Some say it’s because Nadal took too long to learn to speak French. Others will state that Nadal’s powerful, topspin-heavy brand of baseline tennis doesn’t bring with it the elegance and beauty that the French fans appreciate. Or maybe it’s just because he’s too good and everyone loves an underdog.

But now this year the French Open officials are subjecting Nadal to the greatest affront he’s experienced at Roland Garros by not bumping up his seeding to where it should be – either first or second.

This has been a practice frequently employed by Wimbledon as the All England Club has long seeded those who play well on grass far higher than their computer rankings. John McEnroe and Pete Sampras are just a couple of examples who benefitted from a more generous seeding at Wimbledon.

And now the French Open should follow suit because it would be an injustice, to both Nadal and the tournament, if the Spaniard is relegated to the No. 5 seed. There is no question that he is still the best clay court player in the world.

Because Nadal missed the second half of last year and the start to 2013 due to a knee injury, his ranking plummeted to its current slot of fifth in the world. And the seedings for the four Grand Slam events routinely follow computer rankings. But tournament officials are allowed to make exception. Yet the French Open boss Gilbert Ysern refused to alter protocol, even for the greatest champion the event has seen.

It’s one thing if Nadal were just now coming back after an extended layoff and slowly rounding himself into form. But Nadal has won four tournaments since returning to the tour in February and he’s reached the finals in the other two he’s played. One of the events he won was on hard courts, in Indian Wells, while his other tournament victories have all been on his beloved clay.

“Given what is Nadal in Paris, the best player in the history of the tournament, it seemed incongruous that he’d come in here with a No. 4 or 5,” Ysern said. “The damage was done, so we would have been talking about fiddling of the draw. What would have been viewed as a strong symbol – actually homage – was being seen as underhanded.”

Perhaps something was lost in the translation but Ysern’s comments make no sense. What is the damage that “was done”? The actual damage is the fact that Nadal is seeded too low. If they were to bump him into the top two – or even just one spot to the fourth position in the rankings – it would be a far more fair way of conducting the tournament.

Who saw the possible movement upward of Nadal’s seeding as “underhanded”? To a player, the rest of the field has acknowledged that Nadal is obviously the best player on clay (or at least tied with Novak Djokovic, who is the best player in the world overall) and is deserving of one of the top two spots.

Nadal hasn’t lobbied for any change and his comments have been supporting of the process. “The players that are in front of me are there because they have been playing better than me.

"Well, in fact they have played. I haven’t played; I haven’t trained either. If they were not injured and I have been injured, well, you know, with a handicap, with the format of the rankings that we have currently, good for them for not being injured. The problem is mine.”

The refusal to change Nadal’s seeding hurts the other players far more than Nadal himself.

As it is now, one of the top four players – Djokovic, Andy Murray, Roger Federer or David Ferrer – will draw Nadal in the quarterfinals. And if Djokovic and Nadal are slotted to play in the round of eight, that would be an utter travesty, as these two are far and away the best players on clay (in fact, Djokovic just beat Nadal in Monte Carlo and still has the psychological edge over Nadal at the moment).  

Imagine having to watch Nadal and Djokovic face off in the quarters? Actually that brings up another point, because it would indeed be nearly impossible for those who work to watch that match as that’d be a mid-week, daylight encounter. One can only hope this doesn’t occur.

There’s still a slight chance that Nadal can secure the No. 4 seed and avoid a quarterfinal against the top players. If he were to win in Madrid and/or Rome and if Ferrer, the current No. 4, stumbled terribly in the same events, then Nadal will move up to the fourth seed.

But this isn’t likely. And nor should it be necessary.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Will his age finally show (he’s 36)? Will he display “ring rust” for the first time in his career after a typically long layoff? And can we maybe see a bit of Jose Luis Castillo – the one fighter who, over a decade ago, made Mayweather appear mortal – in the latest opponent?

Not many are bold enough to pick against Mayweather (44-0), mind you. However, there’s always speculation about how he could get caught, how this will be his roughest, toughest fight, and how, if everything goes according to plan for his inevitably younger opponent, he may finally taste defeat.

But, in the end, the story always seems to turn out the same way, with a dominant wipeout performance from the best fighter of this generation.

Saturday wasn’t Mayweather’s most creative fight. Robert Guerrero (31-2-1) came in with one game plan, the physical one he used in his rough-and-tumble win over Andre Berto last November, and, as a result, Mayweather didn’t have to do much in the way of adjustments. This played out how Mayweather's September 2011 fight with Victor Ortiz likely would have turned out had it not been for the infamous headbutt, hug, kiss and knockout.

Guerrero tried to walk Mayweather down and manhandle him in the corner. He succeeded somewhat in dictating the pace of the first two rounds, though Floyd’s vaunted defense enabled him to slip or deflect most of Guerrero’s attack. After two feeling-out rounds, however, Mayweather began timing Guerrero and nailing him repeatedly with straight right hands. By the latter half of the fight, Guerrero was flummoxed, battered and found himself getting caught with flush shots when he threw and when he didn’t throw – the painful quandary almost all Mayweather opponents face eventually.

In the end, Mayweather won a unanimous decision, with all three judges scoring the bout 117-111 and moved to 44-0 (RCS was less charitable toward Guerrero, scoring it a 120-108 shutout for Mayweather).

Floyd said he would fight again in September, and talk of a potential showdown with young Mexican superstar Saul “Canelo” Alvarez began immediately. There are hurdles standing in the way of that fight, most notably the size disparity between the fighters (Canelo is a natural junior middleweight while Mayweather has only fought twice at 154 pounds). However, even if the fight can be made, the manhandling of Guerrero should give Alvarez pause. It would undoubtedly be an enormous payday, but, at this point, he seems tailor-made to be picked apart by Floyd.

But Canelo’s a subject for another day.

For now, true sports fans, those who can appreciate the transcendence of rare athletic mastery, should simply savor the otherworldly talent on display every time Floyd Mayweather steps into the ring.

Sure, he’s a controversial and often unlovable, if not despicable, figure. He’s created myriad distractions that take away from his in-ring talent. To some, he’s the flamboyant, obnoxious showman who turned HBO’s 24/7 into must-see TV. Or he’s the “woman-beater,” as Ruben Guerrero, Robert’s father and trainer, called him at the pre-fight press conference (Mayweather served two months in jail last summer for assaulting the mother of two of his children). 

But, without excusing any of his behavior outside of the ring, his continued dominance inside the ring and defiance of father time is a rare thing in any sport and worth appreciating.

When the next fight is announced, whether it’s against Canelo, Amir Khan, Devon Alexander or someone else, the questions and doubts will pop up again. But, most likely, it’ll be the same ending for Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

Kyle Adams is an editor at RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at kadams@realclearpolitics.com.

For much of the fight, Alvarez showed an unwillingness to engage and was often outboxed by a crafty Trout. Fortunately for Alvarez, he came into the fight armed with a nearly 40,000-strong army of supporters packing the Alamodome and faced an opponent with little punching power and no constituency to speak of. Had Alvarez been fighting a more fan-friendly and established fighter, it’s hard to believe we wouldn’t be debating the result today.

That’s not to say the win was without merit.

The young Mexican has big-time power and hand speed, and showed it throughout the fight, knocking Trout down with a straight right hand at the beginning of the seventh round and rattling him several times with sharp upper cuts. He also demonstrated stronger defensive skills than he has in the past, dodging many of Trout’s flurries. And the minimal power Trout brought into the ring was diminished even more by his respect for Canelo’s strength. Trout rarely threw with conviction all night. 

Still, the American won rounds – arguably enough to win the fight – with his jab, crisp combinations, smart movement and volume punching. Trout largely controlled the tempo of the fight, outlanding and outhrowing Alvarez, who was quiet for long stretches.

In the end, Alvarez, his power punching and his celebrity got the benefit of the doubt in a very close bout, winning a unanimous decision (one that included an absurd 118-109 scorecard from Judge Stanley Christodoulou).

After the fight, Alvarez again called out Mayweather. While the fight would be a pay-per-view bonanza, there’s no telling what Mayweather will decide to do. And despite Alvarez’s obvious interest in the fight, he and his team would be advised to take it slow and let the young fighter develop more before jumping into the fire with the world’s best pound-for-pound fighter.

Against Mayweather, Alvarez not only would be facing a fighter with superior speed, skills and intelligence than Trout, but also wouldn’t be the default favorite of the judges. Despite the improved defensive skills he displayed on Saturday, Alvarez remains a hittable fighter, and Mayweather, better than anyone else in the sport, knows how to neutralize a powerful opponent with slick defense and sharp, effective counterpunching.

Of course, Floyd is 36 years old and faces a tough fight against Robert Guerrero (31-1-1) on May 4. He showed some signs of physical decline against Miguel Cotto last May, winning a clear decision but getting roughed up more than we’re used to seeing. As a result, Canelo and his team might think Floyd is as vulnerable as he’s ever been. But while Mayweather’s legs aren’t what they once were, he remains the most mentally sharp fighter in the sport and would pose a multitude of strategic problems for the young Mexican.

Alvarez is a charismatic fighter on the rise with a huge built-in fan base and many fan-friendly qualities both inside and outside the ring. But he still finds himself in a situation where his rapidly expanding fame is not commensurate with his current skill set. And against Mayweather, chances are he would be exposed and humbled on the biggest stage in the sport.

He was impressive in spurts on Saturday in his biggest fight so far and could eventually work his way up the pound-for-pound list. But let’s wait before we start calling him elite.

Kyle Adams is an editor at RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at kadams@realclearpolitics.com.

"I am not the kind of player who is stupid and says, 'I want to play against the best,'"

- Rafael Nadal speaking to reporters on Saturday after being told he’ll play Novak Djokovic in the finals of the Monte Carlo Masters.

So much for the injured ankle.

Just two weeks after a hobbled Novak Djokovic led Serbia to a thrilling victory over the United States in Davis Cup play, Djokovic played a nearly flawless match in defeating the favored Rafael Nadal to claim his first Monte Carlo Masters title, 6-2, 7-6 (1). It was as dominant and comprehensive a victory over Nadal as one will likely ever witness on clay.

While it was not a particularly bitter defeat for Nadal – after all, he had won the Monte Carlo championship an incredible eight years in a row up until Sunday’s final – it was nonetheless a major indication that if Nadal looks to capture an eighth French Open title in six weeks’ time, the Mallorcan has a lot more work to do, even on his beloved red clay, if he is to again solve the Djokovic puzzle.

In fact, 2013 is shaping up to be very similar to 2011. During Djokovic’s historic 2011 campaign, he won the Australian Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open and also rampaged through the clay court season, defeating Nadal twice in French Open warmups before Roger Federer stunned Djokovic in the French Open semifinals.

Throughout most of 2011, Djokovic always seemed to be a step ahead of Nadal. And by that year’s end, after Djokovic beat Nadal in the U.S. Open final (he also triumphed over Nadal in the Wimbledon final) Nadal’s on-court futility against Djokovic was palpable. While Nadal turned the tables in 2012, defeating Djokovic three consecutive times on clay, culminating with his eighth French championship, it does appear – at this early stage in 2013 at least - that the rivalry has been reset once again in Djokovic’s favor (Nadal still leads their overall head-to-head 19-15).

In yesterday’s final, Djokovic asserted himself from the start. Playing almost perfect tennis for the first 45 minutes, the 25 year-old Serb ran off five straight games against Nadal to start the match. Hitting winners from both sides and consistently forcing Nadal into defensive positions, particularly on his more vulnerable backhand wing, Djokovic looked impenetrable as he raced out to the early lead.

With the ball not bouncing as high as it usually does for Nadal on the dirt, and with Djokovic taking the ball very early – so early in fact that Djokovic looked to be channeling Andre Agassi – Nadal was constantly on the run. There are those who will take note of the high number of unforced errors on the afternoon for Nadal, but that is missing the point. On the majority of those errors, Nadal was rushing, and felt he had to make the perfect shot to get the ball past the inexhaustible Djokovic.

The match did tighten up significantly after that blazing start by Djokovic. Nadal righted course toward the end of the first set and strung together two consecutive games before Djokovic claimed the first stanza. And in the second set Nadal had leads of 4-2 and then 6-5, where he served for the set.

But, just as in 2011 when Djokovic had a mental hold over Nadal, no lead was safe for the defending champion. Djokovic broke back with relative ease. And by the time the tiebreaker was contested, it was all but a formality at that point as Nadal looked visibly mentally drained from the effort.

Of most concern for Nadal is the way Djokovic is unthreatened by Nadal’s serve, as evidenced by Djokovic winning 88 percent of second-serve offerings. If Nadal is to raise his level and reclaim the upper hand in their riveting rivalry, he’ll have to turn his serve into somewhat of an offensive weapon. Knowing how brilliant Djokovic is when he’s on the dead run, arms outstretched, it’d be wise for Nadal to again utilize the body serve more frequently, and not allow Djokovic to get such acute angles on his returns.  

Another vulnerable area of Nadal’s that Djokovic exploited on Sunday was the drop shot. On several occasions throughout the match Djokovic utilized the drop shot to interrupt a rally and each time Nadal wasn’t able to muster any kind of response. This strategy was also used frequently by upcoming star Grigor Dmitrov in his quarterfinal match against Nadal, a match that Nadal barely got through. It’s become clear that Nadal, even on clay, will need to adjust his game and reassert himself – by both stepping into the court more and maintaining an aggressive game plan.

For Djokovic, there’s really nothing he could have done any better. He didn’t seek out the forecourt, venturing to the net only 11 times. But since he is perhaps the only player who can hold his own with Nadal from the backcourt, Djokovic didn’t need to test his still somewhat shaky net play. Sunday’s victory will give the already confident Djokovic reason to believe that, finally, he can complete the career Grand Slam and claim his first French Open in June. 

As for Nadal, while he is surely disappointed that he couldn’t extend his record in Monte Carlo, it’s really all about Paris. And after coming back from an eight-month injury layoff and winning the Indian Wells Masters event in March, the year should already be labeled as successful … but he knows that the path to Slam glory will mean beating Djokovic. 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

In August 2002, MLB neared a reenactment of the infamous 1994 strike. Owners were bellyaching about losing money and the need to control spending, so the players threatened to strike. Pundits piled on the players by bemoaning a rising wealth disparity that would inevitably lead to a competition gap. Rich teams would purchase all the best talent and effectively price small-market squads out of contention. The nightmare scenario of the same teams making the playoffs and winning the World Series every year, thus killing off small-market franchises, seemed inevitable. 

On the surface, the prophets of doom had a decent case. The early 2000s saw some teams experience financial troubles (Minnesota Twins) and bankruptcy (Montreal Expos), and the specter of contraction loomed. Moreover, the New York Yankees had recently won four titles in five years and kept raising their payroll. The Atlanta Braves, Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks had followed suit by building champions through spending. 

A last-minute deal averted a likely season ending strike. Many probably assumed 2002 marked a reprieve instead of a final settlement on the financial questions. Yet, baseball flourished. No contraction occurred, although the Montreal Expos moved to Washington D.C. And from a financial standpoint, the sport has never been healthier. In 2012, MLB accrued $7.5 billion in revenue while the average value of a franchise rose to $605 million (an all-time high) according to Forbes Magazine. 

So what happened? How did MLB go from near ruin to success? The sport avoided the trap of “competitive balance.”

That phrase is a staple of discussion in the pro sports landscape, and a false hope. It implies that league officials can engineer a level competitive playing field that produces desirable outcomes. The NBA, and the NFL less so, have consistently demonstrated just the opposite. Centralized policies breed competitive imbalance by promoting standardization; think the omnipresent “Big Three” or “franchise QB” models. It is hard to have fluid competition when everyone follows the same idea. 

By contrast, baseball has competitive mobility. Beginning in 1995, MLB has seen a plethora of squads enjoy success. Some success stories endured, while others did not. But this instability says much about MLB’s open competitive structure, in contrast with its peer leagues. 

For starters, baseball has the fewest playoff slots and the longest regular season. Yet, not all the same teams make the playoffs every year. Beginning in 1995, only the Atlanta Braves and New York Yankees have had double-digit playoff streaks. No one else has made more than five consecutive trips to October. And, only three teams (Toronto Blue Jays, Kansas City Royals, and Pittsburgh Pirates) have zero playoff appearances in the post-strike era.

What about championship droughts? The numbers declare a triumph. Seven droughts longer than 25 years ended from 1995 to 2012; the Atlanta Braves in 1995 (38 years), Los Angeles Angels in 2002 (41 years after inception), Boston Red Sox in 2004 (86 years), Chicago White Sox in 2005 (88 years), Philadelphia Phillies in 2008 (38 years), San Francisco Giants in 2010 (56 years). Others such as the Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers, and Houston Astros at least won the pennant. Even recent expansion teams own a title (Miami Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks) or pennant (Colorado Rockies and Tampa Bay Rays).

Central to competitive mobility is the capacity for clubs to stage quick turnarounds. Indeed, a decade of bad teams undergoing radical reversals has ended talk of five-year plans to progress from losing to winning. A glance at the standings from the past decade provides some memorable examples: the 2002 Los Angeles Angels (+24), 2005 Chicago White Sox (+16), 2006 Detroit Tigers (+24), 2008 Tampa Bay Rays (+31), 2011 Arizona Diamondbacks (+29), and 2012 Oakland Athletics (+20). 

The importance of the quick reversal should not go understated for two reasons. First, it generates fan interest. Every year since 2002, fans of losing clubs can validly ask themselves why not us? Second, and more importantly, quick turnarounds sometimes signal that a team innovated into a new way. The early 2000s Athletics of Moneyball fame and late 2000s Rays are excellent examples.  

By now, the story of those Athletics is well documented. But it is worth reiterating that GM Billy Beane did not invent the statistical analysis he used. He took existing literature, written by Bill James, and had the courage to implement it. He capitalized on baseball’s ingrained anti-intellectualism, to build a cheap offense that coupled with good pitching to produce eight consecutive winning seasons (1999-2006). However, despite its necessary myth busting, Moneyball did not lack excesses. 

One of the unfortunate oversights in Moneyball was the dismissal of defense, turning balls in play into outs, as “five percent of the game.” This is ironic considering how the Athletics’ AL West rivals, the Mariners, used a massively upgraded defense to win 116 games in 2001. But the defensive metrics back then were primitive and/or misunderstood. A few years later, the Rays began a necessary re-evaluation. 

The perpetual AL East bottom-feeder realized something that many had overlooked. Defense is less about not making errors (or fielding percentage) than converting balls in play into outs (measured by defensive efficiency). The Rays used their high drafts pick on versatile players, such as Evan Longoria, and premier pitchers, David Price, to build a run-prevention machine. And it worked brilliantly. The Rays allowed 273 fewer runs from 2007 to 2008 (944 to 671) and rocketed from last to first in defensive efficiency. The laughingstock became a contender, and initiated a league-wide trend toward run prevention.

Critics will inevitably claim the Rays’ sustained success is an aberration. But this charge misses the point. Winning is difficult, and must be built upon. Teams can and do regress for numerous reasons. Some falter because a winning season turned overwhelmingly on luck, such as a great record in one-run games; see the 2005 White Sox. In other cases, a trailblazer’s edge fades. The Athletics endured down years after 2006 because their success raised the cost of acquiring players previously identified as undervalued. The Rays may suffer a similar fate.

But beneath individual achievement is a collective benefit. Allowing teams to win by innovating diversifies competition. Baseball has adages about good pitching beating good hitting, and it lacks the one-size-fits-all models that plagues the NBA and NFL. Indeed, the wealth of literature on baseball since Moneyball demonstrates that open competition breeds self-corrections. Moneyball forced a needed discussion on statistical analysis, but erred on the importance of defense. Thankfully, smart franchises are correcting this oversight until the next breakthrough comes along.

Baseball is not past its time, not even close. The data, structure, and recent history affirm it as the most inventive sport. So as a new season dawns, fans should remember that hope springs eternal. And unlike the NBA or NFL, MLB means it. 

Tim Reuter writes on structural components in sports that impinge on or facilitate competition. He may be reached at tjr2118@gmail.com.

Yes, women's sports are less popular and profitable than men's basketball and football. As Mr. Ross notes, most women's programs actually lose money, and he cites a report published in 2011 by the NCAA that addressed Title IX as an issue prohibiting compensation for student-athletes.

The report discusses schools' objections to legislation allowing student-athletes to receive money in addition to a full scholarship. Or, if the student does not receive a full scholarship, they can receive money up to the value of a full scholarship without it counting as a scholarship. Before the report explores ways in which the legislation could be altered to allow schools to maintain Title IX compliance, it drops this nugget: "Other schools who objected to the legislation stated they can't afford the additional expense but feel it will be necessary to find the money to pay for it in order to compete for recruits."

While the Title IX issues are framed in terms of ways schools hope to maintain compliance with the rule, there is no solution put forth as to how those schools that can't afford to pay will remain competitive. When we watch the NCAA Tournament or the BCS bowls, we see a handful of schools making millions from athletes who don't get paid, and we like to get a little riled up and believe there is some sort of unethical exploitation at work. But what about the other 300 NCAA Division I schools? Ross closes with the lament: "It would be nice to someday pay NCAA players whose talent and hard work benefit the schools, coaches, students, and alumni." What Ross doesn't say is: "It would be nice to someday pay NCAA players."

Wait. If we're only worried about the players whose talent and hard work benefit the schools, coaches, students, and alumni, we're talking about the top players on men's basketball and football teams. And those students already get paid. They get paid in scholarships, clothing, housing, food, transportation, and a national stage from which they can step into the pros.

We're supposed to be concerned because these schools are subsidizing their programs using student fees and school funds, and Ross contends that Title IX is to blame because it's draining so much money from schools' budgets. But go to USA Today's financial data and take a closer look at one of these schools suffering under the burden of women's sports, Ross' alma mater Wichita State. Wichita State's total subsidy in 2010 was $6,608,726, about 33 percent of all revenue. The school's expenses breakdown was thus: $2.4 million in scholarships, $6.3 million to coaching staff, $900,000 to facilities, and $9 million for "other expenses," a nebulous category that includes severance payments to past coaches and staff, recruiting, fundraising and marketing costs, conference dues, and guarantees paid to other schools.

Let's suppose that the expenses of running Wichita State's women's basketball program in 2010, $1.45 million, is spread evenly across those four main categories. That's $362,500 each on scholarships, coaching, facilities, and other. Now imagine Ross' ideal world where Wichita State could choose to spend nothing on women's basketball. They would spend, then, $2.1 million in scholarships, $5.9 million to coaching staff, $540,000 on facilities, and $8.7 on other. With revenue of just $11.8 million, excluding student fees, school funds, and women's basketball, Wichita State would still find itself a $7 million subsidy short of breaking even.

Let's be realistic: women's basketball is not a financial burden on Wichita State. Men's basketball is.

I'm willing to concede that Title IX could be an obstacle to increasing compensation for student-athletes. But I also contend that the athletes who do bring in the most money already are getting paid in the form of scholarships and other per diem. And that's not to mention illegal gifts and that whole mess, which I suppose falls under "other expenses." So if we do just want to "pay NCAA players whose talent and hard work benefit the schools," we're already there.

I'm also willing to admit that if we are going to pay all student-athletes, and not just Ross' profitable athletes, the 125 players on a college football team might be a bigger problem than the women's basketball team. Under the legislation discussed by the NCAA in the report Ross cited, every full-scholarship athlete could get $2,000 extra in compensation, and every athlete below a full scholarship could get extra compensation to the point where they effectively have a full scholarship. How many schools outside of the top tier can afford that?

Factually speaking, for a school like Texas A&M that lost $2.8 million on women's basketball in 2010 per the Bloomberg report mentioned, Title IX is a financial drain, if you only consider the one sport. But $2.8 million is miniscule beside the school's total athletics revenue of $82.7 million that year, and expenses of nearly $76 million, close to $60 million of which comes just from coaching staff and other expenses. And while Ross was concerned about school budgets and using tuition, fees, and school funds to pay for sports, Texas A&M (no subsidy in 2010), Texas, Michigan State and most of the other schools cited as having the costliest women's sports programs are also the schools with the smallest subsidies.

Ross himself, in his article, negates his own point. He writes in criticism of Nick Gillespie that "libertarians [...] discount the noneconomic benefits of moral and civic pride" that comes from a program's success. And then Ross goes on to discount noneconomic benefits and enumerate the various ways in which women's sports are economic burdens on schools and to blame Title IX for a lack of maximized profitability in collegiate athletics departments. Collegiate sports are more than profit-earning ventures, and it is disingenuous to single out women's sports and Title IX as a financial burden when spending on women's programs makes up a fraction of a school's overall athletics spending.

Brian Colella is an assistant editor at RealClearSports and RealClearHistory.

My alma mater, Wichita State, made it to the Final Four before narrowly falling to Louisville on Saturday. The town is still buzzing, and I'm for once thinking that my time and money spent obtaining two degrees there was actually worth it. People around town are wearing Shocker black and gold instead of the red and blue of the University of Kansas.   

This unexpected publicity feels like a minor windfall to an alum like myself. Some studies show that schools benefit from successful NCAA bids. Applications increase shortly after a college team’s successful football or basketball season. This has been called the ‘Flutie Effect,’ named after Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie, who won the Heisman Trophy after defeating Miami on a Hail Mary toss. Wichita’s local paper noted the coming wave of alumni donations and improved applicant pool and even suggested that employers would find WSU degrees more impressive than before the team’s success. The increase in civic pride would help a school which, in a recent “Identity Research Project” found that locals compare the university to a station wagon or a Nissan while comparing nearby University of Kansas to a Cadillac or a Ferrari.  

At Reason, Nick Gillespie goes a long way toward crushing my optimism. Some evidence suggests that applicant test scores increase. Alumni donations too. But Gillespie points out that these are short-term gains, and they’re nothing by which schools should forge strategy. Gunning for a Final Four or a big football bowl is a sure way toward tuition hikes.  

Gillespie cites Wichita State’s 30 percent subsidy of the school’s sports programs, which come out of student fees and school funds. Its $21 million in revenue consists of $6.4 million in combined subsidies.  

Big-time college sports are often attacked from two sides. Libertarians like Gillespie eschew the government meddling and discount the non-economic benefits of moral and civic pride. This argument is similar to the one against a strong national defense and patriotism. Left-liberals tend to despise the culture of competition and the frat and tailgate parties and machismo that goes along with collegiate athletics. Rankings and status games are patriarchal and deserve no place at institutions of higher learning.  

Yet, leftists hold drum circles in support of Title IX and women’s sports. And Gillespie ignores the role that the historic piece of legislation plays in drawing the blood of university budgets.  

While not all men’s sports are profitable on their own, virtually none of women’s programs turn a stand-alone profit. At The Business of College Sports website, Kristi Dosh of ESPN notes that Title IX views college athletics not as a business but as a vehicle toward collegiate success. This view hampers discussions about the equitable treatment of student-athletes whose on-field and on-court success adds value to the school.    

Dosh points out that Title IX was cited by the NCAA as a roadblock to monetary stipends for student-athletes. Even though men’s football and basketball programs are much more likely to be profitable, there is no room under Title IX to pay the players of those particular sports. Schools would have to pay female athletes too despite the fact that they’re already a drain on school budgets. Essentially, paying Louisville’s Kevin Ware or the Rutgers kids would require the school to pay the women who play on those schools' teams.  

A report compiled by Bloomberg looked at the 53 public schools in the six largest athletic conferences and found that women’s programs lost over $109 million in total while men’s programs earned $240 million. While men’s coaches tend to earn more than women’s coaches, women’s teams get to go on the same road trips and play the same number of games and reap the same amenities as the men.  

Without a football program, basketball is Wichita State’s bread and butter. While the entire sports program receives funds from tuition and fees, the men’s basketball program itself is profitable. It earned $5.2 million in 2010 on expenses of $3.8 million. On paper, the women’s program technically broke even, spending $1.45 million and bringing in just as much revenue.

Dosh points to the University of Florida, whose men’s programs earn the school $45 million. Football itself earns $44 million while basketball earns $2.6 million. The entire women’s programs sops $6.9 million from the school, and the women’s basketball program itself is responsible for $2.1 million of that loss. The pattern is evident at programs across the nation.  

It would be nice to someday pay NCAA players whose talent and hard work benefit the school, coaches, students, and alumni. It would also be nice if those players weren’t hindered by a bulky piece of legislation that doesn’t account for the differences in the profitability and popularity of different sports

Chuck Ross is a freelance journalist living in Wichita, Kan.

Of all the pro sports, the NBA has the strangest relationship with its college game. It has neither football’s symbiosis nor baseball’s integration. Every fall and winter weekend football fans can gorge themselves with games, while baseball fans have all summer to track prospects. Unfortunately, basketball fans are torn between college and the pros. And once March comes, the NBA’s competitive deficiencies are exposed. 

Unlike the NBA playoffs, the NCAA Tournament is defined by drama: games decided in the final seconds, upsets, and Cinderella stories. Moreover, the uncertainty couples with betting has the powerful effect of attracting casual fans in droves. Doubters need only Google “March Madness” and “office productivity” to see the investment casual fans make in the Big Dance.  

By contrast, the NBA is boring. An 82-game regular season ends with a playoff chase between .500 teams for the seventh and eighth slots. The early playoff rounds are little more than exercises in futility where the top teams squash the bottom ones. The participants in the conference and NBA finals were likely identified in October as the title contenders. And, the best hope bad or mediocre teams have to reach the upper echelon is drafting players who develop into hall of famers. For many NBA squads, wait until next year really means next decade. 

This author previously attributed the NBA’s competitive sclerosis to bad economic policies. Namely, the salary cap and max contract provisions distort incentives that would otherwise prevent star talent from concentrating in select locales. But, the annual excitement surrounding March Madness, and the fluidity of college basketball, suggests the NBA’s problems go beyond economics.  

Invariably, some will object that comparing the NBA to college basketball is wrong. Critics can claim the NCAA Tournament is conducive to upsets because it is one-and-done, while the NBA playoffs are predicated on the best team winning a seven-game series. Still others will assert the NCAA has haves and have-nots just like the NBA. Both objections are misleading.  

There is not chaos every March. Since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, a one-seed has claimed the championship 18 times (64%), reached every Final Four except in 2006 and 2011, never lost in round one, and no seed below eight has won it all (Villanova in 1985). Cinderella stories come from lower seeds avoiding the juggernauts early on, and are punctuated by the ousting of a favorite (see George Mason defeating Connecticut in 2006). 

Although, it is worth mentioning that non 1-seeds have won 10 titles (36%) beginning in 1985. Also, an all 1-seed Final Four has occurred just once (2008). So while the top programs are a strong presence, they are not the be-all and end-all.

Furthermore, the genius of college basketball is how modest success in March can bolster a decent program. St. John’s built a solid program by claiming tournament berths regularly over the years (although not recently) and winning the NIT. When good coaching and recruiting is added, greater achievement becomes possible. Today’s powerhouses such as Michigan State, UConn and Florida are late arrivals (1990s) compared to Kentucky (1950s). Each of the three built on tournament berths and victories prior to winning a title (although Michigan State won in 1979) and rising to elite status.

The lesson for the NBA is upward mobility matters. If the fun, and health, of college basketball is not proof enough then consider the NBA’s current caste system. Beneath eight teams owning every title since 1984 is an alarming roll call of talented squads that failed to break into the NBA’s upper echelon since the 1999-2000 season.

The Philadelphia 76ers, New Jersey (now Brooklyn) Nets, Cleveland Cavaliers, Orlando Magic, Phoenix Suns, Denver Nuggets, and Minnesota Timberwolves enjoyed success this century. But none of them won a title, three did not make an NBA Finals (Suns, Nuggets, and Timberwolves), and only the Nets reached the finals more than once (2002-2003). Those who would dismiss these squads as unworthy should consider another fact. Each team, possibly excepting the Nuggets, had a prospective hall of famer; Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Carmelo Anthony, and Kevin Garnett.

The major standout was the superstar-less Detroit Pistons who reached seven consecutive Eastern Conference finals from 2002-2008, won it all in 2004, and lost in seven games to the San Antonio Spurs in 2005.  The Oklahoma City Thunder is possibly an outlier in the making after breaking the Lakers' and Spurs’ vice-grip on the Western Conference last year. But the more likely scenario is the Thunder supplanting the decaying Lakers instead of ushering in a more open NBA.

So what should the NBA do, besides changing its economic policies, to enable greater mobility? First, scrap divisions and balance the schedule. Inflated, or depressed, records invariably distort playoff seeding. Second, cut two playoff participants per conference. Why play 82 games and have .500 teams in the postseason? Third, reformat the early rounds. Make round one a best-of-three between the bottom four seeds while the top squads get byes, and make round two a best-of-five. Short series will add drama, similar to the rounds of 64 and 32 in March Madness. Coupled with truer seeding, the results could be exciting series: the Miami Heat and an upstart playing a pressure-packed five-game series. The bonus of this overhaul is a brisker postseason, rather than the present two months long slog.

The proposed reforms alone do not cure the NBA’s competitive dysfunction. But, they would give the regular season meaning and inject more drama into the NBA playoffs. Opening up the league competitively will take a combination of economic and structural reform. But, basketball fans seeking drama need not worry. The college game will be putting on a clinic in competition and excitement soon enough. Any doubters need only check their brackets in the middle of March.

Tim Reuter writes on structural components in sports that impinge on or facilitate competition. He may be reached at tjr2118@gmail.com.

Rafael Nadal lost a clay court final on Sunday to 27-year-old journeyman Horacio Zeballos, a player who never advanced past the second round of any tournament last season.

While this would normally be entered into the category of unbelievable or shocking, the most stunning thing is that this isn’t all that much of a surprise.

Yet it is still strange to recite the names of the last two players who have beaten Nadal; Lukas Rosol at Wimbledon back in June 2012 and Zeballos on Sunday afternoon in Chile.

Indeed, for Nadal, the reality of returning to tournament action after being away for seven months due to problems with his perpetually aching knees is that he will need time to get back into playing shape. For no matter how good Nadal looked in spots throughout the last week at the VTR Open in Vina del Mar, there were signs that Nadal was clearly weeks – or months – away from his top form.

But all credit as well goes to Zeballos, as he played the match of his life during the hard fought, 6-7(2), 7-6(6), 6-4 triumph - and he nearly said as much after his victory, declaring, “it's a dream for me. To be able to play a final against Nadal was already good enough for me. It's a moment that will stay in my memory for the rest of my life.” And he brought a unique combination of being a lefty – one of the few on tour aside from Nadal – who also hits his groundstrokes flat, which has always given Nadal a degree of difficulty. Zeballos also maintained a more aggressive posture throughout and had Nadal under constant pressure. 

Nadal has taken time off due to injuries at other periods during his brilliant career and has come back even stronger - most notably in 2009 when he missed Wimbledon and played with injuries throughout the remainder of that season. He then followed up that rough year with an extraordinary 2010 that saw him capture three Slam titles.

But though he’s still only 26, one has the distinct sense that this comeback is different, that it’s going to be much more arduous for the man universally regarded as the finest player ever on the red dirt. Missing a month or two and one Slam, as was the case in 2009, is one thing. But by the time Nadal plays in Indian Wells and Miami, the two high-profile hard court events in March, it will have been nearly 10 months since he will have played against the likes of Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray or Roger Federer.

Will Nadal’s nerves hold up when he finally takes on his fierce rivals? Does the loss to such a lower-ranked player diminish Nadal’s confidence level?

