Promises Are Like Babies: Easy To Make, Hard To Deliver

Predictions get tossed around in the sports world all the time. Guys guarantee their teams will win a game or a series. They guarantee that they will not be back with a certain team. They guarantee postseason appearances. The say that their team is the team to beat before the season starts.

You always hear announcers talk about how that makes great "bulletin board" material and occassionally a player will say that it was a motivating factor, but it seems like all the guarantees are so run-of-the-mill these days that few bat an eye at them.

When Jim Fassel angrily declared to the New York media that the 7-4 Giants were going to playoffs, it wasn't so much that it was a groundbreaking prediction; coaches and players say this type of thing all the time. What makes this moment memorable was that the normally mild-mannered Fassel blew up and essentially told the world famous New York sports media to sit down and shut up for the rest of the season...and then he backed it up.

Before this last Super Bowl, had Plaxico Burress given a run-of-the-mill "we're gonna win" prediction, no one would have cared...likely any player would have said the same thing. But Burress gave the score as 23-17, which was so far below the Patriots' average that it raised some eyebrows, but was still mostly laughed off as harmless fun. When the Giants wound up winning, holding the Pats to a lower score than Burress had predicted, and Burress himself scored the winning touchdown, that became an all-time great prediction.

Perhaps the three most famous sports predictions are Babe Ruth famously calling a home run by pointing to the bleachers right where he hit the ball on the next pitch (or maybe he just stretched his arm, no one is sure). Joe Namath called the Super Bowl upset in 1967. And of course Kramer's two-home run prediction on behalf of Paul O'Neil to a sick boy.

But every year some guy you haven't really heard of says his crappy NBA East team will beat some other crappy NBA East team and no one cares. So what makes a great prediction? What makes it memorable? Why was Joe Namath's Super Bowl III prediction a seminal moment in sports history but so many other guys have done the exact same thing and been forgotten?

First: the stage has to be big. Boldly declaring that your 7-year-old son will score in a YMCA league basketball game is not exactly the stuff of legends.

Second: the odds have to be against you. If a first place team's manager declares his team will make the postseason when they have a 10 game lead with 11 to go, no one will really take notice.

Third: you get points for originality. Hundreds of coaches have probably told writers at some point that their struggling teams would put it all together and make the playoffs, but Fassel did it with fire, with (apparently real) anger, and most importantly with style.

Fourth: the predictor needs to have first-hand impact on the game. No one cares what the owner's dog walker says will happen. But if the shortstop guarantees a World Series sweep, that's getting in the papers. Abe Lincoln once said, "We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot."

Fifth: it has to come true. If you make a bold enough prediction and use bold enough words and fail, you will perhaps be remembered, but not how you want to be. Had the Patriots beaten the Giants 41-17, do you think there would be any stories on Super Bowl Monday about how Burress' relatively mundane prediction had been wrong, or would the press have written about the 19-0 story?

Sixth: there has to be an intangible endearing quality to it. If Roger Clemens came back and predicted that he would lead the Mariners to the World Series this year, it would come off as arrogance from a world-class jerk - not a prediction. If he pulled it off, history would find a way to cheapen it (steroids, etc.) so we wouldn't have to appreciate it like we do the Jets in Super Bowl III or Base Ruth's possible shot-calling.

Recently Big Brown's trainer, Rick Dutrow, Jr., has been proclaiming that his horse winning the Belmont Stakes is a "foregone conclusion." He boldly stated, "Forget about it. There's no way in the world there's any horse that's doing any better than Big Brown. It's impossible...I don't even care about the post position...We don't need to worry. He will handle things."

So how will this prediction be remembered? This passes the first three tests with flying colors: it is the biggest stage in his sport, and one of the biggest in all of Sport. While his horse will be the odds-on favorite, the odds are against him that he'll win - no one has done it in 30 years and there have been odds-on favorites many, many times. Originality! Even Bob Baffert never mouthed off like this.

