes, I still think McNabb and their defence will prove strong enough to make the playoffs. But from there, they’ll be in trouble.

They needed to shore up that WR position before the season began, or make sure that Owens stayed there lined up on the right side of the field. The Eagles failed.

But so did T.O.

I just hope it’s not too late.

So the White Sox have won the World Series. And in many ways it paralleled the Red Sox World Series win last year. Consider this:

Off-the-field comparisons:

Last year was the Red variety
This year was the White variety

Last year was Neil Diamond’s “Sweet Caroline”
This year was Journey’s “Don’t stop believin’”

Last year broke an 86-year drought
This year broke an 88-year drought

Last year broke the 84-year “Curse of the Bambino” (Babe Ruth sold to Yanks in 1920)
This year broke the 86-year “Curse of the Black Sox” (Eight White Sox throw 1919 World Series)

Last year it was for more than just the city of Boston, but the entire New England area.
This year it was for less than the entire city of Chicago, but just the south side area (the Cubs dominate the north side.)

On-the-field comparisons:

Both teams opened the playoffs with a sweep, and did so with power.
Both teams lost the opening game of the ALCS, in a close game.
Both teams won the ALCS by winning four straight, doing so with good pitching and timely home runs.
Both teams swept the World Series to make it eight straight wins.

Both teams were absolutely dominant throughout (even if there were a number of close games) essentially winning 11-straight broken up in the middle only by a short hiccup.

At the same time, both teams got a great number of breaks. In fact, both turned their losing “streak” around on a critical play in the ALCS in the bottom of the ninth inning at home of a game they looked to possibly lose. In the Red Sox game it was more dramatic, in Game 4 down by one run trailing 3-0 in the series, getting a stolen base from Dave Roberts that was ever so close. He could have easily been called out, but he was correctly called safe. Who knows what would have happened if he was called out – they probably would have lost. Next batter, Bill Mueller, drove him in, David Ortiz got the winning home run in extras, and the Sox never looked back, winning seven more in a row.

In the White Sox case, it was Game 2, A.J. Pierzynski strikes out but decides to run to first and we all know what happens. The umpire rules that the ball hit the ground and allows Pierzynski to stay at first; problem was he didn’t make the call until after the catcher Josh Paul had rolled the ball to the mound thinking it was the third out. So a controversy ensues (which I got into in my last two posts). Even though most people seem to think it was clearly caught, to my eye it was as close as the play at second base on the Roberts stolen base, only not as conclusive. It may very well have hit the ground. Anyway, that was critical because “Mr. Clutch” Joe Crede got a double and drove in Pierzynski for the winning run, and the Sox never looked back, winning seven more in a row.

On top those two plays, there were more breaks that the teams got that parallel each other.

The Red Sox got a break in the ALCS in extra innings when a ball hit by the Yankees that clearly would have scored a run bounced into the crowd, it forced the runner to stop at third on the ground-rule double. The Yankees didn’t score, and the Sox won in the bottom of the 14th.

The White Sox got a similar break in the World Series when a ball down the line caught part of the wall to keep it in shallow outfield and kept a run from scoring. The Astros didn’t score the run, and the Sox won in the top of the 14th.

It looked like the Sox may have blown a play when Bronson Arroyo tried to tag Alex Rodriguez running down the first base line and the ball ended up knocked away. But the umpires got together and properly ruled that Rodriguez intentionally slapped the ball out of the glove and was called out.

On the flip side, it looked like A.J. Pierzynski was tagged out by an Angels’ pitcher running down the first base line and that’s what the umpire called, even though the pitcher had the ball in his other hand and the glove he tagged with was empty. But the umpires got together and properly ruled that the ball was not in the glove he tagged him with and he was called safe.

I can’t think of any other similar controversial calls or non-calls - like the Jermaine Dye hit by pitch or catcher’s interference on Steve Finley - in the Red Sox case, but suffice it to say both teams got a fair share of breaks, but more importantly capitalized on them with home runs and even grand slams.

And of course, in both cases, their World Series wins brought tremendous joy to legions of long-suffering fans in the entire New England area last year, and the south side of Chicago this year.

Back to instant replay. There have been three major controversial plays since that one:

1. The missed catcher’s interference on Steve Finley double-play grounder.
2. The tag on A.J. without the ball in his hand.
3. The hit-by-pitch on Dye where it appeared to only hit his bat.

If they had employed instant replay on these, the results would have been:

1. Overturn. Finley awarded first, and the Angels have first and second with one out instead of inning over.
2. Upheld.
3. Hmmm. Well, it definitely hit the bat. And it seems pretty clear that it didn’t hit any part of Dye. But are we sure? How long would it take the umpire to be sure. He would have to spend a great deal of time to be absolutely certain. I’m not sure he could overturn it. It’s not enough to see that the ball hit the bat. Because if it hit any part of him – even just his sleeve – before hitting the bat, that’s still an HBP. It’s not like instant replay in other sports, where most of the time you’re looking for something positive, ie did such-and-such occur. In this case, you’re looking for something negative, ie, am I sure it didn’t hit him? And that’s much harder to be certain of.

So, what do we have. One sure overturn, one sure status quo, and one probably overturn, but maybe not. And we’ve wasted a heck of a lot of time to obtain this.

And suppose we do implement this. When is it employed? Only on controversial plays? If not, it would be used way too often, without any overturns. Do we give managers challenges, like in the NFL? Well, then what happens if a manager’s challenge is wrong? We can’t penalize the manager a timeout like in the NFL. So do we limit the manager one per game? But then what happens if there are more than one missed cal per game?

And even if we are able to cover all of these controversial plays, they account for less than one per game! And that still leaves the part of the game that’s much more subjective and has a much greater impact on the outcome of a game, which is the calls of balls and strikes. And there’s no way you can institute instant replay for that. You might as well forget about baseball as a watchable sport if you do that.

There’s one more key thing to mention regarding the whole issue. And that’s that none of the controversial plays have directly resulted in a run, or the negation of a run.

In the Eddings play, the Angels still had a chance to get the Sox out and they didn’t. Yes, it’s unfair to have to get four outs as it were, but who’s to say they wouldn’t have lost the game in the tenth inning anyway.

In the catcher’s interference play, even with a replay overturn, the score doesn’t change and maybe the next runner grounds into a double-play anyway.

And on the hit-by-pitch, even with a replay overturn, maybe the next pitch is a ball, and we end up in the same situation as played out.

So, the integrity of the situation may not have been altered at all. The point is, the team still had a chance to get out of the situation without any damage done.

So, any talk of these calls tainting the wins by the Sox is not only unreasonable, but unfair to the Sox players themselves, because it’s not their fault – the possible acting jobs by A.J. and Dye notwithstanding.

But compare these plays to some of the major missed calls in the past. The Jeffrey Maier fan interference, where the umpire called it a home run, that literally gave the Yankees a run that they shouldn’t have had. Yes, you can argue that on the next pitch, he may have hit a home run, anyway, but the difference is, there’s nothing the other team can do now to stop the run from being scored. The run’s already on the board.

