The Lovable Loser

It seems as though Andy Roddick's entire tennis career has been at the wrong place and wrong time. Despite his talented play, he's only won one Grand Slam title, back in 2003, when he beat Juan Carlos Ferrero to win the US Open. Other than that, he's reached the finals on four occasions, thrice at Wimbledon and once at the US Open, and each and every time he has lost to the one, the only, Roger Federer.

Yesterday, Roddick, ranked fifth in the world, fell to Yen-Hsun Lu of Taiwan, a 26 year old (which is by no means young in the world of tennis), ranked 82nd in the world in five sets. After losing the first set to Roddick, Lu came back and won the next two sets in tiebreaks. Roddick wasn't going down so easy though, as even though he started the fourth set down 3-0, he clawed back tooth and nail to win in a tiebreak. With Roddick having the momentum and the clear advantage talent-wise, it seemed obvious that this match would be a major bump in the road, but one that he would get over. But that didn't turn out to be the case. Lu ended up taking the fifth set 9-7 and winning the match, despite not getting one single break point against Roddick through the first three sets of the 4 hour, 36 minute match.

It was a heartbreaker for Roddick, who despite his wonderful year last year, is not getting any younger. The prime age for a tennis player is usually around 24 years old, and after that it's usually downhill. With a new crop of youngsters, including 24 year old Rafael Nadal, and 23 year olds Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, on the rise in the tennis world, and Federer only a year older than Roddick, time is running out for Roddick to win his second major tournament.

What made it especially hurtful to lose even before the quarterfinals, was that had he beat Lu and gone on next to beat Djokovic, he could have given himself a shot at Federer, whom he lost to in last year's Wimbledon final in a wild five set match. In last year's final, after losing the first set, Roddick won the next two in tiebreakers, and it finally looked like he would beat the man that had eluded him his whole career. He then dropped the fourth set, sending the match to a fifth set was the most important set of his career. He fought hard, but once again came up short of Federer, losing the set 16-14. Another tournament gone by, another loss to Federer.

But, Roddick's tennis career hasn't been for nil. He and his arch nemesis Federer, are the only tennis players to have been ranked in the ATP Top 10 consecutively from 2002 to 2010. At the end of 2003 when he was only 21, Roddick was the top-ranked player in the world, the youngest American to hold that title, since computer rankings were put into place in 1973. At a young age, it was clear to everyone that Roddick was the new American hope in men's tennis, with Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras reaching the end of not only their primes, but their careers. But Roger Federer was coming onto the scene at the exact same time, winning his first Slam in 2003 as well. It looked like the two would be the new Sampras-Agassi, the new big rivals in tennis, but as time would tell, their rivalry would be severely one-sided.

Roddick has tried, and tried, and God love him for persevering, but Federer has dominated his career. Around every corner at every turn, there Roger was, awaiting Roddick. Grand Slam tournaments, regular tournaments, even little, dinky tournaments. In their 21 career head-to-head match-ups, Roddick is only 2-19 against Federer. There was no escape, no way out for Roddick; if he ever wanted to win a Grand Slam there was no doubt that he'd have to go through Federer.

So Roddick has made his millions, had his major success, married a beautiful supermodel and has earned the title of the best American men's tennis player during the 2000s, but like Mickelson could never beat Tiger early on, Roddick could never beat Federer, and unfortunately for Roddick, he doesn't have the decades of play that golfers have. Roddick will be remembered in history, but sadly, it will probably only be for never being able to get past Federer, instead of for the relatively successful, and long career he put together for himself.

So Close ... But So Far Away

It was finally the United States' time to truly enter the world of soccer. Their road to the World Cup semifinal was easier than anyone else's, having to play Ghana and Uruguay, if they kept winning. There was no Argentina, no Spain, no Portugal, no Brazil until they reached the semifinal. And it seemed like everyone in this country knew it. More than 15 million Americans tuned in to ABC last Saturday afternoon for the US-Ghana game, and an additional 4 million watched the game on the Spanish speaking channel Univision. The only other soccer game to have more American viewers was the 1999 Women's World Cup Final between the U.S. and China, with 18 million people watching. It was no secret to anyone, the US-Ghana game could not only be a big moment, but the start of something big.

But then after the US lost 2-1 we remembered ... oh right, we're the United States, what are we doing playing soccer?

That's at least what the United States' play made us feel like. It was poor to say the least. After such a high against the Algerians, the US came out against Ghana with a new starting line-up. One of those new starters was Ricardo Clark, whose turnover early on, was what led to Ghana's first goal. Clark was taken out just 31 minutes into the game - much earlier than is usual for a substitute - having already picked up a yellow card and played a very poor game. His substitute? Maurice Edu, the man that started the Algeria game and the man whom Clark replaced. Another new starter was Robbie Findley, playing in place of Herculez Gomez. Findley missed a great scoring chance in the first half and was replaced by Benny Fielhaber at halftime. The mistakes used up two of the three subs early on, especially important in a game that saw 30 minutes of extra time (overtime). The new roster was an example of overcoaching from Bob Bradley, who had been a good coach, getting the US further than many thought they would go. Bradley had made changes for the Algeria game, and instead of just leaving a perfectly good thing the same, he felt that he could get creative again with a new starting lineup. But by overthinking the situation, he helped contribute to the United States' demise.

After such a great game against Algeria, the US came out and played like they had in the first half of their first two World Cup games. They were lousy, slow, lazy, basically any negative adjective you can think of, that's probably what described the United States' first half play. It almost looked like they just didn't want to be there. They were getting beat to every single ball and getting killed in terms of possession numbers.

The United States was down 1-0 going into the half, but it was hard to say Americans were worried, or as worried as they should have been. For many Americans, this World Cup was the only soccer they had watched in at least a decade, and therefore they were used to seeing the US come back, expected it almost, as a result of the United States' play during this Cup. The US had come back against England, had done it from down two against Slovenia, and had just eked out a win against Algeria. Why couldn't they do the same against Ghana?

Then came the penalty kick. After Clint Dempsey was taken down in the box 62 minutes into the game, Landon Donovan was given a penalty kick which went off the post and in, tying the game at one. It looked like the US was going to do it again. Now, they were the ones getting to every ball first and keeping possession.

But the US couldn't get another goal before the second half was over, and extra time was like a whole new game, a whole new first half, which for the US, meant trouble. Another breakdown led to another early Ghanaian goal, and this time the US just didn't have enough left in the tank to make a comeback.

So let's go back to the theme that we've been looking at this entire World Cup: What does this mean for soccer's future in the US? Well, the outlook isn't grim, but it certainly doesn't look to good either. Soccer will still only be the fifth favorite sport in this country, behind the "Big Four" by a mile, but it's possible that more people will start stopping by for a couple of games at their local MLS stadium in the future. Premier League soccer may even grow in popularity in the United States.

The most important outcome of this World Cup streak however is probably the growth of the game's popularity among youngsters. Millions of kids around the country already play soccer at a young age, but few of them actually stick with the game. Now, with the United States' relative success in the World Cup, a good number of parents will be keeping their kids on the soccer pitch as opposed to say the baseball diamond, and kids themselves will be playing more and more pickup soccer games, cutting into the usual pickup basketball games. More of the top young American athletes are going to decide that their skills are best fit for soccer as opposed to football. The growth of the sport may be slow, but that doesn't mean it's not coming.

The United States' performance was certainly solid during the Cup, anything past the group play stage was just icing on the cake, but it doesn't mean that the loss wasn't extremely disappointing. After such an inspiring victory over Algeria to keep the United States' Cup chances alive, it was tough to see the team come out and play so poorly. It's still tough to think that it will be another four years until the US has even another shot at the Cup. The important thing to realize however, is that this World Cup was a big step in the shrinking gap between the popularity of soccer and the popularity of the United States' four major sports.

No Love Lost Between Yankees and Torre

Tonight, for the first time ever, Joe Torre will share the field with the Yankees, without a Yanks jersey on. Instead, he'll be sporting his Dodgers jersey in his first game managing against the Yankees since he left the team in 2007. And in case you forgot, that departure wasn't necessarily on amicable terms.

On October 18, 2007, Joe Torre turned down a one year deal that would have paid him at least $5 million, and with incentives, could have paid him up to $8 million. It was tough to choose sides on who was right, the Yankees or Torre. On one hand, there was the money. In 2007, the next highest paid manager was Lou Piniella of the Cubs, and he was only paid $3.5 million a year. Torre had brought the Yankees four World Series titles, and had made the playoffs every year during his tenure, but the Yanks hadn't won a title in seven years, and allowing Torre to make up to $8 million could have been seen a gift by some, especially for a team that comes into every season as the favorites to win the World Series.

But for the most part, people believe that Torre was given a raw deal. Even though now, many people are more sympathetic to the Yanks than they are Torre, that's only because of Torre's book, The Yankee Years, which badmouthed the Yanks, but we'll come to that later. Back when the deal was offered though - more than 10 days after the season had ended mind you - many believed that the Yankees had disrespected Torre. Here was a guy who had already been mentioned as one of the best managers of all time, had brought so much success to the organization, and proven himself time and time again, and the Yanks offer him a one year deal, for possibly less money than he had made the previous year? It was a bit of a slap in the face to say the least, especially from a new Yankees management, with George "The Boss" Steinbrenner playing a much smaller role in the decisions of the team, and that's exactly how Joe Torre took it.

With his outstanding resume, it didn't take Torre long to find another job. On November 1, 2007, two weeks after he had turned down the Yankee job, Joe inked a 3 year, $13 million deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers, bringing coaches Don Mattingly and Larry Bowa with him.