Where Dutrow's prediction gets hurt starts with #4- he doesn't have enough to do with the prediction coming true. Sure, he knows better than anyone what his horse can do. He knows better than anyone how much steroids have been pumped in him. But he won't be the one running, nor the one riding. If the jockey made this kind of prediction, that would be interesting. If the horse did, it would be astounding! If he doesn't win, Dutrow will likely be a laughing stock (for a day or two until we all forget about him) for being too bold. And if Big Brown does win, because the prediction is just so sleazy and self-righteous, and the guy keeps yelling it into any microphone he can find, we won't remember this fondly. We will blame it on a weak field and overt steroid use, and we will likely remember this more clearly as the last of the old-fashioned, inhumane Triple Crown seasons.

Now Petr Sykora's prediction in Monday's Stanley Cup Finals should be remembered as one of the all-time greats, and may be the best ever depending on the series plays out. Sykora played his shot-calling down later, saying he was just trying to loosen up his teammates, but regardless this is a classic:

The Red Wings were 35 seconds away from a Stanley Cup win. The Cup was polished and in the tunnel leading to the ice. The champagne was chilled in the home locker room. But the Penguins spoiled the party by pulling their goalie and scoring to tie it up with the extra attacker. Midway through the first overtime period, NBC's sideline reporter Pierre McGuire announced that Sykora had told him that he was going to "get the next one." Two overtimes later, he did and the Penguins won, sending the series back to Pittsburgh for Game 6.

Now this is a fantastic story, but if the Penguins go on to come back and win at home and then go back to Detroit and steal the Cup, it will be immortalized in sports legend. Stay tuned.

Referees Decide Finish By Not Deciding Finish

Clearly the play at the end of the Lakers-Spurs game was a foul. But it is basketball tradition that that foul won't be called in that situation. The thinking here is that you don't want the refs to decide the game. This thinking is flawed because by not calling a clear violation, didn't they decide the game?

Wouldn't it have been Derek Fisher who helped decide the game by biting on a pump fake and jumping into the ball handler/shooter? Wouldn't it have been Brent Barry who decided the game by drawing the foul and then having to knock down the free throws? Wouldn't it have been a Laker who decided the game when they got the ball back after the potentially made free throws?

If a guy jumps up and lands on another it is a foul. Should an umpire not call a third strike if a batter doesn't swing in the ninth inning because he wants to make sure the players decide the finish? Should a referee not throw a flag on a clip on an overtime kick return? Should a hockey referee allow a last second, game-winning goal that is thrown in? The rules are the rules. There should be no superstar rules, no playoff rules, and no last-second rules.

I thought that almost everyone handled this no-call well however. Greg Popovich said that it was not a foul and that he is not upset with the officials. Barry said that you can't call that there and took the blame himself. Phil Jackson quoted 3rd century Taoist philosophy or something but I think his point was that it probably was a foul and that he is glad his team was the beneficiary of the no-call (but that plays like this happen throughout the game and we're only talking about it because it was the last one). The consensus was that it should have been called but was not and in that situation, one cannot fault the refs. The Spurs had 47 minutes at 57 seconds before that to make one more shot and have that play not matter.

Then there was Kobe Bryant. Craig Sager, staring off into space rather than at his interview subject, asked Kobe about the play and with his adorable little smirk he said and repeated, "that wasn't a foul," as though His Eminence knew something that all the rest of us didn't (even though we'd seen the play in slo-mo from four angles at this point). He is a bad loser (remember his "there is no way I will play for the Lakers next year - I'd rather play on Pluto" comment or his famous quitting-job in game 7 against the Suns?) And he is a bad winner as this episode shows. I usually don't wish injury on anyone but...well I don't think I have to finish this sentence.

And seriously, what the hell is with Craig Sager's suits? Is it that he has given up on being an intelligent person known for his interesting and insightful interview questions and instead just wants to be remembered for anything at all? The way the guy stares off into space when he is doing interviews and the way he dresses makes me think that he may actually be blind and whoever dresses him hates him.

Finally, can we now move on from the idea that Sasha Vujacic is a great defender and has shut down Manu Ginobili? In three games Ginobili has stunk, but he went nuts in the other one. Vujacic guarded him in all four. If you do a test four times in the same beaker and get different results each time, it wasn't the beaker causing the change! If you still believe that Vujacic is a great defender and not just another annoying, flopping, soft, European whiner, you need look no further than his "defense" of Tony Parker on a fast break with about 3:30 to go in the third quarter of game 4.

