Pac-12?

Every year about this time, there is a lot of discussion about the BCS's role in the determination of a college football national champion. Overwhelmingly, the anti-BCS voice is heard and talk of a playoff system heats up. I personally favor a playoff and think it would only boost the exposure of college football while making boatloads of cash for the NCAA and its sponsors.

Every season, there is at least one team that seems to get snubbed in the BCS process. This season, that team was Utah which did something no other NCAA FBS team did this season: win every game on its schedule.

Did Utah deserve a shot at the national title? Sure, just like every top 10 team deserved a shot. Utah's conference, the Mountain West Conference, is the reason the Utes were snubbed by the BCS. Because the MWC is not a BCS conference, the conference champion, regardless of record, will never get into the national title game.

The way I see it, there are two solutions to this.

First is a playoff. Since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, the second solution seems even more doable: apply for admission to the Pac-10.

If the top two teams in the MWC, arguably Utah and BYU, were to join the Pac-10, then both teams would get a legitimate shot at the national championship. Go undefeated in the Pac-10 and you're as likely to get into the title game as any team from the Big 10, SEC or Big 12.

If the pre-BCS poll method was still the way a national champion was chosen, then Utah likely would have had the strongest claim to the title. It's how BYU won its only national title in 1984.

Aside from football, BYU and Utah would likely be instantly competitive in the "lesser" sports in the Pac-10.

So let's get it done, gentlemen!

Jet Favre: Are You Color Blind?

Last summer's Brett Favre saga kept the NFL in the media spotlight during a time it is usually in the latter segments of SportsCenter.

When all was said and done, Sir Favre became a Jet and the Packers moved on with Aaron Rodgers behind center. The rest, as they say, is history and neither team is playing in the postseason.

It was weird seeing Favre in the NY Jets green and white instead of the Packers green and yellow...

Wait a sec! The Jets' colors ARE green and white, but what is that Packer-yellow thing (see picture) under Favre's jersey?? Yellow's not part of the Jets' colors!

Could Brett have been sending a message to his former team? Could the Packer-yellow collar thingy be a superstitious holding on to yesteryear?

Hidden messages, superstition or whatever, the Jets and Pack are at home watching the playoffs just like the rest of us.

Pass the chips, please.

The Contradictive Wording Of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy

Adam "Pacman" Jones (Cowboys), Brandon Marshall (Broncos), Larry Johnson (Chiefs), and most recently, Plaxico Burress (Giants), are pro football players whose names have been in the news this season for having violated the National Football League's Personal Conduct Policy. What exactly is the league's Personal Conduct Policy?

The official announcement of the policy came on April 10, 2007, amidst the league's rumored desire to crack down on its players' off-field behavior. Since its inception, the policy has resulted in many NFL players being suspended for violation of the policy.

This post is not about whether the policy is good or not. In my opinion, the policy is a no-brainer and makes official the type of behavior that should be a given by any mature and responsible adult...and especially for public figures like pro football players.

Rather, I would like to take to task some of the wording of the policy.

On the surface, the policy is a good one. However, there are a couple of parts of the policy that I find problematic and I think they need to be addressed by the league.

The wording in the General Policy portion is clear and self-explanatory (except for the last paragraph):

Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator.

The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.

Safe workplace? Isn't that contradictory to the nature of a football field? Just look at the lists of injured players week in and week out in the NFL. Was the NFL providing a safe workplace for those employees on the injured reserve list? Because football is a violent game, how is it possible for the league to provide a safe workplace for its employees?

In this area, the NFL is, by nature of the game, failing at its own policy.

It gets more interesting in the Prohibited Conduct portion (note: "Covered Persons" include players, coaches, front office personnel, and all employees of the NFL and its organizations):

It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.

Again, how is it possible for the league to abide by its own policy here? Every football player knows that the "threat of physical violence" is a given every time they step onto a football field.

Sure, the wording in question says "any crime involving use or threat of physical violence to a person", but is the physical violence inherent to the legal game of football still not physically violent?

Semantics, some may say. But words should never be thrown around so carelessly as the NFL has in this instance.