So, if ever there would be instant replay, I could maybe accept it only on plays in which it directly results in a run being scored or taken away. So, on a home run ball where it’s uncertain if it stayed fair or foul, or whether it cleared the fence or stayed in play or there was fan interference. This is a situation in which it would be reasonable. And it also wouldn’t slow down the game, since the runner is rounding the bases in anyway, and the next batter is coming up, (and the manager is possibly coming out to argue.) These are also cases where the umpire’s subjectivity doesn’t come into play. It either cleared the pole or not, or cleared the fence or not, and should be definitively discernible upon replay.

Plays at the plate, where it may be disputable whether the tag occurred are, much more subject to the umpire’s subjectivity – as with balls and strikes – and should remain that way for practicality and purposes and to maintain the nature of the game.

Here’s the problem with instant replay in baseball. It won’t make the difference that everyone thinks it will.

Take the Doug Eddings call. The problem wasn’t that he got the call wrong – if indeed he got it wrong. The problem was that he didn’t make a call at all.

See had he said it was a caught ball – inning over. If he said that it was not a caught ball, then Josh Paul tags A.J. – inning over. But he intimated as if it were a caught ball, then said, “No, I didn’t make a call.”

Now, if instant replay were involved, what would happen? Well, it wasn’t 100% conclusive, so the play on the field would have to stand. Which means A.J. would have to stay on first. So it’s not instant replay that would solve the problems. It’s having umpires who do their job.

There’s nothing wrong with umpires who make mistakes. They’re human too. But the problem I have with Eddings was that he couldn’t answer questions about the mistake. If he had said, “It was a mistake, I blew it.” I could accept that. If he had said, “It was not a caught ball in my opinion, and Josh Paul should have made sure I was calling the runner out,” I could accept that too. But to respond with, “Well, I don’t know how you can be sure it was a caught ball,” and “I was waiting to see what Josh Paul was going to do,” that’s unacceptable! He has to take charge. That’s his job. He has to be clear.

And for the league to back him up with, “Well, the umpire is not required to make a definitive out call,” is unacceptable too. There’s no way Eddings should have been back umpiring in the next game. Not because it was in Anaheim, not because he made a mistake, but because he couldn’t properly explain his actions. The league dropped the ball on this one, no pun intended.

Last week, I saw an advance showing of “The Greatest Game Ever Played”. It’s the latest golf movie to hit the big screen, this one about Francis Ouimet winning the 1913 U.S. Open championship.

It’s a Disney movie, so it has the typical feel-good, family-friendly themes and underdog overcoming obstacles including class prejudice of the day type stuff.

But it is also directed by Bill Paxton, so certain parts have a somewhat tormenting style to it. If you’ve seen Frailty, the first movie he directed you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Okay so it’s definitely not as dark as Frailty (it’s hard to be as dark as that movie actually – though I still recommend it because it was very interesting... think “demons”.)

But back to “The Greatest Game”, it was surprisingly good. Very compelling story, good history, great action – sports action, that is.

Paxton jumped around with a bunch of different styles, which made it a little odd. But still entertaining.

I actually wrote a review of it for Sportsnet. Check it out!

That’s it for today.

So the New York Yankees have just clinched the AL East title, for the eighth straight season, over my Boston Red Sox. But what's stupid about it is there is still one game left between them, and if Boston wins tomorrow they'd finish with the exact same record.

So why have the Yankees clinched already? Because the Cleveland Indians lost. Huh?

It boils down to what happens if two teams finish tied for the division title. One possibility is to have a one-game playoff. Another is to just look at head-to-head records.

MLB came up with the brilliant idea that head-to-head records would only be used to decide the division if both teams have already clinched the playoffs. What that means is if the loser of the tiebreaker automatically becomes the wildcard qualifier, then they use the head-to-head record as the tiebreaker. This seems to have the purpose of not allowing the head-to-head determine who makes the playoffs and who does not.

But what it really does in this case is penalize the Boston Red Sox because the Cleveland Indians, who will finish second in the AL Central, didn't win their game. Had Cleveland won, then they'd still have a chance to finish with the same record as both Boston and New York. In that case, there would be a three-way tie, and Boston and New York would have to face a tiebreaker to determine who wins the division, and the loser of the tiebreaker would then have to face Cleveland to determine who wins the wildcard.

MLB decided that it would be unfair in this case to simply use head-to-head to determine the winner between Boston and New York and would force them to play a one-game playoff. In this case, it would be possible for Boston to 1) beat New York and win the AL East, or 2) lose to New York, but beat Cleveland and win the wildcard, or 3) lose to New York, lose to Cleveland and miss the playoffs entirely.

But now that there cannot be a three-way tie, they lose the first option, which doesn't make sense. New York cannot miss the playoffs at this point, but they should still have to earn the division title, irrespective of Cleveland. If MLB felt that a one-game playoff was necessary to determine who wins the division and who must face another team for the wildcard spot, then a one-game playoff should be just as necessary to determine who wins the the division.

Otherwise, MLB's message is this: "if both teams are going to make the playoffs, who cares which team is the division winner and which is the wildcard?" I don't think that's the message they want to send. And if they think the head-to-head record is reasonable enough, then make that the tiebreaker across the board. You can't have it both ways.

I promised a second note last week and forgot. Well here it is, dreadfully late.

An interesting thing happened in the Cleveland-Green Bay game. The Browns were up by 2 points with just over two minutes left and the Packers having no timeouts left. One more first down and the game is over because they’ll be able to kneel down three times and run out the final two minutes.

Trent Dilfer throws a pass complete to Heiden who then breaks free for a first down and keeps running. All he needs to do is get tackled or run out of bounds and the game is over, because kneel-downs are academic. But he did what I see so often, which is keep running all the way to the endzone for a touchdown. Sure that pretty much puts it away, going up by 9 with so little time left. But it actually gives Green Bay a chance because they’ll get the ball back, and you never know what might happen.

Even the commentator said what I hear so often in that situation. “Well, that pretty much cements the win.” Uh, no, had he knelt down or run out of bounds at the 1 yard line, that would have cemented the win. But no players ever do that. Of course not, they want the TD. But it actually gives the other team a pulse, not the opposite.

In fact in this case, Green Bay almost did it. They scored a touchdown with 4 seconds left, and if they had recovered the onside kick and then a hail mary, they could have won. It’s farfetched, but it can happen. One of these days, it will.

I've been getting behind on my posts, and this by no means gets me back on track. But I'm going to do my best to get there... soon... really...

I have a few thoughts on this weekend’s NFL action. I’ll start with one of my favourite QBs, Kurt Warner and how he and his new team blew his chance to exact “revenge” against the team that unceremoniously dismissed him after having led them to two Super Bowls. (I’m not saying they made a mistake… okay, I am, but that’s a topic for another post.)

But there’s two things I don’t understand about how the game ended. With 27 seconds left and no timeouts, the Cardinals are at the Rams’ 5 yard line on first down trailing by 5 points. For some reason Warner takes the snap from under centre instead of from the shotgun. The Rams come with the blitz and get Warner down before he’s even able to drop back two steps. That was a bad play call, IMHO, but I don’t know if it was Warner or the coach or the co-ordinators.