He backpedaled into the lane as Parker came at him. Then Vujacic stopped and tried to set his feet to draw a charge. He prepared for the contact and then just flew backwards onto his butt when he expected Parker to be there. It looked like Parker had pulled a Frodo and vanished right in front of Vujacic's eyes. I watched it like 10 times. Parker had faked him out so bad that Vujacic flopped despite Parker not being within 5 feet of him. Classic. I found it on another site so click here to watch (sorry if they take it down).

Today is a pretty big sports day with the Pistons going back to Boston for the all-important game 5. This one will decide the series. And the Red Wings go to Pittsburgh for the Stanley Cup game 3. If Detroit wins, that series is over of course as well. And the US is in London playing England in soccer which doesn't matter for a number of reasons (it is soccer, it is not in a tournament or qualifier), but it would still be nice to beat England's butt again. We could get Thierry Henry come and play for us and it would be just like the Revolutionary War.

Stars Lay An Egg, Spurs Lay Doubts To Rest

I was very excited all day on Monday for the Spurs-Hornets game and the Stars-Wings game. Sadly, both were pretty much over in the first half hour.

Yes, the basketball game wound up going down to the wire after New Orleans scraped their way back into it, but tell me: did you ever really think San Antonio was going to lose that game once they got a lead? The Spurs were never going to lose a 9 point halftime lead. Even on the road against a "better" opponent.

The Lakers cannot be happy with this match up. Derek Fisher can't handle Tony Parker at either end. Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol can be cancelled out by Fabricio Oberto, Kurt Thomas and Tim Duncan. Vlad Radmanovich sucks. And Kobe Bryant is always an impossible cover, but Bruce Bowen is as good as anyone at doing it. And I didn't mention Manu Ginobili. The Lakers won't be able to run away and hide from the Spurs, and remember what happens to Kobe when games are close or they are down? The "new" Kobe vanishes.

In the Jazz series, in games that the Lakers won (none were particularly close) here are Kobe's average stats: 33 points per game, 8.5 for 15.8 shooting (54%), 1 for 2 on three-point attempts (50%). Here are Kobe's stats in Laker losses: 33.5 points per game, 11.5 for 29.5 shooting (39%), .5 for 8 on three point attempts (6%).

The Jazz did not do anything differently defensively in the two losses. Kobe just starts trying to take over and single-handedly erase leads...he stopped playing the offense and his teammates started watching. In losses he doubles his shot attempts, but his shooting percentage drops 15%! Forced offense leads to bad shots, which only lets the other team get layups at the other end.

Sure, the Spurs do not have great depth, and that is supposedly a great strength of the Lakers, but seriously, which bench would you rather reply on: Kurt Thomas, Ime Udoka, Michael Finley, Brent Barry and Robert Horry or Jordan Farmar, DJ Mbenga, Ronnie Turiaf, Luke Walton and Sasha Vujacic?

Spurs in 6. I don't think San Antonio can win three straight at home, or I would say Spurs in 5. The Spurs will win one in L.A., the Lakers will win one in San Antonio and the the Spurs will close it out in game six in L.A. (remember the Conference Finals mysteriously switch to a 2-3-2 format).

As for the other big game last night, Dallas pulled one out of Philadelphia's playbook and didn't show up for their big elimination game. I stopped watching after the first period. But how good is the Stanley Cup Final going to be?

Stay tuned for a recap of the Major League Baseball First Quarter-Season coming tomorrow.

Baseball Celebrates Interleague, And No One Notices

Major League Baseball's first interleague series blew by without really making any particularly interesting news. I think the honeymoon is over for Interleague and the fans. I am sure ticket sales were solid in most series (LA vs. LA, NY vs. NY for instance), but in general, did anyone really care?

When the Mets and Yankees used to play and ESPN would cover it, leading up to the game we were seemingly bombarded with commercials, animations during other games, etc. for weeks. I didn't see any ads for Sunday night's game besides their normal Sunday Night Baseball teasers.

When the Mets and Yankees used to play, the games carried all kinds of weight with them. The teams seemed to hate one another. Roger Clemens used to throw things at people all the time. It was big news!

