THE COLLEGE YEARS

I'm from Ohio, where football is king and the rest of the three major sports take a back seat, no matter if it's during the season or the off season. We like our football a lot in Ohio and when I moved to Louisville around five years ago I found out that people in this state love their basketball with an equally large heart. Both the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville are storied college basketball programs and I had to get used to the fact that while I wanted to debate the spread option, Tampa two defense, and zone blocking, folks around here were more likely to change the subject to the full court press, the 2-3 zone, and boxing out.

It didn't bother me at first, different athletic strokes for different folks after all, but over the years I've come to resent the implication made by a lot of die-hard college basketball fans that the game they love is not only superior to the NBA (which it isn't), but also superior to college football as well. This is a barroom argument in it's truest sense of course, the old my "insert team/sport here" is better than your "insert team/sport here." So after having more than a few of those barroom arguments and with March Madness looming on the horizon, I thought I would make the case for college hoops not being all it's cracked up to be.

Hopefully this will be less of an indictment of college basketball on the whole, and more a lesson in how the product the NCAA puts on the court can be improved and why the NBA is still a much more entertaining viewing experience for this writer. That said, I am going to organize things by putting numbers and bold text in front of my points. Hopefully, it makes me look smarter. Here's why the NCAA doesn't quite stack up:

1. The one-and-done rule The rule that a player cannot enter the NBA draft without having first played at least one season of college basketball is one of the most ridiculous and misguided things the NBA has ever done, and the NCAA's lack of real resistance to it's implementation is a large reason as to why the competition in college basketball is becoming watered down.  The specifics of the rule for domestic players are that they be 19 years old the year of the draft and a year out of high school, so for all intents and purposes college is foisted upon a lot of guys that probably don't want to go in the first place, as Michael Wilbon can tell you. I'm with Mike on this one, and as he illustrates in that piece, so are most college coaches. They don't like babysitting guys for a year only to see them bolt to the NBA post haste.

There is no longer any time for fans to get to know and love a team's superstars, because for the most part those players with the big stars next to their names are gone by the time their first year of classes is complete. Even if a player with NBA level talent decides to stick around two years instead of one, that doesn't give programs and coaches the time to build elite teams that can contend for years at a time. Coaches and recruiters are now the stewards of revolving doors at their gyms, where players show up, show out, and ship out before they have time to mature as athletes or as people. What's left is a system that doesn't give fans a chance to build a relationship with their favorite players and doesn't give coaches the time to create elite teams. This year's parity in college hoops is testament to this fact, where in the waning days of February, a great team is still yet to be found.

There are exceptions of course, but for the most part even college teams that have found a way to be consistently successful have no real consistency in their line-ups. Teams and programs that used to be perennially dominant are miring in mediocrity. North Carolina, Kentucky, Duke, Michigan State et al are no longer superior to their competition year in and year out, but are left to find a group of super freshmen to make a title run in the odd year their recruiting class was truly dominant. 

Super freshmen and sophomores now leave before they have even come close to polishing their game or becoming men. This not only hurts the level of competition at the collegiate level, but forces NBA teams to draft players as works in progress (not to pick on UK, but the two stars they just sent to the NBA are both in need of some seasoning--DeMarcus Cousins is a foul machine with maturity issues and John Wall, despite his freakish gifts, still suffers from a serious turnover problem, just as a couple of examples). So, kids are drafted on potential and not ready for prime-time, something that diminishes the talent pool in the NCAA and stunts growth in the NBA.

The solution to this problem comes from football, where you can't enter the NFL draft until three years after you graduate from high school. This means that college football is stocked with juniors and seniors that have NFL level talent, with freshman and sophomores of exceeding ability alongside them to fill out the ranks. The talent and maturity comparison between the two sports is not even an argument at this point. Because players are forced to remain in college, football presents a better product that is far closer to the level of competition of it's professional counterpart and much more fun to watch during the regular season. Then again, football doesn't have March Madness (or a playoff of any kind in it's highest division), which is the only thing that keeps college hoops relevant--more on that in a minute.

2. Pace A friend of mine told me that because I grew up watching Big Ten basketball for the most part, that I'm biased on this point, but I think anyone who watches the NBA and college basketball with equality knows that the college game is sllloooowww. First of all, someone needs to get rid of the 35 second shot clock and move it closer to the NBA's 24 second clock. I can't stand watching a team swing the ball around the perimeter for 27 to 30 seconds and then dump it in to their bigs or hoist up a three pointer just before the shot clock expires. I shudder to think what watching college basketball was like before the shot clock, but I have a feeling it was like soccer with a ball you can touch.

