Mike Leach signed an extension with Texas Tech, just two days after allowing the deadline to do so passed, narrowly avoiding getting fired for not taking an extension while still under contract.

Bud Selig may be slightly retarded.

Ditto for Mrs. Hamels.

Our video of the week: RBI Baseball Game Six Remix.

The guy who wrote Moneyball loves him some Shane Battier.

ESPN is launching local Web sites now. ESPNChicago.com will be first up in April.

A look at some women’s boxing news, courtesy of BoxingInformer.com. Spoiler: hot chick in article.

Stay tuned for a bunch more shit next week.

The year 2008 brought us so much, from the rematches (Taylor-Pavlik II, Marquez-Pacquiao II, Vazquez-Marquez III, Holt-Torres I & II) to the big name matchups (Jones-Calzaghe, Hopkins-Calzaghe, Pacquiao-De La Hoya, Cotto-Margarito, Hatton-Malignaggi). There were plenty of candidates for most categories, but I found a way to narrow them all down to a winner. Feel free to disagree, but I think I’ve come up with some solid superlatives.

Fight of the Year

Marquez-Vazquez III

When this fight was signed, you knew it would be a Fight of the Year candidate, since obviously, the first two were. And for the second straight year, lukekohler.com awards these two great fighters with the Fight of the Year award.

Hopefully we’ll see a fourth fight between them, but if not, we’ll always have the first three wars between them to watch over and over again.

Here is a cool video of the 12th round of the third fight, as shot from ringside by a fan. Good stuff.

And the clear Showtime video of that same round:

Runners up:
Adamek-Cunningham
Margarito-Cotto
Casamayor-Katsidis
Marquez-Pacquiao II

Fighter of the Year

Manny Pacquiao (W12 Marquez, TKO9 Diaz, RTD8 De La Hoya)

Not much competition here. In fact, this is the only category that wasn’t even close. Pacquiao went 3-0 in 2008, beating Juan Manuel Marquez in a very close fight, then knocking out David Diaz and Oscar De La Hoya. And he won all three fights at three weight classes spanning 17 pounds. There isn’t a whole lot more that Pacquiao can do in a year, except of course for fighting the best fighter at the weight class he is in at any given time, but I digress.

Congratulations, Manny. I’m not the biggest Pacquiao fan in the world by any stretch, but I give credit where credit is due, and Manny had an amazing 2008.

Runners up:
Joe Calzaghe (W12 Hopkins, W12 Jones)
Vic Darchinyan (D12 Gorres [bad judging], KO5 Kirilov, KO9 Mijares)
Bernard Hopkins (L12 Calzaghe, W12 Pavlik)

Round of the Year

Holt-Torres II, Round 1

There’s not much you can say about a round like this, so just watch it and you tell me how it can’t be Round of the Year.

Runner up:
Marquez-Vazquez III, Round 12

Upset of the Year

Quintana over Williams

As an 8-1 underdog, Carlos Quintana took the fight to the much bigger Paul Williams, effectively counterpunching him and outlanding him. Sure, he didn’t make it out of the first round of the rematch, but on Feb. 9, Quintana shocked much of the boxing world by winning a clear unanimous decision over Williams.

Runners up:
Timothy Bradley over Junior Witter

Upsets in style, not outcome:
Manny Pacquiao over Oscar De La Hoya
Bernard Hopkins over Kelly Pavlik

Knockout of the Year

Edison Miranda KO3 David Banks

There are two things that Edison Miranda is good for. One is knocking people out in brutal fashion. The other is getting his ass kicked by good fighters. Here is an example of the former.

Runners up:
Holt KO1 Torres
Abraham TKO4 Miranda

Event of the Year

Floyd Mayweather Retires

If it were one fight, it would be Pacquiao vs. De La Hoya, for the sheer energy it brought to Las Vegas. But this year, there was one news story that passed them all: The retirement of Floyd Mayweather, Jr. Sure, many think he’ll come back, but as of now — he hasn’t. Mayweather retired at 39-0 and pound-for-pound king of boxing. If he does in fact stay retired, then the news of his retirement from June will retroactively be one of the biggest stories in boxing history. You just don’t get boxers who quit too early.

Runners up:
Pacquiao vs. De La Hoya
Hatton vs. Malignaggi (Hatton fans alone put him on the list)
Calzaghe vs. Jones

Prospect of the Year

Yuriorkis Gamboa

As exciting as they come, Gamboa is going to be a fixture on HBO for quite a while. He’s not immune to the occasional knockdown, and certainly has some improvements to make, but he is one hell of a prospect and has jumped into “can’t miss” status when his fights are on television.

Runners up:
James Kirkland (2007 winner)
Alfredo Angulo
The rest of the HBO undercard all-stars.

Comeback Fighter of the Year

Vitali Klitschko

The only question about Vitali Klitschko’s return was whether or not he could stay healthy. When healthy, Vitali is the best heavyweight in the world, a clear notch above his brother Wladimir, who is currently the heavyweight king.

Vitali’s destruction of Sam Peter put a stamp on his comeback, and sent a warning to the rest of the heavyweights that the heavyweight championship runs through the Klitschko household.

Worst Decision of the Year

Nicolai Valuev over Evander Holyfield

Not much to say about this other than the wrong guy won. It wasn’t even close. I think Evander Holyfield has no business in a boxing ring anymore, but he beat Valuev fair and square and deserves his paper title.

Runner up:
James Toney over Fres Oquendo

Post-Fight Interview of the Year

David Diaz vs. Manny Pacquiao

Watch for yourself.

Co-Winner

Chris Arreola vs. Travis Walker

Watch video from about 6:27 of the clip on.

The highlight of this show was the second segment, which featured writer Buzz Bissinger of Friday Night Lights fame lecturing and cursing out Will Leitch (who will inevitably be played by Dave Foley when they make the movie of his life) of Deadspin about how the new media (bloggers, online) is out of touch and dumbing down American sports fans(View the video here). It was the only truly entertaining segment, and showed just how much older writers fear new technology. The words spoken by Bissinger and Michael Wilbon in the taped segment on the Internet show just how out of touch they both are from today’s sports fans.

Here are some reactions from bloggers on this segment. Will Leitch, Awful Announcing, Fire Joe Morgan, Every Day Should Be Saturday, and Dan Shanoff. I’m sure there are more, but this is all I got for now.

What Bissinger and Wilbon fail to understand is that the audience dictates the success or failure of any journalistic medium. If people want their columnists like Wilbon they will read his work. If they don’t relate to his views or styles, they’ll seek something else. There are seemingly trillions of blogs on the Internet, and not all of them are good. But the ones that are good, or at least relate to their audience, end up being successful. The rest, like a bad newspaper writer, become irrelevant and unread, thus eventually out of a job in that field. The public will dictate what they want or don’t want.

What some people don’t get is that blogging is a platform, a piece of software really. It’s not a style of writing. I use blogging software, and technically speaking, this is a blog. But I do not consider myself a blogger, because of the implications that come with such a title. I am a writer.

I spent many years in locker rooms and press boxes and I understand the game. Whether you agree with me or not, I have the credentials and qualifications to opine about sports topics. I’ll tell you right now that covering a professional sports team as a beat reporter for one season will likely land you in more locker rooms than a columnist will ever be in, so my covering four beats for several years gives me all the sports media street cred I’ll ever need, like it or not.

But having been in the sports media, I understand that the voice of the fan is loud and it’s going to be heard. Whether it’s in the form of letters to the editor, calls on sports radio, comments on blogs, postings in forums, or starting their own blogs, fans will be heard. Instead of wearing brown bags on their heads to games, fans are protesting online.

The Internet is here to stay, and people are going to have to get used to what that means. It means that everyone has a voice, and those voices will be heard on every topic. Writing about sports on the web is hear to stay, and if people like Mr. Bissinger can’t get used to that, then it will pass them by. The Internet won’t wait.