Last night we went to a sports bar-ish restaurant and where there is one giant tv screen (that can be split into four different channels) with two large TVs on either side and then a few more big TVs scattered around the walls. The big screen was split up and the Mets-Yankees game was on one small portion of it. The other three were NASCAR, ESPN News, and the NFL network and the other two large TVs had ESPN News and the NASCAR.

That's right, the Steelers-Browns game from Week 10 got as much attention at a sports bar as the live Mets-Yankees game. This brought me to three conclusions:

1- Interleague is no longer any different for the casual fan than any other baseball game is. And for the devoted fan, is it really any different either? Was I more interested in this game than a Mets-Braves or Mets-Phillies game? Perhaps a bit, but it is just not as timeless and interesting as it once seemed.

2- The ratings of the 2000 World Series were some of the lowest for a World Series of all time. No one cared about New York playing New York despite that it was one of the more intrigue-filled Series in a long time. If that was the case, then the ratings were last night for a regular season game featuring two teams that were a combined 1-game under .500 must have been horrible.

3- The NFL Network is totally and completely wrong in their argument with the cable companies. NFL Network wants to be given a spot in the basic cable line-ups so they get wider distribution (thus they can sell commercials for much more money). Cable companies say it is a specialty-channel and won't get the wide-spread audience that basic cable channels typically get, so they want to add it to their sports packages (thus shrinking distribution and making commercials less valuable). I am a huge sports fan. I love the NFL. I would basically watch any team play any team on Sundays in the fall and winter. However, besides the eight live NFL games that the network carries, there is absolutely nothing that that channel airs that even I want to watch. They want NFL Network to go on basic cable, which would raise cable rates by the price of a cup of coffee (as the NFL network likes to say). If I don't think it is worth it to pay more for "24 hours per year of live NFL football and about 8,736 hours of filler," then do you think a non-sports/NFL fan would be willing to pay?

The Mets vs. Yankees and the NFL were not the only sporting events this weekend that no one cares about until they mean something.

-The NBA has finally gotten to the Conference Finals (once the Spurs finish off the Hornets tonight) so NBA games will be interesting even in the first quarter now. Isn't it funny that after all the BS of the last seven months, we ended up with the four teams that it was always going to be? This is further proof that the NBA season should be two months long, with only four teams from each Conference making the playoffs.

-The NHL has reached the Stanley Cup...well almost. Detroit roared out to a 3-0 lead but Dallas is now scaring the hell out of them. Dallas now plays at home in game six with a chance to tie it up. Note: when looking for NHL coverage on ESPN.com, even though they are in the most important two weeks of the season, the NHL is listed 10th behind women's basketball, NASCAR, racing (not sure what the different is there), college football (which will start in six months) and general college sports. Ouch.

- Big Brown won the Preakness and made NBC very, very happy because now someone will watch the Belmont in two weeks. No Triple Crown winner since 1978 and now horse racing (in perhaps its darkest hour) may Crown a champion. Never mind that Big Brown is widely considered one of the worst champs racing against easily the worst field in history.

Finally, can we all agree that baseball needs instant replay in the instances of home runs and foul balls? It is a good thing that the Yankees bullpen sucks as bad as it does or I would likely have strangled someone if that Delgado home run-blown call had come back to hurt the Mets.

The Anatomy Of A Playoff Series

All day on Thursday I was looking forward to sitting down and watching Game 3 between the Spurs and Hornets. There are so many reasons to watch it! Chris Paul vs. Tony Parker. The Hornets were up 2-0. The Spurs and Hornets are both likable teams with likable coaches and likable fan bases. It was a key game in the series that would prove if the Hornets really were 20 points better (as they were in Games 1 and 2) or if they were just holding serve. It was a 2nd round playoff game.

Early in the first quarter I realized that I didn't care at all. Maybe it was the unwatchable colors (all white crowd, white Spurs and fluorescent yellow Hornets). Maybe it was that somewhere deep inside I knew that The Office was coming on later. Or maybe it was just boring. Why should I spend 2 hours of my life watching the teams size one another up for the fourth quarter when I can just watch the fourth quarter?