But then, as the time is ticking off, instead of lining up and spiking the ball to stop the clock, giving them two more downs and enough time for two more shots to the end zone, Warner tries to call another play on the fly. Only 7 seconds remain when the ball is snapped, but there was a false start (which I didn’t see myself, but that’s another beef), which because it was an offensive penalty by a team with no timeouts under two minutes, signifies the end of the game. Why oh why didn’t they spike the ball? Again, I don’t know if it was Warner who screwed up or if the coaches were telling him to go ahead with a play to try to catch the defence disorganized. Evidently, they caught themselves disorganized and it cost them the game.

Yet it also brought up another point, which is why that rule exists. Namely, if an offensive team commits a foul in the last two minutes of the game, then there is a 10 second run-off of time on the clock. The exception is that if the team has a timeout left, they have the option of using it to avoid the run-off. Presumably, this is to stop teams who are out of timeouts late in the game from getting a “cheap” timeout, by intentionally committing a false start and thus exchanging a loss of 5 yards for some extra time to prepare for the next play. Okay, I’ll buy that, but I think there should be another exception. A team should be able to take a loss of down instead of the time run-off. It’s the same concept. If the team “could have” taken a timeout, then they just as easily “could have” spiked the ball.

In this case, instead of the game just ending because of a questionable false start, the team should be penalized 5 yards as usual, but also lose a down in lieu of the time run-off, as if the team had immediately lined up again 5 yards back and spiked the ball. That way they don’t gain an advantage as if they had had a timeout, but there not so severely punished for a simple penalty. The game shouldn’t have ended the way it did.

My thoughts on another game will come later this week…

The NFL just completed the first week of its 2005 regular season. My question is why?

Four years ago, the NFL has just completed its first week of the season and was getting prepared for week two. Then on Tuesday, September 11th, something big happened. I don’t really need to explain what happened on that day, but I should remind people that within a few days the NFL made an announcement that it will not be playing football in the upcoming weekend.

It seemed like the absolutely right think to do back then, and it’s hard to think otherwise now. But in light of what’s happened in New Orleans, let’s consider making a comparison.

Two towers are knocked down and almost 3,000 people killed and the NFL cancels its second week of the season.

Meanwhile, four years later, an entire city is washed away and a possible 10,000 could end up being the death toll, yet nobody has even hinted at the NFL doing the same thing it did four years ago. Why not?

I’m not saying it should have. In fact, I didn’t even consider it myself. But why not, I wonder? Is it because what happened this year took place in poor parts of the southern U.S., while four years ago was in New York City? If anyone is thinking that racism is at play in this situation, you might look at this. But I don’t think so – at least I hope not.

Is it because what happened back then was more personal – a terrorist attack vs. a natural disaster – or that people were in fear and couldn’t concentrate on football? Perhaps, but for those who have had loved ones die I doubt they care how it came about – they’re in mourning either way. And the fear didn’t subside in one week.

I think what it really is was that 9/11 came so suddenly, and for the most part people died instantly, that mourning could take place right away. Whereas this year, it was and has been an ongoing disaster, and it’s not clear when mourning can begin. People died gradually and continue to. If the NFL were to cancel the first week of games, there would be no reason why not to cancel the second, or third, or etc.

So the NFL went on in Week 1, and as luck would have it (and I use the word ‘luck’ loosely here), the New Orleans Saints happened to be on the road for Week 1. And as luck would have it (and I use the word ‘luck’ very loosely here), the Saints pulled off an improbably and inspirational win.

When asked what this meant for the citizens of New Orleans, Ernie Conwell, the team spokesman and Christian incidentally, said he was proud that the team was able to bring a little bit of joy in the midst of such grief. Although I doubt it brought that much joy to people who have lost family members and/or homes, I would say it is certainly better than had they not played at all.

I have to say something about what’s happened in New Orleans. I’ll try to tie it into sports, but only as an afterthought.

My first thought is this: how can you have a city in which you know that if a levee breaks, it’s going to be flooded, and not be better prepared for it? I just don’t get it. Okay, maybe you think it’s unlikely. But why have that gamble? If you think about it, it’s not even really accurate to say that Hurricane Katrina caused the major damage. Yes it was the hurricane that broke the levee. But it was the flooding that caused the damage, which could have happened if there were a terrorist strike on the levee, or a plane crashing into it, or an asteroid hitting it – yes, a little farfetched, but the point is, the potential for such a flood has always been there even in ways for which you’d have no preparation at all!

Should the federal response have been better? Maybe, but is the president supposed to know every potential emergency management situation for each and every city in the entire United States? Isn’t that up to the city itself, and to a lesser degree, the state in which the city belongs? It’s unfathomable that they weren’t better prepared.

And now the New Orleans Saints are possibly going to be playing their home games in San Antonio, Texas, which means it will be like a free test run, because the owner Tom Benson has been considering moving the team there. Is it right to exploit this situation for that purpose? I think not. It certainly seems like it would be a good opportunity to try out that market, or for the NFL to bring a team to LA again and give that a go. But I don’t think we should be looking for any “good opportunities” here, apart from “opportunities” to learn from the tragic events and not make the same mistakes again.

Yes, of course the Saints should play this season. But keep them in the state of Louisiana, like LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge. It certainly won’t be any solace for those who have lost loved ones. But it won’t feel like one of the city’s staples, the Saints, are running away too.

I finally saw “Million Dollar Baby.” As far as Clint Eastwood movies go, it was pretty good. I don’t know what the fascination is with Clint Eastwood as a director though. Why does Hollywood love him so much? His movies can be so long and drawn out at times.

Take for example “Unforgiven”. He won an Oscar for directing for that too, but what was the message supposed to be? You’re going along in this movie thinking there’s going to be some kind of redemption, and in the end he just kills everyone, even innocent people.

And there always seems to be a scene or two that just seem out of place. In “Space Cowboys,” when Tommy Lee Jones is sent up into nowhere. Or in “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” with the guy who carries around a bottle with bugs in it everywhere he goes. What was the point of that? In filmmaking, every scene needs to contribute to the overall theme or plot of the movie. Maybe in his mind it did, but I just don’t see it. But I’m not a filmmaker. I’m just someone whose studied it.

Anyway, “Million Dollar Baby” seemed to be pretty well on point, although it did have some drawn out moments. The third act took a little longer than it should have I think, and I’m not really sure exactly what I would call the climax. Nor am I sure what to think of how it ends – or rather, what Eastwood was trying to say, if anything. But it was interesting.

No huge points this time, just some thoughts.

As the season premieres of the three Law & Order (L&O) series are now just a month away – and there’s been word that NBC may review its decision to cancel L&O: Trial By Jury (TBJ) and bring it back – I’m going to take this time to elaborate on why I think TBJ was worth keeping.

Yes, it seemed to be getting to the point where there were too many spinoffs (although, I myself can’t get enough of Dick Wolf’s quality shows, which also included LA Dragnet until that was canceled a couple of years ago).