The first year without Torre was about as bad as it could get. Torre's replacement, Joe Girardi did something that Torre had never done during his managing career with the Yankees: he missed the playoffs. As if missing the playoffs for the first time since 1993 (not including 1994, with the playoff-less strike) wasn't enough, the storied Yankee Stadium also wouldn't see a playoff game in its last season. Then, to put the icing on the cake, Torre and the Dodgers won the NL West title, and made it to the NLCS, but lost to the Phillies in four games.

Torre had the high ground over the Yankee organization. It seemed as if he had been wrongfully treated by a Yankee management team that had overreacted to the lack of recent World Series rings. But, soon Torre's upper hand vanished, with his book, The Yankee Years, co-written by SI reporter, Tom Verducci. In the book, Torre bashed the Yanks, A-Rod, the front office and revealed secrets from the Yankee clubhouse, disregarding the sanctity that an MLB clubhouse has.

He claimed A-Rod "monopolized the attention." He said that Brian Cashman "betrayed him." He said that some Yankees called A-Rod, "A-Fraud" in the clubhouse at times behind Rodriguez's back, and that every single Yankee hated the regularly injured Carl Pavano. Did these things have at least some truth to them? Yes, but there's no reason for Torre to have came out and bashed his old team. He had everyone's sympathy, and he threw it away in his attempt at petty revenge against the Yanks.

Now, Torre faces his old team on his new turf. The Torre-Yankee drama will add a little spice to a Yankee-Dodger rivalry that goes back to the days when the Dodgers played in Brooklyn. They've met more than any other pair of teams from the American and National league and have seen each other in the World Series a total of 11 times. But after the first game of this series, the drama, which is already pretty mild to begin with, should cool down even more, at least among the fans. There won't be any love lost between Torre and Yankee management, or even Torre and some of the Yankees, but the fans realize both Torre and the Yanks have taken shots at each other, and that there's no reason to hold a grudge against their old star manager. The Yankee-Dodger rivalry also won't be too newsworthy, as it's significance only came from both teams playing in New York. The Dodgers also haven't won a World Series since 1988, and haven't played the Yankees in the Series since 1981, a series which the Dodgers won.

The Yankees play the Dodgers tonight at 10:05 p.m., and there will be no return by Torre his old stomping grounds in the Bronx for at least another year. With word that Torre, the highest paid manager in the league, may not be back for next season, the next time he steps foot in Yankee Stadium, may be for an Yankees Old-Timer's Day ... that is if the Yankee management ever lets him come back.

America The Beautiful ... Game's Underdog

It was a shot that had millions across the country updating their Facebooks and Twitters, people hugging strangers, and heck, even had me running outside for a little headfirst slide on the grass.

But more importantly it may have been the shot that changed the future of soccer in this country forever.

The USA soccer team had had chances all day long. Clint Dempsey even had a goal early on, but it was called off because of a wrong offsides call. It felt like it would be Slovenia all over again.

If you name a US striker or midfielder, chances are that they had at least one solid shot on goal. The US had 22 shots, 10 on goal but it was a different story every time. Either they would hit it right to Algerian goalie Rais M'Bohli Ouhab every time or they would sail it high or they would just completely miss. They just couldn't buy a goal.

Yet with just a few minutes left in the game, with England beating Slovenia, and the US's chances ticking down with the clock, it seemed as if we would have to wait another long four years. The chances were still there but the feeling of anxious anticipation that had been there all game, waiting for a shot to finally go in was replaced by worry and distress. It seemed like it would be another World Cup gone by, another U.S. elimination in group play.

But Landon Donovan, the face of American soccer came through, in the 91st minute, the first minute of a four minute stoppage time period. After a Clint Dempsey shot and deflection, Donovan got a gift-wrapped shot attempt and converted, following it with a headfirst slide into the corner and an ambush by his teammates.

No one could have waited another four years for World Cup success. The American team couldn't have waited, the American people couldn't have waited, the future of American soccer couldn't have waited. Had the U.S. lost, it would have been the second straight Cup where we had had a chance and fell apart in the group stage. Americans don't like finishing second in anything, let alone being awful at anything, and if the U.S. wasn't able to beat countries like Slovenia or Algeria, the sport probably would have never gotten big here.

The U.S. team has done it, they won their group in a sport that's always gone by the wayside in this country. But now that it seems like everyone has a little World Cup fever, it's just a matter of how long it will last.

The U.S. only scored one goal in the game, but had plenty of scoring chances and another goal that was wrongfully taken away from them. If there's one thing that this team has shown everyone, it's that they're not rolling over for any team. They can score and score heavily, if
they can just start converting. And their goalie, Tim Howard has asserted himself as one of the best goalies in the world during this tournament.

Another bright spot for the team was their effort for the whole 90 minutes of this game. In their games against England and Slovenia, they really only played the last 45 minutes of the game at full effort, giving up easy scoring chances early and struggling to give themselves any good looks. This game against Algeria they persisted, giving themselves good scoring chances early and often.

This is a scrappy team. Their passing is anything but fluid, they don't flop (today Clint Dempsey took a mini punch to the face, got right back up, and stayed in the game, mouth bleeding and all), and their shots are anything but pretty. They're not as talented as Argentina, not as flashy as Portugal, and of course not as good at flopping as almost every team you can think of, but if there's one thing this game against Algeria showed us, it's that they're going to fight the whole game, and have more heart and grit than any team that they face.

This team brings out the rowdy patriots in all of us, making us feel like the underdog instead of the frontrunners we're used to being. This run may not last for long, as even though the U.S. can beat Ghana and either Uruguay or South Korea after that, they can't avoid the titans forever. But one thing's for sure, going from soccer zero to hero is not impossible; nothing's impossible for this team, this country or Kevin Garnett (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dk7Il3EqI0). The only thing fans need to do is to have realistic expectations and just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

The Ugly Side of The Beautiful Game

My beef today is with the lack of instant replay in soccer, flopping and the fact that there's only one referee officiating each game.

My desire for instant replay to be stretched across all of sports is well documented, especially in my earlier story, "Tie Goes To The Fielder With No Way To Review It." I find it ridiculous that games and on a larger scale, futures can be decided by one major missed call. This past Friday, Koman Coulibaly was the man who made that call.

The hopes of the United States looked dismal at best in their game against Slovenia, down 2-0 going into the half. The chance at having soccer popularized in this country looked like they would have to wait another four years, and ridiculously enough it would come against a country that doesn't even have as many people as the city of Houston, Texas. But, the U.S. looked like a new team coming out of the locker room, as team leader Landon Donovan scored a goal in the 48th minute, followed by a goal by the coach's son Michael Bradley in the 82nd minute. And just when you thought the U.S. was only going to take the tie, Maurice Edu knocked in a goal off of a free kick in the 85th minute, but it was called off, after referee Koman Coulibaly blew his whistle, before the ball even reached the box. Seemingly not knowing what to call, he called a penalty on the U.S., although three American players were actually clearly being held by the Slovenian players.

Although many believe he called offside, that call was not his to make, and therefore his actual call is still unknown, and it doesn't seem like FIFA nor Coulibaly will have to admit to their wrongdoing. No one however, has claimed that there was any American penalty. (If you're yet to see the shot check this video out, at the 2:36 mark, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0_a-ZAbkSI)

Had the right call been made, the U.S. wouldn't have to worry about their next game against Algeria, and would already basically be in the knockout round.

Should the U.S. have played better? Yes. Is this bad break a bit of karma, for getting very lucky in the first game of the World Cup against England? Maybe. But none of that matters. Sure, the U.S. should start playing the full 90 minutes hard rather than seemingly playing only the last 45 at full effort, but that game should have been theirs, and their place in the knockout round should already be sealed.

Oh, but don't worry I have more beef with the world's sport. I didn't want to write an article about flopping, I really really didn't, even though it's one of the main reasons I can't get into soccer, or professional soccer at least. But the ridiculous amount of ridiculous flops has pushed me to the edge. The fact that it's such a part of the fabric of the game is sad, but it's also the reason why it's tough to have a beef with it, because there's no way it's going to change. And the amount of flopping is even worse than I thought it would be. Not only does it happen at the end of games in order to give a team some rest, but it happens throughout the game. Players go down without even being touched, usually covering their face, probably just to cover up their laughs from their awful poor acting.

Just two days ago, in the Brazil-Ivory Coast game, I saw arguably one of the worst flops/calls on my life. Ivory Coast's Kader Keita had just passed the ball off, and was running right towards Kaka while looking the other way. Kaka put his arm up in order to keep Keita from running right into him, and although he barely touched him, Keita fell dramatically to the ground, covering his face. He fell as if Manny Pacquiao himself had just landed a huge haymaker right to his face. Keita stayed down for about a minute, making sure to sell the flop well. With the referee figuring that Kaka's hit must have been rough, he gave the superstar his second yellow card, therefore resulting in a red card, which dismissed him from the game and not only forced Brazil to play a man down for the few remaining minutes of the game, but also forcing Kaka to miss the upcoming game against Portugal. If you haven't seen the video, here's one with some wonderful background music, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1G2wT1DyBA.

When talking about instant replay, people always use the slippery slope argument, saying that if we use instant replay in one instance, then that means we'll have to use it in all situations. But this argument has no real basis or evidence. There is no reason why we would have to start using instant replay for every instance, if it was used in just one case. The only plays that soccer should use instant replay with are goals and yellow or red cards, being that these are the plays that can not only affect the outcome of a game but a team's future, as we saw with the U.S. and Kaka.