Checks and Balances

Among the fundamental ideas that this nation was built on were free market capitalism and checks and balances. The emergence of blogs was an example of the free market dictating what people want, and the success of blogs is largely in part to their acting as the checks and balances for each other, as well as traditional media.

The whole idea of “freedom of the press” is to provide a certain level of transparency. Most of what blogs do is link to original stories by the mainstream press, and comment on aspects of that article. If there is an inaccuracy in an article, or just bad logic, someone will call them on it. Just read Fire Joe Morgan when someone dare use batting average as a real statistical measurement of a baseball player. Right or wrong, they provide analysis of the article from a different viewpoint, allowing a reader to see both sides of an article. That’s a good thing.

Yes, access gives you the opportunity to provide better and more accurate coverage. But a fan’s perspective and the volume of blogs allows for the agenda and stories to be set by the fans. There is a place and time for both, and there is room enough for coexistence.

Fans pay an enormous amount of money to be a fan these days. Between ticket prices and DirecTV packages, you have to spend a lot of money to root for a sports team. If the local beat writers and columnists are missing something, what’s wrong with a blogger filling in the gaps in coverage. And if the writers are too soft, bloggers will point it out.

No matter your political leaning, you will agree that the Internet provides a good set of checks and balances in political coverage. If you don’t like Fox News, the left wing bloggers will point out what they feel needs to be pointed out. If you don’t like MSNBC, the right wing bloggers will point out what they feel is necessary. The advancement of the online media is providing accountability to the mainstream media. What’s now accepted in news and politics is still being fought in sports.

Michael Wilbon

Lost in this whole “discussion” was Michael Wilbon’s words. Wilbon is a very respected columnist and now a popular host of ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption. Wilbon was on this HBO show for two reasons — to discuss race, and to bash bloggers.

Wilbon’s poetic statements on bloggers mainly ripped on them for their lack of credibility and that they are just opinions. Who needs that. What the hell does Wilbon think he does? He’s a columnist (opinions in print), and host of a show where they get X amount of time to offer OPINIONS on sports stories. The only thing Wilbon cares about is that he works for major news organizations and bloggers don’t. Otherwise they are both offering opinions on the same game that they both watched on television. I know Wilbon goes to games (big games, at least), but nobody is in every press box around the nation every night. And when you give your opinion on every team in every sport, your credibility on those teams is as much as anyone with the DirecTV package of that sport. Awful Announcing talks about Wilbon’s hypocrisy on blogging.

Wilbon is good at what he does, no doubt. But he comes across more as ignorant and afraid than he comes across as correct. He fears the new media, he fears bloggers, and he’s been caught possibly taking ideas from blogs and using them on his show. Anything that this man says about blogs should be ignored. He’s irrelevant in this discussion, yet keeps showing up in it.

Kellen Winslow

Kellen Winslow is not a smart man. He is ignorant and a racist. And he has the nerve to come on this show and accuse others of being racist.

Winslow tried to say during the segment on race that his son was treated unfairly when he crashed his motorcycle, with people calling him an idiot and a thug. Nobody apparently called Ben Roethlisberger an idiot when he did the same thing. Do a Google search on “ben roethlisberger idiot” and see how many of the top ten searches are about him crashing a motorcycle. (Hint: more than half) Sorry Mr. Winslow, but you are an idiot, just like your son and Ben Roethlisberger. Or is your son a soldier? Either way, he’s an asshole, and everyone that’s every met him or worked with him will attest to that. And it’s not because he’s black. It’s probably because he was raised by a racist ass.

He also tried to say that only black quarterbacks get their Wonderlic scores published, and only to be racist. Wonderlic scores tend to only make it in the paper when they are extremely low, such as with Vince Young and Mario Manningham. A big thank you to Jason Whitlock, one of the best columnists in the game today, for straightening things out by saying that Dan Marino’s scores were published, as are many athletes. When you’re looking for racism in your newspaper everyday, you tend to overlook fairness and accuracy.

Remember, this is the same man who would not let his child go to college at Washington because it wasn’t “black enough,” and Kellen Sr. refused to sign his son’s letter of intent until he chose another school. Kellen II went on to Miami, where he would have a black position coach.

Racism does exist in this world. But trying to force it’s appearance where it shouldn’t be an issue is what makes things not change. If Mr. Winslow wants to end racism in sports, he needs to stop trying to create it at the same rate he’s fighting it. I was glad that Mr. Whitlock was on the panel to call Winslow on his idiocy and set the record straight. When it comes to matters of race, there is no black man in the media on a par with Whitlock. He calls it as he sees it and is often the voice of reason on matters of black and white in sports. I applaud his honesty and his willingness to challenge a man like Winslow when he needs to.

Curt Schilling

I covered Curt Schilling when he was with the Arizona Diamondbacks, and to hear him speak on this show actually made me angry. In all of the years I worked in sports media, I never met another athlete who even compares to Schilling at being a media whore. To appear on this show and badmouth members of the media as being two-faced is the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever heard.

In every city that Schilling has played, he has his own radio show. He had one in Philadelphia, he has one in Boston and he had one in Phoenix. He often brings up controversial subjects, then gets upset when people have the nerve to question him on his statements. He plays favorites in the media, and then has the nerve to call others out if he thinks they’re doing the same thing.

Schilling can’t stand to not have cameras and microphones on him, then can’t stand when people hold him accountable for the things he says. His hypocrisy knows no bounds and I’m sure he’s blogging on the evils of bloggers as we speak.

By the way, next time the Red Sox have a game on national television, pay attention to what players are “mic’d up” and watch who Schilling befriends for that game. He has an uncanny ability to inject himself into media coverage. Just take a look at who spoke to Congress about steroids. Which of the witnesses were never accused of taking steroids? Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Frank Thomas… Curt Schilling? Which one seems out of place? The one who’s only there to be on television.

Conclusion

The world of the sports media is a complex animal. Even in the traditional media, the press box is filled with newspaper beat writers, newspaper columnists, radio reporters and hosts, and television reporters and producers. Most of these mediums also have websites, and people writing for those websites. Now, bloggers, who are not in the press box, join in the conversation and the traditional folk don’t like it.

I agree that there are many irresponsible bloggers out there. When I was in a locker room everyday, it would anger me to have Joe Sportsfan criticize my work or say things that were inaccurate. There were often many times that I had information that I couldn’t go on the record with and it would hurt to bite my tongue and listen to people posting in forums about things I knew to be untrue, but could not refute.

I wish more bloggers were held accountable. It’s not hard to do some research before posting an article. The future is online media. Bloggers are a part of that. Responsibility and accountability are necessary for the survival of this fantastic aspect of journalism.

Having said that, blogging and online reporting is here to stay. If Buzz Bissinger thinks that cursing up a storm will make a point about vulgarity in the online media, he’s fucking wrong. If Bob Costas and Michael Wilbon think that every blogger is in his mother’s basement, posting anonymously, then they too are wrong, and more importantly close-minded. There is no point in arguing about this, because they will never be willing to accept the new media.

Thank you to HBO for airing this special, because the debate needed to begin. And thank you to Will Leitch for representing the online world. I could probably give you another 1000 words on their sports radio segment, but for now, let’s just leave it at this.

The online world of bloggers and message boards is not going away. The traditional media has two choices: embrace the new technology and format; or continue to fight it until you inevitably lose the battle. There is room enough for both in this world, so you might as well get used to it.

So, in no particular order, I present to you The Best of YouTube: Sports Part I

Miller Lite Commercial circa early 1980’s (Link)

This was one of my favorite commercials of all time, and to me, is the reason that YouTube was invented. Highlights will always live on, but old commercials were always lost forever. This old Miller Lite commercial features many pro athletes that were stars at this time, and of course, Rodney Dangerfield. One thing constant in the last twenty years is that beer companies know how to make an entertaining commercial.