This sort of pace makes the game a lot harder to watch and a lot slower than it's professional counterpart. I know that the NBA and NCCA levels of talent show much disparity, but that doesn't mean college kids wouldn't be able to play up to their talent level if the tempo were pushed. The 35 second clock creates a grinding pace that is only accentuated by zone defenses, which thrive on not letting the opposing offense get a good look at a shot without a drive and dish or a particularly quick and accurate pass (most likely as the shot clock winds down...see what I'm saying here?). Even if your team is blessed with a kid that can create his own shot, the game's pace probably won't let him affect the contest the way he would if things were moving faster.

3. Defense Okay, so this point isn't so much about something that college hoops lacks, but more about a sentiment I'm tired of hearing: that they don't play defense in the NBA. In case you are among the misguided folks that think that all those good young lads in college hoops do is play D while their NBA counterparts just cash checks and slam dunk uncontested, allow me to retort. You may not have noticed, but NBA rosters are crafted from the best and brightest of college basketball talent along with international studs, and as such boast the fastest and most athletic defenders in the world.

If you can't play defense in the NBA, you don't win, it's that simple. And as an individual, there is no way to become a legitimate franchise player or NBA legend without being able to D-up the guy opposite you. Before you start in on me, I know there are exceptions. Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki--these guys like defense about as much as the aforementioned AI likes practice, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Look at LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Dwayne Wade, Dwight Howard--guys that are superstars and the current face of the NBA. They all excel on both ends of the floor, balancing their ability to score with an equal vigor and aptitude on defense. In fact, you could argue that LeBron truly entered into "holy shit" territory when he started making chase-down blocks as much a part of his highlight reels as rim-shaking dunks. And if you need anymore proof, just look at the Celtics and Lakers, the two teams that have won the last three NBA championships and faced-off against each other for two of them. They play defense, tough defense, grinding, violent defense. Having the ability to score is one thing, possessing the will to stop the other team from doing so is what gets you the rings.

4. The three point shot Now this is an NCAA exclusive problem if you ask me. The NBA has it's share of unconscious three point shooters, but rarely do teams that rely solely upon the three point shot succeed deep into the post-season, a direct result of how good the league's defenders are. A zone defense is rarely implemented in the NBA (and only recently became legal), and when it is the intention is only to briefly change what an offense has to look at and is not used as a permanent strategy. The reason? Defenders in the NBA are so good one-on-one. They close out on shooters far better than their college counterparts, slide into double teams much faster and are better at switching off of ball screens and picks.

College kids don't have the same kind of defensive ability and thus have a tougher time getting a hand into a shooter's face. If you can shoot, you can shoot, and having more open shots means that more threes get put into the hoop in college basketball. This makes for a situation where teams are very hard to put away, even when you build a big lead, because a string of threes and a few defensive stops can swing the momentum within a few possessions. Duke has built it's dynasty on this competitive loophole throughout the years, because raining threes and playing better than average defense can build an elite program in college ball, but not the NBA.

Not only that, but the three point line itself is too close to the basket. Can we just back it up to NBA range already? The NCAA's best three point shooters, guys like Jimmer Fredette, won't be affected because they can hit from damn near anywhere inside the half-court line, so move the shot back and make things a little tougher for the average shooter. It will trim a few three pointers off the box score, make game-changing scoring runs a little less rare, and only make the game more competitive.

5. The regular season It just isn't what it used to be. I know the easy reaction here is to point out that post-season play in every sport is better than the regular season, which is true. More is at stake in the post-season, so players and coaches are more invested, the level of competition and talent is higher, and the chance to witness greatness is increased. College basketball benefits from this in spades, with perhaps the premiere post-season in sports thanks to the NCAA Tournament b.k.a. March Madness. The problem is that because the tourney is so captivating and because it grabs the attention of the sporting world so fully, it can render the college basketball regular season less-than watchable in its current state.

This is a result of a subtle combination of the four previous points I put forward, but that's not something you can tell the die-hard college basketball fan. But for a more rounded fan, or one that is focused more on other sports and leagues, I think the argument is valid. The college basketball regular season is but prelude to the tournament, and not much more. It can determine seeding and it's enjoyable to debate which "bubble" teams will or won't make the Big Dance, but the fact remains that the college regular season is only the appetizer to the fantastic drama, excitement, and exuberance of the NCAA Tournament.

I guess my point is, there's nothing wrong with holding off serious viewing until March begins. The conference tournaments and the NCAA tournament itself are what keeps me invested in college basketball, and I don't feel disconnected from the game or that I'm missing out on something important if I only watch my favorite team (or even if I do miss a Buckeye game here and there too). I don't feel this way about college or pro football, the NBA, or the MLB. For those sports and leagues I do feel out of the loop if I'm not on top of the ins and outs of all (read: most) teams and the regular season as a whole.

The only other sport or league that I only watch during the playoffs is the NHL, and you don't want your sport compared to hockey, do you college hoops fans? I jest hockey fans, I do like my sports on ice of course, but there is a serious danger in diminishing interest in your sport if your regular season is not must-see TV. It's the main reason I think that college basketball isn't on par with the games I watch more of, namely the NFL, NBA, and college football. If the NCAA doesn't start making some serious changes, March Madness will be all that's fit to watch. 