If I rooted strongly for one of these teams, of course my reaction would be different, but it led me to thinking about how playoff series work, thus:

The Anatomy of a Playoff Series

The following is the result of a painstaking research project (at least 10 minutes this morning) into the way NBA and NHL series stack up. A Major League Baseball series is a totally different animal because the starting pitcher changes a team's identity completely from game to game. Additionally, Baseball uses a 2-3-2 format while the NBA and NHL use 2-2-1-1-1. This also does not refer to MLS series because of two things: it is soccer and I couldn't care less, and their playoff format is a disaster (winning games doesn't matter...they just add up your goals totals).

Home court advantage is statistically about the same in the NBA as it is in the NHL despite certain rules in hockey that favor the home team (frozen puck substitutions and face-offs). In both sports, home teams win about 64% of the time. Numerically, being at home equates to 3.7 points in the NBA and about .4 goals in the NHL. Realistically, almost entirely psychological - a bed is a bed, a crowd is a crowd, a net is a net. In football and baseball, being at home means infinitely more.

Also note: the score never matters in the next game. There is no telling what effect a blowout or buzzer beater or quadruple overtime game will have on individual players or teams, if any. It could always be positive (win or lose), if could always be negative (win or lose), and it could always not play a role. And there are an infinite amount of other variable that can throw all what you are about to read out the window. It ain't science, folks.

Game 1: Sizing Them Up
This is mostly a statement game. Expect lots of rough play as teams try to show one another who is going to be the more physically dominating team. Coaches won't show their strategic hands too much. As long as the home team wins (whether by 50 or 1), the game doesn't really matter at all though. If the road team wins, it changes everything as home court/ice shifts.

Game 2: Settling In
In a sense, this may be one of the most crucial games of a series, but it is so early it is often overlooked. If the home team goes up 2-0, it may seem statistically irrelevant since they just held serve. But NBA teams with 2-0 leads at home go on to win nearly 70% of the time. If the road team goes up 2-0, that stat is likely much higher. If the series is split 1-1, it favors the underdog since they gain home court/ice. This shift becomes more important as the playoffs wear on since a 1-seed should be able to travel to an 8-seed's home and win. A 1 vs. a 2 is a different story.

Game 3: New Crowd
With the underdogs getting their first taste of home cooking, game 3 is a crucial one for them. You have to win game 3 at home. If either team goes up 3-0, it's over. One baseball team, two hockey teams and 1 basketball team have ever comes back to win. It ain't gonna happen. If the favorite goes up 2-1, they are on serve and the favorites hold a huge advantage still. If the underdog goes up 2-1, it is also a huge advantage, unless they lost game 3 at home. Regardless, unless it is 3-0, I am still betting on the favorite to pull it out.

Game 4: No More Flukes
The teams now know everything there is to know about each other and while any one guy can go nuts on any given night, the coaches now know what to game-plan for. Being the favorite or underdog, and holding home court or not does not matter if you go up 3-1; the series is yours. If it is the favorite up 3-1, they go home to close it out, and have two freebies before the pressure is on them in game 7 at home. If it is the underdog up 3-1, they get one freebie on the road before the pressure shifts and they have to win at home (and they have to win game 6 in this case). If it is tied 2-2, bet on the favorite, even if they just lost two games in-a-row.

Game 5: Taking Control
If the favorite is up 3-2, it is over. They get one chance to win pressure-free on the road and the road is no longer foreign to them (see Game 6). If the underdog goes up 3-2, they know they must win game 6. But in either case, knowing that you just need one win is a huge psychological advantage...for now. Game five will feel like the heaviest game because of the fear of losing and having your back against the wall (or being out 4-1, of course).

Game 6: No Such Thing As Home Court/Ice
The visitors have been in that building twice the week before and know their routine - the hotels, the restaurants, what the crowd will be like, what the sight-lines are like. There is no surprise in it. The better team will win. There is something to be said for a team down 3-2 playing with desperation, but if the team up 3-2 is prepared, that won't matter. An underdog up 3-2 must win this game or they will lose on the road in Game 7 and they know it. A favorite up 3-2 may not get up for Game 6, and the underdog must jump all over them. Also interesting is the idea that the favorite has been in their own homes, in their own beds for at least 60% of the time during the series. You would think this gives them an extra advantage in game 6 when the underdog has been traveling more frequently and could be more tired (although this shouldn't matter at this point!).