That being said, I do realize instant replay may be tough to implement in such a fluid game, where the clock never stops running and therefore would be tough to implement. The referees would have to stop the game, take at least a few minutes to make his call and then, finally return. A challenge system may work, as a very bad flop leading to a yellow or red card could be reversed, but flopping would still probably live on, as there are way more flops and fake injuries, than their could be challenges. So, if instant replay would interfere with the game's fluidity, why not have the next best thing: more referees?

In the World Cup, there are only three referees officiating a game, one on the field, and two on the sidelines. That's as many as the NBA has, and their court is 4,700 square feet compared to a soccer field measuring on average 77,625 square feet. Would having one more referee really kill soccer, especially on such a big stage as the World Cup? He wouldn't get in the way of play, with a soccer field being so big, and flopping would be cut down tremendously, with another set of eyes watching players without the ball.

With another referee and/or the use of instant replay, Brazil wouldn't have to play without their star player against Portugal. Even though they've already qualified for the elimination round, if Brazil loses to a Portugal team that just beat North Korea 7-0, they'll only be the second seed from Group G and would have to play the top team in Group H, which will most likely be a Chilean team that is yet to lose, but faces Spain this Friday.

If there was another referee and/or instant replay, the U.S. wouldn't have to be worried about having to win this next game against Algeria, because they already would have beaten Slovenia, in one of the best comebacks in soccer history, and one of the best moments in U.S. soccer history.

All of this and more could have happened and better, possibly game-changing calls could have been made in the past with these simple additions to the game. Even though it's too late to implement these changes in this World Cup, it's necessary that soccer finally catches up to other sports, and cuts down on the bad calls and acting - two of the worst parts of sports - that can change a game. I know FIFA is stubborn to change a sport that's wildly more successful than any other in the world, but technology is so advanced and easy to use these days, that it's time for FIFA to save itself as well as poor Koman Coulibaly and start getting it right.

Talent's All You Need

With free agency coming up, in which the entire NBA as we know it could be changed, or nothing major will happen at all, and the Lakers recently winning their second straight title, I began to wonder: Is talent all you need to win in the NBA?

We hear so much about coaching, strategies, zone defenses, etcetera, etcetera. But does any of that really matter when it comes down to it? Does the team with the greatest amount of good to great players - usually three - win every year, no matter who their coach is, or what their strategy is?

Think about it, how many times in the NBA do underdogs win? In a league that has had held the NBA Finals 62 times, the Celtics and Lakers have won a combined 32 of those 62 championships. And in every one of those years, they undoubtedly had the most talented team in the league.

During the early 50s, the then Minneapolis Lakers had George Mikan, one of the earliest and most dominant big men in the game, who led his team to five titles. With the NBA just getting its start, and far behind in terms of popularity to college basketball, no team had as talented nor as unstoppable a player as Mikan.

In the 60s, the most dominant dynasty in the history of sports took shape. The Celtics were a force to be reckoned with, boasting a total of six Hall of Famers ... at the same time, for the majority of their championships, with Bill Russell, John Havlicek, and Bob Cousy leading the way. No team had as much talent as the Celts did for the entire decade, and therefore they won every title with the exception of one, the 1966-67 title was won by the 76ers.

When Russell and Cousy grew old by the end of the 60s, a balance swept across the league, as the 70s saw eight different teams win the title. This was largely due to the NBA-ABA merger that dispersed former ABA stars all over the NBA disturbing some of the balance of power, as well as the growth of the league from 14 to 22 teams. With the dominant players of the 60s retiring, and a new crop of young players asserting themselves in the league, most teams didn't have two dominant players, with the exception of the Celtics (John Havlicek and Dave Cowens) and the Knicks (Walt Frazier, Willis Reed), the only two teams to win the NBA Finals twice during the 70s.

But blips in history happen, and it just so happens, that the 70s had the perfect set-up to prove history wrong. By the 80s however, everything was back to normal, and the Celtics and Lakers were at it again, as every single NBA Finals during the decade was graced with their presence.

The 80s Lakers and Celtics were two of the most dominant teams in basketball history. The Lakers were led by Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and James Worthy and won a total of five titles during the 80s. Their main competitor throughout the decade was no other than the Celtics. The Celtics had a Big Three of their own in Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish, all of whom whom were a part of all three Celtic titles during the 1980s. Then there were the Pistons, who were known as the bad boys of the league. Like every other successful team they had a few star players of their own in Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman and Bill Laimbeer, but although all four were great, Dumars and Rodman were too young to beat Magic and Bird earlier in the 80s, and could only pull off two titles before Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen of the Bulls and Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler of the Rockets.

During the 90s, the teams with the best players continued to win, but with the salary cap having been reinstated before the 1984-85 season, most teams only had two star players; the Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, the Magic had Karl Malone and John Stockton, the Magic had Shaq and Penny Hardaway, and the Rockets had Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler. With the league so well balanced, the talent so spread out, and Michael Jordan being well, how should I put this, Like Mike, there was little competition for the Bulls, one of the main reasons they won six championships in the 90s. No matter who the coach was, no team could take down the best player in basketball, not only at the time, but possibly ever, and his talented right hand man Scottie Pippen, which made for the most talent out of any duo in the NBA for most of the 90s.

The Bulls dynasty was broken up when Jordan, Pippen and Phil Jackson all left, and the very talented David Robinson and his young partner in crime in the post Tim Duncan became the best tandem in basketball and won the 1999 NBA Finals. But it didn't last long, as the Lakers' young star soon came into his own; Kobe Bryant, the trusty star sidekick to the best player in the game, Shaquille O'Neal, helped the Lakers win three straight titles to starts off the 2000s. When Shaq left, the most talented team title was given back to the Spurs, with Tim Duncan now the most dominant player, and Robinson serving as the sidekick. Once Robinson left in 2003, Duncan got his help from Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli as well as some other supporting cast players.

But Parker and Ginobli sometimes weren't powerful enough, and although the Spurs won three titles, none of them were back-to-back, winning the title every other year from 2003 to 2007. Throughout the 2000s, with constant player movement, so many different teams won. There were the star-studded Pistons with the fearsome starting five of Chauncey Billups, Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace; then you had Shaq moving to Miami and being a huge help to the young star Dwayne Wade; then the Celtics with their new additions Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to help out Paul Pierce. After that year, Kobe finally received the help he needed to get over the hill with Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom and Derek Fisher pitching in, to win the next two titles.

What did all of these teams have in common? They all had two star players, usually a big man and a guard or small forward, or one star and two exceptional players. I'm not saying it's a revolutionary thought, but it proves the fact that no one can win alone, and that very rarely in the NBA do teams come out of nowhere to win or do Cinderella stories occur. That's why only five different teams have won the championship this decade, only four the previous decade, four during the 80s and just two during the 70s. With free agency and a larger amount of teams it's gotten tougher to build a dynasty, explaining the increase in championship teams per decade, but not by much, as more and more exceptional players are teaming up with stars.

Can it be argued that coaches bring at least something to the table? Without a doubt. In my article just a few weeks ago, I talked about how Phil Jackson's keys to success were not only coaching the best players but also getting the most out of his bench players. History however shows that in order to be a contender you have to have the most talent out of any team in the league. Whether or not it's the coach tapping into that potential talent or a solid bench that pushes the team over the edge to help actually win that title is debatable, but in order to have a chance to win the title, a team definitely needs to have the most talent in the league.

Well, I didn't write this for nothing. With one of the most highly anticipated sporting "events" coming up in the NBA's free agency, it will be not only fun, but monumental, to see who goes where. If LeBron teams up with Wade or Bosh or Stoudemire, or whatever else happens, this year's free agency could change the balance of power in the league for at least a decade, with all of the aforementioned guys being ages 28 and under. It's tough to tell what's going to happen, but one things for sure: if the top players decide to forgo the big money and join forces, we could have the biggest and best dynasty in sports history on our hands.

LeBron James Update

Hello, all and welcome to the LeBron James Update, where we look at all of the events going on in the world that could affect LeBron's decision, at a most likely futile attempt to figure out what team is the favorite in the LeBron James Sweepstakes, which will start two weeks from tomorrow.

I hope you all have been keeping up with a very exciting NBA Finals, which I will most likely have an article for following Game 7. But if you're not following it, you sadly won't find any information about it here. There have been some recent developments in the LeBron Free Agency however, and for that we turn to the wonderful city of Cleveland, Ohio.

On May 24, 2010, Cavaliers coach Mike Brown was fired after five years with the team, the most successful years any Cavaliers coach has ever had. But, it was obvious that most of that success was due to LeBron, who was starting to come into his own when Brown arrived. Not to say that Brown was a bad coach, but I wouldn't necessarily say he was a talented coach. During his tenure, the Cavs reached the NBA Finals once, but were swept by the Spurs, and have had the best record in the NBA twice (the past two years), but have failed to do anything in the playoffs, as Brown never could get the best of out his players, leaving that task to LeBron, who looked like he was the one coaching the team at times.

The next big story out of Cleveland was the departure of GM Danny Ferry on June 4, 2010. Ferry had been the Cavs GM since June 27, 2005. Looking back at Ferry's tenure, one can see that he didn't make too many great moves. Mo Williams, who was acquired in a three team deal, and has been LeBron's right hand man for the two years he has been with the team, is about one of the only solid moves during Ferry's tenure. The only other good move Ferry made was the acquisition of 34 year old Antawn Jamison from the Wizards, and that move might not even pay off anymore since the Cavs had to give up a first round pick for the veteran. Other than that, the only guys Ferry really brought to the team were scrubs or washed up, most notably 38 year old Shaquille O'Neal, who got in LeBron's way more than anything else; Anthony Parker and Leon Powe. With Ferry at the helm, it's no wonder why LeBron's supporting cast played more like a third grade team just learning to play the game of basketball rather than NBA players once the playoffs hit.