That might be just fine for revenue, but it could end up putting college hoops on the verge of losing its heart and soul, something this writer hopes doesn't have to be the case. The hunger and drive of college players and the palpable ferocity of the student sections cheering their guys on is what makes college basketball great, but if the game turns into an increasingly watered-down one year try-out for the NBA, we as fans will all suffer in the long run.

SUPER SUNDAY

The Super Bowl ceased being simply a football game a long time ago, and over the years has become an ad-hoc Amercian holiday. It's a day where we not only put the biggest game in our most popular sport on display, but put a lot of what it is to be an American on display as well. It's excessive, it's gaudy, it's borderline obnoxious--a lot like most of the people that inhabit the country in which we live.

It's just as much about the game of football as it is about our culture. A lot of folks tune in less for the game and more for the spectacle and the event the game has become. The commercials between plays and the halftime show are just as popular as the athletic competition going on on-field and give non-football fans a reason to watch and enjoy. And while we're on the subject of the halftime show, I know that after old Beatle Paul, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, and The Who, the NFL needed some youthful exuberance for this year's game, but the effing Black Eyed Peas? I just hope Fergie doesn't wet herself on the world's biggest stage. Actually, I take that back, I hope she does.

So, with football fans already invested and the non-fan coming along for the ride, the Super Bowl gives all of us an excuse to cut loose on a Sunday night,  getting up in the morning for work and a potentially brutal hangover be damned. We plan parties around Super Bowl Sunday and gorge ourselves on fatty food. We drink, we carouse, we gamble on the outcome of the game and how long the national anthem will run (among other things...god I love prop bets!).

In short, we do our damndest to be American as fuck. While that can have all sorts of drawbacks, I have to tell you that Super Bowl Sunday is one of my favorite days of the year.

Football is king in American sports, by a long shot. It's the most lucrative and popular of our sports, even though it may not be our National Pastime just yet (keep your head up baseball, diamonds are forever!). Because of that, it attracts a boat-load of media coverage in the sporting world and beyond (there are estimates that there could be up to 5,000 members of the media at the game on Sunday). And with all that attention, you know everybody's got an opinion on what will happen this Sunday in Dallas, when the Pittsburgh Steelers take on the Green Bay Packers for the Vince Lombardi Trophy and a place in NFL history.

I know that for the casual or non-fan, this year's game doesn't have the cache of last year's Super Bowl match-up. There isn't a team with the hopes of a hurricane-ravaged city riding on the outcome of the game like last year's Saints or a product-hocking, commercial-starring, SNL-hosting star QB like Peyton Manning of last year's Colts, but this year's contest does feature perhaps the two most storied franchises in football history. The Steelers are the kings of the Super Bowl era, with 6 Lombardi trophies, while the Packers, led by that same Lombardi, made Green Bay the original title town, ruling the NFL's pre-Super Bowl era with nine championships before adding three more Super Bowl victories.

What we have this year is a football fan's football game. These are two teams that are very, and I do mean very evenly matched, with a toughness and historical allure born not just of their success, but also of their cities' cold weather style of play and working-class attitudes (in fact, Green Bay is the only franchise in sports still owned by the city itself). I spent last post taking a look at the two teams' quarterbacks, who are a couple of the best the NFL has to offer, including one in Big Ben Roethlisberger that is vying for his third Super Bowl title in his short but productive career. But beyond the QB position, there is still more parity to be found, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Both teams play similar brands of defense under coordinators Dick LeBeau (Pittsburgh) and Dom Capers (Green Bay). They're aggressive, violent, and versatile. They can get after the passer, stuff the run, and cover the field, and it's no coincidence that the two teams have made it to the last game of the season considering how well they play on defense. Each team boasts phenomenal statistics to back up their play and both are littered with some of the league's best players on defense. In fact the two teams' two brightest stars, Troy Polamalu and Clay Matthews Jr., just finished one-two in a tight race for Defensive Player of the Year honors, with Troy taking home the trophy.

The Steelers are led by that aforementioned one-man-wrecking-crew Polamalu, who for those of you who just watch the commercials is the guy with the flowing mane of curly black hair that stars in all those Head-and-Shoulders ads. Polamalu is a freestyling safety that leads a defense that also boasts a Super Bowl hero and NFL fine magnet in James Harrison, a shut-down corner in Ike Taylor, and myriad other big-time guys like James Farrior and Ryan Clark, just to name a couple.

