This one, however, wasn't about how to repair a humbled football team, his team, USC.

Instead, it dealt with how we might repair a damaged society.

"Why should we care?'' asked Pete Carroll rhetorically.

Then he answered. "Because, we can change the culture.''

The culture doesn't mean the woes of intercollegiate athletes, or even the woes of USC, having its worst season of the past eight, not that a 7-3 record is awful - unless you're a Trojan alum.

The culture means the violence and despair in certain parts of America's cities, particularly a part of Los Angeles, the West Adams district, not far from the USC campus.

"We want to give them hope,'' said Carroll, who late at night visits gang leaders as part of something called "A Better L.A.''

"We used to have kids who consistently would tell us ‘I'm going to die or I'm going to jail.' That's hopelessness. Now they have hope.''

And now Pete Carroll, for his efforts, has won the 14th Roy Firestone Award, given each year to an athlete or coach for charitable or volunteer work.

Former winners include Firestone, the long-time TV interviewer who now is the program's master of ceremonies and glue, Jim Brown, John Wooden, Jack Nicklaus, Wayne Gretzky, Terry Bradshaw and Jerry West.

The awards dinner, sponsored by a young professional's group called Westcoast Sports Associates, has raised millions to provide sports facilities and educational support for the underprivileged.

This year's ceremony, Wednesday evening, was planned months ago. Carroll, rare for a coach, agreed to take a few hours in season, because this week USC has a bye.

From football, not criticism.

On Saturday, Stanford beat USC, 55-21, the most points ever allowed by a school playing since 1888. What was going to be a celebration then almost became a wake.

"I wished it wasn't happening,'' Carol said privately of his night. "I've been in a bunker since Saturday. People are unhappy. I understand. So am I. We all have expectations.

"But I guess it's good to get out, to talk to people. We'll make adjustments. We did lose all those defensive guys to the pros the last couple of years. We started well this year, and everyone got excited. I got caught up in it too. But when we played Oregon and Stanford our problems were magnified. I've got to do better.''

To listen to the 58-year-old Carroll is to understand why he is such a persuasive recruiter. His words are enthusiastic, positive. There is self-deprecating humor. There is obvious pride.

And there is a sense of purpose, manifest in the attempt to make a difference on the mean streets of L.A.

"It was about kids dying,'' said Carroll of the reason he became involved. "I was riding down the street one morning, heading to SC, and listening to the news. Seven kids had been killed over the weekend. In a few more days, the count grew to something like 11.

"I told myself I can't keep listening to this without doing something.''

So he went to the neighborhood, the ‘hood, against the warnings of others. He found the main men, the ones in control. "Those are the guys I had to get, the charismatic individuals who everyone listens to.''

"I got, ‘What are you doing here?' It was one in the morning. But they listened. There was not one murder in West Adams last year. Once there were 17 a year. If you're real, you keep coming back, they'll believe. Why should we care? Because a mom should know her baby will come home.''

Home for Carroll is USC. A native of Northern California who was a head coach at both New England and the New York Jets and was fired from both -"But my overall record was 27-21'' - Pete was unemployed when as third choice he was hired by the Trojans before 2001.

He's won a couple of national championships and finished first in the Pac-10 seven straight seasons.

"I spent a lot of years with a chip on my shoulder,'' said Carroll. "The central theme in our program is competition. If people ask me would l like to prove (he can do) it in the NFL, maybe yeah.

"But I don't care about going back, because the league is such a mess. A couple of times I seriously talked to owners who thought they had something, but the situation I have here is so unique. I'm so much in control. I don't do things like they do in the NFL. You don't see me grimacing, don't see me dying after losses. I'm having so much fun, and I have so much freedom.''

And so much effect on young men who know Pete Carroll cares.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

It's hard to blame Knicks fans for clinging to hope. The most sophisticated basketball clientele in America has been saddled with a team that's richly embarrassing. The toxic remnants from the Isiah era remain in the form of mismatched players, empty seats, and the stench that comes with a 2-10 record.

Donnie Walsh has performed a miracle in clearing enough cap space to have room for a big free agent in the coming offseason. Mike D'Antoni coaches a style players love, one that lets them run the floor and make plays without looking to the puppet-master on the sidelines.

Doesn't matter. LeBron's not coming.

Why would he? As much as any superstar we've ever seen, he understands that it's a team game, and he always has. He has nothing to prove individually; it's about winning championships.

Add LeBron to the Knicks, and you're still three years away from being any good. He'd make them respectable, but why would he take such a great leap backwards? From a basketball standpoint, the move makes no sense.

But what about the dollars? He'd be coming to New York! The Big Apple! The World's Most Famous Arena! Think of all the off-court benefits that flow from being a big star in The Big City.

The notion that playing in New York has any significant effect on an athlete's value is an utter myth. It's a holdover from the "Mad Men" era, a relic from the days when you only saw endorsement opportunities if your name was Gifford or Mantle or Namath.

To begin with, how many more commercials does LeBron have time for? It's not as though he's underexposed. If he wants to release his own songs, make a movie, put his name on a fragrance or design a line of nonstick cookware, he can do it tomorrow without setting foot outside Ohio. He's at that level of fame where the world comes to him. (Have you even noticed that his last name hasn't appeared in this column yet?)

Playing in Chicago didn't exactly limit Michael Jordan's income. Indianapolis hasn't prevented Peyton Manning from appearing in more commercials than the ShamWow! guy. Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken became endorsement juggernauts from their bases in Texas and Baltimore respectively. Tom Brady met Gisele Bündchen despite the handicap of being in New England. Brett Favre did okay playing in the smallest market in sports. (His one season in New York only hurt his reputation.)

Who exactly has reaped the rewards of New York exposure? I don't recall Patrick Ewing getting a lot of endorsements. Mariano Rivera is considered the greatest closer ever, featured in loving closeup for dozens of hours of postseason television. What's it given him in off-field opportunities? Jason Giambi, C.C. Sabathia, even Alex Rodriguez - they came to New York, and didn't exactly set business hearts a-flutter. [I'll grant you Tiki Barber. Without New York, he'd've had to work his way up the ladder in local sports or at ESPN, not move directly from the field to the Today Show.]

The two New York athletes with greatest market visibility right now are Derek Jeter and Eli Manning. No matter where he played, Jeter's looks and championships and captaincy of a team with the Yankees' history would have brought him those opportunities. (See "Favre, Brett" above.) Eli probably benefits as much from being Peyton's little brother as he does from playing his home games in New Jersey. And he wasn't making serious off-field money until he won a Super Bowl.

For most athletes - those below the LeBron-MJ pantheon - being in New York is actually a detriment. In smaller markets, there are as many local endorsements available and far fewer celebrities to claim them.

Add in the simple fact that the NBA's salary cap rules mean that the Cavs can pay LeBron more than anyone else can, and there is simply no economic reason for him to come to New York. It's a wonderful place to live, but it wouldn't really give him anything he doesn't already have. (I'm assuming he's already got a dish so he can watch his beloved Yankees.)

So sorry, Knicks fans, Tony Kornheiser, and everyone else investing their emotions in the LeBron-to-New York delusion. He won't say it, because it's not in his interests to rule it out yet. But he's not coming. Find another straw to grasp at.

Jeff Neuman is a sportswriter and editor, and co-author of A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.

Harbaugh, the guy who just got an extension to stay at Stanford, and why not, since he proved kids who study are kids who can play, was about to step to the microphone in a bayside sports bar/brewery/dining establishment called Gordon Biersch.

It was hype time for the Big Game, Stanford vs. Cal, 112 years of insults and bent trombones. But virtually the moment Harbaugh began to talk, on one of the numerous TV sets in the place ESPN was quizzing its audience on what was the worst coaching decision of the weekend, Belichick's on fourth down or Harbaugh's on the conversion in the fourth quarter against USC.

Asked if he felt honored to be included in the tale America is equating with the collapse of Wall Street, the Belichick gamble, Harbaugh paused only for a moment, then responded, "I'm glad we won the game.''

That Stanford did, crushing the Trojans, 55-21, even though the two-pointer, the Cardinal leading at the time, 48-21, and only 6 minutes 49 seconds remaining, was unsuccessful.

Down in southern Cal, many fans were quite displeased, using such terms as "poor sportsmanship'' and "disgraceful.'' A Stanford alum of some history, having suffered through years of Trojan domination, e-mailed, in response, "USC accuses Stanford of pouring it on? The gods laughed.''

Not a lot of people were laughing about Belichick, his Patriots in front, 34-28, with a couple of minutes left trying to pick up two yards on fourth down from his own 28 instead of punting. The Colts, zap, zap, got the touchdown that with the extra point won the game, 35-34.

The outrage was universal. A different outrage than that directed at Harbaugh, certainly, more of a "What a dumkopf that Belichick is. Every 6-year-old has been taught in that situation you kick it away.'' It was as if Bill had stomped on the flag, not merely blown a call.

Belichick, like Harbaugh, had his reasons, one declared - the Pats with Tom Brady should have no worry making two stinking yards anywhere, anytime - and one unspoken. The New England defense ain't what it used to be, so better to take the chance to retain possession then give it to Peyton Manning, wherever.

For not bowing to public opinion, Belichick, and Harbaugh, deserve both our admiration and our thanks. Isn't the idea to be a leader, not a follower? It takes courage to try what nobody else would. Besides, they created instant controversy, the stuff that keeps us from watching Oprah.

I mean, Tedy Bruschi, the former Patriot, and current ESPN employee - do not forget the latter connection - was on his network seemingly seconds after the Pats couldn't get their first down, berating the man who used to coach him. Who could have asked for better theater?

Harbaugh had a luke-warm justification about ordering the two-point attempt with a 27-point lead. "I felt with 6:49 left, we had the opportunity to punch it in and make it a lead of four scores plus two points. I felt it was the right thing to do. They were going to have two more possession opportunities.

"I felt like we were going to get it. That's why we did it. Had I known they weren't going to score any more points and we were going to score again, I probably wouldn't have done it. But I didn't have the luxury of knowing it at the time.''

What that translates to is, "We've been waiting forever to get even with those Trojans, and we're not going to miss this chance. If they don't like it, then stop us.''

Which they couldn't.

Nor could anyone stop Belichick from his self-assured gesture. The critics said it was arrogance, as if that's an indictable offense in the coaching profession. Those guys think they can do everything, except turn water into wine, and Belichick virtually has done everything, the Pats winning three Super Bowls.

Brady said all the Patriots agreed with the Belichick judgment, and who cares if the rest of the free world didn't agree. If it works, he's a genius. If it doesn't work, well, he's still a genius for getting us so involved that days later we're still angry.

Admit it. Football hasn't been this much fun since Florida State was missing field goals wide right.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

Northern Exposure, Part I: There's a new beast in the AFC North. If Cincinnati can stay awake through its November 29 matchup with the Cleveland Browns, it will sweep the division for the first time ever. The Bengals' 18-12 victory over Pittsburgh gave them home-and-home wins against the Steelers for the first time since 1998. (And Cincinnati went 3-13 that year.)

The game was a tribute to the tough defense Marvin Lewis has put in place, with neither team scoring an offensive touchdown. Cincy's straight-up defense limited Ben Roethlisberger to a 20-of-40 afternoon for 174 yards, with four sacks and one interception. In Pittsburgh's last two possessions, at home with the game on the line, the Bengals pitched a near-total whitewash, six incompletions and one pass for seven yards in a three-and-out and a four-and-it's-over.

In the postgame, Cincinnati QB Carson Palmer told reporters, "We have a long way to go... We're not nearly good enough to make a long playoff run yet." That may be the right way to think, but you'd have a hard time convincing the Steelers after Sunday. Cincinnati's next three games are against Oakland, Cleveland, and Detroit. See you in December at 10-2, guys.

That's Entertainment!: The Colts and Pats don't know how to play dull games with each other, do they? Bill Belichick's extraordinary (that's one word for it) gamble on fourth-and-two deep in his own territory with two minutes to go is as incomprehensible a decision as I've seen this side of Andy Reid. Maybe he intended to lull the Colts into a false sense of security. Maybe, at some point in a future playoff game, when the Patriots line up as though they're going for it on a fourth down that makes no sense, the other team will have to respect the possibility and just might jump offsides.

Or maybe the smartest coach in the league was as nervous about the prospect of a two-minute drive with the ball in Peyton Manning's hands as every single New England fan was, and figured his best chance to win the game was in his own offense's hands. When it works, he's a genius. When it doesn't - and it failed by the tiniest margin - he looks like the stupidest coach who ever lived. Either way, the win or loss goes next to his name, and I suspect he's comfortable with that.

Slow down, sculptors: You can take a break for a while from preparing that bust of Josh McDaniels for Canton. Denver's 27-17 loss at Washington was the Broncos' third straight, to a team that had lost four straight coming into Sunday. Kyle Orton's ankle injury at the end of the first half brought Chris Simms into the game; the lefthander, who had thrown two NFL passes since 2006, completed 3-of-13 for 13 yards and one interception. The Broncos had 36 yards total offense in the second half.

Most embarrassing for Denver, Washington scored its highest point total in a game since week two of 2008. The Redskins scored on a second-quarter fake field goal, what would have been a 52-yard attempt, even though they had already shown the formation with tight end Todd Yoder split wide; coach Jim Zorn had to call a timeout because the Skins had only ten men on the field. Fully-stocked, they used the identical alignment, and still Mike Sellers was wide open for the pass from holder Hunter Smith.

The Broncos' three-and-a-half game lead over San Diego has gone to zero in four weeks. Next week's matchup with the Chargers in Denver has become a must-win.

Northern Exposure, Part II: Dallas looked awful in losing 17-7 at Green Bay in a game that wasn't nearly that close. The Cowboys' eleven possessions ended as follows: missed FG, punt, punt, punt, fumble lost, punt, punt, punt, fumble lost, interception, touchdown with 38 seconds to go in a 17-0 game.

It's looking like a down year for the NFC East. Dallas's non-division wins are against Tampa Bay, Carolina, Kansas City, Atlanta, and Seattle. Philadelphia's are over Carolina, Kansas City, and Tampa Bay, with losses to Oakland and San Diego. The idle Giants have beaten Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and Oakland, and lost to New Orleans, Arizona, and San Diego. Not an impressive win in the bunch.

A Win Is A Win Is A Win: Several commentators have called Miami "the best 3-5 team in the league." Impressive teams shouldn't struggle to beat the Bucs at home, even when they lose their leading runner (Ronnie Brown) to an ankle injury. That said, Miami's brisk four-play, sixty-second march from its own 16 to the Tampa Bay 7 for the winning field goal was indeed impressive. And now they're the best 4-5 team in the league.

Call Them the One-Eyed Chiefs: In a battle for supremacy in the kingdom of the blind, Kansas City moved a step ahead of the Raiders in Oakland. JaMarcus Russell continued his remarkable season, throwing for 67 yards in 24 attempts against a defense that reminded nobody of the 2000 Ravens. The Raiders and Browns are the only two teams who have scored fewer than 100 points this season. The Browns have the excuse of having played one fewer game (though they won't after their Monday game against Baltimore). KC may not be the best of the worst, but Oakland's in the running for the worst of them.

Rex's Gambit Declined: Fascinating wind-down to the Jets-Jaguars game. With the Jets up by one and out of timeouts, and Jacksonville in chip-shot field-goal range, Rex Ryan ordered his defense to let the Jags score on second-and-six from the New York ten. This was the right move with 1:48 left on the clock, since the ensuing kickoff would give the Jets time to come back. But Maurice Jones-Drew had the right countermove, getting the first down but taking a knee just before the goal line. After three David Garrard kneel-downs - unusual for a trailing team - the Jags hit the winning field goal as time expired.

Jeff Neuman is a sportswriter and editor, and co-author of A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.

We're pleased to announce the launching of the RCS Blog Network, a collection of over 50 blogs covering topics ranging from the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Lakers to golf, tennis, even cricket.

While RealClearSports has always been the leading aggregator of sports news and commentary from around the world, we now will also serve as a place that generates high quality original content. Our network will only grow over time, with more topics, sports, leagues and teams to be covered in the near future.

With print media continuing to be beset by a financial - even existential - crisis, the marketplace is now flooded with top sports journalists seeking to expand their reach and perhaps transition into a new web-based career. And this is where we come in: We have scooped up a number of these journalists, with more to come onboard in short order.

David Steele, formerly of the Baltimore Sun, writes The Steele Drum, on all that's going on in the realm of sports, particularly the NBA. Justice Hill, now teaching journalism at Ohio University, keeps his eye on LeBron, the dysfunctional Browns and his beloved Buckeyes at Justice Is Served. Doug Clawson, so disgusted with the newspaper business that he moved to Germany to escape it, finds that he can't lay off his addiction to the NFL and golf in The Grill Room.

There are many more, covering the pros and colleges, offering their insight on teams and regions from across the United States. Want to know about Alabama, Auburn and even UAB? Rubin Grant is your man. The Beltway? Check with Marvin Greene. In fact, we encourage you to peruse the biographies of our bloggers, as well as our ever-expanding lineup of blogs in the RCS Blog Network.

We have also revamped what used to be the RCS Blog. In RCS Sidelines, our staff members will continue to keep you abreast of all the latest sports news and issues. We will post much more frequently than in the past, and very soon, our newly revamped comments function will be set up to allow for greater interaction with our readers.

Meanwhile, our own columnists will continue to provide commentary with links fom our front page. Art Spander, a Hall of Fame journalist who last year received the PGA's Lifetime Achievement Award, will be covering the big events, such as the Super Bowl, BCS National Championship Game and the Masters. Tim Joyce, a veteran tennis commentator, writes on Sundays and Tuesdays. Jeff Neuman, a longtime editor and author, appears on Mondays and Thursdays. And of course, our popular Top 10 List is still published every Tuesday.

Finally, if you haven't noticed, we've added contents from The Sports Network, which provides the most up-to-date sports scores, statistics, betting lines, analysis and news. You can access all that TSN has to offer from our scoreboard on the front page, or the ‘Stats' tab on the navigation bar.