Then, the most recent story out of the state of Ohio, making this the most exciting month that the state has ever seen, was Cavaliers top head coaching candidate, Michigan State coach Tom Izzo, turning down the Cavaliers' offer yesterday. If you've read all my articles, you'd remember my piece on Izzo, entitled "The Michigan Man," and how Izzo would never leave MSU. So, of course I wasn't at all scared when the Cavaliers offered Izzo the job. Well, maybe just a little. I mean, it is the NBA, the major leagues. But, the main reason Izzo was contemplating the Cavs' job was LeBron's presence in Cleveland, which of course even LeBron probably won't even be sure about until after July 1, 2010. Without a guarantee from LeBron about his decision, Izzo decided it was best just to stay at MSU, and was glad to announce that he was "gonna be a lifer," and stay right where he should stay, in East Lansing, Michigan.

But Cleveland isn't the only town making headlines these days. New York City has come up with a plan of their own to try to woo James, that involves forming a committee of celebrities to try and get James in a Knicks jersey. According to the NY Post, the committee includes Donald Trump, Alec Baldwin, Tracy Morgan, Boomer Esiason, Spike Lee, Chris Rock, Charlie Rose, John McEnroe, Donny Deutsch, Whoopi Goldberg, Mark Messier, Willis Reed, Walt Frazier and Earl Monroe.

That list of names certainly puts to shame to the ones that Cleveland got for their parody of We Are The World, called "We Are LeBron," a video which I'm sad to say has apparently been taken down for some reason. The video included Cleveland "celebrities" including mostly radio personalities, furniture retailers, and some chick from the Real World.

What do all these events mean? Let me look into my crystal ball and tell you.

New York has wrangled together a pretty solid bunch of stars, but nevertheless, they probably won't influence LeBron's decision too much. The only way that this committee can affect James' decision is if he looks at the New York's stars compared to those in the "We Are LeBron" video, and that doesn't necessarily help the Knicks. It all depends on what LeBron's goals are, and whether he wants to be loyal and stay in Cleveland to try and give his hometown its first sports championship since 1964, or come to New York and become one of the biggest global icons there is, not just in sports, but in general.

Yet, whether James decides he likes the bright lights or the small town feel doesn't necessarily matter a ton in the big picture. If James leaves Cleveland, he's leaving $30 million on the table, but he could probably make up that money in endorsement deals in New York or another big city like Chicago or even Miami. The point is, there is money to be made everywhere, and therefore the only thing that matters is winning. That's all there is to it, just winning. I don't know why New Yorkers are convincing themselves that LeBron cares about the bright lights, and being in the biggest city in the world more than being a part of a championship-winning team.

Sure, LeBron is going to love being courted for a while, being shown everything that each of his suitors' cities has to offer, but in the end he's just going to go where he can win. Right now, I believe the team that's most ready to win out of his suitors is the Heat. So many people say the Cavaliers, but you have to look at the Cavaliers without LeBron, and a Cavaliers without LeBron would struggle to make it to .500. The Heat have Dwyane Wade, who looks like he'll be staying in Miami more and more every day, and is one of the best players in basketball. They also have a pretty strong supporting cast, and if Pat Riley decides to coach again, the Heat will have a Hall of Fame coach.

The Bulls would have the next strongest team. They're young with Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah and have a ton of potential. After that, then it would probably be the Cavaliers, followed by the young Nets. But, my guess is still New York. I truly believe, that he's going to get another big man to come to New York with him, in either Chris Bosh or Amar'e Stoudemire, and I don't think any other team would allow him to bring that caliber of big man with him. I think LeBron would rather have one of those two on his team, who are great players, but would still concede most of the spotlight to LeBron and not get in his way, than Dwyane Wade and Derrick Rose who both have pretty similar games compared to LeBron.

But, what about Cleveland? Will LeBron even leave and does Brown's firing, Ferry's departure and Izzo's rejection of the job mean anything? Firstly, Brown's firing may allow LeBron to have a big say in what coach the Cavs get, with one of the possibilities being Phil Jackson, whose contract will be up by season's end, and the Lakers looking to cut his salary in half from $12 million to $6 million. That could actually play a big factor in LeBron staying, as with Celtics assistant Tom Thibodeau taking the Bulls job and Avery Johnson taking the Nets job, Cleveland would be the only place where LeBron could possibly pick his coach. Danny Ferry's departure doesn't mean a thing, unless the Cavs' new GM Chris Grant can bring something more to the table, which is yet to be seen. Izzo's rejection only shows us that LeBron hasn't decided on where he's going, not that he's decided that he'll leave Cleveland. Izzo didn't get a clear, definitive answer from LeBron, and therefore wasn't going to leave his home at MSU, for what would have possibly been a short tenure as an NBA coach, because let's face it, not many college coaches have succeeded at the NBA level.

There's just a little more than two weeks before NBA free agency starts, and probably at least a month before LeBron makes a final decision on where he wants to play. But one things for sure: Brown's firing, Ferry's departure, Izzo's rejection of the job, the hiring of Tom Thibodeau and Avery Johnson, New York's celeb committee, Cleveland's cheesy "We Are LeBron" video, Phil Jackson's possible own free agency, Pat Riley's possible return to coaching, Mikhail Prokhorov's big plans for the Nets, New York's bright lights, and Dwyane Wade's apparently deep desire to stay with the Heat are not making this LeBron free agency insanity any clearer or simpler.

The New American Sports Town ... Eventually

It looks like there's going to be a turnaround in D.C. No, not with the federal government, there seems to be no turnaround coming soon there. I'm talking about D.C. sports: the Redskins (The Disappointment), the Capitals (The Superstar), the Nationals (The Up and Comer) and dare I say it, the Wizards (The Hopeful Loser).

The Disappointment

Washington, D.C. has been one of the most unsuccessful sports towns during this decade. The city's favorite team by far, the Redskins, which D.C. has made the second highest grossing team in football - only behind "America's team," the Dallas Cowboys - have failed to accomplish anything substantial under the guidance of owner Dan Snyder, who has been earning money and burning it just as quickly with his poor managerial skills. Since Snyder bought the Redskins in May 1999, the team has gone 80-96, and made the playoffs only three times, with a playoff record of 2-3, certainly not living up to the standards of a franchise with five championships under its belt.

Snyder has become infamous for constantly firing coaches - something he's had seven of during his time as owner - as well as signing old, washed-up players, who contribute little to nothing to the team. But now, the Redskins may be entering a new, more successful era, with football guru Mike Shanahan as the new head coach and George Allen as the new general manager having cut up the roster like a butcher cuts his/her meat.

The team parted ways with QB Jason Campbell, and traded two draft picks to the Eagles - one of their divisional rivals - for Donovan McNabb. The Skins also may have improved at running back, even if it meant going back to their old ways of signing older players. This off season, the team signed Willie Parker and Larry Johnson to help out Clinton Portis in the backfield. All three were dominant players a few years back, but since then have had trouble staying healthy, as all of them are 29, 30 and 28 respectively, certainly not young ages for their position.

Although Snyder still seems to getting his way by signing old, big name stars, the Redskins are certainly headed in the right direction, because quite frankly, it can't get any worse.

The Superstar

One team that has kept the people of D.C.'s minds off of the Redskins however is the Capitals. Led by Alexander Ovechkin, one of the two best players in hockey, the Caps clinched the #1 seed in the playoffs last year, and were looking for revenge against Sidney Crosby and the Penguins, who had beaten them in the Eastern Conference semis the previous year. Sadly for Caps fans however, Ovie and the boys were embarrassed by the 8th seeded Canadiens in the first round, losing in seven games, after having been up 3-1 in the series.

Nevertheless, the young Caps are proving to be D.C.'s strongest team with a young core in 24 year old Alexander Ovechkin and 22 year old Nicklas Backstrom, and a bright future awaiting them.

There's just one itty bitty problem: no one in this country and especially south of the Mason Dixon Line really gives a rat's buttocks about the sport of hockey. Out of the "Big 4" sports (football, baseball, basketball, hockey), hockey is by far the least popular in the United States. Nevertheless, the people of D.C. are beginning to love their hockey as they anxiously await the Capitals' first ever Stanley Cup since their founding in 1974.

The Up And Comer

One of D.C's biggest up and coming teams is none other than the Washington Nationals, and this past week they only got better. So far this year, the Nats are 31-33, not too shabby considering that going into this season they had a 343-466 all-time record. You know what's also not too shabby? The young prospects that this team has, the most important of all being Stephen Strasburg. In just two starts, and 12.1 innings, Strasburg has a 2.19 ERA and 22 Ks. Following very closely to Strasburg on the prospect list however, is a kid who hasn't even played a minor league baseball game yet, named Bryce Harper. The 17 year old Las Vegas wonderboy, who currently plays catcher, but will most likely be moved to another position, earned his GED after his sophomore year in December 2009 to make him eligible for this year's draft, where he was chosen first overall by the Nationals. He is widely known as the next Joe Mauer among scouts everywhere, and should be a big part of the Nationals' success in the future.