Likewise, the Packers are led by another guy known for his long hair and the second place DPOY vote getter in  Mr. Matthews, who rings more bells than a church at high noon and is joined by veteran playmakers like former Little Giant Charles Woodson, solid role players like AJ Hawk, the hip-shaking NFC Championship game hero BJ Raji (wait, AJ, BJ, I guess killin' with initials is kind of the GB M.O. Get it?), along with playoff interceptor extraordinaire Tramon Williams.

Each defense boasts the talent and schemes to give any offense nightmares, so I think it's fair to say that it's a push as far as who has the advantage. It's going to be up to the two teams' offensive units to face down these brutal defensive attacks, and it's this writer's belief that the team that does the better job of taking care of the football and making the big play when it must be made is going to be the victor in Dallas.

It's the reason I'm picking the Green Bay Packers to win the Super Bowl, 27 - 21.

I know that Big Ben has the Super Bowl pedigree and nobody runs on the Steelers defense (take a look at that per game average, mama mia), but I believe that Aaron Rodgers will end up out-playing his competition at the quarterback position and that the Packers resurgent running game (led by the out-of-nowhere talent of James Starks) will balance their attack just enough to let one of the league's most dynamic receiving corps do it's thing on the fast track inside the new Cowboys Stadium and propel the Pack to another championship.

Rodgers is playing out of his damn mind right now and he's throwing to the likes of Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones, and Jordy Nelson (though I could go on...), a fearsome foursome that has both big-play potential and possession-saving good hands. Just imagine if stand-out tight end Jermichael Finley were healthy right now and not bitching about not being in the team picture. The Packers' air attack would only be more lethal.

It will come down to Rodgers making big plays on O when he has to (and maybe some that don't feel that big at the time--say a field goal drive just before halftime perhaps...) and someone like Charles Woodson or Clay Matthews providing a game-changing moment on D that will seal it for Green Bay down the stretch. Hell, if Clay's little brother Casey can almost make the biggest play of the National Championship game for the Oregon Ducks, who's to say that another Matthews can't do the same, this time with a better result? He's gotta be feeling slighted by losing out to Polamalu for Defensive Player of the Year too, as if the guy needs any added motivation.

I know that the Steelers have their weapons on offense too (I see you Mike Wallace),  and I do think that the superiority of their running game and Roethlisberger's knack for showing up in the big moment make a solid case for their being the better team on Sunday, but I just have to go with the Pack. I think Green Bay will end up doing more with their offensive possessions and scoring opportunities, enough to edge out the Steelers and keep Big Ben from that legend-making third ring.

So there you have it Hipsters, if you're still with me. I'm sure most of you just read up until my lead-pipe-lock pick of a 27 - 21 Packer victory and are already on the phone to your bookie, considering how on-point my argument is...

Oh, you're still here? Well, enjoy the game you ungrateful crumbsnatcher. Don't forget I told you so and save some of that buffalo chicken dip from your Super Bowl party for your boy, that stuff is too good.

CONTRASTING STYLES

After a long NFL season and an exciting and somewhat surprising playoff run, the match-up for this year's Super Bowl is finally set. We've got quite a bit of time to go over every storyline, statistic, and shit-talking salvo in the next week and a half, so I thought before I got into a full-on Super Bowl preview and revealed my pick for the game's outcome, I would take a long look at the guys who play quarterback for each team.

The two players we're talking about here, Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers and Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers, are men of contrasting styles and characters for the most part, and are definitely going to dominate many of the headlines as the Super Bowl draws closer. Rodgers and Roethlisberger are both talented and capable quarterbacks who have steered their teams through the long, arduous journey of the NFL season and planted their flags firmly in Dallas, where the Super Bowl will be played in the tricked-out house that Jerry Jones built.
 

Aside from Michael Vick, there is perhaps no other quarterback in recent memory that has been in the headlines for the wrong reasons more than Ben Roethlisberger. Big Ben seems to have some uh...you might say...trouble getting along with the ladies, as he followed a dust-up with a female paramour in Lake Tahoe in 2008 with an eerily similar encounter during the 2010 off season in Georgia. I should be clear here and state that Roethlisberger has never been convicted or even charged with any criminal wrong-doing in either case, though there were civil accusations in 2009, which followed around a year after the 2008 incident and are still pending.

Of course, the NFL has their own justice system. Roethlisberger was suspended for the first six games of  this season for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy, but ended up serving a reduced penalty of only four games because of a vague belief by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that he had displayed good behavior during his time of woe. So, Ben sat out four games and the Steelers went 3-1 in his absence. Just as he had  deftly avoided so many defenders in the past, Ben similarly stiff-armed a couple of twenty-something female accusers and faced few on-field consequences in the process--he is playing in the damn Super Bowl for chrissakes.