These questions that will linger are part of the reason why Nadal is playing an intensely busy schedule in this usually vacant time on the tennis calendar. He’s back in action this week in Sao Paulo and then will play in Acapulco later in February. If Nadal doesn’t capture one of the next two events on his beloved clay, against much weaker competition than he’s normally accustomed to, the questions may well morph into doubts. And when doubt enters into a tennis player’s always-fragile psyche, all bets are off. 

First things first though. There was much in his four matches played this last week that bode well for Nadal. Not least of which was his serve. While he’s still not serving as hard as he did back in 2010, Nadal hit many effective serves out wide in the deuce court and down the middle in the ad court, a strategy that many have implored the Spaniard to adopt. I’d look for Nadal to continue to tinker with his serve in advance of the intense battles to come in the next few months against his top foes, especially Murray and Djokovic, who each possess incredible return games.

Additionally, Nadal took chances on his return, especially on the backhand side and also hit balls on the rise more frequently than one is used to seeing. These are strategies that I’ll expect Nadal to implement on a regular basis as a way of shortening points as he switches from a grinding, physically exhausting style of play to one of increased – yet selective – aggression. It is absooutely necessary for Nadal to shift his game now, in order to maximize another year or two of peak tennis.

The aspects of Nadal’s game that looked rusty were not all that surprising; he was beaten on many drop shots, as his vertical movement is still not there yet and he left too many lopping groundstrokes in the middle of the court, which proved to be easy pickings for a flat hitter like Zeballos. But these weaknesses displayed by Nadal will likely fade once he rounds himself into top form. 

Of course none of these early tournaments on his road back to recovery matter much in the grand scheme. Nadal will not be satisfied with the state of things until – and if - he’s playing in the French Open final on the second Sunday in June.

And it bears reminding again that even for those who think that Nadal’s body is breaking down, that he’ll never be back to 100 percent, that his career will be cut short, or that he’ll only be effective on clay, etc … if he wins a Slam this year, he’ll become the first player in history to record a Slam victory in nine consecutive years. And I wouldn’t bet against it.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

This year looks to be no different, as the Mongolian-born Harumafui captured the Emperors’s Cup at the traditional New Year tournament that kicks off the sumo year. He won the trophy by defeating yet another Mongolian champion, not to mention some Bulgarians and Estonians.

Paradoxically, sumo is an international sport that steadfastly refuses to go international. It is international in that many foreigners participate in Japan. Of the approximately 700 professional wrestlers, about 50 are foreign-born, mostly from Mongolia but also from Eastern Europe and even the United States.

Aside from a few demonstration games, usually connected with some “Japan Week” promotion, however, the sport is not usually contested outside Japan, not even in Mongolia. Sumo isn’t even in the Asian Games, which otherwise include such obscure Asian sports as Sepak Takraw, Kaddabi and Wushu.

It seems that sumo is one of those sports – or “sports” – that are as much expressions of cultural identity as they are serious athletic contests. Sumo is actually closer in spirit to rodeo in America or bull-fighting in Spain, neither of which, with the possible exception of bull fighting, have made much of an impact outside their home countries.

As a spectator sport, sumo and rodeo leave something to be desired. In sumo two behemoths stare at each other, leap forward and grapple until one steps outside the ring. It lasts about 10 seconds and then is repeated. Similarly in rodeo, you see one cowboy rope a calf, you have kind of seen them all.

This isn’t to say that there are not aficionados, people who can appreciate fine skill in calf roping, the toreador’s cape work, or finer points that come from watching two giants grappling in the sumo ring.

But I would say that most spectators of rodeo are drawn to it for the feeling of American-ness, or at least Westerness, that the sport imparts. Rodeo tournaments are more than just sporting events, at least in smaller towns; they are community cultural events, a time to put on your cowboy hats and boots and maybe join in a parade or a square dance.

Japanese feel much the same way about sumo. Everything about the sport is traditional, from the elaborate costume of the gyoji, or chief referee, that dates back to the Ashikaga Period (1336-1573). Pictures of sumo wrestlers on 19th century woodblock prints look no different from the wrestlers of today. Sitting in his box, eating a bento lunch, sumo fan basks in a comfortable feeling of Japan-ness.

Some fans worry that the influx of foreign wrestlers is subtly changing the game in ways they don’t like. This isn’t so much an expression of nativism, as it is the fact that many of the foreign wrestlers get their start in other forms of wrestling and are bringing to the sport new kinds of grips and turns. Japanese seem to leave the tricky moves to the judo hall.

Not that nativism doesn’t play a part in modern sumo. That was true when the first foreigners began to enter the ring 20 years ago. It seems rather quaint that one of the pioneers, a Hawaiian who goes by the name Konishiki, was denied grand champion status because he lacked the requisite hinkaku, or athletic dignity.

That has gone by the board as the last 70 or so grand champions have been foreign born without anyone questioning their “dignity”. In recent years the sport has had its share of “bad boy” champions, such as grand master Asashoryu, not to mention doping scandals (not steroids, just plain old marijuana).

So, Japanese fans wait patiently for the Great Hope that will return the championships to their native sons, without much expectation that this year will be different from the previous seven years and that the Mongolians will continue to dominate. That doesn’t seem to have dampened interest as this year’s basho was sold out.

It would appear that for a long time sumo will remain a “sport,” tradition-bound and insular. And that is probably the way that most Japanese like it.

This is probably the best demographic study ever done on NFL fandom. Broken down by county, it shows what NFL team is most "liked" by the residents across the 50 states via their Facebook activities.

And Davis can easily draw this one conclusion: L.A. still hearts his Raiduhs.

Yep, nearly two decades after his Silver and Black left the L.A. Coliseum for its namesake in Oakland, the Raiders are still the most popular team in the most populous county in the United States. And not just the City of Angels, but most of Southern California: Other than Orange County that's defected to the Charges, the Raiders fandom stretches to the Nevada border and up the Grapevine well into the San Joaquin Valley.

You know where the Raiders are still playing second fiddle? Alameda County, where their very stadium is located. In fact, everywhere north of Santa Barbara and Fresno is solidly 49ers country, all the way to the Oregon border. There's more Raider fan loyalty in southern Oregon than in Northern California.

Which begs the question: Why did Davis ever leave Los Angeles?

One of the great pioneers of professional football, Al Davis obviously wasn't a stupid man. But in leaving L.A., he made a colossally dumb business decision. Instead of cementing their role as the football kingpin of the nation's second-largest market, the Raiders went back to what became entrenched 49ers turf after they won five Super Bowls in 14 years, all while the Raiders took up residence down south.

The Raiders are in today's state of disrepair mostly because Davis made an impulsive decision back in the spring of 1995.

Let's recap: After winning a hard-fought court battle against the NFL to relocate the Raiders for the 1982 season, Davis was running out of patience after 13 seasons in L.A. His team was still playing in the dilapidated L.A. Coliseum with no new stadium plans in sight. Even though the Rams had just pulled up stakes and moved to St. Louis, leaving the Raiders as the only team in L.A., Davis did not perceive it to be a golden opportunity.

Make no mistake, Davis had reasons to be leery about his situation in SoCal. The notorious Coliseum Commission never delivered on its promise to substantially refurbish and renovate the aging stadium - opened for the 1932 Olympics. His new stadium deal with Irwindale fell through after it was secretly torpedoes by L.A.'s power brokers. The NFL pledged to help fund the construction of a new downtown stadium - but only if Davis accepted a second tenant relocated from another NFL city (the Seahawks were rumored to be the front-runner).

David basically lost his nerve. Instead of winning a game of chicken against then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, daring him to bring a second team to town, Davis went back to his desperate old fling. Oakland promised a sold-out, renovated Coliseum for the Raiders' triumphant return. Instead, the Silver and Black played in front of the monstrosity known as "Mount Davis," on the skin infield of what's now the NFL's only multi-purpose stadium in contests often blacked out in the Bay Area.

The truth is that even without the Facebook map and today's demographic tools, Davis should've known better. Even while the Raiders won two Super Bowls after being the most dominant team in the old AFL, they never truly owned the Bay Area. While the 49ers were downtrodden throughout the '70s, they were Northern California's first big-league professional franchise and remained its darling. And when they started winning under Bill Walsh - and in the Raiders' absence - that relationship became even more entrenched.

In contrast, L.A. did embrace the Raiders, and still does.

L.A. is a front-runner town where everybody loves a winner. And most teams in L.A. do win because it's simply a magnet for talent. The Lakers, Kings, Ducks, Angels, Galaxy have all won titles in the past decade. The Dodgers' drought, going on nearly a quarter century, probably will end soon after all that money gets printed at Chavez Ravine this offseason. Even the Clippers - the Clippers! - are taking the NBA by storm.

And the Raiders did their share of winning in L.A., too. They posted the best record in the AFC in their first three seasons in SoCal and won Super Bowl XVIII their second year - still the lone Lombardi Trophy claimed by an L.A. team. The Coliseum was full of excitement in the late '80s during the Bo Jackson era, and right up when the Raiders left after the 1994 season, they were perennial playoff contenders.

Fans turned out for Raiders games at the cavernous, 92,000-seat Coliseum, a crumbling edifice with no amenities nestled in a bad neighborhood with precious little parking (I know, I was an L.A. Raiders season-ticket holder). Yes, there were gangbangers among the fans. Yes, you can get high in the stands by just breathing in the air. And yes, a large contingent of LAPD cops were needed at every game to keep the peace.

But it's also a myth that the Raiders were only embraced by thugs and lowlifes. Many wine-and-cheese USC fans were also Raiders season-ticket holders. Years later, (after I had moved to the Bay Area to cover the Raiders) a sizable contingent of fans still fly up to Oakland for every Raiders home game - even now. Walk around in any mall in L.A., if a kid, or an adult, is sporting NFL gear, chances are it'd be in Silver and Black.

Despite the fact that the Raiders left L.A. nearly 20 years ago, despite their dreadful record in the last decade, L.A. TV stations still get respectable ratings for their frequent Raiders telecasts. All Raiders games are carried by KLAA, an all-sports radio station that's also the flagship of the Angels. When they play the Chargers in San Diego, Raiders fans pack Qualcomm and turn it into a home game for the Silver and Black, just like always.

So while leaving L.A. will remain an everlasting regret for the dearly departed Al, his son Mark can do something about it. In fact, he needs to do something about it.

The Raiders will not be viable as a competitive football team - or a business entity - if they remain in the Bay Area. The Warriors are about to move out to San Francisco and the A's are sure to follow suit to the South Bay, leaving the ghostly complex to the Raiders. The 49ers will soon take up residence in their spanking new stadium in Santa Clara, perhaps after adding another Lombardi Trophy.

The Raiders will remain forever an afterthought in the Bay Area and the broke city of Oakland doesn't have another cent to spare to renovate the facilities. The Raiders, currently pegged as the third-least valuable franchise in the NFL by Forbes, simply won't be able to improve its revenue stream as a second banana in Northern California, even if they become a tenant in the 49ers' new stadium.

Mark Davis must swallow hard and play ball with the NFL and the dealmakers in L.A., even if it involves his selling a share of the team. Moving back to L.A. is the only way his team will be competitive and relevant again. But the least of his problems - which will be daunting for any other NFL team attempting to move to L.A. - is to drum up fan interest. It's already there, because it never left.

Just Move, Baby!

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com. Follow him on Twitter @BCSGuru.

After a riveting first two sets that saw both players impenetrable on serve and with both stanzas culminating in tiebreakers, Novak Djokovic cruised to an anticlimactic victory over Andy Murray in the Australian Open final Sunday, 6-7(2), 7-6(3), 6-3, 6-2.

After what initially looked to be another five- or six-hour affair, especially after the first two sets elapsed two and a quarter hours, the match rushed to its inevitable conclusion the last two sets.

The turning point in the match came with Murray serving at 2-2 in the second set tiebreaker. Up to this time Murray was playing with a relaxed confidence that had the Scot on the cusp of taking a two-sets-to none lead. His second straight Slam title seemed a distinct probability – and with it, the legitimate claim to the throne of the best player in the world.

But then it – the feather - happened. After missing a first serve, Murray paused before hitting his second as a feather slowly and agonizingly drifted down from above, causing Murray to delay his motion. Murray snatched the feather in mid-air and toss it behind him- and then he proceeded to double fault and give Djokovic the mini-break.

It’s something that the average weekend recreational player has suffered through countless times, that of the momentary lapse of concentration resulting in an unspooling of one’s efforts.

It turns out that’s all Djokovic would require as he closed out the tiebreaker with ease and then tightened up his game and put on a clinic in what the 25-year-old Serb is brilliant at – controlled aggression.

Never allowing Murray to feel comfortable on his serve from that second set tiebreaker forward, Djokovic started to control all the long rallies and Murray, after looking quick and alert those first two sets, showed visible signs of fatigue and frustration as he time and again was unable to get the ball past Djokovic.

Additionally, once Djokovic took that second set to even the match, Murray appeared to abandon some of the strategy that he implemented brilliantly up to that point. Just as he had done against Roger Federer in the semifinals, Murray hit several aggressive down-the-line backhands early on against Djokovic, which let Murray control more points early in the match.

Murray also was adept at executing the tactic that is utterly critical when playing Djokovic – hitting balls deep down the middle of the court and not allowing Djokovic to get an angle on the ball and redirecting the point, something that no one does as well as Djokovic.

But as has been the case with Djokovic since he became the best player in the sport during his historic 2011 campaign, as the match wore on he seemed to win every rally that lasted more than 10 shots.

Aside from the customary backcourt impenetrability that is the essence of Djokovic’s game, he also displayed an unusually aggressive stance in the forecourt throughout the match. Usually Djokovic is not the one to take chances and approach the net, as his volley is the only part of his game that can be considered a weakness. To his great credit Djokovic won 35 of 41 points at the net, whereas Murray was only at net a total of 15 times.

For Murray, the image of him as being a talented but mercurial and moody player is prone to self-inflicted wounds and laziness is long gone. Ever since his hiring of Ivan Lendl – truly one of the great coach-student pairings in sports – Murray has shed his prior reputation and is clearly the No. 2 player in the world at this point. If he had followed up his Olympic and U.S. Open victories with an Australian title, he would have clearly been the top player, despite what any computer rankings would indicate.

And for Djokovic, he made history Sunday as he becomes the first man in the Open Era to claim three consecutive Australian Open titles. Just as Federer has dominated Wimbledon for nearly a decade and the French Open is Rafael Nadal’s kingdom, Australia is where Djokovic reasserts himself.

Just think if Djokovic hadn’t defeated Murray Sunday. Would there have been grumblings about how suddenly it’s Djokovic who hasn’t won a Slam in more than a year (his last Slam title was the 2012 Australian Open)? Yet with the victory Djokovic solidified his status as the sport's best player once again.

There’s only one thing left for Djokovic to accomplish - winning the French Open to complete the career slam. He’ll embark on that quest immediately after celebrating his sixth Slam title. And it just so happens that Nadal will finally return to action at a major at the French Open.

The anticipation starts now. 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

That's where we come in. You have questions? We have answers. The 10 things you're just dying to know about the best tale coming out of South Bend since "Rudy" (yeah, that one was mostly fake, too):

1. Why is the Te'o Hoax the best sports story of the year, and maybe all-time?

Because it has all the requisite ingredients for a salacious tale, absent a criminal element. Nobody actually died (Te'o's grandmother did, but she was not part of the hoax). Nobody was seriously traumatized by it (as in the Jerry Sandusky case). And nobody was even defrauded of money or glory (as in the Lance Armstrong case).

Yet, it involves one of the biggest and most iconic brand names of American sports. It really doesn't get much bigger than Notre Dame football and few teams are also so universally loathed outside of its immediate fanbase. Right away, there's enough flood of Schadenfreude to overflow Notre Dame Stadium.

2. Who really got played for fools?

The mainstream media. Almost every major publication from Sports Illustrated to the South Bend Tribune got a crack at this fraud of a story, yet nobody even got remotely suspicious about lots of things that just didn't add up. It took Deadspin - love it or hate it - to come up with the goods to nail this to the wall. And yet, in the immediate aftermath, the media types were still the ones most willingly toeing the Notre Dame company line. Pat Forde, normally a reasonable sort, went as far as not only defending the school, but taking shots at, of all people, Deadspin, for breaking the story.

Sports media has always had a kind of "Liberty Valance" relationship with Notre Dame football. It's just so easy to burn the notes and say, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

3. Is it so hard to check the facts?

SI's Pete Thamel interviewed Te'o extensively for a feature piece during the season, and now he claims there were a few "small red flags" from his conversation with Te'o. If you read the transcript, they weren't red flags. They were atom bombs.

For example, if this person was the "love of your life," would you not know what she majored in college and what year she graduated? And you couldn't take the time to visit her after a serious car accident or attend her funeral? Could SI's phalanx of fact-checkers not verify a few of these very simple details? When I worked as a freelancer for SI, I was grilled by its fact-checkers for every minutiae. So this is not a sin of omission, but commission.

4. Will we ever hear from Te'o?

Not really. While Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick implied during his Wednesday press conference that Te'o would be made available the next day, Tom Condon, Te'o's agent, apparently nixed that idea. Te'o has left school after graduating in December and moved to Florida to prepare for the NFL Draft. Chances are his next public appearance will be at the draft, and at which time he could just dismiss what by then would be "an old story."

5. Is this going to hurt Te'o's draft status?

This is the NFL we're talking about, sonny. Te'o's missing about 100 tackles against Alabama hurt his draft status, not something inconsequential like a made-up dead girlfriend. Remember, Nebraska's Lawrence Phillips used his real girlfriend's face to fetch mail and yet he was still taken sixth overall in the 1996 draft. Unless you're physically incarcerated, it's all good.

6. Now, is there a big winner in this saga?

The SEC, of course. The SEC wins everything.

7. Then who's the big loser?

Oprah. Thursday was supposed to be the big relaunch of her fledgling OWN network when she got Lance Armstrong on the couch to confess all his sins. Now Armstrong is so yesterday's news that he's about as relevant in the minds of the American public as the war in Mali. What's Mali, you ask? Exactly.

8. Is Notre Dame off the hook?

Maybe. With an indulgent media willing to buy whatever it sells, Notre Dame will get through this mostly unscathed just as it did from the other scandals. Call it "Sex (Lizzy Seeberg), Lies (Te'o) and Videotape (Declan Sullivan)," if you will. If a school can skate on the death of a student videographer being put to work under extremely unsafe conditions and stonewall a sexual assault allegation that led to the suicide of a young woman, this is child's play.

9. Maybe Te'o is gay, and this was a cover story gone bad?

This conspiracy theory emerged almost immediately after the Deadspin story broke. It goes like this: Te'o's gay, so having a long-distance relationship was the perfect cover to fend off unwanted female attention on campus. And with her "death," he could ask to be left alone to grieve.

This narrative has some logic to it, but it's simply too far-fetched to be true. There are a lot of ways to stay in the closet so it makes little sense to generate so much attention on yourself.

10. So, what's the deal, then?

Te'o seems a naively earnest sort, so it's doubtful that he perpetrated the hoax himself. But once he realized he was duped, he did nothing to stop it and ended up helping to perpetuate it. He did it partly to save himself from embarrassment and partly to revel in the attention it generated for him. While Notre Dame was not complicit initially, it did not come forth to reveal the truth and simply played along and hoped it'd all just go away.

It almost worked.

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com. Follow him on Twitter @BCSGuru.

Maybe Lance Armstrong will be the exception to the rule and certainly prison isn't in his future, but in the real world of crisis management, reputations and careers are not easily restored by belated confessions, no matter how sincere. And while every case is different (For example, Tiger Woods did not cheat competitors out of prize money or alter the outcomes of tournaments), Armstrong's mendacity and corruption are on historic levels. He didn't just cheat, he denied it for years, he sued a newspaper - The London Times - that exposed his cheating, he destroyed the careers of old friends, and he organized a cover up of epic proportions. Tiger may be a reprobate, but he didn't leave dozens of lives in shambles.

I've been listening to the Armstrong watchers and experts that have been making the cable news rounds in the last couple of days. Most say Armstrong is brilliant and strategic, a consummate planner with CEO-type skills for organization and execution.

So what is he up to with the high drama of an Oprah interview? What's his calculation of the endgame?

Here's how I see it. On the costs side of the ledger, Armstrong is confirming that he is the greatest cheat in sports history. He is opening himself up to lawsuits from sponsors, competitors and the dozens of people whom he smeared as "liars" for telling the truth about his doping. From his worst critics, he will get nothing but more contempt and hatred.

On the other side of the balance sheet, he may eventually get to compete in bike races and triathlons if he comes clean. And maybe there will be some fans that will forgive him. At some point, he can be part of Livestrong again, the cancer-fighting charity he founded. And maybe that's all he wants.  

This demonstrates why scandal management isn't so black and white. More often than not, companies, sports figures and institutions that have done wrong have very limited goals and it's usually not full restoration of reputation or something close to redemption. Redemption is for the falsely accused, not the rightly accused. The goals of scandal management are to stay out of jail, get out of the news, keep some money, don't lose your home, and maybe in Armstrong's case, get back to what he loves doing, competing.

This may be achievable. The World Anti-Doping Agency has said that a confession from Armstrong is a minimum requirement for reconsidering the ban on competition the agency imposed. Of course, going on Oprah is not quite the confession they are looking for.

Maybe critics would say the cost to Armstrong is not worth the benefits. But  Armstrong has always been his own man, and if dealing with lawsuits and accepting history's condemnation in order to compete in bike races and triathlons floats his boat, then as a crisis manager, who am I to tell him differently?  

Of course, the success of strategy is in the execution. Will there be more interviews coming? Will he go before the WADA and make a formal confession under oath? Will he be giving back prize money? And on the superficial level, will he come across as sincere or a cynic. 

My guess is that within the limited goals of this strategy, Armstrong will pull it off. For better or worse, his personal history demonstrates that he gets what he wants and that he has the personal attributes to execute a tricky strategy.   

However, I don't predict a fairy-tale ending where the aging athlete (Armstrong is 41) redeems himself by winning through clean competition to the applause of adoring fans. George Foreman he's not. Foreman left boxing a bitter and angry man and came back a God-fearing, lovable middle-aged father who won the heavyweight crown back. Getting back to the very top doesn't seem likely for Armstrong. And a personality transplant like Foreman apparently had isn't in the cards either.

But crisis management is always about making the best of a bad situation. That Armstrong can do. 

Steven Schlein, a Washington, D.C.-based crisis communications professional, has more than 25 years of experience in politics and public relations. He can be reached at stevenschlein@yahoo.com.

It is remarkable how much the NFL has achieved regarding competitive balance. The NFL has a relevant regular season, an annual playoff turnover rate around 50percent, and at least one Super Bowl appearance for every team except four. Furthermore, the embarrassing franchises are kept out of the spotlight barring epic futility (the winless 2008 Detroit Lions) or public relations disasters (Bottle-Gate in Cleveland in 2001). No other pro sports league has attained that balance.

But that success does not come cheaply. Parity has a price, even a subtle one. The difference between efforts to generate parity in the NFL versus the NBA is visibility of costs. The NBA’s competitive dysfunction is on display for public viewing. This is not true for the NFL where the benefits of parity appear in the standings and the costs are obscured. Indeed, any discussion of costs needs to turn away from the standings and toward this question. Can pro football still change dramatically and thus elevate competition higher? 

The answer is yes and no. Innovating usually leads to winning. Bill Walsh’s West Coast Offense, predicated on short passes that both controlled the clock and stretched the field horizontally, brought five titles in 14 years to San Francisco. But Walsh’s success had other beneficiaries, such as defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau, who designed the Zone Blitz to counter the West Coast Offense. LeBeau took his Zone Blitz to Pittsburgh, and his defenses have powered the Steelers to four Super Bowl appearances and two titles since 1992. Both ideas are now NFL staples and proof that innovative forces improved competition, and thus created a better game.

However, it is possible the rate of change is slowing. A second burst of offensive creativity followed the West Coast Offense in the 1990s. From 1990-1993 Jim Kelly’s Buffalo Bills reached four Super Bowls by confusing and wearing down defenses with a no-huddle attack. Six years later, the “Greatest Show on Turf” St. Louis Rams racked up points by spreading out defenses and throwing deep. Along the way, fans saw potent quarterback and wide receiver tandems such as Randall Cunningham and Randy Moss in Minnesota circa 1998 light up the scoreboard. 

Since then NFL offenses have grown in complexity while the QB and WR positions have gained importance. But, the prolific offenses in New England or New Orleans under Tom Brady and Drew Brees do not appear markedly different from Kurt Warner’s Rams. It is possible that today’s talent is greater than ever. But that point invites another question. What happens when the current crop of Hall of Fame QBs retire? Will a new generation, perhaps equally talented at running the ball as throwing it, revolutionize offense? The success of 2012 rookie QBs Andrw Luck, Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin III might suggest so. But for now, it is worth asking if the NFL is likely to reach new competitive heights in the near future?

In this writer’s opinion, the NFL can have better competition or greater parity, but not both. First, the assumption of parity as a good thing limits development. Encouraging parity invariably begins from the presumption that a blueprint for success exists, and becoming competitive is a matter of copycatting. This works up to a point. Bad franchises can use the New England Patriots and Green Bay Packers as a model, but those teams already have the requisite personnel in place. And even if a bad team transforms into the Packers with an elite QB and top-flight receivers, that squad has merely equaled instead of overtaken the best franchises.

Second, mimicry done en masse is possibly self-defeating. It is hard enough to build a winning team, but if everyone follows the same model then the costs of acquiring pieces for a proven system skyrockets. Just ask the Oakland Raiders, who traded a first-round pick in 2012 and a second-round pick in 2013 for Carson Palmer, the Cincinnati Bengals' former franchise QB who “retired” after the 2010 season. The Bengals made off with loot, and playoff appearances, while the Raiders finished 8-8 in 2011 and 4-12 in 2012. No amount of insistence on parity can overcome the laws of economics, notably supply and demand.

Speaking of economics, the most important part of parity’s costs is revenue sharing. Admittedly, the NFL has a better track record than its peers. The salary floor prevents NFL owners from pocketing revenue-sharing money, as in MLB where the Pittsburgh Pirates lose for two decades yet ownership turns a profit. Additionally, small-market teams such as the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints have succeeded, unlike their NBA counterparts.

However, spending money does not ensure success. Doling out cash to the incompetent will not produce success, and it can have detrimental consequences. Namely, revenue sharing saves bad owners from losing the requisite amount of money to force a sale. It also disempowers fans, since most revenue in sports comes from television deals: fans’ refusal to fill the stands minimally impacts a franchise’s balance sheet. The resulting situation is lose-lose, such as in Detroit.

The Ford family’s 51 year ownership of the Detroit Lions has yielded quite the ledger. The Lions have one playoff victory against several historical failures; three seasons without a road victory (2001-2003), the worst winning percentage over seven years (.271, 2001-2007), and the winless 2008 season. Fans protested by not buying tickets, home games were blacked out on television, and it all came to naught. Revenue sharing negated an inevitable sale, the Fords keep turning a profit, the fans continue suffering, and life goes on.  

The Lions are an extreme example, but mediocrity exists across the league. The Buffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns, and Oakland Raiders are all a decade removed from a playoff berth. Others, such as the Cincinnati Bengals, are 15 years plus between playoff victories despite sporadic regular-season success. In a league with a near 50 percent playoff turnover rate yearly and frequent postseason upsets, it is hard to believe the ongoing futility.

The NFL is the top sport in ratings and revenue because people demand the product. But no one should mistake the NFL’s competitive balance for the best the sport can offer. It is not a mark of honor to have a slim margin separating teams because everyone is following the same model. Nor does the sport benefit by keeping bad owners in place such that a whole generation of fans is lost while William Clay Ford collects a check from the league office. 

An NFL that keeps innovating is good for everyone; owners, television execs, players, and the fans. A good place to start is by discarding mistaken notions about the importance of parity. Parity hurts bad teams as much as the good ones. It is time to retire the idea and bring on the next evolution of football.

Tim Reuter writes on structural components in sports that impinge on or facilitate competition. He may be reached at tjr2118@gmail.com.

For this year’s Australian Open, which starts on Monday (Sunday evening American time), the draw turned out to be extremely kind to two-time defending champion Djokovic, but downright cruel to Federer and, to a lesser extent, Murray.

In fact, Federer’s draw is that much more difficult than his top rivals that it would be a superb accomplishment for the 17-time Slam champion to even make the final – which he likely won’t. Things are relatively dicey starting in the second round for Federer and it stays difficult for the duration of the fortnight. Though he’d likely dispose former top-5 member Nikolay Davydenko in his second match and should subdue the already-underachieving Australian, 19 year-old Bernard Tomic, in the third round, it is the possible round-of-16 encounter against Canadian Milos Raonic that may spell the end of Federer’s hopes in Melbourne.

Like many tennis observers, I have been touting Raonic since he first burst on the scene three years ago. With his Pete Sampras-like ease of a service motion, potent groundstrokes, and nimble net play despite being so tall, Raonic seemed destined to have already reached a Slam final by this point (he just turned 22 in December). And while it’s too soon to say he isn’t reaching his full potential, now is definitely the time to take that extra step; consider that 22 is when Federer and Andre Agassi both won their first Slams and it was also the age at which Sampras started his run of brilliance (though he won the U.S. Open at the age of 19 in 1990, Sampras laid low for a couple of years until winning Wimbledon in 1993).

Though Raonic has never beaten Federer in their three meetings – all taking place in 2012 on three different surfaces - all went the distance, with two of the three decided in final-set tiebreaks. If Raonic is feeling healthy after a series of nagging injuries, I believe his game will be too much for Federer to absorb on a relatively fast court. More to the point, if Raonic is serving up to his capability, Federer will be pressing more on his own serves and will be forced to take chances on returns as well. There are few great pure servers left in tennis and Raonic is one of them. The only way to beat Federer is via relentless pressure, be it in the form of Nadal’s topspin lobs to the backhand side or Djokovic’s returns.

And while Federer has, up to this point, pretty much defied the aging process which usually claims tennis players in their late 20s (Federer will be 32 in August), there’s no question that the man many consider to be the greatest that ever played will find it more arduous to have to dig deep in consecutive matches during a Slam. And even if Federer were to survive Raonic, he’d still have to likely contend with a supposedly rejuvenated Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the quarters and then Murray in the semis, before meeting Djokovic in the final.

Murray, finally a Slam titlist after his victory at the U.S. Open in September, has his work cut out for him, mainly because of his potential quarterfinal opponent – Juan Martin Del Potro. Both Murray’s and Del Potro’s path to the quarterfinal round is relatively obstacle-free (although Del Potro may face a stiff challenge in the fourth round against Marin Cilic) so this could be a superlative encounter if both players are well rested. Del Potro has only beaten Murray once in six tries and while it should be a battle, Murray will move on to face Raonic in the semis.

There’s almost no need to analyze Djokovic’s half of the draw except for his possible quarterfinal foe, Tomas Berdych. There is nary a worry in sight for Djokovic – except for overconfidence. Before the draw was announced, it was conventional belief that whoever was “lucky” enough to draw David Ferrer in the semis would be the lucky one. And not to in any way diminish the ever-consistent and surprisingly powerful Ferrer, but he has no chance against Djokovic in a three-of-five-set match.

But if Djokovic were to indeed sleepwalk through his first six matches in Melbourne, would that have in ill effect? One can look back to the French Open of 2011 when Djokovic was putting together one of the finest seasons the sport has witnessed. But he had three extra days off before being shocked by Federer in the semis in Paris that year. While I doubt Djokovic will allow himself to feel overconfident, nevertheless it does bring up an interesting scenario if he were to meet Raonic in the final – they’ve never played each other. And while Djokovic is armed with arguably one of the two or three greatest returns the sport has seen (Jimmy Connors and Agassi are the others), to have to face a hot-serving Raonic for the first time in a final would be daunting.

In 2012 it was Murray’s turn to finally crack the code that Federer and Nadal – and then later Djokovic – owned for the past 10 years. It is my belief that Milos Raonic will seize upon his vast potential and defeat Novak Djokovic in their first ever meeting to claim the Australian Open championship. 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

The Packers were organized as a nonprofit corporation in 1919, and currently, the organization has nearly 375,000 shareholders. While shares of Packers’ stock pay no dividend, owners are allowed to vote each year on various aspects of the organization’s operation, and they are empowered by certain rights and responsibilities.

The NFL marred the 2012 season by hiring a horrendously incompetent bunch of replacement referees. Throughout the first three weeks of play, blown calls were routine, and repeated stories of bias, incompetence, and under-qualification were the norm. One replacement official, for instance, was fired for incompetence from the satirically bad Lingerie Football League. 

In Week 3 of the NFL regular season, the Packers lost to the Seahawks in Seattle on a bad call that the NFL still refused to admit was incorrect. Initially, the refs ruled Green Bay had lost on a last-second touchdown by Seattle receiver Golden Tate. The field captain for the Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight – replacement referee Wayne Elliot – upheld side judge Lance Easley’s errant call after video review. The call cost the Packers the game and, when they finished 11-5, a first-round playoff bye and a divisional home game.

The Green Bay call – which was twice ruled incorrectly by under-qualified referees - was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and the real NFL refs were back at work three days later.

The gross incompetence of the replacement refs is indicative of a more insidious problem – the gross negligence of the NFL. As courts have repeatedly held, sports leagues are responsible both to provide a fair playing field for its competitors in accordance with its rules and to provide a safe occupational environment for its employees. By using replacement refs, the NFL did neither. It put player safety at risk and biased games in meaningful ways. Derivative damage from the first three weeks of the season includes hundreds of millions of dollars in betting losses, injured players, and endorsement drops.

But Green Bay Packers’ shareholders have the biggest cause for complaint.

Shareholders should protect their corporations, even if their corporations don’t share their profits. By losing to Seattle because of the NFL’s negligence, the Packers unfairly lost standing in their quest for a Super Bowl. The loss of revenue for organization is difficult to calculate with precision, but it is surely immense. The Packers have lost all of the revenue associated with hosting a second playoff game. While the NFL shares most revenue amongst its franchises, so-called local revenues flow back to the local franchises. Based on legal filings from Green Bay’s last expansion, the team stands to lose about $2.2 million in parking and concessions, and millions more in gate revenue, merchandising, and other proceeds. 

This foregone cash stream is more important when framed in light of the Packers’ investment portfolio. Like most NFL teams, the Packers invest most immediate earnings and then liquidate holdings to cover non-salary operating expenses. These investments pay dividends, and by reducing the initial earnings of Green Bay’s investment, less will be earned long-term.

Shareholders should sue to recoup these losses, and they should sue as a by-product of their social responsibility. Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC obliges commercial entities to do their best to deal fairly with consumers. In the case of the replacement referees, the NFL presented incapable employees as competent and professional, willfully duping the public into thinking the quality of the game would not be impaired. In so doing, they made liars of themselves and, by extension, their franchise owners. This criminal negligence on the part of the league has created liability for the franchises, and while Packers’ shareholders are shielded from direct losses, they should take steps to indemnify their organization.

Packers’ shareholders also must adhere to both the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. In a basic legal sense, shareholders are obligated to make sure the reputation of an organization is protected to a reasonable extent. For an NFL team, losing out on a first-round bye and home-field advantage for a playoff game both constitute diminished prestige, and for shareholders to ignore the negligence displayed by the NFL in the Week 3 game would be to ignore a basic shareholder duty.