Then there are the less newsworthy youngsters, the bullpen boys, 24 year old Tyler Clippard and 22 year old Drew Storen, who have been blowing away batters, with a 1.51 and 1.54 ERA respectively so far this season. Then of course, it's impossible to forget the face of the franchise, 25 year old 3B Ryan Zimmerman, who is really coming into his own this year, leading the team with a .306 BA, and placing in second in HRs and RBI.

But they Nationals aren't all young. The team also has some veteran leadership, in 30 year old home run hitting Adam Dunn, who currently leads the team with 14 homers. With such a young team, the Nationals could soon be atop the NL East division in a few years, like the Rays of the AL East before them, going from bottom feeders all the way to the top.

The Hopeful Loser

This Wizards are certainly the basement dweller of the DC sports world. Nothing has gone right for the team in the past year. The team's biggest story concerned the team's star Gilbert Arenas, when on Janurary 1, 2010 it was reported that he and teammate Javaris Crittenton brought unloaded guns into the locker room, on Christmas Eve, in order to "make a joke" about some unpaid gambling debt. Arenas was charged for carrying a pistol without a license, a charge to which he pleaded guilty on January 15. Just twelve days later, Arenas and Crittenton were suspended by the NBA for the remainder of the season, and on March 26, 2010, the courts handed Arenas a suspension of their own, sentencing him to two years probation and 30 days in a halfway house.

The Wizards finished the season 26-56, the fourth worst record in the league, but as a result had a much better chance to do well in the NBA Lottery. Well, the Wizards lucked out, as they were given the first overall pick in the draft, which they will most likely use on former Kentucky guard John Wall.

With John Wall coming to the team, the return of Gilbert Arenas, who is looking to become a new man, with his number change from 0 to 6, and the first full year with last year's key arrivals Mike Miller, Randy Foye, Josh Howard and Al Thornton, the Wizards will at least improve this year, which after such a turbulent season, is really all that they can ask for.

D.C. shouldn't expect any miracles; the Redskins are relatively old and in a very tough division, the Nationals are relatively young, and the Wizards are still pretty bad, but there's definitely room for hope. If anyone can pull the Skins together, it's Mike Shanahan. The Capitals are a great team, and if they can just get over the hump, they'll be hoisting the Stanley Cup very soon. The Nationals may have some of the biggest stars in baseball in just a matter of a few years. The Wizards could make a wonderful turnaround and maybe even score a free agent in this summer's free agency bonanza.

So, D.C. sports fans, I'm not saying that we'll see any championships this year, or maybe even in the near future, but the teams will definitely be contenders, and soon enough, hopefully be champions, a distinction which no D.C. team has held since 1992.

The Devil's Horns

My beef today is with the vuvuzela.

You know, the vuvuzela. Even though you may had not seen it before or even knew it's name, before I posted the picture above, you have most certainly heard it if you've even watched a second of the world cup, and then spent the next ten minutes wondering what's wrong with your television's sound system.

Not to worry, nothing's wrong, except for the fact that tens of thousands of people are blowing into these ridiculous noisemakers at World Cup games, and making you run for the mute button on your remote. But you're only on your couch watching the game, imagine actually having to be there and sit and/or play through it.

Fans at the stadium can't talk to their family, or even watch the game without someone blowing a vuvuzela right into their ear. The effect is even worse on players, who can barely even hear each other over the 3 ft., 3 in. plastic horns, and many of whom have called for the horns to be banned.

Lionel Messi of Argentina, arguably the best player in the world, said about the horns, "It is impossible to communicate, it's like being deaf." He wasn't the only one to speak out; Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, who is the other candidate for best player in the world said, "It is difficult for anyone on the pitch to concentrate."

And how could you concentrate? In games where vuvuzelas have been used, the intensity levels have ranged from 113 to 131 decibels. That's about the range between sandblasting or an exceptionally loud rock concert and a little less than the sound of a jet engine at 100 feet in the air ... for 90 minutes, plus stoppage time and rest of the time in the stadium, an amount of exposure so long to such a loud sound which that noise-induced hearing loss is a real possibility. According to gcaudio.com, sustained exposure to 90-95 decibels may result in hearing loss, 125 decibels is where pain sets in and exposure to 140 decibels, even just short term can lead to permanent hearing damage.

This isn't the first time the vuvuzelas have been used at a World Cup however. In 2006, when the Cup was held in Germany, fans were blowing into these horns like crazy as well, just on a much smaller scale. It certainly was less annoying than the 2010 Cup, but not by much. The big reason I mention this, is that ESPN partially knew what to expect from the crowd, maybe on not such a large scale, but they were at least prepared for some vuvuzela madness. Don't you think that with four years, and the technology that we have today, ESPN is able to drown out the vuvuzelas? Then why don't they? Are their commentators that bad that they themselves need to be drowned out? I haven't met one person watching on television that has said anything good about the vuvuzela and the sounds it makes, but maybe it's just because I don't know any beekeepers, as the plastic horns are infamous for sounding like a swarm of thousands of bees.

ESPN says it wants to give its viewers the full experience, which is probably just a euphemistic way of saying, 'please share in our pain, these things our unbearable!' By the full experience, I mean the full South African experience. Over the last two decades, vuvuzelas have become an important part of the soccer culture in South Africa, being used at almost every game in order to give the home team - which somehow got used to the awful sound over time - a little extra advantage.

Look, I'm all for the cultural aspect of international tournaments like the World Cup as well as the Olympics. It's nice to not only be able to watch a game, but to also feel like you are a part of that game, as well as being able to delve into what sometimes feels like another world. But keeping everyone safe is more important than making sure that everyone is being shown all the cultural aspects of a nation. And I really don't think it's asking much. People can still cheer and yell and scream all they want, just with their own voices, not with the help of horns. Just the chance of there being a case of hearing loss or damage to an innocent fan, especially a child, is a good enough reason for vuvuzelas to be banned.

People that innocently decided to go to the World Cup this year shouldn't be tortured or put at risk just because a guy just has to blow as hard as he can into some horn. It's not even a good way to support your team; it's not as if English vuvuzelas sound any different than say, South African or German vuvuzelas.

I'm sorry if you think I'm acting like the old man telling kids to get off of his lawn, but the World Cup has too ensure a pleasant and safe viewing experience for everyone. This isn't just some backyard football (or shall I say futbol) game, this is the biggest tournament in the world, and therefore it should be one of the safest and enjoyable in the world.

If the World Cup can't get fans to stop using vuvuzelas, or just decides not to, then at least ESPN and other television networks should drown out the sounds they make, so the millions watching the games on television in this country, and billions watching around the world don't have to put up with the sound. And please do it fast, or the next time I see an innocent person playing the trumpet, bad things may happen.

Unfinished Business

Today my beef is with the ties that have been occurring in the World Cup.

The World Cup tournament started two days ago, yet, I'm already losing my Cup fever. That's because out of the first five matches of the tournament, three ended in ties; South Africa-Mexico was 1-1, Uruguay-France was 0-0, and yesterday the Americans tied the Englishmen 1-1.

In World Cup pool play, there are eight groups with four teams in each. Each team plays the three teams in their group once in a round-robin; a win gets a team three points, a tie gets one, and a loss doesn't garner any points. The two teams with the most points in each group advance to the elimination round, where there are no ties and a champion is decided.

Ties in soccer occur on a regular basis. According to the Washington Post, in 2008, 27.1% of Major League Soccer games ended in a tie, and for the first third of the 2009 season, 40.8% of matches ended the same way. That's 2 out of 5 games where there was no winner, and no loser.

The whole point of a contest is that there's a winner and a loser, and of course as we were all told as children, so that everybody has fun. I just don't see how you can have a game or a match and by the end of it say that nobody won. Isn't that the reason that we watch and play sports, for the intensity and mystery of who will win the contest? If there's no winner or loser than what's the point of even having a game?

I realize that in some of these games, a tie is essentially a win. For teams like South Africa, Uruguay and the United States, who were all pretty big underdogs, the fact that they all at least came away with one point instead of the zero they were supposed to have is certainly a big boost. It's certainly better for them to have come away with at least a point, instead of leaving the game with zero points a big hole to dig themselves out of.

But as a fan, I can't help but feel empty after a tie, like the past few hours had been a total waste of time, as if there is unfinished business, that will never be completed. Individual games aren't meant to be cliffhangers, they're entertainment to be finished in one shot. With the exception of postponements, there aren't sequels to games, there are overtimes which serve both as climaxes and epilogues at the same time, with every moment from the game leading up to the defining moment, the winning play, and the winning play possibly ending the game if it's sudden death.

A game is like a story that one reads, or a movie that one watches. You have all of these scenes leading up to the end, an end that has to answer questions, finish the story. In sports, the finish means defining a winner and a loser. Could you imagine a movie where neither the hero nor villain wins, the movie just ends with a tie between the two? If Batman and the Joker just agreed to a ceasefire, neither evil nor justice prevailing over the other, with justice never being served?

Contests are meant to win and lose. As Herm Edwards once famously said, "The greatest thing about sports is, you play to win the game ... you don't play to just play it!" As I said earlier, a tie for an underdog can be considered a win, but it doesn't mean that team is going to play to tie. The true beauty of sport, is the mystery of who will win and who will go home empty-handed; how the story will end. I don't care about moral victories, I care about the facts, and if the fact is that the game ended in a tie, it doesn't matter who the underdog was, because there was no true winner.

Every story needs an ending, a culmination of everything leading up to the finish, a moment that answers all of our questions, something only a black and white win or loss can provide, not a vague, gray tie.