Thank you for your continued support. Your suggestions and comments are always appreciated. You may contact us at info@realclearsports.com.

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

After finally putting together a winning week, we're back in the red again, going 6-7 to drop below .500 for the season (43-44-1) once again.

We're getting there, though. At least we're there until the bitter end with every pick. Sooner or later, we should be back on the winning track, the kind of hot streak that we began the season with.

But if this sounds like ground hog day to you ... we don't blame you. We thought we'd turn it around sooner than this.

Stay with us. This week is gonna be good. We just know it:

Chicago (+3.5) over SAN FRANCISCO (Well, already lost this one. Thanks, Jay Cutler!)
Detroit (+16.5) over MINNESOTA
Denver (-3.5) over WASHINGTON
CAROLINA (+2) over Atlanta
MIAMI (-10) over Tampa Bay
ST. LOUIS (+14) over New Orleans
TENNESSEE (-8.5) over Buffalo
Cincinnati (+7.5) over PITTSBURGH
NY JETS (-7) over Jacksonville
Kansas City (+2) over OAKLAND
Philadelphia (+1) over SAN DIEGO
Seattle (+9) over ARIZONA
GREEN BAY (+2.5) over Dallas
New England (+3) over INDIANAPOLIS
CLEVELAND (+10.5) over Baltimore

So while Sundays - and now Thursdays and then Saturdays by mid-December - can joyfully be set aside for indulgence in our shared autumnal game, there is still that sports void the other days of the week. While this is most probably a healthy thing, to not follow an activity that has little to do with one's actual life, it nonetheless poses a problem for those who are adamant that sports should play at least an ancillary role in their quotidian existence.

For the many who do want more sports in their life, they turn their attention in the winter to basketball and hockey as both supply their followers with three games per week, a happy medium of sorts between baseball and football. Though hockey has its passionate following, especially in cities such as Detroit and Denver - not to mention that rather large nation north of our border - basketball (college and pro) is still the winter sport of choice for most Americans.

But here in New York, there has been a paucity of successful basketball, let alone interest, in the last decade at both the professional and collegiate levels. It is a brutal and unfortunate irony as Madison Square Garden is known as the "mecca of basketball". It's hard to fathom that there have been hardly any games of consequence in the dead of winter at the Garden in recent years. After all, New York was considered for decades to be the epicenter of the sport.

Granted, Gotham's denizens have always had a large and diverse buffet to choose from when it comes to entertainment than just sports. There is an embarrassment of cultural riches in New York so a team isn't as important to civic pride as say the Red Sox are to Boston or the Broncos to Denver (no offense intended to the artistic sensibilities of either of these great American cities) It'd be simple to spend weekends taking advantage of such offerings and not miss going to a basketball game. That being said, it's more fun when the Knicks - or even St. John's in the college game - are doing well (the Nets do not count as a New York team - if you can't take a subway to the game, the team doesn't merit a New York logo).

Just how long has it been since the Knicks were a relevant franchise? Consider that from 1998 through 2001, the Knicks made the playoffs every year, a streak of 14 seasons. But they haven't won a playoff game since that run and have reached the postseason only once in these intervening nine years and that was in the dubious season of 2004 - when they won only 39 games. In fact, they haven't notched 40 wins in a campaign since the 2001 season.

The Red Storm of St. John's have also toiled in futility. While not as "important" a team to New York as the Knicks, the Red Storm are the only legitimate Division I school in the five boroughs. St. John's is now running a streak of seven consecutive seasons without a trip to the NCAA tournament. Not since the 1950's has the Queens school waited so long for postseason play.

What makes the Knicks situation so troubling and disheartening is that, in addition to their losing ways, the squad hasn't been that likable in some time. Yes, even the jaded and spoiled New York fan can take a liking to a group of overachieving if not triumphant athletes. But loveable losers, a la the 1962 Mets, the Knicks are not. They're a sordid mess and more reminiscent of the 1980's Yankees - a bloated, overpaid squad with an incompetent front office that has made repeatedly dreadful choices in putting the roster together.

Acquiring free agents and buying up talent has been a New York tradition for decades, be it the Yankees or Knicks. But for a team to be truly loved in New York, capturing the collective imagination of its mammoth and varied populace, creating a palpable buzz in the city, there must be a core of home bred talent even if they are bolstered by bought superstars.

Speaking of the Yankees again, while they bought many high priced players in the 1980's there was a dire lack of players from their farm system and the team struggled and never made the postseason. This dramatically changed when Gene Michael oversaw the development of Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada and others in the early 1990's - the rest is history. The 1986 Mets were also of similar makeup as a core of farm talent pitching and Daryl Strawberry, bolstered by key free agent acquisitions, made the Mets the kings of the city for a short time.

And in that long ago place in time before free agency, the championship Knicks teams of 1970 and 1973 were built not around trades but a core of drafted players who turned into Hall of Famers - Walt Frazier, Willis Reed and Bill Bradley.

So if the Knicks do indeed sign Lebron James as many forecast will indeed occur, the team will undoubtedly add 15-20 games to their win total in the 2010-2011 season. But the inherent identity problem that the Knicks face will still not be resolved. Only if the Knicks rookies or other homegrown players find a way to make an impact around James or Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant, will the team become truly loved and a relevant part of the New York sports landscape.

Winter can be miserable in New York - snow, cold rain, impossibly crowded subways as extra layers of clothing produce unbearable confinement rendering cranky its citizenry. So a few exciting and meaningful evenings at 32nd Street and 7th Avenue with the Knicks would be a most welcome return to the days when Madison Square Garden was the place to be on a frigid New York night.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

National Championship - TCU vs. Boise State

Rose Bowl - Oregon State vs. Wisconsin

Orange Bowl - Pittsburgh vs. Duke

Sugar Bowl - LSU vs. Georgia Tech

Fiesta Bowl - Kansas State vs. Alabama

First of all, Wisconsin cannot win the Big Ten. It's not unlikely, but impossible, per the Big Ten's tiebreaker rules. And if Alabama wins the SEC championship, even with one loss, it's guaranteed to play in the Sugar Bowl. Furthermore, since in this scenario the Orange Bowl has the first pick, there is no way on God's green earth it'd take the Big East champion over all other qualifiers.

So, Sean, please go back and study up a little more before you venture into something that's slightly above your pay grade.

The only item in this juvenile fantasy that's not a mathematical or procedural impossibility is the first one - a BCS national championship game between TCU and Boise State.

It's highly improbable, but not impossible. In addition, the chances of having TCU in the title game - as the first non-BCS conference member - are better than you think. Here's what will need to happen:

a) Texas loses one of its four remaining games
b) Florida loses one of its remaining regular-season games and then beats Alabama in the SEC title game
c) Cincinnati loses one of its remaining three games

If at least two of the above scenarios occur, plus TCU wins its last three games, then voila!, you'll have Horned Frogs kissing Rose princesses (maybe even the queen) in Pasadena right after New Year's Day.

What about Boise State? You ask.

No chance, because there is just about zero possibility of the Broncos jumping TCU if both teams win out.

What about an SEC rematch in the national title game?

That's a longshot, and only would happen if Alabama wins the SEC championship. The Gators are done if they drop one of their remaining regular-season games because they'll get massacred by the computers for their weak schedule.

Why does Cincinnati have to lose?

Because the Bearcats are almost certain to jump TCU if both teams win out. Cincinnati's remaining schedule will be much more to the computers' liking, not to mention the voters'.

Does Boise State have any shot to make the TCU-Boise title game a reality?

Yes, but the odds on that are longer than having Sarah Palin (an Idaho native, by the way) as our next president. Even if every team ahead of Boise State loses a game, the Broncos may still be behind a couple of one-loss teams in the BCS standings. Right now, their primary concern is trying to stay out a second consecutive Poinsettia Bowl.

★★★★★ GAME OF THE WEEK: Utah at TCU, 7:30 p.m. ET (CBS College Sports). Without a doubt, this is the biggest game in TCU history (ah, don't give me the Sammy Baugh bullcrap, were you alive back then?). But unfortunately, it will be seen by only about a third of the nation's cable audience. This is the moment where TCU (and perhaps the whole of the Mountain West) might be able to cross the Rubicon and become a real player in the BCS. A Horned Frogs victory all but locks up a BCS bowl berth, perhaps more.

★★★★ FOUR-STAR GAME: Iowa at Ohio State, 3:30 p.m. ET (ABC). The winner of this game will go to Pasadena. For the Buckeyes, it'll be their first in the Jim Tressel era - and the first since 1996. The Hawkeyes will be the prohibitive underdog now that Ricky Stanzi is out, but an upset will give them their first Rose Bowl berth since 1990. The loser may be out of a BCS bowl altogether.

★★★ THREE-STAR GAME: Notre Dame at Pittsburgh, 8 p.m. ET (ABC). The Irish are reduced to playing for a Gator Bowl berth and perhaps saving Charlie Weis' job. For Pitt, while this game has no implication for the Big East's BCS bowl berth, a lot of national prestige will be on the line. The Panthers need to handle Notre Dame to justify their lofty ranking in the BCS standings.

★★ TWO-STAR GAME: Stanford at USC, 3:30 p.m. ET (FSN). Do you know Stanford is the only team to have beaten USC twice at the Coliseum in the Pete Carroll era? The last time these two met in L.A., the 41-point underdog Cardinal scored a 24-23 shocking upset that ended the Trojans' quest for the 2007 national championship. These two teams will be much more evenly matched up this time around. The spread, in fact, is only 10 1/2.

★ ONE-STAR GAME: Florida at South Carolina, 3:30 p.m. ET (CBS). The Ol' Ball Coach beat his alma mater (and Urban Meyer) in his first season with the Gamecocks, but has lost the last three, including two humiliating defeats the last two years in which the Gators ran up over 100 points. Steve Spurrier will try to make a better go at it this time around, but an upset is probably out of the question. (The SEC refs will make sure of it ... Sorry, Mike Slive, I didn't mean it.)

(Cross-post at BCS Guru)

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

But right now it's only Sunday, Monday and, had we forgotten, Thursday night, that series now restarted to the delight of NFL Network if not the game's purists.

The San Francisco 49ers and Chicago Bears each played, and lost, Sunday, and then four days later, they were forced to face each other by the side of San Francisco Bay, two not very good teams offering a lot of not very good football.

The Niners won,10-6, or in truth the Bears lost. Whether it was the lack of preparation or the simple fact these two franchises, once at the top, are now in the lower echelons and wouldn't be effective if they had two months to prepare, the offenses were offensive.

Jay Cutler, the Bears quarterback, the guy who got himself traded from the Denver Broncos because his feelings were hurt, was terrible. Maybe worse than that. Which is the reason the 49ers won for the first time in five games.

Cutler threw 52 passes. Of those, 29 were completed for 307 yards. That's not bad. Of those, five were intercepted. That's depressing. That's defeating. Five turnovers.

"I have to apologize to the defense,'' said Cutler. He ought to apologize to management, who met his wishes in providing a change of locale.

He's now thrown 17 interceptions in nine games this season, including five in this game, four in the opener against Green Bay and three against Cincinnati.

Not for 47 years, since 1962, had a Bears quarterback thrown four interceptions or more in two games the same season, not since a man named Bill Wade.

Bears fans couldn't wait to get rid of a quarterback named Rex Grossman, even though he led them to the Super Bowl. They're rid of him.

Jay Cutler didn't like it because the Broncos in the offseason made an attempt to trade for Matt Cassel. Cutler wouldn't even discuss the issue with new Denver coach Josh McDaniels. Finally, the Broncos sent him to Chicago.

Lucky Denver. Unfortunate Chicago.

"An interception is an interception to me,'' was the observation of Bears coach Lovie Smith when asked if the throws were forced. "Jay is trying to make a play on every one, but you just have to have better judgment on some of them, especially the ones in the end zone.''

He had two of those, one in the second quarter, from the one, ending an 18-play drive. Eighteen plays, 88 yards. Six minutes. No points.

The other came on the game's final play, on second-and-10 from the 12 with eight seconds left. Also 88 yards, 16 plays, no points.

No wonder the 49ers, with only 216 yards total offense compared to 350 for the Bears, were winners. No wonder the 49ers had the only touchdown in a game which compensated for a lack of scoring with a degree of excitement.

At the end, 69,732 fans at Candlestick Park were chanting, shouting, screaming as if the game meant something. What it meant was Thursday night football has arrived.

Chicago was in the Super Bowl only three years ago. The Bears are in the dumpster now. They're 4-5. "Sure we can make the playoffs,'' said Lovie Smith. "Five losses won't keep you out of the playoffs.''

Five interceptions a game will.

"I think it knocks you back a few steps when you throw that many interceptions,'' conceded Smith when asked what the mistakes would do to Cutler's confidence. "Yes, it hurts you. Jay realizes what that did for the team.''

In San Francisco, the faithful were concerned what some boasting by Niners tight end Vernon Davis might do to the team. Davis predicted the Niners would "destroy'' the Bears' defensive line. It was a gimmick, he said, to rile up his teammates, not Chicago.

Bears defensive end Adewale Ogunleye confronted Davis during warm-ups, protecting his honor as it were. Child's stuff. The 49ers didn't destroy the Bears. Cutler destroyed the Bears.

"They didn't have any surprises,'' said Cutler. "We just didn't execute. We saw everything coming.''

And going. Into the hands of the Niners defensive backs. "I don't,'' said Cutler when asked for an explanation.

He'd better find one. Four interceptions one game. Five in another. That's dreadful. That's fatal.

"It's hard to win a football game,'' said Lovie Smith, "when you have five turnovers.''

On the first Thursday night game of 2009, it was not hard, it was impossible.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

College football crowns its Bowl Championship Series (BCS) champion after pairing the top-ranked two teams in a single game. The top teams are determined largely by expert polls with some input from computer algorithms. The team ranked third often has a semi-legitimate case that it deserved an opportunity to play in the championship game, especially since the BCS formula has been repeatedly tweaked. The issue of fairness is a common attack thrown at the bowl tradition by playoff agitators. But fairness is impossible to measure. Or is it?

Any playoff system requires a cutoff that leaves a single team out. The wider the net, the more arbitrary that cutoff becomes (requiring ever more complicated tie-breaker rules). The result is that any playoff introduces another kind of unfairness. An 8-team playoff gives an arguably weaker team the chance to defeat a squad that was much better during the regular season. That may make for enjoyable entertainment, but it is definitely unfair in its way. The argument is that a playoff cheapens the regular season and all its games.

Professional football in the NFL uses a 12-team single elimination playoff to determine its champion. During the most recent Super Bowl, a team with a 9-7 regular-season record (Arizona Cardinals) played and nearly won. That kind of finale happens because with 32 teams in the NFL, more than one-third make the playoff cut.

And consider professional basketball in the NBA and hockey in the NHL. Sixteen teams are included in the NHL's Stanley Cup playoff - selected from just 30 teams. Likewise, in the NBA, 16 playoff teams are chosen from 30 in the league. Literally below-average teams make the playoffs in those sports every year. Is that fair?

Wide bracket playoffs reward casual play during the regular season. Instead of striving for excellence, the smarter strategy is to avoid injuries, especially during the late season games. Such a structure is one way of defining greatness, but is it the only way?

These kinds of arguments can be had in any sports bar in America. But now college football is under assault, with President Obama suggesting a playoff, and Senate hearings grilling the BCS as "un-American." Now that's a low blow. With all the sports statistics available, it's about time somebody took a look at what's fair using quantitative analysis.

The Fairness Index

Being number crunchers by training, we decided to create the Fairness Index. Our index measures the regular season record of a league's champion against its top team. Let's say the champ has a 12-4 record, while the top-seeded team went undefeated during the regular season, 16-0. That's easy. The fairness index for that league in that year is 75 percent. In another case, the top team might have a 15-1 record and go on to win it all, so the fairness index would be 15/15 or 100 percent.

How do you think the fairness index for pro football compares to college? If you think a playoff is fair, then you probably think they're about the same, right? Not even close.

FAIRNESS INDEX

College Football
97.2 % BCS era
96.3 % Pre-BCS era

Professional U.S. Sports
96.6 % Basketball (NBA)
92.6 % Baseball (MLB)
91.6 % Football

* The Fairness Index measures the average ratio of the champion's regular season record to its team with the best regular season record. For example, the average NFL champion has 91.6 percent as many wins as the team with the best record that year. Each of the professional average includes only the years with the current number of playoff teams.

The fairness index is much higher in college football (97.2 percent) than in the NFL (91.6). The higher level of fairness for college ball was true before the BCS, but is even more true today. Gnash your teeth all you want, but the one thing an NCAA football playoff would not be is fair. By our estimate, it would be about 5 percentage points less fair. Translation: the odds of the best team winning the championship would be 5 percentage points lower.

Critics will point to the fairness index for basketball, which at 96.6 percent is roughly the same as the BCS. The NBA seems to prove that a playoff does not mean a low fairness score. But wait, these are different sports, and the playoff design is critical. Three reasons why the NBA index is deceptively high: its playoff follows a best-of-seven format for each series, better teams enjoy home-court advantage, and scoring is frequent (thus less subject to luck rather than talent). The better question is whether the fairness index would rise or fall outside of a playoff. If only there was a way to test that.

But there is!

Fairness Declines as Playoff Bracket Expands

Consider the problem of "playoff creep." As you increase the number of teams in the playoffs, you increase the likelihood that the best team will not win, since they will face more chances to be upset by an inferior team. Most plans for a college football playoff imagine a small number of qualifying teams, maybe four, maybe eight. That way the regular season would still matter to a great degree, and the top teams would not have to face as many playoff games, pivotal injuries, and possible upsets. Realistically, it is unlikely that the bracket would remain small. History says so. Look at the NCAA I-AA (now FCS) football playoffs. Look at the bloated NCAA basketball playoffs. Look at the NBA and NHL mentioned above. Over the decades, they all suffered playoff creep so severe that the regular season is now little more than a pre-season.

