First Two Amendments To The Sports Constitution Ratified

Last week, I wrote the Bill of Sports as the new (self-appointed) president-elect of Sports and made a few major changes to some of the big leagues. My chief of staff/brother suggested one change and while at the Kings-Stars game last night, I realized one other key error that I made.

Amendment I: If the NBA did not begin until after the Super Bowl, as I previously mandated by Article I of the Bill of Sports, once baseball ends there would be nothing to watch during the week from early October to Mid November when college basketball begins. In order to fill this gap, college basketball will be moved forward and will begin in the first week of October, the baseball awards will be announced during the first two weeks of October, and the NHL will now be televised on ESPN every night. The NBA is still banned until the day after the Super Bowl.

Amendment II: As noted in Article IV of the Bill of Sports, the NFL is fine and does not need to make any changes. However, two new rules shall hereby go into effect: A. Touchdowns are worth seven points. If a team chooses to go for eight, the current rules for a "two-point conversion" apply. No more extra points. Extra points will be required in the playoffs and overtime. B. The overtime rules shall hereby be amended to follow the college rules more closely: At the end of regulation, there will be a coin toss called by the home team. The winner of the coin toss chooses whether they want the ball or not, the loser chooses which side of the field they want. The first team starts 1st and 10 on the 25. Whatever their result is, the other team starts with the same scenario. Extra points must be attempted in overtime. If still tied after the first overtime round, teams must attempt a two-point conversion if they score touchdowns.

The Kings-Stars game last night was a perfect example of how exciting new rules changes can be when the league acts responsibly to make changes that are both fan-friendly, as well as fair to the teams. With one minute remaining in regulation and the score tied 2-2, there was a brawl. Two players were ejected and after all of the penalty minutes were handed out, the Kings had to play 4-on-3 for the final minute of regulation and the first two minutes of sudden overtime, before play returned to 4-on-4, with both teams still down a man due to the fighting penalties.

The Kings desperately held on to the tie during a frantic overtime and the teams then lined up their three best penalty-shot takers for the shootout. Of course, they were still tied after these first three rounds, so it went to a sudden-death shootout and the Kings won in the fifth round. What does this have to do with the Second Amendment, you ask...

The NHL changed the rules a few years ago to reward teams for losing in overtime to eliminate what had a a terrible tradition: in overtime, both teams used to play defensively and basically just made sure they didn't lose and go the point for a tie. Boring! So the league made it so that an OT loss counts in a different column as a regular loss. It encouraged teams to go for those two-points for a tie. unfortunately this made the records unwieldy: Detroit had the league's best record at 48-21-11-2 with 101 points in 2004. No wonder they lost fans.

So the league made more changes that eventually included the brilliant shootout. There is no such thing as a tie: just wins, losses and overtime losses. And the overtime was shortened from a full extra period (20 minutes), to just five minutes...then it is off to the shootout. This does not work in soccer because the goals are too easy to score in the shootout. But in hockey it is perfect. So again, what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

It points out to key flaws in the NFL that were overlooked when Article IV was written: the games are too long (thanks TV) and the overtime blows.

By eliminating extra points, you save as much as five minutes per touchdown (lining up, "icing" timeouts, the play itself, potential penalties, etc.). Plus, kickers are converting extra points at a rate of 99.5% (660 out of 663) this season.

By changing the overtime rules, you address that fact that currently the overtime is a fan-unfriendly field position battle where one time just tries to go to the 30, then runs the ball into the middle and sits on it till third down, at which time they invariably win with a field goal. Boring. Perhaps the statistics do not show that the team that wins the OT coin toss has an unfair advantage, but that it not the inspiration behind this rule change.

That hockey game last night was between the two worst teams in the Pacific Division, indeed two of the worst in the League right now. But for the entire overtime and shootout the entire crowd was on its feet and from what it appeared, very few people had already gone home (even on a week-night). That kind of excitement rarely happens in an NFL overtime because it seems more like a procedure, a technicality, than a competition. When was the last time a college football overtime didn't make the crown go nuts? After all, under current NFL rules, an overtime can still end in a tie (as it almost did between the Jets and Raiders earlier this season).

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.

There's Something (Weird) About A Man In Uniform

Watching the Dodgers-Marlins game yesterday, I saw a few shots of the Dodgers' coaching staff in the dugout and two thoughts kept popping into my head: these men need to eat better, and these men need to wear less tight-fitting pants.

Why do baseball coaches wear uniforms? No other sport does this. NBA and NHL coaches wear suits. College coaches are the same. In some sports, you will see coaches in polo shirts. At the most casual is the NFL coach, who wears whatever he wants as long as it is branded with the NFL logo - this generally equates to team warm-ups, jackets or sweatshirts, and Bill Belichick certainly tests the "whatever he wants" portion of this rule. But none of them wear a uniform!

So why baseball coaches? They are not players on the teams. So why do these fat, droopy men all wear unis? There are the Ozzie Guillen/Willie Randolph types who look like they could still play; there is Dusty Baker and his wrist bands who looks like he thinks he does still play, but then there are the Tommy Lasorda/Don Zimmer types who really need to just put on some slacks and a sweater and save us all from looking at things that would be cruel and unusual even at Guantanamo.