With all that out of the way, I think the guy's pretty much a creep. Roethlisberger has always been a standoffish, brooding lout toward the media and general public, (not to mention his hometown in Ohio) but that coupled with now repeated suspicious incidents with college-age women makes for a guy that is certainly not on my list of favorite athletes. If there's one thing that can't be excused, it's being a bully towards women, and that should be an especially important rule if you're nearly six and a half feet tall and right around 250 pounds. I don't have time to go over the ins and outs of those cases, but if you'd like to learn more, you can click here and here and read for yourself (although some of the info you might wish to know about the incident in Georgia did go missing rather mysteriously...).

I never want to be one to judge at a distance, but when you're talking about sports it becomes hard to avoid that particular vantage point. I don't know the guy personally, but I think that his track record with women, even from a removed perspective, doesn't exactly jibe with the prevailing social sentiments towards the matter. He just has that aura about him now, and no matter how much you believe that people can change, and I surely do, there hasn't been enough time passed or difference in Roethlisberger's demeanor right now for me to be on his side. And this is coming from a guy who has respect for Mike Vick's turnaround.

The point here is that Ben has incurred a rather large amount of personal baggage over the last couple of years, while in the meantime risen to the top of the heap at his position and collected two Super Bowl championships in the process. A guy with a surly attitude and a predilection for intimidating the opposite sex is hard to root for, but there is no way to argue that Roethlisberger hasn't excelled at the quarterback position. He's got two rings and he's only twenty-eight. That's one less than and one more than the two guys that always get brought up as being the pinnacle of the QB position, they being Tom Brady and Peyton Manning respectively.

Ben doesn't put up their kind of numbers statistically, but he definitely wins football games and has proven his mettle as a clutch performer that makes the big plays down the stretch, when the outcome of a game is on the line. The drive he engineered at the end of the 2009 Super Bowl to beat the Arizona Cardinals was breathtaking and the one that killed the rest of the clock in this year's AFC Championship Game against the New York Jets was another example of his ability to face down the big moment and will his team to a win.

I've always been one to defend Peyton Manning despite his lack of big game "moments", the kind that can make or break a QB's legacy, but if you look at Brady, Roethlisberger, and Manning, I think you have to put them in that order as far as the best in the game. Big Ben's rings and his clear-cut mastery of the game's most important moments put him ahead of Manning's jaw-dropping statistical dominance and MVP trophies (Brady meanwhile, trumps them both by possessing a stunning combination of clutch performances, championship rings, and stats for days).

 

So I don't like him, but Roethlisberger has proven to me that he's one of the game's elite QB's, and as a football fan, I can't say I'm disappointed that he's in the Super Bowl.  He can only make the game more exciting and competitive for one, and his troubled past makes for some added juice if you happen to write a blog about sports.

On the other side of the ball two Sundays from now will be a player that has both a boat-load of athletic talent and nothing but my utmost respect and admiration. The former will help him more than the latter as far as the Super Bowl goes, but Aaron Rodgers is both the kind of QB that general managers swoon over and the kind you want to knock a  few beers back with, as cliche as that might sound.  Rodgers is now in his third year as an NFL starter and has already proven that he's a playoff performer and leader of men, the kind of QB that can get his team to the biggest game of the season, this year and beyond.

The Packers played their way into the playoffs over the last few games of the season, with each being a do-or-die contest as far as their post-season hopes were concerned. After that, they only beat the Philadelphia Eagles, dismantled the Atlanta Falcons with a historic performance by Rodgers, and outlasted a gutty Chicago Bears team--all on the road--on their way to the Super Bowl against the Steelers. Rodgers beat the resurgent Michael Vick in Philly, went 31 for 36 with 366 yards and 3 touchdowns against the Falcons, and while he wasn't overwhelming against the Bears, made every big play he had to, gutting out a vicious hit by Julius Peppers and making a touchdown-saving tackle on Brian Urlacher after throwing an interception.

Rodgers's playoff run not withstanding, he also put the injury riddled Packers on his shoulders all season long, emerging as the top quarterback in the NFC down the stretch (all apologies to Mr. Vick). He did so without his starting tight-end and running back for practically the entire year, all the while throwing masterful passes and making play-saving runs in the shadow of Brett Favre. The Packers were Favre's team, but right now there isn't a man, woman, or child in Green Bay that would take Favre back for all the whiskey in Ireland (ahem, hate to say I told you so but...). These are the new Packers, and they don't need a salt-and-pepper drama queen to steer the ship anymore. They've got a throttling defense and number 12 behind center and as-such aren't messing around these days.

On top of his ability, Rodgers is easy to root for because of how well he has handled everything during his NFL tenure. Coming out of college at California, Rodgers was initially projected as the number one overall pick by most prognosticators. As draft day neared, things started to shift and the whole country watched as the guy who should've had the shortest stay on the draft board slipped all the way to number 24, where the Packers took Rodgers to back-up the at that time still vibrant Brett Favre. Rodgers took it all in stride and did his duty as Favre's back-up. When he was finally named starter and Favre un-retired to try and take his old job back, he was equally calm and collected, allowing the drama to pass by and assuming his new role with class and restraint.