Does anyone remember the Simpsons’ take on the issue? (Law & Order: Elevator Inspectors Unit: “This elevator seems to be missing a “3rd Floor” Button.” “I think I’m going to be sick.”) Very funny, but I digress.

I must admit that TBJ didn’t have the same bite that the other L&O series had. And in some episodes, you could hardly see what differentiated it from the original series.

However, it did have something that you never see on any of the other series. Namely, interaction between the defendant and his attorney alone as they prepare their case.

Yes in the first three series, you might see scenes involving just the suspect, or you might see the defendant interacting with his/her attorney, but it would also have McCoy or Cabot or Carver, or some ADA present.

You would never see the defendant and council strategizing how to beat the charge whether innocent or guilty. This was unique and it had the potential to be very interesting. Some episodes were. Some were not so much. Yet, either way, it was definitely worth giving it more of a go. I mean, not every single episode of the other series were excellent – though most were more likely than not, which is what makes the whole L&O franchise so good.

But I think what really killed TBJ was the way the opening words diverged from the original series. Check it out.

The original series’ narration went:

“In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.”

Special Victims Unit (SVU) had a slight twist:

“In the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous. In New York City, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Victims Unit. These are their stories.”

So both start with “In the criminal justice system…” and end with “These are their stories.”

Criminal Intent (CI) dropped the opening, but it kept the trademark ending:

“In New York City's war on crime, the worst criminal offenders are pursued by the detectives of the Major Case Squad. These are their stories.”

But Trial By Jury went in a completely different direction:

“In the criminal justice system, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, either by confession, plea bargain, or trial by jury. This is one of those trials.”

Apart from the fact that this is the only one that doesn’t end with the trademark line, there are a couple of other distinct differences.

In this narration, it is being specific about the singular event you are about to watch (“This is…” instead of “These are…”) which is more restrictive. And it’s also incorrect, because the episodes of TBJ don’t just show the trial but the events leading up to the trial and the preparation for it.

Secondly, the other openings refer to the people (the detectives, lawyers, etc) involved and their stories, whereas TBJ does not. This makes it impersonal and not promote a connection with the characters as you follow along in their missions.

Did this actually play a role in its lack of popularity or success, if even only on a subconscious level? Maybe, maybe not. But we may never know

If it were up to me, the TBJ opening would have been the following:

“In the criminal justice system, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. In the absence of a confession or plea bargain, the attorneys for the defense and the prosecution prepare their cases for a trial by jury. These are their stories.”

And while I’m at it, I would suggest that CI change its opening to:

“In the criminal justice system, the worst offenders are those considered to have acted with the greatest criminal intent. In New York City, such offenders are pursued by the detectives of the Major Case Squad. These are their stories.”

This would maintain the consistency among the series in two ways: 1) By keeping the same opening, and 2) by having the words of the L&O subtitle “Criminal Intent” in it, just as “Special Victims Unit” was.

One thing I forgot to add regarding my last post (August 16) about rotating the courses that have hosted the PGA Championship. There was a reason I chose the courses that I did for the five year rotation. I looked at some of the courses that had hosted the PGA Championship recently and then I looked at the history of the championship. I came up with five courses that had the following:

1. Hosted the PGA Championship once since 1991
2. Hosted the PGA Championship twice since 1981
3. Hosted the U.S. Open less than 4 times in history
4. NOT hosted the U.S. Open since 1991

I felt that these criteria suggested that the course is – or is becoming – more of a PGA-preferred course than a USGA-preferred course. The five courses with those characteristics were:

Hazeltine National Golf Club, Minnesota
Whistling Straits Golf Club, Wisconsin
Atlanta Athletic Club, Georgia
Valhalla Golf Club, Kentucky
Medinah Country Club, Illinois

You’ll notice that Valhalla is the odd one out from my five-year rotation proposal. I would have included it, but Kiawah has already been confirmed for that year.

After hosting the PGA championship in 1996 and 2000, Valhalla has not been considered for any PGA championship between then and 2013. Which may mean it’s fallen out of favor with the PGA of America, while Kiawah certainly hasn’t. So, swap the Ocean Course at Kiawah for Valhalla and you’ll get this rotation, starting in 2009:

Hazeltine National Golf Club, Minnesota
Whistling Straits Golf Club, Wisconsin
Atlanta Athletic Club, Georgia
Kiawah Golf Club, South Carolina
Medinah Country Club, Illinois

--

Oh, and one more thing… if you check my June 26 post, you'll see that I in fact correctly predicted that Phil Mickelson would win the PGA Championship more than a month in advance. He was my preseason pick, which makes me 2 for 4 in my picks for the majors this year, including Tiger for the Masters.

It's actually the second year in a row that I've gone 2 for 4 in my preseason picks for winners of the majors. (Last year, I correctly picked Mickelson to win the Masters and Todd Hamilton to win the British Open... seriously!)

Actually, considering that my pick for the British Open this year, Padraig Harrington, didn't even play in it because his father died the week before, I actually did even better this year: I went 2 for 3 in picks in which the player was actually in the field. (I think it's unfair to penalize me when something tragic like that happens.) If Harrington had played, maybe he would have beaten Tiger! You never know.

Tune in next April for my 2006 major picks!!!

Now that Phil Mickelson has won his second major, the PGA championship he dramatically picked up yesterday, people can stop calling the best player only ever to have won ONE major!

But watching the PGA Championship, the last of the four majors, after watching the first three got me to thinking. It doesn’t really have the same identity as the others. It’s always been considered the lesser of the four. Why? The Masters is the only one played on the same course every year. The U.S. Open and the British Open are the two “open” championships played in America and the UK, respectively, and the former is the national championship, the latter is at the home of golf.

The PGA, like the Masters, is by invitation/qualification, and like the U.S. Open, is played on many different courses. So it doesn’t have any uniqueness to itself.

But it can. Why not change it so it’s truly not “open” even with respect to the golf courses that can host it. I’m not suggesting that it be contested in the same place each year (that’s reserved for the Masters). But what about putting in something like a five-course rotation, and calling those the “PGA Championship Courses.”

They’ve already set up something conducive to this already. Whistling Straits has been confirmed to host both the 2010 and 2015, and the other courses confirmed are Hazeltine in 2009, Atlanta in 2011, joining Whistling Straits in a three-year period of courses that previously hosted the PGA ten years earlier or less. Kiawah has been confirmed for 2012, and if they were to add Medinah in 2013, which hosted in 1999 and will again next year, and Hazeltine again in 2014, you’d have a solid rotation of five courses who have clearly become PGA championship favorites.

The rotation, starting in 2009, would look like this:

2009 - Hazeltine * (7)
2010 - Whistling Straits * (6)
2011 - Atlanta * (10)
2012 - Kiawah *
2013 - Medinah (7)
2014 - Hazeltine (5)
2015 - Whistling Straits * (5)
2016 - Atlanta (5)
2017 - Kiawah (5)
2018 - Medinah

* indicates the course has already been confirmed to host, and the number in brackets indicates how many years previously the course hosted the PGA championship

If those five courses would agree to it, they would become "PGA Championship Courses", while becoming ineligible to host the US Open. This would be a good trade-off, certainly for Whistling Straits which has never hosted the US Open anyway, and for Atlanta which hasn't since 1976. Medinah and Hazeltine each hosted the US Open once in the early 90's and only other time, in the 70's. Come 2009, they will have each hosted the PGA Championship twice, seven-years apart respectively. That's a much better deal. On the other hand, the courses that would no longer have a chance to host the PGA would probably prefer to host the US Open anyway.