Game 7: For All the Marbles
Throw out the stats (except one). Regular season records don't matter. Scoring differentials don't matter. Who won in what city doesn't matter. All that matters is that the favorite is at home and in a Game 7, being at home matters again. Again, the advantage diminishes with each successive series, but even in the NBA Finals or Stanley Cup Finals, if the players think they have the advantage in Game 7 - they do, and if players think they are at a disadvantage - they are.

In all sports, pressure is in the minds of the players. In basketball and hockey, the home court/ice advantage is almost all in the minds of the players. That is not to say they are not real, because believing you are at an advantage gives you an advantage. But with pressure and home court/ice, it is all how you respond. If a team like the 07-08 Jazz thinks they can't be beaten at home, maybe they can't. And if a team like the 07 Giants thinks they can't lose on the road, maybe they can't (although again, in football the advantage is far clearer and more measurable). Ultimately, being at home or on the road is only as valuable as how confident it makes the players.

I also took no account of momentum here, because there is no telling what any certain win, play, call, injury, etc. will do to a player's or team's confidence. Just look at the '04 Red Sox. They had been crushed in game 3 by the Yankees and had every reason to fold up the tents. Then Dave Roberts stole second and it sparked the greatest turnaround in sports history over the next week (and over the next four years, as it were). Of course, had Roberts been picked off of second on the next play - there goes the momentum!

Momentum Screeches To A Halt

It is kinda hard to find anything to write about besides the Sharks/Stars game last night. And that is really saying something because this was an amazing all-around sports weekend.

Stars 2-Sharks 1: Game 6 Quadruple overtime. This was easily the best goaltending performance I have ever seen. Evgeni Nabakov and Marty Turco combined for over 100 saves, but it wasn't just how many saves they got, it was how many spectacular saves they got when any one mistake would cost the game and possibly season. Not a hockey fan? Think of it this way: a catcher has to add about 20 pounds of weight to his pads and then stay in his crouch for 20 minutes at a time for a total of a little over 2 hours. The pitcher will then throw at him, but will try to get it by him, instead of hitting the mitt. If he drops any ball, he loses and his team is eliminated. It was the 8th longest playoff game in history and was the best I have ever watched.

The four best quotes from the 5-and-a-half hour game:
4. Vs. studio host during the 6th intermission: "If you're just tuning in, where the hell have you been?"
3. My mom as the second overtime began: "If I have to watch this crap, we're opening another bottle of wine."
2. My dad as the goalies were peppered with shots, but only 2 scored for the first 125 minutes: "It's like basketball with no rims."
1. My wife, a die-hard sharks fan, after the game: "I hate the Cowboys so much more than I ever did. I'm never going to Dallas. Stupid city."

I feel like this game was a disappointment however, because the Sharks should have won and it should have gone to game 7. How amazing would one last showdown for all the marbles, two days after this marathon be? Could Turco and Nabakov even have started? Of course they would have, but could they possibly have been effective? Would the Sharks momentum continue after having won 3-straight to tie it up? Would there be payback for the clean but hard hit by Scott Morrow on Milan Michalek? Too bad we will never know. One thing we do know: Detroit is going to destroy Dallas in game 1 of the West Finals.

I did get to thinking about momentum in sports this weekend. I have heard the expression that momentum is only as good as tomorrow's starter. I came to the conclusion that momentum is a misnomer and what we actually are talking about when we bring it up is confidence. For instance:

The Dodgers had won 8-in-a-row on Sunday. The Rockies had lost 11 of 13. Both teams' momentum was allegedly taking them in opposite directions. But the Rockies got 3 hits to start the game, they found themselves ahead, and bang: two streaks ended.

No one regular season game ever means anything more than any other. And even if the pressure feels greater in a game 7, it is no more important than game 1 was. Momentum does not build...only confidence is tested.

A 30-point win or a 10-run loss is just a win or a loss unless the players think it will or will not happen again. Either way, you have to go out and make something happen...momentum won't just do it for you.

If there was such a thing as momentum, why did the Rockets ever lose a game once they got on that amazing roll? Why did the Sharks not blow through Calgary and Dallas after entering the playoffs on a similar roll? How does a guy ever break out of a hitting slump?