I'm Kelly Martinez and I approve of this blog.

Voyeur Sport

With the first weekend of the Olympics wrapped up, I am left to wonder: why is beach volleyball part of the Olympics?

Two days into the Beijing Games, I've watched fencing, archery, rowing, gymnastics, swimming, water polo, basketball, soccer, indoor volleyball, cycling, diving, and...dare I admit it??..beach volleyball.

I used to not be a fan of volleyball. I found the game confusing and it did little to stimulate the sports fan in me. After I began working in the collegiate sports information field, where I was paid to witness all of the school's sports, I have grown to better understand the game and, to some degree, have become a fan.

I love to watch the exciting and long-lasting volleys that accompany indoor volleyball. I admire the athleticism of those who play the game. However, the beach version of the game does nothing for me as a sports fan and should not be a part of the Olympics.

I have watched beach volleyball before and have found it not to be very athletically entertaining. The volleys are VERY short lived and, with only two players per team, the game is usually about the serve and first or second volley.

I'm not really sure whether it's because there's only two players on a beach volleyball team or not, but the way the game is played is kind of a slap in the face to its indoor and much more entertaining counterpart.

On the surface (and that is probably all there is to this game), I think beach volleyball's attraction is the human body. The women are clad in bikinis and the camera angles show these women's physical attributes in all their glory with numerous and extensive close-up shots. If it weren't for these women's attractive bodies, what other reason could there be to watch?

There are other sports where the participants' physical attributes are accentuated (swimming, diving, gymnastics, etc.), but at least those are legitimate sports that have athletic value for its spectators.

As for men's beach volleyball, perhaps it's the same thing, though I doubt it because women spectators are not as visually driven as men spectators are. But, there are beach bunnies who love the sight of an attractive male in beach attire, so maybe, to some extent, that is the allure of men's beach volleyball as well.

Maybe you think this blogger's gone off his rocker, and maybe I have. All I can say is that when I'm flipping through the channels looking for my Olympic fix, I won't stop on beach volleyball because I find its athleticism entertaining.

They Got Next

The WNBA has finally arrived. Not really, but at least it's getting a few more seconds on SportsCenter.

It has taken a brawl at the end of Tuesday's Los Angeles Sparks-Detroit Shock game to bring wid(er)spread media and fan attention to the league. Sportscasters and league officials have reacted to the brawl with disgust and disdain....which is a step up from the usual disgust and disdain fans react with over the level of play on display.

Is it really that much of a surprise that professional athletes have gotten into a fight while embroiled in the thick of battle? Why the disgust? Is it because they're women and should behave like ladies instead of acting like their boorish male counterparts?

Nah! That would fly in the face of true equality...which is what the league is supposed to be all about. (Yeah, right!)

We don't expect the men to behave like gentlemen while on the court, so, in the interest of equality, why should the women be expected to behave like ladies? They're egocentric pro athletes, just like the men who comprise the NBA. Aggression and rough play is something they should be used to.

Look at women's pro boxing. There are no pretenses in that sport. Fans who watch it aren't expecting ladylike behavior from the combatants.

The way I see it, a WNBA brawl is long overdue. After over a decade of existence behind the guise of gender equality, why not embrace this incident and build off of it? Fighting is, to some extent, part of the allure of the NBA. Fans of the NBA have come to expect aggression and rough play on the court. In most arenas, the fans feed off of it.

So why should it be any different in the WNBA? It surely couldn't hurt given the league's infinitesimal fan base.

Sure, NBA players are fined and suspended for violence, but how painful is it for a multi-millionaire basketball player to fork out a $10,000 fine and miss a game or two for acting aggressively? If aggression was truly not wanted, then the messages sent for fighting, in any sport, would be much stiffer than they are now.

Another thing to consider in all of this is the coaching involved. Is anyone really surprised that a Bill Laimbeer and Rick Mahorn coached player is charged with starting the WNBA's worst fight?

Detroit's Plenette Pierson, deemed the instigator of the fight, was fined $1,500 and has been suspended for four games. Not to be outdone by most participants, former Bad Boy Mahorn was fined $1,000 and received a two-game suspension for pushing L.A. star Lisa Leslie to the floor during the fight. The rest of the players involved were slapped with $500 fines.