Not all bad calls are cause for lawsuits and retribution. The NFL needs only to demonstrate that it has made a reasonable effort to conduct itself in accordance with its own rules, and it will shield itself from legal reprisal. The NFL is an IRS 501(c)6 organization that is legally and philosophically responsible to serve the general public. But in the case of the replacement refs, the NFL acted irresponsibly because its greed compelled it to wage an unnecessary war against the NFL Referees Association over a pittance.

The league has become exceptionally good at protecting its image and glossing over trouble in part because most of its constituents are powerless. Thanks to U.S. law, Green Bay’s shareholders have legal resources available to them that can humble the league and force it back toward doing what it should have been doing all along – serving its fans and players. A lawsuit, whatever the outcome, would be good for the league, the players and fans.

Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute.

The year was 1963, and the scene was the 11th hole at Rancho Park Golf Course. With his good looks, humble beginnings, easy accessibility, and derring-do style of play, Arnold Palmer was a Southern California crowd favorite. But he’d never finished better than 10th in the L.A. Open, and on the last day of the tourney the groans were audible as he hit his ball over the 11th green.

Palmer did not panic, despite finishing the hole with what he later smilingly called “an easy six.” He merely birdied the 12th hole with a 25-foot putt, drove nearly 375 yards to the foot of the green on the 16th, hit a 50-foot chip shot into the hold on the 17th, and closed out with a par for a last-day score of 66. “Arnie’s Army” was delirious.

They still are, really. The man is 83 now, and has branched into many endeavors, writing books, getting congressional Republicans and Democrats to the same events, healing the sick and the lame. I’m not kidding about that, a point we will revisit in a moment. 

The game of golf once had a reputation as a pastime for the idle rich. In truth, there were always working-class champions in the sport, but it was the arrival of a young man whose father had been a groundskeeper at Pennsylvania’s Latrobe Country Club – an arrival that coincided with the advent of increased television sports coverage – that helped make golf accessible to the masses.

Legendary sports broadcaster Vin Scully explained it this way: “In a sport that was high society, Arnold Palmer made it ‘High Noon.’” Arnie’s fans included those born to the most modest circumstances, and those to whom a country club was their natural milieu. Cab drivers loved Arnold Palmer; so did presidents.

In 1958, Dwight Eisenhower phoned his friend Clifford Roberts, chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club, and asked if he could play a round of golf with the winner of that year’s Masters Tournament. Roberts said he’d arrange it. The winner turned out to be Arnold Palmer, who was flattered by the request, and immediately agreed to it.

It was the beginning of an enduring friendship between Ike and “the King.” Eisenhower golfed with Palmer, confided in him, and showed up at his California home to stay a weekend after leaving the presidency. Ike also asked to see Palmer and his wife while he was dying at Walter Reed hospital, and in 1990 Palmer was asked to address a joint session of Congress on the occasion of the Eisenhower centennial.

The 1958 meeting between them also launched something of a presidential custom: Other presidents would ask to play golf with Palmer, including Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton (both during and after his presidency), and George W. Bush.

Palmer once played a few of holes with Ronald Reagan in Palm Springs, and was supposed to play a round with John F. Kennedy there, too, but JFK had to cancel when his bad back flared up. Despite chronic pain, Kennedy had a graceful golf swing. But he wanted to be better, and in 1963, the president had his golf game filmed. Kennedy planned to show it to Palmer at the White House after he returned from a November trip to Dallas.

In 2004, Arnie played his last Masters Tournament, marking his 50th consecutive appearance in Augusta. That same year, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush.

“For all who love the game of golf … there has never been a sight in the game quite like Arnold Palmer walking down the fairway toward the 18th green,” Bush said that day. “For more than 50 years, over thousands of miles of fairway, and in 92 professional championships, Arnold has given his all, playing with style and a daring that changed the game of golf. He drew millions of fans, and every big crowd we see at a golf tournament today started with ‘Arnie's Army.’”

Five years later, an even more rarefied honor was bestowed on Palmer: the Congressional Gold Medal. Only a handful of athletes have won the award, which has been given to the likes of George Washington, the Wright Brothers, John J. Pershing, Thomas Edison, Robert Frost, Jonas Salk, and Winston Churchill.

Perhaps even more remarkable, it takes a two-thirds majority of the members of the House and Senate -- quite an accomplishment in itself these days -- along with the signature of the president. Palmer’s gold medal proclamation was signed by President Obama in 2009, and presented to him four months ago – by both Republicans and Democrats.

At an emotional presentation in the Capitol Rotunda, House Speaker John Boehner recounted how he and Palmer putted on a practice green at Pebble Beach while discussing how their fathers’ experiences had shaped their own lives.

“Here we were standing in one of the most venerable places in golf. We weren’t there talking about golf,” Boehner recalled. “We cried our eyes out.”

Boehner, who also hailed from humble beginnings, spoke to the King’s hold on golf – and America. “Arnold Palmer democratized golf, made us think that we too could go out and play, made us think that we could really do anything,” Boehner added. “All we had to do was to go out and try.”

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Boehner’s predecessor, called Palmer “an icon of American sports” who “demonstrated sportsmanship, courtesy, and friendship to fans and competitors alike.” Pointing to the most famous and accomplished of those rivals, she added, “What better statement than to have Jack Nicklaus here to testify to that?”

“He’s a golf icon to the world,” Jack Nicklaus said while briefly choking up, “and a good friend to me.”

It is well known in golfing circles that Palmer, after he’d made his money, purchased the country club in Latrobe that gave him his start. But more important, after serving as the honorary chairman of the March of Dimes for two decades, Palmer founded the Latrobe Area Hospital Charitable Foundation in his western Pennsylvania hometown.

For more than 25 years, Palmer has also lived half the year in Florida. There, he raised money for the founding of the Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children in the heart of Orlando, along with a twin facility, the Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women and Babies.

On the occasion of Palmer’s 80th birthday, Bill Clinton and both former presidents named Bush filmed a video tribute.

Clinton told Palmer that playing golf with him was one of the highlights of his presidency – and post-presidency – describing Arnie as “a fierce competitor and a true gentleman, on and off the green,” and a man whose contributions to the country “will never be forgotten.”

“As he marched down the fairway with skill and style, countless Americans picked up a golf club for the first time,” recalled George W. Bush. “One of them was me.”

Bush 43 also lauded Palmer’s medical foundation, conservation programs, and efforts to foster youth golf, and then told a variation of an old golf joke: “Arnie, you’d be pleased to know that I shot my age the other day. Then, I hit my tee shot on the 13th hole.”

The three presidential amigos’ video ended with a tribute from George W. Bush’s parents, George and Barbara. “You’ve given so much, not just to the game of golf,” Bush 41 said, “but to those in need of medicine. You’re the best.”

Welcome back to the NFL Pregame Flyover, the only NFL column that is not edited for accuracy.

Before we get to this week’s schedule of games – and tell you which games are Probably worth watching, which games are of Questionable worth, Doubtful worth, and no worth – I need to find a new rooting interest for the remainder of the 2012 season because my own team, Pittsburgh, has stopped playing meaningful football. 

I love the playoffs. But I can’t watch any game unless I have a rooting interest. How I establish a rooting interest is by determining which players, coaches and fan bases I hate the most – and then I root for their opponent. Does that make me a hater? Yes it does. But it beats being the opposite, which requires you to find something loveable about players, coaches and fan bases with whom you are largely unfamiliar. How exhausting. Better to base things on snap, prejudicial judgments that take less time. 

Here are some quick, handy reasons to root against certain playoff teams.

Indianapolis Colts. The Colts landed Andrew Luck with the No. 1 pick last spring because they brazenly spent years with no adequate backup to Peyton Manning. When Manning finally succumbed to injury, the team’s fortunes went south because it had no passable replacements. No way owner Jim Irsay would be so foolish again. The Colts got rid of Manning, fired their head coach and general manager, drafted Luck, and went out and got a new backup quarterback … Drew Stanton, who has a career passer rating of 63.1 in parts of five seasons and nearly twice as many career INTs (9) as touchdown passes (5). The Colts have not learned their lesson about the need for a suitable backup QB, and cheering for them is cheering for stupidity. 

Atlanta Falcons. Unless you’re a Falcons fan, you don’t want Matt Ryan to win his first NFL playoff game this year. Not when Atlanta fans are so pleasingly insecure about the possibility that the Falcons could blow the No. 1 seed and home-field advantage throughout the playoffs. 

New England Patriots. It won’t be the same if they make it to the Super Bowl and lose to a team other than the Giants, but we can make do.

Houston Texans. You know they’re going to get blown out eventually, so I’d prefer it happen early in the playoffs and not on Super Bowl Sunday. 

Baltimore Ravens. If the Ravens miraculously win a Super Bowl this season, Joe Flacco will join a select group of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks that currently has two members: Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson. 

San Francisco 49ers. Their backup quarterback is leading the NFL in completion percentage, which means their head coach is incorrectly looking at his depth chart. As with the Colts, we cannot condone stupidity. 

Seattle Seahawks. I like consistency, so if the Seahawks have to lose a big game, hopefully it’s because of questionable officiating, because we all know how their fans will react. 

Cincinnati Bengals. Boomer Esiason. 

Lomas Brown admits he tried to get Scott Mitchell hurt

Former Detroit Lions offensive lineman Lomas Brown went on ESPN Radio recently and admitted that in a 1994 game against the Packers he let an opponent have a free shot on Lions quarterback Scott Mitchell, because Brown was fed up with Mitchell’s lackluster play and he wanted to get him hurt. Mission accomplished. Mitchell suffered a broken finger on that play, and the Lions had to turn to backup Dave Krieg for the last six and a half games.

Is it shocking that Brown would allow an opponent to have a crack at his quarterback? Not at all. People are often petty, lazy and vindictive, and offensive linemen are among the few who can act (or in this case, not act) upon their emotions and bring harm to a person who is pissing them off – and do it without getting caught. Well, until they admit it 20 years later.

Jack Kerouac: Was his depression and drinking due to football-related concussions?

I was reading a review of Joyce Johnson’s new biography of Jack Kerouac in the L.A. Review of Books when I came across this particularly interesting section.

The Voice Is All deserves popular and critical acclaim, not least for an intriguing suggestion Johnson makes several times, that her subject’s middle-aged decline into depression and alcoholism could have been the result of head injuries sustained on the football field. From his youth in the sandlots of Lowell until a low tackle and fractured tibia virtually ended his career at Columbia, which he attended on a football scholarship, Kerouac racked up an undetermined but doubtless dizzying number of hits.

Johnson notes that the maximum protection in those days amounted to a thin leather helmet — not much use for warding off the long-term effects of head trauma that scientists are only now beginning to understand. The techniques for diagnosing football-related brain damage postdate Kerouac’s death by half a century, so Johnson can only speculate, but the evidence she summons is intriguing. In addition to his years caroming around the gridiron, Kerouac received head injuries at least twice, in a car accident in 1939 and in a fight in 1958. “Could there have been any truth to what his mother later claimed,” Johnson writes, “that he had seemed to her a very different person after the accident?” There’s no pathology report that can confirm Johnson’s hunch, but her conjecture goes a long way to explaining how a young writer who spent whole nights discussing Spengler could end his life drinking 14 boilermakers an hour.

Wow. Fourteen boilermakers an hour? Can that be right? Maybe for one hour, but it seems incomprehensible that someone could maintain that pace for longer than that. Regardless, the suggestion that Kerouac possibly suffered from concussion-related ailments is intriguing. Did Kerouac ever play with Lomas Brown? Maybe Lomas Brown killed Jack Kerouac. 

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Dallas at Washington

Dallas needs to win this game to reach the playoffs, while the Redskins can still lose and reach the postseason with a little help from others. We’d all like to see as much RGIII as possible this season, but Dallas has an uncanny ability to give us exactly what we don’t want, so I have little doubt that the Cowboys are going to win this game and make the playoffs. Their fans will come out of the woodwork and take over the prime tables at Hooters for the playoffs, as the Cowboys go on a Giants-like postseason roll and ultimately win the Super Bowl. It’s bound to happen one of these years, so it’d make the most sense when people are trying to convince us that the Falcons and the Texans are among the best teams in football. 

(Other games receiving votes: Green Bay at Minnesota. Houston at Indianapolis, Baltimore at Cincinnati.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Philadelphia at New York Giants.

No Eagles were selected to the Pro Bowl, so if you want to see your favorite Eagles players in action one last time this season, you’ll have to tune in to watch this game against the Giants. Meanwhile, New York has an easy formula to reach the playoffs: NYG win + DAL loss or tie + CHI loss + MIN loss.

Here’s a brief preview from NFL.com’s Ian Rapoport.

The playoff ramifications are slim. The Giants have barely a prayer, and the Eagles, well, they have other things on their mind. But Michael Vick is back. And that fact is enough to make this fairly fascinating for a game that largely means nothing. The electric quarterback will step in for injured Nick Foles and play what might well be his final game as an Eagle. Vick says he doesn't see it as an audition for 31 other teams, but assume everyone will be watching just the same. A motivated Vick against a downtrodden Giants defense could play out in so many ways. It's a total wild card, which makes it a fascinating game.

Especially to Jets fans, who’ll have the opportunity to watch their 2013 starting quarterback.

(Other games receiving votes: St. Louis at Seattle, Arizona at San Francisco, Chicago at Detroit.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: (tie) Kansas City at Denver, Jacksonville at Tennessee.

If I’m a fan of the Chiefs or the Jaguars, I’d take this opportunity to travel to Denver or Nashville to root against my team, hoping the team’s loss can land it the No. 1 pick in the draft. You’ve had to endure 16 weeks of helplessly watching as the team you root for loses in new and creative ways; you might as well treat yourself to one game when you’re emotionally rewarded for your team’s ineptitude. 

(Other games receiving votes: Miami at New England.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Tampa Bay at Atlanta.

This is the final installment of the 2012 Pregame Flyover. It has never made sense to designate playoff games as Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out, since all of them are do-or-die games and they don’t overlap. The only excuse you have for not watching every single playoff game is that you perhaps have a life outside football. If that’s the case, good for you and your well-rounded self. 

Even though I love me some football, I cannot fathom why anyone would watch – or God forbid attend – any of these Out games on Sunday. The only one of these games that involves a playoff-bound team is Tampa Bay-Atlanta, and the only people who should be interested in attending that game are the Falcons fans who realize this is their last opportunity to see their team win a game this season. 

Enjoy the playoffs, and see you in 2013. 

(Other games receiving votes: Oakland at San Diego, Cleveland at Pittsburgh, Carolina at New Orleans, New York Jets at Buffalo.)

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Well now, finally, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) has listened to the grievances of the top pros and has decided to instill a small degree of sanity into its scheduling; the organization that runs the U.S. Open has, at long last, scheduled a day of rest between the semifinals and finals for both the men and women for the tournament in 2013.

Yet, while this may appear to be a positive development, the manner in which these changes are to be implemented is actually both an affront to tradition and an insult to the ever-loyal fans of the sport in this country.

For 2013, the women's semifinals will be contested on Friday and the men's semis on Saturday - as it always has been. But now the women's final will be played on Sunday at 7 p.m., with the men's final to be played on Monday at 5 p.m.

Yes, you read that right. The men's final will be shown when hardly anyone can watch the entire match. In fact, if one lives in California, one of the few places where recreational tennis has always thrived, it'll be nearly impossible for a working person to glimpse any of the match.

Yet the women get the choicer time slot of a Sunday final? With all due respect, the women's game has existed in a vacuum for the most part these last 10 years while the men have thrived. It's ridiculous that the men should be relegated to the second-tier slot of a Monday final.

It's utterly nonsensical and an affront to any knowledgeable tennis fan's sensibilities. Even the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), which had wanted the U.S. Open to grant a day of rest between the semis and finals isn't pleased. "The ATP and its players have made it clear to the U.S. Open that we do not support a Monday final,'' the governing body for men's tennis said in a statement. "We strongly believe the U.S. Open should keep a similar schedule to the other Grand Slams, with the men's semifinals completed by Friday and the final on Sunday."

Why even have a Monday final at all? It'd be very easy to have a day off between the semis and finals for both the men and women if the U.S. Open were to get rid of its abominable tradition of spreading the first round over an agonizing three days.

The USTA should look to Wimbledon and watch how the greatest tournament in the sport is scheduled. Even with rain - albeit there is now a roof over Centre Court - and no night matches and an absence of play on the middle Sunday, Wimbledon seems to always finish on time. 

But let's say the U.S. Open Monday men's final is here to stay. Why would the USTA continue to validate tennis's inferiority complex here in the United States by refusing to have the sport go against Monday Night Football?

What does CBS have to lose? After all, networks have long given in to the omnipotence of the NFL. So why not have the men's final start at, say, 7 p.m. If ratings are not being lost why risk alienating half the nation's tennis fans by starting the match at 5? How does this in any way make up for the miserable Monday finals that fans have endured these last five years?

What's wrong with having four consecutive prime time slots? The women's semis on Friday night, the men's semis starting early evening on Saturday and then the finals on Sunday and Monday, respectively? This would signal a bold move to enlarge the viewing audience.

But as the plan is drawn up now, it's a concession, an admission on the part of the USTA that tennis will never have the cachet of football - or even golf.

The USTA is missing out on a huge opportunity to poach from a massive audience. What if NFL fans are forced to endure a blowout and, as their restlessness takes over, they turn the channel and happen upon yet another Grand Slam epic that has become the norm for the men the last few years? Who's to say that unexpected converts wouldn't emerge? And converts are the most vociferous believers of any religion.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Before we do our thing – and tell you which games are Probably worth watching, which games are of Questionable worth, Doubtful worth, and negative worth – let’s pour some out for the homies who can’t make the playoffs.

No bonus round for these 8 teams

Four teams in each conference have been eliminated from playoff contention, in keeping with the NFL’s insistence that everything be balanced at all times. Can you name all eight? Here’s a hint: these teams have combined to win four Super Bowls, and three of those Super Bowls were won by the Raiders. The fourth was won by the Chiefs. Some might say the other six teams - Titans, Jaguars, Panthers, Eagles, Cardinals and Lions – are abject failures. But that’s a decidedly negative attitude and one we do not endorse. When we look at a glass, we always consider it half full, even if the glass is empty. 

With that in mind, let’s look at the eight teams that have been eliminated from playoff contention and consider some things for which they might be thankful.

Raiders: Thank heavens Al Davis is not alive to see this team. He was committed to excellence, winning and bending the rules, and it would kill him to see Bountygate involve some namby-pamby team like the Saints. 

Eagles: With the victory over the Bucs last week, the Eagles have finally won a game more recently than the Phillies. Praise be.

Titans: Tennessee continues to lose consistently, but their losses are of the garden variety sort. If they were to lose, say, 58-0, their players might attract the unwanted advances of a certain ex-teammate. 

Cardinals: “We can’t go 0-16.”

Lions: “We can’t go 0-16 again.”

Chiefs: At least they found their quarterback of the future in Brady Quinn.

Jaguars: Thanks to the rookie wage scale in the collective bargaining agreement, they won’t have to break the bank for the No. 1 pick in the draft, which is good because you shouldn’t overpay for someone who doesn’t want to live in Jacksonville. 

Panthers: Even with their disappointing season, Carolina players are thankful that Steve Smith hasn’t punched any of them recently. 

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: 49ers at Patriots.

Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports recently addressed why no current squads in the parity-laden NFL can seem to match the big-boy footprints of certain teams of yore; for example, the 1989 49ers. The piece was good, but I really found myself transfixed by a quote from Karlos Dansby about the 2008 Cardinals, who got blasted by the Patriots toward the end of the season but went on to reach the Super Bowl. The quote was bewitching because it included a deleted expletive that made me question my Mad Libs skills. 

"We got [expletive]-whipped by the Patriots, and we knew we weren't good enough," recalled Dolphins linebacker Karlos Dansby, who played for that Cardinals team. "It was an eye-opener, and that kind of changed our whole level of focus."

I cannot determine what the expletive is and I need to know! I sent two Twitter messages to Silver, asking him to identify the deleted word. Surprisingly he did not reply. 

I put the issue to my friends on Facebook, and one of them seemed to think that the deleted word was “ass.” Can that be true? It doesn’t seem possible. How could such a low-level curse word – one you see regularly in print – be accorded the expletive-deleted treatment? 

If only William Safire were still alive. He’d get to the bottom of this (expletive).

(Other games receiving votes: Colts at Texans; Falcons at Giants; Broncos at Ravens; Packers at Bears; Steelers at Cowboys.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Jets at Titans.

You’ll notice below next to “Other games receiving votes,” that we have written “none.” That’s because this is unquestionably the most questionable game of the week. Tennessee fans are probably questioning why their team’s lone game on Monday Night Football had to come so late in the season, when the Titans are 4-9 and unquestionably out of playoff contention. And Jets fans have to question whether the whole season of suffering has been a build-up to this game, when the Jets could go to 7-7 with a victory and cast their fireman-free butts right into the playoff picture.

The Jets are very much alive, and Tim Tebow is very much their backup quarterback. Injuries happen all the time; the world is a violent place. And if Tebow were to take over and lead the Jets to the playoffs at this point in the season, I think I would laugh like Randle McMurphy on nitrous oxide. Please let it happen; I’ll even provide the nitrous. 

By the way, it should be noted that this is the last Monday night game of the year. In deference to Christmas Eve, next week’s game between the Falcons and Lions is scheduled for Saturday night, Dec. 22. That’s right, the league is saving us from watching the Lions on a national holiday. How novel!

(Other games receiving votes: None.) 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Redskins at Browns.

If you look back through the list of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks, you’ll see guys of almost every stripe. There are right-handed quarterbacks and left-handed quarterbacks, white quarterbacks and black quarterbacks. There are Hall of Fame quarterbacks and Trent Dilfer. You name it, the Super Bowl has been won by just about every type of quarterback – except one, the rookie quarterback.

No first-year signal-caller has ever played in a Super Bowl, much less won it. A few reached the conference title games, including Ben Roethlisberger, Shaun King and Mark Sanchez. Given how difficult it is for a veteran to win a Super Bowl, I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that no rookie has ever won the game. But you’d think some bright-eyed punk could at least ride the coattails of a dominant defense and REACH the Super Bowl. 

There’s been a lot of blather about how this year’s crop of rookie quarterbacks is on par with the sublime class of 1983. One surefire way to end such blather is to have one of this year’s young turks win the Super Bowl. 

In this Redskins-Browns game, we might be able to catch a glimpse of this future difference-maker. I’m talking of course about Brandon Weeden, quarterback of the 5-8 Cleveland Browns, who are still alive in the playoff hunt.

Weeden is 29 years old, and thus wiser than 99.9 percent of rookie quarterbacks. I put my faith in him to drive the definitive wedge between the 2012 and 1983 rookie quarterback classes. He can get the Cleveland Browns to their first Super Bowl and become the first rookie to ever play in the big game. Seriously, it’s still mathematically possible. Go Cleveland!

(Other games receiving votes: Vikings at Rams; Seahawks at Bills.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Jaguars at Dolphins

We discussed earlier in the season how Jaguars-Dolphins is one of the great untapped rivalries in the NFL. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the teams play in separate divisions, and so they only square off intermittently. The Dolphins, of course, should be in the AFC South and the Colts (formerly of Baltimore) should be in the AFC East. Having two teams from the same state – and the same conference – playing in different divisions is bad for business. Just imagine if the Chargers and Raiders played in different divisions, or the Bengals and Browns. If the two Ohio teams played in separate divisions, the Steelers and the Ravens would each be deprived of two easy wins each season. 

(Other games receiving votes: Lions at Cardinals; Panthers at Chargers; Chiefs at Raiders.)

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Welcome back to the NFL Pregame Flyover, which has just been awarded column of the year by the Uptown Athletic Club. 

Before we look at this week’s schedule of games – and tell you which games are Probably worth watching, which games are of Questionable worth, Doubtful worth, and no worth – let’s talk about the Associated Press NFL awards, which allows voters to split their votes.

Making a decision and standing by it? Pfft. Not in the NFL, known harborer of equivocating little nancies. 

If Peter King were a baseball writer, Cabrera and Trout might have been co-MVPs

Throughout the season talking heads and football writers have expended considerable time discussing the NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year award. Perhaps it should go to Andrew Luck, who has led the Colts to an 8-4 record behind five fourth-quarter comebacks, while raising the question of why he’s so consistently mediocre for the first three quarters. Or perhaps it should go to RGIII, who has electrified football with his dual-threat skills, while raising the question of whether a black quarterback should have the additional nickname of Bobby Three Sticks, which sounds like a bit character in a Scorsese film. 

Meanwhile, many NFL observers have devoted almost as much energy discussing the candidates for the NFL Comeback Player of the Year award. Should it go to Jay Cutler, the feel-good story who could retire now and write his ticket in politics? Or should it go to one of those two other guys – Peyton Manning and Adrian Peterson?

What’s great about the NFL is that you don’t really have to decide.

Unlike baseball, which uses a weighted system that asks its awards voters to cast ballots that rank MVP and CY Young award candidates, the NFL simply asks its voters to vote for “THE” guy – except when you can’t make up your mind and you decide to vote for two guys equally. That’s right, the NFL lets you split your vote.

Frankly I think it’s a stroke of genius. Not only do voters not have to decide who is the seventh-most valuable offensive rookie in the NFL (it’s Kendall Wright, but that’s beside the point), voters can admit that life is not black and white, and that sometimes both candidates are deserving of equal respect. Imagine if this option were available in presidential campaigns; you could give half your vote to President Obama and half your vote to Mitt Romney, thereby leaving it up to the actual grownups to make the decision for you.

Think this doesn’t happen in NFL voting? Think again. 

In voting for the 2009 NFL MVP award, a voter gave half a vote to Peyton Manning and half a vote to Drew Brees. In the voting for the 2010 NFL Comeback Player of the Year award, someone split his vote between Michael Vick and E.J. Henderson. And in voting for the 2006 AP Offensive Rookie of the Year award, one voter split his vote between Peterson and Joe Thomas.

If this option were available to Major League Baseball writers, Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout might have shared this year’s MVP award. And really, would that have been so bad? Would it have diminished the award to have it shared between two worthy candidates? The Triple Crown winner and the darling of sabermetricians?

In the same regard, who can rightfully say that Andrew Luck deserves to win NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year over Bobby Three Sticks? Or that Peyton Manning is more worthy of winning Comeback Player of the Year than Adrian Peterson?

Just give them all participation ribbons and a lollipop.

“We’re going streaking!”

The most interesting teams in the NFL are teams in the midst of winning and losing streaks. These streaks have a sublime ability to get fans worked into a lather, both to the pro and con. We’re not talking about one- or even two-game winning streaks, which might only indicate that you played Buffalo and Detroit in back-to-back weeks (hello, Indianapolis). 

In our estimation, a team is not streaking unless it’s won or lost three straight games. Is this an arbitrary parameter? Perhaps. But if we gave equal time to every team that’s won at least two in a row, you’d be reading as much about the Browns and Rams as you would about the Falcons and Redskins. And frankly, nobody wants that.  

So let’s look at the teams that are truly streaking and see how it’s affecting their fans.

Bengals (Streak: 4W) – Cincinnati has clawed its way back into playoff contention with four straight wins, and Bengals fans – are they the Who Dey crowd or the Who Dat crowd? Who cares? Indeed – are having flashbacks to their glory years. Who’s the most famous Bengals fan out there? Gotta be Nick Lachey (the only famous Bengals fan) and he’s down with the 2012 cats, bro – so much so that he got in a fight with an Igor Olshansky fan at the Chargers-Bengals game this past Sunday in San Diego, prompting security to throw him out. If you’re smack-talking an Olshansky fan at a Chargers game, your worldview has obviously been clouded by years of losing. Smarten up, Lachey, you have an example to set. The Who Cares nation turns its lonely eyes to you. 

Lions (Streak: 4L) – Calvin Johnson is on pace to break Jerry Rice’s single-season record for receiving yards, amazing when you consider Megatron is on the cover of Madden 13 and thus supposedly cursed. In the Lions’ last four games (all losses), Johnson has amassed the following yard totals: 207, 143, 140 and 171. And in the Lions’ last four games, their defense has allowed the following point totals: 34, 34, 34 and 35. In short, Calvin Johnson is on course to break Rice’s record largely because the Lions’ defense can’t stop anyone and Detroit must constantly sling the piggy to keep up with opponents. Well, that and the fact Matthew Stafford has stalker eyes for Megatron and would probably continue throwing at him even if the Madden curse put him on the sidelines in a full body cast. Meanwhile none of this is affecting Lions fans at all; they lived through the Millen era, so this ain’t sh*t. 

Falcons (Streak: 3W) – Atlanta has already clinched the NFC South, and at 11-1 are in position to have home-field advantage throughout the playoffs. But no one outside of Atlanta seems to think that the Falcons have what it takes it win the Super Bowl, which is odd when you consider that winning 11 of 12 games is usually a good recipe for winning the last game of the year. Atlanta fans hate you for not believing in their team, but privately they dread the possibility that the Falcons will lose their opening playoff game and remain winless in the postseason under Matt Ryan. Knowing Atlanta, they’ll keep coming up short in the playoffs until they meet a star-crossed Cleveland team that has a placekicker named Mesa.

Chargers (Streak: 4L) – Igor Olshansky was the NFL’s first Soviet-born player, leading me to believe that Nick Lachey just messed with a guy in the Russian mob. Dasvidaniya, Nick. Other than ridding their stadium of pesky Bengals fans, the Chargers faithful has been patiently waiting for the end of the Norv Turner regime. It will last four more weeks, and then general manager A.J. Smith will have the opportunity to replace him with an available coach who actually got fired after going 14-2. Wonder what moron gave that guy his walking papers?

Redskins (Streak: 3W) – So, what’s it gonna be, Skins fans? Is it RGIII or Bobby Three Sticks? Personally I like Bobby Three Sticks, because every time I hear that I expect someone to stay, “I’m going to get the papers, get the papers.” 

Raiders (Streak: 5L) – I just finished reading “Badasses” by Peter Richmond, the story of the 1970s era Raiders. It was really funny, entertaining and illuminating, chronicling one of the most colorful teams in NFL history. I’d recommend it for any Raiders fan who can read.

Patriots (Streak: 6W) – Come on, Patriots fans, admit it: It’d be a little bit funny if you lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl again. No? Well, it’d be hilarious to the rest of us. 

Eagles (Streak: 8L) – With three wins on the season, the Eagles are in the running for the No. 1 pick in next year’s draft. No one is sure who the top pick will be, but if he lands in Philadelphia, you can be sure the fans will either love him like family or hate his guts. There really is no gray area where Philly fans are concerned, which is why team owner Jeffrey Lurie should switch the team’s uniforms to a black-and-white color scheme. Would anyone care? The only people who look good in green are frogs and Irish people – both of whom are in short supply on the Eagles’ roster.

Texans (Streak: 6W) – Houston has a two-game lead on the Patriots for the top seed in the AFC playoffs, a game that can be narrowed to one if the Texans lose on the road to New England this week. Houston has lost one game all season, a drubbing at the hands of the Packers that happened so long ago as to be almost moot. But if there’s a team that could humiliate the Texans before the playoffs – and get Houston players and fans questioning the team’s Super Bowl chances – it’s a New England team that’s first in the NFL in scoring at nearly 36 points per game. If the Texans win this game, they’ll have the confidence to carry them far in the playoffs; if they get waxed like they did against Green Bay, they’ll probably recede into their shells and congratulate themselves on the best regular-season in team history. 

Cardinals (Streak: 8L) – Remember when the Cardinals were 4-0? Man, those guys were streaking. They beat the Seahawks at home, the Patriots on the road, and the Eagles and Dolphins at home. September was a great month for the Cardinals and their fans. October and November? Full of fail. But that’s what happens when you have the No. 32 offense in the league. When every team in the league is better than you at one-third of the game, you’re going to have games like last week – a 7-6 loss to Greg McElroy and the Jets, a tagline that made me very depressed to consider and even more depressed to write. I can’t even bear to re-read it. Were there any typos? Actually, don’t look!

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Texans at Patriots.

What a matchup for Monday night. This game features a team with one loss on the season versus a team riding a six-game winning streak. I’m not usually given to hyperbole, but I’m not gonna lie: This game will be OK. It might even be entertaining. It might even feature the 2012 co-MVPs: J.J. Watt and Tom Brady. If I had a vote in the MVP voting, that’s how I’d split it: one half for an offensive guy, one half for a defensive fella. If the NFL could ever become truly enlightened and allow a vote to be cut into thirds, I’d give one-third to a special teams player. Actually, as reparations for being overlooked for decades, I’d give my full vote to a special teams player. 

(Other games receiving votes: Dallas at Cincinnati; Chicago at Minnesota; Baltimore at Washington; New Orleans at New York Giants.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: San Diego at Pittsburgh.

I attended the Steelers-Ravens game in Baltimore last weekend, unabashedly wearing my Troy Polamalu jersey while keeping my head on a swivel. Seriously, football fans at stadiums need to chill the hell out. Too much drinking and not enough free love. I asked around and no one was offering. 

After the game ended on a game-winning field goal by the Steelers, two fans in front of me got into a brief scuffle and one of them knocked the other’s glasses off. You guessed it: the combatants were women. 

Yeah, nothing sexier than two middle-aged ladies scrapping at a Steelers-Ravens game. It was over before I could even take bets, but my money would have been on the Ravens fan. I mean she had a yellow towel on which she had written “ass wipe,” as a means of disparaging the Steelers' Terrible Towel. 

Witty? No. Crazy in a give-that-chick-a-wide-berth way? You betcha. My mother warned me about women who write filthy slogans on yellow towels. 

(Other games receiving votes: Philadelphia at Tampa Bay; Miami at San Francisco; Arizona at Seattle; Detroit at Green Bay.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: St. Louis at Buffalo.

When it comes to sports, I am something of a frontrunner. I’ve never switched allegiances when my teams are not competitive, but I am loathe to devote my leisure hours to watching an inferior, exasperating product. If you were a Red Sox fan and you were tuning in to watch them play games this past September, I’d suggest you need more hobbies. Sports are entertainment, and I’d no more watch an undermanned team get pasted than go see a movie that had a 30 percent chance of ending prematurely because of a broken projector. 

I realize that many other fans have a different opinion about this, and will continue watching their teams at great expense to the hearts – and, in the case of Buffalo restaurateur Russell Salvatore, their wallets too.

Salvatore stepped in when the team was in danger of having its game against the Rams blacked out on TV in the Buffalo area. He agreed to buy 10,000 tickets, so that Bills fans can watch their 5-7 team play the 5-6-1 Rams on Sunday. Are both of these teams still in playoff contention? Yes. In the same way I’m in contention for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize. 

Will some fans be happy that Salvatore spent his hard-earned money so that they can sit in their houses on Sunday and watch the Bills-Rams game? Undoubtedly. To those people, I’d say: Go to Buffalo Wild Wings or Hooters or any other place that has the NFL Sunday Ticket. Call your bookie first, of course, and place some money on some games that will actually be interesting. You owe it to your hearts, if not your wallets. 

(Other games receiving votes: Atlanta at Carolina; Tennessee at Indianapolis.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: New York Jets at Jacksonville.

I like Rex Ryan, but frankly he makes the Jets too interesting, and I’ve reached the point where I don’t want the Jets to be interesting, because the Jets suck and they’re not close to being good. If you’re going to be interesting (and have the likes of Ryan and Tim Tebow in the fold), then you need to be good. Otherwise you’re just annoying, and the Jets have become extremely annoying with their disparity between how interesting they are and how well they play. They need to adopt the proper balance. They need to, say, take after the Jaguars, who have perfectly married how interesting they are with how well they play. Who gets annoyed by the Jaguars? Ya know, other than their fans?