But no case of playoff creep is clearer than Major League Baseball. Once upon a time, the Pennant Race was as hallowed and glorious as anything in Sport, and it meant simply finishing the 162-game season with the best record. Winning the World Series was icing on the cake, sure, but it wasn't the cake. Only the team with the very best record in the regular season won the Pennant. Period.

Until 1969, the best team in the American League won its pennant, same for the best team in the National League. That was what determined the two - two! - teams that made it to the World Series. And winning the pennant wasn't just some kind of cheap semi-final for the Series, it was an achievement all its own. From 1969 to 1993, the same logic applied to four divisions. Then in 1995 they converted to a full-blown 8-team playoff, complete with wild cards.

Guess what happened to fairness? Playoff creep in Major League Baseball is associated with a clear decline in the fairness index, from an average of 97.5 percent up until 1968 (the highest in our data), to 95.5 percent when the playoff was introduced, then 92.6 percent when the playoff bracket was expanded after 1984.

A College Football Playoff?

The playoff creep that occurred in those sports is almost certain to hit college football, and with it, a decline in fairness. Again, lower fairness scores with bigger playoff systems means without a doubt that more teams with worse records will get crowned champion than before. It's happened in other sports, which the data proves.

The consequence is that regular season records will not matter. The difference between the BCS and NFL average fairness index is equivalent to one less win in a season. One way to interpret that is that a single loss will essentially have no consequence on a team's chances to be recognized as champion. In other words, every game in the regular season will be not only less important than it is now, but unimportant. There is no question that a playoff would reduce the importance of the regular season.

Famous games such as the series of Florida State-Miami games in the early 1990s would be changed from elimination games in the National Championship chase to warm-ups to possible future play-off matchups. Those games would still have appeal to fans of those teams but would lose their appeal to much of the nation.

College football is unique, though many wish to change it and end its traditions. College football has a more important regular season than any other sport. And because of that, college football has rivalries that maintain their intensity while those of other sports fade. The one knock on college football has long been that its championship crown just isn't fair. But now you know the real story.

Michael Davis, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Economics at Missouri University of Science and Technology and can be contacted at davismc@fidnet.com. Tim Kane, Ph.D. is an economist at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and can be contacted at tkane@kauffman.org.

Brown was of a different era, a different time, when sport and humility were interwoven. He ran for a touchdown, handed the ball to an official and moved to the sideline, without self-promotional gyrations. He performed. We cheered.

Andre Agassi was born in 1970, five years after Brown left the NFL, and the connection is that there's a disconnection, even if Agassi reached a point in his sport, tennis, that Brown reached in his, the top.

The difference was Andre found it impossible to remain silent.

Sports autobiographies remain puzzling. Does the subject simply want to sell books or does he or she want to sell us an idea, the climb from poverty, the escape from an overbearing parent, the attempt to disprove the critics?

In one of the more orchestrated releases of non-fiction particularly one dealing with the toy world of life, we have been assaulted by Agassi's "Open: An Autobiography,'' in which through an unlisted ghost writer - one J.R. Moehringer - Andre tells us more than we need to know.

Before the book arrived in stores a few days ago, Agassi had appeared on CBS' 60 Minutes, given interviews, asked for contrition, been knocked by the World Anti-Doping Agency and told us he hated tennis.

And there was that little matter of Agassi in 1997, when he was injured, using crystal methamphetamine, the sort of confession needed to grab headlines which in turn would cause the public to grab copies of the book, at $28.95 per.

Andre - or Moehringer - recalls, "I snort some, I ease back on the couch and consider the Rubicon I've crossed.'' We knew Andre was brilliant on the return of serve, but that sentence is a Grand Slam of prose.

Nobody ever doubted Agassi's skill or resilience. He dropped to 141st in the world rankings and then worked his way back to winning the French Open. It was his style which always made one suspicious.

Maybe 20 years ago, when I was at the old San Francisco Examiner and the men's tour was in town I was given the chance to have breakfast with Andre Agassi, who would have been around 19. His reputation then was less than enviable. Over eggs and potatoes, he seemed cooperative and friendly, which is what his handlers were hoping.

Who was the real Andre Agassi, the rude, arrogant teenager? Or the reformed young man? Was it a case of maturity or of programming? Not long after, with Agassi as the front man, Canon cameras began the "Image is Everything,'' advertising campaign. A bit of skepticism is permitted over a new Agassi image.

Especially when Agassi concedes in the book he later lied to authorities about using drugs. Especially when earlier in his career he tanked matches, a poorly kept secret. Especially when we learn the ponytail he wore until 1996 was a prop, a wig, an attempt to compensate for going bald far too early.

Agassi is one of six men in history to have won each of the Slams, the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open. Pete Sampras couldn't do it. Bjorn Borg couldn't do it. John McEnroe couldn't go it. But Andre Agassi, who used to skip Wimbledon because he couldn't, or wouldn't, learn to play grass, did it.

The last few years, Agassi, married to Steffi Graf, whose 22 total Slams put Andre's eight into a thimble, admirably has used his wealth and energy in support of educating the less fortunate. He has evolved into an elder statesman, if at age 39 metaphorically.
His record, his deeds, his comeback, required no fancy rendering in print, not after all the things that had been written season after season.

But here came Agassi, spurred perhaps by his own guilt over the meth, perhaps by what he saw as a stolen childhood - and that's been depicted previously- to tell us how becoming a champion was more agony than ecstasy.

Of Sampras, his rival and frequent conqueror, Andre, (through Moehringer) says, "I envy Pete's dullness. I wish I could emulate his spectacular lack of need for inspiration.'' Why is Agassi saying that now, rather than when he had to stand across the net from Sampras?

Did Andre have a story to tell? Did he simply want to make sure three years after his last meaningful match, he would not be forgotten? Those questions remain "Open'' to speculation.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

And very few of us truly live a complete life - one of significant triumphs, sins, acute sadness and rare glory. So many would just love the chance to talk about the regret and melancholy that accompanied the spectrum of such ups and downs because that would mean their life carried at least some weight and import. There are millions of downcast, isolated and miserable souls who feel cheated in this hyped media age if their lives are devoid of the now expected excitement that many seem to believe is a 21st century birthright.

Let's face it - most live their seven or eight decades without much adventure, risk taking or any sizeable amount of success. And often, when those famous or infamous recount their struggles and high points, it all appears far less tragic because of this fact.

But what makes Agassi's story - or perhaps more aptly labeled urgent confessional - so compelling is that he lays out his missteps without blatantly asking for forgiveness or even grace, as with his admission of drug use. The words uttered throughout the nearly 400 pages (with a significant assist from uncredited writer J.R. Moehringer who undoubtedly gave the book its eminently readable quality) by the former number one player appear as searing insights into his divided, irritable and vengeful nature. It's almost as if the 39 year old is using the book as his final act of therapy to fully reveal and rectify - reconcile - the double (or triple?) life that he's perpetrated on his fans for the last nearly quarter century.

And this is no small feat. If one uses other sports biographies as a comparison, this book stands alone. And if it is compared to other tennis-specific life stories, this breaks the mold. It is a refreshing counter to John McEnroe's "You Cannot Be Serious". That book from the omnipresent New Yorker served as more of a self-promotional text that only enhanced his beloved status as everyone's favorite - or despised - trouble maker. There were few surprises in Johnny Mac's tome. If you hated or loved McEnroe going into reading it, the viewpoint didn't change upon completion.

With "Open" it's an entirely different and more nuanced story. Agassi has never been easy to love. Or more accurately, it took a long time for him to become beloved. And this book doesn't change that. The obnoxious side to his character is revealed without a tangible desire for the reader to explain away his behavior. In one example, he comes across as petty and juvenile. After defeating Boris Becker in the semifinals of the US Open in 1995 - serving as desired payback for his defeat to the German at Wimbledon two moths prior - Agassi lingers at the baseline before finally approaching the net for the customary post-match handshake. He tells of how he resented Becker's statements at Wimbledon after the German had pulled of a stunning upset over the American.

This obstinate and immature behavior is directly related to Agassi's utter cowardice. While it's unrealistic and insane to expect a child to stand up to a boorish and relentless parent, Agassi nonetheless had many opportunities to protest his father(s) doings - tennis coach Nick Bolletieiri included here as a father figure. Instead, we learn that Agassi internalized his emotions and acted out indirectly against those who he perceived wronged him.

This cowardice emerges as a constant in his life. Whether it be his using of drugs to stifle pain or his failure to be honest in his relationship with Brooke Shields or his refusal to admit for so long that his peers who he had grown up with had surpassed him, Agassi's pusillanimous nature is an unquestionable and constant thread.

But the other strain that is rendered brightly in the book is his powerful love - and desperate need - of love. The absolute certainty that friendships and relationships are the only way to navigate through life is the laudable object lesson of the book, however unintended.

And in no other person is this so strikingly realized as it is with Gil Reyes, Agassi's longtime trainer and confidant. The total and magnificent loyalty that Reyes exhibits throughout - including the confronting of some who sent hate mail to Agassi - is unusual and invaluable. Agassi's obvious and total love for Reyes provides the reader with the redemptive side to the fragile makeup of the man who was saddled with the phrase of "image is everything."

In addition to some moving passages regarding Reyes, the other most revealing and amusing segments relate to Brad Gilbert, the man who nearly single handedly saved Agassi's career. The beer loving Gilbert comes across as a man serving as a counterpoint to Agassi - far more than Pete Sampras, the man most used to serving as Agassi's foil and conqueror. Gilbert is disarmingly honest and utterly self-aware of his faults and strengths, qualities that Agassi has struggled with his entire life.

Whatever one thinks of Agassi, the man has put to paper some relevant and eternal truths. Perhaps the most foremost of such is that perseverance takes on many forms. More specifically it is a fickle virtue. Andre Agassi proves that, on its own, surviving is not enough. To be sure, he implores us, you have to be selective when choosing a tenacious path. As he discovered, just sticking things out can lead to dire consequences. And he's lucky enough to be able to relate the details.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Then a coach named Jim Harbaugh arrived a couple of years ago with the stubborn idea kids who had brains could also be kids who had athletic ability. He was going to recruit people who not only could score on the SATs but also on the field.

Harbaugh got his players. And Saturday, Stanford got another major upset, beating Oregon, 51-42, stopping the Ducks when needed and proving unstoppable when required.

A week ago, Oregon ran around, over and between a USC team ranked fifth in the country, gaining more than 600 yards and gaining a lot of believers. But having moved up to No. 7, the Ducks were moved all over Stanford Stadium by a team that at 6-3 made itself bowl eligible, and made people understand what Harbaugh has done since he took over a team that went 1-11 in 2006, the season before he arrived.

The first notice came when in the game around here they still call "The Greatest Upset in History" - just because you're smart doesn't mean you don't exaggerate - Stanford, 41-point underdogs, beat USC in Los Angeles in 2007.

But this win over Oregon may have been more significant.

What Stanford did was get out in front early, crunching Oregon beneath the feet of senior Toby Gerhart, who ran for a school record 223 yards and three touchdowns, and under the arm of freshman quarterback Andrew Luck, who threw for 251 yards and two scores.

What Stanford did was play enough defense against Oregon's spread, the Quack Attack, so even though the Ducks gained 570 yards, not once did they never gain the lead.

"I'm really proud of the team and coaching staff," said Harbaugh, whose brother coaches the Baltimore Ravens. "They're strong, mighty good men. This was the best opportunity that Stanford football has had in the past 10 years to express who this team is, and they expressed it."

They did it against an Oregon team that had been 7-1 and 5-0 in the Pac-10, had won seven straight games and had not allowed more than 36 points in any game.

"We had a hard time stopping them," confirmed Oregon coach Chip Kelly. "They have two talented players in Gerhart and Luck, and they presented problems for us. Gerhart is a talented, talented running back. He will be sore (Saturday) night. But he's just a real physical runner, very strong and fast."

And it is understood, since he attends Stanford, very intelligent. Last Saturday, while watching Oregon dismantle USC on television, Gerhart, who grew up in southern California, was studying calculus. Stanford had the weekend off. When they came up against Oregon, they were definitely on.

"Toby as usual was unbelievable," said Luck, whose father, Oliver once played for the old Houston Oilers before they became the new Tennessee Titans. "His performance speaks for itself."

When Gerhart spoke for himself he said two weeks of preparation proved advantageous. He said breaking his own school single-game rushing record was "exciting, something I'll be able to look at the rest of my life.

"But it's a team game. Everybody contributed. To get a bowl game feels awesome. Last year there were games we had the lead but didn't finish. Not this time. There definitely was no fear going into the game. The offense felt it was going to score every time."

It did score the first flour times, building up a 24-7 lead.

"We saw some things we could take advantage of," said Luck. "We focused on us."

Harbaugh, a onetime quarterback at Michigan, and in the pros, was elated with Luck's play. "It's one thing to place the ball on a 10-yard route, a 15-yard route," said Harbaugh, "but when you start placing them on 50, 55, 45 (yard routes) those are great throws. It was just unbelievable performance."

Oregon's coach, Kelly, denied his team had a hangover from smashing USC, 47-20 eight days earlier, said the Ducks weren't looking behind. Or ahead.

"We got beat by a better team," Kelly insisted. "They did a heck of a nice job on the offensive side."

Also on the mental side. Harbaugh has Stanford thinking it can beat anyone, and maybe it can. When someone wondered if Harbaugh might be intimidated by Oregon, he paused only a moment. "No, I'm not," he said. "We're not."

Smart, skilled football players never are.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

We ended our two-week losing streak last week, going 7-6 last week and pulling our season record back to .500 at 37-37-1.

That's not good enough to actually win money, but after two weeks of having everything going against us, we'll take that. Remember, it's a long season, and we're just getting to the halfway point.

But since we're about halfway through the season, that also means the statistics are more meaningful, with more context. We hope this means our system will be able to carry the day from this point and on.

So here are our fearless picks for this week:

Kansas City (+6.5) over JACKSONVILLE
CHICAGO (-2.5) over Arizona
Green Bay (-10) over TAMPA BAY
Washington (+11) over ATLANTA
Miami (+10.5) over NEW ENGLAND
CINCINNATI (+3) over Baltimore
Houston (+8.5) over INDIANAPOLIS
Carolina (+14.5) over NEW ORLEANS
Detroit (+10) over SEATTLE
SAN FRANCISCO (-4.5) over Tennessee
NY GIANTS (-4.5) over San Diego
Dallas (+3) over PHILADELPHIA
DENVER (+3) over Pittsburgh

BCS National Championship Game

Florida/Alabama winner vs. Texas

Other contenders (in order of likelihood): Iowa, TCU, Cincinnati, LSU, Boise State, Oregon.

Comment: Florida and Alabama are on a collision course for the conference title game. If neither team stumbles, the winner of that game will be representing the SEC in the BCS title game for the fourth straight season. Texas has a clear sailing toward the Big 12 title game, as it's expected to be a double-digit favorite for all of the remaining games.

Rose Bowl

Ohio State vs. Oregon

Other contenders: Iowa, Penn State; Arizona.

Comment: Ohio State controls its own destiny. Wins over Penn State and Iowa will send the Buckeyes to Pasadena. Penn State needs to beat Ohio State and also Iowa to lose twice. Arizona, believe it or not, still controls its own destiny as well, though it has Oregon, Cal and USC on the schedule. But if the Wildcats run the table, they will be making the school's first-ever Rose Bowl appearance.

Sugar Bowl

Florida/Alabama loser vs. TCU

Other contenders: Boise State, Utah.

Comment: The Sugar Bowl has to take the SEC runner-up with the first pick, or risk losing it to the Orange Bowl. By BCS's rotation rules, it will have the last pick. So that means it'll end up with the top-ranked Coalition team, either TCU or Boise State, or even Utah, which needs to knock off TCU and a Boise State upset loss for a return trip to New Orleans.

Fiesta Bowl

USC vs. Pittsburgh/Cincinnati winner

Other contenders: Notre Dame, Big Ten runner-up, Boise State, Arizona.

Comment: If the Trojans remain unbeaten the rest of the season, expect the Fiesta to snag them with the second pick. If they lose, then a 10-2 Notre Dame team will go here. If both teams lose somewhere along the way, then the Big Ten runner-up will get the nod. If the Fiesta ends up with the Big Ten runner-up, then it might decide to use its second pick on Boise State, even if it doesn't get the Coalition automatic bid.

Orange Bowl

Iowa vs. Georgia Tech (ACC champion)

Other contenders: Penn State, Cincinnati/Pittsburgh winner; Miami.

Comment: Most likely, the Orange will use its pick to take the Big Ten runner-up to go with the ACC champion. If neither USC nor Notre Dame qualified and the Fiesta decides to take the Big Ten's runner-up, then the Orange will go ahead and grab the Big East winner. A scenario also exists for a 10-2 Miami team to claim this spot.

---

Now comes the caveat: All the bowl talk could all vaporize if a few games don't go according to plan. But fear not, with the SEC and Big Ten refs carrying Blackberries to receive instant messages from their respective league offices, the "better" teams will find a way to win at the end.

Trust me.

★★★★★ GAME OF THE WEEK: LSU at Alabama, 3:30 p.m. ET (CBS). The past of LSU meets its present. Nick Saban and Les Miles each led the Bayou Tigers to a BCS title, and this game may determine who gets to go for a second ring. For all the talk about a Florida-Alabama SEC title game, LSU still controls its own destiny as a victory puts it on course to win the SEC West. Also a subplot: Alabama's Mark Ingram has a chance to burnish his Heisman credentials.

★★★★ FOUR-STAR GAME: Ohio State at Penn State, 3:30 p.m. ET (ABC). The Buckeyes are playing for a Rose Bowl berth and the Nittany Lions are playing for a BCS bowl berth. Those plans, unfortunately, are mutually exclusive. One team's BCS hopes will be squashed in Beaver Stadium. Terrelle Pryor will find out just how country Happy Valley is.

★★★ THREE-STAR GAME: Oregon at Stanford, 3:30 p.m. ET (FSN). The Ducks owned USC like the Trojans have never been owned before. But will they suffer a letdown in the aftermath? The Cardinal need one more win to be bowl eligible, but with Oregon, USC, Cal and Notre Dame still remaining (25-7 combined), they'll take that victory anywhere they can get it.