The New American Revolution

The World Cup officially starts today and if you're not planning on catching that wonderful World Cup fever for a month, the you're missing out. My dislike of professional soccer is well documented, but one thing is for sure: that when World Cup comes around, I catch the fever. I'm certainly not the only one either.

While most Americans will be concerning themselves only with the end of the NBA Finals, baseball, and God forbid American football in June (in case you didn't hear the season doesn't start until September), the rest of the world, and I truly mean the rest of the world, will be foaming at the mouth over the biggest tournament that the world's sport has.

The entire world stops for this month-long emotional roller coaster that is called the World Cup. Nations bond together, from Spain to New Zealand to Argentina to wherever Cameroon is, gathering in front of television sets waiting for the worst, but hoping for the best.

And they would be willing to sacrifice about almost anything short of death for their country to be guaranteed victory. In a survey done by VIP Communications, Inc., it was found that 51% of North Americans supporting their other native countries in the World Cup wouldn't eat for a week, and 7% would give up their job. But some of those numbers only pale in comparison to each specific country's responses. In England, neither food nor love life are necessary; 93% of them would starve themselves for a week, and 12% would sacrifice their love life for a year, to bring home the cup. When the Italians were asked, 70% of respondents, many of whom probably still live with their mother anyway, would quit their jobs for victory.

Yet, while the rest of the world is gearing up for the event, only 1 in 4 adult Americans say they'll tune in for some of the World Cup, although higher numbers among those 30 years and younger are certainly promising for the sport's future in the U.S.A.

But why are older people not interested? I mean, if everyone loves the Olympics, and the added bonus that comes with your own country being represented, then what's wrong with the World Cup? Well, the answer to that question is very simple: Soccer. Older people, as well as many young Americans dislike soccer, because quite frankly, that's one of the only things that the U.S. can't beat the rest of the world at. The U.S. has always needed to have different sports than everyone else; (see baseball, American football) because we have always been different, being the only power in the Western Hemisphere throughout the 20th century. We were different and better than everyone else and our sports needed to be as well (hence American football as opposed to futbol).

When the Cold War hit is when soccer saw its temporary death in the US. Soccer was a Soviet game, and no one wanted to be considered a communist by playing the sport. Therefore, in the country that had come in third place in the 1930 World Cup, soccer's popularity plummeted, explaining the absence of a World Cup appearance from 1954 to 1986.

But now, almost 20 years after the Soviet Union collapsed, a new generation is in place, one that at least appreciates the sport, and will be watching most of this World Cup. And who will be the first opponent they will see the US face? England. The United States, a country with a young fan base, relatively inexperienced in the ways of soccer, but somewhat rabid nonetheless, with a team that are clear underdogs, but might just be ready to make a run, going up against a country with a cocky fan base, who have lived and died with the sport for years, and has a team that has a history of winning. Seems like it will be American Revolution Part II, and if the US wins this match, it could get some people watching the Cup. No one loves anything more than beating down on the Brits, right?

This is why tomorrow's match against England is arguably one of the biggest in US soccer history. This is the opportunity to beat a hated, yet tough opponent, as well as to get some momentum for the rest of the tournament, not to mention earning the respect and support of millions across the States. It could also be the start of something new, a huge boost to the sport of soccer. If the United States went from beating the Brits to eventually becoming the most powerful country in the world, then maybe American soccer can do the same, going from beating the Brits to becoming one of the most popular sports in the United States.

If the US wins this battle against the English, maybe, just maybe, there will only be one type of football being talked about in the month of June, and a lot more Americans sacrificing food for a week in order to bring the cup to the' US of A, the newest revolutionaries in the soccer world. So get out your American flags and soccer balls folks, the British are coming!

Innocent, Yet Guilty?

Sorry for the lack of beef lately, I've had to take up an occupation to acquire the currency that supports my lavish lifestyle, and have therefore had little time to provide you, my audience, with the stories you deserve. Today, my beef is with the sanctions put on the USC football program today.

Today, the NCAA handed down what I consider an unfair punishment to USC, after it investigated into whether former USC Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush and his family took improper gifts during Bush's time at the school from 2003 to 2005. The punishment included a two-year postseason ban, a reduction of reportedly around 20 scholarships and a forfeiture of wins from at least the 2004 season.

Before today, no BCS conference football team had been banned from postseason play in seven years.

I feel that what Bush did and what USC seemed to allow him to do is unforgivable and should be severely punished, but why is the NCAA punishing players who weren't even involved in the matter. When Bush first began receiving benefits, most of the guys on this football team were only in middle school. When Bush began receiving benefits, USC head coach Lane Kiffin was then only the team's wide receivers coach. But you know who did play big parts in the program when Bush began receiving his benefits? Pete Carroll and Reggie Bush.

Sadly however, the NCAA is not powerful enough to do anything to Carroll and/or Bush, as since they are only a collegiate association, they really can only sanction those involved currently in collegiate athletics, which neither Carroll, who bolted for the NFL's Seattle Seahawks, when rumors began spreading about the Bush situation, nor Bush, who now plays for the Saints, currently have anything to do with.

I have a feeling however, that with a team like the Seahawks and Carroll's poor NFL track record (33-31 overall, with a couple of firings sprinkled in), and Bush's underperformance in the NFL so far, that both of them are getting and will continue to get the bad karma that they deserve.

Because of the fact that the NCAA can't do anything to punish Carroll or Bush, the only people to dump the punishment on are those currently involved with the USC football team, and with USC being such a top-notch program, the NCAA felt it needed to show the rest of the world, how no team can get away with violating NCAA rules.

But, punishing players that did nothing wrong is not the solution to the problem. These guys came to USC innocently, in hopes of winning a national championship, and now they are going to have to either suffer as a football player their whole four years, all because a player from five years ago broke NCAA rules.

The NCAA's best option is to only take the wins away from the years Bush played for USC, and taking no action against this year's team, or any future USC teams. I know that taking the wins away or not, people will probably remember more about the success that USC had during this period instead of the NCAA vacating its wins, but still, it's the only fair solution.

The postseason ban is bad enough alone, as the current players have nothing to play for, but the scholarship deduction is just as bad, because when the current underclassmen are seniors, and the postseason ban is finally gone, USC will still have a bad football team from their inability to recruit any good players the two years prior.

This isn't the current USC football team's fault. This is Reggie Bush's fault, Pete Carroll's fault the 2003 - 2005 USC athletic department's fault, and most importantly for this story, this is the NCAA's fault. The NCAA should have caught the Bush problem back when it was occuring and was actually relevant, instead of five years down the road. And since they didn't, then oh well, their fault, everyone moves on. Instead, the NCAA is doing the wrong thing again. First they didn't catch Bush and now they're punishing this year's players. I guess the NCAA doesn't know the saying, two wrongs don't make a right.

I hate to see bad deeds go unpunished as much as anyone does, but it's wrong for the NCAA to punish innocent people. I know it's wrong for no one to get a punishment here, but it's even worse to punish people that had nothing to do with the violation. If the NCAA wanted to get justice, they should have gotten it right when they had the chance.

The Pitch Count: A Starting Pitcher's Over-Controlling Babysitter

Today, my beef is with managers babying pitchers, by keeping them on strict pitch counts, instead of just letting them keep doing what they do best: pitch.

Tonight, Stephen Strasburg is making his long-awaited major league debut against the Pittsburgh Pirates at Nationals Park in Washington, DC.

It's a sure thing that the phenom will throw his first major league pitch at around 7:05 pm, but it's yet to be seen how well he'll actually do.

Ever since being drafted first overall by the Nationals a year ago, and signing a four year, $15.1 million deal - the most ever for a rookie - a month later, everyone in baseball has been awaiting Strasburg's debut.

Strasburg has been on a very strict pitch count since he first started in the minors, with the Nationals' Double-A club, the Harrisburg Senators. The longest he has pitched in a game is 6.1 innings, and he has usually been taken out after five or six innings, despite dominating almost every team and hitter he faced. Many have expected the same thing tonight, as ESPN's Tim Kurkjian reported that Strasburg will likely only throw either six innings or about 90 pitches, no matter how well he is doing.

The pitch counts, the call-ups, it's all been part of a carefully structured plan that the Nationals have laid out for their hopeful soon-to-be-ace; but was it really the right choice to baby Strasburg so much? With the way things are going in Texas it certainly doesn't seem so.

Former flamethrower, Nolan Ryan, now an executive with the Rangers, and Rangers pitching coach Mike Maddux are on a mission to go back to the time when pitch counts weren't carefully monitored and when starters pitching for almost the entire game, instead of just six innings, was the norm.

Even in 2000, pitch counts weren't even close to as strict as they were today. According to Sports Illustrated, during the 2000 season, there were 466 times when a pitcher was allowed to throw 120 pitches or more. Last year the number went down all the way to 92. And for what reason?

Many argue that with deeper lineups, and recognizably smaller strike zones, that pitchers today have tougher, more tiring starts than pitchers during Ryan's era. But, one of the main reasons for deeper lineups and improved hitters was steroid and amphetamine usage. With steroids being rigorously tested now, hitters are less likely to hit the monster homers that make a pitcher and manager's guts wrench, and with amphetamines being banned, hitters have a tougher time staying alert and catching up to pitches.

The steroid fueled hitting boom is over, with evidence being shown in the amount of perfect games lately as well as the amount of dominant pitchers in the game today. This season, there should have been three perfect games, had Jim Joyce's now infamous call during Armando Galarraga's start. Pitchers are once again dominating hitters, instead of vice versa.