RBI Baseball Game Six (Link)

One of the great moments of my life, combined with one of the great video game of all time. To me, this is the all-time YouTube greatest hit. It is the radio call, as done by Vin Scully, behind a Nintendo RBI Baseball reenactment of Game Six of the 1986 World Series. Pure gold.

Piper’s Pit: Piper Interviews Piper (Link)

Before wrestling became what it is today, it was entertaining. Back in the day there were true characters, which seems to have died when The Rock and Steve Austin left the game. But prior to them, you had the real Hulk Hogan, Jimmy Snuka, Sgt. Slaughter, the The Iron Sheik, and of course, Rowdy Roddy Piper. This is Piper hosting his brilliant Piper’s Pit show, and interviewing himself. Genius.

Dave Roberts Steal in Game 4 (Link)

View from the stands of Dave Roberts stealing second against the Yankees in Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS. One of the great, yet underrated sports plays of all-time, especially since everyone who’s ever watched a baseball game knew he was going on the pitch. I love seeing these videos from the stands of great sports moments. These videos really capture the crowd more than a TV broadcast ever could.

Yankees Opening Day Roll Call (Link)

One of my favorite traditions in baseball. Yankees fans in the bleachers, cleverly called “Bleacher Bums” calling roll call in the top of the first inning of each game. This one is an opening day roll call from a few years ago.

Harry Caray’s Take Me Out to the Ball Game (Link)

A trip back in time to hear the great Harry Caray singing “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” back in the day. Baseball, or at least WGN, just hasn’t been the same since Harry left.

Vince Carter’s Dunk (Link)

Without question the most impressive dunk in the history of basketball. Vince Carter dunking on, ney, jumping over a 7′2″ French dude. Just ridiculous.

Josh McCown to Nate Poole – Sorry Vikings(Link)

While this was a great football play, it is made so much better by listening to the local radio guys nearly have a heart attack. This play was as time expired in the last game of the year to knock the Vikings out of the playoffs. One of my favorite radio calls ever.

Tecmo Bo in His Prime (Link)

If you never saw Bo Jackson in his prime, you don’t know what you missed. If you never played Tecmo Bowl, you don’t know what you missed. If you never saw or used Tecmo Bo in his prime, you never felt the power of God in your hands. The single greatest video game athlete of all time.

How’s This for a Great Horse Name? (Link)

The title says it all.

This system has led to many controversies over the years, leaving many teams to feel as if they’ve been left out of the national championship game. It’s led to co-national champions, a title that no one should ever have to hold. Even with the Bowl Championship Series, which was supposed to “solve” the problems, we have had controversy. From teams being “screwed” out of playing for the title, to a shared national title, the BCS has not solved the problem

Often, the topic of post-season college football is as debated as the teams themselves. You can have bowl games, or you can have a playoff. The pro-bowl side says that if you have a playoff, the regular season is meaningless. Nonsense. First of all, is the NFL regular season meaningless? No. Not even close. Second of all, would you rather have some regular season games not mean as much, or the entire post-season not mean anything. Even if I bought into the ridiculous argument that it would hurt the regular season, so what? If it will give us the excitement of a true post-season, I’m on board.

The most important thing to be solved, is how do we best determine a national championship. There are two trains of thought here. One, do you want to try to figure out the nation’s best team, and reward them with the title? Or do you want to crown a national champion? There is a difference between the two. The bowl system makes an effort to figure out who is best and then call them “champion.” The NCAA basketball tournament, for instance, determines a national champion.

Being the NCAA national champion in basketball doesn’t necessarily mean you were the best team that year. It means you won the tournament. But every year there is one team that can call themselves “champion.” And they are the only team (in the top 64) that ended the season with a win. You will never, ever have co-national champions or two undefeated teams in college basketball. Do we always crown the best team? Probably not. But we always have a true champion. The question you need to ask is, would you rather have a true champion, or try to reward the “best” team? I personally want a true champion, someone who beat all comers and was the only team left standing.

There is a way to make this all happen. I am here to tell you that we can determine a true champion with a short tournament after the regular season, we can allow the exact same number of teams to participate in the post-season, and we can increase the total number of post-season games, thus increase revenue for everyone involved. The system is not that complicated, and as far as I can tell, produces winners all around.

Before I unleash my proposal, I’m going to address the main concerns of going to a playoff system.

First, the most popular response to a playoff system is that it will render the regular season meaningless. I mentioned the NFL earlier and will return to that analogy. In the NFL, 12 teams out of 32 make the playoffs. For the most part, every game matters. Sure, there are a few throw-away games at the end of the season when all of the playoff spots are locked up, but everyone seems to quickly forget about that once the playoffs begin. In the NCAA, there are nearly 120 Division-I teams. Twelve, or 16 of them making the playoffs is hardly going to take away from the regular season. If anything, the fight to get into the tournament will be so fierce that it will make games more meaningful.

Right now, a loss can completely kill your season. Creating a system that can be forgiving of a quality loss would encourage better non-conference games, resulting in a not necessarily more meaningful regular season, but perhaps more exciting.

Honestly, do you really think that every game in college football is meaningful? Even the games with the 43 point spread? Or the games against I-AA teams? Teams are so afraid of losing right now that they won’t schedule tough non-conference games (obvious teams excluded). There are always going to be meaningless games because there will always be mismatches. People will care just as much if a playoff berth is on the line as they do when a bowl bid is on the line. And as much as the NCAA doesn’t want to admit it, as long as there is a point spread, the games will matter.

Second is the argument that it will take away from the bowl games. So apparently watering down the bowls so much that teams are coming out of bowl games with losing records. Let’s face it, the bowl games haven’t mattered since every one of them got a sponsorship and started inviting any 6-6 team to play in it. The bowl games are for the athletes and coaches as a reward for a good (or average) season. Every bowl game except one doesn’t matter. The BCS has already done the damage that opponents of a playoff thought the playoff will do. My system will maintain the (mostly meaningless) bowl format, and the average teams that play in them, to be played in conjunction with the playoff.

Another argument against the playoff is that it would have to take place during final exams and four weeks in December and January is too much for the “student-athletes” to handle. First of all, is this really the time that we are going to start playing the “student” card? Nobody gets too concerned that the college basketball season gets underway at about the same time. Or that the current bowl practices take place over the same time frame. Adding an away game for a handful of teams at the end of the week would not be too much to overcome. Not to mention, the scheduling could be done in a way that gives the “students” enough time off to take care of their exams in a responsible manner.

And when’s the last time anyone complained about the three weeks it takes to crown a basketball champion? Being a student-athlete requires sacrifice. These kids have enough time, resources, and tutors to safely navigate finals week during football practice. If this is the final hurdle, I don’t think we have a problem.

Under my system, the BCS would remain intact as it is. The only difference is that it wouldn’t determine single-game matchups, but seeds for the post-season. The BCS, as it is, is as good of a way as any to rank the teams. This is my choice for an official seeding system.

While many people feel that 16 teams is too many to be playing for a national championship, I think it adds more excitement. Part of the reason there is always controversy in college football has to do with teams being left out. Sixteen teams is a good number to get a solid format, and include teams that may otherwise have no chance. Also, by having 16 teams, you make it possible to have multiple teams from the same conference fighting for a national championship.

I also feel that by keeping the bowl format, all of the current sponsors would be happy to stay on board. ESPN will still air the meaningless bowl games for the same reason they do now- people will watch. The players will be glad to play in the postseason, I believe, in any of these formats. A single bowl game still gives the players and coaches a few more weeks of football, and the two tournaments have built in excitement.

The bottom line is that a playoff is needed to determine a true champion. A championship should always be determined on the field. Human and computer voting is fine to establish rankings and seeds, but not to establish a champion. Voting is too arbitrary. How good a team was supposed to be should not impact how successful they end up being (see On Preseason Polls). The schools and the players deserve a chance to play for the championship.

So, without further adieu, here is my proposal for an NCAA football playoff system, in outline form.

The National Championship Playoff System can be found by itself here.