★★ TWO-STAR GAME: Northwestern at Iowa, noon ET (ESPN). Every week could be the week that Iowa's bubble gets burst. The Hawkeyes needed near miracles to pull out victories the past two weeks and they go to Ohio State for a make-or-break game next week. Will they get caught looking ahead or will their luck finally run out?

★ ONE-STAR GAME: Connecticut at Cincinnati, 8 p.m. ET (ABC). The grieving Huskies are still looking for their first victory after two heart-breaking losses (by an identical score of 28-24). The Bearcats have quite a gauntlet to finish the season, with West Virginia and Pittsburgh still on the schedule. They cannot afford to overlook anybody.

(Cross-post at BCS Guru)

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

The edge of the continent may have put a limitation on movement - this is as far west as you can go without a ship or a surfboard --, but there never has been any limitation on ideas, no matter how irrational or unpopular.

Almost anything is acceptable. Almost.

This situation with the man who coaches the Oakland Raiders has all but reached a point of unacceptability, with people who don't know exactly what happened screaming "Off with his head'' and those in a position to find out the details saying very little.

Oakland is one city south of the Protest Capital of the World, Berkeley, or as the late columnist Herb Caen called it, "Berserkeley.'' It was an Oakland native, Gertrude Stein, who said of the city, upon returning to find her old home had been razed, "There is no there, there.''

These days, with Tom Cable being accused of everything except that recent mechanical failure of the Bay Bridge, the one that closed the structure for eight days, there is plenty there.

Too much for Cable and the Raiders organization.

The Raiders have a bye this weekend, which, when you're 2-6 for 2009 and haven't had a winning season since 2002, might be viewed as beneficial. Instead, it's proving just the opposite, since media which might be focused on the team's troubles instead is concentrating on Cable's.

And they are many.

During camp in August, up at Napa in the middle of the wine country - where else would a Nor Cal team train, anyway? - Raiders assistant Randy Hanson incurred a broken jaw during a meeting of the coaching staff.

He accused Cable of causing the injury, either, as the story goes, by shoving him out of a chair in which he had leaned back, or punching him in the jaw.

After an investigation, and surely deliberation, the district attorney of Napa County, declined to press charges, maybe because he didn't believe the case was strong enough, maybe because Napa didn't want to aggravate the Raiders and chance losing them to another city.

For a few days after the announcement, the Raiders' subject matter dealt with the ineffectiveness of third-year quarterback JaMarcus Russell and other paranormal items. Then on its "Outside the Lines'' program last Sunday, ESPN provided the revelation that some 20 years ago Cable had hit his ex-wife and early this year smacked a girl friend.

The Raiders contended they were blindsided by ESPN, a network the team contends harbors a grudge against it. But to the credit of the Raiders, meaning owner Al Davis, considerably more sensitive than his critics want to believe, and chief executive Amy Trask, the allegations were not taken lightly.

"We will undertake a serious evaluation of this matter,'' read a release from the Raiders. "We wish to be clear that we do not in any way condone or accept actions such as those alleged.''

This was not good enough for the National Organization for Women which demanded Cable be suspended while the allegations are checked out. It wants NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who has spoken about fairness, to make a statement about Cable.

Earlier in the week, asked about his future, Cable insisted, "I'm coach of the Raiders, and I think my future is to be coach of the Raiders.''

Al Davis does not like firing coaches, despite all the coaches he has fired, and he likes even less dismissing them during the season, having done that only twice, Mike Shanahan and Lane Kiffin, over the past 40 years.

But this uproar over Cable is an embarrassment. It may even become a distraction, although the players, worried about their own futures and paychecks, invariably ignore everything except trying to keep the opposition from making a touchdown while making some touchdowns of their own.

Cable conceded he did slap his first wife, with an open hand, not a fist, and has regretted it. He said he did not strike any other female.

A team as bad as the Raiders, groping for any reason to be optimistic, hardly needs the current scenario, a coach under fire for reasons other than his record, and even the folk of Northern California wondering what is going on.

Any moment, we may all go over the edge.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

We're always hearing about the second part, how what a coach wants most is to prepare a kid for life after sports.

Do something wrong, you get punished. "Coach Suspends Halfback,'' is the headline. Unless he's too valuable. Then, well, as we're often reminded, discipline will be private.

Or virtually non-existent.

Urban Meyer, the Florida coach, has his own ideas about justice. And lesson-teaching. They might not be similar to ours, but we don't have to think about national rankings and the BCS.

Our ideas have to do with the difference between right and wrong.

To Meyer that difference is only 30 minutes, half a football game.

One of Meyer's players, linebacker Brandon Spikes, was caught last Saturday on videotape intentionally sticking his fingers through the facemask and into the eyes of Georgia's Washaun Ealey.

A dirty move, a cheap shot. And an incident replayed again and again on the various networks.

It bothered us. It didn't bother Meyer, not to the point he would keep Spikes out of uniform for the next game, against Vanderbilt.

Meyer understood he was required to make a showing. So he announced Spikes would have to sit out the first half of the Vanderbilt game. Then Spikes will be permitted to go out and gouge someone else's eyes.

"I don't condone that,'' said Meyer. He seemingly was referring to what Spikes did, not about his own decision.

Out West in September an Oregon running back, LeGarrette Blount sucker-punched a Boise State defensive end after the game, and Blount was suspended for the season. Or, barring a change in mind by Oregon coach Chip Kelly, to this point in the season.

But in the Sunshine State, the coach looks at violations a little more kindly. Or at the AP rankings a little more intently, not that Florida should need Spikes to beat Vanderbilt.
What it does need, however, is a sense of perspective and an understanding that there's no place for scofflaws in activities built on rules and fairness.

Reprimands have been popular of late in our sporting world. Chad Ochocinco, the Cincinnati Bengals receiver, was fined $10,000 for wearing a black chinstrap. That NFL certainly has its priorities.

Then a golfer nobody ever had heard of, Doug Barron, became the first PGA player to be suspended for violating the Tour's performance-enhancing drug policy. He's gone for a year.

Now, Brandon Spikes is going to banished for an entire 30 minutes of a 60-minute college football game. That should make him contrite.

"I talked to him,'' Meyer said of Spikes. "That's not who he is. I love Brandon Spikes.''

And then my favorite phrase in failing to explain why an athlete gets away with almost anything, "We're going to move on.''
They're going to do anything to avoid the facts, the implications, the embarrassment. They're going to worry about putting the ball in the end zone instead of putting a finger in an opponent's cornea or retina.

Why does it always have to be like this? Why does the final score have to supersede common decency? Why can't a coach, any coach but particularly one as recognized as Meyer, step forward and act responsibly, since he wants his players to act responsibly?

We know Urban Meyer can recruit and motivate. We know he's won national championships. What's so hard about admitting that there was a problem and as a leader of boys who would be men that problem will be corrected?

Why is Brandon Spikes being given a figurative slap on the hand used to attack an opponent's eyes? Why is getting a man into the lineup more important than getting a message across?

We found out long ago sport does not build character. What we found out the past few days from Urban Meyer was anything is permissible. Except defeat.

The sin, the author John Tunis said, is not failing to act like a gentleman, but in failing to win. Florida fans are thinking of another national title not of reprimanding an act which in some places would be considered disgraceful. Get the kid out of the doghouse and back on the field. That's all they care.

And so that's all Urban Meyer cares. You're surprised he didn't have Brandon Spikes write an apology on a chalkboard. That is if Spikes is apologetic.

Urban Meyer certainly doesn't appear to be.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

And for good reason.

It's not just because the Yankees want to christen their overpriced luxury liner of a stadium with a world championship in its inaugural season. And it's not just because Andy Pettitte, who is now the winningest pitcher in postseason history, will be on the mound for yet another pivotal October - er, I mean November - affair on Wednesday evening. If Pettitte were to notch a win in game six, he'd accomplish an extraordinary superfecta - as he'd add that to his clinching victories for the AL East title, the Division Series and the Championship Series.

No, what makes this game six in New York so appropriate, so profound and what may ultimately elevate it to its now-destined tragic conclusion for the Phillies is the fact that Pedro Martinez will be facing his old rival and scourge - again. It appears almost downright cruel that Pedro, in the late sunset of his brilliant career, would have to start two games in one series at Yankee Stadium.

After all, the future first ballot Hall of Famer did far more than what could have been expected of him in game two where, in a losing effort, he threw 107 pitches in six-plus innings and held the vaunted Yankee lineup to just three runs. More impressively he tallied eight strikeouts, rendering A-Rod and others helpless on several occasions. For sustained stretches last Thursday night he was channeling the Pedro from a decade ago. And if Phillies manager Charlie Manuel had taken Pedro out of the game prior to starting the seventh inning, his stat line would have been truly outstanding.

But should Manuel have arranged his pitching rotation differently and avoided the specter of starting Pedro twice in the Bronx? Logic and instinct both concur on this query - yes. After watching him pitch around trouble and fool them repeatedly last week, I doubt the Yankee hitters will fail again to produce more offense. With fastballs only reaching 90 at best, it will be a difficult task for Martinez to rely solely on finesse. The Yankee hitters are too patient and they are not a team that is easily fooled twice - with Cliff Lee as the current exception proving the rule.

For New York, Andy Pettitte did not have his best stuff in game three. But he brought his usual mental tenacity and he was able to do what he's always done, pitching out of trouble in big games and keep his team within striking distance. He will relish the opportunity to perform his trademark stare-below-the-cap stance and singular pickoff moves and clinch yet another title for the Yankees.

There is a question about how Pettitte will perform on short notice. He is only 4-6 with a 4.15 ERA when pitching on three days rest. But as the lefthander said, "I know I felt terrible the other night and that was on six days' rest. I am just going to go as hard as I can for as long as I can."

And the clear advantage for Yankee manager Joe Girardi is that he only needs five innings from Pettitte. With Rivera fully rested and already penciled in for the last six outs, the Yankee skipper will likely need only two innings from his middle relief corps.

More than any other sport, baseball needs a rich narrative as it is essential for compulsory viewing and Pedro supplies a more compelling and dramatic layer to the storyline.

Who knows, maybe this will turn out to be a lightning-in-a-bottle moment for Martinez and he'll shock the world and put the Phillies in a position to stage a historic comeback. Imagine how tense the Yankees would be in a game 7? Would the raging ghosts from 2004 make their way down the coast from chilly New England overnight and make this Yankee squad the team to perform the second worst choke in their storied franchise history?

No chance. Pedro and his Phillies teammates were doomed to head back to his city of torment for a doleful denouement.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

I know, the last thing you want to do is listen to me. Or anybody. You know what you're doing. You've won four division titles in eight years of managing, two league pennants and one World Series. I've watched and thought about more baseball games than ninety-nine percent of all American men; you've watched and thought about four or five times as many as I have.

I know what you're thinking. I understand why you'd think it. You've gotten your team this far.

Let me take it from here.

So let's talk about your pitching.

It's been a long season, and a tough Series. Cliff Lee's been spectacular. Pedro Martinez gave you a solid start, but A.J. Burnett was better that night, and that happens.

Besides those two? It's been like a plane piloted by Wile E. Coyote, falling apart as it goes along, first a wing, then the tail, then the fuselage and the cockpit, until it's just a helmet-and-goggles-clad coyote in a chair the moment before gravity takes hold.

You've got a daunting task, coming back to the Bronx down three games to two. And I know the old saws about climbing a hill one step at a time, playing ‘em one game at a time, you can't worry about game seven until you've won game six, blah blah blah.

That's fine for the players, Charlie. They've got to focus on the one game tonight. But you and me, we know better. The task is to give yourself your best chance to win two games, tonight and tomorrow night.

You're starting Pedro tonight. If anybody's going to rise to the occasion and meet the challenge of pitching at Yankee Stadium in front of that hostile crowd, it's him. And that's why you need him for game seven.

I understand Pedro pitches best in his normal rotation, and tonight he'll be going on four days' rest. Since 2005, he's been 18-6 with a 3.20 ERA with four days' rest, and 12-15, 4.05 with five. But c'mon - this year there's no such thing as normal rest for him. Since September 1, here's the number of rest days he's had before his starts: 4, 4, 5, 10, 15, 12, and now 4. There's no routine there, especially not now. Giving him an extra day to recover from the 107 pitches he threw in game two of the Series makes sense.

Who starts tonight? I'd go with J.A. Happ - he's a rookie, but he's not a kid - to get a lefthander out on the mound. You may need a cast of thousands out of the pen tonight; this is a game you're going to have to win with your bats. Tomorrow, against C.C. Sabathia, that's a different story. But tonight, you've got some options.

Andy Pettitte is starting on three days' rest. He's 37, and he hasn't pitched on short rest in three years. The postseason results for older pitchers on short rest haven't been so strong lately. Since Jack Morris went ten shutout innings in the last game of the 1991 World Series, there have been sixteen postseason starts on short rest by pitchers age 35 or older. They're 5-7, with a 5.56 ERA. On average, they haven't gotten out of the fifth inning.

You can win this game without getting a quality start.

Say you do start Pedro tonight. Who's going to start game seven on the road? Cole Hamels? The way he's looked this postseason? Yeah, I know about dancing with them what brung ya, but there's a time for prudence too. You know that; you showed it in the ninth inning Monday night, when you left Ryan Madson out there to get the save. I won't make you say it; you know who pitched, and who didn't.

You probably will need a low-run seventh game against Sabathia. And that's why you start Pedro. And after you get five or so out of him, it's time for Cliff Lee. Two days' rest? So what? He's got all winter to recover. This is why someone becomes an athlete: to be out there at a time like that, not to sit on the sidelines and say, "Hey, I did my job."

Remember, the task really is to win two games, not one. It's like the guy in the Old West showdown who's about to draw, and the sheriff reminds him, "Don't forget - if we tie, you're dead." One-and-one won't get it done.

I'm glad we had this talk.

And if your plan is to start Cliff in the seventh game... well, it did work for Derek Lowe in the ALCS in 2004. Against the Yankees. In the Bronx. Hmmm...

Jeff Neuman is a sportswriter and editor, and co-author of A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.

It was the defining moment and the epithet on Ryan Leaf's unfulfilled NFL career. It was replayed on TV, over and over again, even a decade later, long after Leaf has departed the scene, having moved on to the coaching staff of West Texas A&M and perhaps, jail, in the near future.

By all accounts, Leaf is the gold standard of pro football busts. Drafted in 1998 by the San Diego Chargers with the No. 2 overall pick, he was supposed to compete with Peyton Manning on the highway to Canton. Instead, Leaf serves as the biggest cautionary tale in recent NFL history.

The lesson? Don't waste your high draft picks on quarterbacks. Most of the time, it's just not worth it.

It's a lesson, however, mostly ignored by NFL teams. And they do so at their own peril.

From the first common draft in 1967 through 1997, only eight quarterbacks were taken first overall in those 31 years. Since 1998, however, a quarterback has been taken first overall nine times in just 12 years, including five in a row from 2001-2005.

1967-1997
1970 Terry Bradshaw
1971 Jim Plunkett
1975 Steve Bartkowski
1983 John Elway
1987 Vinny Testaverde
1989 Troy Aikman
1990 Jeff George
1993 Drew Bledsoe

As you can see, teams didn't blow their top pick on a quarterback unless they felt they had a sure thing. More than half of these quarterbacks are either enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame or led their teams to Super Bowl glory, and the rest had long and productive careers.

Now look at this list:

1998-2009
1998 Peyton Manning
1999 Tim Couch
2001 Michael Vick
2002 David Carr
2003 Carson Palmer
2004 Eli Manning
2005 Alex Smith
2007 JaMarcus Russell
2009 Matthew Stafford

Among this bunch, only the Mannings own Super Bowl rings and Peyton may be the only one headed to Canton. Two are already bona fide busts. Another one is just coming back to the league after spending two seasons in prison.

And those are just the No. 1 overall picks. Between 1998 and 2009, teams invested 33 first-round selections on quarterbacks, a higher percentage than any 10-year period in NFL history. Despite a mountain of evidence suggesting the contrary, teams continue to spend their most valuable draft pick on a highly risky proposition.

In 2009, of the 32 quarterbacks who started the majority of their teams' games, fewer than half (15) are first-round draft picks. The other 17 came in the second round (3), third round (2), fourth round (2), fifth round (1), sixth round (4), seventh round (1) and undrafted free agents (4).

That's right, nine starters came from the sixth round or later, or altogether undrafted. And put this list up against the one you just saw:

Tom Brady (sixth round, 2000)
Kurt Warner (undrafted, 1994)
Tony Romo (undrafted, 2003)
Marc Bulger (sixth round, 2000)
Matt Hasselbeck (sixth round, 1998)
Jake Delhomme (undrafted, 1997)
Matt Cassel (seventh round, 2005)
Derek Anderson (sixth round, 2005)
Shaun Hill (undrafted, 2002)

Among them, they've been to nine Super Bowls with four rings. Six of them were selected to the Pro Bowl. And you still want to waste that first-round pick, let alone No. 1 overall, on a quarterback?

Since what's done is done, we decided to conduct a thorough examination of these first-rounders during what we shall dub "The Quarterback Decade," that began in 1998 when Manning and Leaf went 1-2 in the draft. We want to find out, at least statistically, if Leaf was indeed the biggest flop.

Our research would cover a 10-year period between 1998-2007, ensuring that we have the goods for at least 2½ seasons before calling someone a bust. Out of those 28 quarterbacks, we exempted those who have started at least 75 percent of their teams' games while maintaining a passer rating better than 75.0.

The following statistical information was then taken into consideration for the remaining 14 quarterbacks:

1. Winning percentage as a starter
2. Percentage of games started for original team
3. Career passer rating (through Week 8 for active players)
4. Draft position

We discovered that Leaf had some fine company, and that, if you remove all the off-the-field stuff, he wasn't even the worst of the lot. Of the 10 biggest quarterback busts in the past decade, only one had a career winning record as a starter; one started more than half of his team's games; one completed more than 56 percent of his passes, and none threw more touchdowns than interceptions.