(Other game receiving votes: Kansas City at Cleveland.)

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

And one way to do that is to eliminate tackle football before age 18.

Concussions are part of football, with the severity ranging from mild (feeling dazed) to severe (out cold). The brain is somewhat like Jell-O, cushioned by fluid. During medium- or high-impact collisions, when the helmet suddenly stops, the brain keeps going through the fluid, banging into the rigid skull.

A cascade of events ensues. Billions of nerve cells flood the brain with chemicals. Vital blood flow is disrupted. It takes days to months for the brain to go back to normal. Symptoms include headaches, dizziness, problems with concentration and memory, depression, and insomnia. Some symptoms may linger for years. Players with multiple concussions have an increased chance of long-term problems that include chronic headache, lower GPAs, memory and emotional difficulties, dementia, and a host of other problems. 

Equally disturbing are repeated knocks to the head that do not produce obvious concussion symptoms. A child who plays football from age 7-18 will typically sustain thousands of hits to the head during games and practices over the years. These can add up over time even without obvious symptoms, causing permanent brain injury.  

High school players occasionally die from football. This may occur due to “second-impact syndrome,” from returning too soon after the first concussion. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) can result from many head impacts, and leads to death among NFL players and boxers. It recently also has been identified in high school- and college-age players.

The health risks are especially acute for the 3.5 million children aged 5 -14 who play football. In the delicate, developing brain, concussions may produce more long-term problems than in an adult. In one study, Virginia Tech researchers wired the helmets of 7- and 8-year-olds for one season. The kids averaged more than 100 significant impacts to the head for the season. Some of the collisions were enormously powerful, as severe as is seen among college players.   

Kids’ brains are not simply smaller version of adult brains. For one, they do not have the protective covering of the nerve cells that is present by adulthood. Young children are like “bobbleheads,” with an oversized head on top of weak neck muscles that don’t cushion blows well. The younger kids’ brains take the entire shock. These are major head traumas to be absorbed by such immature, developing brains.

High school players have stronger neck and shoulder muscles that can absorb some of the force, but their developing brains remain vulnerable.  A Purdue University study, by using advanced brain imaging, demonstrated that the high school players’ brains changed significantly for the worse during the season. Certain parts of the brain stopped working in peak form. The number of head hits per athlete, for the season, ranged from 226-1,855. Each practice or game produced an average of 15 knocks to the head. 

On memory and thinking tests, players with no concussion symptoms still did poorly. A University of Michigan study discovered that players sustained, on average, 650 head hits per year. Linemen received the most of any position. 

Short of banning tackle football, what can we do? Eliminating hitting in practice would help, as the majority of blows occur in practice. John Gagliardi, coach of St. John’s University in Minnesota, and the winningest coach in college history, has not allowed tackling in practice since 1956. Certified trainers are important. Improved helmets help a bit, but they are better for preventing fractures than concussions; mouth guards protect the teeth and mouth, but only help slightly with football concussions. 

It’s crucial to educate coaches, parents, and kids about proper tackling technique, keeping heads up, and reporting concussions. However, young children and adolescents notoriously under-report concussions, so that they can keep playing. A buddy system, in which you are responsible for reporting your teammates’ concussion symptoms, is beneficial. “Concussion Rules” listed in current state laws may help a bit, but we don’t need a concussion to have serious brain damage. 

Most reforms are unlikely to be implemented and enforced, for a variety of reasons. Even if they were, head collisions are part of the fabric of tackle football; kids will still be seriously injured. 

My football heroes were Gail Sayers, Dick Butkus, and Walter Payton. I played quarterback and still love watching the game. Football is a beloved part of our culture. Many positives come from the game, for the players, other students, and parents. But we must acknowledge that too many of our young athletes will suffer a lifelong penalty that prevents them from using their minds to the fullest. Common sense tells us that thousands of head collisions to a young brain ought to be prevented. 

Let’s begin to talk about curtailing tackle football, at least until the kids are 18. 

Dr. Larry Robbins is a neurologist and headache specialist in Northbrook, Ill.

In fairness, sports fans have plenty of choices during the late fall and winter. The NHL (normally) is grinding along and football games - college and NFL- air all week. Furthermore, the football hype machine runs nonstop on ESPN between NFL Live, College Game Day, and segments on SportsCenter. And after two quiet months, February and March, baseball starts in earnest.

But blaming competition is a poor excuse. The NBA is arguably the most star-driven of all the pro sports leagues. There is no reason a national NBA game involving the Los Angeles Lakers or Miami Heat should attract fewer viewers than a non-marquee NFL matchup on a Thursday. But therein lies the problem: there are few “others” because the best basketball resides in select cities.

Consider that nine teams have hoisted the Larry O’Brien Trophy since the 1979-1980 season; the Los Angeles Lakers, Philadelphia 76ers, Boston Celtics, Detroit Pistons, Chicago Bulls, Houston Rockets, San Antonio Spurs, Miami Heat and Dallas Mavericks.  In recent years, the Western Conference has epitomized this disparity: the Lakers, Spurs and Mavericks won every Western Conference Championship from 1999-2011. With the exception of the Oklahoma City Thunder, the championship will likely be won by one of those nine teams this season.  

In contrast to gleaming success, there is stark futility. Larry Bird’s Celtics won more crowns, three, than every team in history except the Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Pistons, 76ers, and Warriors. Thirteen squads lack a title, seven have no Finals appearances, and six last reached the Finals at least two decades ago. Moreover, franchises can, and do, fall into perpetual irrelevance. The Golden State Warriors have one postseason appearance since 1994 in a league where half of all teams reach the playoffs. That also says nothing of the fact that some squads, such as the Toronto Raptors, last won a playoff series at least 10 years ago.

But today’s polarized circumstances, with a successful and failed class, did not emerge randomly. It originated from the league adopting flawed economic ideas under the banner of fostering parity. But an understanding of how the salary cap, enacted in 1984, and max contract policy distorts incentives reveals the futility of central planning.  

Pro athletes, like any form of labor, are assets an organization accrues, develops, and utilizes. Individual players, operating as a team to win games, make money for the franchise by selling seats and generating high television ratings. The players are then compensated, based on their skills and performance, through free agency or the possibility of it. And critically, free agency allows a player to leverage his employer for more money by threatening to play for a competitor. The result is dynamic competition on and off the court; players performing for top dollar compensation and franchises investing to win and rake in revenue. This is quite the opposite of the NBA’s present competitive sclerosis. 

The summer of 2004 in Los Angeles is an instructive example. After losing in the 2004 Finals, the Lakers looked different; Shaquille O’Neal, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Derek Fisher and coach Phil Jackson departed. After opting out of his contract, Kobe Bryant received a seven-year, $136 million max contract and ended up playing alongside Smush Parker and Kwame Brown. That unhappy situation, culminating in Bryant demanding a trade in 2007, continued until the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol in 2008. The Lakers promptly reached three consecutive NBA Finals, and won back-to-back titles.  

Now imagine a free labor market existed, and the Clippers called Bryant with a proposal. By signing with them, Bryant could stay in Los Angeles, work with better talent, and receive more money and years. The Clippers would instantly acquire a cornerstone star to build around, sell more seats, and directly wound their co-tenant and rival. Recent NBA history would look very different if this scenario had occurred. But the artificial ceiling on pay dis-incentivized Bryant from leaving his purple and gold comfort zone. The Lakers eventually returned to the top, and the Clippers remained in the cellar.

It is fashionable, and erroneous, to criticize players for chasing every last dollar. People, pro athletes included, respond to incentives. If money is not the biggest inducement to go somewhere then another factor, such as playing with other stars in pursuit of a title, will replace it. Why did LeBron James choose Miami rather than sticking it out in Cleveland, or going to Chicago or New York? He knew his value and correctly surmised that teaming with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh offered him the best shot at a title.

Indeed, the NBA’s economic policies have created an existential threat to bad clubs in the form of talent concentration. Superstars are, by definition, rare because few possess their supreme athletic abilities. When paired with the zero-sum nature of talent acquisition, i.e. Carmelo Anthony is in New York and not Denver, any policies that encourage concentrating the rare few is dangerous. Unfortunately, the NBA has been marching down this road for years now. All the “Big Three” model represents is an extension of the two-star model that dominated the 1990s and early 2000s.

Money offers hope to losing franchises. If the biggest incentive for Player X is pay then every team has a relatively equal shot at acquiring him. Indeed, money is possibly the only asset a bottom-feeder possesses. What else can the Sacramento Kings use to lure a superstar? The Lakers have tradition, the Knicks play in the “Mecca of Basketball” (Madison Square Garden), the Spurs are known as the NBA’s best organization, etc. The key thing about money is spending it wisely. 

Supporters of the salary cap and max contract policies will invariably point to the Oklahoma City Thunder. They drafted well and signed to sign Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook to affordable long-term deals at sub-market value. The once draftees are now stars with a legitimate shot at dethroning the Heat, the system worked.

However, it is important to recognize just how exceptional Oklahoma City is in the context of drafting and developing. The front office nailed three top-five first-round draft picks from 2007-2009 with Durant, Westbrook, and James Harden along with snagging Serge Ibaka. That is unprecedented success. No draft pick is a sure thing and a bad draft, particularly at the top, can set a franchise back years: just ask the Portland Trail Blazers.  

If David Stern desires competitive balance he should free the labor market. Abolishing max contracts and the salary cap will allow bad teams, backed by good ownership, to use the great equalizer of money. Fans, in any market, reward success and a free labor market will push owners to invest in building a good product or risk losing money. If that unnerves the likes of Kings and Hornets fans they should consider the current alternative, imprisonment in irrelevance.

Tim Reuter writes on structural components in sports that impinge on or facilitate competition. He may be reached at tjr2118@gmail.com.

Welcome back to the NFL Pregame Flyover, the only column that gets flexed out when better columns come along. 

Before we gets to this week’s delectable buffet of games – and tell you which games are Probably digestible, which games are of Questionable taste, Doubtful taste, and which three games will give you food poisoning – let’s proceed to part two of our documentary “Lazy Teams That Haven’t Won a Super Bowl.”

First-time Super Bowl winner lurking in AFC?

Last week we looked at the seven NFC teams that have never won a Super Bowl and asked if this was their year to capture that elusive first title. This week we look at the seven AFC teams that have never won a ring and assess their odds of winning the Lombardi Trophy. Next week we’ll look at the NFL’s messianic devotion to the No. 7. 

BILLS: Buffalo is 4-7 on the season and 1-4 in their last five games. In short, they’ve hit their midseason stride. The Bills haven’t reached the postseason since 1999, the longest playoff drought in the NFL. The last time they made the bonus section of the NFL schedule, they lost to the Titans in the Music City Miracle. Will their next playoff appearance invoke the creation of an uppercase nickname? A nickname that rolls off the tongue with consonance? 

Odds they win the Super Bowl this year: The same as the “Buffalo Blood Bath” becoming the nickname for a Bills postseason victory.

BROWNS: Cleveland is 3-8, but they’re riding a one-game winning streak after converting eight Pittsburgh turnovers into a 20-14 victory last Sunday. It’s astounding that a team could force eight turnovers and still beat its opponent by only six points, but the Browns have been defying the odds throughout the Super Bowl era and exceptionalism has become their modus operandi. 

Odds they win the Super Bowl this year: The same as Brandon Weeden feeling good about his long-term job security. 

BENGALS: Cincinnati is 6-5 and has vaulted back into the playoff picture with three straight wins, starting with an impressive 31-13 victory over the Giants. This is the Bengals’ remaining schedule: at San Diego (Cincinnati’s final opportunity to see Norv Turner do something inexplicable in person); home against Dallas (a possible loss given the Cowboys’ commitment to being bipolar); away against Philadelphia (a win if they have any shot of making the playoffs); at Pittsburgh (who might be starting Kordell Stewart at quarterback by then); and at home against the Ravens (who are actually the Cleveland Browns and thus full of taint).

Odds they win the Super Bowl this year: Better than the other team from Ohio.   

TITANS: The AFC South is the only division that has three teams (Titans, Jaguars, Texans) that have never won a Super Bowl. The AFC North has two (Bengals, Browns), as does the NFC South (Panthers, Falcons), NFC North (Vikings, Lions) and the NFC West (Seahawks, Cardinals). Each of the other divisions has one team that has been forsaken by skill and good fortune – AFC East (Bills), AFC West (Chargers), NFC East (Eagles).

Odds they win the Super Bowl this year: Wait, who were we talking about? Whatever, they won’t win the Super Bowl.

CHARGERS: San Diego is 4-7 and has lost its last three games. But the Chargers are a renowned December team, compiling a 23-3 record in the month under Philip Rivers.

Odds they win the Super Bowl this year: The same as the Super Bowl being held in December.

JAGUARS: Jacksonville is 2-9 and riding high on the crest of a one-game winning streak. If they win out, they could finish at 7-9, which would put them right in the thick of things in the 2010 NFC West.

Odds they win the Super Bowl this year: Pretty good, I guess. They just agreed to pay Jason Babin $1.6 million to play the last five games, so obviously they think this is their year. 

TEXANS: Houston is 10-1, the best record in the AFC, and they just survived a hard-fought battle on Thanksgiving in which the Lions nearly won in overtime and the Texans quarterback was nearly neutered by Ndamukong Suh. Their only loss this year was at home to the Packers, a blowout that may give people reservations about tabbing the Texans as the team to beat in the AFC. Their own head coach can’t even bear to watch the end of their games, which may tell us something about the confidence he has in his squad.

Odds they win the Super Bowl this year: The same as JJ Watt winning NFL MVP. 

The Weekly Best

Best 4th-and-29 conversion: Ray Rice.

Best summation of the Eagles’ woes: The Phillies have won a game more recently.

Best time to drop the Dolphins as your fantasy defense: Before they play Patriots this week.

Best time for Nike to release the Zoom Revis: This week, with Darrelle Revis on IR and the Jets on life support.

Best completion percentage in football: Belongs to the Niners’ backup quarterback Alex Smith (70.0).

Best time to ask Peyton Manning for an autograph: If you’re Jamaal Charles and Dwayne Bowe, it’s following a Chiefs loss to the Broncos.

Best summation of Tim Tebow’s throwing woes: “He's too inconsistent. He's like a golfer who can't hit a two-foot putt to save his life, then turns around and sinks a 25-footer,” says NFL.com senior analyst Gil Brandt.

Best way for Tebow to extend his career: Change positions, Brandt said.

Best examples of other highly drafted players who successfully switched positions: Billy Cannon and Todd Christensen. 

Best believe it: I just devoted three lines to Tim Tebow. 

Best time to put up the Christmas tree: Sunday night during the Eagles/Cowboys game.

Best cue up the Kumbaya: Aaron Rodgers says he and Jermichael Finley are simpatico again.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Seahawks at Bears. 

Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner are the best cornerback tandem in the NFL, but the outsized duo apparently suffer from attention deficit disorder because both are facing four-game suspensions for using Adderrall without a prescription. A USA Today story said Sherman had a well-crafted excuse for why he had ingested Adderall. He said a teammate who had a prescription for the drug had crushed it up and put it in a drink, which Sherman inadvertently drank. Sherman later told a different reporter that he’d never ingested Adderrall at all. 

Meanwhile Browner claims protocol was not followed during his drug test, and that his urine was improperly poured from one container into another. 

The league has not yet made a ruling on the players' appeals, but Packers and Patriots fans have gone ahead and started their schadenfreude extravaganza.

(Other games receiving votes: Vikings at Packers; Bucs at Broncos.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Patriots at Dolphins.

The Dolphins have been fading faster than Mitt Romney’s post-election spray-on tan. They don’t seem interested in maintaining the impression that they are a legitimate playoff team. Beating a Seahawks team that had to travel to Miami via the Arctic Circle? Not that impressive. 

Now the Dolphins host the Patriots and then travel to San Francisco. By the time they return to host Jacksonville in three weeks – a game that in past years would have caused the entire state of Florida to quiver with anticipation – the Dolphins will be 5-8. 

Remember when the Dolphins completed the only perfect season in the Super Bowl era? Me neither, I wasn’t born yet.

(Other games receiving votes: Texans at Titans; Colts at Lions; Bengals at Chargers; Philadelphia at Dallas.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Steelers at Ravens.

If the season ended today, the 6-5 Steelers would make the playoffs as the sixth seed in the AFC. Alas, the regular season has to keep going for several more weeks, a dark time in which the Steelers have to watch Charlie Batch try to make forward passes with a right arm that is obviously broken. Seriously, he has a busted wing; no healthy quarterback throws a ball like that. Charlie, we admire your willingness to play through pain, but discretion is the better part of valor. Quit now before you hurt someone in the first row. 

The Steelers have now lost back-to-back games for the first time in almost three years, and many Pittsburgh fans are pessimistic about this team making the playoffs. But even when the Steelers lose to the Ravens this week (a given), they’ll still hold the sixth seed if the Bengals lose in San Diego, which is entirely possible. The AFC is such a potpourri of mediocre teams that Pittsburgh can probably absorb a four-game losing streak and still make the playoffs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Games of the Week: Jaguars at Bills; Panthers at Chiefs; and Browns at Raiders.

All three of these games deserve equal treatment as the out game of the week. And equal treatment they shall receive: the silent treatment.

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

“Consistency is the hallmark of the unimaginative.” Oscar Wilde

Just because it sounds like a complaint doesn't mean it's not accurate.

This thought came to mind recently when Roger Federer, following his loss to Novak Djokovic in the season-ending ATP World Tour Finals in London earlier in November, bemoaned the increasing homogeneity of court surfaces, whereby the sport is producing a more one-dimensional style of play - that of the powerful, defensive-but-aggressive baseliner who is an accomplished practioner in the war of attrition during rallies; a style of play that admittedly has provided the game with extraordinary thrills these last several years.

More specifically, Federer was discussing how even grass and indoor carpet, traditionally the two fastest surfaces in the sport, no longer seem to give an advantage to the player who seeks to end a point in the forecourt. While Federer was clearly frustrated by losing to Djokovic - and taking losses gracefully has never been a strong suit for the otherwise gracious Federer - his comments on the state of the sport were absolutely correct.

"Just make quicker courts, then it's hard to defend. Then attacking style is more important," said Federer. "It's only on this type of slow courts that you can defend the way we are all doing right now. I think it's exciting, but no doubt about it, it's tough. What you don't want is that you hit 15 great shots and at the end, it ends up in an error. I've played on all different speeds. But I think some variety would be nice, some really slow stuff and then some really fast stuff, instead of trying to make everything sort of the same.

"You sort of protect the top guys, really, by doing that because you have the best possible chance to have them in the semis at this point. But should that be the goal? I'm not sure."

Not surprisingly, just a couple of weeks after Federer's slow-court woes, the Spanish Davis Cup team, which clearly resides on the other end of the court spectrum, were miffed by the slick-as-ice courts that were in play during the Davis Cup final in the Czech Republic.

For Federer and those of his ilk, the last few years have played out as a requiem for the type of serve-and-volley, quick-strike tennis that has been on the endangered species list for some time now in the sport.

What's ironic about Federer's lament is that he himself has adopted an increasingly defensive posture through the years. While he's never been confused for John McEnroe or Stefan Edberg as epitomizing the forecourt game, Federer did have - I'd say - a 50/50 baseline vs. volley tennis makeup when he started winning Slams in 2003. But now he often appears just as reluctant a volleyer as the rest of the field - in fact, his great rival Rafael Nadal, the ultimate baseliner, has actually become as adept a volleyer as Federer in terms of winning points at the net during Wimbledon.

And even Nadal's adjustment from the red clay of Paris to Wimbledon grass seems like something from the distant past. Determined to not be viewed as a one-surface player, Nadal changed his game to adapt to Wimbledon. He positioned himself closer to the baseline and greatly improved his already underrated volleying skills. And it worked, as he made the finals of Wimbledon five consecutive times he played it (2006-2011) and winning the most coveted title in tennis twice.

Contrast this with Djokovic, whose defending skills are otherworldly as not even Nadal is as adept at prolonging a point. Djokovic's forecourt game has never been a strong suit. But he didn't really need to adjust and vary his game when he won his Wimbledon title in 2011. He basically just stuck with what has worked during his ascent to the top of the sport; relentless defense and the finest return of serve in the game. For Djokovic it was simple - why try to improve at the net if it's not necessary?

Federer, when at his supreme best, is a true all-court player. Not a serve-and-volley tactician or a baseline grinder, but a player who is skilled at every tennis shot and is most himself when he's able to execute his entire repertoire of shots during a match.

And there's no question that tennis - or any sport for that matter - functions beset when the full art of the game is displayed. And Federer is correct in that the game loses something, diminishes itself to a degree, if it renders obsolete once-foundational shots.

It's not some arcane or nostalgic longing to demand some more volleying in the sport; this isn't like football fans aching to see the return of the single wing offense. There aren't many shots in tennis and losing the volley is robbing the sport part of its essence.

What can be done to bring back the volley or at least reward the quick-strike, reflex-oriented players? With the oft talked about racquet technology having such a direct and far-reaching impact on the sport it'll be tough to go back and reverse course.

The only solution is likely in altering the court surfaces, in addition to scheduling more events on faster surfaces. There's a glimmer of hope in this regard when Wimbledon decided to move back its event an addition week starting in 2014 to allow for a grass court Masters tournament to be contested beforehand. This is a start, however feeble, to shift the power of influence among the surfaces. Wimbledon can also make their grass a bit less true-bouncing, which has also made players feel comfortable lingering on the baseline at the Big W.

I'd also like to see the U.S. Open return to a slicker court. Hard courts have traditionally been something of an equalizer, an all-parties-are-welcome surface as the tournament has produced a wide range of styles in their champions.

What’s tough in all this is that the sport - the men's game, that is - is still in the midst of its latest Golden Age. The brilliant and epic matches and the rivalries that have developed amongst Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (and Andy Murray may be added to that list soon) have come to life during this era of homogenized courts. It's been thrilling to witness this unique era. Many may not want to see things change - after all, if we're getting riveting matches, why mess with it?

Why? Because it just isn’t right. And we should care about the sport for future generations. One shouldn’t mess with tennis’ ecosystem and forever alter the environment of the sport. I shudder at the thought that my son will grow up playing the sport and never know that you don’t have to wait for the ball to bounce before hitting it. 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Welcome back to the NFL Pregame Flyover, where leftovers are what we serve all season long. 

Before we tour this week’s schedule of games – and tell you which games are Probably worth watching, which games are of Questionable worth, Doubtful worth, and no worth - let’s look at the teams that have never won a Super Bowl and ask, “Is this their year?”

First-time Super Bowl winner lurking?

The NFL bills itself as a parity-laden league, where the Cardinals can beat the Patriots on any given Sunday. And yet the Super Bowl era has been dominated by a handful of teams, with the Steelers (6), Niners (5), Cowboys (5), Packers (4) and Giants (4) winning more than half of the 46 Super Bowls to date. Fourteen teams – seven in each conference – have never hoisted the Lombardi Trophy. These teams bring shame to the AFC and the NFC, but perhaps that will change with a championship this year. Let’s look at their chances of making good. 

(This week we’ll do the NFC, and next week the AFC.)

EAGLES: Philadelphia is 3-7 and has lost its last five games. Have you had the opportunity to see how poorly the Eagles – who lost last week to the Redskins 31-7 – have been playing lately? No? Well, fear not: They’re on national television three of the next four weeks.

Odds they win the Super Bowl: The same as Andy Reid coaching the Eagles next year.

LIONS: Detroit graced your television screen for the 123rd consecutive Thanksgiving on Thursday. If you happened to miss their game because you were eating dinner, you missed hearing the announcers explain why the Lions play on Thanksgiving every year. Here’s the clip.

Odds they win the Super Bowl: The same as you accurately transcribing the content of that clip.

VIKINGS: Minnesota has quietly won six games, including a season sweep of the Lions and an impressive victory over San Francisco. But the Vikings' defense has looked suspect of late, and their offense and special teams will take a big hit if Percy Harvin is out for long. 

Odds they win the Super Bowl: The same as a running back blowing out his knee and then returning to All-Pro level within eight months.

CARDINALS: Arizona started the season with four straight victories, foreshadowing the type of consistency they would exhibit later in the year when they lost seven straight (and counting). 

Odds they win the Super Bowl: The same as you being able to name the Cardinals’ starting quarterback for every game this season.

PANTHERS: What has happened to Carolina? Earlier in the year every defeat was followed by an entertaining Cam Newton press conference. But now? Nothing. Pick it up, Newton. Those teammates aren’t going to throw themselves under the bus. 

Odds they win the Super Bowl: The same as Ryan Kalil having this framed on his wall.

SEAHAWKS: Seattle has surrendered the second-fewest points in the NFL (next to the Niners), and they have the second-best record in the NFC West (next to the Niners). The Seahawks lead San Francisco in games won on phantom simultaneous catches. 

Odds they win the Super Bowl: The same as replacement referees working the Super Bowl.

FALCONS: After the Falcons lost their first game of the season to the Saints two weeks ago, Roddy White refused to give the Saints any credit, instead saying the Falcons had given the game to New Orleans. It’s of a piece with Atlanta’s postseason track record in the Matt Ryan era, in which they’ve given it to the other team in every single playoff game. 

Odds they win the Super Bowl: The same as Ray Edwards winning team MVP.

The Jingle on the NFL Network 

I love the pageantry of Christmas and all its associative sounds, smells, and sights. Gift-giving? Hate it. But carols, gingerbread houses, and stockings hung by the chimney with care? Yes, please. Which is probably why the bells-driven jingle used constantly by the NFL Network always puts me in a good mood. It’s like a mashup of a Zales commercial and that dreadful “Giva-giva-giva Garmin” commercial. Is this jingle new to the holiday season? I can’t say for sure, since I have no idea when the holiday season actually started. 

The Weekly Best

Welcome to the Weekly Best, where we hand out Jeffreys and you stroke the furry wall.

Best teams in the NFL: Have their way with the Bears.

Best excuse to get rid of PATs: The injury to Rob Gronkowski.

Best QB in San Francisco: Jim Harbaugh says it’s Colin Kaepernick.

Best passing total still belongs to Norm Van Brocklin (554): But Matt Schaub tied Warren Moon (527) for second best. 

Best book I’ve read about the 1970s Raiders: “Badasses” by Peter Richmond, which also happens to be the only book I’ve read about that team.

Best enticement to read the memoirs of John Matuszak and Kenny Stabler: The aforementioned “Badasses.”

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Green Bay at New York Giants.

Let’s be honest, we all hate certain teams and players, whether we like to admit it or not. For a long time, the group I hated – the cadre! – was relatively small and select, and basically included the Patriots, Ravens and anyone who ever played for them. Out of sheer boredom, I made a conscious decision to hate more teams this year. I felt I was cheating myself. Thankfully if you look close enough you can find a reason to hate any team. Even the Steelers. ESPECIALLY the Steelers, who I’d totally hate if I weren’t one of their fans.

Green Bay? Easy to hate, especially after their fan base had a collective meltdown following Golden Tate’s touchdown catch. And it was a touchdown catch. Seriously, go check your fantasy score; he totally got credit for it and everything.

Atlanta? Easy to hate, especially after they whined about not getting enough media attention for going 8-0. Even easier to hate after they (and by “they” I mean like one person; but still!) said they gave that victory to the Saints. With LeBron James in firm possession of his first NBA title, the sports world needs a new team/sports figure who can’t win the big one. That’s not the Falcons, since they can’t even win a first-round playoff game.

Detroit? Easy to hate, especially after they transformed into the Bengals 2.0, replete with boorish off-the-field behavior and diminishing results from star players. Thanks largely to the actions of Ndamukong Suh, the Lions progressed straight from lovable loser to easy-to-hate upstart. Don’t trust them with your heart, Detroit fans. They will cheat on you with your best friend’s grandfather – someone old enough to remember when the Lions were actually good.

Other teams that are becoming increasingly easy to hate: San Francisco, New Orleans, and Seattle.

Teams becoming increasingly easy to love: Pittsburgh. (Charlie Batch? Plaxico Burress? How many feel-good stories can one team have?!?)

(Other games receiving votes: San Francisco at New Orleans; Atlanta at Tampa Bay; Minnesota at Chicago.)

Questionable Game of the Week: Baltimore at San Diego

This AFC matchup is intriguing because it features two talented quarterbacks who haven’t been able to get over the hump and lead their teams to a Super Bowl. Most of the elite quarterbacks in the NFL have won at least one Super Bowl – in addition to two quarterbacks (Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning) who some observers don’t think are elite – so it stands to reason that Joe Flacco and Philip Rivers are the best two quarterbacks who’ve yet to win a title. Unless you count Matt Ryan and Tony Romo, who definitely should be counted if you’re handing out playoff participation ribbons. 

(Other games receiving votes: Seattle at Miami; Buffalo at Indianapolis.)

Doubtful Game of the Week: Pittsburgh at Cleveland.

Every year there’s one team that consistently loses close games, compiling a record that belies their competitive make-up. This year that team is the 2-8 Browns, who’ve lost five games by seven points or less. With Brandon Weeden, Trent Richardson and Josh Gordon, this team has some of the best players the Browns have had in years. If I were a Browns fan, that’d make me very depressed.

(Other games receiving votes: St. Louis at Arizona; Oakland at Cincinnati.)

Out Game of the Week: Carolina at Philadelphia.

Unless you have Cam Newton on your fantasy team, your interest in this Monday night game should be minuscule. I’m glad Monday Night Football is saddled with so many crappy games down the stretch, because that means one less night when I feel compelled to watch football. 

Frankly the expansion of Thursday night football to a full-year schedule has made it seem like an NFL game is on every night. Monday Night Football was a rarity, a treat. But between Thursday night football, Sunday night football, and Monday night football, the NFL is taking over our evenings. 

Earlier in the season you might have been able to convince me to watch this Panthers-Eagles game. But now? When Andy Reid is playing out the string, and the guy announcing the game (Jon Gruden) is an odds-on favorite to replace him?

Awkward. 

(Other games receiving votes: Denver at Kansas City; Tennessee at Jacksonville.)

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Welcome back to the NFL Pregame Flyover, which Rick Reilly had first on Twitter.   

Before we slap the NFL injury report on this week’s schedule of games – and tell you which games are Probably worth watching, which games are of Questionable worth, Doubtful worth, and no worth – let’s come clean about something: I am Nate Silver’s ghostwriter, and I am about to blow your freaking mind with NFL predictions.

No playoffs last year = conference championship this year

In 2010 I penned a column for the now-defunct Page 2 at ESPN.com that described a 13-year streak in the parity-laden NFL. Allow me to quote myself: “The most recent time the four teams in the conference title games had all made the playoffs the year before was after the 1997 season, with Denver, Pittsburgh, Green Bay and San Francisco. That's right, 1997 - when high school freshmen were learning how to walk. Here are the teams, year by year, who made their conference title games (and sometimes advanced to and won the Super Bowl), but who had missed the playoffs the year previously:

• 2009: New Orleans Saints, New York Jets. 

• 2008: Baltimore Ravens, Philadelphia Eagles and Arizona Cardinals. 

• 2007: Green Bay Packers. 

• 2006: New Orleans Saints. 

• 2005: Carolina Panthers. 

• 2004: Atlanta Falcons and Pittsburgh Steelers. 

• 2003: New England Patriots and Carolina Panthers. 

• 2002: Tennessee Titans. 

• 2001: Pittsburgh Steelers and New England Patriots. 

• 2000: Baltimore Ravens, Oakland Raiders and New York Giants.

• 1999: Tennessee Oilers, Tampa Bay Bucs and St. Louis Rams. 

• 1998: Atlanta Falcons and the New York Jets.”

Two years later, we might as well revisit this phenomenon, because the streak remains intact. In both 2011 and 2010, two teams reached their conference title games one year removed from missing the playoffs. Here they are:

2011: San Francisco 49ers and New York Giants.

2010: Pittsburgh Steelers and Chicago Bears. 

That makes 15 straight years that this has happened. Is this streak merely a curious fluke? Is it reflective of the premium placed on parity in the modern NFL? I’d say it’s a little bit of both.   

Will this streak continue this year? I, for one, would not bet against it. Consequently I think it’d be interesting to look at the teams that might keep it going. The best way to do that is to look at the teams thatwould qualify for the postseason if the playoffs started today. As Don Banks at Sports Illustrated and Jason Lisk at The Big Lead have pointed out, the field won’t likely change in the coming weeks - even if the 4-5 Cowboys are rounding into shape and they have several games left against the Sisters of the Blind. They’re out!

These guys are in:

AFC: Texans, Ravens, Steelers, Patriots, Colts, Broncos.

NFC: Falcons, Bears, Seahawks, Packers, Niners, Giants.

So, which of these teams did not make the playoffs last year?

“The Colts!” – random Colts fan.

“The Bears! – random Bears fan.

“The team that stole our victory with a BS simultaneous catch!” – every Packers fan.

Yup, it’s the Colts, Bears and Seahawks. A betting man would say that one of those three teams will be playing in their conference title game this year, one year removed from missing the playoffs. 

The Bears, who are currently the No. 2 seed in the NFC, would have to be the odds-on favorite among those three. Then again, this is the year of the amazing rookie quarterback, so would you really be surprised if Andrew Luck led the Colts to the AFC title game? And would you really be surprised if Russell Wilson stayed out of the way long enough for the Seahawks’ defense to carry them to the NFC title game?

One of the teams that didn’t make the playoffs last year will be playing in a conference title game this season, of that I am rather sure. And to be fair, yeah, it might even be the Cowboys. 

The NFL Network is whitewashing history

I’m a regular patron of the NFL Network, and I enjoy their game day crew led by Rich Eisen. Each time they introduce Deion Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Kurt Warner, or Michael Irvin, they post a bio box outlining their bonafides, mentioning that Sanders, Faulk, and Irvin are all Hall of Famers and that Warner was a Super Bowl winner and two-time NFL MVP.

This all makes sense. You want to highlight the achievements of your commentators, justifying their role as a so-called expert. So why does it always irk me that Steve Mariucci’s bio box only makes reference to his 57-39 record as a 49ers head coach? And why does it underwhelm me that his San Francisco teams made four playoff appearances in his six seasons as coach? Because it’s willful deception, and it will not stand!

Mariucci also coached the Lions for three years, where he was 15-28 and the Lions missed the playoffs every year. You may choose to omit that blotch on Mariucci’s resume, NFL Network, but my mind subconsciously accounts for your willful omission – just as it adds, “Plus that whole hooker-and-cocaine incident,” to Michael Irvin’s bio box.

The Jets will persist for some reason

As a means of boosting team morale, some members of the New York Jets are wearing T-shirts that read “We will persist.” 

Mark Sanchez sucks? We will persist. Anonymous players are taking cowardly shots at our backup quarterback? We will persist. Rex Ryan has been staring at my feet when I get out of the shower? Get thee to a silkscreen shop, it’s time to make new shirts.

It’s endearing that certain members of the Jets have banded together in the face of adversity. Other squads might take a cue from the Jets and have some team T-shirts made, too.

Chargers: “T-minus seven games, Norv.”

Lions: “Madden Curse? No, it’s just Lions football.”

Giants: “We want David Carr.”

Bucs: “Kneel downs are for (bleeps).”