After that, the dood just went off. He has played increasingly well in all three years as the Packers' starter and has proven to be as tough and upstanding a guy as his past behavior had intimated. Not only that, but he's just as passionate and exuberant as Favre was in his heyday. Rodgers is hard on teammates but well-liked by all, displaying a love of the game with a consistent on-field smile and a pro-wrestling championship belt celebration for his TD's (which culminated with a fantastic, nuanced rendition during the NFC Championship game against the Bears where Rodgers merely pointed to his waist). He's playing and acting like a world champ, and is now in the position to make it happen.

Like I said before, you don't want to try and feel like you know a professional athlete too well from a spectator's view, but unlike Roethlisberger, Rodgers has a respectful, professional way of doing things that leads to him being one of this writer's favorite players to watch. Don't give me that cancer patient, autograph-dodging stuff either (if you don't know what I'm talking about, click here and check out the video. It looks bad, I know, but the woman involved doesn't have any hard feelings and Rodgers has obliged her with many an autograph in the past). Rodgers is a man of character on and off the field and unlike the man he replaced in Green Bay and the one he'll face in the Super Bowl, doesn't crave or disgracefully attract the limelight whatsoever.

As I discussed in my recent post on the quarterback position, teams with stellar QB's have a nose for the Super Bowl, and much of a team's success rides on who is taking the snaps. Rodgers and Roethlisberger were the deciding factors in their teams' victories on Championship Sunday, where both the Packers and Steelers were evenly matched defensively against the Bears and Jets.  The four QB's lined-up with four equally impressive defensive units, and the two quarterbacks left standing are the two that were better than their opponent at the position when it mattered most (although Jay Cutler did miss the entire second half of the Packers/Bears contest with a knee injury--and by the way Jay, everyone's watching now so don't take the stairs man!).

It's my opinion that we're in for a Super Bowl with a similar set-up. With the Matthews/Woodson led Packers and the Polamalu/Harrison led Steelers battling each other on defense, it will be up to Rodgers and Roethlisberger as to which team's offense will win the day, and most likely the game. While I think you know who I'm going to be rooting for, there's no doubt that the quarterbacks in this year's Super Bowl will be a joy to watch as they compete for the ring and a study in contrasting styles that will hopefully make for an exciting and dramatic Sunday in February.

THE WAY THE BALL BOUNCES

There is a great lineage of "what if's" in sports that many of us can relate to from experiences in our own day-to-day lives. It isn't just the pivotal moments that could've gone one way and not the other, nor is it simply the paths that we've chosen to walk down when others were there to be traveled. Instead, it is the cumulative effect of both that leads us to where we're at and who we are. In life it can define our sense of self, while in sports, it often defines an athlete's legacy, shaping how they are remembered and how we as a sporting public view their accomplishments.

As the NBA trade deadline looms a few weeks down the road, one name that continues to pop-up has definitely made me think of what could have been as far as a player's career and legacy are concerned. I'm talking about Steve Nash, the two-time league MVP point guard for the Phoenix Suns, whose name is at the center of trade talks to a variety of teams that could most definitely benefit from his services. While my man Ian Thomsen can tell you it makes no sense for the Suns to trade Nash if they want to win now, I certainly hope they understand that their chances at success in the West are dwindling by the day. That way, they can let Steve find a happier home and get their rebuild project going now instead of later.

Full disclosure: I love Steve Nash's game. He is one of the most accurate three-point shooters I've ever seen at the point guard position and is perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the modern NBA's crackdown on hand checking. Giving a guy with his quickness, vision, and playmaking ability free motion off the dribble is damn near criminal, evidenced by the way he weaves in and out of the lane, even under the basket and back, to find open teammates or a good look at his own shot.  He has everything you could want in a point guard and his career statistics get gaudier by the year. At the end of the day, we're talking about a back-to-back league MVP that will sure-as-shit be in the basketball Hall of Fame (oh yeah, he's tough as nails too, click here if you need some proof).

Nash is closing in on 37 though, damn-near ancient as far as NBA players go, and while he is a no-doubt hall-of-famer and one of the greatest point guards of his generation, Nash's career is an acute study in what might have been. He came into the league by traveling a unique path: he's Canadian, went to a small college (Santa Clara) and was largely unheralded on the national scene when he was drafted with the 15th pick by the Phoenix Suns in 1996. After a couple of less than impressive seasons with the Suns, they shifted him to Dallas, where the spry Canuck flourished alongside seven-foot sharp-shooter Dirk Nowitzki.