Half of them are already out of the league. Of the other half, three have their butts firmly planted on the pine, one just got off, and only one started more than half of his team's games this season.

And this is how we ranked team, from the pretty awful to the absolute worst:

Continue to Top 10 NFL Quarterback Busts

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

In addition to his use of the recreational drug, the now 39 year old revealed that he also lied about his frequent use of the substance after he failed a mandatory drug test. Agassi's excuse that he mistakenly drank from his assistant's soda which had been laced with the drug was accepted by the ATP and a career threatening - let alone personally demoralizing - punishment was avoided.

These disclosures have drawn a predictably wide range of comment, varying from those who say that the pensive Agassi is imbued with a thoughtful and reflective soul and it was brave of him to admit the use of illegal drugs to others who believe it is a too-late confession by an admitted drug user and documented liar and that it diminishes the Hall of Famer's legacy.

Among the more strongly worded assessments of this wholly unexpected and stunning revelation was delivered by Martina Navratilova. The always outspoken Martina, who most conclude is the greatest woman player of all time, stated that it was " ... shocking. Not as much shock that he did it as shock he lied about it and didn't own up to it. He's up there with Roger Clemens, as far as I'm concerned. He owned up to it [in the book], but it doesn't help now ... Andre lied and got away with it. You can't correct that now. Do you take away a title he wouldn't have won if he had been suspended? He beat some people when he should have been suspended."

The usually perceptive and sharp Martina is misguided in her comments and gave a far too impulsive and simply wrong reading of the facts in this matter.

First of all, whatever one thinks about Agassi's use of the drug on a moral basis, this much is clear - crystal meth is not a performance enhancing drug (PED) and his tennis was at best unaffected but was most likely hurt significantly from his use of the drug. This is the most important point of all as it highlights the unwillingness for critics to separate the use of recreational drugs versus PED's.

Additionally, 1997 was a dreadful year in peaks-and-valleys career of Agassi. He won only one event, a satellite tournament in November of 1997 (satellite tourneys are tennis' equivalent of the minor leagues) and finished the year ranked an abysmal 110th.

Furthermore, Navratilova's linking Agassi's deceit regarding his ingesting of crystal meth with Roger Clemens' apparent lying about steroid use is downright egregious. Agassi, if taken at his word, was battling inner demons and decided to stupidly suppress his pain with a dangerous recreational drug. He did not use the narcotic to illegally gain an advantage over other players which is the cardinal sin in sports.

Roger Clemens, if the accusations leveled against the hard throwing right hander are indeed true, did in fact inject PED's and repeatedly lied about said use. In all likelihood he did this to regain and sustain his brilliant form which had been slipping away in his mid-30's. There is absolutely no similarity between Agassi and Clemens - except for lying. And then we're talking about relative degrees aren't we? Clemens' lies are far more hurtful as it cheated fans, players and the institution of our national pastime. Agassi only foolishly risked his health and well being.

Martina should have known better and not rush to such immediate conclusions about the charismatic Las Vegas native. After all, she has come under so much unwanted and unfair scrutiny for her personal decisions and actions during her most decidedly fascinating life.

Almost as disappointing as Martina's comments were the few words spoken by world ranked number two Rafael Nadal on the matter. The beloved Mallorcan - and I count myself as one of his biggest admirers in the tennis commentary universe - said, "To me it seems terrible. Why is he saying this now that he has retired? It's a way of damaging the sport that makes no sense. I believe our sport is clean and I am the first one that wants that. Cheaters must be punished and if Agassi was a cheater during his career he should have been punished."

Nadal's utterances of "cheating" are too literal minded. Cheating implies that Agassi was using the drug to achieve the upper hand in the arena of competition. He wasn't.

What's even more curious is how quick Nadal was to criticize Agassi. After all, Nadal came to the immediate, definitive and justified defense of his friend Richard Gasquet after the Frenchman tested positive for cocaine earlier this year.

Just as the government is finally - and correctly - choosing not to prosecute distributors and users of medical marijuana in this country and instead refocusing their efforts on other criminal areas, the sports world would be well advised to not test for recreational drugs and instead keep the focus on the true threats to sport - PED's and illegal gambling.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Another awful week, going 3-10-1, puts us under .500 for the first time this season (36-37-1). We have hit a stretch where every close game has gone against our pick, especially those we thought were easily in the bag.

Take last week's Miami-New Orleans game for example. We took the Dolphins, playing at home and getting seven points. This one was in the bank, as Miami jumped out to a 24-3 lead. The 'Fins weren't just going to cover. They were going to win outright.

And then an avalanche of Saints touchdowns turned the game around. But still, even with New Orleans ahead, 40-34, in the game's final minutes, the bet was safe, thanks to a botched Saints PAT. But no. Miami didn't just turn it over on the potential game-winning drive, it gave up a 54-yard interception return for a touchdown. Final score, 46-34. You want to tear your hair out (whatever is left) while you tear up your betting slip.

Such is the peril of sports betting.

Undaunted, we're back to clean up our own mess. So here are our fearless selections this week:

Denver (+3.5) over BALTIMORE
Seattle (+9.5) over DALLAS
CHICAGO (-12.5) over Cleveland
DETROIT (-3.5) over St. Louis
San Francisco (+14) over INDIANAPOLIS
Houston (-3) over BUFFALO
Miami (+3.5) over NY JETS
NY Giants (-1.5) over PHILADELPHIA
Jacksonville (+3.5) over TENNESSEE
Oakland (+17.5) over SAN DIEGO
Minnesota (+3.5) over GREEN BAY
Carolina (+10) over ARIZONA
NEW ORLEANS (-11.5) over Atlanta

Gundy's daddy, metaphorically speaking, of course, is T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oil man. A man who's given over a quarter of a billion bucks to the Oklahoma State athletic program. A man whose name graces the Cowboys' brand-spanking new stadium.

And Gundy has no better opportunity to please his (sugar) daddy than this week.

Oklahoma State's football program, thanks to the largess of Pickens, is trying to emerge from the shadows of Oklahoma and Texas and become a bona fide powerhouse in the Big 12. The trouble is, in order to be in their company, you have to beat them at least once in awhile.

Gundy has never beaten either since taking over as the Cowboys head coach in 2005. In fact, OSU last defeated Oklahoma in 2002 and has not won against Texas since 1997, which was the only time in history that the Cowboys managed to defeat both in the same season.

They have a chance to rewrite some history, beginning Saturday night when the Longhorns visit Boone Pickens Stadium, an invasion that's certain to draw a record crowd in Stillwater.

Texas is ranked No. 3, in line for its first BCS title game berth since 2005, and favored by 9 1/2 points. But the Cowboys, whose lone loss was at home to Houston, can seize control of the Big 12 South race with an upset victory. That would put them on course for the school's first Big 12 title, first BCS bowl game, and first 10-win season, ever.

It's a lot to play for. It's something to make your daddy real proud ... and rest assured he'll be there, since he never misses a game.

By all accounts, Pickens has not been the meddling type, but you'd be a fool to think that a man who's given OSU $400 million over the years doesn't exert some influence. Gundy, for example, got a new seven-year contract worth $15.7 million at the end of last season. We're just guessing that some (if not most) of that money comes out of Pickens' pocket.

For now, Gundy will have earn his keep without All-American wideout Dez Bryant, who has been declared ineligible for the rest of the season by the unforgiving NCAA. You see, even at OSU, there is a higher power that even Pickens' billions can't buy.

★★★★★ GAME OF THE WEEK: USC at Oregon, 8 p.m. ET (ABC). As important as the Texas-OSU game is, it doesn't quite take the top billing. Oregon has a chance to end USC's seven-year reign as the Pac-10's top dog, something the Ducks thought they had accomplished in 2007, but couldn't quite finish the job. The Trojans, despite playing a freshman quarterback, are in the thick of the BCS title race. A USC win at Autzen Stadium all but locks up, at the minimum, a record eighth straight trip to a BCS bowl.

★★★★ FOUR-STAR GAME: Texas at Oklahoma State, 8 p.m. ET (ABC). The Longhorns have beaten the Cowboys in the last 11 meetings and are 21-2 all-time against OSU. But the Cowboys have made things interesting of late, losing only 28-24 last year and dropping a 38-35 decision in 2007 after blowing a 21-point fourth-quarter lead. The winner of this game will effectively claim the Big 12 South and be a heavy favorite in the conference title game.

★★★ THREE-STAR GAME: Georgia vs. Florida, 3:30 p.m. ET (CBS). The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party has been reduced to merely The Coke-Zero Tailgate Hangout as the recession and Georgia's mediocrity both have put a damper on this rivalry. The Gators are still acting mad about the entire-team celebration stunt from two years ago. The Bulldogs, meanwhile, are not acting or saying anything for fear of a repeat of last year's beatdown.

★★ TWO-STAR GAME: Indiana at Iowa, noon p.m. ET (ESPN). Will Iowa's luck finally run out? They have pushed the envelope in just about every game this season, including last week's Houdini-like escape against Michigan State. This year's Hoosiers are actually not half bad, and if the Hawkeyes are already dreaming about the BCS or the Rose Bowl, they could be in for a sudden and rude awakening.

★ ONE-STAR GAME: Cincinnati at Syracuse, noon ET (ESPNU). The Bearcats seem to be on a collision course with Pittsburgh in the season finale for the Big East crown and a BCS bowl berth. But they still have a few more obstacles to overcome before they can get there and aim for an undefeated season. Cincy's task this week? Beat a standout basketball star in the biggest on-campus basketball arena.

(Cross-post at BCS Guru)

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

It reached new heights in late 1985 when after a particularly difficult offensive stretch for the superstar outfielder against the Toronto Blue Jays, who the Yankees were chasing for the division title; Steinbrenner slung his infamous and unfair sobriquet of "Mr. May" at Winfield. "Where is Reggie Jackson," the dictator fumed.

But the articulate, generous and multitalented native Minnesotan would get his sweet and beloved revenge when he had one of the finest late career renaissances in the history of the sport. In 1992, at the age of 41, Winfield played a vital role on the Blue Jays (who he had signed with after the 1991 season) hitting 26 homeruns and producing an extraordinary 108 RBI's. And full and complete glory finally came to the future Hall of Famer as he had one of the big hits that propelled the Blue Jays to their first - and Winfield's only - World Series title that year.

It remains one of the great redemption stories in baseball. And as discussed earlier this week, second chances are something every cursed athlete hopes for. (And speaking of Steinbrenner, he's another who received multiple chances, perhaps too many. But as John Huston famously uttered in Roman Polanski's Chinatown - "Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough." I think Steinbrenner, with his record as a convicted felon for illegal campaign contributions and for his paying a gambler to find damaging information on Winfield, would perhaps qualify in that category).

I couldn't help but think of Winfield after watching Alex Rodriguez flail helplessly at pitches out of the strike zone in his first two games against the Phillies in this year's Fall Classic. Now, granted, it's only been two games and he's liable to break out and tear up that hitters' paradise also known as Citizens Bank Park. And to be fair, A-Rod seemed to have exorcised all his post-2003 playoff demons by putting up otherworldly numbers in the series wins over Minnesota and Anaheim.

But if A-Rod continues to toil in futility at the plate - and in the field, as his misplay last night nearly cost the game - and the Yankees fail to reclaim the title, look for the heat to come down. Hard.

And it's not just the fact that A-Rod is hitless in eight at-bats. It's the manner in which he is recording those frequent outs. He has struck out six times and has looked lost while doing so - in other words, eerily similar to the way he appeared during the 2004-2007 playoffs. He is barely getting his bat on the ball for solid foul swings. Yankee followers would be correct in comparing his swings thus far to those of Alfonso Soriano in the 2003 World Series against the Florida Marlins.

If his troubles at the plate continue unabated in the next couple of games, A-Rod should try to enforce his will onto the game in alternate ways and not let his fragile psyche overwhelm him as it has in the past. If I were privy to counsel of the Yankee third baseman I'd urge him to find his way on base with a walk, steal a base and create opportunity. For if he continues to try to enforce his will with just his bat, I wouldn't be surprised if his striving yields little.

When at his best, as he was against the Twins and Angels, A-Rod is an unstoppable, nearly unconscious force. Hall of Fame pitcher and announcer Don Sutton once famously said of the late, great Willie Stargell that, "He doesn't just hit pitchers, he takes away their dignity." It's a quote that could definitely apply to Rodriguez when he's relaxed.

The Yankees are stocked with offensive firepower and they could win without A-Rod generating fireworks from the middle of the lineup. And with Mark Teixeira showing signs of finding his swing, perhaps the Yankees could afford to allow A-Rod to have a terrible series. But that's a gamble the Bronx Bombers do not want to have to make.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

It didn't work on television, trying to cram that huge expanse onto a small screen. And kids who weren't playing video games supposedly were playing soccer, on baseball fields.

But here are the Yankees and Phillies going at it in this World Series in October 2009 as they did in the World Series in October 1950, and Alex Rodriguez and Ryan Howard are being given space in the sports pages equal that of Brett Favre journeying back to Green Bay.

Sure it's because of the Yankees, the most famous sporting franchise in North America, a team of wealth, pinstripes and history. The Yanks cannot be ignored. Nor, with this World Series, can baseball.

They had a 13.8 overnight Nielsen rating for Game 1, NFL type numbers, and presumably the figures will be about the same for Game 2, when the Yankees, hailed and hated, tied things up.

Baseball. "You win with pitching,'' said New York's Derek Jeter after the Yankees beat Philly, 3-1, Thursday in Game 2. Always will win with pitching.

The Phils took the first game, 6-1. Always have won with pitching.

Baseball. "Ninety feet between bases,'' wrote the late Red Smith, "is the closest man has ever come to perfection.''

Baseball, a game of axioms and survival. Despite the Black Sox scandal, despite the shutdowns and strikes, despite the despair over steroids, the sport keeps staggering on.

Gene Mauch, known infamously as the manager of the 1964 Phillies, who leading by 6 ½ games in September lost 10 in a row, told us, "Cockroaches and baseball keep coming back.'' And so baseball has returned in all its glory, old and new.

Hypnotic tedium was a description of baseball by Philip Roth, whose canon of work includes "The Great American Novel,'' dealing with the fortunes of a homeless baseball team. But Roth said not until he got to Harvard did he "find anything with a comparable emotional atmosphere and aesthetic appeal.'' Baseball was "the literature of my boyhood.''

The essence of baseball is cumulative tension. Each pitch adds to the question, the doubt. Does Cliff Lee go inside or outside to Jorge Posada? Does A.J. Burnett throw curves or fast balls to Chase Utley?

It's cold in the east. The games start too late - although not as late as past years - and go on forever. But New York and Philly are enthralled. So is much of America.

Baseball is the only team sport not played against a clock. It's the only team sport where a manager hikes to the mound to stall for time, where an argument with an official is not only accepted it's expected - even if never without positive results - where fans, like Jeffrey Mayer and Steve Bartman, may affect the outcome.

Baseball requires patience and persistence. The most famous cry is not "Play ball'' but "Wait ‘til next year.''

The Yankees have been waiting for some time. The Phillies, on the contrary, are trying to win a second straight championship, and you only wish the late James Michener, who authored dozens of books, could be around.

Michener once wrote a New York Times piece about his flawed love of the Phillies, which began in 1915 when he was 8-years-old and continued until his death in 1997. "Year after year,'' Michener conceded, "they wallowed in last place.''

A young literary critic confronted Michener and pointed out, "You seem to be optimistic about the human race. Don't you have a sense of tragedy?''

He answered, "Young man, when you root for the Phillies, you acquire a sense of tragedy.''

The Phillies are no longer tragic. They are involved in a World Series destined to go no fewer than five games and maybe with luck six or seven.

The Yankees have the prestige and the bullpen. The Phillies have a high degree of self confidence. Baseball has an attraction involving two of the country's more passionate sporting cities which happen to be located 100 miles apart.

Out West they wanted the Dodgers against the Angels, but truth tell this one is better, a team not many people other than baseball purists really know, the Phillies, and a team which because of its $200 million payroll and stars even the non-fan knows, those Damn Yankees.

And remember, you win with pitching.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

More to the point, are the Phillies blowing any chance of taking a commanding two-games-to-none lead against the Yankees by starting Pedro against the team he admittedly had epic problems pitching against? A team he famously declared was "his Daddy." The diminutive pitcher is 1-2 with a 4.72 ERA in six postseason appearances against his hated rivals.

This much is certain: Pedro, though an effective pitcher and an important late season addition to the Phillies when he won five of six starts, he even in fact won his last start at Yankee Stadium while a Met in 2005, is nowhere near the peerless, intimidating Hall of Fame hurler he was from the late 1990's until 2002. He is several years past his prime and will face a fierce, patient and vicious Yankee offense that will be looking to break out after being utterly dominated by the suddenly unhittable southpaw Cliff Lee in game one.

Phillies manager Charlie Manuel is an eminently likeable, elder statesmen figure and has proven to be the perfect fit for his team of multifarious talents. In fact he is their Joe Torre, with his calm but intense demeanor, absolute loyalty to his players and his reliance on instinct over stats to enforce his managerial will on a game. But it seems to me that Manuel is injecting a most unwanted element of emotional confusion and drama into tonight's game by starting Pedro. I find it borderline masochistic. And it may prove to be the misstep that causes the Phillies a chance to score a decided upset and beat the Yankees in the series.

It is clear that Manuel has other options for tonight's game.

Why not go with Cole Hamels tonight and save Martinez for game three in Philly? After all, this would give Philadelphia two consecutive starts with lefthanders against the vaunted Yankee power. The formula for beating the Yankees hasn't really changed that much since Babe Ruth - start lefties against them at Yankee Stadium. Cliff Lee, with his pinpoint variety of pitches that left the Yankees flailing last night is Exhibit A. Granted, Hamels has been hit fairly hard in his three postseason starts thus far but his control has been superb and he's been striking out nearly a batter per inning. And though he's only pitched twice against the Yankees, he does have a 2.77 ERA in those games.