Packers: “Volunteer wambulance driver.”

Redskins: “Black skin? White skin? Nope, we’re all red skin.”

Falcons: “We’re for masturbation ‘cause we beat ourselves.”

Steelers: “I donated $1000 to the James Harrison fund and all I got was this piss yellow T-shirt.”

The Weekly Best

Pull up a high-back chair, you’re about to peruse the Weekly Best.

Best team in the AFC: Maybe not the Steelers anymore.

Best team in the NFC: Maybe not the Niners anymore.

Best candidates to replace them: Houston and some NFC team other than Chicago.

Best to remember: Jason Campbell is now starting for the Bears.

Best move by Cam Newton this week: Donating $150k to three Charlotte schools.

Best reminder that the NFL is dangerous to your health: Niners coach Jim Harbaugh just had surgery to fix an irregular heartbeat, which doctors said was caused by stress.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Baltimore at Pittsburgh.

Last week the Ravens had a 41-17 lead over the Raiders when they ran a successful fake field goal. Predictably this spurred discussions of whether the Ravens were showing up the Raiders, which in turn prompted others to say that the Raiders are professionals and they should worry about stopping the other team and not be concerned with hurt feelings. If the Ravens want to go out of their way to belittle the Steelers this week, a fake field goal will not be necessary. All they have to do is remind Pittsburgh that they actually lost to Oakland this year.

With Ben Roethlisberger out with an injury, there was a temptation to elevate the Colts-Patriots game to this spot. Does Tom Brady lose at home? Rarely. Does Bill Belichick lose to a rookie quarterback at home? Rarely. Does a rookie quarterback replace Peyton Manning and put his team in position to make the playoffs? Who would have predicted this? But Andrew Luck is doing it, and the Colts – bolstered by the emotional inspiration associated with Chuck Pagano’s health concerns – are the 2012 team most equipped to achieve the unlikely. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Colts beat the Patriots, nor would I be surprised if I find myself rooting against New England. It seems to happen every week, almost by magic.

(Other games receiving votes: Indianapolis at New England; San Diego at Denver; Chicago at San Francisco.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Green Bay at Detroit.

This is a lazy correlation for sure, but the Lions consistently remind me of the Carson Palmer-era Bengals, a team laden with talented players that could never put it all together, thanks in part to the predilection of Cincinnati players to get arrested and for the devastating knee injury to Palmer in the 2005 playoffs versus the Steelers. 

Lions players like to get arrested, too. And though they haven’t suffered the kind of franchise-killing injury that happened to Palmer, well, we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention that Calvin Johnson is on the cover of Madden 13. 

At 4-5, Detroit now faces a gauntlet that sees them play Green Bay; Houston; Indianapolis; @ Green Bay; @ Arizona; Atlanta; and Chicago. How many wins can they expect out of that remaining schedule? One? We’ll give them the Cardinals, of course, but who else? Indianapolis, Andrew Luck and the Chuck Pagano Feel-Good Brigade? 

No, this Detroit team is staring 5-11 right in the face. But hey, at least we get to watch Calvin Johnson on Thanksgiving. (Um, we hope.)

We also hope that Megatron pins another 200-yard game on cornerback Traman Williams of the Packers, who had the audacity this week to name himself Optimus Prime.

“I’m definitely Optimus Prime,” the Green Bay Packers cornerback told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “I’m the leader of the Autobots. I’m the leader of the young guys right now and when it comes down to the tough battles, I’ll lead those guys out there.”

Did Calvin Johnson give himself the nickname “Megatron”? No, he did not. That handle was bestowed on him by others. That’s how nicknames work. When you try to give yourself a nickname, you sound like a mental patient, i.e., “I’m definitely Optimus Prime. I’m the leader of the Autobots.” 

(Other games receiving votes: Arizona at Atlanta; Philadelphia at Washington.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Jets at St. Louis

Seriously, we can’t stop thinking about those “We will persist” T-shirts by the Jets. Here’s some more teams who need to get in on the team T-shirt train.  

Panthers: “The wheels on the bus run over me, over me, over me.”

Raiders: “The autumn wind is … rather chilly. Brr.”

Saints: “Our interim coach can kick your coach’s butt.”

Patriots: “Gisele picked this out.”

Eagles: “We hate our fans, too.”

(Other games receiving votes: Tampa Bay at Carolina; Cleveland at Dallas; New Orleans at Oakland.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Jacksonville at Houston

Jaguars: “LA bound, baby.”

(Other game receiving vote: Cincinnati at Kansas City.)

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

The 2012 tennis season commenced way back in late January at the Australian Open when Novak Djokovic won an epic five-set encounter over Rafael Nadal to solidify his undisputed No. 1 ranking. And Djokovic ended 2012 with another significant triumph as the 25-year-old Serb defeated Roger Federer on Monday night at the ATP World Championships in London, 7-6 (6), 7-5. 

Federer has owned these season-ending championships, with this his eighth appearance in the finals. The indoor surface is unquestionably Federer’s best as no one else in the game can match his reflexes on the fast carpet.  

And the match started in very promising form for Federer as he held serve in less than a minute. He then proceeded to break Djokovic at love, with Djokovic looking a step slow and a bit out of sort very early in the match.  And then with a 3-0 lead and Djokovic serving, Federer earned a break point and with it, a chance to taking a giant lead. But Federer failed to capitalize and Djokovic held to finally get on the scoreboard.  

Though he was still ahead a break, Federer knew he had let a giant opportunity pass. As has been the case for the better part of two years, a one-break lead over Djokovic isn’t a lead at all.

When Pete Sampras – the last truly great server in the sport – was in control of his serve, the creeping inferiority felt by the player on the other side of the net would increase drastically as the match went on, as it became increasingly difficult to puncture the Sampras delivery.

The same can be said for Djokovic’s return game. One just never feels comfortable with a slight lead against the man who owns the best return; indeed, a return only rivaled by Andre Agassi and Jimmy Connors in the Open Era (for what it’s worth, I’d take Djokovic’s over either as his wingspan is that much greater than either Connors or Agassi, but that’s a worthy discussion for another column).

Federer is all too familiar with the frightening capability of the Djokovic return; recall the 2011 U.S. Open semifinals when Djokovic hit two massive returns on two match points down to send Federer into a state of shock. And one can look back to that Australian final against Nadal 10 months ago when Nadal held a 4-2 lead in the fifth set but wasn’t able to withstand the final assault from Djokovic’s return.

So there was a definite sense of finality early on in the match Monday when Djokovic evened the set and forced a tiebreaker. There was the subtle – yet distinct – rushing on Federer’s part to attempt to put the point away earlier and he gambled a few times too often. And though Djokovic failed to serve the set out at 6-5, he maintained his returning pressure in a close tiebreaker to notch the first set.

The second set started in similar fashion with Federer breaking Djokovic in the first game and was seemingly in control. After the two held serve in routine fashion, the match  appeared destined for a third set. But serving at 5-4, 40-15 Federer again got a little tight. With Djokovic maintaining his aggressive posture on the return, Federer cracked and in an instant, Djokovic broke back. And from Federer’s countenance it was obvious he knew the match was all but over after fe again gave up a lead.

Djokovic held easily and then broke Federer with an extraordinary backhand down the line pass to claim the season-ending championships for the second time.

After watching Djokovic again display an almost arrogant disregard for nerves when behind in a match one has to wonder – has there ever been a player batter at increasing his level of play when all seems lost? There is just no counting this guy out.

It was a fitting end to an exhausting and fascinating year in the sport. A year that saw four different winners of the Slams – Djokovic in Australia, Nadal securing his seventh French Open title in Paris, Federer claiming his seventh Wimbledon title and Andy Murray finally winning his first Slam at the U.S. Open (in addition to winning the Olympic gold medal in his home country).

Yet even though the riches were spread out amongst the Big Four, the best player of the year honor has to be granted to Djokovic. While it would have been almost impossible to replicate his extraordinary 2011 campaign in which he won three Slams, Djokovic was able to sustain a stellar level of play throughout the year, as his three Slam finals appearances attest. 

Of course, the big “if” of 2012 was Nadal’s injury that forced him to basically miss all the action after the French Open. Nadal had clearly reversed Djokovic’s recent dominance in their rivalry, as he likely “should have” won their Australian final after being up 4-2 in the fifth set and then went on to beat Djkovoci three consecutive times on clay, including the French title match. But aside from Nadal’s unfortunate absence, 2012 proved to be the year when some parity shoehorned its way into the proceedings. 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Before we get to this week’s slate of games – and tell you which games will Probably be worth watching, which games will be of Doubtful worth, which games will be of Questionable worth, and which game will be of no worth – let’s talk about the stupidity of “most overrated” polls.

Rex Ryan, Tim Tebow and Mark Sanchez are not overrated

According to the dictionary, overrated means (wait for it) “rated too highly.” Now I don’t know about you, but I haven’t encountered a single NFL observer this season who gives respectable ratings to Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez. In fact, most people think that Sanchez rates higher than Ryan Leaf and lower than every starter currently plying their trade in the NFL. And yet according to a player poll in Sports Illustrated, Sanchez is the second-most overrated player in the NFL, behind his teammate, Tim Tebow. 

Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow: When will people stop bringing them up in MVP discussions, right? 

Meanwhile, their coach, Rex Ryan, was voted the most overrated coach in the NFL by a player poll in The Sporting News. Yeah, Rex Ryan is overrated. Maybe in his own mind. And maybe on www.footfondlers.com. But he’s not exactly in the discussion for coach of the year. He’s not overrated and neither are his quarterbacks. What’s genuinely overrated is the ability of lazy, crap-stirring polls like these to reflect something meaningful and true.

Do you know what Sanchez, Tebow and Ryan share? A zip code – they’re all based in New York City, the media capital of the world. Consequently, they’re overexposed, at least relative to their successes. In turn, NFL players resent them. But instead of conducting a poll that reflects equally on the respondent – “What NFL player or coach do you resent the most?” – publications like Sports Illustrated and The Sporting News will chicken out by asking who is the most overrated. 

“As always in our midseason poll, players were not allowed to name their teammates or head coach for any of their answers,” says The Sporting News. 

Yeah, we certainly wouldn’t want players to have any first-hand knowledge about any questions they might respond to. Better to have them speculate from afar.

Can’t wait for The Sporting News poll that asks, “Which active NFL player is the most likely to come out of the closet?”

Because, yeah, it basically is of a piece.

We interrupt this broadcast …

By now you’ve probably seen the Chevy Volt commercial in which owners of this hybrid discuss its benefits; in particular, its remarkable gas mileage. The commercial ends with one woman gushing, “I go to the gas station such a small amount, that I forget how to put gas in my car!” This stops me short every time. Chevy Volt: The preferred car of the conscientious and the moronic? Very confusing.

The Weekly Best

Best team in the AFC: Steelers.

Best team in the NFC: Niners.

Best organizations that have never faced off in a Super Bowl: Pittsburgh and San Francisco.

Best reasons you’d elevate them over Houston, Chicago and Atlanta: Pittsburgh’s quarterback and San Francisco’s defense.

Best record in football: But Jason Lisk cogently explains why Atlanta is the worst 8-0 of all time.

Best statistical promotion: “Stats are for losers” (Bill Belichick) has now been replaced by “Stats are for girls” (Hakeem Nicks).

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Texans at Bears.

Let’s face it, this is not a good week of NFL matchups. Houston vs. Chicago is the only game in which both teams are above .500. Given that, matchups between .500-huggers like San Diego and Tampa Bay will take on added intrigue. Does Greg Schiano still think that crashing a kneel down has a chance of working? If so, this is definitely the week to try it, as Norv Turner and Philip Rivers have not yet added “lost during kneel down” to their impressive oeuvre.

If Houston can go on the road and beat Chicago, many people will be tempted to forget that Houston laid a gigantic egg at home against the Packers earlier in the season. If Houston gets thumped by the Bears, many people will be tempted to write off the Texans as a Super Bowl contender. If Jay Cutler throws a teammate under the bus in his postgame press conference, I win my bet and $100.

(Other game receiving votes: Falcons at Saints.)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Questionable Game of the Week: Cowboys at Eagles.

If you’re a depressed NFL fan and you’re in need of some rose-colored glasses, swing by the NFL.com, where Bucky Brooks has written a column that attempts to outline why 17 NFL teams are still legitimate Super Bowl contenders – including the Bucs, Chargers, and Cowboys.

Yup, you fans of the 3-5 Cowboys can come back off the ledge. Your team has what it takes to walk off the dais with the Lombardi Trophy in February, Brooks says. 

Let’s consider the what-ifs in his America’s Team write-up. (Emphasis is mine.)

“Why they're legitimate contenders: The Cowboys are in the midst of a disappointing start, BUT they can still make a serious run at the NFC East crown. ALTHOUGH the offense has failed to play at a high level in recent weeks, the eventual return of DeMarco Murray SHOULD instantly reignite the Cowboys' sagging running game, alleviating some of the pressure on Tony Romo in the pocket. IF coach Jason Garrett can further relieve some of the burden on Romo by managing the game better and implementing a more diverse game plan, the Cowboys' offense MIGHT catch fire, sparking a run down the stretch.”

Ah, yes, the burden on Tony Romo. Perhaps if the Cowboys had some sentient creatures at tight end and wide receiver, Romo could lay down his cross for a while. Alas, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant and Miles Austin are like a bloodless incarnation of the Jets’ skill position players. Soldier on, Romo. 

The Eagles, Saints, Jets, Raiders, Rams and Bengals are also 3-5, but according to Brooks they are not legitimate Super Bowl contenders like Dallas. Know who else is not legitimate in his estimation? The 5-4 Vikings. 

So, yeah, fans of the Chargers, Bucs and Cowboys, you have “legitimate” Super Bowl hopes. But Minnesota fans? Your hopes are illegitimate and pathetic.

Come on, Brooks is blatantly stretching the definition of “legitimate” to conveniently include a popular team like Dallas. If they have legitimate Super Bowl hopes, I shudder to think how many legitimate children Antonio Cromartie has.

(Other games receiving votes: Chargers at Buccaneers; Lions at Vikings; Jets at Seahawks; Rams at Niners.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Doubtful Game of the Week: Bills at Patriots.

I don’t envy NFL beat reporters, who have to consistently come up with material for articles and columns even when the wellspring of ideas has run dry. Such was obviously the case when Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England asked Tom Brady about his clothes this week. Instead of asking the Patriots quarterback for advice on how to spruce up his own wardrobe – or to ask Brady for an Uggs gift certificate – Curran got testy about Brady’s sartorial selections and said, “Sometimes you dress kind of weird. What’s going on there? Who does that? Is that the whole self … Do you lay that out? Does someone lay that out for you?” 

Now, if he’d been putting a similar question to Brady’s head coach – “Sometimes you dress like a homeless person. What’s going on there? Who purposely cuts off the sleeves to a perfectly good sweatshirt? Did Richard Simmons lay that out for you?” – then we might glean some fresh insights. 

But Tom Brady is married to a supermodel, and we already know why he dresses like he does: Because she makes more money than he does and, yes, of course she lays out his clothes out for him. If she didn’t, he’d go out of the house looking like this.

(Other games receiving votes: Broncos at Panthers; Titans at Dolphins; Raiders at Ravens; Giants at Bengals.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Out Game of the Week: Chiefs at Steelers.

We have now reached that point in the season where primetime games will feature teams who have lost their will to live. The 2012 Kansas City Chiefs are such a team. This squad is so punch-drunk that head coach Romeo Crennel recently fired himself as defensive coordinator.

Thanks to the schedule, this is the second straight week we’re treated to the Chiefs on national television. Last week on Thursday Night Football they hung tough during the coin flip before losing to the Chargers 31-13. Now we get to watch the Steelers disembowel them on Monday Night Football.

It really is a disservice to NFL fans that the Thursday and Monday night games are set in stone, while the Sunday night games can be flexed out starting next week. There are seven MNF games remaining, and three of them are full-on awful: Chiefs-Steelers, Panthers-Eagles (Nov. 26); and Jets-Titans (Dec. 17). 

The Thursday night schedule isn’t any better. Beyond the Colts-Jaguars game that was watched by 1,300 people in Jacksonville on Thursday night, the four remaining games are Dolphins-Bills (next Thursday); Saints-Falcons (Nov. 29); Broncos-Raiders (Dec. 6); and Bengals-Eagles (Dec. 13). 

The Saints-Falcons game might be intriguing, especially if Atlanta is still undefeated at that point. Otherwise every remaining Thursday night game looks to contain at least one (and perhaps two) teams that will not be making the playoffs.

Meanwhile NBC is sitting on its Sunday night throne, with a slate of games that includes Texans-Bears; Ravens-Steelers; Packers-Giants; and Niners-Patriots. And the dogs on the remaining schedule – most notably, Chargers at Jets on Dec. 23 – can be swapped out for an afternoon game.

And what do we get? We get to watch the Chiefs on Monday Night Football, where the key storyline is whether Kansas City (1-7) will ever hold a lead during the 2012 season. The team’s lone win came against the Saints, in overtime, so they’ve never technically “held” a lead. They’ve never turned it over in their hands; felt its weight; gave it a good massage. Here’s hoping they can coo in the ear of a lead this week. 

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Before we get to this week’s schedule of games – and tell you which games are Probably worth watching, which games are of Questionable worth, Doubtful worth, and no worth – let’s hand out some mediocre hardware for the midway point of the NFL season.

Best? Worst? No, we pay homage to the Most Mediocre

Society, in its ceaseless march to reward excellence and punish failure, overlooks the vast majority of us who are simply mediocre. The NFL is no different, as columnists and talking heads spend an inordinate amount of time discussing folks at the respective ends of the spectrum – breakout teams, MVP candidates; worst teams, coaches on the hot seat – while overlooking the sprawling ocean of people who are simply getting by in the 2012 NFL season.

Not us! We champion the obscure and laud the mundane. 

It’s week nine of the NFL season, the official midway point of the 17-week campaign, so let’s give the middle of the pack their just due.

Most mediocre team: (tie) Cardinals and Seahawks. At 4-4, they’re the only two NFL teams that are exactly .500. At this point it doesn’t look like it’s going to be either of their years to lose to the Steelers in the Super Bowl. 

Most mediocre division: NFC West. What are the odds that the only two NFL teams with .500 records – the only two teams that can’t decide if they are winners or losers – would hail from the same division?!?

Most mediocre debate: Is Matt Ryan the midseason favorite for NFL MVP?

Most mediocre defensive debate: Is J.J. Watt the midseason favorite for Defensive Player of the Year?

Most mediocre rookie starting quarterback: Russell Wilson. He is the starting quarterback of the most mediocre team (tie) in the NFL. He wins this award by default.

Most mediocre New York team: Bills. You may think we don’t notice you tucked up there in the western corner of the Empire State, but you gave Mario Williams the largest contract ever awarded to a defensive player, and that basically amounts to media bribery. We have been forced to notice that you remain disappointing, and that you will likely extend the longest postseason drought in the NFL (1999). But watching you play is still more entertaining than watching the Jets.

Most mediocre Florida team: The Bucs. The Dolphins have been surprisingly competitive behind Ryan Tannehill, while the Jaguars (1-6) are vying for the No. 1 pick in next year’s draft. The Bucs, meanwhile, are just chugging right along at an uninspiring 3-4, after cresting early in the national discussion by bum-rushing the Giants’ victory formation in week two. With that move the Bucs started the most mediocre discussion of the first half of the season: Is it commendable to crash a kneel down and ostensibly do everything you can to win? Or is it the punk move of a bitter loser? The only people who came out winners in that discussion were sports columnists, who haven’t been able to mail in that many mediocre columns since writing (every year) about the snubs in the voting for the Major League Baseball All-Star Game.

Most mediocre California team: Raiders. The Niners are the best team in the NFC West and a Super Bowl contender. The Chargers are employing Norv Turner until early January. Meanwhile the Raiders, long known as the grease fire of California NFL teams, have beaten the Steelers, nearly beat the undefeated Falcons, and have quietly won two straight for a 3-4 record. For a team that lost 11 or more games in an NFL-record seven straight seasons, a taste of mediocrity is quite quenching.  

Most mediocre Manning: Peyton. Eli has two Super Bowl wins to Peyton’s one, while their seldom-mentioned brother (Danieal) is now playing for the Texans and still looking for his first. 

The Weekly Best

Sit down and enjoy some canapés, you’re about to ingest the Weekly Best.

Best week to read the Weekly Best: When mediocrity is being touted.

Best 2-6 team in the NFL: Dem Browns got spunk.

Best mad bomber: Josh Freeman leads the league with nine passes of 40-plus yards.

Best race among major NFL awards: Peyton Manning vs. Adrian Peterson for the Comeback Player of the Year Award.

Best guess says: Peterson wins it.

Best boost to Mark Sanchez’s confidence: “Bro, you got a better passer rating than Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassel AND John Skelton.”

Best bald quarterback in the NFL: And Matt Hasselbeck is having a halfway decent year for the Titans.

Best division in the NFL: Remember when people thought it was the NFC West?

Best remind me when that was: Back when the 4-4 Cardinals were 4-0.

Best team in the NBA: Obviously not the Lakers.

Best reason to mention that in an NFL column: I hate the Lakers.

Best NFL rookie quarterback: But Dick LeBeau and the Steelers made RGIII look like a college freshman.

Best get that boy some protection: Aaron Rodgers has been sacked a league-leading 28 times. 

Best quarterback stat line: Tony Romo had a league-leading 437 yards passing against the Giants last week, along with four interceptions, four sacks, one touchdown, and a passer rating (58.3) that was only slightly worse than Eli Manning’s (58.4).

Best keep things in perspective: Millions of people are still without food, water and electricity thanks to Hurricane Sandy.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Pittsburgh at New York Giants.

It’s amazing how a team’s fortunes can change in just two games. After their humiliating loss to the Titans three weeks ago, the Steelers were 2-3 with a seemingly decimated offensive line, a third-string running back (Jonathan Dwyer) elevated to starter due to injuries, and a No. 1 wideout who was dropping passes with a consistency only Braylon Edwards could appreciate. But after victories over the Bengals and Redskins, the Steelers are 4-3 and amazingly just one game behind the vulnerable Ravens in the AFC North. 

Is this matchup against the Giants a possible Super Bowl preview? You could certainly do worse. Like, say, a Green Bay-Houston rematch? 

Matchup to watch: The Giants’ defensive line versus the escapability of Ben Roethlisberger.

Another matchup to watch: Emmanuel Sanders versus his tendency to get cramps when the Steelers’ play clock is winding down.

Likelihood Sanders develops cramps in this game: Not good. His cramp incident against the Bengals only happened two weeks ago, so he’s got a few more weeks until it’s that time of the month again. 

Greg Schiano’s take on Sanders’s tactics: “That’s bush league, I love it!” 

(Other games receiving votes: Denver at Cincinnati; Minnesota at Seattle; Pittsburgh at New York Giants; Dallas at Atlanta.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Miami at Indianapolis.

If the playoffs started today, the Colts and the Dolphins would both be playing in the postseason, which is astonishing when you consider that both teams are starting rookie quarterbacks, one of whom actually thought that the Kansas City Chiefs play in the NFC East.

It’s not your fault, Ryan Tannehill. It’s the fault of the NFL that the Dallas Cowboys play in the NFC East, the Indianapolis Colts play in the AFC South, the Miami Dolphins play in the AFC East, and the Chiefs and Rams play in West divisions. No rookie quarterback should be expected to remember five things. You’re just children, babes, geography neophytes. Jerry Jones still hasn’t figured out that he’s wasting millions of dollars to ship his team cross-country for three NFC East games per year. If he knew, don’t you think he’d be bitching about it?

(Other games receiving votes: Arizona at Green Bay; Baltimore at Cleveland; Tampa Bay at Oakland; Miami at Indianapolis; Philadelphia at New Orleans.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Carolina at Washington.

Are they bringing in Doug Williams to do a ceremonial coin flip before this game? God knows they should, since Cam Newton and RGIII have so much in common. 

Speaking from a fan’s perspective, I have to say I hope Cam Newton and the Panthers lose the rest of their games and finish the season 1-15. I have nothing personal against Newton (though I wouldn’t stand beside him at a bus stop.) I just look forward to watching him navigate press conferences following a loss. 

Knowing the press, these are questions Newton might reasonably encounter after losing to the Redskins:

“How long have you been a losing black quarterback?”

“RGIII, he’s right-handed and black, just like Doug Williams, and they’re both winners. What sets you apart?”

DeAngelo Hall: During last week’s loss to the Steelers, Hall took off his helmet and screamed in the face of an official because Hall was angry that the Steelers’ Emmanuel Sanders wasn’t called for a penalty on an alleged cheap shot. Hall was ejected from the game, though he hasn’t been suspended for this game against the Panthers. That’s only fair to Carolina: Suspending Hall would be doing the Redskins a huge favor.

(Other games receiving votes: Buffalo at Houston; Chicago at Tennessee; Carolina at Washington.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Detroit at Jacksonville.

Why this game is intriguing: The Lions just acquired wide receiver Mike Thomas from the Jaguars, so people watching this game will inevitably learn more about Mike Thomas than they knew before. They’ll learn that Mike Thomas lost his starting position as a wide receiver for the Jacksonville Jaguars, and that the Lions recently lost wide receiver Nate Burleson to injury. These two developments made the Jaguars and Lions perfect trade partners. Mike Thomas will add depth at wide receiver for the Lions and he will possibly take over as the team’s punt returner. Adjust your fantasy team accordingly.

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Before we get to this week’s slate of games – and tell you which games are Probably worth watching, which games are of Questionable worth, which games are of Doubtful worth, and which game involves Aaron Rodgers and the unwatchable Green Bay Packers – let’s discuss the issue of gadget plays.

Gadget plays are awesome when executed by sinister players

A few years ago, back when Ken Whisenhunt was the offensive coordinator of the Steelers, Pittsburgh was always good for some trickery. End-arounds, pass options, Statue of Liberty plays: You name it, the Steelers had it in their arsenal. I was reminded of this during Sunday night’s game against the Bengals when Antonio Brown took a handoff on an end-around. Now, normally an end-around is only moderately exciting, since almost every team runs one occasionally. But Brown, who was lined up to the right of Ben Roethlisberger, was coming down the line of scrimmage when … Oh, my Suzyn Waldman, he has the ball in his left hand – Antonio Brown is left-handed and he’s going to throw the ball! 

Now, I don’t know about you, but I have little knowledge about the handedness of most NFL players. Drew Brees? Yeah, I know he’s right-handed. Matt Leinart? Yeah, I know he tries to throw left-handed. But running backs and wide receivers? No effing clue. When Antonio Brown wound up and prepared to throw the ball, I was immediately reminded of Ronnie Brown, the former Dolphins running back (now of the Chargers) who used to throw the occasional left-handed pass out of the backfield. That, too, seemed diabolically genius: No one is expecting a non-quarterback that is running to his left to set his feet and throw a pass.

Obviously this play can’t work all the time, because defenses not run by Norv Turner will adjust. But it’s great when it happens because it’s so unexpected and – let’s face it, freakish. I basically assume that everyone I meet is right-handed (the odds!), so when shown otherwise, it’s unsettling and awesome. Obviously that holds true for NFL players, too; because not only did Antonio Brown’s left-handed throw leave the Bengals flat-footed and ready for abuse, it left Steelers running back Baron Batch grasping for air as he lamely attempted to catch Brown’s perfectly placed pass, which would have been an easy touchdown for Pittsburgh. 

Gadget plays are awesome, particularly when they’re executed by players we didn’t know were left-handed. 

This season’s NFL Comeback Player of the Year 

Normally the NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award is given to someone who was injured the year before, or who was healthy the year before but brought shame to their family. The list of past winners is a who’s-who of all-time greats (Joe Montana, Marcus Allen, Dan Marino) and it also includes a smattering of feel-good stories involving lesser lights such as Jon Kitna, Tommy Maddox and Chad Pennington, who won the award twice.

To the best of my knowledge, the award has never been given to a player who’d been cut from a team and then returned to play for that same team the same season. Maybe Chris Cooley, the past and present tight end for the Redskins, can become the first. 

Cooley, who became a fan favorite because of his candid ways, was jettisoned by the Redskins at the end of training camp, when it became apparent that the Redskins simply had too many awesome receivers (or something). Cooley thanked the fans, city and organization in a heartfelt, teary news conference, and hasn’t played meaningful football since. But last week Cooley’s replacement, Fred Davis, went down with a season-ending knee injury, so the team re-signed their former tight end.

Considering that Davis was the favorite target of first-year quarterback Robert Griffin III, it stands to reason that Cooley will see plenty of looks in the Redskins’ offense - particularly with Pierre Garcon out for several games and Santana Moss now long in the tooth. Will Cooley win this year’s NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award? Of course not; Adrian Peterson has already locked it up. Still, I’m wagering Cooley gets more votes for the award than Randy Moss.

Trade these fellas before Tuesday’s deadline

The NFL trading deadline is Tuesday, and a lot of players could benefit from a change of scenery. 

1. Mark Sanchez. It’s obviously not working out for Mark in New York. Watching him organize a drive is like watching a drunk guy play Jenga: It takes forever and the crap is bound to go sideways. The Jets need to cut bait and let the Greg McElroy era begin.

2. Dwayne Bowe. Bowe is in the final year of his contract, and his value is only going to go down the longer he’s exposed to Brady Quinn. If I were his agent, I’d be demanding a trade from the lowly Chiefs to a team that could really use a wideout. Say, the Jets? Using my helpful fantasy football trade calculator, I see there’s a fair trade to be made: Bowe for the Jets defense. Make it happen, Pioli.

3. Mike Wallace. It’s not often that Steelers fans turn so quickly on one of their own standout players, but Wallace has gone from the penthouse to the outhouse with no stops in between. Granted, holding out for a new contract didn’t endear him to the fans or the organization, but all would have been forgiven if Wallace were playing to the same level as recent years. Instead he’s developed a serious case of butter fingers. Might as well trade him to the Chargers, where coaches have an uncanny knack for curing players of the dropsies. 

What’s with the NFL.com stats lab?

Do statistics scare me? Sometimes. Am I able to overcome my fears? Usually. That said, statistics should always be presented in the most straight-forward way possible, so that I can memorize them easily and then drop them haughtily in dinner conversations. Given that, I’m having a hard time understanding the statistics landing page at NFL.com, which seems unduly intimidating.

The NFL refers to it as the NFL stats lab, which is ostensibly supposed to conjure up thoughts of beakers, periodic tables and hydrochloric acid. “Come into the stats lab, where you can whip up anything to suit your idiotic, preconceived notions about Tim Tebow.”

Unfortunately the landing page looks like a screen grab from “Armageddon,” which only makes me want to go elsewhere to get my statistics.

The Weekly Best

Welcome to the Weekly Best, where we throw pink flags at the best in the NFL.

Best offense: The Patriots.

Best defense: The Bears.

Best defense against Calvin Johnson: Put a Peanut on him. 

Best team in the AFC: Is apparently not the Ravens.

Best sack streak for an NFL team: 31 straight games for the Bengals.

Best indication that a sack streak means little: The previous line.

Best joke out of New Orleans: Roman Harper says that without the bounty scandal the Saints would be undefeated.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Giants at Cowboys.

Plenty of games to consider for Probable Game of the Week, but respective mitigating factors precluded us for selecting any of the other games. They were:

Falcons at Eagles: The undefeated Falcons travel to Philadelphia to take on former Falcons turnover machine Michael Vick. Andy Reid is 13-0 following bye weeks, meaning the outcome of this game is going to bring glee to the hearts of Mercury Morris and the rest of the insufferable 1972 Dolphins.  

Redskins at Steelers: I love it when history is horrible and despicable, yet observed and honored nonetheless. After all, if we don’t remember the past, we might repeat it. That said, I no longer own a black and white television, and watching the Steelers play in these throwback uniforms might scald my eyeballs. 

Saints at Broncos: Joe Vitt, who was named interim head coach when Sean Payton was suspended for the season for Bountygate, is himself returning from a seven-week suspension for his role in the scandal. In unrelated news, I wonder what’s going on with the leadership of the Teamsters these days.

Niners at Cardinals: A game that relies heavily on the contributions of LaRod Stephens-Howling is a game that will be hate-watched by the fantasy owners of William Powell.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Questionable Game of the Week: Patriots at Rams.

The NFL had the opportunity to turn its overseas game into something truly unique – to play it at 1 p.m. in London (like an NFL fan would see it here), and thus at 8 a.m. in New England. But it blows it by playing the game at 1 p.m. ET or 6 p.m. in London. 

BOR-ING!

Yeah, I know they’re doing it because they want to maximize television ratings in the United States, but one of the best things about overseas competitions – Premier League soccer, World Cup matches, the occasional Olympics – is that they take place at times outside the normal patterns we associate with sports in the United States. The Pats and Rams are playing in London? Great, I’ll be able to wake up on Sunday and watch live football from 8 a.m. all the way till midnight! Sixteen straight hours of football, followed by divorce!

Nope, the NFL blew it. The Pats and Rams are playing in London? And the folks in London get treated to a 6 p.m. game? Oh, lucky them. At least the dark NFL overlords in New York City will be able to watch it at 1 p.m. Wouldn’t want them to be shaken loose of their routines – even if playing a freaking NFL game in London should be all about breaking routine.

And yes, I realize an 8 a.m. game would be a 7 a.m. game in St. Louis. If you wanted to get up and watch it, you could. If you wanted to tape it and watch it later, you could do that, too. It’s one week out of the season, and a little change won’t kill you. Besides, you St. Louis fans probably haven’t been sleeping much since Game 7 of the NLCS, so a little “cartoon football” would probably take your mind off things.

(Other game receiving votes: Seattle at Detroit.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Miami at New York Jets.

Whoa, boy, it’s Dolphins week for the New York Jets, which means fans and players on both sides are whipped into a frenzy about things no one outside the rivalry understands or cares about. 

It’s sometimes easy to forget just how consistently inept the Jets have been over the years, but then you’re reminded that the team has won two division titles since the AFL-NFL merger – and that’s fewer than the expansion team of Carolina (three) and the same as the expansion team of Jacksonville. It’s just one more than the expansion team of Houston, and one fewer than Detroit, which you’d be surprised to learn is not an expansion team. But Rex Ryan says this is the best team he’s ever had, so there’s that.

If the playoffs started today, only one rookie quarterback would be leading his team into the playoffs. And it’s not RGIII, Andrew Luck or Russell Wilson; it’s Ryan Tannehill. Congratulations, Ryan. If the playoffs started today, we’d look forward to seeing your wife on television.

(Other games receiving votes: Chargers at Browns, Colts at Titans, Panthers at Bears.) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Jaguars at Packers.

Hey, look, the Packers are back! Their offense is clicking, and they’re right on track to have their defense blow it for them in the playoffs again. This defense was mediocre when Charles Woodson was on the field. Now he’s going to be out with a broken collarbone for six weeks. Expect the Jaguars’ offense behind (*checking injury report*) Chad Henne and Rashad Jennings to go into Lambeau Field and give the Packers all that Jacksonville has. 

(Other game receiving vote: Raiders at Chiefs.)

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

But the fascination with sole team hegemony or oligarchy is not entirely misplaced, since dynasties are a real phenomenon in pro sports. One could associate teams with decades; the 2000s New England Patriots, 1990s Chicago Bulls, 1980s New York Islanders, and 1970s Oakland Athletics among others. And neither structural reform, such as league expansion or free agency, nor rule changes have extinguished dynasties.