REGULAR SEASON FORMAT

• 12 Game Maximum Schedules

• All teams must finish regular season play by the Saturday after Thanksgiving. In 2007, that makes for 14 Saturdays from September 1 to December 1

• Any conference championship game must be played within this time frame as well, even if that means cutting the regular season schedule to 11. This would be up to each conference. They could also choose to scrap the conference title game and determine a winner through standings.

• To be bowl-eligible, you must have at least six wins vs. I-A opponents

• To be eligible for the National Championship, you must have at least nine wins vs. I-A opponents (can include conference championship, if applicable)

POSTSEASON FORMAT

• 16 teams in playoff to play in National Championship Playoff

• 16 teams in Second Tier Tournament similar to college basketball’s NIT

• 32 teams in 16 Bowl Games to reward players and schools and to keep small

• Bowl-hosting cities in the mix

• Total of 64 teams in postseason (64 in 2006-07)

• Total of 48 postseason games (32 in 2006-07)

• Same number of teams in postseason, with 16 additional games.

Teams to play in National Championship Playoff

• Six major conference champions (must be ranked in BCS top 20)

• Any other conference champions ranked in BCS top 20

• Independents must be ranked in the Top 20 for consideration, top 15 for guaranteed entry

• At-large bids based on BCS standings and an expert committee

• No more than three teams per conference

• Winner of previous year’s Second Tier Tournament, if in top 20 or nine I-A wins

Teams to play in second tier tournament

• All other conference champions

• At-large bids based on expert committee

Teams to play in Bowl games

• Teams not selected in either tournament will be allowed to accept any invitations they wish from any Bowl. Individual bowls may choose to keep their current affiliations.

NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFF FORMAT

• 16 teams in a single elimination tournament

• Seeding based on final BCS standings

• All first round games are at home field of higher seeded team

• Second round games are at neutral site

• Semi-Final games are at a neutral site

• National Championship game at a neutral site

• Neutral site games are a rotation of major BCS and other bowls

• Total of seven neutral site games to be at currently existing bowl sites

SECOND TIER TOURNAMENT FORMAT

• Winner of tournament can get into National Championship tournament the following year with a top 20 BCS finish, or nine Division-I victories.

• 16 teams in a single elimination tournament

• Seeding done by expert committee

• First and second round games at home field of higher seeded team

• Semi-Final and Championship game at neutral site

• Neutral site games are at currently existing bowl sites

BOWL GAMES

• All bowls to be played as they previously have in the past

• Single game format only

Here’s what the 2006-2007 National Championship Playoff would have looked like:

Round One (all games hosted by higher seed)

Game 1
1 Ohio State
16 BYU

Game 2
2 Florida
15 Rutgers

Game 3
3 Michigan
14 Virginia Tech

Game 4
4 LSU
13 Wake Forest

Game 5
5 USC
12 West Virginia

Game 6
6 Louisville
11 Notre Dame

Game 7
7 Wisconsin
10 Oklahoma

Game 8
8 Boise State
9 Auburn

Round Two (using higher seed as winner for illustration, also top-seed hosts)

Game 9
Games 1 & 8 Winners
Ohio State vs. Boise State (Gator Bowl)

Game 10
Games 2 & 7 Winners
Florida vs. Wisconsin (Capital One Bowl)

Game 11
Games 3 & 6 Winners
Michigan vs. Louisville (Sugar Bowl)

Game 12
Games 4 & 5 Winners
LSU vs. USC (Orange Bowl)

Round Three – National Semi-Finals (neutral site games)

Game 13
Games 9 & 12 Winners
Ohio State vs. LSU (Fiesta Bowl)

Game 14
Games 10 & 11 Winners
Florida vs. Michigan (Rose Bowl)

Championship Game
Games 13 & 14 Winners
Ohio State vs. Florida (at Sugar Bowl)

Scheduling format for playoff would be as follows:

Round One: Saturday, December 9, 2006
Round Two: Saturday, December 16, 2006
Semi-Finals: Monday, January 1, 2007
Championship: Monday, January 8, 2007

Second Tier Tournament

Tier Two Seeds:

1 – Arkansas
2 – Tennessee
3 – California
4 – Texas
5 – Texas A&M
6 – Oregon State
7 – Nebraska
8 – Boston College
9 – UCLA
10- Georgia Tech
11- Georgia
12- Houston
13- Hawai’i
14- Penn State
15- Troy
16- Central Michigan

Tier Two Dates:

Round One: Thursday & Friday, December 7 & 8, 2006
Round Two: Thursday & Friday. December 14 & 15, 2006
Semi-Finals: Saturday, December 23, 2006
Championship: Monday, January 1, 2007

The Tier Two Tournament would follow the exact same game format, including two home game rounds, followed by three neutral site games.

Rounds three and four games would be played at current Bowl Game sites not used in the National Championship Playoff. The Tier Two Tourney would get second choice of bowl tie-ins, before the final bowl games are played under the old bowl standards.

BOWL GAMES

Staggered on weekdays to keep the feeling of bowl season during tournaments

32 teams and 16 games

The bowl games here and above can be changed according to the needs of the current season. This is just an example template.

Dec. 19
Poinsettia
TCU vs. Northern Illinois

Dec. 20
New Orleans
Middle Tennessee vs. Rice

Dec. 21
Papajohns.com
South Florida vs. East Carolina

Dec. 21
New Mexico
San Jose State vs. New Mexico

Dec. 22
Hawaii
Arizona State vs. Florida State

Dec. 26
Motor City
South Carolina vs. Clemson

Dec. 28
Texas
Navy vs. Kansas State

Dec. 29
Champs Sports
Maryland vs. Purdue

Dec. 30
Alamo
Kentucky vs. Iowa

Dec. 31
Independence
Oklahoma State vs. Alabama

Jan. 1
Armed Forces
Utah vs. Tulsa

Jan. 1
Sun
Oregon vs. Missouri

Jan. 1
Humanitarian
Miami (Fla.) vs. Nevada

Jan. 1
Insight
Texas Tech vs. Minnesota

Jan. 7
International
Cincinnati vs. Western Michigan

Jan. 7
GMAC
Southern Mississippi vs. Ohio

In the end, all of the teams that played in a bowl game would still have a post-season game, or maybe a few. Increasing the number of post-season games, and the importance of many of them is better for the sport in the long run. What may be lost in the regular season is more than made up for in the post-season.

College football needs a playoff system. There may be some people who won’t realize it until they live through it, but it needs a playoff. The only thing holding it back is the stubborn-ness of the powers that be, and the unwillingness to make a logical change for the good of the sport.

Preseason rankings in college football are about as pointless as it would be to rank NFL teams before the season. If they were just novelty, and didn’t have a direct impact on the outcome of the national championship and BCS game matchups, then I wouldn’t care. But I do care that the media and coaches decisions in August about how good they think Boston College will be, will directly impact where they finish at the end of the season. I’m using B.C. as an example, but you could plug in any team you want to this scenario.

About the only real reason the college football season is even played is to make money. The schools, the conferences and the NCAA all make money on football. The distribution of that money is largely dependent on the team’s success, particularly what bowl they go to. Getting into a BCS game is like hitting the lottery for the team that makes it there, as well as the conference that that team plays in.

Last year’s BCS teams each took home around $15 million to share with their conference. The next highest payout was $5,312,000 to Wisconsin and Arkansas for playing in the Capital One Bowl. Still, 17 of the 32 bowl games payed out less than $1 million to each team. That sounds like a decent chunk of change still, but when you factor in sharing it with the conference and expenses to actually make the trip to the game, most teams in the lower-tier bowl games barely break even, or even lose money.

Being ranked two or three spots higher in the first preseason bowl, may be the difference between playing in the Fiesta Bowl and taking home up to $17 million and playing in the MPC Computers Bowl and taking home $750,000. That’s what happened to Boise St. last season. They benefited from getting a few votes in last season’s preseason poll and parlayed their undefeated season to a BCS game, something no past mid-major team had accomplished.