Another shred of evidence supporting the fact that pitchers are once again dominating is team ERA over the past few years. Every year since 2006, the leading team ERA has dropped. In 2006, the Detroit Tigers led all of baseball with a team ERA of 3.84, while so far this year, the San Diego Padres lead with a 3.02 ERA; last year the Los Angeles Dodgers led with a 3.41 ERA.

Showing pitchers tough love has certainly worked for Nolan Ryan and the Rangers, who went from perennial AL West bottom feeders, to being just 0.5 games out of first place in the division. Not bad for a team whose rotation consists of Rich Harden, C.J. Wilson, Scott Feldman, Matt Harrison, Colby Lewis, who are not necessarily the Roy Halladays are Tim Lincecums of the league.

But of course, it's not as if Ryan and Maddux have their scrappy starters going eight innings every outing.

"What we're trying to get rid of is that thing in pitchers' heads of how many pitches they have," Maddux told SI. "I'd be out there asking how they feel, and they'd say, 'Well, how many pitches do I have?' And I'd say, 'Doesn't matter—how do you feel?'"

Since the inception of their relaxed pitch count, Ranger starters went from a league-low 5.4 innings per start in 2008, to 5.9 innings per start last season, good for a tie for fourth in the American League.

It's time for managers to loosen the reigns on starters a little bit. It's ridiculous how many times as a Yankee fan, that I've seen Joe Torre or Joe Girardi take out a starter doing perfectly fine and put in a reliever that came close to blowing or actually did blow the game. And it was all because the starter just had to be taken out after throwing 100 pitches.

What's the difference between today's starters and starters back in the 80's? I thought that man had evolved, became stronger, more durable. It certainly seems that way with big guys like C.C. Sabathia and Roy Halladay becoming more and more of a norm for pitchers in baseball, as opposed to the skinny Nolan Ryan and Orel Hershiser type-pitchers of the 80s. So wouldn't you expect the bigger, stronger guys to be the ones that are able to pitch longer?

The bar is too low for pitchers these days. Guys like Strasburg may not be able to reach their full confidence level if the game is being taken out of their hands with three innings left, and a heckuva lot of baseball to still be played. If they were allowed to keep pitching without having to worry about their pitch count or when the manager was going to come out of the dugout, then just maybe, they'd be able to focus on the hitter and their own gameplan, the things that actually really matter for a pitcher.

I know an arm can only take so much abuse, especially when it comes in the form of a pitching motion - one of the most unnatural arm motions there is - but if pitching coaches and managers slowly allow starters to pitch deeper into games, then starters could get used to throwing more, and become more durable.

Neither babying nor abusing a pitcher's arm has proven to be the outright more effective method. Different things work for different people. But the last thing that major league hitters are going to be doing to Strasburg is babying him, especially with him being a guy who already has so much fame without having thrown a single pitch in the majors. My bet is that Strasburg comes out against the Pirates, throws six outstanding innings, and eventually has a wonderful, Cy Young Award filled career. The real shame however, is that when this game and possibly his career are over, we'll never know if, without a pitch count, he could have done more.

The World Cup's Benedict Arnold

The World Cup is coming up, starting on June 11, and for those of you who know me, you know that the World Cup is the only time I get excited about soccer. For one month every four years I get me some World Cup fever, and after that I wait three years and eleven months until I care about soccer again. So since I have so little time to appreciate soccer, I hate to start my World Cup coverage on a negative note, but that's just the way it works. Today, my beef is with Giuseppe Rossi.

This past week, Rossi, a 23 year old striker, was left off of the Italian World Cup team, which he had longed to play for his entire life. So, why do I have a beef with the man who just had his hopes and dreams crushed at least for another four years?

Rossi, despite his very, very Italian name, was born in Teaneck, New Jersey. to Italian immigrant parents, both of whom taught language at local Clifton High School. He spent his childhood in the good ol' US of A, yet he's constantly decided to play with the Italians. When he was offered a spot on the Parma youth team, he moved to Italy with his family. Since then, he has played for the Italian national team at almost every different youth level.

Before the 2006 World Cup, Rossi was invited by USA coach Bruce Arena to come to the USA's pre-World Cup training camp, but refused the offer, even though he had no shot at playing for Italy. Chances are he would have made the American squad this year as well for the USA, but Rossi stuck with trying to make the Italian squad and once again got turned away, and I could not be happier.

You figure if Rossi, was not only born in the USA, but spent 15 of his 23 years here, that he would be playing for the Americans. I know that the US certainly isn't a soccer hotbed, but it provided Rossi with a great childhood, a great education and a great life. It's not like he was born here, but spent most of his life in Italy; this guy is an American whether he likes it or not.

Rossi isn't the first person to get all the perks of being an American, while playing for another country when international play comes around. In baseball, so many players are born in America, live in America, have success in America and become wealthy because of America, yet they still play for other teams when the World Baseball Classic comes around.

One example that immediately comes to mind is Alex Rodriguez. Rodriguez was born to Dominican parents in New York. At the age of four he and his family moved to the Dominican Republic, but then moved almost immediately back to Miami, when the Dominican economy hit hard times. Rodriguez was born in America, bred in America, has succeeded in America, and his family was bailed out by America when they needed help most. Sounds like an American to me. But apparently, Rodriguez feels that having lived in the Dominican Republic for a couple years as opposed to the more than 30 years he has resided in the United States, and having Dominican parents, makes him more Dominican than American.

I don't want to make playing for the U.S. sound like a chore or a hardship here, but by playing in these international competitions, you are supposed to be doing your country a service. It's almost a responsibility for athletes to represent their country, if they have the talent to do so. Like so many Olympians, these star athletes, every four years, shed their team's jerseys and forget about the millions of dollars that they make, in order to represent their countries in the most renowned soccer tournament in the world.

Guys like Rossi and A-Rod didn't just end up in the United States on accident. Their parents came here for the same reason many other immigrants do, for a chance at a better life not only for themselves, but for their children. And the United States takes them in, because as it says on the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Sorry, if I'm going all American on everyone's you know what's, but if someone is going to live in America, and reap the benefits of being an American, then in return they should at least use the talents that they have developed here every four years to help out the country they were born and raised in, as opposed to playing for the country that their parents were born in.

So yes, Rossi has Italian parents, and has lived there for the past several years, but he was born in the United States; he was raised in the United States; he was educated in the United States; he got his start in soccer in the United States. This guy is an American first and an Italian second. He has a responsibility to represent his country, and that country is the United States of America.

The Classic Case of the Child Star

I have some beef lined up, but today I feel like I need to take the time out to acknowledge the retirement of baseball great, Ken Griffey, Jr. The baseball great retired the same way he played for the last decade, quietly.

Sometimes things just don't work out. Ken Griffey, Jr. was set to become the best player in baseball, a statement that no one can refute. Griffey came into the league at the young age of 19, and immediately became one of the top players in the league. In just 61 games his rookie season, Griffey had 16 HRs, 61 RBI and 16 SBs. Junior had arrived.

In 1993, at the young age of 23, Griffey had his first monster year, hitting .309, smashing 45 homers, batting in 109 runs, and stealing 17 bases.

But he wasn't only one of the best hitters in baseball, he was one of the best fielders as well. Griffey, won 10 consecutive Gold Glove awards, not losing once during the 1990s. He scaled walls, dove for balls, and patrolled the outfield like no one had done before him with the possible exception of Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente.

He had the swing of an angel, so smooth and sweet. How the ball traveled so far when he swung the bat so easily is bewildering, but Griffey found a way to do it somehow, and he found out early on. Before he had even turned 30, Griffey already had 398 home runs, and early the next season, he became the youngest player ever at the time to hit 400 home runs.

By 1999, at the young age of 29, Griffey was voted to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team. He was the only active outfielder voted onto the squad, no Barry Bonds, no Sammy Sosa, just Ken Griffey, Jr.

But then his world turned upside down. After 11 seasons in Seattle, Griffey requested to be traded to the Reds so he could live closer to his family in Cincinnati, his hometown. He got his wish following the 1999 season, and was traded to the Reds for Mike Cameron, Brett Tomko, Antonio Perez and Jake Meyer.

It looked as if the Reds had gotten a star in the middle of his prime, but they soon found out, along with everybody else, that Griffey wouldn't be the player that he was on the Mariners ever again. He switched his number from 24 to 30, and his identity from superstar to has-been.

The player who many thought could end up hitting 800 home runs, was hit by the injury bug constantly during his first several years with the Reds. From 2002-2004, he missed 260 out of 486 games, but nevertheless still had a major accomplishment on June 20, 2004, becoming the 20th player at the time to reach 500 career home runs.

There was still some hope that Griffey could return to old form following the 2004 season if he managed to stay healthy, especially with his wonderful performance in the 2005 season, in which he belted 35 homers and had a .301 average. But his injuries persisted, as in September 2005 he strained a tendon in his left foot, and the following year, ready to replicate the great stats during the 2005 season, Griffey was out almost a month with a knee injury. Griffey still ended up with 27 home runs despite playing just 109 games.

Griffey continued to have to fight through the bad luck, breaking his wrist in the 2006 offseason. Still, Griffey came back in 2007 to hit 30 home runs, in the last big season that he would ever have.

The next few years, Griffey began to show signs of aging. He started off the 2008 campaign with the Reds, but was traded to the White Sox at the MLB Trade Deadline on July 31, 2008 in exchange for Nick Masset, and Danny Richar, after nine years in Cincinnati. After the season was over, Griffey became a free agent, and at 39 decided it would be best to end his playing with the team that he had seen so many good time with, the Seattle Mariners.