Baseball prides itself on being glacially slow to change so it must root back into the game's past. Perhaps it is from the turn of the 20th century when the team captain was essentially the manager, so they obviously would need uniforms on. Later, when teams started hiring non-player managers and coaches, those guys were likely former ballplayers and likely had a hard time giving up the game...so they wore the uniform.

That is perfectly reasonable, but don't coaches in every sport probably still want to play? Why doesn't Byron Scott hang desperately onto his playing days and wear sneakers, short shorts and a jersey? Football coaches in pads and hockey coaches in sweaters and skates would be a little silly, so it makes sense that those coaches wear something else.

So over 100 years later, Tony LaRussa still wears a jersey because some former ballplayer in 1908 had a midlife crisis? Connie Mack thumbed his nose at tradition and wore a suit. Why did others not follow his lead? Are the cleats, long socks, tightish pants and jersey that comfortable?

I get that it is tradition and I get where is originated from, but Major League Baseball eventually went so far as to make a rule that coaches on the field must be in uniform. No other sport invites coaches onto the field during a game, so maybe that is why other sports never adopted a similar rule. But again, why did baseball?

Would a coach waving a runner home from the box behind third tarnish the game if he was in a suit? Last August, MLB executive Bob Watson approached Red Sox manager Terry Francona before a game and reminded him that it was a league rule that he wear a jersey at games, and that a team jacket was not sufficient. Then during the game that day, Watson sent a security official to check under Francona's jacket to make sure he was wearing it...during an inning when the Yankees had a runner on base, not in between!

I get the desire to keep to tradition, but this is all a little bit weird. These are grown (often overgrown) men, and they look almost as silly as Josh Childress trying to pull off Buckwheat's afro (Josh, it's 2008 and you are not a teenager anymore, plus Ben Wallace already pulled this off far better). What does the bench coach need cleats for? Managers choosing to follow a tradition is nice and quaint and as baseball-ish as pitchers jumping over the foul line. But the league mandating tradition takes all the tradition out of it!

The Key To Marital Bliss: Pink Sports Gear

From the Bowl Season to the NBA Finals, it is like a sports-hurricane. There is no time to rest or go on vacation without missing some seemingly monumental game.

First are the Bowls, which are generally overblown, annoying, corporation celebrations that include generally mediocre football since the teams haven't played in a month. But every year there is some miraculous play (or 3 if you are Boise State), upset (Boise State), or just well played, solid games, and those are what we remember in the long run anyway.

This leads directly into the NFL playoffs which are fantastic no matter who is playing. This of course brings the Super Bowl, which is always good for a party, even if the game is not up to this year's high calibre. Then there's the always amazing Pro Bowl. Just kidding.

As football's stranglehold over the American sports fans' attention gives way, the NBA decides to become interesting. The first 50 games of the NBA season are a complete waste, but the last 30 heat up as teams either start jockeying for either playoff positioning or Lottery balls. Either way, March and April are interesting for every team. Basketball is also good for dramatic story lines, like the fact that right now, the Lakers are the 3-seed and the Suns are the 6. Kobe vs. Shaq in the first round, and a rematch of the series that Kobe seemingly quit in to prove that they couldn't win without him. Nice.

Simultaneously on Versus, the NHL races heat up, but no one notices. Did you know the San Jose Sharks finished the season 18-0-2 in their last 20 games? It's not the 2007 Rockies, but that is how you go into the playoffs hot!

In the midst of the NBA and NHL stretch runs, Baseball opens its spring season and then the regular season with much fanfare (unless it happens in Japan: then no one notices). Baseball takes the driver's seat for about a week and half, just long enough for every city to get its home opener, then we all look back at hoops and hockey again.

Also overlapping with the NBA's, NHL's stretch runs, and MLB's opening is the NCAA tournament which is only the best sporting event in American sports. It doesn't involve only 8 or 16 of the 30 biggest markets in the country. Everyone is involved. Cities of less than 10,000 people see their hometown college play for it all. Games aren't just played in New York and LA (in fact, none were this year)...they're played in Spokane and Dayton. Sure, only 6-8 teams really have a chance to win it all, but in what other arena is "just being nominated" really an honor like it is for small programs who make the Dance?

The Tourney and Baseball's Opening Weekend end just in time for the NHL playoffs, which is the best sporting event in American sports that no one watches. I don't know if it is Gary Thorne's voice or just the incredible and ceaseless full speed hitting and skating, but there in nothing better than playoff hockey, when annually at least one goalie becomes superhuman and changes the sport.

The NBA playoffs are exciting too, but you get the sense that the first 3-quarters of every game are a warm-up for the fourth quarter. The series are too long, the gaps between games are too long, Bill Walton sucks, and the referees don't call the games fairly. But it is still must-see TV somehow. Damn you David Stern.

There is a little break for sports fans to go on vacation, but while on vacation, you realize that MLB is getting good, the College World Series is on, the Tour de France is on, Tennis and Golf are in Grand Slam/Major season, the Belmont Stakes may or may not mean something this year, the NFL is heading back to camp soon, and oh yeah, it's an Olympic year.

I think that Sports is a test from God to see how dedicated to staying married we all are. Fortunately, my bride has fallen in love with the Tourney and the NFL postseason, she was always a hockey fan, and I tricked her into liking baseball by buying her a pink Mets hat. Take that, God!