While Boise started last season unranked, they went through their schedule undefeated and earned a BCS bid. They were receiving votes last season, enough that they were able to climb into the top 25 at 3-0. They were able to get a BCS bid for the first time, but being undefeated, were unable to do much more than scratch at the door of playing in the title game. Boise St. ended the season ranked 8th in the BCS poll, and 9th in the USA Today and Harris polls. Had they started the season ranked in the top 25, could they have earned a spot in the title game? Doubtful, but you can see the point I’m making. If Boise were in a major conference, and all other things were equal, it’s possible that they end up playing for the title, because they may have gotten a more favorable preseason ranking.

My point of the Boise story is that no one knew in the preseason just how good that team was. Teams in the mid-major conferences especially, take the brunt of unfavorable preseason rankings. That team may have been penalized because nobody expected them to be so good. Had they been ranked just a spot or two lower in the first bowl, they may have been screwed out of getting into the Fiesta Bowl, and ended up hosting the MPC Computers Bowl once again.

The way the ranking system works in college football is quite obvious. Voters rank their teams in the preseason, then alter the rankings each week based on that week’s results. That means usually teams that win move up, and teams that lose move down. This system has so many flaws that I can’t even begin to cover them. There are two obvious flaws to ranking this way that I will talk about.

First, the week in which you lose ends up being far more important than the circumstances of the loss or to whom you lose. If you’re LSU this year, you could lose one game all year, and depending on when your loss is, you could end up ranked in a variety of spots. You could lose your week two game against Virginia Tech, and likely still be ranked number one or two at the end of the season after winning the SEC title game. You could lose your week six game against Florida and get shut out of the SEC title game and ranked around number five. Or you could go 12-0 in the regular season and lose the SEC title game, knocking you out of the National Championship game. Losing early does not really hurt most teams, but losing late in the year can effectively end you National Championship hopes.

On a similar note, that same LSU team could get upset in their opening game by Mississippi State, and they would probably fall to about 10th in the rankings. Winning out would likely put them back in the top two. But if in this same scenario, that LSU team beats Florida en route to going 11-1, they would be ranked ahead of Florida, who could also go 11-1, but lose to a much better team.

This brings me to the other major flaw with today’s ranking system. When so many teams have played against each other, how do you sort out all of the head-to-heads. If LSU beats Florida, Florida beats Florida State, Florida State beats Miami, Miami beats Virginia Tech, and Virginia Tech beats LSU, how do you rank all of these teams? This is obviously an extreme example, but it shows the argument I’m trying to make. In the previous scenario, I had LSU and Florida both going 11-1, with LSU losing to a 3-win team, and Florida losing to a 1-loss team. In any other situation, Florida would be ranked higher. But how can you justify ranking them ahead of a team they lost to? It is such a subjective way to rank teams that it inevitably leads to controversy.

I like my share of controversy, but I like it in the form of “who’s better, Daisuke Matsuzaka or Eric Bedard?” I like controversy where it doesn’t really matter who’s right, it’s just fun to debate. College football is a way of life for far too many people to let the season be determined the way that it is.

So why have preseason rankings? That’s simple. To sell magazines, get traffic to web sites, and have a way to hype up otherwise meaningless early season games. But in all of this, it’s not the teams ranked in the top ten that suffer, it’s the teams just barely receiving votes, or not getting any at all.

The only real solution is the one we’ve all heard over and over: a playoff. The logistics are tough, but it is possible. I have created a format that I think answers all of the questions and it is in it’s final revision stage before being unleashed. Check back soon for updates. But in the meantime, we’re stuck with bowls, and what bowl you play in is nearly as important to a football program as who your starting quarterback is.

There is a fine line in bowl season between breaking even and striking gold, and which side of that line a team falls on is unfortunately often decided in August.

- First of all, no more designated hitter. I am from the old school I guess, but to me, it’s just not baseball when you have a steady hitter and steady pitcher. That’s wiffleball, not baseball. If a player wants to hit, he should play the field. And just as equally, a pitcher should take his turn at bat like the other eight guys who share the duty of playing defense. The American League right now is simply a game of outscoring your opponent.

I know there are a lot of people that love the DH rule, and think it’s worthless to have pitchers hitting. To that I say the only reason pitchers are so worthless at the plate is because they are allowed to be. There is no rule that prevents a pitcher from taking batting practice. Since the AL instituted the DH over 30 years ago, it’s made its way into the minor leagues, college baseball and even high schools. If you stop babying pitchers at 15-years old, maybe they’d be able to swing the bat a little better. It’s no coincidince that of the 10 starting NL pitchers with batting averages over .242 right now, eight of them have winning records. They don’t all have the best ERAs, but they are being supported by an extra hitter…themselves.

Why National League teams don’t make their pitchers spend more time on their hitting is beyond me. You only have nine guys in your lineup. If your pitcher can’t hit, that pretty much eliminates the effectiveness of your number eight hitter, so you really are playing with just seven real hitters in the lineup. If you have a pitcher that can hit, you can give your team a huge advantage. But everybody keeps babying these pitchers. Between not swinging the bat and the ridiculous over-usage of the pitch count, it’ll only be a few years before they send somebody out to the mound to catch the ball from the catcher.

So with all of that implying that they should just use a DH, I’m still against it. My first move as commissioner would be to eliminate the DH, which would be step one in bringing the hitting pitcher back, and bring baseball back to being baseball.

– My next move would be to reverse the scheduling and logistical changes that Bud Selig instituted. That means no more wild-card and no more interleague play. Of course, to get rid of the wild-card, you’d have to realign again to get back to two divisions per league.

- It’s time for contraction. To fix all of the scheduling problems I want fixed, this is going to be necessary. That’s not going to be a popular move in a few cities, but it needs to be done.

We’ve seen in the last 20 years that baseball does not handle expansion well. The pitching is watered down which makes for worse baseball, and the schedule is too long which leads to empty ballparks. If you cut the weak cities and redistribute the talent in the majors and minors, you create a better product in the surviving cities. Come on, in ten years will Tampa and Washington, D.C. really miss their teams.

So this is really one big change. Cut two to four teams and re-align the divisions accordingly. Two divisions per league, with each division winner going to the playoffs. This eliminates the wild-card and takes us back to just an LCS and a World Series.

- The next step in this process is to fix the scheduling. No more interleague play, or at least much less of it. Fifteen games where the two teams are using different rules than they are used to is too many. Cut the interleague schedule to six games. I’d say get rid of it altogether, but the fans really like it, so one home-and-home per team is fair enough.

- And while we’re on scheduling, no more unbalanced schedule. It’s hard enough to compete in the AL East, but do you really have to make the Blue Jays, Orioles and Devil Rays play 38 games against the Yankees and Red Sox? What makes this unfair is that the teams in the AL West don’t have the same schedule. The teams are essentially fighting for the same playoff spot, but the unbalanced schedule makes it very possible for a team to have a huge advantage just by being in a different division. The schedule should be slightly unbalanced, so you play in your division more than any other, but not to the extent that it is now.

- Another scheduling change, and that is to bring back the scheduled doubleheader. This allows for much more leniancy with the scheduling. If you promise more days off to the players union, I think this could be done. You could give a team five or six more days off during the season, and play doubleheaders on Sundays. This would also allow the league to move back Opening Day a week or so, thus avoiding the midwest snow debacle that we saw this year. Plus, you get to give the fans a treat during the season. Teams could do the day/night doubleheader if they want, or they could do the twi-night doubleheader and give the fans a true two-for-one experience at the park.

- Add a salary cap, and a salary floor. While I think that an owner should be able to do what they want with their team, it’s about time we put some restrictions and guidelines in place. The league needs to step in now and then and make sure that their product is fair and competitive. Baseball is no longer either of those. While some small and midsize markets do pretty well, the generally lack the resources to compete every year the way the big boys do. Billy Beane does more than most with what he has to work with, but you always know that their best players are leaving in their prime because they can’t afford to keep them. In the NFL, there is always somebody who comes out of nowhere to compete. In baseball, it just doesn’t happen. By the time you build a team from the ground up, your players are up for free agency and you have to start again. So if you can’t compete in the free agent market, you can’t compete year-in and year-out.