Things went well in Dallas and the team was on the rise, but after the '04 season, Dallas owner Mark Cuban decided to let Nash move on in free agency, when he landed back with the team that drafted him, the Phoenix Suns. In retrospect, this was a crucial move for both parties involved. Cuban obviously didn't think it was worth it to match the Suns' offer and probably felt more comfortable moving forward with extra cash on hand to build around the younger Dirk. Nash did what was better for him financially, taking the Suns offer of more money and more years on the deal. It's a shame too, because it sure looks like Dirk and Steve had good times on and off the court...

In all seriousness though, I think if you asked Cuban and Nash, they would both tell you they wished they could have worked things out. The Mavericks have been to the Finals and lost, but other than that have found themselves step-brother to the real titans of the Western Conference like the Lakers and Spurs. Nash meanwhile has found himself in a similar situation, reaching only as far as the Conference Finals in his second tenure with Phoenix. Together, Nowitzki and Nash might have built a team to rival LA and San Antonio, but apart, both parties have failed to reach the promised land.

It's one of those things, in life and in sports, where diverging paths most certainly would have led to different outcomes. Instead of being part of a stellar team in Dallas, Nash finds himself swimming with small fish from the NBA talent pool in Phoenix, especially now that Amare Stoudemire has bolted for New York to join the Knicks as their go-to guy. Interestingly enough, most prognosticators led us to believe that Stoudemire would most certainly miss Nash in NY, but after his MVP-like start to the season, it seems more and more apparent that Nash is the one who misses his big man in the middle, and not vice versa.

Nash is now left to wonder about another move, perhaps to chase a championship if he can have any say in the matter. It's sad to think that Nash's legacy will be one as the best two-time MVP to never play in (let alone win) an NBA Finals, but it's the hand that been dealt him to this point in his career. Success in sports is just as much luck and happenstance as it is ability and desire to win, and Nash has come face to face with this reality in the twilight of his career. It can happen to anybody if you think about it. Talent, ability, and intelligence are sometimes no match for luck, advantages, and the cold hand of fate in all walks of life.

Perhaps creating the most daunting obstacle for Nash is the sport he happens to play. The NBA, more than any other major American sport, is a top-heavy league where only a handful of teams have the talent and pedigree to make a run at the title. Nash has honestly never been on one of those teams. You could argue that the Mavs had a chance at one point, considering their Finals appearance, but the way they folded in that series against the Heat says a lot about what it takes to win, and I'm not sure that even Nash could have put that team over the top. Similarly, the Suns have never played enough defense or had the depth to contend, despite Nash's brilliance.

In the years following the Mavericks Finals appearance, when the Lakers and Spurs were facing a bit of an identity crisis in alternating seasons, the Mavericks could have moved in for the kill with Nash and Nowitzki, but now that's all just speculation. Speculation that I can assure you has cost Steve Nash a few nights of restful sleep. I don't want to try and get inside of his head too much, but I think we all know that regret is a part of life that can drive you crazy if you let it, and in sports, where championships determine legacy more often than not, I'm sure that regret can reach levels unknowable to the general public.

So what's next for Nash? He is on a team that is going relatively nowhere--a playoff team, but not a contender. The Suns and Nash have to know that it's not going to happen, so shifting him before the trade deadline this season would be a boon to the aging superstar and perhaps the Suns as well in the long term. What I hope is that Nash is afforded the opportunity to find a contender with some money to burn and a few draft picks to let go of, so the Suns get something for him and he has a shot at a ring.  At 37,  Nash is in incredible shape and still has a spectacular game to go along with an obvious hunger to win. 

Let's just hope he finally gets to eat at the big kids' table before all is said and done.

HEEDING THE VOICE

So I took some time away from The Hip for the holidays and a whole lot has happened since the last time I put fingers to keys. The NBA season is hitting its stride, college hoops have begun in earnest, the Winter Classic went down on a cold night in Pittsburgh, and the college football bowl season has damn near reached its end. Beyond all of that, the biggest story that popped up from my perspective is of course the suspension of five members of the Ohio State Buckeyes football team for the first five games of the 2011 season.

The news broke on my birthday, December 23rd, and as an unmitigated Buckeye fan, there was nothing that could've spoiled my born day more. Not only did I learn that five members of my favorite team in all of sports would miss the first five games of next season, but I learned that among them were the Buckeyes' top running back, wide receiver, and our star quarterback, Terrelle Pryor. The players involved in the suspensions were found to have sold several of their trophies and awards earned during their college careers and to have traded autographs for tattoos and other discounts. 

After the shock wore off, I started thinking more and more about the situation from a non-Buckeye fan perspective. The whole thing leaves me confused, angry, and frustrated. I was of course disappointed in the guys from my team for making some truly bonehead moves, but as a guy that follows sports and especially college football with a religious enthusiasm, I can't help but be most puzzled with the increasingly hypocritical way in which the NCAA doles out punishment.