Doing this would give the PGA Championship an identity of its own, as opposed to being the "other" major championship that any US golf course can host. It would be the only major that follows a strict rotation of courses, each whose major championship history will be rooted in the PGA not the US Open. No more Baltusrol, Southern Hills or Oakland Hills, which are more known for the US Opens contested there anyway.

The PGA Championship would be the "Mid-America" Major, and the courses governed by the PGA of America, not the USGA. I think this would add unique prestige to both the championship and the courses.

Wow. Kenny Rogers has been reinstated after serving only 13 games of a suspension for his unprovoked assault on a cameraman. Meanwhile, people are complaining that Todd Bertuzzi, who was also reinstated this week, got off too lightly!!!

Of all the bumbling things that Bud Selig has done, giving Rogers a 20-game suspension was actually a good one (if anything it was too few games). But I think it was just about right. And then some arbitrator comes along and says Selig went too far!?!

I’m actually of the camp that what Rogers did was far worse than what Bertuzzi did when he knocked out Steve Moore on the ice. Two big reasons:

1) What Bertuzzi did was during the course of actual play. Yes, he went over the line. But in the atmosphere of the league where violence is essentially promoted, people clutch, grab, check and punch, it’s hard to tell a guy if he goes slightly over the line, he’s going to be severely punished. What Rogers did was completely unprovoked; it was not even in the middle of game. It was during practice and Rogers had no reason to be in an aggressive state.

2) Bertuzzi laid a hit on another player, who should have been expecting it. Was it right? No. Was Moore asking for it? Not to the point that he deserved it. But if Moore had gotten up fine, and there was no subsequent pile-up, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. It would have been just another case of “ice justice” which though not explicitly endorsed by the NHL, is certainly promoted implicitly. On the other hand, Rogers attacked a cameraman! This was not another player with whom he was in the midst of competitive battle. It was a third party just doing his own job, who had no expectation of contact whatsoever. That makes it just like him attacking someone on the street, and that can reasonably be considered assault.

To me, the “damage” done to the victim isn’t as telling as is the act itself. Bertuzzi’s act was only slightly worse than what goes on in the rink on a daily basis. Rogers act was despicable, and 13 games is hardly enough.

There was an episode of the Practice that dealt with the Bertuzzi incident a couple of years ago. It had some great points. Maybe later I’ll note them.

Okay, this one may ruffle some feathers. But most likely Eagles feathers. I have to say that I’ve got some respect for Philadelphia’s Terrell Owens. I didn’t used to. I didn’t like a lot of his antics in San Francisco. And the only reason I was okay with him coming to the Eagles (my Philadephia Eagles) was because I knew the team desperately needed a number one wide receiver.

I know that it seems that he’s been up to his old tricks, especially with him saying for months now that he’s not happy with his current contract, and wants to renegotiate his deal after only one year. Yet, after all the talk from the media about whether or not he’ll show up or sit out a year, he said all along that he’ll report to camp and he’ll play. And he’s remained true to his word. Not the same can be said for most players who say they’re unhappy with their contract.

Sure, he still says that he’s not happy. And perhaps he really had no choice. Maybe he should stop sulking.

But put yourself in his shoes. Not as a professional football player making millions of dollars and wanting more. But as a professional employee of any company, making a salary that you believe is under what you deserve. Are you going to be unhappy? You bet you are! Are you going to be professional and show up for work? Probably, but that doesn’t mean you can’t still desire for a re-negotiation.

Well, Terrell Owens believes his salary is less than what he deserves. Whether you think professional athletes are overpaid is besides the point. Would you rather the money go in the owners’ pockets? This is a capitalist society. Every person has the right to seek as much money as they can for their services. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it. But if they do, it’s up to them what they do with it. They can give it to charity or church or their family or whatever noble or not-so-noble cause. But in those shoes, we’d all want to do the same, if we feel we deserve it.

Does Terrell Owens deserve it? Maybe. His first year as an Eagle was everything the team hoped for and perhaps more. Now there’s no way I think that they should re-negotiate with him after just ONE year. It’s too early to tell if that was just a good first year and the injury is behind him, or if this is what they can expect from him for the remainder of his contract.

However, if he has another season like that in his second year, or even better, I don’t see any reason why he can’t say to the Eagles’ office, ‘Look I just gave you two great years. Let’s renegotiate.’ And I don’t see any reason why the team shouldn’t at that point be open to it.

Saw "The Island". I read a headline about this move that called it "this year's I, Robot". That's actually a pretty good analogy. Although a very different premise, it had a similar plotline and similar thematic elements. But "The Island" was much deeper on a human level (naturally).

It had some very interesting God-related quotes. Steve Buscemi's character explained to Ewan McGregor's "innocent" character who God is as so: "You know when you close your eyes and really wish for something. God's the guy that ignores you!" (I don't agree with this assessment - at least not all the time - but it was funny, and very pointed on how certain people relate to God these days.) And after a spectacular scene in which our heroes by all accounts should have been killed but somehow survive, an onlooker says to them: "Jesus must love you! I know Jesus loves you!"

But the entire nature of the story makes you think about the nature of one's "soul". Why? Well, if you haven't seen the movie, and you don't want it ruined, don't read on.

But for those who have seen it or know the "twist", Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson are actually clones of real people, and the real people in the movie somehow think that they deserve to live more than their clones, even though their clones are just as human. What makes them less deserving to live? The only thing I could think of would be if "clones" don't have a soul. It can't be anything else, or otherwise, why would it really matter? Which draws the conclusion that if not for our soul, nothing matters. Which brings us back to God.

The funny thing is, we root for the "clones" to overcome the "real people", but that's because we want them to live. Yet, in most cases, the clones living will lead to their counterparts dying. So, how is that better?

Well, it's better because nobody is being killed. A "real person" may live or may die if they don't get a "clone", but it's in God's hands. However, if they create a clone with the intention of killing it in order for them to live, they still might not live, yet they are guaranteeing that someone gets killed.

I'm not going to get into the whole "clone" debate, but I will say that if we do manage to clone humans, that does not make us bigger than God or even equal with God. We praise the God that was able to create life that in turn is able to create life. And that life has the "soul" that God has instilled in us, and that's what matters.

So, yeah, interesting movie...

Starting this week, and for the month of August, FOX will be re-airing 4 consecutive episodes of "Arrested Development", Season Two, every Friday night at 8 pm. So, I will take the opportunity to encourage anyone who hasn't already "gotten arrested" to check it out. (While you're at it, check out www.getarrested.com!)

In addition, as promised three weeks ago, I will explain what makes "Arrested Development" so good. It's simple... it's the new Seinfeld.