They talk about momentum much more in the playoffs than any other time. Will the Celtics finally playing like a decent basketball team give them some kind of advantage over the Cavs in round 2? Not really, but if everyone on the team thinks so, and the Cavs get intimidated by what the Three-Party did to Atlanta, then yes, it could have an effect. But it is the players' heads only (which is, of course a very important factor).

The talking heads are all questioning whether the Hornets' game 1 blowout will give them a momentum advantage? The playoffs don't start until someone loses at home. The Hornets merely held serve. Does anything think the Spurs think they are out of it? It's all about confidence, not momentum.

If momentum existed, how could you account for Mission Impossible being great, the second one being an absolute travesty, and the third one being great? The answer here is simple: John Woo is the worst director in the history of film, and screwed up a perfectly good script with incessant slo-mo-diving-shooting scenes. I mean two guys with guns played chicken and dove at one another instead of just shooting each other. Didn't they watch Indiana Jones shoot the dude with the two huge swords? As Shakespeare said, "more matter, less art." But I digress...

If momentum existed, how do you explain the Celtics this year? Last year they were dead in the water. Then they got a crappy spot in the draft lottery. Then they tried to trade for Kevin Garnett and he said no and everyone said Boston was a racist city and no black players want to play there and no great black players have ever played there (never mind that that isn't true and their coach and 4/5 of the team was black). The franchise was toast. Then Garnett changed his mind. Then Ray Allen signed. Suddenly they all thought they were NBA champs, and Bostonians loved black people. Not a single ball was dribbled. Not a single shot was taken. It wasn't momentum...it was confidence!

In some instances, I suppose momentum does exist and confidence can mislead you. Like when Carlos Beltran hit a pop foul Sunday and the third baseman sprinted over, slid on the track under the ball and it landed about 10 feet behind him. I hope that wasn't on national TV...whoops.

NFL Schedules Released, And Other Boring Stories

Tuesday's top stories were the Lakers winning the West, Pacman Jones continuing to be a jackass and the NFL schedule being released (yawn). Needless to say, I was not glued to the set for SportsCenter last night. Although the Sharks' come-from-behind win with 9-seconds to go in Calgary, David's Wright's single-handed demolition of the Nationals and the Ducks coming back to life did make me want to watch a little.

Ordinarily the team that wins a conference gains a gigantic advantage: they play a patsy in the first round and the get home court advantage. This year there is no real patsy, except maybe the Nuggets. The Lakers have wound up facing the Nuggets. In the regular season, the Lakers blew them out twice at Staples and won a close one at McNichols Arena (I know the Nuggets no longer play at McNichols Arena but I have always loved the name and am sticking with it). The Nuggets are the only team that has any a-hole power close to what Kobe Bryant brings to the court, so this series will basically be unwatchable. Kenyon Martin will definitely punch someone, Carmelo Anthony will foul out of at least three games and hide booze in his Gatorade bottles, Kobe Bryant will throw his hands out and make the "I-did-not-rape-that-girl" face no less than 8 times per game, Derek Fisher will win the series for the Lakers but not get noticed. Lakers in six because winning in Denver is tough, but the Nuggets are an implosion waiting to happen and can't beat a crappy 1-seed even if that team actually relies on Sasha Vujacic and Vladimir Radmanovich.

The Dallas Cowboys have apparently decided to abandon their "America's Team" moniker and are going after the "America's Slimiest Team" title instead. Perhaps they finally realized that everyone hates them. As if Jerry Jones existence was not gross enough, they signed Terrell Owens even after the incident at midfield at Texas Stadium. They then let Tony Romo fry for the totally innocent mistake of dropping a snap and losing a playoff game. Then again Romo crumbled down the stretch and got blamed for their losing this year. Then Romo went to Mexico with his girlfriend during the playoff by-week and took entirely too much flack for it...then they lost the following week (I had intended to show Romo was not at fault and gets blamed unfairly, but I think I proved myself wrong). Now they are going to trade half of the team in order to sign Pacman Jones, who isn't even allowed to play in the NFL because he keeps getting arrested.

Don't teams with white helmets all look like Jack's kid running around in those Jack-In-The-Box commercials? I love when the Titans play the Chargers.