But answering the questions of why and how dynasties emerge is not the focus here. Instead, the concern is with the criteria. One must know the qualifications for such lofty status before any discussion of the how or why can begin.

The first and most obvious condition is winning championships. The 1990s Buffalo Bills do not make the grade because of their Super Bowl failures. The timespan of a team’s ascendance, with an emphasis on compression, is important. Few can match the Baltimore Orioles’ run from 1969-1983, five AL pennants and two rings. But those achievements are overshadowed by the early 1970s A’s, who had a three-peat from 1972-1974, while the Orioles’ titles came 13 years apart in 1970 and 1983.

Repeating is integral to dynasty status because it undeniably manifests preeminence at a given time. For example, the New Jersey Devils have claimed three Stanley Cups but few accolades since 1994. Why? Their contemporaries from Detroit have eclipsed them with four Cups, including back-to-back titles in 1997-1998. And with no repeats since the ones the Red Wings achieved, it is fair to say Detroit has dominated the NHL’s past 20 years.

 One thing, however, is missing from that list. Champs need worthy opponents to become legendary. Only a credible competitor can provide a championship round worth remembering, and ensure another team’s dynasty label is earned. Would the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers evoke nostalgia without their titanic clashes against the Oakland Raiders and Dallas Cowboys? Do Magic Johnson’s Showtime Lakers have their large stature in NBA history absent matching up against Larry Bird’s Celtics? It is doubtful.

 Sports are about competition because it alone produces iconic series, games, moments, and teams. Indeed, the epic moments say as much. They neatly capture the quality of competition on display in a game or series.

Think about the 1990s Bulls, six titles in eight years is a staggering number. Factor in the quality of opposition faced and that statistic becomes mind-blowing. The Bulls drew five one-seeds in the Finals (the 1991 Los Angeles Lakers withstanding), four won 60-plus games (1993 Phoenix Suns, 1996 Seattle Super Sonics, and 1997-1998 Utah Jazz), and five of six employed at least one Hall of Famer (Gary Payton is not yet eligible).

 And then we have to factor in the quality of games, and performances within those games; Michael Jordan breaking scoring records in a playoff game in 1992, a triple-OT game in 1993, the “Flu Game” in 1997, and his final shot in Game 6 in 1998. In a word, wow. The 1990s Bulls exemplify the meaning of the word dynasty in a sports context, peerless excellence.

Another way to think about the subject of dynasties and their adversaries is remembrance. The late 1990s New York Yankees usually invoke disgust from critics because they spent gobs of money en route to winning four titles in five years. If one believes the protests of critics that the Yankees wrecked competitive balance in MLB, then one question is in order. What about the Atlanta Braves?

By most measures the Braves had a historic run: they played in half of the 1990s World Series (1991-1992, 1995-1996 and 1999), partook in eight straight National League Championship Series from 1991-1999, won their division a record 14 consecutive times from 1991-2005, and had three Hall of Fame starting pitchers from 1993-2002.

How often are the Braves maligned for ruining competitive balance? Not frequently. Many forget the Braves’ dominance because of their failures; one title and four losses, two of which came against the Yankees. And the irony here is how vilification just cements the 1990s Yankees as a dynasty; multiple titles, a three-repeat, two triumphs over the mighty Braves, and they are still discussed today.

 Now the objections to the importance of a worthy adversary will invariably center on an old maxim, “beat who is on the schedule.” It is true that luck plays a role. There is no predetermination in sports, let alone to the detail of who participates in the title round. But the integrity of a sport’s competition is not helped by the system of divisions and playoffs that devalues the regular season, and emphasizes “getting hot at the right time.” The eighth-seeded Los Angeles Kings served as a forceful reminder of that point last year on their way to winning the Stanley Cup.

This devolution has a serious long-term consequence: hot teams are rarely remembered. For every 2011 St. Louis Cardinals there are far more 1999 New York Knicks, 2007 Colorado Rockies, and 2008 Arizona Cardinals. How many epic championship bouts have the morass of hot teams, in all pro sports, over the past 20 years yielded? Win or lose, those teams frequently fade into oblivion after the season, barring things such as last-minute heroics or failures. Parity can provide high ratings and sell seats at playoff games, but it cannot duplicate the memories or wow factor that high-caliber competition generates.

And thanks to the centrality of competition in sports, dynasties will continue to exist. Even today, teams still win multiple titles, although repeats are rare. Yet, the absence of defining adversaries hovers over those who win. They are deprived of the opportunity to stand beside legendary predecessors in the lore of their sport, and memories of fans.

Tim Reuter writes on structural components in sports that impinge on or facilitate competition. He may be reached at tjr2118@gmail.com.

Before we apply the NFL injury report to this week’s schedule of games – and declare which contests will Probably be worth watching, which games will be of Questionable worth, of Doubtful worth, and of no worth – we’d like to introduce our new correspondent, Dante Alighieri, author of “The Divine Comedy.”

We recently realized that the NFL itself is a divine comedy of sorts, with respective players, coaches and fan bases moving between various levels of hell, purgatory and heaven. Rather than visit these places ourselves, we dipped into our freelance budget and hired Dante, a veteran travel writer. He’ll be making the regular rounds, telling us in his inimical style about the new arrivals in hell, purgatory and heaven. 

Take it away, Dante.

HELL

I spy a player who looks like Marmalarde,

Throwing the ball like he is playing shotput.

It’s not PC, but he looks like a retard. 

PURGATORY

Sanchez, Fitzpatrick, Tannehill and Brady,

Staring at the standings, they’re all 3 and 3.

Tannehill’s wife: Where’s that hot little lady? 

HEAVEN

There he sits, proud, haughty and full of pleasure.

In brown and orange, diarrhea colors.

He’s waving a W, that first win a treasure. 

THE SEVEN NFL VIRTUES

Continuing with this week’s religious theme, we’d like to recognize those coaches, teams, players and fans who best exhibited the seven cardinal virtues.

Chastity: Indianapolis Colts. Did you expect that we’d honor Tim Tebow? Come on, his team at least found the end zone, unlike the Colts.

Temperance: Norv Turner. Definition of temperance: “moderation in action, thought, or feeling.”

Charity: Pittsburgh Steelers defense. They allowed the Titans’ offense to score 26 points.

Diligence: Juan Castillo. It’s hard work for an offensive line coach to pretend he’s a defensive coordinator for 22 games.

Patience: Kansas City Chiefs fans. No banners have yet been flown demanding the start of the Ricky Stanzi era.

Kindness: Me. I’d like to point out that the Jaguars can still go 12-4 this season. 

Humility: Rex Ryan. He told reporters Wednesday, "If it's just between Bill Belichick and me, he's going to win that battle, I recognize that.” The topic was coaching in this Sunday’s matchup between the Patriots and Jets, not which man can look like more of a hobo.

The Four Teams Who’ve Never Played in a Super Bowl

From time to time we’ll check in with the four teams who’ve never played in a Super Bowl, to see how their prospects look for reaching the title game this season.

Texans: They were undefeated going into last week’s Sunday night matchup against the Packers, and the team seemed primed to show the world what they were all about. The Texans got throttled by Green Bay, but they’re still on target to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl because the AFC sucks.

Jaguars: Watching “Tom Coughlin: A Football Life” on the NFL Network recently, I was reminded that the Jaguars actually reached the AFC Championship Game twice in their first five seasons in the league. In retrospect, this gave unrealistic expectations to the dozens of Jaguars fans in this country.

Browns: In any other year, I might have picked the Browns to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. But it just happens that I stopped huffing paint, so my judgment is gradually improving.

Lions: Wouldn’t it be great if the Lions faced the Texans in the Super Bowl? Not only would that be a matchup of great offenses, but it’d leave the Jaguars and Browns as the only teams who’d never played in a Super Bowl. Alas, Cleveland and Jacksonville cannot square off in the big game, which is good because holy crap would no one watch that.

The Weekly Best

The Weekly Best writers are suspended without pay this week, after they spent last Saturday partying with Steelers nose tackle Alameda Ta’amu. 

Best wise up: Weekly Best writers.

This week in fantasy-football name changes

Is your fantasy team bringing shame to your family? Do you want to do something drastic, like trade Cam Newton for Greg Zuerlein? Sometimes all your team needs is a good name change. Here are some timely suggestions, particularly for you owners who are clinging to “Real Men of Genius.” It’s not 2007 anymore. Get trendy, you humps!

The Low-Information Voters

The Ghosts of Pittsburgh’s Offense Line

Americans for Pussy Riot

The Children of Cromartie

Jay Feely, You Suck

The Yankees without Jeter

Binders Full of Women

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Washington at New York Giants.

A week ago I would have picked the Ravens-Texans game for this slot, but then half of the Ravens’ defense went down with injuries and the Texans got exposed by the Packers as a team that will get drawn-and-quartered by the NFC come Super Bowl time. The Baltimore-Houston matchup is unique in that it features the only two AFC teams with winning records - but that doesn’t make it more interesting than RGIII’s first trip to MetLife Stadium. 

Will he rush for 200 yards? Throw a touchdown pass and create a new meme? 

In this week’s segment of Giants-defensive-lineman-who-runs-his-mouth, Jason Pierre-Paul said RGIII better not run at him.

“Don’t bring it to my side,” Pierre-Paul said. “Go the other way.” 

OK. And what if he does go the other way? What say you then, JPP?

“Trust me, we chase quarterbacks all time. We turn and run to the ball, no matter what. He may get past us and zoom right past us, but trust me we’re right behind him. You’ve got to respect that, too. It’s not all about the speed. We’ve got guys, all 11 guys that can run to the ball very quick.

“You’d be surprised. Very surprised.”

I love surprises! When do we get to watch this thing called football? I can’t wait!

It should be noted that the Giants have the third-best offense in the NFL, and that Eli Manning and his squadron of salsa dancers sashayed all over San Francisco last week. The Redskins’ 27th-ranked defense is nowhere near as good as the Niners defense, and it’s a safe bet that DeAngelo Hall will be featured prominently in the postgame highlights. 

(Other games receiving votes: Cardinals at Vikings; Ravens at Texans; Pittsburgh at Cincinnati; Detroit at Chicago.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Jets at Patriots.

In years past this would have qualified as the Probable Game of the Week, but that was back when the Jets had a top-five defense and the team didn’t hitch its offensive wagon to the star of Santonio Holmes. It’s amazing how a team that hasn’t played in a Super Bowl since 1969 – back before the moon landing was staged by Stanley Kubrick – can generate the amount of press that the New York football Jets do. 

When Rex Ryan arrived on the scene, I loved his confidence and bombast, if only because it pissed off fans of the Giants and Patriots, two fan bases that pride themselves on the class and dignity that supposedly waft off their teams like some high-priced cologne. Not all their fans are like this, of course. Just the ones with tongues.

Jets fans get a lot of grief, most of it deserved, but at least they have enough self-awareness to know they’re heathens. Not all of them, of course. Just the one I’m friends with. 

So, what can we make of this game? Well, the Patriots and Jets are both 3-3, but New England’s three losses have been by a combined four points, while the Jets have lost by a combined 57 points, including a humiliating 34-0 loss to the Niners. The Patriots are ranked No. 1 in total offense, but their defense is ranked 22nd, raising the possibility that Mark Sanchez might look like an acceptable quarterback in this game. He’s not. And neither is Tim Tebow. But Tebow is at least interesting to watch (“Which team will he throw it to this time?”), while Sanchez’s main attribute is that he’s better than Tebow. 

This is one of only two games taking place at 4:25 p.m. EDT. The other is the Jacksonville-Oakland game, which will be watched closely by degenerate gamblers. It’s always hard to predict the outcome of intra-divisional rivalry games like this, but I’m not afraid: Pats 52, Jets 0.

(Other games receiving votes: Dallas at Carolina; Packers at Rams; New Orleans at Tampa Bay.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Tennessee at Buffalo

I missed seeing the Music City Miracle in 1999 because I was waiting in a bathroom line at a bar in Vermont, desperately trying to hold my water while some lollygagger took his sweet old time in the bar’s only latrine. The screams of bar patrons – “Go, go, go, go!!! – let me know that something momentous was going on in the game, but unfortunately their exhortations did nothing to speed up the bowel movement of the guy hogging the head. 

The Music City Miracle was Buffalo’s last postseason appearance, which is both sad and distinguished. I mean, does your team’s last playoff appearance have its own catchy name? Well, it does if you’re a Buffalo Bills fan.

(Other games receiving votes: Browns at Colts.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Jacksonville at Oakland.

Since this is one of only two afternoon contests (Jets-New England is the other), Jacksonville and Oakland players will only have a choice of two games to watch. Sorry, Jaguars and Raiders players, you get stuck with the same options as everyone else.

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Before we get to this week’s impressive schedule of games – and tell you which games will Probably be worth watching, which games will be of Questionable worth, which games will be of Doubtful worth, and which game will be played for the soul of Ohio – let’s discuss the matter of Thursday night games.

Earlier in the season I suggested the league’s introduction of season-long Thursday night games should be the prelude to playing games seven days a week. Apparently commissioner Goodell has been too busy arbitrarily adjusting his Bountygate suspensions, because I haven’t received a response to my Western Union missive.

At the beginning of the year, it was difficult to rate the Thursday night matchups because a) we had no idea how teams like the Browns would play, and b) we didn’t want to jump the gun and prematurely declare that the Browns would once again disappoint. But with five weeks of the season in the bank, we can reasonably come to some well-informed conclusions about every NFL team and whether we want to spend our Thursday nights watching them play. 

Using our patented template of Probable, Questionable, Doubtful, and Out, let’s slot the remaining nine Thursday night games into their respective notches.

PROBABLE THURSDAY NIGHT GAME OF THE YEAR: Seattle at San Francisco on Oct. 18.

Ripped from the next day’s headlines! – “EAST COAST SLEEPS AS WEST COAST WATCHES END OF 2-2 TIE.”

(Other games receiving votes: Saints at Falcons on Nov. 29; Bengals at Eagles on Dec. 13.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTIONABLE THURSDAY NIGHT GAME OF THE YEAR: Steelers at Titans on *checks calendar* last night.

Ripped from the next day’s headlines! – “HASSELBECK LEADS TEAM IN PASSING, RUSHING, RECEIVING; TITANS FALL.”

(Other game receiving votes: Dolphins at Bills on Nov. 15.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOUBTFUL THURSDAY NIGHT GAME OF THE YEAR: Buccaneers at Vikings on Oct. 25. 

Ripped from the next day’s headlines! – “BUCS DIVE INTO VIKES PREGAME WARMUPS, GAME CANCELED.”

(Other game receiving votes: Colts at Jaguars on Nov. 8.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUT THURSDAY NIGHT GAME OF THE YEAR: Chiefs at Chargers on Nov. 1.

Ripped from the next day’s headlines! – “BOLTS’ GM: FANS NOT CHEERING RIVERS INJURY, CHEERING ADVENT OF CHARLIE WHITEHURST ERA.”

(Other game receiving votes: Broncos at Raiders on Dec. 6.)

THAT PAPA JOHN’S COMMERCIAL WITH PEYTON MANNING

I think I speak for everyone when I say that Papa John’s commercial with Peyton Manning seems to promote teen pregnancy. I’m surprised Peyton’s agent didn’t look at the script and say, “Wait, you’re going to have John, the 50-year-old founder of the company, say welcome back, Peyton? And then you want Peyton, who’s about 15 years younger than John, to reply, ‘Thanks, Papa’? Did anyone do the math on this?”

THE QUESTIONS TONY ROMO DIDN’T ANSWER

Something went awry during Wednesday’s conference call between Tony Romo and members of the Baltimore sporting press. Romo claims there were technical difficulties, but writers claim he became annoyed by their questions and hung up. Whatever happened, writers were unable to ask some potentially insightful queries, so they asked if they could share their questions here, in the hopes that Romo will respond thoughtfully and at length.

1. “Tony, what the f*ck were you looking at in that Chicago game?”

2. “Five interceptions in one game: Is that your ceiling, or can you go higher?”

3. “Eric Johnson reportedly had sex with his ex-wife while dating Jessica Simpson. Cheating? Or just good looking out?”

THE WEEKLY BEST

Here ye for the Weekly Best, where we horse-collar the best in the NFL. 

Best pick-six: Ryan Kerrigan.

Best 10-yard touchdown reception: Percy Harvin.

Best way to say you’re unneeded: Brian Cushing says Texans will still win Super Bowl without him.

Best show of balance: The Niners were first team with over 300 yards passing and rushing in same game.

Best confidence boost for sports writers: “Sports writing is fairly formulaic, and I thought that I could automate what sports writers do,” says the head of an organization that produces automated fantasy-football summaries.

Best unofficial NCAA mascot: Dartmouth’s Keggy the Keg.

Best grab your popcorn: If the Jets take Terrell Owens up on his offer.

Best touchdown streak in NFL history: 48 straight games for Drew Brees.

Best Alex Karras film role: Mongo, who set the standard by which all horses should be punched.

Best opportunity to break a major record: Reggie Wayne is on pace to break Jerry Rice’s single-season yardage record (1,848 yards).

Best comparison to Cam Newton at this stage of his career: Vince Young in 2007, says Don Banks of Sports Illustrated.

Best indication that the NFL only cares about half of its players: There is no rule against blocking an opposing player in the knee from behind.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Giants at 49ers.

Be sure to follow the game on Twitter: #KyleWilliamsFumbleCount

Revenge is no doubt on the mind of former Giant Brandon Jacobs, who couldn’t reach a contract agreement with his old team and signed with San Francisco in the offseason. Jacobs suffered a knee injury in the preseason, and has yet to play this year. But he said he’s all better now and wants to be active for this game. The Niners are 4-1 without him, and their running game looks just fine with Frank Gore and Kendall Hunter.

Odds Jacobs scores a touchdown in this game: 100:1

Odds a fan catches a helmet thrown by Jacobs: 2:1.

A storyline to follow: Will Carlos Rogers of the Niners intercept a pass and then mock Victor Cruz by dancing the salsa?!?!

The NFL is definitely predicated on entertainment, but watching any man – be it Cruz, Rogers, Fred Astaire, Buffalo Bill from “Silence of the Lambs” – dance provocatively in front of an audience that is overwhelming male is something that will not sit well with Brandon Spikes.

(Other games receiving votes: Lions at Eagles; Cowboys at Ravens; Packers at Texans.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Patriots at Seahawks.

It was only two short years ago when the NFC West sent a 7-9 Seattle team to the playoffs, giving apoplexy to many NFL observers. Thankfully Seattle silenced many of these critics by beating the reigning Super Bowl champion Saints in the postseason. 

Flash forward two years and the NFC West is considered one of the premier divisions in football, with stout defenses from top to bottom. If the Seahawks can keep the high-scoring New England offense in check, they’ll look like legitimate contenders. And if the Patriots can keep Russell Wilson from looking like an NFL quarterback, they’ll be like everyone else the Seahawks have played this year. 

We wonder if Bill Simmons of Grantland remains a believer in the rookie Wilson, whom he tabbed as the best signal-caller in the league entering this season. If the 3-2 Seahawks (2-3 if you live in Green Bay) are going to fulfill Simmons’ prediction and reach the Super Bowl, they should be able to beat a team led by Tom Brady, whom Simmons ranked fifth among quarterbacks, behind Alex Smith, Joe Flacco, Aaron Rodgers and Wilson.

Odds Wilson wins the Super Bowl MVP: *Snorts fairy dust* Pretty good, man, pretty good.

Odds Matt Flynn is the starting QB of the Seahawks in a few weeks: 2:1.

(Other games receiving votes: Colts at Jets; Rams at Dolphins; Vikings at Redskins; Broncos at Chargers.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Kansas City at Tampa Bay.

Last week some diehard Chiefs fans rented a plane for approximately $700 to fly a sign over Arrowhead Stadium that read, “WE DESERVE BETTER! FIRE PIOLI -- BENCH CASSEL.” 

This is a time-honored tradition in Kansas City, where fans won’t tolerate losing. Some plane banners from years past:

“BUY ME THE GUN, I WILL SHOOT LIN ELLIOTT.”

“MARTY BALL: KILLING PEOPLE SINCE 1989.”

“RAIDERS FANS CAN’T SPELLE.”

(Other games receiving votes: Raiders at Falcons; Bills at Cardinals.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Bengals at Browns.

Well, that’s the last time I pick the Browns to go on the road to beat a defending Super Bowl champion. 

Cleveland has definitely shown flashes of promise this season, and it's definitely among the best two teams in Ohio. Other than that, I can’t say many positive things about this franchise, its name, or its color scheme. 

Perhaps the strangest development coming out of last week’s loss to the Giants is that a Browns fan was arrested for allegedly stabbing his father following an afternoon at Buffalo Wild Wings. Had the father asked the bartender to hit the Buffalo Wild Wings button, prolonging the Browns game? That might explain why his son turned violent.  

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Before we get to this week’s slate of games – and tell you which games will Probably be worth watching, which games will be of Doubtful worth, which games will be of Questionable worth, and which game will be of interest to Brandon Weeden fantasy owners – let’s talk about the relative stability of wide receiver records. 

Last year Drew Brees and Tom Brady surpassed Dan Marino’s long-standing mark for passing yards in a season and Matthew Stafford fell short by 46 yards. They were among 10 quarterbacks who eclipsed 4,000 yards through the air, a number that’s reflective of an era in which all the rules seem to favor the offense, and defensive players are made to feel shame and insecurity at the lives they have chosen.

It’s not surprising that passing totals have taken off. What’s surprising, however, is that certain receiving records remained unchallenged. Sure, Rob Gronkowski and Jimmy Graham set records for the most yards receiving by tight ends last year. But no one approached the receiving yardage records for a single season or a single game. Apparently quarterbacks have too many options, so no one’s hogging the ball. 

The single-season record for receiving yards is held by Jerry Rice (1,848), set in 1995. The single-game record is held by – you guessed it - Flipper Anderson, who put together 336 yards in an overtime game in 1989. His quarterback that day was the irrepressible Chris Jim Everett.  

I love that Flipper Anderson holds this record. It’s the kind of random factoid that usually happens in baseball. Well, screw you baseball, this charming bit of marginalia belongs to the NFL. But can we expect it to survive this era of unparalleled passing? Well, only two receivers had more than 200 yards receiving in a game last year – Wes Welker, 217 yards; and Calvin Johnson, twice, 214 yards and 244 yards. 

So in his best game, Johnson was still 92 yards shy of tying Anderson. That’s a little less than an average game TOTAL for Megatron, who led the NFL with 1,681 yards last season. Will he or someone else ever break Flipper’s long-standing record? Let’s look at some of the candidates.

Calvin Johnson: Megatron would seem to be the proverbial favorite to break this record. Not only has he amassed several 200-plus yard games in his career, but he is Matthew Stafford’s favorite wooby.

Odds he breaks the record: The same as him breaking something else because he’s on the cover of Madden 13. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Gronkowski: A tight end that catches more than 336 yards in a game? The only way that’s happening is if the Patriots are facing the Bills. (*Checks schedule*). Nov. 11 at home!

Odds he breaks the record: Pretty good. After watching the Patriots score 48 points on Buffalo in one half last week, I think he might be able to set the record in two quarters. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Hartline: Last week Hartline amassed 253 yards receiving against the Cardinals, a total made all the more remarkable by the fact that Hartline is a white wide receiver for the Dolphins.

Odds he breaks the record: The same as Dan Marino winning a Super Bowl.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kenny Britt: Britt had a 225-yard game against the Eagles in 2010, the type of breakout performance that prompted fantasy owners to invest their hopes in him over the last two seasons. In his career Britt has surpassed 100 yards receiving games six times – just two fewer times than he’s been arrested since entering the league in 2009. 

Odds he breaks the record: The same as him becoming a driver’s education instructor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Backup quarterback ratings

From time to time we’ll look at the top backup quarterbacks in the league. We arrive at these rankings using a complex algorithm that accounts for many things, including the won-loss record of the starter, the potential of the backup quarterback, and the possibility that sports columnists will talk out of their ass when discussing the intangibles of the backup quarterback.

1.Tim Tebow. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are three kinds of NFL fans: 1) Those who love Tim Tebow, 2) Those who hate Tim Tebow, and 3) Those who love watching people hate Tim Tebow. I am in the last group. 

Anyone with two working eyes knows that Tebow is incompetent at quarterback, and that last year’s playoff win against the Steelers – in which Tebow was a pedestrian 10-of-21 and threw the pass of his life to Demaryius Thomas in overtime – was an anomaly. Yes, the Broncos had been pulling wins out of their wazoo in amazing ways all season, but even the wine at Cana had to run out at some point – which it did the following week, when the Broncos got waxed by the Patriots 44-10.

That was more in line with what you’d expect with Tebow - under center. So don’t put him under center. Put him in the wildcat. Put him at tight end. Put him at running back. Put him somewhere where he touches the ball on every other play. Hell, put him at center so he touches the ball on every play. Just keep him on the field, as a constant threat to maybe throw the ball.  

God willing he’ll somehow lead the Jets to a victory over the Texans this week. Will that mean he’s a good QB? Hell no, he sucks, and any sentient creature with a kindergarten education knows that. But he drives certain people batshit crazy, and watching that is good, clean fun.

2. Tebow, Tim. 

3. Tim to the Tebow. Why does he occupy the top three spots? I don’t know, why is there a Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Some things are just self-explanatory. 

4. Matt Flynn. Russell Wilson’s Hail Mary pass to Golden Tate temporarily masked the fact that Russell Wilson is having some difficulty grasping this NFL quarterbacking thing. The Seahawks’ offense is Marshawn Lynch running the ball, Leon Washington returning kicks, and the Seattle defense creating turnovers that Lynch can turn into touchdowns. 

Wilson is averaging a league-low 148 yards per game passing, and has thrown just one pass of more than 40 yards on the season. Yes, he’s completing a respectable percentage of passes (60 percent), but the only person who thinks his 5.9 yards per attempt is respectable is Blaine Gabbert, and that’s because Gabbert (5.8) is the only quarterback with a lower YPA average. 

Put in Matt Flynn. He might be the difference between a truly great Seattle team (think their 7-9 division winners from 2010) and a merely pedestrian incarnation.

5. Brady Quinn. Kansas City is last in the NFL in turnover margin, quite a ways behind the next nearest team (Dallas, -7). Some of this can be blamed on Matt Cassel, who has thrown seven interceptions and lost three fumbles through four games. And some of this can be blamed on Jamaal Charles, who coughed up the ball twice last week against San Diego. None of this can be blamed on Brady Quinn, who has yet to take a snap for the 1-3 Chiefs this season. 

What a waste. You don’t bring in a former Browns quarterback and let them pickle away on the bench. You need to recognize that the same skill this guy exhibited in Cleveland - running for his life behind a crappy offensive line – is perfectly suited to the situation in Kansas City.

The Weekly Best

Welcome to the Weekly Best, where we gang tackle the best in football.

Best 0-4 in the NFC: The Saints.

Best 0-4 in the AFC: The Browns.

Best offensive rookie in September: RGIII of the Redskins.

Best defensive rookie in September: Chandler Jones of the Patriots.

Best check with Officer Barbrady: Roger Goodell says it’s okay for Sean Payton to attend the Saints-Chargers game as Drew Brees attempts to break Johnny Unitas’s record of throwing touchdown passes in 47 consecutive games.

Best division in football: Can it really be the NFC West?

Best division in football: Some will say it’s still the NFC East.

Best division in football: No one will say it’s the AFC South. 

Best turnover margin in the NFL: Belongs to the 4-0 Falcons (+10).

Best vote of confidence: Panthers coach Ron Rivera opted to punt on fourth-and-1 against the Falcons instead of trying to finish off Atlanta with a short run. 

Best vision: Is hindsight. The Falcons drove down the field for the game-winning field goal.

Best deep threat in NFL history: And Randy Moss is just along for the ride in San Francisco. 

Best football series on television: The NFL Network’s “A Football Life” has become destination viewing.

Best excuses for losing have evaporated: Now that the Steelers have Polamalu, Harrison and Mendenhall back. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Broncos at Patriots.

Thankfully this game is scheduled for the late afternoon, which promises a seamless transition from one game of promise – Eagles at Steelers – to this contest. Obviously there’s no guarantee that either of these games will be great, but on paper they would appear to be interesting and exciting, and that’s all you can ask for. If this game doesn’t live up to its billing, you’ll have these matchups to choose from in the late games: Seattle at Carolina; Chicago at Jacksonville; Tennessee at Minnesota; and Buffalo at San Francisco. Your Pro Bowl starting quarterbacks will not be seen in these games. 

The next time Tom Brady tackles Peyton Manning will be the first time. Hey, did you know that Brady and Manning are never on the field at the same time? It’s true! Know what else is true? No one is watching this game to see how Willis McGahee fares against the Patriots’ front seven. And no one is watching this game to see how Tim Tebow bounces back from last year’s playoff embarrassment to the Patriots. Which is good, because both of those storylines (Tebow’s, in particular) promise to be rather uneventful.

(Other games receiving votes: Falcons at Redskins; Steelers at Eagles.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Texans at Jets.  

The Jets are not dead. Yes, the Jets lost their best defensive player to injury (Darrelle Revis) and they also lost a well-known wide out (Santonio Holmes). But it’s not like they lost their best skill position player. I’m not overly familiar with the Jets’ roster, but coach Rex Ryan said at the start of this season that this was his best team ever, so there’s no way losing Santonio Holmes (or Mark Sanchez or Shonn Greene or anyone else drafted in my fantasy league) could be that devastating. The Jets are obviously a team built around non-fantasy contributors. 

Let’s be honest, the Texans have very attractive uniforms. Even when David Carr was running for his life in the early years of the organization, you couldn’t help but think that he was able to absorb some of that punishment because he was wearing an enviable color scheme. If he’d been wearing something else – say, the creamsicle colors of the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers – he probably would have been killed in the first half of his first game. But Carr is still in the league 10 years later, serving as the Giants’ backup quarterback. During mop-up duty against the Panthers two weeks ago, Carr was 1-of-2 for 4 yards. He also fumbled once and (for old time’s sake) took one sack.

Cowboys are now the second-best team in Texas. With a 4-0 record, the Texans are unquestionably the premier team in the Lone Star State. If the 2-2 Cowboys have any free time – ya know, like their bye week – they should watch the Texans to see how a class outfit runs its business. 

On paper the Texans seem strong on both sides of the ball. Other than having T.J. Yates as their chief protection against a Matt Schaub injury, they have no weaknesses. And we all know Schaub is impregnable, so we might as well hand the Lombardi Trophy to the Texans right now. 

(Other games receiving votes: Dolphins at Bengals; Bills at Niners; Titans at Vikings; Chargers at Saints.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Packers at Colts.

Can the referees once again make a terrible call that goes against the Packers? The odds say no; but my heart says, “Please?” 

No one likes it when calls go against their team. But the Packers are not my team, so it’d be interesting to see if Twitter can handle the traffic - #packersfanbitching – that would accompany another officiating snafu.

(Other games receiving votes: Ravens at Chiefs; Seahawks at Panthers; Bears at Jaguars.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Browns at Giants.

I don’t like putting the Browns in this slot for the fourth week in a row, but I’m superstitious by nature, so they’ll remain here until they win their first game. Like you, I expect it to come this week. 

The Giants have a habit of playing to the level of their competition. (Remember their loss at home to the Seahawks last year? If you had them in your survivor pool, you sure as heck do.) Cleveland, while winless on the season, has played respectably in defeat. The Browns have lost their four games by a combined total of 25 points. Quarterback Brandon Weeden looked less than horrible versus the Ravens last week, passing for 320 yards. Is he the second coming of Derek Anderson, the legendary Browns quarterback who once made a Pro Bowl? Probably not. But Browns fans would be happy with even a faint resemblance of their 2007 quarterback. 

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Before we get to this week’s slate of games - and tell you which games will Probably be worth watching, which games will be of Questionable worth, which games will be of Doubtful worth, and which game will feature stripper pants - let’s pour some out for the departing zebras.

As someone who’s an armchair arbiter at heart, I lived vicariously through these replacement refs, confident in knowing that they possessed the same grasp of the rules as me. The two refs in the Green Bay-Seattle game who simultaneously signaled touchback and touchdown? Yeah, that was basically me, except I was using my arms to signal touchback and my legs to signal touchdown. 

But now we get the return of Ed Hochuli and his decisive, authoritative decisions. How can you expect me to relate to Ed? You know, beyond my propensity to wear tight shirts to show off my massive man boobs guns?

I won’t be the only one who’ll be missing the replacement refs. In fact, the following people will probably miss them more.

1. The Green Bay Packers’ offensive line. What a coincidence that Packers lineman T.J. Yang was shouting the loudest after the team’s controversial loss to Seattle. He probably thought it would help distract people from the fact that the Packers’ offensive line – ya know, the one on the cover of the ESPN the Magazine football preview – allowed eight sacks in the first half. In advance of this week’s game Aaron Rodgers insisted that the team install these upfront.

2. Chris Johnson. In three games CJ2K has rushed for 45 yards total and is averaging 1.4 yards per carry. Ask him to grab you a beer from the fridge and he’ll be back in a week.  

3. Mark Sanchez. Thanks to the referee conundrum and the injury to Darrelle Revis, the siren calls to replace Sanchez have been somewhat muted. But the Jets barely beat the Dolphins and now they face the Niners. A loss to San Fran will have Greg McElroy fanatics hitting the streets to proselytize. 

4. Saints interim coach Aaron Kromer. Does anyone outside New Orleans even know what this guy looks like? If the Saints remain winless, they probably will. 

5. Internet tough guys who wanted to turn this situation into a debate about unions versus non-unions. You can now go back to trolling the Yahoo! message boards beneath Romney and Obama stories, your work is done here. 

6. Dirty players. Joe Mays of the Broncos separated Matt Schaub from his helmet and tore off part of his ear last week, the kind of dirty hit that would have been a top NFL story during most weeks. Mays was suspended for one game and fined $50,000, but the ultra-sanctimonious contingent of NFL fans hardly noticed; they were too busy claiming they wouldn’t watch the NFL again until regular referees returned to action. Those sanctimonious types will now retrain their eyes on the James Harrisons of the league.

7. Apple. How damn easy is it to scratch the new iPhone? Oh, yeah, you’re gonna hear it now, Apple.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONFUSION IN NEW ORLEANS AND CLEVELAND

Last year it was abundantly clear whom teams were sucking for. They were sucking for Luck. The Colts were the most committed to this slogan, and they secured the No. 1 pick and the right to draft Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck. 

But it’s obvious through three games that winless teams like the Saints and Browns are unclear of whom they’re sucking for. After all, who is the surefire No. 1 pick next season? Quarterback Matt Barkley of USC? Linebacker Barkevious Mingo of LSU? Linebacker Jarvis Jones of Georgia? Barkley, Mingo, Jones: none of those names rhyme with suck. Confusing times in New Orleans and Cleveland.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weekly Best

Welcome to the Weekly Best, where we gang tackle the best in football. 

Best believe the honeymoon’s over: Cam Newton.

Best defense against a Hail Mary: Knock it down?

Best defensive player in the NFL: And Darrell Revis is out for the season.

Best wide receiver in the NFL: And Calvin Johnson is on pace for a record 1,968 receiving yards.

Best reaction to hearing about the end of the referee lockout: “I dropped down on the floor and started doing pushups,” said Ed Hochuli.

Best term you need to learn, Michael Vick: Ball security.