Cockiness and confidence - always a thin line between the two and often intertwined - are necessary components to a successful athlete's makeup. And there's no doubt that Pedro has reserves of these qualities. But emotion is an underrated and undervalued part of sport. No matter how much Pedro wants to prove his many haters wrong - Yankee fans and journalists alike - sometimes it's best to reach for a smaller measure of revenge against your foe. This could have been accomplished by having Martinez start game three in Philadelphia where he'll be free of the visual ghosts that reside in the South Bronx. And this version of Pedro can't rely on pure power to overwhelm an opponent when he doesn't have his best stuff as he did in years past. It'll be hard enough for Martinez to remain focused with his finesse game, always a more taxing mental approach then throwing hard.

Why tempt fate? Why awake the famous mystique and aura (Curt Schilling's words) that are looking forward to settling in to their new digs across the street from their old residence on River Avenue?

If Pedro delivers six innings with only a couple of runs Manuel will look like the genius, defending World Series champion manager he is - no matter what the final score in game two. But I'd be shocked if Pedro makes it through five stanzas. There will be much second guessing going on in that famously angry mid-Atlantic city (City of Brotherly Love? Are you kidding me?) Friday morning, before the series resumes tied at one game apiece Saturday night.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

The two teams are extremely well matched. Both have potent and deep lineups that can generate multi-run innings from any spot in the order. Both led their leagues in runs, home runs, and slugging; had four players score at least 100 runs; and were extremely effective base-stealers as well (the Phillies stole at an 81.0% rate, best in baseball; the Yankees were second in their league and third in the majors at 79.9%). Both play in parks that favor the offense - though the Phillies actually hit more homers on the road than at home.

Both pitching staffs, on current form, have one dependable ace, two good and sometimes great starters, and a wealth of good arms in long relief and set-up roles. The closers are another story. Brad Lidge was perfect last season (48 for 48 in saves), dreadful in the '09 regular season (7.21 ERA, 11 blown saves), but has a 0.00 ERA in five postseason games this year. Mariano Rivera is Mariano Rivera.

The Yankees are... famous. Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte - the names are familiar to anyone who's followed the game over the last two decades. This year's team -- enlivened by the addition of C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Nick Swisher, bolstered by the offensive and defensive presence of Mark Teixeira -- has played with a looseness and joy absent from the Bronx since, oh, forever. Jeter at 35 has had a season straight out of his younger prime. A-Rod, shaken by scandal in the spring, has played as though free from the burden of being the team's focus in this postseason. Teixeira's playoff doldrums are unlikely to continue much longer; he did lead the AL in homers and RBIs this year.

The Phillies, the defending champs, are in the unusual position of being the team with more to prove, since the Yankees were all but conceded the title as soon as they spent their megamillions. Philadelphia's lineup is the equal of the Yanks': Ryan Howard, Jayson Werth, Chase Utley, and Raul Ibanez each topped 30 homers; Howard led the league against with 141 RBIs; Shane Victorino had a quietly effective season; and while Jimmy Rollins struggled, he can be an important spark at the top of the lineup in a short series. How is the Yankees outfield of Damon, Cabrera, and Swisher superior to the Phils' Ibanez, Victorino, and Werth? The Phillies ranked fourth in the majors in runs -- ahead of eleven teams that had the advantage of using DHs.

And now a word about one of the two most disgraceful aspects of World Series play, as it has been for the last twenty-four seasons. Whether you like the DH or hate the DH, it is absurd to play the Series under rules that disadvantage one league's team. Permitting the DH in games in AL parks but not in NL parks does not affect both teams equally; the AL team has the option of putting its DH at a defensive position, while the NL has to fill a position for which it has no need during the regular season. If you're an NL team, and have on your bench a starting-quality DH, there's something wrong with how you've allocated your resources.

The Series, as it generally does, will come down to pitching. A quick word about the other disgraceful aspect: playing games under what are certain to be difficult weather conditions. In the most important games of the year, it would be nice if a pitcher could choose among his various pitches without worrying about whether he can grip the ball well enough to throw it, or if he can even feel his fingers. The rotations are anchored by the recent prides of Cleveland, C.C. Sabathia and Cliff Lee. Sabathia has been terrific in the postseason, but so has Lee; the Cliff Lee of 2008-9 has pitched well against the Yankees (2-1, 1.89), while Sabathia in the same period has struggled against the Phils (0-2, 6.17). A.J. Burnett has never been a consistent pitcher, is averaging five walks per nine innings in the postseason, and Philadelphia has generally done well against him (5-8, 4.75 for his career). And for all of Andy Pettitte's reputation as a big-game pitcher, he has a losing record in the World Series (3-4).

Against the latter two, the Phillies will match up Pedro Martinez, a sure Hall of Famer who was brilliant against the Dodgers in the NLCS (and has long relished pitching against the Yankees), and Cole Hamels, last year's World Series MVP who is dominant when healthy. Is it at all unlikely that the Phils can get two top-notch starts out of Lee, and one of two each from Pedro and Hamels? The Phillies' long relievers, who should include rookie starter J.A. Happ for the Series, are less heralded than the Yankees' pair of Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, but those two have looked nothing like their reputations lately (Joba's ERA since September 1 is 6.33; Hughes's ERA this postseason is 5.78, and he's allowed at least one hit in every outing). Which leaves only the closers: Can Lidge show some semblance of his 2008 form? Will Mariano Rivera, a month from his fortieth birthday, show imperfection at last?

Neither team is just happy to be there. The stage is set for seven explosive, tension-filled games. Phillies in seven.

Jeff Neuman is a sportswriter and editor, and co-author of A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.

McGwire became a near recluse, wanted to stay as far as possible from another question, another interview, another critical story.

He lived in a gated community in southern California's Orange Country, hung around with those who had the good sense not to be inquisitors and played as much golf as possible.

The votes came in for the Hall of Fame, and McGwire who at one time, before the steroids, before the painful appearance before Congress would have been a certain inductee, was rejected. And rejected a second time.

You can think what you wish, but McGwire belongs in the Hall. So does Barry Bonds. So do others whose performances were worthy.

The steroids, the artificial enhancements, were part of the late 1990s and early 2000s, part of baseball. They made players better, but they didn't make stars out of failures.

In time we will realize that. What Mark McGwire presumably realized is he wants dearly to be in the Hall, and to do that needs to rehabilitate an image that has been pounded as he once pounded the ball.

Or maybe the Hall of Fame is of no concern. Maybe McGwire decided he needed something in his life, an assignment, a challenge.

So here he comes, a few days past his 46th birthday, connecting with the man who managed him, first with the Oakland A's, then with the St. Louis Cardinals, Tony LaRussa. When LaRussa signed once more with the Cards he brought along as his hitting coach Mark McGwire. And why not?

McGwire was always shy, hesitant to face the press. He became part of the A's "Bash Brothers,'' almost by accident. He could hit home runs, but it was Jose Canseco, the extrovert, who hit the jackpot with the media. McGwire wasn't a bad guy, just a reluctant guy, at the opposite end of the clubhouse and the spectrum from Canseco.

At Damian High School in LaVerne, some 30 miles east of Los Angeles. McGwire even skipped baseball one semester to join the golf team. He was an independent sort. At USC he pitched, but when you're 6-foot-5 and 225 pounds, the future is as a slugger. Sorry, hitter.

The 1987 season in Oakland, when he was Rookie of the Year, following Canseco who earned the award in '86, McGwire hit 49 home runs. No artificial enhancements. Just natural ability. And yet he would tell writers, "I'm not a home run hitter.''

He wasn't any kind of hitter in 1991 when, unhinged because of family troubles, McGwire dropped to a .201 average. But he recovered quickly enough, and the photos of him and Canseco smacking forearms became familiar.

Retirement came after 2001. McGwire was out of sight until that painful 2005 hearing before a House committee when, asked whether he had played "with honesty and integrity, he responded, "I'm not going to go into the past or talk about my past. I'm here to make a positive influence on this.''

Refusing to address allegations against him and other players in Canseco's tell-all book, McGwire explained, "My lawyers have advised me I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself.''

He took the Fifth. And he took a whipping from the media. Presumed innocent until guilty? McGwire was presumed guilty until innocent. And then he went deeper into seclusion.

Wright Thompson of ESPN.com chased after McGwire a couple of years back, and wrote a wonderful piece with interviews from old pals and ex-USC teammates, but nothing at all from McGwire himself.

"He just wants to slink away,'' Ken Brison, son of a former McGwire Foundation board member told Thompson. Well, now he's unslunk.

Now he's agreed to put on a uniform and advise people with bats in their hands how to make contact while one supposes doing his best to avoid contact with journalists.

The game will be better off with McGwire as part of it. McGwire will be better off. Baseball cherishes its past, even the unfortunate parts. Triumph and figurative tragedy are ingrained. Willie Mays is a frequent visitor to San Francisco's AT&T Park, Tommy Lasorda a regular at Dodger Stadium. Barry Bonds has showed up now and then at Giants home games and was all over the place during the recent Presidents Cup international golf matches at Harding Park.

Mark McGwire is back. Maybe Barry also becomes a batting coach. Maybe it doesn't help their Hall of Fame chances, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

The notion and belief in redemption has for the most part proved beneficial to our nature, frequently aiding in our efforts to stake out the compassionate ground of our collective character.

But the flip side of forgiveness and redemption - or perhaps more aptly described as selective amnesia and denial - is that while it is necessary to survive and thrive through crisis, it also allows for too much to slip through, causing a blurring of the facts and a disturbing lack or permanent loss of perspective. So occasionally reminders must be sent out.

In sports, the narrative of second chances are routinely woven into nearly every major event and this year's baseball postseason is no exception. Indeed, the New York Yankees and Major League Baseball provide ample evidence of the inevitable triumph, whether deserved or not, of second chances.

It was entirely appropriate that Andy Pettitte was on the mound last night, pitching the Yankees to their 40th World Series with a strong performance that Yankee fans have become accustomed to in his two tours of duty in the Bronx. One can be excused for feeling as if they had been transported back to the late 1990's when Pettitte delivered clutch pitching in many a postseason contest.

The raucous applause from the Yankee faithful at the new stadium when Pettitte exited the game in the seventh inning could also be viewed through the lens of justifiable forgiveness - as his admirers were perhaps letting Pettitte know that they have long moved past his use of steroids.

When Pettitte admitted using human growth hormone on only a handful of occasions to fight off injury, there was nearly universal acceptance and belief in his statement. His upstanding character nearly demanded it. And nothing he has done before or since would give any fodder to his few detractors. The soft-spoken southpaw has been remarkably consistent in both his pitching and outward demeanor and his return to vintage form - pitching out of difficulty with a steady hand - has been entirely welcome.

But the big story of the 2009 postseason when it comes to redemption is obviously that of Alex Rodriguez. His storied, nearly epic hitting struggles in the clutch that commenced with the 2004 disaster against the Red Sox and continued on a raging downward spiral the following three years worth of playoff games have come to an abrupt and definitive end during this October. He has been the most prolific offensive force thus far in the Yankees' two series victories and it'd be surprising if he doesn't pummel National League pitching in the World Series.

But here is where there is an irksome loss of perspective. It appears to this writer that fans and commentators alike have put completely behind them the pathetic fact that A-Rod lied on numerous occasions in front of audiences both large and small, including a 60 Minutes interview, regarding his use of steroids during his years with the Texas Rangers - with the saddest aspect being that as talented as he was he needed no further advantage. And though he came clean, barely, when finally pressured many questions remain unanswered.

Lest people forget, the otherworldly talented Rodriguez stated back in February that he was "young, naive and stupid" during those years he was ingesting the banned substances and that he didn't know which drugs he was taking. We were supposed to buy the story that at the age of 27 he was still clueless - this after being a superstar and exposed to all of life's bounty by the time he was 20.

As we now know following the suspension of Manny Ramirez and the swirling suspicions surrounding his fellow Fenway Force David Ortiz, A-Rod was far from the only megastar whose name was linked to steroids over the last year and there is an argument that Rodriguez was unfairly outed and that if he weren't a Yankee it wouldn't have generated as much hype. These are not mortal sins after all, as we are talking about a game.

And A-Rod should be celebrated for his fertile fall but some tempering is called for - or at least a longer memory - before he is sainted in Yankee land following their 27th world title which they'll surely secure next week.

One individual who has clearly run out of chances and who needs to be cut off prematurely before his scheduled closing time in 2012 is our fair commissioner Bud Selig. For all his sincere love of the sport and his superb stewardship of his beloved Milwaukee Brewers three decades ago, Selig has been an utter failure as the overseer of America's pastime.

As if the steroid scandal and All-Star game fiasco weren't enough cause for his removal from his basically self-appointed position serving his fellow owners, we now are witness to yet another affront to baseball sensibilities - that is, the scheduling of the World Series in November. It is an absolute insult to the integrity and rhythm of the sport. Selig has proven to be all too complicit in our country's complete and total submission to moneyed interests which in Bud's case is TV ratings. But what Selig doesn't seem to grasp or see is that further erosion of the game's integrity puts the sport in jeopardy, something far more harmful than a drop in viewers.

Angels' manager Mike Scioscia put it best a few days ago when he said, "it's ridiculous, taking 21 days to play eight games. Can I say it any clearer than that? I think that it's something that eventually is going to have to be addressed. And I think that it does have an impact. I don't know if it has an impact so much on who wins or loses but it has an impact on the quality of play. And I think that's very, very important to the integrity of our game.''

Just like our fragile economy, do the important issues in baseball have to get even worse before any action is taken? Will the owners ever dare to let an outsider run the sport? After all that's the way it was done until Selig's ruinous reign. There have been good and bad commissioners in the past but at least they were not in on the fix so completely. One gets the feeling that fans aren't angry enough about how unsettling it is to have had an absence of objectivity in the sport's Park Avenue offices.

I mean, after all, you hear about those irrational, obsessed people fretting about how the chance of a "communistic", government aided healthcare program would spell doom for America - but I think the baseball fans among them would be well advised to turn their attention to protesting the fact that the owners are in a cabal all by themselves, something more similar to the Cold War era Soviet Politburo than anything liberals could come up with.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

But that's the way sports betting goes, even the perfect system (and really, there is no such thing) will have a few bad weeks due to unforeseen circumstances. Last week, we went 4-10 against the spread, but two of the losses were by one point and another two turned against us in the final minute of the game.

Overall, we're still comfortably ahead. On the season, we are 33-28, with a winning percentage of 57. Our week-by-week breakdown:

- Week 3: 11-5

- Week 4: 8-6

- Week 5: 10-4

- Week 6: 4-10

We're moving on. One week does not a trend make. So here are our picks for Week 7 (point-spread as of Saturday night, the latest line here):

KANSAS CITY (+6) over San Diego
PITTSBURGH (-6) over Minnesota
Green Bay (-8.5) over CLEVELAND
TAMPA BAY (+16) over New England
San Francisco (+3) over HOUSTON
ST. LOUIS (+15) over Indianapolis
CAROLINA (-7) over Buffalo
OAKLAND (+7) over NY Jets
Chicago (EVEN) over CINCINNATI
MIAMI (+7) over New Orleans
DALLAS (-4.5) over Atlanta
NY GIANTS (-7) over Arizona
WASHINGTON (+7.5) over Philadelphia

Check back with us next week. And good luck!

Florida has the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party next week (I know the schools now frown upon the moniker, but since when do I give a flying fig about the eggheads and their pusillanimous sensitivities?). Mind you, Georgia is more poodle than Bulldog this year, but the game in Jacksonville is always a big deal. The Gators had better not overlook Mississippi State, though, as it's now coached by Dan Mullen, their erstwhile offensive coordinator. Take this game lightly at your own peril, see Exhibit A: Sarkisian, Steve vs. USC.

Alabama has Halloween off to go trick or treating, but it gets LSU the following week. The Tigers may be the final stumbling block for the Tide's return to the SEC Championship Game and another shot at the BCS title. This week, they welcome Lane Kiffin to Tuscaloosa as part of his ongoing Southern Hospitality Tour.

The biggest game in the Pac-10 this season looms next Saturday at Autzen Stadium, where Oregon attempts to end USC's reign as top dog. Before their tussle, though, the Trojans must take care of business against the pesky Beavers, who have beaten them two of the last three years (but both in Corvallis, not the Coliseum). Oregon goes up to Washington to renew its heated rivalry with the resurgent Huskies.

And finally, there's Texas. Next week's game at Stillwater against Oklahoma State will be a make-or-breaker for the Longhorns. A win, and a BCS title game berth will be within reach. A loss there may mean being denied yet another shot at the Big 12 championship, let along a national championship. This week, they're on the road to Columbia to face a reeling Missouri team.

Only one of those contests will make our top games of the week. But keep an eye on them, though, as this is the perfect time for an unsuspecting title contender to succumb to a season-killing upset.

★★★★★ GAME OF THE WEEK: TCU at BYU, 7:30 p.m. ET (Versus). TCU is one of eight remaining unbeaten teams and is vying with Boise State for a guaranteed bid granted to a non-BCS team as long as it finishes in the top 12. BYU had been the front-runner for that spot after upsetting Oklahoma, but a loss to Florida State knocked the Cougars out of the race. The Frogs may even have a shot at playing for the BCS title, but they need to win this game, and get some help.

★★★★ FOUR-STAR GAME: Iowa at Michigan State, 7 p.m. ET (Big Ten Network). The Hawkeyes have surprisingly emerged as the Big Ten's top BCS contender, and this trip to East Lansing is the penultimate road game for them this season. Get by Sparty and win at Ohio State, then Iowa will be playing in Pasadena, on either New Year's Day or Jan. 7.

★★★ THREE-STAR GAME: Auburn at LSU, 7:30 p.m. ET (ESPN2). The battle of the Tigers lost a little bit of its bite after Auburn dropped its last two games. But for the Bayou Tigers, this is a must-win game to keep their hopes alive of winning the SEC West and return to the conference title game. LSU will be seeking to restart a home winning streak in night games after having that snapped by Florida two weeks ago.