His two years with the Mariners were what you'd expect from an aging star: a few homers and an awful batting average. Griffey hit just .214 in his first year with the M's and this season was just hitting .184 and was rarely worth even starting for the team.

Rumor has it that this year during a game, he was called to pinch-hit, but was asleep in the clubhouse, when he was called, and missed the at-bat. The rumors were never verified, but if they're true they represent the play that Griffey has provided the Mariners with the past two years, sleep-inducing.

Embarrassing himself as a player, and becoming just another one of those aging superstars that stick around for too long, Griffey called it quits Wednesday, after a 22 season Hall of Fame career, 63o home runs, 13 All Star Selections, 10 Gold Glove awards, and countless injuries which caused him to miss more than 600 games over his career, and most certainly cost him a position at the top of the All-Time Home Run list, exactly where most people wanted him to be.

You see, Griffey, the White Knight of Baseball, should have been the last guy to have had his career ruined by injuries, as he is one of the few superstars, and especially home run hitters, that has not had his reputation tarnished by steroid usage. Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, all used steroids, but Griffey did it clean.

I'm not one to say that sometimes life just doesn't make sense, or that it sometimes just sucks, but in Griffey's case, that's exactly what happened. All of the guys that should have been punished for breaking the rules, enjoyed illustrious, healthy careers, while the man who had a wonderful career not due to needles, but the sweetest swing in baseball, suffered constantly, plagued by injuries, looking on as Barry Bonds broke the home run record he was supposed to break. If any case disproves the idea of karma, it's Ken Griffey's.

After leaving Seattle, Griffey disappeared into oblivion, caused by all of that missed time due to injuries and his location in Cincinnati, Ohio, not exactly the media capital of the world. The man who many expected to become the best player in baseball, essentially dropped off of the face of the earth in an instant, in one of the biggest declines an athlete has taken in the history of sport. The backwards-hat wearing, home run bashing, sweet-swinging kid, became just another middle-aged, injury-prone, average player and yet no one seemed to notice. And why would they?

Out of the blue, every year, it seemed like Griffey would reach a new milestone. First it was 500 then 600 and finally 630, putting him 5th on the all-time list, which certainly isn't too shabby of a career. But other than that his play wasn't newsworthy, as most of his homers came with the Mariners in the first 10 years of his career. He finished 130 homers behind leader Barry Bonds, a number he easily beaten, had he not missed 600 games.

It would have been the perfect storyline, with both players most likely reaching the milestone at the the same time. The clean Griffey would have beaten the cheating Bonds, and the hero would have beaten the villain. But things don't always go as planned. Injuries happen, and they just so happened to the man that could have been the best player to ever step onto the diamond. Like so many child stars, it just didn't pan out for Griffey like it should have. So, sorry, if you were looking for a feel good story, because Griffey's certainly isn't one.

The Zen Master's Mind Games

With increased traffic to the site thanks to readers like you, and only so much beef to go around, I present to you a new segment/article I like to call Where Is The Love Wednesday. This concept will basically be the opposite of having beef, as every Wednesday, I'll be talking about something I love currently taking place in the sports world. Enjoy.

Today my love travels to Los Angeles, California to the one known as The Zen Master.

Phil Jackson, who has coached the Lakers since 1999, with the exception of the 2004-05 season, and the Bulls before that during their 90s dynasty, has won a grand total of 10 championships (6 with the Bulls, 4 with the Lakers), the most ever by a coach in the NBA.

He's certainly had a lot of help from a strong contingent of players; Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman with the Bulls, and Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant with the Lakers. Having the best players in the league have led many to speculate, including admittedly myself at one point, if Jackson is actually a great coach, or if this Zen Buddhist just has great karma and gets put in the right place at the right time. But what many don't realize is how much Jackson impacts a team.

I'm a firm believer that no coach can win without good players. No matter how much potential you can tap as a coach, there still has to be a great amount of talent on a team for them to win at all. I mean it's the players, not the coach, that are actually playing.

Has Jackson always had good players? Yes. Has he been constantly blessed with some of the greatest players in the history of basketball? Yes. But what really shows Jackson's coaching abilities is what he gets out of every single player on his bench. On each and every one of his teams, it wasn't just the superstars running the show, role players always have played a big role, especially come playoff time, the period a coach's role also becomes that more important.

With the Bulls, Jackson had guys like John Paxson, Horace Grant, B.J. Armstrong, Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley and my all-time favorite Toni Kukoc (pronounced koo-coach). Each and every single player had a big role that was harnessed beautifully by Jackson to bring Chicago six championships over the 90s. Guys like Armstrong and Kerr were the sharp shooters, Grant and Harper were the great defensive players, Paxson was the veteran clutch guy and three point shooter, Longley was the beast and Kukoc was the great sixth man who could do whatever he was asked to do.

With the Lakers Jackson had Derek Fisher with his great three point shot and later his veteran leadership, Robert Horry as the sixth man who could make a clutch three and help lead the team, Deavan George's athleticism and defense, Horace Grant, and A.C. Green who knew how to win championships, playing with the 90s Bulls and 80s Lakers respectively, Mark Madsen to give Shaq a rest and dance at championship parades (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTRuCPddhbU), and of course Rick Fox for his good looks.

Most, if not all of these players played better under Jackson than they did under any other coach they played for. That's not just luck. Jackson has always done a great job at not only getting the most out of his superstars and turning them into team players, but he also knows how to get the most out of role players by allowing them to find their niche on the team, like the present day Lakers with the success of Lamar Odom as a great rebounder and clutch player. No matter how good or bad a player is, they will have an important role under Jackson, which makes every single player buy into a team atmosphere, which leads to championships.

But that's not why I'm loving Phil Jackson today. I'm loving Phil Jackson for one of the main things he does as a coach in the playoffs, something that he's done in every series this year. Using his Zen Buddhist, philosophical, Jedi-like mind tricks, Phil Jackson gets in people's heads.

In the first series against the young and dangerous Oklahoma Thunder, Jackson said about the team's star, 21 year old NBA scoring champion Kevin Durant, "As far as the calls that he gets on the floor, I think a lot of the referees are treating him like a superstar; he gets to the line easy and often," to which Durant replied he felt, "disrespected." Jackson was fined $35,000 for criticizing the referees, and Durant ended up having a great playoff series, averaging 25 PPG, despite losing to the Lakers in six games.

In the Western Conference Finals against the Suns, Jackson called out Steve Nash. Jackson said, it was tough to prepare for Nash "because you can't carry the ball like he does in practice. You can't pick that ball up and run with it." Nash responded when hearing the news by saying, "The best coach in the league, Gregg Popovich, didn't have a problem with it," referring to the coach of the Spurs, the team the Suns beaten in the previous round. Nash had a solid series, but was banged up throughout, suffering a broken nose in Game 4 and still suffering from a swollen right eye that almost closed shut during a series against the Spurs, as the Suns lost to the Lakers in six games.

Now, going into the Finals against the Celtics, Jackson is once again making his subtle observations that has caused major reactions. “We [the Lakers] don’t have a smackdown mentality,” Jackson told reporters. “You might have seen that with [Kevin] Garnett on [Orlando's Dwight] Howard in Game 6 in Boston, where he was smacking Howard’s arm and was finally called for an offensive foul.

“That’s not our kind of team. We don’t go out there to smack people around. I call it more resiliency. We’re a more resilient ball club. We try to stay strong and play hard. But we’re going to have to withstand some of that.”

Sure, maybe the comments that Phil has made throughout the playoffs hasn't had a noticeable effect on its actual targets statistically, but it's certainly had some effect on both the players, the referees and everyone watching the game. Guys like Durant, Nash and the Celtics would have played and will play, in the Celtics case, as well as they would have had Jackson not commented, but you know that everyone in the back of their mind, in this series, just like in the others, will look out for what Jackson said. Everyone, including Durant and especially the referees, who I believe were the main targets of all of Jackson's comments, were wondering whether Durant got too many calls, especially with his lanky frame. Everyone was looking out for Steve Nash to take an extra step without dribbling the ball. And now, everyone will be looking out for how physical the Celtics really are.

The great thing is, Jackson could say all of these things, and all he'll get are a couple of fines, which I'm sure is worth it for a guy who raked in a cool $12 million this year. Just the fact that Phil Jackson's comments could have an impact on the referees, or could have an impact on players, and I think certainly does have an impact on the way fans watch the game, is worth a slap on the wrist and a $35,000 fine from David Stern.

Jackson's comments also don't make people play better. Jackson knows better than anyone that it's hard to win in the playoffs when you're playing for revenge, especially over something someone said. Guys playing for revenge start playing frustratedly, focusing more on showing up the person who insulted them instead of actually winning the game, as Durant possible did. It's even harder for someone to totally push a comment about them to the side and try not worry about it, as Nash tried to do.

By calling out people before they call out them, Jackson is making sure he's getting in other people's heads, before they can get in his. If someone responds to his comments, he can just laugh it off knowing that even if it's just a little tiny bit, he's in their heads. It's a win-win-win for Jackson, as his team plays better as a result of his criticisms building unity against a single opponent, the other team has the possibility of playing worse if they are constantly looking for their supposed flaw, and the referees and fans pay more attention to the flaw that Phil pointed out.

Can I positively say that I know what the Zen Master is doing, and exactly what his goals are in criticizing his opponents? No, but Phil knows what he's doing, and based on his track record, whatever he does is bound to only help his team.