Check out all these ways in which the two shows are so similar:

1. Seinfeld took a while to really catch on. For the first three seasons, its schedule kept changing, it was close to being canceled, and it didn't get a full slate of episodes. Same thing for Arrested Development. Perhaps, just like Seinfeld it can finally get through initially tough times and last a long time.
2. Jason Bateman is the new Jerry Seinfeld. Although not all scenes involve him, the show does centre around the main character him. He is the sane character amongst a cast of "misfits". He is always the voice of reason. Yet he himself isn't always reasonable. He has his quirks too.
3. The dialogue is superb, especially Jason's character Michael Bluth. Remember Jerry's dismissive, off-the-cuff remarks like "That's a shame." Michael has his own such remarks that are delivered just as sarcastically: "Yeah, that makes sense."
4. There are always at least two (and sometimes three or four) different plots involving different characters, but they always intersect by the end of the episode. That's classic Seinfeld.
5. It’s a show for which you can watch an episode one day and then immediately watch it again that same day, and it’s just as funny and entertaining, because you can pick up things you didn't catch the first time. (In fact, if you have watched the show, check out www.fox.com/arresteddev/ and click on "In case you missed it")
6. Certain phrases used in one episode become a catch phrase later in the episode or in subsequent episodes, sometimes with an entirely different context. For example, "I've made a huge mistake." That often happened on Seinfeld too.
7. All the actors cast for significant parts - who were fairly often well-known but not always - do the job well. They don't just cast extras. This is something that always separated Seinfeld from the average sitcom.

Overall, the two shows were the most brilliantly-written comedies of their generations. Hopefully that should be enough to keep Arrested on the air for years to come.

With the news of the NHL coming back comes the news of the rules change and one of them sticks out like a sore thumb: Shootouts. Similar to my thoughts on the MLB All-Star game deciding home field advantage in the World Series, having shootouts to decide the outcome of games tied after overtime is a very exciting thing to watch, but terrible in principle.

Yes, nobody likes ties (as was so eloquently put on a Simpsons episode, "Tie, what the hell!?") But what's really wrong with them? A hockey game cannot go on indefinitely, and it rewards both teams for playing hard. It would be ideal to reward a team that can prevail, but note the emphasis on "team." Once you put in 3 guys per team to just take penalty shots, you're taking the "team" out of it, and putting the focus on individual players. Why? Because you're rewarding the team that has the faster puck-handling shooter or the better goalie.

Am I going to boycott "shootouts"? No, because it's not as drastic as with the MLB (where they don't reward the better "team", but the "team" whose league happened to have the "individuals" that played better on one particular day - now, if that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is.) But I am disappointed that they caved into popular demand, for the quick thrill. Whenever a big Olympic or World Cup game is decided by shootouts (and that goes for hockey and soccer) people seem to complain that it's not right. But now they want to make it happen day in and day out? I don't like it.

Keep the ties. It wasn't that big a deal.

Well, I was right about Tiger. He's now made it 5-for-5 in winning the major that Nicklaus said would be his last. Yes, 5 not 4 since Nicklaus previously said the Open Championship in 2000 would be his last, but changed his mind this year when the rotation was switched so this year's Open would be at St. Andrews. Tiger won in 2000, and again here in 2005. He'll have to thank Nicklaus and the R&A for switching the rotation because otherwise he might not have won. But St. Andrews is the course best suited to Tiger's game.

Another thing I was right about is the NHL lockout. They've finally got a deal, but it's pretty much what the players could have gotten a year ago. The players effectively threw away a year. I'm not saying that the owners' position was right. But they could afford to sit out. In fact, they couldn't afford not to. They were losing money and were not prepared to make a deal that wouldn't rectify. They weren't going to blink first. The players should have seen that, and (reluctantly) made a deal when they could to save the season. Alas.

But I understand their position too, so I'm not going to boycott the NHL or anything. If they make changes that will make the game more interesting, I'll check it out. But before the lockout, hockey was boring to the point where I didn't watch it anymore. We'll see if things change.

Turning back to golf, the Open Championship (known as the British Open in North America) started this morning, and already my preseason pick is out of it. Actually, my pick, Padraig Harrington, was literally out of it before the tournament started, as he withdrew due to his father passing away from cancer this week. My heart goes out to him. And I'm glad I'm not a betting man.

But if I were, I would consider putting some money on a longshot. Because the Open Championship seems to generate the most longshots (or even flukes) of any of the majors. Looking at the last 6 winners, half of them were real surprises. Paul Lawrie (1999), came out of nowhere after Jean Van De Velde (who would have been a longshot winner himself) blew the lead. Ben Curtis (2003), was the biggest longshot ever to win a major, and Todd Hamilton (2004) was a pretty big surprise too (although I actually picked him to win it... really, I did, just after he won his first PGA event earlier in the year - I felt a longshot was going to win that British Open and I went with him because I was impressed with the way he played and his experience worldwide. If only I was a betting man then!)

The reason I think that the British Open generates so many surprise winners (moreso than the Masters and U.S. Open) is because the courses tend to allow for too many tough bounces - even on good shots - that really penalize the players. This can level the playing field and allow for more flukes. This was certainly the case with Ben Curtis. He played well, no doubt. But one of Tiger Woods, Davis Love, Vijay Singh or Thomas Bjorn should have been able to overtake him. But they just got tough breaks, while Curtis didn't really. The R&A doesn't do much to deal with this, and this is why the Masters always produces a top-notch player, no flukes - because Augusta National sets up their course beautifully. You're punished for making a bad shot, but rewarded for good shot. At the Open, it's more of a crapshoot. A good shot can end up bad and a bad shot can end up okay.

If there's ever an exception, it's the Old Course at St. Andrews, which is where they're playing this year. It's no coincidence that this is the only course on which Tiger has won the Open Championship. And after his first round this year, he's already got the lead. He may win (and in fact I picked him to win after Padraig withdrew). It will just be interesting to see if I surprise player does come along on Sunday, and if Tiger will ever win an Open on a course other than St. Andrews.

Well, it's the All-Star break for the MLB season, so now's a good time to make a post about a couple of things that could be categorized as "Bud Blunders". I'm talking about Bud Selig of course, and I will start with the All-Star game itself.

A couple of years ago, Bud Selig and the league were trying to come up with a way to make the All-Star game more appealing to fans and viewers. (This was the year after Selig made the unexplicable decision to call the All-Star game in the 11th inning a tie.) Fans were not happy, so I guess they felt they had to do something drastic.

Their idea - as FOX makes very clear with its tagline "This time it counts" - was to make the league that wins the game have homefield advantage in the World Series. At the time, SI.com called for readers' responses to this idea. They printed mine (online) on July 14, 2003:

"It's seemingly a great idea for making the All-Star Game more interesting, but an absolutely horrendous way of deciding home-field advantage in the World Series. I don't like the old system of alternating, but at least you know that if you've got the best record in the majors and make the World Series for two straight years, you'd be guaranteed home-field advantage once. But with the current system, you could get home-field advantage neither time, simply because the players on the other teams in your league couldn't get it done in the All-Star Game. This has absolutely no merit, and I myself will be boycotting the All-Star Game until they give home-field advantage to the team (not league) that truly deserves it."