★★ TWO-STAR GAME: Penn State at Michigan, 3:30 p.m. ET (ABC). The Big House has been nothing but a house of horrors for the Nittany Lions, who have lost their last five visits to Ann Arbor. Last year, they finally ended Michigan's nine-game winning streak in the series with a rout in Happy Valley, but Rich Rodriguez's Wolverines this year will be much more menacing.

★ ONE-STAR GAME: Oregon at Washington, 3:30 p.m. ET (ABC). The Ducks have certainly recovered from their season-opening meltdown at Boise State, winning each of their five games since. They have also done it with style, blasting their three Pac-10 opponents by a score of 118-19. The Huskies have been the ultimate cardiac kids, with their last three games decided on the final possession. But UW must quickly recover from last week's heartbreaker, when it gave up a 50-yard bomb with 5 seconds left in a 24-17 loss to Arizona State.

(Cross-post at BCS Guru)

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

This following Steve Phillips, former major league GM, recent baseball analyst and oft-time Don Juan, being forced to take a leave of absence by ESPN for reasons that had nothing to do with the hit-or-take sign.

We know the real world is out there, but how about allowing us a few unspoiled moments when we don't have to worry about troubles other than a pitcher losing his stuff.

In SoCal, from the very start of the Dodgers' League Championship Series against the Phillies, the issue seemed to be about Frank McCourt not so much losing his spouse, the self-assured and quite well-heeled Jamie, but about losing his team. To his spouse.

So as that melodrama unfolded - he's going to have to sell, as John Moores in San Diego; no, she's going to give up her 50 percent - along comes Phillips to take the headlines. He had what was called "a fling,'' and that didn't mean hurling a baseball.

Parallel worlds. Phillips' wife apparently is filing for divorce for his dangerous liaisons. Meanwhile, with the McCourts the word "divorce'' has not been spoken, only speculated.

Up in Northern California, where hatred of the Dodgers is more noticeable than love of the Giants - yes, jealousy - the citizenry is viewing the McCourts' problems as pure Hollywood. And also with pure delight.

Even Giants fans are respectful of the tradition of marriage and wish no ill will to either McCourt. But if their union does fail, there's the possibility the Dodgers also may fail. After all, the Padres went from a champion to a disaster when the assets were divided, as required by law.

It was interesting McCourt announced the removal of his wife of 30 years from her post the day after the Dodgers had been removed from the playoffs by the Phillies. Presumably he thought everyone in L.A. either would be in such a funk they wouldn't notice a little hanky panky in the front office.

One person who did notice, of course, was Jamie McCourt. Another was her attorney, Dennis Wasser, who gave the normal legal response in such situations, to wit: "Jamie is disappointed and saddened by her termination. As co-owner of the Dodgers, she will address this and all other issues in the courtroom.''

All other issues? What would they be, whether Steve Phillips will stop huddling with girls half his age?

Frank McCourt's attorney, Marshall Grossman, played barrister-ignorant on whether his client had canned the mother of their four children from the post she'd held since March.

"The Dodgers' policy is not to comment on personal issues,'' said Marshall Grossman, Frank McCourt's guy. Then they stand alone in the mess, since everyone else is commenting, gossiping and guessing.

What happens to the Dodgers? What happens to Joe Torre? Normally, owners fire managers, not chief executives.

Is Jamie McCourt, who teaches at UCLA's business school and has degrees from Georgetown, the Sorbonne and University of Maryland School of Law, really lining up investors to buy out her hubby?

Does Steve Phillips wish he had a woman as sharp as Jamie figuring out a way to save his career?

When McCourt vs. McCourt gets to a court, it could make Judge Judy blush.

Grossman contends "Frank McCourt is the owner of the team.'' Wasser contends, "If the ownership issue must be adjudicated, the Dodgers will be determined to be community property, owned 50 percent by each of the McCourts.''

OK, Jamie, which half of Manny Ramirez do you want?

Major League Baseball lists Frank McCourt as the Dodgers' "control person,'' but according to Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times, a "high-ranking baseball source'' said the couple presented themselves together for the approval of commissioner Bud Selig when they bought the team in 2004.

"I think,'' agreed the source, "it's going to be pretty ugly.''

It already has been. Baseball doesn't need this, doesn't need the embarrassment of Steve Phillips, not during the post-season, not any time.

You think those people in the right field pavilion at Dodger Stadium are the least bit concerned with Jamie and Frank McCourt's domestic relationship. They've got their own problems.

They turn to the Dodgers, to baseball, to any sport, for a few hours of entertainment. Of course, in L.A., marriage on the rocks is part of the entertainment.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

No entertainment personalities. No inside info on the breakup of Jamie and Frank's marriage. No Tommy Lasorda anecdotes. No confusion whether they're the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the Anaheim Angels of Los Angeles or Charlie's Angels.

The Yankees are supposed to be that good, aren't they? A-Rod has the largest contract in history. Sabathia got enough to bail out Wall Street. He certainly bailed out a team that last year didn't even get to the playoffs. Mark Teixeira is earning $20 mill a season, or thereabouts. Then there are Derek Jeter, Johnny Damon, and a cast of thousands.

TV loves the Yankees. Because so much of America hates them. Or did. It was the Red Sox who stepped in for the Yanks as target of our disenchantment the last few seasons. They became the very Evil Empire that the execs in Boston called the Yankees.

The theory here is "In cars, wine and ballplayers you get what you pay for, with exceptions.'' Alex Rodriguez has hit a home run in three straight post-season games, five total. He's acting like a guy who should be getting millions.

Long ago, the Yankees of Ruth, Gehrig and their teammates were nicknamed the "Bronx Bombers,'' a label shortened in the New York tabloids to Bombers. As in Bombers crush Angels. And in Game 4 of the American League Championship Series they certainly did.

Not a great 24 hours for the folks along the Pacific Ocean. The Phillies rally with two outs in the ninth to beat the Dodgers on Monday night, and then the Yankees do some freeway wheeling, 10-1, Tuesday evening.

A Yankees-Phils World Series isn't quite as glamorous as Yankees-Dodgers or, as the West Coast crazies would have preferred, Angels-Dodgers, but the baseball itself should be fascinating.

One team is the defending World Series champ, the other long has been the template for judging American sports. Arguably the three most famous franchises on the planet are Manchester United, FC Barcelona and the New York Yankees.

In the case of all three, they're the best teams money can buy. But in a way that's incidental. Pack together a lot of star players and it results in success on the field, or pitch, and at the gate or on the tube. Did anyone notice Friday night the Yankees-Angels had a TV rating nearly twice that of Dodgers-Phils?

You sort of wish the problems with the economy were as easily correctly as those with the Yankees. Sign C.C. Sign Teixeira. Pick up Nick Swisher and that's that.

All the agonizing in March, about A-Rod on steroids, about A-Rod undergoing hip surgery, about A-Rod struggling to find his form has quieted considerably.

He's knocking balls into the stands. He's scoring from second on singles. He's playing like a $250 million man.

Rodriguez went from Seattle to Texas to the Yankees, but he's never gone to the top, never been a World Series Champion, a point emphasized on the back pages of the tabs.

They've been waiting for a new Mr. October. He's arrived.

Only a week ago, after the Angels and Dodgers swept their division championship series from two very good clubs, the Red Sox and Cardinals, euphoria was on the loose in L.A. and vicinity.

Thirty miles or so from Anaheim to Dodger Stadium. Randy Newman's song "I Love L.A.'' on the radio. Great fall weather. Eat your heart out Manhattan while we roll back our sun roofs and roll down Interstate 5.

It isn't going to happen. Not even half of it. No Angels. No Dodgers. Instead it's going to be the very underappreciated Phillies and the very impressive Yankees. Instead it's going to be two teams who have a beautiful blend of pitching and hitting.

Southern California was getting just a bit cocky. The Lakers won the NBA title. USC is no worse than the fifth best college football team in the land (despite what the BCS says). And then the Angels and Dodgers had made it one step from one short drive to a regional World Series.

But unlike so many Hollywood productions, this one will end without the hero getting the girl, or more specifically the two baseball teams getting what they thought they would an opportunity to meet for a title.

A bummer. Or should that be a Bomber?

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

So maybe this is for real I thought, as this Yankee team is truly dominant and deserves comparison to those storied teams of the late 1990's. After all, the Finally Fruitful Fall of Alex Rodriguez has been something to watch. His newfound, uncanny knack for crucial late inning home runs during this 2009 postseason (he also had one during the middle innings on this night) has been one of the key reasons why the Yankees entered the game with a commanding two-games-to-none series lead. Though he is not and perhaps never may be the incarnation of Jeter in October, A-Rod has nonetheless squashed all talk of choking.

But manager Joe Girardi, who managed superbly during the regular season in guiding the Yankees to a dominant 103 win season, could not conjure up that other most "intangibly important" Yankee from a decade ago, the man who shares his first name - Joe Torre.

In fact, during this game at least, Girardi would be fairly characterized as the anti-Torre. Choosing to run back to check stats from his loose leaf binders in the visitors dugout rather than use his eyes and his instinct - which was Torre's chosen strategy on most occasions - Girardi made a series of horrendous decisions leading to a 5-4 loss to the Angels. Bizarrely enough, the Yankees have now scored four runs in five consecutive playoff games, which has to be some sort of record.

Perhaps it was his overly thoughtful Libran nature which can at times stifle action and result in over thinking, as compared to the innately instinctual Cancerian nature that Torre embodied. Whatever the case, the evidence of Girardi's missteps were plentiful. I'll just enumerate an unholy trinity of poor decisions here:

• In the sixth inning Girardi made a trip to the mound with a seemingly determined look on his face as he spoke to Posada and Pettitte about the strategy when pitching to Vladimir Guerrerro. Though the Angeles slugger has struggled of late he presented a clear threat to tie the game. Girardi implied that he wanted Pettitte to pitch around him - why not just walk Guerrerro?
• Worried that the weak arm of Johnny Damon may cost the Yankees a run in the top of the 10th on a possible sacrifice fly when the Angels had the bases loaded and one out with Rivera on the mound, Girardi chose to replace Damon with Jerry Hairston thereby forcing Rivera to take the place of the designated hitter in the batting order. Girardi then used a pinch hitter in the 11th and Rivera was out of the game when he clearly could have pitched another inning. And with one out and Rivera on the mound why take out Damon? There was a good chance Rivera could induce a few weak fly balls or ground outs - which he did - and the benefits of pitching Rivera far outweighed the chances of a medium distance fly ball being hit to Damon.
• In the bottom of the 11th, Girardi chose to go with David Robertson who has been hurling very well of late. He pitched superbly, getting the first two batters out with ease. But then Girardi ran back those two feet in the dugout to check his stats and determined that the match-up against Itzuris and Mathis favored Alfredo Aceves. (And it must be noted that Mike Scioscia made brilliant moves, going with his gut by allow the not fleet-of-foot Mathis to stay in the game.) Aceves then gave up two hits and the game was over. In the 2009 postseason thus far, Aceves has allowed seven base runners in two and a third innings.

Did Girardi not feel strong enough to tell Pettitte just to walk Guerrerro or literally just throw the ball in the dirt to see if the powerful, possible future Hall of Famer would reach for a few pitches - after all, until tonight Guerrerro has looked fairly desperate at the plate. Did not Girardi witness how effective Robertson had been during the eleven pitches he threw to Posada? And most importantly, did Girardi panic, managing as if his team was playing in an elimination game, using seven - count them, seven! - pitchers in relief?

It's only one game and Girardi obviously pulled all the right levers during the regular season and the Angels were destined to break through and beat a team they have demonized for the better part of the decade. And until Monday night the Yankees have been playing more fundamentally sound baseball than Los Angeles.

But if the Yankees lose tomorrow night, the manager - not the players - will be feeling the most pressure. And having already failed last year in not leading the Yankees to the postseason for the first time since 1993 (after Torre had managed 12 consecutive playoff seasons) Girardi is in desperate need of an A-Rod boost - after all, if the most vilified Yankee has demolished nearly all suspicions about his October activities, then Girardi can surely overcome a few self doubts and manage from his gut rather than his notes.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Well, here at RealClearSports, someone may have cracked the code. We've tested our method over the last three weeks of the NFL season (Weeks 3-5) and our record, against the point-spread, is 29-15. That's right, a whopping 66 percent.

This is how we did from week-to-week:

- Week 3: 11-5

- Week 4: 8-6

- Week 5: 10-4

Emboldened, we're now sharing our little secret with the public as we will be unveiling our picks every Sunday. Of course, a couple of discliamers here: Past performance is no guarantee of future success; unless you're in the state of Nevada and wager legally at the sportbooks, these picks are for entertainment purposes only; and compulsive gambling is a serious disorder, so we don't encourage it in any way whatsoever.

So are you ready? Here are our picks for Week 6 (point-spread as of Saturday night, the latest line here):

NY Giants (+3) over NEW ORLEANS
St. Louis (+9.5) over JACKSONVILLE
CINCINNATI (-5) over Houston
PITTSBURGH (-14) over Cleveland
TAMPA BAY (+3) over Carolina
MINNESOTA (-3) over Baltimore
Detroit (+14) over GREEN BAY
WASHINGTON (-6) over Kansas City
OAKLAND (+14) over Philadelphia
SEATTLE (-3) over Arizona
NEW ENGLAND (-10) over Tennessee
NY JETS (-9.5) over Buffalo
Chicago (+3) over ATLANTA
Denver (+3.5) over SAN DIEGO

Good luck and check back with us next week.

The game is at home - they can let the grass grow. The Trojans have a freshman quarterback and a sputtering offense. Jimmy Clausen is a true Heisman candidate and can't wait to finally pick apart the USC defense.

It all sounds nice and interesting. But it's all hype.

The Irish ain't gonna beat the Trojans. Not now. Not next year. Not anytime soon.

Notre Dame's 4-1 record was achieved mostly by late-game meltdowns (offensively, defensively or officially) by its mediocre opponents. Michigan State absolutely gagged the game away as it was marching down the field for a game-winning touchdown. Purdue choked with a blown assignment on the game's last meaningful offensive play, a fourth-down pass by Notre Dame. And with its victory over Washington, ND forever loses any future privilege for whining about the Bush Push, for the entire Irish offensive line drivepiled the ball into the end zone while the officials swallowed the whistle during the interminable 2-point conversion.

So there.

The fact remains that Notre Dame simply isn't in USC's class. The Trojans had their annual September slumber against an inferior Pac-10 opponent. That happens every year, and it continues to be the one thing that tarnishes Win Forever. But they usually hit their stride by October. And they don't give away games that they feel like they have something to play for.

Even with freshman quarterback Matt Barkley and a somewhat depleted running back corps, the Trojans still have enough firepower on offense to overwhelm the Irish. Defensively, USC has been its stout self this season, stifling high-powered offenses such as Ohio State, Cal and Washington with both speed and scheme. There is no reason that USC shouldn't be a prohibitive favorite in this game - by 10 points in most betting lines.

For Charlie Weis, building up this game will have consequences. He's in need of a signature win - so far in his four-plus years in South Bend, his most memorable moment was the near-miss Bush Push Game. Under Weis, the Irish have been trounced in each BCS bowl game. They have lost to Michigan whenever Michigan was any good. And they have not come close to beating USC except in 2005, Weis' first year.

The clock is ticking in the Weis Era. Another loss to USC will drop Notre Dame out of the top 25. The Irish do not have another opponent near the Trojans' stature left on their schedule. A 10-2 record, with losses to Michigan and USC (ND's two marquee rivals), will not get ND into a BCS bowl. It might be good enough to save Weis' job for another year. But for some of the true Notre Dame fans, that's just prolonging the agony.

★★★★★ GAME OF THE WEEK: Oklahoma vs. Texas, noon ET (ABC). Despite OU's two losses, the Red River Shootout in Dallas still takes the top billing this week. Sam Bradford is back for the Sooners, whose desperation to win this game should be obvious. A victory sends Oklahoma on track for the Big XII South title and a BCS bowl berth. A loss effectively ends its season. Texas has national championship aspirations, but the 'Horns won't win anything if they don't beat OU.

★★★★ FOUR-STAR GAME: USC at Notre Dame, 3:30 p.m. ET (NBC). The Trojans are still aiming for the BCS title, and the Irish think they have a shot at a BCS bowl. Somebody's plan will be unalterably changed after this game.

★★★ THREE-STAR GAME: Virginia Tech at Georgia Tech, 6 p.m. ET (ESPN2). The Hokies are No. 3 in the final Simulated BCS Standings and may stay there with a Texas loss. Their remaining schedule is much more agreeable than all the other major title contenders. And win here will keep VT as a potential frontrunner for the BCS championship game.

★★ TWO-STAR GAME: South Carolina at Alabama, 7:45 p.m. ET (ESPN). The Tide have a considerably tougher schedule than Florida, as the two teams seem to be on a collision course to play for the SEC title and a spot in the BCS championship game. South Carolina has been steady if unspectacular, but whatever it's got won't be enough to win in Tuscaloosa.

★ ONE-STAR GAME: Iowa at Wisconsin, noon p.m. ET (ESPN). The Big Ten's lone unbeaten team tries to emerge as a surprise contender not only for the Rose Bowl, but also for the game a week later in Pasadena. The Hawkeyes have danced on a tightrope in their victories against opponents big and small. The question is, how long can they keep up?

(Cross-post at BCS Guru)

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

"I didn't really feel the quake at first,'' Bob Welch said a while ago. He was in the visiting clubhouse, getting liniment rubbed on his shoulder. He was five minutes from walking to the bullpen to warm up, to prepare for his start.

"I thought they were rolling barrels on the ramps above the clubhouse.''

On the other side, Dusty Baker, the Giants' batting coach at the time, didn't have any doubts. He knew it was an earthquake.

Up in the second deck at Candlestick Park, where the overflow media had been seated, an area of temporary desks, the so-called auxiliary press box, I also knew.

What no one knew was how severe it would be. How it would knock down freeways, dissect the World Series.