But on the other side of this is the teams that don’t try to compete. There are owners that are content to make their money without trying to win. While they can do what they want under the current rules, it’s just wasting our time, the fans money, and the players window of opportunity to not build the best team you can.

So my proposal is to put in a salary cap and a salary floor. Each team would have to spend X amount of money on their payroll, and you couldn’t spend more then Y amount on your payroll. I’m not an expert on salary caps and economics so I won’t propose the details, but I think it should be a combination of the NFL and NBA’s structures, which I think both work well. I think this not only makes the league more competitive, but more interesting as well. It makes it tougher to build a dynasty and encourages creativity, since you can’t just throw money at players. There is too much resentment of the rich teams in the league, which is just bad for the sport. The cap and floor should still be far enough apart to reward an owner that wants to spend more and punish those who don’t but it should help close the gap.

- One thing I’m putting in here may not be popular, and that is to grant “amnesty” to any players that have used steroids in the past. Right now the league is stuck in a no-win situation trying to figure out who broke today’s rules yesterday, when the rule wasn’t there. The league should just say, “everyone has a clean slate, the new rules start now.” From the time this is issued, the new and improved drug testing program could be instituted. The league should be using it’s deep pockets to hire the scientists that are making the drugs to help them test for them. The same reason the computer companies and the government hire computer hackers, they know what they’re doing. Bring in the brains and let them figure it out. This may not fix the past, but it may save the future.

- The last one is personal. While I don’t think it’s hurting the game, per se, I absolutely loathe the “defensive indifference” rule. The official rule, rule 10.07(g) says, “The official scorer shall not score a stolen base when a runner advances solely because of the defensive team’s indifference to the runner’s advance. The official scorer shall score such a play as a fielder’s choice.”

First of all, in a game with no time limit, everything can have a meaning. To me, there is no such thing as defensive indifference. It is a strategic choice made by the defensive team to not attempt to get the runner out on the steal attempt. Leaving this rule to the scorer’s judgement is wrong in my opinion. The runner is stealing for a strategic offensive purpose.

Here’s a hypothetical situation. Runner on first, no outs, 8-0 score in favor of the team in the field, ninth inning. The runner on first takes second base without a throw. The scoring will likely be “defensive indifference.” The next batter hits a ground ball up the middle that the second baseman dives for near the bag. There is no play at first and everyone is safe. This would have been an out except for the steal. The batting team goes on to score eight runs with two outs. The force at second that wasn’t there due to the steal may have cost them the game. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but in a game with no time-limit, everything could have an impact.

I understand that the defense is indifferent, but the runner is not. The runner, statistically, is being punished for doing something that is helping his team. On a sacrifice fly, when there is no throw home, isn’t that defensive indifference? There are many situations in a game where a player advances on a play due to the defense’s indifference. How about a runner scoring from second without a throw on a shallow single in the same situation as above? I find it unfair to pick and choose which stats are legitimate during the game.

I’ll admit that “defensive indifference” is not ruining baseball, but it bothers me. The constant tweaking of stats could hurt baseball because people like Scott Boras can manipulate every number they come across, therefore pricing a free-agent out of certain markets by using these stats to over-value their clients. Just like they do with the save, and it’s ugly step-child, the hold.

These are my proposals to help fix our National Past Time and restore it to it’s rightful perch atop our nations sports. I’ll add more thoughts as I deem them worthy. Feel free to suggest some more…

Ratings written for the 2007 baseball season.

Best announcing teams:

1. San Francisco Giants – Mike Krukow & Duane Kuiper

These two have really grown on me in the last two years. You need to watch them regularly to really appreciate them, but they have arguably the best chemistry of any booth in the bigs. The are probably the best combination of information and entertainment, and they know when to give you which one. The only ones I thought were better were the Diamondbacks team of Thom Brennaman and Mark Grace, which is now broken up.

Also, no one is as ruthless on fans. If you drop a foul ball, wear a stupid hat, or are with a date that’s out of your league, they’ll “eliminate” you via chalkboard. Overall, I think the most entertaining team in baseball this year.

2. Los Angeles Dodgers – Vin Scully

The very last of a rare breed. You learn more in one inning of watching the Dodgers than watching all of the rest of the games that day in their entirety. Scully is as prepared as they get, has a perfect voice, and has the perfect blend of letting the picture tell the story, and coloring the picture when necessary. If I had to listen to a game seven, I’d want Scully calling it by himself. Can you imagine how Joe Buck would’ve mangled the Buckner ground ball? Or the Kirk Gibson homer? Vin Scully is baseball broadcasting.

3. New York Mets – Gary Cohen, Keith Hernandez & Ron Darling

I’m not huge on Cohen as a play-by-play guy, but I think Hernandez is as good as anyone. First of all, after listening to Hernandez and Darling for an inning, you’d think it’s 1986 all over again. I’m pretty sure they’ve mentioned 1986 in every inning of every game for the past two seasons. And listening to Hernandez correct himself cracks me up, “got him with a fastball” – sees replay – “NO, it was a SLIDER!!!” Gets me every time.

Aside from the humor they bring me, I think they have the best three man booth in the game when they’re all together, and are great when it’s just two of them. The dynamic of having a pitcher and hitter that were teammates makes for good discussions and great chemistry.

4. New York Yankees – Michael Kay, Bobby Murcer, Paul O’Neill, Ken Singleton, Joe Girardi & whoever else they put in there.

Not everybody likes this team, particularly Yankee fans. But then again, Yankee fans only want to hear other Yankee fans talk about how much New York rules, the Yankees rule, and Boston sucks. Listening to a Yankee fan about anything is a bad idea.

Personally, I like the fact that Michael Kay calls every game like it matters and is pretty unbiased. I’ve really enjoyed Paul O’Neill, as he brings similar qualities that Keith Hernandez does. Girardi has been great when they have him, as he also adds that former manager insight.

5. Boston Red Sox – Don Orsillo & Jerry Remy

While the thick ‘Bastin’ accent can get to you at times, these guys are good. They too have a great balance of information and entertainment, although they can get a little too far gone on the entertainment end. When they get laughing, settle in, because it may be two innings before they tell you what’s happening in the game again. You’d think by listening to them that they’re going to be homers, but if anything, I think they tend to be overly critical of the Sox.

1a. Chicago White Sox – Ken “Hawk” Harrelson & Darrin Jackson

Before you crucify me for putting this team in my best category, hear me out. There is no booth in baseball that caters to it’s team more than the White Sox. And there might be no more entertaining announcers in all of sports. The over the top homerism, the ridiculous catch phrases, and the talking to players as if they’re listening goes from really, really annoying to hysterically entertaining in about a season and a half, if you let it, and force it a little. I’m at the point now where I can watch a whole White Sox game and not be able to tell you who won, I’m only listening for the comedy.

There is nothing more entertaining than hearing, “here’s Big Jim stepping up to the plate. C’mon Jim, Cinch it up and hunker down… Way back, he looks up, you can put it on the board…YES!”

It’s such a bad, catchphrase-ridden, homer call that you can’t help but laugh when you hear it. There are so many reasons to hate the White Sox announcers, but when I watch their games to be entertained by the Hawk, I’m putting them in my favorites.

6. Philadelphia Phillies – Harry Kalas & Anyone Else

This is a late entry into the Best Announcer categoty. I grew up listening to Harry Kalas, and he is living proof of what Jack Daniels and Marlboro Reds can do for your voice. Simply put, Kalas has the greatest voice working in sports announcing today. Whoever is in the booth with him sounds like a whisper compared to Kalas’ trademark pipes.