First of all, the players involved in the scandal will be permitted to play in the team's bowl game, the Sugar Bowl, which takes place tomorrow night in New Orleans against the Arkansas Razorbacks. As a fan, I want nothing more than to see my guys get to play, but as a realist, I know in my heart that if they're going to miss the first five games of next season, there is no earthly reason they should be allowed to play in the bowl game, which if you believe what the NCAA consistently tells the media, is a reward to the school and in particular the players for a spectacular season on the gridiron.

The student athletes from OSU involved in this whole shitstorm do not, in my eyes, deserve anything resembling a reward for what they have done. It turns out that the violations they are being punished for occurred in 2009 and that the items that they sold for thousands of dollars are awards and trophies that include those given to them for past bowl appearances as members of the Buckeye football team. Now that just doesn't smell right from the jump, but it stinks for more reasons beyond the obvious (that being the fact that they sold-out on the rewards previously given them, only to be rewarded with another bowl appearance and a list of new swag that comes to all athletes participating in bowl games).

Pushing beyond the fact that the players will be allowed to participate in the game and collect its accompanying perks, the whole situation raises numerous red flags because of the way the NCAA continues to shift the way it punishes schools and athletes according to the ring of theirs and the television networks' cash registers. The bowl games are incredibly big business, bringing in millions of dollars for the schools, networks, the NCAA and of course, the organized crime syndicate that calls itself the Bowl Championship Series. 

If Boom Herron, Devier Posey, and Terrelle Pryor hadn't been Ohio State's leading runner, receiver, and pass-thrower respectively, I doubt that we would see them tomorrow night in the Sugar Bowl. But because the bowl system is reliant on television contracts and the resulting revenue, the players will be on display because of their star-power and to ensure a more competitive game. The Sugar Bowl president has already come forward and said as much, and I'm sure ESPN (who will broadcast the game) is thinking the same thing to themselves, even as they devote their networks' echo-chamber to reporting the story ad nauseum. 

This whole situation stinks to high heaven, but it isn't the first time the NCAA has picked and chosen who to punish and to what extent. What I keep coming back to in regards to the institutions and athletes involved is my old man's favorite words of advice: 

Heed the voice.

My father is always ready with a piece of advice when I need it, but usually boils things down to that simple dictum in more cases than not.

What he means by that is: get to know your conscience, because it has an uncanny ability to steer you in the right direction. The voice inside your head seems to be indelibly linked to your brain's moral compass, no matter how often yours points towards the right thing to do. It's a simple acid test anytime you're faced with a decision between right and wrong. Despite any rationale or gimmick you may use to force yourself into the wrong move, that voice, that immutable internal dialogue that is always going on in your head, it knows which decision is the right one. It's up to us all to listen and act accordingly.

That said, the players involved in this scandal had to know that they were making bad decisions, even if they felt they were not in the wrong (for though they have apologized, some have indicated that the items sold were theirs after all, and they do have families back home that might be struggling). Selling the trophies and awards you've earned, no matter what the reason you may give, is wrong however, and their internal voices all knew it. 

Not only that, but getting tattoos in exchange for jerseys or autographs or their notoriety in general (which are among the other NCAA violations that resulted in punishment) is wrong, and they knew that too. It doesn't matter if a coach or advisor hasn't spelled out the letter of the NCAA law to the players regarding such actions, they knew what they were doing was wrong. They had to have known and as such, deserve whatever punishment follows. 

But that doesn't mean they're the only ones misreading their moral compasses. The NCAA and the BCS are made up of boards and committees, which are in turn made up of individuals. The individuals who make the decisions that govern these institutions prove in this case and many others (AJ Green comes to mind) that they refuse to heed the voice as well. They have to know that they have created a corrupt, money-hungry system that does not reward the student athlete, the university, or the fan, but instead continues to pad their pockets and increase their level of power over college football and in a broader sense, college athletics as a whole.

Perhaps they are listening to a voice, but it is the ghostly howl of dead presidents, not the admonishing din of their collective consciences.

By allowing the five suspended Buckeyes to play in the Sugar Bowl and by sweeping the allegations against the sport's biggest star, Cam Newton (who you may remember from a couple posts back...), under the rug because of his team's appearance in the National Championship Game, the NCAA and the BCS are ignoring the cause of morality and justice in order to garner the highest possible ratings and reap the continuing financial gains that are a direct result of the on-field ability of the student athletes involved in the games in question.

There are now generations-old debates about whether student athletes (especially those involved in the two big money-making sports - basketball and football) should be paid a stipend in addition to their scholarships while attending school, but I don't think I've got time to sort all of that out in a book, let alone a blog post. All I will say is that if you're going to make near-criminal amounts of money off of these kids and expect them not to do a bit of paper chasing of their own, you're delusional at best and outwardly hypocritical at worse.

Sure, my knucklehead Buckeyes didn't heed the voice, but they only learned that ignorance from their NCAA and BCS parents, who never stood on the kind of moral ground necessary to offer that sage piece of the old man's advice.