I have not changed my feelings on this since then, so I again will not be watching the All-Star game. I may watch the Home Run derby tonight, although the idea of having players represent their country is a little bit suspect. It leaves out some deserving players, as Albert Pujols won't be participating since David Ortiz is representing the Dominican Republic. How does Selig continually make such boneheaded decisions?

They way he has been handling the All-Star game is just one instance in a long line of blunders. Tune in later when I will give a full list.

I haven’t posted anything about TV yet, so (surprise, surprise) I’m going to do that now. I’d like to make a statement that I didn’t think would ever be uttered. There is a network that is establishing itself as the most classy and reputable and worth applauding in its programming choices. That network is FOX.

That’s right, the network that brought you “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?” and “The Littlest Groom” used to be considered the trashiest network. But in a surprise move, their Fall line-up featured no reality shows whatsoever. Not a one. (Unless you count “Cops” and “America’s Most Wanted” but they’ve been around since before the reality TV craze and are classic.) Yes, “American Idol” is coming back, but not until January, and “Hell’s Kitchen” will be done by the end of the summer.

But another thing they did, for which they really deserve applause, is their decision to bring back Arrested Development, despite low ratings, because they recognized its potential and how popular it was for those who did catch on to it. This is something that neither NBC nor CBS had the backbone to do, in canceling the quality shows “Law & Order: Trial by Jury” and “Joan of Arcadia”, respectively.

You’d figure that NBC would give “L&O: TBJ” more of a chance, but they instead just went with what would bring in the money now. NBC did the same thing with “Boomtown”, one of the best and most original shows, which it canceled a couple years ago before it could even finish its second season, despite being critically acclaimed and winning awards. Meanwhile, after “Joan” enjoyed a good first year, CBS raised the white flag just because the ratings dipped for the second year. I intend to avoid all CBS programming (which I’m not a big fan of anyway) and would do the same for NBC if not for its L&O series (I love them all).

In addition to having the best comedy series on TV ("Arrested Development"), FOX features the best new drama series and best medical show on TV ("House", which was so good it didn't give its corresponding NBC show, "Medical Investigation" a chance), and one of the most popular long-running shows ("24").

Check back again in the future for a unique description of what makes “Arrested Development” so good, and perhaps I’ll elaborate on why I thought “L&O: TBJ” was worth riding out for a little longer.

I want to say a few words about the movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith. (WARNING, I may give some stuff away, so perhaps don't read beyond the first paragraph.) I enjoyed it. Before I saw the movie, I thought the overriding premise was far-fetched, but it wasn't that bad. It was actually pretty funny, cute at times, and had good action. And it actually had some very interesting insights about marriage, even if unintentional. There were some truths, some myths, some jokes and some outrageous ideas, but they were thought-provoking.

But what I found so frustrating was how they were put into the situation. I knew that both being assigned the same target must have been a set-up. But by their own organizations, because being married to each other was "bad for business"? How was it bad for business?!? And even if it were, how would it be worth going to all the trouble of killing them. And even it it were, why not just do it yourself, when they're not expecting it, like while they're in their offices when they feel secure and have their backs turned? That would be a lot simpler, and less prone to error. And if pretty much every agent from both organizations is on the case to kill (which is what it seemed like), who's paying them? Do you think any one of them would have said, "Gee, well, they've already killed a bunch of our agents, and there really isn't much benefit in pursuing them, because they're really no threat if we leave them alone, but sure, I'll put my life at risk for no money."

And then comes the climactic scene. They're stuck in the shed and surrounded, and I'm thinking to myself, how are they going to get out of this one? Something unexpected has to happend because if they just walk out, and try to shoot their way out, their dead, I mean they're surrounded by professionals like them! But no, they just walk out and manage to hit their dozen or so targets who are all around them presumbly shielded while their out in the open, back to back no less. Alas.

But the movie was cool nonetheless. And you really rooted for these cool characters (even though they ruthlessly assassinate people for a living and we don't have any assurance that they people they eliminate deserve it). And three of her associate's are played by actresses who were characters on three different TV shows (on three different networks) who took time off to do movies; namely, Jennifer Morrison, Stephanie March and Kerry Washington.

Now I'm really switching gears, onto the subject of movies. I saw Batman Begins. It's the best Batman movie of all. In fact, I'll go as far as saying it's the best Superhero movie of all time. In fact, I may go as far as saying it's the best movie ever, period. Okay, maybe not that last one...

What I really liked about it though, especially more than the last three Batman movies, was that while the previous ones seemed to be plot-driven, this one was character-driven, and that added a great depth and dimension to it. You really sensed Bruce Wayne's journey to becoming Batman and how he was motivated in doing everthing he did. It also had some great themes: Justice vs. Revenge, Compassion vs. Brutality, Inner being vs. Outer actions. And of course, it had great action and cool Bat-gizmos!

Written and directed by Christopher Nolan (who wrote and directed Memento), you can certainly see his style in it, with the use of flashbacks and "twists". I was really looking forward to this movie (in addition to always being a big Dark Knight fan) when I heard that Nolan was directing it, because he did such a good job with Memento (as well as with his previous film, "Following" - if you haven't seen that, then do!) It did not disappoint. Let's hope this is just the Beginning of a whole new series of Batman films.

Interleague play in baseball has now wrapped up for the 2005 season (and the Red Sox took advantage sweeping the Phillies to now take a 2.5 game lead in the division). But I'm going to switch gears now and talk a bit about golf. Some random (well, maybe not so random in my head) observations:

After last week's somewhat stunning U.S. Open win by Michael Campbell, there was another stunner in today's U.S. Women's Open. The appropriately named Birdie Kim chipped in from the bunker for a birdie to snatch what was looking like a good bet to go to a playoff. But that was one of two improbable finishes in golf today, as Padraig Harrington made a bomb of a putt for eagle, to do the same thing. And speaking of majors, Harrington is my pick to win the British Open. He was my preseason prediction and with two wins on the PGA Tour already this year, I don't see any reason to change. (BTW, my other preseason picks for the four majors were: Tiger Woods for the Masters, Mike Weir for the U.S., and Phil Mickelson for the PGA - so I'm 1 for 2 so far.)

And on the subject of the British Open, Jean Van de Velde seems to make triple bogeys at the worst times. He of course did so on the 72nd hole in the 1999 Open, when a double bogey would have given him the trophy. In today's French Open, he blew a one-shot lead on the 72nd hole and lost on the first playoff hole by making triple bogey as Jean-François Remesy made double bogey. Does that make him a choker? I'm not sure. A lot of people thought that he choked at the British Open, but I don't think he did, otherwise he would not have made the tough putt that he did to get into the playoff. You need to blow it on a number of consecutive holes (like Greg Norman did at the 1996 Masters) for it to be a true "choke". One tough hole (which included some really bad breaks) doesn't qualify. But that's just me.