Since DirecTV was robbing me of the ability to watch Phillies games on the west coast, I didn’t get to see or hear Kalas for years. In 2008, Phillies games finally made it into the Extra Innings package, making it worth the price of the package to hear Mr. Kalas’ voice calling baseball again.

(Ed. Note: RIP Mr. Kalas.)

Worst announcers:

I don’t know all of their names and  I don’t want to look them up. If they’re not good enough to know, I’m not going to search for them.

1a. Fox National – Joe Buck & Tim McCarver

How they are still Fox’s number one team for the postseason and Saturday’s is beyond me. Between Buck’s annoying attempt at being cool while calling a game and McCarver’s penchant for the obvious, it is painful to listen to these guys.

What gets me is that Buck does a fine job calling Cardinals games during the season, it’s when he gets on the big stage, I think he just tries too hard. And McCarver used to be as good as anyone in the game. I grew up listening to Ralph Kiner and Tim McCarver on WWOR channel 9 calling Mets games and they were fantastic. Now Kiner is impossible to understand and McCarver drops gems like, “if they score twice this inning, they’ll have two more runs…”

What gets me about the way Buck calls games is his attempt to say things without describing the action. If you’re not going to say anything, in an attempt to let the picture tell the story, then don’t talk. When David Ortiz hits a walk-off homer after midnight in the playoffs, don’t drop, “we’ll see you later today…” as the actual home run call. Seriously, that’s all he said as the ball was flying. Call the home run, then use your witty line that you wrote down three innings ago.

Nothing could be worse than being force fed these two for the entire post-season last year, and just when you thought you’d be getting a break for two minutes between innings…”This is our country…”

1b. ESPN

There are some talents at ESPN, like Jon Miller. But then there are Chris Berman and Joe Morgan. Between Berman’s nicknames and bad catch phrases, and Morgan’s refusal to admit that statistics are a decent way to measure baseball players, they are amongst the worst out there. I actually will not watch a game that Joe Morgan is doing anymore, and I recommend this for more examples of why.

2. Seattle Mariners

If you live on the east coast and need to fall asleep at midnight, this is the team you’re looking for. I’ve never heard a play-by-play guy with less enthusiasm. It could be the bottom of the ninth, down a run with the bases loaded, and he’ll make is sound as if it’s first pitch.

3. Los Anaheim Angels – Steve Physioc & Rex Hudler

Painfully bad. Not as boring as the Seattle guys, but really bad and annoying.

4. Texas Rangers

Also very boring. There’s only so much you can say about a crew that’s just boring. These guys are that.

5. All the small and medium market teams, and really bad teams

This includes Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington, Kansas City & Florida. They all suck for different reasons, but I don’t watch them all enough to tell you exactly why. The Royals brought Kevin Seitzer in at the end of last season and I thought he did a great job, but alas, he’s not there this year.

5a. Chicago White Sox

See above. For the same reasons, the majority of people despise these guys. Example.

Others that need to be mentioned:

Chicago Cubs – Len Kasper and Bob Brenly

I’m indifferent towards Kasper, but I think Brenly is fantastic. Great insight as former player and World Series manager. I covered the Diamondbacks when Brenly was managing there, and he always got it. He understands the game from a player’s, coaches, fan’s and broadcaster’s perspective. Arizona fans don’t know how lucky they were that they had Thom Brennaman and Bob Brenly, then Brennaman and Mark Grace. Maybe it’s Brennaman, which leads me to…

Cincinatti Reds – Thom Brennaman

Apparently gets the best out of his color guy, or has been lucky with who he gets paired with. I think he’s very good at calling games, adding excitement where he needs to. I think he’s coming around in football too, getting some NFL games now, and bowl games. I thought his call of the Fiesta Bowl was great. But with baseball, he’s very solid. Last year’s team of Brennaman and Grace was as good as any I’ve ever listened to. Which brings me to…

Arizona Diamondbacks – Daron Sutton & Mark Grace

Grace is as entertaining as color guys get, from constantly referring to Armando Benitez as the most exciting player in the National League, because if he gets into the game, anything can happen, to his off topic humor that is well timed. The only criticism of Grace I have is that he’s still not far enough removed from the players he’s commenting on, having been their teammate just a few years ago. But he controls it pretty well.

I think Sutton has been a big step down from Brennaman. He seems to get a little overly excited at times in the game that don’t call for it. Far too many calls that sound like a walk-off homer in Game 7 of the World Series, when it’s just a solo shot in an 8-2 game in the fifth inning in July. But with Grace, the team is still above average to me.

Okay, I was planning on just making a list, but it kind of got out of hand. So it’s more of a book. But, hopefully it will help you decide what games to watch if you can’t make up your mind. And if you hate the White Sox announcers, try watching them as if it’s a comedy. They’re much better that way. But try not to ever watch the team you root for play the White Sox on their channel, you might cut off your ears.

- Create an international commission with unified rules.  Commission would be headed by a commissioner voted upon by current fighters, trainers, and other boxing insiders.

- One title per weight class

Fighters and promotors would have to no longer recognize current sanctioning bodies for this to work. If all fighters agree to vacate those belts in exchange for being a part of this commission, it could be done. They would be giving up their belts in order to join a commission that offers insurance, regulation, and the best competition in the world. It would only take a few fighters before the rest joined in.

- Cut back on number of weightclasses

Currently 17 classes

105, 108, 112, 115, 118, 122, 126, 130, 135, 140, 147, 154, 160, 168, 175, 200, 200+

Cut down to 13 classes as follows:

Heavyweight - 210+
Cruiserweight - 210
Light Heavy - 185
Super-Middle - 170
Middleweight - 160
Welterweight - 150
Junior-Welter - 142
Lightweight - 135
Featherweight - 128
Super-Bantam - 122
Bantamweight - 115
Flyweight - 110
Strawweight - 105

This would help consolidate the talent a little bit, and reduce the class jumping that is hurting the sport right now. Class jumping results in too many vacated belts, which results in illegitimate champions.

- Change weigh-in procedures

Fighters must weigh-in within one hour of the fight, under the limit. This would be an attempt to cut down on fighters putting themselves at risk by not being in top condition leading up to the fight. It would also encourage fighters to fight closer to their walking around weight.

- All rankings will be formulated in public, meaning that there will be no surprise rankings. Rankings would be released weekly, similar to college football or basketball. Everyone should be kept informed of where each fighter is ranked. There could even be some expirimentation with a voting poll for the top 10 in each class, with voters selected from former fighters, trainers, and writers, picking the Top 10 each week. Throw in a Pound-for-Pound vote every month and you have some quality, media friendly press to get boxing back on SportsCenter each week.

What goes on right now in the alphabet organizations, as far as manipulating the rankings goes, is terrible. The WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO can only be called corrupt and greedy. Blame the promoters all you want, the root of boxing’s problems lie with the sanctioning organizations.

- No other belts will be allowed to be carried into the ring. Only the title of the new commission will be recognized. There will only be one belt per weight class. By this I mean, only one actual belt. If you lose the title, you have to give that man your belt. There may be a trophy or ring that you could keep to commemorate the win, but no longer will fighters get to keep any belt they’ve ever won. This could help create a situation where a belt has significant meaning and sentimental value. (Imagine Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. someday wearing the exact same belt his father wore.) The belts would be engraved with the new champion’s name after each new titlist, similar to the Stanley Cup.

- Fighters must fight fighters of similar experience, unless given approval.

In no circumstances should a fighter with 30 pro fights be fighting someone 1-7. And also, never should someone 8-0 be fighting someone 10-42. All fights must be approved by commission. Certain circumstances, like a 12-0 fighter with amateur experience could be allowed to fight someone much more experienced. You could create levels for fighters, even if just private for the commission to use, so that you never have an A-level fighter fighting a D-level fighter.

- Regulate medical protocols at ringside. Whether fighting in MGM Grand, Manchester, England, or an Indian Casino off TV, medical protocols should always be the same. The money the commission takes in would go to pay to make sure everything neccessary is in place for any sanctioned fight.