Best third-place team: Patriots.

Best place to find the replacement referees this weekend: Foot Locker.

Best way to distract yourself from the sudden death of a loved one: Play your heart out like Torrey Smith. 

Best quarterbacks in the NFL: And for the first time Rodgers, Brady, Big Ben, Brees, and Peyton all lost in the same week.  

Best offense in football: Apparently belongs to the Kansas City Chiefs.

Best defense in football: Apparently belongs to the Dallas Cowboys.

Best story written by a replacement writer: This one about the Jets in the Wall Street Journal.

Best team in the NFL: The Texans (for now).

Best stock up: A global bacon shortage is unavoidable.

Best watch your back (and your knees) the next time you face the Jets: Reggie Bush.

Best indication that some people in northern Wisconsin are underemployed: A group of Packers fans spent Tuesday at Lambeau Field protesting Monday night’s controversial game.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Giants at Eagles.

Can we please ramp up this feud between Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora and Eagles running back LeSean McCoy? These two have been sniping at each other for several years. Last year McCoy went on Twitter (the contemporary answer to entering the Thunderdome) and called Umenyiora soft, overrated and the third-best defensive end on the Giants. Umenyiora responded by referring to McCoy as “she” and “Lady Gaga,” and later wished McCoy a “Happy Mother’s Day” on the prescribed day. 

McCoy most recently referred to Umenyiora as a “ballerina in a Giants uniform,” and Umenyiora responded by saying, “I might be a ballerina in a Giants uniform,” and then followed up with attempted comebacks that were undermined by his inability to grasp the first rule of “Yo, Mama”: Never admit you’re a ballerina.

One of the great things about football is that a war of words between opposing players can be settled in the most American way possible: With violence. Will one of these two just please get on with it and knock the other one senseless? We’re Americans, we can handle it.

(Other games receiving votes: Niners at Jets; Seahawks at Rams; Patriots at Bills; Bears at Cowboys.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Saints at Packers

Did the Packers get jobbed at the end of last Monday’s game against the Seahawks? Yes. Will this karmic development stop Seattle fans from bitching about the officiating in Super Bowl XL? Not likely. And if the Packers lose this game at home against the Saints, you can bet that a certain segment of the Packers’ fan base will keep pointing back to the Hail Mary pass to Golden Tate as the turning point in their season – the point when the odds turned against them and the season unraveled. But the fact is the bad call was the straw that broke the camel’s back in the negotiations between the NFL and the referees. Fans went ballistic, especially the ones who lost money on the game. 

The Packers needed to take one for the team, as it were. For that we owe the team and their fans a little something. So here’s a glass of milk and some cookies. Now off to bed with ya. 

(Other games receiving votes: Chargers at Chiefs; Vikings at Lions; Titans at Texans; Dolphins at Cardinals; Redskins at Buccaneers.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Panthers at Falcons.

The Falcons are 3-0: Against the AFC West.

The Panthers are 1-2: With Hello Kitty under center.

Advice from Steve Smith. Cam Newton says that five-time Pro Bowl wide receiver Steve Smith is like a big brother to him. So when Smith criticized Newton for sulking during last week’s blowout loss to the Giants, Newton took it to heart. Wise move, as other teammates have been known to take it to the face where Smith is concerned.

Falcons are prepared: Michael Turner and John Abraham were both arrested recently, Turner for alleged DUI and Abraham for obstruction of justice after he allegedly refused to leave a scene where a woman was threatening to jump off a building. (Hey, could have happened to anyone.) In the event another Falcon is arrested this week, the team has released the following statement: “We are aware of the news regarding  _____. We are in the process of gathering more information and we will have no further comment at this time.”

(Other game receiving votes: Raiders at Broncos.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Bengals at Jaguars.

This is a matchup between: Two teams with ugly uniforms. The Bengals have one of the sleekest, most distinct helmets in the NFL, and they muddy it up by pairing it with pants that a stripper might throw on after her routine. Even Snooki thinks those pants are tacky. Clean it up, Mike Brown. The Bengals are a revered franchise in certain pockets of Cincinnati.

A change of heart: Initially I’d slotted the Browns-Ravens game as the Out game of the week, but then I remembered that the game was being played on Thursday, so fans wouldn’t have to pick between watching that game and some other contest. Besides, the Browns-Ravens allowed us to witness the return of the NFL referees, who inexplicably did not descend into the stadium via parachute. That would have been badass and utterly appropriate, a harbinger of things to come. Namely, the inevitability that “replacement ref” will be a hot costume around Halloween. Right up there with “whiny Green Bay Packers fan.” All you need is a cheese head and a bottle of pinot. 

(I kid, I kid. Welcome back, real refs!)

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Another week, another dozen blown calls. This is the new normal in the NFL.

The NFL changed its tone this week, calling out - and even fining - players and coaches for the incompetence of their replacement refs. A league that uses improperly screened, poorly trained replacement refs and then criticizes its employees when they dare complain has a problem with hubris.

This is why the NFL Players Association should hold its players out. A mid-season strike would be just the thing to fix the outsized ego of the league. Thanks to American labor laws, the players have this reasonable recourse.

The NFLPA is a union, and unions, in their most basic form, have enormous bargaining power because they are cartels. A union colludes to withhold a valuable commodity - labor - from a market, in this case the NFL.

But in this instance, the league is also a cartel. The owners collude to keep another valuable good - employment - from players. The league's bargaining power is greatly enhanced because every owner has an incentive to cooperate to produce maximum revenue. The more the owners collude, the more revenue they make, so long as demand for their product is consistently high (or what economists call "inelastic").

All cartels suffer from a systemic instability because there is always an incentive for a participant to break ranks and undercut the group's broader goals. Think of OPEC, the group that controls much of the world's oil supply. All of countries in OPEC can agree to sell oil for a high price, but if one country decides to sell its oil for just a little less, it would sell a lot more oil than any other cartel members.

The larger the cartel, the harder it is to get consensus since there are many more competing interests. The NFL, with its 32 members, has many fewer participants who can break ranks on any given issue than the players union, with its hundreds of members. This simple fact works in the league's favor, and it's why it can do things like locking out the referees.

The NFLPA can win the battle by forcing the owners to break ranks on the ref issue, exploiting the fundamental instability in the organization of the league. Ed Hochuli, for all his entertainment value, doesn't produce much revenue for the league, and as such, he and his ref colleagues can't cause disagreement among the owners. Tom Brady and Ray Lewis and Calvin Johnson produce enough revenue to make the owners uncomfortable if they start to withhold their services. If stars like Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers and Matthew Stafford refuse to suit up, the owners will break ranks to get their players back to work, and the cartel power of the league will be broken.

And there's good reason the players should hold out. The ref situation constitutes what the U.S. government calls "an undue hazard to the health and safety of [an employee]." Accordingly, under the regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, the situation must be remedied to the satisfaction of a representative "selected by a trade union representing the worker." The NFLPA has the right to review the ref situation and refuse to work until it is fixed.

Indeed, the law protects unionized employees from reprisal in the event that a risk hinders their ability to work safely. The National Labor Relations Act, to which the NFL's collective bargaining agreement is subject, contains a provision regarding "abnormally dangerous conditions" and makes it clear that workers are under no obligation to work if their employers aren't competent enough to fix these dangers.

The sort of extracurricular hits, excessive jawing, risky tackles, and chippy play we've seen over the last three weeks certainly constitutes an abnormally dangerous condition and an undue hazard for these players who have already agreed to take risks on behalf of their employers. The referees in the NFL serve the same function as safety officers in factories and coal mines who ensure that everybody adheres to the same well-constructed rules. Those rules are put in place to protect workers and employers alike.

But under the NFL's CBA, players have even more incentive to strike. In the event that a ref blows a call that results in a serious injury - God forbid - the players aren't allowed to sue for negligence. They've agreed to play the game under the conditions the league sets forth. The owners bear little to no risk in this regard. Fortunately for the players, U.S. labor law is on their side.

Economics is on their side too. In the NFL, the total value of the league - revenue, entertainment, popularity, and so on - gets divided among a diverse set of interests - the owners, the players, the refs, the fans, the networks, and so on. Each side jockeys to get a larger share of that pie, but if any one side holds out, everyone else loses some of their value.

In the NFL, the refs represent too small a group to damage the league's piece of the pie too substantially. The fans are too legion to organize a boycott. The coaches and networks have never shown an ability to agree on anything. This leaves the players - a group large enough to do real damage to the bottom line and small enough to actually get a consensus.

And holding out may be the only thing to undermine the hubris of the NFL and break the owners' silence on the ref situation. It's unfortunate that the NFL, for all its safety-conscious rhetoric, would ignore some basic tenets of occupational safety law. But the law is on the side of the players, and it now falls to the players to leverage the law for their own safety.

The new normal can't be allowed to continue.

Daniel Hanson is an economics researcher at the American Enterprise Institute.

Welcome to the Pregame Flyover, your weekly buffet of all things NFL-related. Gossip? Injury updates? Unfounded opinions? Yes, you will get all of that and more. If you don’t like what you read from me, take heart: The regular columnist is locked out, but she’ll be back once RealClearSports stops trying to steal her pension. According to RealClearWorld, that could be any day now.

Now before we get to this week’s slate of games - and tell you which games will Probably be worth watching, which games will be of Questionable worth, which games will be of Doubtful worth, and which game will feature the Browns - let’s look at the six remaining unbeaten teams and assess their odds of ending the season with a perfect record.

Undefeated Team: Niners.

So far: The Niners have handily beaten the Packers on the road and the Lions at home, and these victories have catapulted San Francisco to the top of every power ranking in the English-speaking world. When your offense can move the ball with ease against the vaunted defenses of Green Bay and Detroit, lemmings will align themselves to sing your praises. 

Why that undefeated record looks suspect: Alex Smith has the second-highest passer rating in the NFL, which seems impossible until you remember he’s faced the Packers and the Lions. 

Odds they go undefeated: The same as Randy Moss winning the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award.

------------------------------------------

Undefeated Team: Cardinals.

So far: The Cardinals almost lost in Week 1 when the replacement refs gave the Seahawks an extra timeout in the fourth quarter, and they almost lost in Week 2 when Bill Belichick inexplicably decided to down the ball three times to set up a game-winning field goal attempt – which Stephen Gostkowski shanked, warming the joyous hearts of the smug contrarians who didn’t take the Patriots in their survivor pools. 

Why that undefeated record looks suspect: It doesn’t. The Cardinals are obviously among the best teams in the NFC West. 

Odds they go undefeated: The same as you wearing a William Gay jersey to a Mitt Romney fundraiser.

------------------------------------------

Undefeated Team: Texans.

So far: The Texans have bottled up the likes of Ryan Tannehill and Blaine Gabbert, proof they can contain quarterbacks from Florida. 

Why that undefeated record looks suspect: They’ve beaten the Jaguars and the Dolphins, who’ve collectively beaten the Raiders. 

Odds they go undefeated: The same as an expansion team naming themselves the Los Angeles Californians. 

------------------------------------------

Undefeated Team: Eagles.

So far: They’ve beaten the Browns, who are universally considered terrible, and the Ravens, who are universally considered a bunch of whiners. (Relax, Steelers fans; back in your cages, Back!)

Why that undefeated record looks suspect: The Eagles are a classic case of a team that plays to the level of their competition. With their level of talent on both sides of the ball, it’s not surprising the Eagles are 2-0; but it is surprising that they won these games by a combined total of two points.

Odds they go undefeated: The same as Michael Vick sharing the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award with Randy Moss.

------------------------------------------

Undefeated Team: Falcons.

So far: They’ve pasted the Chiefs 40-24 on the road, and held off the Broncos 27-21 at home. Atlanta is looking brilliant for its decision to trade up and take Julio Jones in last year’s draft. With Jones, Roddy White, and Tony Gonzalez, quarterback Matt Ryan has a plethora of offensive weapons. Their only offensive weakness is at running back, where Michael Turner’s inability to call a freaking cab could lead to a suspension for his DUI arrest. 

Why that undefeated record looks suspect: It doesn’t. The Falcons were supposed to be one of the best teams in football, so they should be congratulated for meeting expectations through the season’s first fortnight. 

Chances they go undefeated: Not good. The Falcons still have to face the Chargers, Cardinals and Eagles, three undefeated teams who share the same dream of shoving it down the throats of Mercury Morris and the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

------------------------------------------

Undefeated Team: Chargers.

So far: They’ve been the quietest team to go 2-0, beating the Raiders in the Monday Night late game that was watched by six people east of Carson City (Source: Nielsen Ratings); and beating the Titans 38-10 in Week 2, a game that will be remembered fondly by the families of Dante Rosario and Jackie Battle. 

Why that undefeated record looks suspect: We all knew Dante Rosario was the best tight end in football, but can we really expect him to score three touchdowns per week? What ... he only plays when Antonio Gates is hurt? OK, then maybe we can. 

Chances they go undefeated: The same as Norv Turner being named NFL Coach of the Year.

Backup Quarterback Rankings 

From time to time we’ll look at the top three backup quarterbacks in the league. We arrive at these rankings using a complex algorithm that accounts for many things, including the won-loss record of the starter, the potential of the backup quarterback, and the possibility that sports columnists will talk out of their ass when discussing the intangibles of the backup quarterback.

1. Tim Tebow. If the Jets’ offense struggles again this week and the team loses to the Dolphins and rookie quarterback Ryan Tannehill, you can bet that Tebow will still be third-best quarterback on the Jets (hey, Greg McElroy) and yet be tabbed as the savior of a team that considers Santonio Holmes a No. 1 wideout. 

2. Brock Osweiler. Coming off four neck surgeries, the arm strength of 36-year-old Peyton Manning is a little questionable, especially on deep throws. At the end of Monday’s loss to the Falcons, Manning’s backup was warming up in the event that the team needed to throw a Hail Mary. Too bad his backup wasn’t the departed Tim Tebow, because the odds of completing a Hail Mary would have gone up precipitously. 

3. Ryan Mallett. Matt Cassel will tell you: The backup to Tom Brady is only one play away from being the overpaid starting quarterback of some championship-starved team next season. 

Weekly Best

Welcome to the Weekly Best, where we tackle the best in football. 

Best running back in football: Is obviously C.J. Spiller.

Best new drinking game: Drink when someone bitches about the replacement referees.

Best term for the people who threatened to kill Josh Morgan for his gaffe at the end of the Redskins’ loss to the Rams: Redskins fans.

Best winless team in the NFC: The Saints.

Best reason for that: They’re the only winless team in the NFC.

Best football team in Ohio: The Bengals (until their next momentous clash against the Browns).

Best look in the mirror: Chris Johnson.

Best guess: Jay Cutler ends his career as an Oakland Raider.

Best use of a franchise tag: The Patriots slapped it on Wes Welker, who didn’t even start last week.

Best suggestion about kneel-downs: Eliminate them completely, says Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

Best question about RGIII: Why doesn’t he wear No. 3 instead of No. 10, asks Dave Dameshek of NFL.com.

Best indication that the replacement refs are doing a shoddy job: Cortland Finnegan says they’re doing a great job.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Patriots at Ravens.

Why couldn’t the Bucs have bum-rushed a Patriots kneel-down? Gallons of whale oil were expended this week about the Buccaneers’ decision to storm the Giants’ victory formation like Walmart shoppers on Black Friday. For every commentator who derided the Bucs as classless, there was another who lauded them as go-getters. Bucs head coach Greg Schiano would not apologize for his win-at-all-costs approach, which makes it all the more regrettable that his team wasn’t facing the Patriots. If the Bucs had bum-rushed Tom Brady, what would have been the reaction from New England coach Bill Belichick? After all, he’s basically written the modern NFL handbook on winning at all costs. I suspect the postgame handshake between head coaches might have been a postgame high-five for the first time in league history.

(Other games receiving votes: Giants at Panthers; Falcons at Chargers, Eagles at Cardinals, Texans at Broncos.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Packers at Seahawks.

Thanks a lot, Russell Wilson. This was supposed to be Matt Flynn’s opportunity to show Green Bay that they made the wrong decision in keeping Aaron Rodgers over him.

Finley's agent is now teaching a Twitter course in leadership: The agent for Green Bay tight end Jermichael Finley said Aaron Rodgers – the reigning league MVP who set a single-season record for passer rater last year – lacks leadership skills. Blake Baratz wrote on Twitter, “ARod is a great QB he isn't a great leader. There's a major difference. Leaders take the blame & make every1 better. He doesn't." Not content with one incendiary pronouncement, Baratz expounded on his thesis in a series of followups, including his conclusive message, “Fine, I’m an idiot, I admit it.” (If only.)

Over-under on number of passes Braylon Edwards will drop in this game: Two. 

And we’re taking: The over.

Matchup to watch: Seattle running back Marshawn Lynch versus the Packers’ defensive line. 

Matchup to ignore: Packers tight end Jermichael Finley versus the Seattle defense. Thanks to his mouthy agent, Finley has seen his last tight spiral from Aaron Rodgers. Oh, sure, Rodgers will still throw him the ball, but the passes will be lovelorn and sad.  

(Other games receiving votes: Buccaneers at Cowboys, Bengals at Redskins, Rams at Bears, Niners at Vikings, Lions at Titans)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Jets at Dolphins.

Can’t we just move the Dolphins to the AFC South already? No doubt this game’s introductory highlights will include that clip of Dan Marino faking a spike and throwing a touchdown pass against the Jets back in 1994. This is one of those heated rivalries that is quaint to outside observers. The Dolphins have been terrible to mediocre for the better part of two decades, while the Jets have been terrible to mediocre for the better part of their existence. The most memorable thing to happen in this rivalry in recent years is when Jets assistant Sal Alosi tripped a Dolphins player during a kick return in 2010. Did Alosi do that because he hates the Dolphins? No, he did that because he’s an idiot.

Fans of these teams are obviously better acquainted with some of the more memorable moments in this rivalry, but these events are long forgotten by the masses. The league would be better served by moving the Dolphins to the AFC South, where they can build a geographical rivalry with their fellow Floridians, the Jacksonville Jaguars; while the Indianapolis Colts can be moved from the AFC South to the AFC East. What, Indianapolis isn’t in the East? Yeah, well, it ain’t in the South, either. 

Over-under on how many Dolphins wide receivers you can name: One.

And we’re taking: The under. 

Over-under on how many times Tim Tebow is mentioned by commentators: 55.

And we’re taking: The over.

Paging Stephen Hill: A certain person in a certain fantasy league wasted their waiver position on you after you nabbed five receptions for 89 yards and two touchdowns in Week 1. That certain person was left unfulfilled when you followed that up with zero receptions for zero yards and zero touchdowns in Week 2. 

(Other games receiving votes: Jaguars at Colts, Chiefs at Saints, Steelers at Raiders.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Bills at Browns.

Among rookie starting quarterbacks: Brandon Weedon is the only one without a victory.

Hey, did you hear? Bills quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick went to Harvard.

Remember when: The Browns had Jamal Lewis, Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow at the skill positions? And when legendary Browns quarterback Derek Anderson made the Pro Bowl? That was 2007, a halcyon year in Browns lore. 

Hey, let’s see what Jim Brown has to say. The Browns are one of only four teams that have never played in a Super Bowl (along with the Texans, Jaguars and Lions), and because of that the team and its fans are largely stuck in the past. The way, way past, back when the team was winning NFL titles with the likes of Jim Brown. Because the team has been unable to generate any fond memories in, oh, 50 years, Jim Brown is looked to as the unofficial spokesman of where things stand with the organization. The Jets have Joe Namath, and the Browns have Jim Brown. The Lions would have Barry Sanders, but he has the good sense to keep his mouth shut and not inject himself into the conversation. Not so with Brown, who called Trent Richardson “ordinary” after the Browns drafted him; and certainly not the case with Namath, who offers a sound bite every time Mark Sanchez overthrows a receiver.

It’s all so unnecessary. I mean, you don’t hear O.J. Simpson badmouthing the Bills every other week, do you? And he has plenty of time and ammunition to work with. By the way, have you seen this television special that lays out the case against O.J.’s son, Jason, as the actual murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman? It all makes perfect sense. Was O.J. at the crime scene? Yes, but only after his son called him and told him what he’d done, a private investigator claims. And why did O.J. flee in the Bronco? Because he knew he couldn’t bring himself to pin the blame on the actual killer, his son. Watch it when you’ve got an hour to spare – say, during the Bills/Browns game?

(Other games receiving votes: None, the Bills and Browns were unanimous.) 

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

To show how little things change, this year’s standings indicate the possibility of yet another wild finish. Specifically, eight AL teams are vying for five playoff slots, and teams in first place are pushing to win their divisions so they can avoid the new wild-card knockout game. After 17 seasons of division runner-ups settling for the wild card, September is fun again. 

But behind all the tension and hope for teams still in the race is a troubling fact. Divisional play, begun in 1969 and expanded in 1995, and the unbalanced schedule, begun in 2001, has distorted competition. That tandem has ruined a hallowed tradition, a regular season where that year’s best teams rise to the top. Instead, today’s races, like most in the divisional and post-1994 strike era, are tainted by suppressed or inflated win totals, not to mention post-season paths blocked by having to win the division.

The 2009 tiebreaker game between the Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins is famous for its drama, repeated lead changes and a walk-off finish in extra innings. It was also a game between two mediocre teams that should not have occurred. Both came into the tiebreaker at 86-76, a record the Texas Rangers eclipsed at 87-75; the latter record was achieved while playing better competition. Put plainly, the Rangers had their work nullified by geography. 

As for the Twins, their 45-27 record against a very weak AL Central led to them winning the division despite 10-22 and 19-21 marks against the AL East and West. Unlike the Rangers, geography was the Twins’ friend.

And if history repeats first as a tragedy and then as a farce, the new playoff format is worse than the old one. In 2012 the mediocre AL Central winner will again enter the playoffs, but now two division runner-ups will play a knockout game. The old system hurt one participant, now one team goes home and the winner burns its best starting pitcher heading into the Division Series. Such are the consequences of competition contingent on geography. 

This skewing of competition not only punishes deserving teams, it also handicaps other franchises. The Toronto Blue Jays once stood atop the baseball world after back-to-back championships in 1992 and 1993, the culmination of a successful run dating back to the mid-1980s. Subpar years immediately after the 1994 strike soon gave way to consistent win totals in the 80s, but no playoff appearances. 

Why? Unlike non-Al East teams the Jays play the Yankees, Red Sox, and the recent upstart Rays 54 times a year, or a third of their schedule. Playing such competition suppressed their record and the divisional system left only two playoff slots open. And even when the Jays finished second, as in 2006, their record was insufficient to attain the wild card. Yet, if Toronto ever reached October they would have as equal a shot at the crown as anyone else; something the 83 win Cardinals proved in 2006. 

If all teams are to harbor hope of reaching October then the regular season must serve its intended purpose, sorting good teams from bad. Major League Baseball has never been the NBA where sub-.500 teams can reach the dance. Gimmicks such as second wild cards and knockout games cannot ensure an equitable and meaningful regular season that culminates in a high caliber October.

But, a hybrid system can accomplish those goals. Major League Baseball should un-align. The two leagues should have no divisions and a balanced schedule along with the post-1994 playoff format where the top four teams per league qualify. This system is simple, competitive, and fair.

An unaligned system immediately achieves several outcomes. First, a team’s record has meaning. If everyone plays everyone the same amount it ensures the top records are earned by outclassing the competition instead of squashing division bottom-feeders 15 out of 18 times a year. Second, bottom-feeders would no longer have their win totals suppressed by an unbalanced schedule, and playoff paths blocked by having to win the division. To that point, the Blue Jays may have reached October under an unaligned system just two years ago when they finished five back of Texas record-wise. Third, un-alignment gives sanity to playoff seeding. Presently, the top seed can draw a No. 4 seed with a better record than the No. 3 seed since the weakest division winner is automatically seeded third. The presumptive top-seeded Rangers may not face the weakest opponent in the ALDS this year. How’s that for rewarding success? Un-alignment simplifies seeding to three words: go by record.

Un-alignment also forces decisions on long-term issues. First, Interleague Play will equalize or end. Either of those options rectifies the inequity of the current setup where even within inter-divisional matchups, teams’ schedules differ. 

This year the eastern divisions faced off yet the Yankees drew the contending Braves but not the wretched Marlins, while the Red Sox had the reverse situation. Second, the DH question is tied to rectifying or abolishing Interleague Play. Equalized, and thus yearlong, Interleague Play eliminates the traditional separation of the leagues that justifies their different rules, while total separation confines overlap to one series a year. Third, a regular season with restored integrity should end conferring home-field advantage in the World Series to the All-Star Game winner. If the regular season matters then home-field advantage throughout October is the biggest reward for pacing the Majors in wins. 

Lastly, un-alignment may stop the institutionalization of tiebreaker games in favor of breaking ties by head-to-head record. While part of baseball lore, the tiebreaker game’s place is as a rare event. It is meant to break a rare regular-season deadlock, ones that predate divisions. Indeed, five of MLB’s 13 tiebreaker games occurred before 1969. Institutionalizing the tiebreaker game, much like divisions, unnecessarily complicates a beautifully simple system. The regular season is too important to the integrity and tradition of MLB to be devalued by divisions, unbalanced schedules, and other gimmicks.

Tim Reuter writes on structural components in sports that impinge on or facilitate competition. He may be reached at tjr2118@gmail.com.

Before we get to this week’s slate of games -- and tell you which games will Probably be worth watching, which games will be of Questionable worth, which games will be of Doubtful worth, and which game will feature the Browns - let’s address the matter of Thursday night games.

So, has the novelty of these Thursday night games worn off already? It’s only week two and my liver is already suffering the ravages of this new NFL schedule. If they’re going to play games three days a week, why not just go all in and play seven days a week? 

With 32 NFL teams, the league has to play 16 games a week (please check my math). How difficult would it to set up a staggered schedule that features two games per week night (one game at 7 p.m. ET, one at 10 p.m. ET) and features three games each on Saturday and Sunday? Say, one game at 1 p.m., another at 4 p.m., and the last at 7 p.m.? This way we get to see ALL the games, and not just a select few. I can’t believe bar owners and divorce attorneys haven’t been pushing this. They need to organize their lobbies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weekly Best

Welcome to the Weekly Best, where we tackle some of the best in football. 

Best use of four timeouts: The Lions.

Best seen coming out of the woodwork: Redskins fans. 

Best of luck to Packers defensive backs: Says Jay Cutler.

Best evidence that you could be a long-snapper: Travis Goethel.

Best be sure: Wait, Antonio Gates did not get injured last week?

Best way to neutralize LeSean McCoy: Call 56-plus pass plays for Michael Vick.

Best chance to go undefeated: Between the Packers and Cardinals, it’s the Cardinals.

Best thing you can say about Ryan Fitzpatrick’s performance against the Jets: He never got sacked.

Best reason for that: He was too busy throwing incompletions and interceptions.

Probable, Questionable, Doubtful and Out

Just as the NFL puts out an injury report on the likelihood that certain players will suit up each week (Probable, Questionable, Doubtful or Out), we rate the NFL schedule on the likelihood that games will be worth watching. Because let's face it, you can't watch them all.

Probable Game of the Week: Jets at Steelers.

Before the preview: False start, Willie Colon, five-yard penalty, repeat first down. Versus the Broncos the Steelers committed five pre-snap penalties, the type of shoddy offensive line play that has been emblematic of the team throughout the Ben Roethlisberger era. Against a team like Denver, which has impressive pass-rushing bipeds in Elvis Dumervil and Von Miller, a certain level of happy feet is expected. But against the Jets? No. The Jets have no one who puts consistent pressure on the quarterback. If Roethlisberger gets sacked during this game, it’s probably because he held onto the ball too long, and we know he never does that shit.

Matchup to watch: Cameramen versus the tendency to constantly track Tim Tebow.

Other matchup to watch: Tim Tebow versus the tendency to look bored.

Have you met: The Steelers new team hobo?

If the Steelers win, it’s probably because: Their playmakers were able to get into space against LaRon Landry, who made C.J. Spiller look like Usain Bolt last week.

If the Jets win, it’s probably because: Mark Sanchez was able to avoid being sacked for the second week in a row. 

Odds that James Harrison plays in this game: 2:1.

Odds he plays next week: Off.

Odds he misses next week due to a suspension for dislodging Sanchez’s lower mandible: 1:2.

(Others games receiving votes: Ravens at Eagles; Lions at Niners; Broncos at Falcons; Bears at Packers.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionable Game of the Week: Redskins at Rams.

Before we carve a bust for RGIII in Canton, let’s try to remember one thing: He was facing the Saints, who surrendered 36 points to Alex Smith and the Niners in the playoffs last year – when New Orleans actually had the services of Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma. Don’t get me wrong, RGIII is probably going to be better than Health Shuler. (Maybe.)  But using a reduced Saints defense as a measuring stick can lead to premature conclusions. 

Jeff Fisher is the most properly rated coach in recent NFL history: Football observers often bemoan the tendency to rehire coaching retreads like Chan Gailey, Norv Turner, and Mike Mularkey. Why bring in a guy who has a mediocre track record? Why not give a chance to an up-and-coming coach? Why can’t Norv Turner be killed with conventional weapons? All legitimate questions. 

When Jeff Fisher was hired to coach the Rams, people may or may not have asked similar questions. I was too busy asking myself, “Why in the hell would Jeff Fisher want to coach in St. Louis?” He reportedly had an offer to coach the Dolphins, who play in Miami, a city associated with beaches, sunshine and stylish mammals. Then there’s St. Louis, which plays in a dreary-looking dome in the heart of flyover country. Present these same options to, say, Jimmy Johnson, Mike Shanahan, or Norv Turner, and you can bet your children’s bail money that none of them would have landed in St. Louis.

Miami, after all, is considered a marquee destination, even though the Dolphins haven’t won a Super Bowl since 1972. These coaches I mentioned have all won Super Bowls, either as head coaches or offensive coordinators, so they tend to possess messianic mitochondria. In short, they’re fucking overrated. Jimmy Johnson didn’t win shit in Miami, and his last game as head coach (also Dan Marino’s last game in the NFL) was a humiliating 62-7 loss to the Jaguars in the 1999 playoffs. Mike Shanahan is now in Washington, another marquee football town that hasn’t experienced the ultimate success in two decades; and Norv Turner is in San Diego, where residents are so distracted by great weather and alternative hobbies that they haven’t noticed that the city has gone longer than Cleveland and Buffalo since its last major sports title.

(Check out the ramblings of this smart fellow.)

Jeff Fisher, meanwhile, has a career record of 147-127 (.542) and took the Titans to one Super Bowl and six playoff berths. His teams always seemed to surprise (the Music City Miracle, reaching the 1999 Super Bowl) or to underperform (going 10-0 at the start of 2008, winning the No. 1 seed in the AFC, and then losing in the second round of the playoffs). His teams never seemed to match expectations, either to the bad or the good.  And he managed to do that for 16 years in Tennessee. 

 Jeff Fisher is not overrated or underrated. And it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Rams make the playoffs this year. When you play the Cardinals and the Seahawks four times, you can never be counted out. Contrast that with playing an AFC East schedule. Yeah, Jeff Fisher is no dummy.

 (Other games receiving votes: Tampa at New York Giants; Chiefs at Bills; Saints at Panthers; Cowboys at Seahawks; Titans at Chargers.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubtful Game of the Week: Cardinals at Patriots. 

It’s awfully unfair: To make the Cardinals fly all the way to New England to get waxed. Couldn’t they have simply met somewhere in between, like St. Louis?

The Cardinals starter this week is: Maybe Neil Lomax. Coach Ken Whisenhunt has refused to name Kevin Kolb as the team’s starter, even after Kolb filled in admirably for John Skelton last Sunday and led the Cardinals to a win over Seattle. Whisenhunt said, “He beat the Seahawks? Whoopty-fuckin-do. Let’s see him beat a big-boy team.” 

(Other games receiving votes: Texans at Jaguars; Vikings at Colts.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out Game of the Week: Browns at Bengals.

Remember when: The Browns played the Bengals in that classic all-Ohio playoff game? No? That’s because it’s never happened. These teams have never been good at the same time; in fact, they’ve rarely been good at all.

This might be: The most untapped rivalry in the NFL. Hall of Famer Paul Brown coached both of these teams, which are both located in the same state as the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I could make a flimsy supposition about Cooperstown, New York, and the hypothetical inadequacies of the Mets and the Yankees, but there’s nothing hypothetical about the Mets’ inadequacies: They suck, and so do the Browns and Bengals.

(Other game receiving votes: Raiders at Miami.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FANTASY FOOTBALL BITCHIN’

This is the point in our program where someone other than me (seriously, this isn’t me; I would never discuss my fantasy team in public) bitches about their fantasy football team. Person who is not me writes, 

“Before week one, the last time Adrian Peterson had any meaningful contact with other grown men, those men were wearing badges and slapping handcuffs on him." 

Peterson, who blew out his MCL and ACL eight months ago, didn’t take a single effing snap in the preseason, and Vikings players were warned that they’d be shot if they so much as farted upwind from him. Were fantasy owners afraid to draft him? Yes, especially in the first two rounds. But I grabbed him in the third round -- with the 26th pick overall – thinking he’d be ready to contribute in the not-so-distant future. That meant NOT in week one, Peterson, you sandbagging mutant! Two touchdowns and 84 yards rushing? You even caught a freaking pass! And you catch passes as frequently as I catch the Ebola virus.

Who in the hell blows out every C, L and A in their knee and returns to the field eight months later – without playing a single minute in the preseason? That is some bullshit right there, man. “

Cameron Martin's Pregame Flyover column on the upcoming NFL weekend runs each Friday. He may be reached at cdavidmartin@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @CameronDMartin.

For a moment – actually several moments – it appeared that Novak Djokovic, the indefatigable magician, would do it again. That he’d come back from the brink just as he had at the previous two U.S. Opens.

After Andy Murray raced to a two-set lead, Djokovic immediately shifted momentum and grabbed the next two sets and looked to be on his way to his second consecutive victory in New York.

But it was not to be as Murray played a brilliant fifth set and finally – finally! – delivered a Slam for the United Kingdom for the first time since Fred Perry won the U.S. championships in 1936. Murray won the thrilling and at times error-prone encounter, 7-6 (10), 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2. It proved to be an extremely popular victory too, as Murray had the overwhelming support of a lively crowd that was effusive in their affection for the reigning Olympic champion on this suddenly cool New York night.  

The 4-hour, 54-minutes match provided a perfect bookend to the Grand Slam season, mirroring the 5-hour epic that Murray and Djokovic had contested at the Australian Open semifinals, a match Djokovic won.

This season also saw four different men capture the four majors, something that hadn’t occurred since 2003. With Murray’s official membership in the Big Four club now official, it is further evidence that this golden age in the sport shows no signs of waning.

As Murray and Djokovic walked onto Arthur Ashe Stadium late afternoon on Monday, the temperature was dropping and the stiff wind was already swirling.

And this undoubtedly made Murray feel good. After all, Murray had navigated the treacherous wind conditions superbly during his semifinal against Tomas Berdych.

Murray’s game is tailor-made for the wind. With his slices, drop shots, lobs and stellar defensive abilities, Murray is far more adaptable to the breeze than is Djokovic. And it was clear from the start Monday night that Djokovic was slightly off his game.

After the two traded breaks in the first two games, Murray went ahead with another break. Yet Djokovic would again break back and force a first-set tiebreaker. 