Personally, I will be keeping a better eye on the WNBA (*sardonic grin*). If aggressive play is going to be embraced like it is in the NBA, I may change my opinion of the league and start watching. (Yeah, riiiiggght!)

Viva la Classic!

I love to reminisce.

Perhaps this is why I love ESPN Classic so much. I like ESPN with its constant SportsCenter airings, Pardon The Interruption with Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon, Around The Horn, and Jim Rome Is Burning. While these shows are highly entertaining and informative, nothing quite compares with Classic's reairing of Game 7 of the 1984 NBA Finals or the 1983 Orange Bowl or Buster Douglas' upset win over Mike Tyson in 1990.

Shows like these work wonders for me, and apparently many others or ESPN would not keep programming like this on the air.

Like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Classic takes me back to the comfort of my youth and young adulthood. Reacting to a missed layup by Magic Johnson in 1984 takes me back to the first time I saw him miss that layup in Game 7 in Boston Garden, complete with what I was snacking on at the time (Doritos), who I was watching the game with (my buddies), and the feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Lakers will win that game this time around (not really, but it seems like it).

So, thank you, ESPN, for giving us Classic and providing us with memories of not only the games themselves, but of a a time when life was much simpler and less stressful.

Don't Do It, Brett!

Dear Brett Favre,

I understand what it's like to be in your late 30s and see that you've lost a step or two. I also understand that in your late 30s, you want to prove that you're just as rugged and good as you were in your 20s. I also understand that mentally, you feel as sharp as you did 17 years ago...though your body is beginning to disagree with that assessment.

What I don't understand, however, is why you can't leave well enough alone. I mean, you called it quits in March because you were, "mentally tired." ESPN and the NFL Network made quite a big deal about your retirement. With all of the Brett Favre tribute programming that flooded the airwaves for several weeks, one could have assumed you had died.

Now, four months later, you're apparently ready to lace up the cleats and make a comeback. Funny thing, though...how can you make a comeback when, in actuality, you haven't even been gone yet? Is your mental tiredness all rested and ready to go now?

You told ESPN's Chris Mortensen in March that the only way it would be worth it for you to play another season was if you could win the Super Bowl. You said, "If I felt like coming back -- and [my wife] and I talked about this -- the only way for me to be successful would be to win a Super Bowl. To go to the Super Bowl and lose, would almost be worse than anything else. Anything less than a Super Bowl win would be unsuccessful."

I get it, Brett. After 17 seasons, three MVP awards, and two appearances in the Super Bowl, you understand the rigors and stress involved in "putting up or shutting up" in the NFL. Makes sense. Nobody faulted you for calling it quits in March. You should know better than to "come back", though.

Look at what Michael Jordan did. He came back twice, once from a premature retirement and once from a legitimate retirement. He came back the second time at 38, the same age you are now. In the two seasons he played in Washington, his stats were considerably lower than his career averages in every category, not to mention the damage his comeback did to his legacy.

Everyone remembers his career with fondness, but there will always be that mental asterisk in fans' minds that he played too long. When he retired in '98, his legacy would have been one that had him going out on top, an NBA champion. Instead, he traded that in for two seasons with the Wizards that etched memories in fans' minds of a slower, overweight Michael Jordan, who paled in comparison to the one who retired in '98.

Though you didn't go out on top, Brett, you did go out on a much higher note than anyone expected. You came close. You almost made it to the Super Bowl. I can understand how that might eat at you, coming oh-so-close and not making it. But listen...the odds of you making a run like that again with the Packers or any other team are pretty slim, even if they wanted you back. In case you haven't been reading the papers or watching SportsCenter, it sounds like the Packers are tired of your "I'm retired...but then again..." routine, as sports franchises tend to do when an aging superstar is reluctant to let go.

Do yourself and us a favor, Brett: stay retired. We all think highly of you and all that you accomplished during your career. The odds of you tarnishing that opinion are too great for you to risk a comeback.