- Health insurance for active pro fighters. In a sport with as many injuries as boxing, fighters should be able to get the coverage they need. They should be required to take a physical before and after each fight, in order to keep accurate records of each fighter’s health. Boxers could then be covered as any full-time employee would be. This would conform to each fighter’s place of residence, so a fighter in the United States would have different coverage than a resident of Britain or Canada. But the point should be that no professional fighter is without coverage, especially for any fight related injuries.

- Regulate pay for trainers, cut men, and managers. These people should not be at the mercy of the fighter to receive their paycheck. Their cut should come out of the fighters purse before the fighter gets his check. Any additional pay would be up to the fighter.

- Fighters would apply for and maintain a “pro-card“, which would make them a professional boxer, therefore eligible for benefits. A fixed percentage of all boxing generated income would go to a fund that would establish benefits for all fighters, and contribute to the maintanence of the commission.

- Regulate gloves. 10oz. gloves for 150 pounds and up, 8oz. gloves for 142 and below. Gloves that are approved by the commission can be worn at the fighters discretion, regardless of his opponent’s choice of gloves. If the gloves you want to wear are on the approved list, you can wear them, simple as that.

- Allow approved sports drinks in the corners for all sanctioned fights

- Overhaul of judging system. Add three to five more judges per fight, seated slightly farther back than ringside judges. All cards would be added up, with cumulative points for each fighter determining a winner. Judges could then judge all fights on a card, rather than have 12-15 judges on a card that only do one fight each. I would not be against adding even more judges if it is deemed financially realistic.

- Regulate the money. For each fight, the money has to come from somewhere. Right now it comes from promoters and TV networks. This doesn’t have to change, it would just be regulated. Instead of promoters representing individual fighters, they would work for the commission as independent contractors. I understand that boxing is all about money and will always be. But by cleaning it up and regulating it, fighters stand to make more money because they will not be getting cheated.

I think the majority of pro fighters would be willing to pay money to the commission to be a part of it and know where every penny is going, while getting insurance and legitimacy in return.

Promotors and TV networks would still stand to make their money and serve as matchmakers. Every fight still needs to be made and needs a venue. Promoter would bid for the right to put a fight on, only instead of the promoter paying each fighter, they would pay the commission, which would then pay the fighter, trainers, managers, and everyone else involved. The promoters make their bid, incuding their cut and in the end, the best offer is acted upon. There is no reason why boxing should act differently than any other business.

- Form a union type of organization for the fighters, so that they are looking after the fighters interests and can negotiate with the commission.

- Bring boxing back to the mainstream. This one is mostly for just helping boxing in the United States. Boxing was bigger in the past than it is today because it had more exposure. With an organized commission, fights could be made independant of television. If the card is set, and the money is already in place, you could sell these cards to network television. There is a place for boxing on TV, the business just needs to be straightened out.

There are many more things that could be done to improve boxing. These are the basics changes that I feel are necessary to make boxing as good as it could be. Feel free to offer comments and suggestions on how to improve this list. I’ll consider it a work in progress until boxing is overhauled.

It’s not just Nevada. Iowa, the whole state, has the Cubs, White Sox, Brewers, Twins, Cardinals and Royals all in their blackout map. Parts of North Carolina: four teams; Fresno: four teams; Mobile, Alabama: no Braves, Marlins or Devil Rays; Memphis: Atlanta, Cincinatti, St. Louis are off. The Toronto Blue Jays are blacked out in all of Canada! Are the people in these towns realistically supposed to drive for a day and a half to watch their “local” team?

I grew up in New Jersey and I like to watch the New York Mets. But most importantly, I’m a baseball fan. I like to watch three or four games a day, based on who’s playing against whom. If the game is broadcast on DIRECTV, it should be available to anyone with the baseball package. I can understand if you live in a city that has a team. In that instance, you should have to watch the local broadcast. That’s the whole point of the policy- that when there are two feeds, you must watch the local advertising if you live in that market. But why must you if you are not in that market?

Here’s the gist of it from John Helyar at ESPN.com:

“Baseball’s territorial map was drawn for the rabbit-ears era in the 1970s. Its boundaries were set according to the reach of over-the-air broadcast signals, emanating from teams’ flagship stations and affiliates. Today, games are mainly carried on regional sports networks (RSNs), which mostly are carried on cable systems. It’s a “pay” TV distribution system that doesn’t hew to the old territorial patterns of “free” TV.

“The result is the perversion of a perfectly fine principle. Territories were created to protect the value of a team’s TV rights, guaranteeing that nobody else would broadcast into its market. But when you live in the outer reaches of some clubs’ territories, you might as well be in Outer Mongolia. The farther you live from the home team’s ballpark, the less likely it is that your cable system will carry the RSN televising most of the team’s games.”

DIRECTV charges $199.96 for a season of baseball. Here is there websites explanation for the blackout rules. From directv.com:

“If you live in a ZIP code that is within a Major League Baseball team’s territory, that team’s games will be blacked out from the MLB EXTRA INNINGS® game package, but will generally be available as part of your local regional sports, cable or over–the–air affiliate station. Blackouts protect the local rights holders who arrange separate distribution agreements for their exclusive territories.”

While I’m not completely blaming DIRECTV, they could have pressured MLB a little more than they have. If they wanted to offer their customers the best product, they would have tried to do something about the blackout rules. They play innocent in the whole situation, but they control the checkbook. To professional sports, that’s all that matters.

Major League Baseball this year said it was going to look into the blackout rules and see if it was time for a change. In May, at the MLB owner’s meetings in New York, discussion of the blackout policy and MLB Extra Innings was on the agenda. But it’s unlikely anything will come of it until at least next season, and more likely, the season after. Which is just ridiculous.

The rules that DIRECTV have no say in have to do with weekend games. As part of the contract MLB has with ESPN and FOX, games are blacked out on Saturday in the daytime if it is not the FOX game in your area. FOX paid for exclusive rights to the Saturday afternoon games and airs them regionally. While I don’t agree with this anymore than the other rules, this issue needs to be taken up with FOX and MLB. As for Sundays, ESPN has exclusive rights to Sunday night games. This is why everybody plays day games on Sunday. In the evening, nobody else can air baseball against ESPN’s game.

The Extra Innings package should feature every game that is available on a DIRECTV channel. In addition to that, games on local channels should be part of the package if possible, as it is now with some teams. The only exception to this should be when the team in the local market (meaning you actually live in the city of the team), is on a channel, any feeds from the opposing team, or national outlet should be blacked out. Is that so hard to do? I understand that some teams are going to fight for bigger markets, and that’s fine. Even if you cut it to everybody has one local team, I’ll support it. Just don’t try to justify six teams in one city are the “local” team. Especially when the closest team is 265 miles away. For the record, San Francisco is 571 miles from Las Vegas. Yeah, that’s the local market.

Another issue I have, probably more with DIRECTV than MLB is that all replays of games outside of your local market are blacked out. Are you trying to tell me that these teams and advertisers would rather I didn’t watch a game for a second time? Watching a replay at 11AM the following day, or a day game at night hurts no one. There is no opposing broadcast to cater to. There is no local advertiser to compete with. Why in the world are all MLB replays blacked out?

I guess the only solutions to flood DIRECTV and Major League Baseball with complaints. If someone wants to scrape together some contact information, I’ll gladly post it here. Perhaps together we can compile a list of resources and contacts to fight this as a group. If you have any teams blacked out, please post them so we can get a full list. Before next season, I’ll get a form letter posted here that we can all send to Major League Baseball and DIRECTV. Let’s get this changed before next season.

Read my follow up on the MLB Blackout Policy.

UPDATE: Extra Innings has made some improvements in 2008.

UPDATE AGAIN: Nevermind.

View the actual MLB Blackout map from Wikipedia.  See if you can find anywhere that doesn’t have at least one team blacked out.