The NFL released the schedules for 2008 and I can't remember if ESPN always makes this such a big deal or not - maybe it is just because they air Monday Night Football now. There was a live blog written as the schedules were released on the wires. There were bottom-line updates during programming. There was a whole prime time show dedicated to talking about it with reporters, columnists, coaches and players weighing in. Who cares? We have no clue what any of it means yet. They all say that the Giants' title defense depends on how they do in October based on the schedule. If I am not mistaken, the Super Bowl champion Giants were 0-2 and had been outscored 146 to -5 after the first two games last year. I'd say it is December and January that matters more. What is interesting is that because the AFC East was so incredibly bad last year, the Patriots' strength of schedule is by far the easiest in the NFL, and Jacksonville will play four games in 18 days in December. Actually, now that I think of it, that isn't really all that interesting. News is not news until it happens. The draft is not news because it takes a year or 5 for it all to shake out. The schedules are not news because who cares what your opponents were like last year? This is not an important story until about week 4 this upcoming season.

The Ducks and Sharks put the all-California Western Conference Final back in line yesterday with impressive wins. No Canadian team has won the Cup since Toronto was a fur-trading outpost, and if two California teams play one another for the chance to go to the Stanley Cup and then one of them wins it all for the second year in a row, I honestly think Canada might declare war on the United States.

David Wright was three-for-four with a homer and 5 RBI, and Jose Reyes was a homer shy of the Cycle. If I am not mistaken, the Mets questionable pitching staff has allowed the fewest runs in the league, and the "unreliable" Mike Pelfrey is 2-0 with a 1.50 ERA. Seven players are averaging at least one hit per game. Screw the Phillies.

2012 Olympic Torch To Be Lit At Drive-Through

A classmate of mine from college, Susie Erpelding, is quite deservedly being elected into the school's athletic Hall of Fame for her basketball exploits. I can only assume the letter sent to me outlining the important dates and events for my election has been lost in the mail. There's no way the selection committee forgot about my "Conference Most Improved" award in 1999 (which is the nicest backhanded compliment I ever received..."boy, you sucked last year, but this year you're decent.").

And while USD may not have won a national championship in any sport since Zuzana Lesenarova in women's tennis in 1999, our women's volleyball team will be represented at the Beach Volleyball Nationals. Only six schools are invited. Alright, so it is technically an exhibition and the NCAA does not recognize beach volleyball as a sport. We're still gonna win and I am totally gonna rub it in the face of my USC family members.

A number of potential US Olympians will play in the tournament, including USC's Taylor Carico. She and her younger sister Lane (Mira Costa High School) will likely compete as a team in beach volleyball in 2012, since Lane is only a senior in HS now. Hopefully the Torch relay for the 2012 Olympics will not be "run" in a van, since I don't think automobiles were part of the ancient games.

Doesn't the idea of the Olympic Torch being hidden kinda go against the entire point of the Olympic Torch? I understand that there were protesters and they were concerned for the runners' safety. So change the route, or go to another city. But the Torch is supposed to symbolize the fire given to mankind by Prometheus that made man closer to the gods. The flame is essentially the eternal flame of competition inside us that makes us achieve great feats. And you aren't supposed to hide that in a warehouse down by the docks (although tell that to Indy after the government guys did the same thing with the Arc of the Covenant!).

In totally unrelated news, the Mets beat the hell out of the Phillies on Wednesday. Hopefully now they will stop talking about how Mets players are "afraid" of the Phillies. They don't get scared of teams they have trouble with, athletes just lose their confidence and then bad things happen. Why aren't sports writers required to have at least been high school varsity athletes?

And finally, speaking of confidence: The Sharks lost their series opener against Calgary last night despite one of the greatest last minutes flurries I have ever seen. Miikka Kiprusoff was spectacular and Jerome Iginla was everywhere for the Flames. However, I think the Sharks were overconfident at the start, expecting their win streak to just carry them into the next round. Don't count on that again. Take away the Flames' first 5 minutes and Iginla's spectacular steal and breakaway goal (actually knocked in by Stephan Yelle), San Jose dominated the game. Joe Thornton will score twice tonight and the Sharks will win by 3 at least.