I love Joe Buck. He's the best announcer there is. Especially for football. But especially for baseball. Here's a quote from today's Red Sox-Phillies game (by the way, the now 1st-place Red Sox... thought I'd throw that in. )

Buck was talking about David Ortiz and his RBI's from last night and from the first inning in today's game. Then there was a shot of John Olerud in the dugout and Buck said this:

"There's John Olerud, who if the Red Sox have a lead later in the game will take over at first for defensive reasons... (pause) Those reasons being he's better... (pause) at playing first."

Only he could get away with stating the obvious without it sounding silly.

Anyway, back to the interleague rivalries subject. Setting up the "natural" rivalries is only half the story, because they only play those series twice a year. The rest of the interleague games are rotated, and because of the NL-AL disparity (16 teams vs. 14 teams), there's always one totally NL game going while the rest of the teams are playing interleague. Not only does this come off as awkward, but not every team plays the same number of interleague games.

I have a solution which would also be a solution to another problem (and would make Bud Selig happy - although I'm loathe to do that because I think that no commisioner has made as many blunders as he has, but that's a topic for another day). Contraction. This is definitely a sensitive topic, but in some cases it seems necessary - and it would help to bring balance to the leagues.

The first team to go is obvious (in fact, it should have been an obvious mistake to add the team in the first place). Who ever thought that it would be a good idea to have not one, but two major league teams in the state of Florida. One has to go, and no it's not the Marlins like Selig first suggested a couple of years ago, because you just can't contract a team that has had such success making the playoffs (and they've won two of the last eight World Series!) Clearly, the Devil Rays should be contracted due to poor attendance numbers, even worse team success and relatively ridiculous payroll.

The most logical other team to contract is the Colorado Rockies, whose attendance numbers have been declining steadily the past few years, and who haven’t made the playoffs (or even come close) in many years. The other possibility is the Milwaukee Brewers, who have not had much success at the gates or in the standings, or the Minnesota Twins, except they make the playoffs year after year. There are other teams showing equally bad numbers – such as the Pittsburgh Pirates – but whose history is too great to even consider contracting them.

If indeed you do contract Tampa Bay and Colorado, then all you'd have to do is move the Brewers to the AL East, and you'd have 14 teams per league. To make it even more paralleled, move the Astros to the NL West (to be across from the Rangers in the AL West) and move the Twins to the AL West (to be across from the D'Backs). The natural interleague rivalries would then look like this, split up by division:

NL – AL East
New York – New York
Atlanta – Boston
Washington – Baltimore
Philadelphia – Toronto
Florida – Milwaukee

NL – AL Central
Chicago – Chicago
St. Louis – Kansas City
Cincinnati – Cleveland
Pittsburgh – Detroit

NL – AL West
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
San Francisco – Oakland
San Diego – Seattle
Arizona – Minnesota
Houston – Texas

The NL Central would get to have only four in their division after so many years of having six. And no more disparity. Interleague, that is...

As interleague play in baseball starts up again this weekend ("The Rivalries: Part II"), we get to see clearly the disparity in the rivalries we are presented with. Sure, everybody loves the Subway Series and the North vs. South side of Chicago. But Kansas City vs. Colorado? C'mon.

Yes, a lot has been written and said about this. Some have suggested scrapping interleague play entirely, especially the "purists". (We know that's never going to happen, because it's a success both in the ratings and at the box office.) There's also the problem of having some teams having less interleague games because of having 16 teams in the NL and 14 in the AL. So, how to have a consistent system across the board where every team has a rivalry that they can count on and sink their teeth into? I think I've got a simple solution - on paper at least.

Okay, let's start off by listing the give-ins. There are nine natural regional rivalries:

New York – New York
Chicago – Chicago
Cincinnati – Cleveland
St. Louis – Kansas City
Houston – Texas
San Francisco – Oakland
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
Washington – Baltimore
Florida – Tampa Bay

Most of these have been maintained (although not all due to some of the issues above). Now that leaves 12 teams, and let's see if we can't naturally align them.

From a strict geographic point-of-view the following would make the most sense:

Pittsburgh – Toronto (Cross Lake Erie)
Philadelphia – Boston (Just take I-95)
Atlanta – Detroit (Just take I-75)

Milwaukee – Minnesota (Just take I-94)
San Diego – Seattle (Just take I-5)
Arizona – Colorado (They're diagonally adjacent states)

But the first six are neither close enough nor far enough to and from each other that you can easily pair any two if you can find more compelling reasons for a "rivalry". Same thing for the latter six. So are there more natural and compelling "rivalries"? Indeed...

Atlanta – Boston seems to be the most obvious, because of the "Braves" angle. Some have argued that the "Braves" used to be in Milwaukee too, so why not Atlanta – Milwaukee. Well, for one, the franchise started in Boston, not Milwaukee. And they were still in Boston when they first became the "Braves" in 1912 and were also in Boston when they became the "Braves" for good in 1941. The connection there is much stronger. So, no more Philadelphia vs. Boston or Atlanta vs. Baltimore. Let's stick with the natural "Braves" rivalry!

Speaking of Philadelphia, the most obvious rivalry for them (at least to me) would be against Toronto. Toronto you say? Well, now that Montreal is gone, it leaves them without their most natural regional rivalry. But Philadelphia – Toronto are fairly close, and there's more to it than that. Toronto's most recent World Series was against the Phillies, and there have also been some good playoff meetings recently between the two cities in the NBA and the NHL. A little bit weak? Okay, how about this somewhat obscure fact? The Phillies were actually called the "Blue Jays" for 2 seasons before 1945 when they became the "Phillies" for good. So clearly we've got a natural "Blue Jays" rivalry!

That leaves Pittsburgh – Detroit on the Eastern side of the country, two of the teams with the longest histories in the league. In fact, fans of the teams can debate on which of the two teams-who-have-been-in-the-same-city-and-had-the-same-team-name-for-the-longest is the best! The Pirates have been in Pittsburgh since 1891 and the Tigers in Detroit since 1901.

Now to the Western side, San Diego – Seattle has been the rivalry of choice by the league for these two cities, and I can't really argue with that. San Diego is the "odd city out" in California, and Seattle's the lonely city in the Northwest. But they do have some things in common. They're both on the Pacific coast, both very close to international borders; Mexico and Canada, respectively, and they both start with the letter S...

Next, Arizona – Minnesota has a nice ring to it, not to mention the similarities in team colors. 'Zona vs. 'Sota. 'Nuff said.

Lastly, and this may be the most natural rivalry of all, Milwaukee – Colorado. Why's that you ask? Beer! You've got Miller vs. Coors. Whose city is the better beer producer. And if there's one thing that associates well with baseball fans at ballgames, it's the brew! (Remember what Homer said when he attended a game during his month without beer and was the only one not drinking: "I never realized how boring this game is." Of course, we don't really believe that... do we?)

But here's the key. Although both of those teams are in the NL, we can make it a pseudo interleague rivalry, by making the Brewers the designated AL team. They came from the AL at the last expansion anyway, so they shouldn't have a problem with that. Or, they can alternate between being the designated AL team. With the air up there in Colorado and the scores that are usually put up at the ballpark, you'd think they were in the AL anyway.

So there you have it. Natural rivalries across the board. Who can argue with that? (Feel free to argue with it.)