And what a tiebreaker it was. Djokovic secured the early break to go up 2-0 but Murray executed a perfect drop shot to knot the breaker at 2-2. Djokovic then took another lead at 5-3 but Murray again came back with some powerful forehand drives. After Murray gained a 6-5 advantage, the players traded points until Murray was able to wrest control with some superb first serves.

Whether it was the wind or just outstanding returning, only half of the tiebreak points were won on serve. The packed stadium roared when Murray secured the first set, and there was a palpable sense inside the stadium that we were in for another marathon (the tiebreaker was the longest in men’s final history).

When Murray raced to a 4-0 second set-lead, Djokovic suddenly appeared tired and could no longer dictate points. He was broken with ease in his first two service games in the set, winning a total of only one point. Murray was on his way to a commanding two-set lead – almost.

Abruptly and without any warning, Djokovic had a resurgence of energy and just as quickly returned the favor to Murray, breaking him twice to tie the set at 5-5. Murray was visibly annoyed with himself, cursing and gesturing with his hands, looking very much like the Murray of the recent past, a man who couldn’t raise the mental aspect of his game when he needed to most.

One of the reasons why his Hall of Fame coach Ivan Lendl has been such a perfect match for Murray is that Lendl does not tolerate mental wanderings from his charge. And sure enough Murray regained his composure and, with the help of some brilliant lobs, broke Djokovic to win the set.

Djokovic’s strong play and tenacity to get back into that set proved to be a harbinger of sets three and four. After Murray won the opening game of the third set, closing out with a 132 mph ace, it felt like the beginning of the end for Djokovic. But this was decidedly not the case as Djokovic quickly won the set and then took the fourth.

As Djokovic went off the court for a bathroom break before the final set commenced it was obvious that Murray was reeling, that he felt like he had let a sure thing slip away. That, again, he’d fail to win that first Slam. In a moment of brief panic perhaps, he was thinking that even though he won the Olympics, it’s nothing compared to a Slam – I can’t live with myself if I let this chance pass me by. Surely, the start of the last set would prove to be incredibly pivotal.

And then it happened, a moment of good fortune that lifted Murray. With Djokovic serving at break point down in the opening game and in control of a point, Murray hit a shot that hit the net and threw off Djokovic’s timing and gave Murray the game.

That’s all Murray needed to re-instill a sense of confidence that was absent since the second set. Serving with greater authority – especially impressive that he struck several 130 mph deliveries out wide – Murray coasted the rest of the way as an increasingly aching and cramping Djokovic was obviously spent. Whether this was also partially a result of having to play three matches in three days is unknown. The sellout crowd roared in anticipating the victory, wanting to participate and enjoy this victory lap for the player who has suddenly seen his popularity surge.

For so many years Murray was the talented outsider, the moody sibling who desperately wanted a share of his brothers’ success. After Mondy night he no longer has to look up to Roger, Rafa and Nole – for he is now their equal.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Serena Williams, the heavy pre-tournament favorite, won her fourth U.S. Open title on Sunday in a riveting, backcourt-focused, momentum-shifting match against top-seeded Victoria Azarenka, 6-2, 2-6, 7-5. Remarkably, it was the first women's final to go the distance since Steffi Graf defeated Monica Seles in three sets in the 1995 championship match.

The victory for Serena completes an extraordinary 10 weeks during which she also won the singles and doubles at both Wimbledon and the Olympics. It is the 15th Slam title for the 31-year-old Williams and she now has set her sights on Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert, who both won 18 Slams, the second highest total in the Open era (Steffi Graf won 22 major titles).

For nearly two decades now, the women's game has paled in comparison to the men, both in terms of producing compelling rivalries and stellar matches in the Grand Slams. But Sunday's match showcased how electrifying a women's match can be under the right circumstances.

Serena commenced the final in blistering fashion, as she served and returned brilliantly. She won 73 percent of her first-serve points. But even more impressive was the fact she won 75 percent of her second serves and 50 percent of return points. Widely considered to be the owner of the finest serve in the history of the women's game, it sets the stage for Serena's overall game and, when she's hitting a high percentage of serves, it allows her to hit even more freely on her groundstrokes. 

Also most impressive early on was Serena's backhand return, which she struck with power and frightening precision. Azarenka, who started the year by winning the Australian Open and producing a streak of 26 consecutive victories, appeared to be the clearly inferior player early on; this it not uncommon when competing against Serena, as when she's feeling the rhythm on her serve she's almost impossible to beat.

After the 34-minute first set, no one would have predicted the drama that was to ensue.

But from the start of the second set, the momentum shifted abruptly and without any warning. Suddenly, Serena's serve betrayed her. And Azarenka also began to find her own range, especially with her forehand.

It would have been understandable if Azarenka had begun to look desperate after that first set, knowing how dominant Serena can be in the biggest matches. But to her great credit, Azarenka stuck with her game plan and instead of altering her strategy in an attempt to regain a foothold in the contest, Azarenka just started executing more consistently. 

And Serena's level dropped - actually plummeted - at the same time. All of a sudden Serena's serve became a near liability. Her first-serve percentage went down to a terrible 48 percent and she won only 23 percent of her second serves. Azarenka, on the other hand, started to move the ball around the box more on her serve and she began to hold her service with ease. Additionally, Serena appeared to go for too much on her returns, perhaps the result of winning the first set so easily.

Whatever the case, Azarenka took the second set with ease, setting the stage for unexpected drama on a gorgeous New York evening.

Every point of the last set - one that lasted 68 minutes, nearly the total of the first and second sets combined - was a study in tension. While there were frequent unforced errors by both players, many of them were undoubtedly caused by the mental pressure they were inflicting on each other.

As the third set moved on, it was Serena who first cracked. Azarenka gained what looked like to be the crucial break with Serena serving at 3-3, winning all four points. She then held serve with ease, taking a commanding 5-3 lead.

Yet Serena held serve to force Azarenka to earn the victory on her own serve. After Wednesday night's upset victory by Tomas Berdych over Roger Federer, I commented that it was an advantage for Berdych to serve for the victory without having the time to think about it during a changeover.

I couldn't help but ponder the same notion Sunday when watching Azarenka sit in her chair during the changeover when she was up 5-4 and about to serve. Would she get rattled, I thought, and feel the pressure? 

Indeed, she did.

In an obvious case of nerves, Azarenka committed three unforced errors in the game and was broken at love. After Serena held with relative ease in the next game, it came down to Azarenka serving again - if she could hold, the final would come down to a tiebreaker, something that hasn’t occurred in a three-set women's final at the Open since 1985.   

The final game was, fittingly, a point-by-point exercise in stress. Serving from behind, after blowing a chance to serve for victory, was an unenviable task. And though Azarenka held a game point, she couldn't put Serena away when it counted. For her part, Serena's focus re-emerge when she broke at 4-5 and the end result never seemed to be in doubt over the last three games.

Serena, to be fair, has never been known to be especially gracious in victory or defeat. But on this night, she was magnanimous in her affection for the extremely likeable Azarenka and it cast her stirring victory in even brighter light.

For Azarenka, her performance throughout 2012 demonstrates that she is clearly the No. 2 player in the world. There’s no reason to believe she won’t be a significant presence at the Slams in the coming years. If she develops a more effective serve she’ll likely collect several more major titles in quick succession.

As for Serena; she’s in rarified air, playing for only the record books now, competing against the past legends of the sport.

And Sunday’s victory may be among the most gratifying for Serena, if for no other reason than the incredible crowd support she received in New York. Her sister Venus, in an unusually candid moment earlier in the fortnight declared that she “felt like an American for the first time” because of the way the fans treated her at this Open. I imagine her sister echos that sentiment. 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

For the fifth consecutive year the fickle late summer New York weather has disrupted the final weekend of the U.S. Open and the men's final will be played on Monday afternoon at 4 p.m. ET. There hasn't been a Sunday conclusion to the tournament since 2007.

The USTA is likely to come under fierce criticism for deciding not to have played both semifinals (Andy Murray vs. Tomas Berdych and Novak Djokovic vs. David Ferrer) at the same time. If they had done so, which many were suggesting, both matches would have concluded before the onset of the disruptive weather.

The USTA will likely claim that fans deserved to see both matches because they paid for it. But by having both semifinals contested at once, it would have allowed some fans to view one of the matches in a far more intimate setting than cavernous Arthur Ashe Stadium, something most spectators would have welcomed.

As it was, Andy Murray won his wind-affected encounter 5-7, 6-2, 6-1, 7-6 (7), and must feel very good as he'll have a full day of rest before the final on Monday.

After a severe line of storms - which included a tornado, a rarity in these parts - delayed the start of play by nearly two hours at the beginning of the day, it became obvious to almost everyone on the grounds of the National Tennis Center that there would be no way to fit in both semifinal matches before the next line of storms were due to sweep through in the late day (the rain came, as forecasted, around 5:30 p.m.).

And it was a nonsensical, unpopular, and unnecessary decision by the USTA to start the Djokovic-Ferrer match, especially if officials knew that they didn't have a large enough window to play uninterrupted. And with Ferrer about to serve for the first set at 5-2, the match will resume at a crucial juncture on Sunday morning. As it stands now the winner of this match will have to take the court three consecutive days.

Additionally, if the reason for stopping play with the sun still out was to give fans enough time to leave and escape harm's way, that was another reason not to have started the match in the first place.

There was tennis played for a few hours under abundant sunshine, albeit with brutal wind conditions. Murray managed the relentless and gusty wind better than Berdych and that is the main reason the Scot is into his second straight Slam final. After surrendering the first set, Murray dominated the next two stanzas by brilliantly mixing up his shots, taking full advantage of the tricky wind by consistently hitting low slicing groundstrokes to the ankles of Berdych.

It was obvious that the wind was more irritating to Berydch. Unlike Murray, Berdych doesn't have a full arsenal of finesse shots to complement his powerful groundstrokes. If Berydch is out of rhythm it's a far more difficult task for him to regain control of his shots in windy weather.

Further, Murray executed several lobs to perfection early on. And this strategy worked brilliantly as Berdych hesitated just ever so slightly on future forays into the forecourt, worried that Murray would lob again.

The conditions were so bad at times that chairs, towels and other objects were blown around the court. On at least 20 occasions both players had to stop their service motion as the ball toss became a tricky task.

Credit must be given to Berdych for making a ferocious comeback in the fourth set. After Murray raced to a 3-0 lead, Berdych suddenly rediscovered the form that was in evidence on Wednesday evening when he defeated Roger Federer. With his thunderous groundstrokes landing just inches from the baseline, Berdych started to move Murray around the court and quickly tied up the set. And in the tiebreak, Berdych had a 5-3 advantage. But Murray executed superbly on the last few points, deftly utilizing his full arsenal of shots and ended the match before it entered a dangerous fifth set.

When Djokovic and Ferrer took the court immediately after the Murray victory, it was obvious from the start that Djokovic was preoccupied with the weather, likely knowing full well that the match would be halted. For his part, Ferrer looked relaxed and it showed as he raced to a 5-2 lead, aided by a couple of perfectly placed lobs and pinpoint groundstrokes.

Ferrer will serve for the first set at about 11:05 Sunday morning and is one small step closer to pulling off a monumental upset. But look for Djokovic to emerge from the locker room on Sunday with greater resolve than he showed on this miserable Saturday, setting the stage for a more compelling match than most had anticipated.

WILL LACK OF REST HURT FERRER OR DJOKOVIC?

Whether or not the extra day of rest will be a crucial advantage for Murray on Monday is impossible to say. On the face of it, it seems obvious that it’s at least somewhat of a plus for him. But there have been several instances at the U.S. Open in which the more exhausted player came back to win on the following day.

Two examples come immediately to mind: in 1984 John McEnroe finished his semifinal after 11 p.m. and went on to obliterate Ivan Lendl the next day for his last major championship; and in 1992 Stefan Edberg played a 5-hour, 26-minute epic semifinal against Michael Chang and the next day beat Pete Sampras for his last major title.

And at the Australian Open this past January, Djokovic had one fewer day of rest than Rafael Nadal before their match in the final - after Djokovic played a 5-hour semifinal against Murray. Djokovic went on to defeat Nadal in one of the greatest matches every played, a contest that lasted nearly six hours. 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

In actuality, Berdych's victory was even more decisive than the score line indicates. He was up a break and serving at 3-2 in the third set, seemingly cruising. But he got tight, serving two double faults in the game to let Federer back into the match.

Once Federer claimed that third set, it appeared that momentum would be on his side. And when Berdych went down 0-30 serving at 2-2 in the fourth set, the inevitability of another Federer comeback took hold. Consider that Federer had already come from two sets down twice this year in the Slams, and over the last four years he has mastered the art of the great escape.

But Berdych stayed tough and played four superb points, never looking back after that. After Berdych broke Federer to take a 5-3 lead, it was clear that the lack of a changeover timeout was what Berdych needed - he didn't have to think about what he was about to accomplish. He proceeded to notch three service winners in claiming the final game at love.

The stat that many may seize on is the high number of unforced errors from Federer, especially on his usually potent and reliable forehand. Indeed, Federer did seem to flail at the ball at times, uncharacteristically sending balls far wide or long. I'm sure some will cite the extra days off Federer had since Mardy Fish had to withdraw from their scheduled fourth-round match Monday.

But Federer's error-prone game under the lights was almost entirely due to the unrelenting and intimidating missiles Berdych shot in his direction. It was distinctly reminiscent of the 2009 U.S. Open final, when Juan Martin del Potro overpowered Federer from the backcourt and left him reeling.

Another impressive aspect of Berdych's victory was the strategy he employed. Instead of utilizing the tried and true tactic of hitting high balls to Federer's backhand, the system Nadal has used so effectively in his rivalry with Federer, Berdych went after the forehand. It was strength vs. strength, and Berdych clearly had more firepower on this night. It was an unprecedented approach against the most prolific Grand Slam winner in history. And it worked brilliantly.

The victory itself should really not be considered a shock. After all, Berdych beat Federer in the Wimbledon quarterfinals in 2010 and then advanced to the final, where he was defeated by Nadal. For years now, so many have predicted that Berdych would be in the mix to win a Slam or two. There's no doubt he's playing the best tennis of his career at the moment.

Next up for Berdych in the semifinals is Andy Murray. The Olympic gold medalist survived a strange match against underachieving 12th seed Marin Cilic. Having lost the first set and down 5-2 in the second, Murray stormed back and dominated the match, taking the last three sets 7-6, 6-2, 6-0. It was a deeply disappointing finish for Cilic, who, while blessed with an unusually fluid game for a man who stands 6 feet, 6 inches, is prone to mental lapses that continue to rob him of stronger results in the majors.

The rain-delayed fourth-round matches were also completed. Eighth-seeded Janko Tipsarevic fulfilled his seeding by easily beating Philipp Kohlschreiber in straight sets. Tipsarevic will take on fourth seed David Ferrer in the quarterfinals Thursday.

Novak Djokovic, who is now the consensus favorite to claim the championship, had little difficulty in dispatching Stan Wawrinka to secure his spot in the final eight.

And, last but most definitely not least in terms of tangible impact, del Potro ended the career of Andy Roddick, defeating the now-retired American 6-7 (1), 7-6 (4), 6-2, 6-4.

For a while, especially after Roddick took the first set, it seemed that he could pull off a big upset and entice the partisans with an intriguing quarterfinal match against Djokovic. But del Potro played a consistent and focused match, never letting the crowd take over in beating the 2003 U.S. Open champion. The Djokovic-del Potro quarterfinal Thursday evening looks to be a blockbuster, as both are playing superbly during this fortnight.

Most indicative of Roddick's correct decision to retire at this stage of his career was the sight of his serve. Though Roddick was blessed with a powerful forehand early in his career, the shot mysteriously ceased being a weapon years ago, leaving Roddick's blazing serve as his only true strength.

But Roddick couldn't get any rhythm going on his serve and threw in an uncharacteristic number of double faults as he was obviously pressing. What once was the most dominant serve in the sport looked weak.

Roddick had the unenviable position of following legends Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi in the role of Best American Player. Though many think he underachieved since his one and only Slam came nine years ago when he was 21, it's undeniable that Roddick was a great player in tennis' golden age. Just look at the facts: one Grand Slam title, five Slam finals, 10 consecutive years ranked in the Top 10 and a sterling Davis Cup record. And he'll likely be enshrined in the International Tennis Hall of Fame in five years.

Yet the image I can't shake is one that occurred during Roddick's greatest heartbreak - but was also, in a sense, his most triumphant moment. It came in the match through which he gained legions of fans due to his extraordinary effort, the 2009 Wimbledon final against Federer. In the best match Roddick has ever played, he blew four set points and failed to take a two-sets-to-none lead. Yet he came back and barely lost, falling 16-14 in the fifth. It's hard not to think of what he might have been thinking: If only I had come along in a different era.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

The first downer occurred midday when it was announced that Mardy Fish had withdrawn from his fourth-round match against Roger Federer for health reasons. Earlier this year Fish disclosed his battle with a heart ailment, which created tremendous anxiety for the veteran American. His pullout against Federer will surely plant questions that the perpetual supporting player's career may be near an end.

In a moment of stunning candor or callous disrespect, CBS broadcaster and former player Justin Gimelstob said: "Is the physical presupposing the mental, or is the
mental presupposing the physical? It is symbolic that he's playing one of the biggest matches of his career against the greatest of all time, where expectations should be at an all-time low, and he couldn't even take the court. So he's depressed, he's disappointed, he's sad and he's stressed. Pressure is a privilege, and Mardy Fish needs to embrace that."

I'm sure many will take issue with Gimelstob's apparent suggestion that Fish wasn't mentally up to the task of competing.

Also Monday, Rafael Nadal - who is already an absentee - said he probably would not be on the court for the rest of 2012 due to his knee tendinitis, which has apparently morphed into a torn tendon. One can only hope Nadal will recover as completely as he did from his last major injury in 2009.

Monday also was a day of routs, something fans are not accustomed to at this stage of the tournament. All fourth-round matches were straight-set affairs, a matter none too comforting for the tens of thousands of spectators who paid good sums to view these drubbings from unappealing vantage points.

Since the Grand Slam events increased the number of seeds from 16 to 32 in 2001, the major tournaments have been robbed of intriguing matchups in the first three rounds. While it is obviously fairer to players to have so many seeds, it has undoubtedly had a deleterious effect on the first week of Slams.

In Monday's evening session, Andy Murray put on a clinic while dispatching Milos Raonic, the 15th seed and an assumed future star. It was a superb effort from Murray, who only two days ago was back to his old habits of trying to find ways to lose. Against the talented if perennially and frustratingly inconsistent Feliciano Lopez of Spain in the third round, Murray seemed determined to prolong what should have been an easy victory. The Andy of old was present, looking tired and irritable.

But against the 21-year-old Raonic, who Murray knew possesses a lethal game based on an extraordinary serve, Murray was in control the entire time. Most impressive was the way Murray outserved Raonic. He accomplished this via his stellar return game, which increased the pressure on Raonic to claim the match solely via his serve.

After Raonic had the upper hand in the first set, blazing six aces by Murray in his first three service games, Murray's returning prowess started to take control of the match. By simply chipping the ball back into play, Murray frustrated Raonic and forced the Canadian to go for too much, especially on second serves. And since Raonic's backcourt game is still undeveloped, Murray's confidence was apparent. He knew Raonic had little to counter his all-court acumen.

Watching Murray in full control of his varied arsenal - brilliant return of serve, superb drop shot, well-disguised backhand - it's easy to believe this is finally the time for the formerly moody Scot. With coach Ivan Lendl having made a palpable difference in Murray's game and demeanor, it just feels like Murray is finally ready to win a Slam.

Next up for Murray is a quarterfinal clash against Marin Cilic, another huge server who is blessed with exceptional footwork for a man who stands 6 feet, 5 inches. Though Cilic will surely provide a formidable challenge, it's hard to imagine that Murray would lose, especially if he is in as fine form as he was Monday night.

It's likely that Murray and Federer are again on a collision course, this time in the semifinals. Federer was the unfortunate beneficiary of Fish's withdrawal, and he'll have additional time to physically prepare for his quarterfinal encounter against Tomas Berdych.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

And Saturday, on a wonderfully bright and hot afternoon, the grandstand provided many fans their first glimpse of a rising American star, as Jack Sock - he with the impossibly perfect athlete surname - took on 11th-seeded Spaniard Nicolas Almagro.

In front of a raucous and partisan packed crowd - unusual for a match that started at 11 a.m. - Sock played superbly, even if frequently erratic, but lost the 3- hour 11-minute encounter, 7-6 (3), 6-7 (4), 7-6 (2), 6-1 (Sock was treated during two medical timeouts on his arm during the third set tiebreaker and the fourth set).

In the couple of days that have transpired since Andy Roddick's not-entirely-unexpected retirement announcement, tennis observers have quickly scoured the meager list of up and coming American players to determine who, if anyone, is capable of carrying the burden of the "best American player." After watching Sock it is obvious that he, more than the more heralded and cocky Ryan Harrison, will be the one to inherit that mantle. 

And it appears that fans have caught on quickly to Sock's growing potential as there was sustained loud cheering throughout the match in support of Sock, sometimes to the consternation of Almagro, who shot back to a particularly noisy Sock supporter. What struck me about the cheering for Sock was that it had the feeling of familiarity to it, as if Sock had been around for years.

Like seemingly every contemporary player Sock is powered by a strong serve and ferocious forehand and these were on full display on Saturday. But what was most telling of Sock's maturity as a player was his ability to approach the forecourt when he saw an opening. Additionally, Sock also possesses a vicious slice backhand, which will prove crucial in the years to come when he finds himself in a defensive posture.

It's obviously too early to predict just how far Sock will rise up the rankings in the coming year or two. But it's not too early to state that he clearly has the requisite mental and physical makeup to make significant strides in the very near future.

But this much is certain: Sock clearly has the physical and mental attributes that are necessary in order to move his career forward in tennis.

From Bill Tilden to Don Budge and Bobby Riggs to Jack Kramer to Pancho Gonzalez to Jimmy Connors to Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras on to Roddick, there's been an uninterrupted flow of champions form the United States. But it's now been nearly 10 years since Roddick's U.S. Open triumph and finding an American man to threaten for a major title now looks like an impossible task. One can only hope that Sock, in a period of self-realization, measures his progress in increments rather than leaps.

While Jack Sock may represent the future of U.S. tennis, veteran Mardy Fish, who will turn 31 later this year, is still attempting to advance to the semis of a Grand Slam for the first time.

Fish, who once lived with Roddick's family while he and Andy were both enrolled in the same junior tennis program, has long lived in Roddick's shadow during this mediocre era in American tennis. But over the last several years Fish has played his best tennis and has offered up glimpses of "what could have been".

Watching Fish, when he is playing his best, one witnesses a varied talent who is comfortable in all phases of the game. When he plays his best tennis, in much the same vein as Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, another perpetual underachiever, Fish seems like he's capable of beating anybody. But for most of his career he's lacked that crucial mental component, too often falling prey to the self-sabotaging insecurity that befalls most athletes.

In defeating Gilles Simon on Saturday night, Fish displayed the kind of all-court game that, when working, makes Fish look unstoppable at moments. 

Fish's reward for reaching the fourth round - Roger Federer. Fish's newfound confidence will be surely tested by Federer, a man who has had his way with Fish. It's now or never for the supremely likeable American and Fish undoubtedly knows it. It's difficult to remain a relevant tennis player into one's 30s.

It's the beginning of a new age … or a continuation of the old one? 

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides occasional commentary for RealClearSports. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

NEW YORK – He was the kid who grew into a man, the guy with the big serve who never gave in or rarely gave out. Andy Roddick beat them all through the years except Father Time. And so for American tennis, it is now game, set and matchless.

On his 30th birthday, Thursday, Roddick announced he would retire after this U.S. Open. After he plays one more match, Friday night against Bernard Tomic of Australia. Or if he wins, and who wouldn’t hope he wins, a match or three after that.

It was a surprise. Mary Jo Fernandez of ESPN, the one-time tennis star, began to cry when she heard.

It wasn’t a surprise. Roddick’s body had begun to fail him, one injury after another. If he couldn’t play and practice the way Andy Roddick believed he must, well, he wasn’t going to stumble through, a forlorn has-been.

“I don’t know,’’ he explained, “that I’m healthy enough or committed enough go through another year. I’ve always wanted to – in a perfect world – finish at this event.’’

At the Open, where as an 8-year-old he snuck into the players’ locker room. Where as a 21-year-old he was the champion, the last American male to win a Grand Slam. Where now, without a tear – something he said he would have bet against – he steps away.

New York, the Big Apple, where stars are born, where the lights are bright, where the crowd is boisterous. Where the fourth Slam of the year, after the Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon, turns into a huge party of rock music, deli sandwiches and big forehands.

It was Pete Sampras, then Andre Agassi and after they stood aside it was Andy Roddick, the headliner if only once the champion.

The inevitability for any athlete in any sport is that he and she cannot go on forever. Sometimes the decision is made for them. Lou Gehrig, “the luckiest man on the face of the earth,’’ was stricken with ALS and had to quit. Sometimes the player must choose. Roddick has chosen.

“With the way my body feels,’’ said Roddick, who did win his first-round match Tuesday, “the way I feel I’m able to compete, I don’t know that it’s good enough. I don’t know I’ve ever been someone who’s interested in existing on tour.’’

He had considered a reduced schedule, but that never would be Roddick’s way. He reminded he’s never done anything halfway, and for the first time in his career he was worried about “putting everything’’ into his tennis.

“I don’t know that I want to disrespect the game by coasting home,’’ said Roddick.

Not that any champion ever would. In 1951, the late sportswriter Jimmy Cannon supposedly asked a limping Joe DiMaggio, struggling through his final season, why he ran so hard after fly balls, and DiMaggio said, “There may be some kid who never saw me play before.’’

DiMaggio didn’t want to sully a reputation. Andy Roddick will never sully his.

Roddick loved a challenge, whether debating sportswriters or facing Roger Federer. He could argue against the best. He could match shots against the best. He could handle losing. He never could handle a lack of effort.

It wasn’t the age that got him, 30. “A number is a number,’’ Roddick said. “It was the wear and tear and miles. It’s a matter of how I feel. These guys have gotten really good, really good. I’m not sure with my compromised health I can do what I want right now.’’

The thought of departing took residence after his third-round loss at Wimbledon in late June. Andy bowed and waved as he walked off, and Thursday he said, “I couldn’t imagine myself being there in another year.’’

After this tournament, he won’t be anywhere, except home in Austin or running his foundation. He’ll pick up a racquet. “I still love the innocent parts of the game,’’ was Roddick’s comment. “I love hitting tennis balls. I love seeing the young guys do well.’’

Roddick did well, but with only that one Slam and four trips to other finals, one here at the Open, three at Wimbledon – and all against Federer – some think he might have done better. Roddick remains content.

“I don’t know that I would change much,’’ he said. “Obviously I think everybody would want to win a match or two more. Had I won a match or two more, we’d be looking back at something a little bit different. But that’s kind of who I am and how I’ve been able to learn.

“At the end of the day, I know people view it as a career of some hard knocks. But I got to play. I got to play in a crowd, play in Wimbledon finals, be the guy on a Davis Cup team for a while. These are opportunities not a lot of people get. And as much as I was disappointed and frustrated at times, I’m not sure I ever felt sorry for myself or begrudged anybody any of their success.’’

What we feel for Andy Roddick is appreciation. He’ll be missed. Greatly.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- and a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He's also honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America. His columns appear in RealClearSports on Wednesdays and Fridays.

I don't know how I lived so long without the Play Index on Baseball-Reference.com.

I have always loved baseball and the stories its statistics tell. Whether on the back of a baseball card, in tiny type on a page of newsprint or flashed on a scoreboard or screen, the numbers tell us of strengths and weaknesses, battles won and lost, accomplishments accumulated over the long seasons of a playing career.

Not long out of college, I landed a baseball freak's dream job: supervising publication of The Baseball Encyclopedia, a 2,700-page doorstop containing the complete statistics for anyone who had played even one game in the major leagues.

The information was kept in a database, making the book one of the first ever produced by computer typesetting. But it wasn't a very flexible database. It was designed in the Jurassic Age of computers, a lumbering beast that fed on keypunch cards. I hoped it might be possible someday to take all that data out to play, to use a statistical centrifuge to spin out the links between present and past, to answer questions and fuel discussions, to have endless permutations of those facts and figures at my beck and call.

The Play Index gives me everything I dreamed of and puts it almost literally at my fingertips.

Consider Aroldis Chapman. The Reds closer has an otherworldly arm and is enjoying an epic season. As good a season as a power pitcher has ever had?

Searching single-season performance, 1901 to 2012, minimum 50 innings, sort by K per 9 innings. Chapman's 113 strikeouts in 64 innings (through Tuesday's games) is an impressive rate of 15.89 K/9. It's third on the all-time list, behind Kenley Jansen's 16.10 in 2011 and Carlos Marmol's 15.99 in 2010.

Let's check his WHIP, since he has yielded just 30 hits and 16 walks in those 64 innings. Again, his 0.719 WHIP is terrific, but it's not unprecedented. It ranks ninth on the list, well behind Dennis Eckersley's two best seasons (0.607 in 1989 and 0.614 in 1990). It also trails the best years posted by such notables as Joaquin Benoit, Cla Meredith and Takashi Saito.

But surely it's unique that he has more saves (33) than hits allowed, right? Nope. With a 50-inning minimum again, there have been 22 such seasons, including those by Chapman and Fernando Rodney that are not yet finished. In 1990, Eckersley had more saves than baserunners allowed.

Verdict on Chapman: great, great season, but not the best by a reliever, at least not so far.

What about this year's two phenoms, Bryce Harper and Mike Trout? What can we find out about them?

For Harper: Search single-season performance before age 20. (One minor shortcoming is that each season is assigned an age based on how old the player was on June 30; an "age-19" season might include some time when the player was actually 20.) How many teenagers reached double digits in home runs and stolen bases?

The answer is two. Harper and Ken Griffey Jr. Nice.

Now Trout. How many players had a season of 25 homers and 40 steals before turning 22? One. And he's not done yet.

Trout's averages for the season are .340/.403/.593. Has anyone ever hit so well so young? Search on-base average greater than .400 AND slugging average greater than .550 before age-22 season.

Six other players have accomplished it: Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx, Ted Williams, Eddie Mathews, Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez. Very nice.

You can search for career stats (four of the top seven in home runs by a switch-hitter are currently active: Chipper Jones, Lance Berkman, Mark Teixeira and Carlos Beltran); period stats (the top five pitchers in ERA since 2000, minimum 500 innings, are Mariano Rivera, Billy Wagner, Joe Nathan, Francisco Rodriguez and Clayton Kershaw; the top five in Wins Above Replacement since 2000 are Roy Halladay, CC Sabathia, Randy Johnson, Johan Santana and Mark Buehrle); streaks (since 1918, the pitcher with the longest streak of games in which he allowed a home run was Hall of Famer Bert Blyleven: 20 games, from Sept. 9, 1986, to June 10, 1987).

You can find every batter hit by a Don Drysdale pitch, how David Ortiz has fared against Rivera (11-for-33, three doubles, one homer), in which games Greg Maddux hit a triple (an event Skip Caray said "replaces the Kentucky Derby as the most exciting two minutes in sports").

The season and career stats are solid all the way back to 1876, and the individual game searches are complete back to 1973, nearly complete to 1950. Besides that, you're limited only by your imagination.

The Baseball-Reference.com site is free and is marvelous, but the Play Index is a steal at the $36 per year it costs. For me, that works out to nanopennies per hour and an incalculable price-to-pleasure ratio.

* * *

This is my last regular column for RealClearSports. I'm grateful for the opportunity to write, probe, analyze and pontificate in this corner of the Internet ether. Thanks for reading, and commenting, and engaging. Google me from time to time. There's no telling where I may pop up next.

But it doesn't make much difference how you play the game, on the court or off.

On Tuesday, in the sun and breeze, with massive Arthur Ashe Stadium either half full or half empty - depending on one's viewpoint - Roddick played his final tennis match as a 20-something.

The next time he's on a court at the U.S. Open will be Thursday, the day he turns 30.

His farewell to the 20s was an efficient 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 victory over a 21-year-old from Tennessee, Rhyne Williams, who perhaps someday will be the greatest American player, which Roddick was. And, in a way, still is.

You've heard it so many times: Age is a number. So is one's seeding, which for Roddick at this Open is 20, low for a man who always seemed ranked among the Top 10.

Injuries have brought him down, caused him to miss numerous events and reduced his effectiveness when he did play.

Roddick won the Open in 2003, the last U.S. player to take any Grand Slam, and if not much is different from one day to the next, there were massive alterations during a nine-year period.

For Roddick. For tennis.

"The game completely changed,'' Roddick said. "I was able to kind of recognize it. It's funny, because the things I feel like I get criticized for have kept me around a lot more than my contemporaries."

He meant modifying his style, developing a passable backhand, working on quickness, emphasizing agility over power.

He meant Marat Safin and Juan Carlos Ferrero, both of whom, now 32, are retired.

"I saw the way the game was going,'' said Roddick, who had the giant serve and the huge forehand - and originally not much else. "You have to get stronger and quicker. I don't think there was much room for a plodder who could hit the ball pretty hard."

There's always been room for Roddick, whose innate intelligence has been a joy in interviews even when his game didn't match his wit. He would predict the NBA draft selections, discuss politics on the men's tennis tour, offer self-deprecating humor and give coherent analyses of why he might have lost or Roger Federer had won.

Who, what, when, why? Roddick never hesitated to give an opinion. Or an explanation. Three times he reached the Wimbledon final, each time to lose to Federer. The first, in a postmatch interview broadcast through the stands, Roddick said, "I threw everything at him but the kitchen sink, so I went back to the locker room and tried to get the sink.'' The crowd roared.

So Tuesday, with a reference to those defeats and to Andy Murray's loss to Federer at this year's Wimbledon, someone asked Roddick if a loss could change the way the public views a player - and the way a player views himself.

"I think any sort of positive or negative on a big stage when eyeballs are on you,'' Roddick observed, "people form opinions. ... I think you get a pretty good reading of someone in tough moments. I can't really speak (about) Andy and what he's going through, but, you know, I don't remember much about the postmatch stuff from Wimbledon. But I guess people liked it back then.

"It wasn't something I was thinking about. I was just kind of reacting to what was in front of me."

Now so much is behind Roddick, and maybe still ahead. The mixture is of reality and hope, the same as that for most athletes. You compete, and then if everything goes well, you compete again.

"There is no acceptable result,'' Roddick responded when asked if making the second week of the Open could indeed be just that.

"You play your second round, try to win your second round. You go as far as you can. I don't think we think of it in the context of what's acceptable and what's not. You play a match to try and win a match."

The idea persists that if Federer hadn't come along when he did - at 31, a year older - Roddick might have won multiple Grand Slams. After all, he did lose to Federer in four finals, including the 2006 U.S. Open. Roddick doesn't think that way. He appreciates Federer's brilliance.

"I was never off Roger's bandwagon,'' said Roddick when the subject of Federer's return to No. 1 in the rankings was broached. "I'm not surprised to see him back. Novak (Djokovic) was playing unbelievable last year. Roger was just a little unfortunate. It's not a story for me, because he never stopped being the greatest."

Andy Roddick never stopped being himself, and for that American tennis, all tennis, is terribly fortunate.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- and a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He's also honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America. His columns appear in RealClearSports on Wednesdays and Fridays.