Twenty years ago. I still have the memories. I still have a copy of the column I wrote for the San Francisco Examiner a couple of days after the quake. Not the night of the quake, because there was no power in the city.

The Examiner and Chronicle, a joint-operating effort, couldn't print. The Oakland Tribune could. The San Jose Mercury could, but not the papers in the city where the tragedy occurred.

Rob Matwick is an exec with the Texas Rangers now. Twenty years ago he was public relations director for the Houston Astros, assigned as many of his colleagues, to work the Series. He was adjacent to me when it sounded as if a fright train were running through the park.

"What's that?'' he asked. As Dusty, I'm a native Californian. "An earthquake,'' I answered. I'd spent all my life in the state, south and north, I know earthquakes.

"But,'' I wrote 20 years ago, "I've never known one like this before. Candlestick swayed like a ship on a stormy sea. The quake lasted maybe 15 seconds that seemed like an hour.

"And then it was over, and some 60,000 cheered. They were Californians. They were Giants fans. They were survivors. Surely this was a sign from nature: No harm, no foul. ‘Play ball, play ball,' they began to chant.''

The teams couldn't play. No power. No lights. No idea of what was happening.

Norm Sherry, the Giants pitching coach, was telling those on the field, "The Bay Bridge is down.'' I had one of those little battery-powered TV sets. The bridge was standing, but a section of the upper deck had dropped onto the lower deck.

In effect, the bottom had dropped out of the World Series.

"After it stopped,'' said Welch, who now lives in Arizona, "I still thought I was going to pitch. Actually, I thought about (Oct. 1) 1987, when my last start for the Dodgers, there was a 5.9 quake in L.A. that rolled me out of bed.''

This one, the Loma Prieta Quake, named for the fault some 65 miles southwest of San Francisco, was first called at 6.9 on the Richter scale, where the rating is logarithmic and not merely one step above the next.

Then it was revised to 7.1, the worst earthquake in Northern California since the infamous one of 1906 which along with a subsequent fire destroyed most of San Francisco.

There was a fire in the '89 quake too, centralized in the Marina District, and because of low pressure water had to be pumped from the bay. A couple of days after the quake, Joe DiMaggio was in line with Marina residents to check on property owned by his family.

That first night was science-fiction eerie. All of San Francisco was pitch-black. No lights, no elevators, no television. The next afternoon baseball commissioner Fay Vincent spoke to the media in a ballroom at the St. Francisco Hotel lit only by candelabra, as in the 18th Century.

From Candlestick to candelabra in a matter of hours.

Dozens were killed by the quake, many under a collapsed freeway in Oakland, never to be rebuilt. Damage was in the billions.

Candlestick, windy, much-reviled Candlestick, built on a solid ground, held up except for broken hunks of cement here and there.

The A's, who had taken the first two games in Oakland, decided to dress at their park and bus across the bay, maybe 23 miles from stadium to stadium. Wives and families had come in their own transportation.

Mark McGwire helped his then girlfriend from the stands. As the A's Stan Javier, years later to play for the Giants helped his wife, Vera. Oakland's Terry Steinbach embraced his wife, Mary. The Giants' Kelly Downs, in a photo which would be on the cover of Sports Illustrated, carried a young relative to safety.

Jose Canseco would be seen gassing up his Porsche some place down the Peninsula from Candlestick. Who knew if the San Mateo Bridge, the next one south of the Bay Bridge were open - it wasn't at first - or even the Dumbarton Bridge?

Some wanted the World Series stopped right there. Vincent, alluding to Winston Churchill insisting the cinemas in London be kept open during Blitz to create a sense of normalcy, intended to continue.

Ten days after the quake, with a group of rescue workers and police and firemen tossing out ceremonial first pitches, baseball was back. But not for long. The A's won two more and swept the Series.

Twenty years ago, a time of joy and grief.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

The Yankees' winter spending spree was impossible to ignore. Reeling from the end of their thirteen-year postseason streak, they added starting pitchers C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett and first baseman Mark Teixeira (from the Angels) as free agents, with outfielder Nick Swisher coming over in a lopsided trade. Has any team makeover ever worked as well? Sabathia was a horse, averaging nearly seven innings per start, winning a major-league high 19 games. Burnett had his second healthy year in a row, going 13-9 despite leading the AL in walks. Swisher became the regular right-fielder after one disappointing year in Chicago, and returned to the form he'd shown as a budding star in Oakland, hitting 29 home runs (21 on the road) and drawing 97 walks. All Teixeira did was lead the AL in home runs and RBIs, while providing excellent defense at first.

Johnny Damon contributed his best season in years, and Derek Jeter and Robinson Cano became the only double-play combination in baseball history to have 200 hits each. Mariano Rivera pitched like Mariano Rivera, and manager Joe Girardi found the eighth-inning compliment he'd been missing by shifting young Phil Hughes to the bullpen. Hughes struggled as a starter, going 3-2 with a 5.45 ERA in the early season; beginning in June, he worked exclusively in relief, posting a 1.40 ERA and holding opponents to a .172 average.

And then there was Alex Rodriguez. His year began with the steroids revelations and the publication of Selena Roberts's book about him. He opted for spring surgery on his ailing hip, and the procedure had the twin effects of repairing damage and allowing the often-hostile Yankees fans to miss him for a while. By the time he came back, the team was 13-15, and Manny Ramirez had taken over as the latest pharmacological scapegoat. A-Rod homered on the first pitch he saw, and wound up with 30 home runs and 100 RBIs in 124 games. He seems happier to be just one of many parts of the team instead of its focal point; he may have gotten enough attention in February and March to last a lifetime. The club has played at a .679 clip, 93-44, since he rejoined the lineup. He even delivered a big October hit, his two-run ninth-inning home run off Joe Nathan that sent game two of the ALDS into extra innings.

The new faces brought an entirely new spirit and enthusiasm to the team. The Yankees played with a visible joy that they'd never shown even in their near-dynasty of the 1990s. During a three-game series against the Twins in May, they won each game with a walkoff hit - and the hero was rewarded with a shaving-cream pie in the face during his postgame TV interview, courtesy of A.J. Burnett. Pies - and wins - became an instant tradition as the Yankees won twenty-eight games in their final at bat, the most in the majors. Angels center-fielder Torii Hunter noticed the change, telling reporters in September, "There's something different over there about those guys, like they're having a lot more fun instead of walking on eggshells."

If the Yankees' early wound was self-inflicted, the Angels' was truly tragic. The season was just three games old when 22-year-old starting pitcher Nick Adenhart was killed in a car crash. The clearly shaken team limped through April, and was still sitting at .500 in the second week of June. John Lackey and Ervin Santana returned to the rotation in May, though Santana never recovered the form he'd shown in 2008. But suddenly, almost overnight, the team seemed to shift from shock and grief to inspiration and determination. They won 13 of 16, lost Torii Hunter and Vlad Guerrero to injuries and went 17-4 without them, and romped through the rest of the season with a 71-36 record after June 11. Adenhart's home locker remains untouched, and a locker is set aside for his memory on the road.

The biggest surprise for the Angels was the blossoming of Cuban émigré Kendry Morales. In his first full season, replacing the departed Teixeira, Morales hit 34 homers and drove in 108 runs while earning $21 million less this year than the new Yankee. During the Angels' four-month surge that began June 12, Morales hit .331 with an OPS of 1.015. He joined with the quietly effective Bobby Abreu to spread the offensive burden throughout the lineup; seven Angels scored at least 70 runs, the most in the majors, and the Angels finished second in the AL in scoring.

The number-one offense in the AL was in New York, of course. The Yankees and Angels had the exact same number of hits, but the Yankees had 35 more doubles and a whopping 71 more home runs. They also drew over a hundred more walks. The Angels have the reputation of an aggressive, running team - but while the Yankees stole 37 fewer bases than the Angels, they were caught stealing 35 fewer times, so the running game was more of an advantage to the New Yorkers than to the Angelenos/Anaheimers.

The Angels will put forward a good rotation against the Yankees: Lackey, Jered Weaver, Scott Kazmir, and Joe Saunders have all pitched effectively against New York in the past, while Sabathia, Burnett, and Pettitte have struggled against the Angels. Still, Sabathia gives the Yankees the one true ace in this series, and they will probably pitch him on three days' rest, starting him in game one and bringing him back for game four. Sabathia made three consecutive starts on four days' rest for the Brewers in September 2008; he went 2-1 with a 0.83 ERA while averaging seven innings per game. He can handle it. For the Angels' good-but-not-great staff, the Yankees' lineup will be much harder to handle.

Yankees in five.

Jeff Neuman is a sportswriter and editor, and co-author of A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.

There are no Tampa Bays among baseball's final four this year. All the participants in the 2009 League Championship Series are solid members of the $100 million club, proud possessors of nine-figure payrolls. Such expenditures don't guarantee success - ask a Mets fan, if you can find one - but failing to make them helps you get an early start on your autumn vacation.

Big markets don't always add up to big ratings, but this year's foursome offers something for every fan's taste: a defending champion with a patched-up rotation and an arsonist for a closer; two Southern California squads with balanced offenses, pitching staffs bolstered by late-season acquisitions, and likable Italian-American managers; and one 500-pound gorilla that spent lavishly and well, adding two top starters and two power bats to a star-drenched squad.

The Phillies-Dodgers series is a repeat of the 2008 NLCS, won by Philadelphia in five games. Cole Hamels shut the Dodgers down in games one and five, and the deep bullpen allowed three runs in eighteen and two-thirds innings. Hamels will start the opener, but it's been a different Cole Hamels this year, hampered by a variety of sprains and tweaks. Cliff Lee has been the surrogate ace since arriving from Cleveland just before the trade deadline; J.A. Happ, Joe Blanton, and Pedro Martinez give the Phillies more starters than they'll need (though Pedro has thrown just seven innings since an ill-considered 130-pitch outing against the Mets a month ago).

The Phillies' question mark all season has been closer Brad Lidge. His perfect '08 (48-for-48 in save opportunities including the postseason) gave way to an excruciating '09. He blew eleven saves in forty-two attempts; his ERA inflated from 1.95 to 7.21, batters hit eleven home runs against him (versus two in 2008); his hits per inning ratio increased by sixty-nine percent, while his strikeouts per inning fell by twenty-one percent. He earned two saves in the division series against Colorado, allowing no hits or runs (though two walks) to the six hitters he faced. Charlie Manuel's faith in him is touching, but there is no way to know which Lidge will come out of the pen on any given night.

Offense is less of a problem. Philadelphia was the only NL team to score more than five runs per game, and it was no Citizens Bank Park illusion: they scored more runs on the road than they did at home. The lineup tilts heavily leftward, with three of their four 30-home run hitters swinging from that side (Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, and Raul Ibanez; Jayson Werth was the fourth). Switch-hitters Jimmy Rollins and Shane Victorino provide some balance, while causing problems for platoon-obsessed bullpens. And for a team with so much power (their 224 homers easily led the league), they also run effectively -- 119 steals with a .810 success rate, led by Utley (23/23), Rollins (31/39), Victorino (25/33), Werth (20/23), even Howard (8/9).

The Dodgers' hopes may rest on Clayton Kershaw's 21-year-old arm. Kershaw allowed the fewest hits per nine innings in the majors this year; only four active pitchers have posted a season total lower than his 6.263 (Pedro Martinez twice, Johan Santana, Randy Johnson, and Chris Young). Lefties batted .173 against him, with one home run in 154 plate appearances; righties batted just .208, but with a much higher walk rate. Kershaw gets to open the series in Dodger Stadium, where he had a 1.83 ERA in sixteen starts. He is, however, 0-3 with a 6.64 ERA in four starts against Philadelphia. (Hamels, his game one opponent, is 4-0, 1.64 against the Dodgers.)

Vicente Padilla, Hiroki Kuroda, and Randy Wolf are expected to round out the rotation. Padilla threw seven shutout innings against St. Louis in the division series, but these three will mostly be counted on to keep the game close until the bullpen can take over. The Dodgers' relief pitchers led the major leagues in ERA, batting average against, and WHIP, and this strength of the team grew even more effective after the trade for lefty George Sherrill, who allowed just two earned runs in thirty games for L.A. Supersized closer Jonathan Broxton struck out 13.5 batters per nine innings, holding them to a.165 average, the lowest in the majors. Joe Torre loves to use relievers in roles defined by innings, and the Sherrill/Broxton combo gives him his best end-of-game pair since Rivera and Wetteland.

The Dodgers ranked fourth in the NL in scoring, impressive for a team playing in Dodger Stadium, especially impressive for a team playing fifty games without Manny Ramirez. In Manny's absence, the club held its own: it played .580 ball without him, .589 before and after his suspension, despite a decrease in runs per game from 5 to 4.4 while he was out. Andre Ethier helped fill the power void, hitting a career-high 31 home runs; Matt Kemp had an impressive season for a 24-year-old in a pitcher's park; and the rest of the lineup (Russell Martin, James Loney, Orlando Hudson/Ronnie Belliard, Rafael Furcal, and Casey Blake) contributed without a true weak spot. Los Angeles had the best record in the league throughout the season, only a late slump keeping them under 100 wins.

While Manny struggled - for him - after returning to the lineup (a .269 batting average and sub-.900 OPS in 77 games), he's proven impervious to postseason pressure throughout his career, and should help the Dodgers hold the Phillies' offense to a standoff. The biggest edge held by either side is the Dodgers' bullpen; if you're going to beat them, you'd better do it early.

Dodgers in six.

Jeff Neuman is a sportswriter and editor, and co-author of A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.

Times change. Perceptions change. Integrity never changes.

Couldn't win the big one.

Wooden was in his formative years at UCLA, a team competent enough in the old Pacific Coast Conference and its successor, the AAWU. But in the tournament, there was USF with Bill Russell, or Santa Clara, with Ken Sears, and the Bruins were eliminated.

Then they began to eliminate everybody else. Starting in 1964, UCLA won all the big ones, won 88 games in a row, won seven NCAA championships in a row, and John Wooden earned a reputation he's never lost as the finest college basketball coach in history.

The great man, the "Wizard of Westwood'' - a phrase Wooden still dislikes; it came from the title of a book by Dwight Chapin and the late Jeff Prugh - turns 99 today, October 14. Ninety-nine, one short of a century.

Sadly, he is looking his age, frail, fighting through one ailment after another, the sort of problems not uncommon to those who make it to their ninth decade.

Delightfully, he never acts his age. He hates being pushed in a wheelchair. Doesn't want to be fussed over.

"I'm embarrassed not being able to get around,'' he said a while back. "I don't like it.''

Who does? In our minds, it's always yesterday, always a time of youth, when we never imagined what the future would be, never dreamed those old guys would be us.

The India Rubber Man someone called Wooden. He was the All-America from Purdue in the early 1930s. He would hit the floor and bounce up. Then he would hit a basket.

He became an English teacher and a coach. No, he became The Coach. After serving as a naval lieutenant in World War II.

UCLA hired him from Indiana State in 1948. He headed West and almost headed back to Indiana. Life in southern California, call it the "Hollywood Effect,'' was unsettling. Wooden considered leaving not long after he arrived.

But he still was there when I entered in 1956, a freshman on the school paper, the Daily Bruin, sent to interview Wooden in less than elegant campus surroundings, a spartan office in a wooden bungalow maybe 150 yards from an antiquated gym so small (2,500 seats) and so closed-in it was, in a word-play on the Tennessee Williams' drama, nicknamed "The Sweatbox Named Perspire.''

Wooden was polite if impatient. Businesslike. Efficient. The Pyramid of Success, now marketed, was attached to the wall. He had his ideas. When he would get his players, Walt Hazzard (Mahdi Abdul-Rahman) and Gail Goodrich, Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) and Bill Walton, the ideas were brilliant.

Twenty-seven years, 10 NCAA titles, 620 wins, 147 defeats. UCLA finally got its building, Pauley Pavilion, in 1965, and Wooden finally got an office worthy of his status. But deep down, he was still the no-nonsense guy from Middle America.

For many years, Wooden has lived in an unpretentious San Fernando Valley condominium that is more museum than residence. Memories, homilies and most of all awards are on virtually every inch of the walls, atop every desk, table or trophy cabinet.

There is a letter from Richard Nixon, a bobblehead doll of Tommy Lasorda, a Yankees cap from Derek Jeter, a photo montage of John Stockton, of whom Wooden wistfully noted, "Was the last player in the NBA to wear shorts, not bloomers.''

He has books about Mother Teresa, a Medal of Freedom award from George W. Bush, a football autographed by Don Shula and, of course, photos of the UCLA teams he coached to titles before retiring in 1975.

"Nell arranged those pictures in the Pyramid of Success,'' explained Wooden, alluding to his wife, who died in 1985. "I didn't like that, but I wasn't going to change anything she did.''

Nell Riley was the only girl John Wooden of Martinsville, Indiana ever dated. There's a framed photo, leaning against a wall, of the two of them, John 16, Nell 16. The love of his life, to whom he still writes a letter the 21st of every month.

Her name is alongside his on the basketball floor at Pauley. It was the only way he would allow the court to be dedicated, to both of them.

Wooden is a baseball fan. He would come to UCLA games when they still played at a utilitarian facility on the land where Pauley was erected and harass the opponents, a classic "bench jockey,'' insulting but never obscene. Wooden can talk about Babe Ruth. Or about Barry Bonds.

John Wooden knew. John Wooden knows. In 99 years, he hasn't missed much. Including winning the big one.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

The modern sports fan is an all-devouring, insatiable and utterly spoiled beast. But who can blame them. There is nary a dull moment in the year where he or she has to fret about not watching or attending a major sports event in this country. And if one is a follower of baseball and football, arguably the two most popular American sports, there is only one month in the calendar - March - without either of these sports contesting regular season or playoff games.

But at least both of these national pastimes have extended offseasons that allow fans a break, granting them the necessary act of missing their favorite games so that when they make their annual reappearance there is always the joy of rediscovery. Isn't this what we're supposed to do in life anyway? After all it's what most young men are taught when first lovestruck - give the girl space, don't overwhelm her, give her a chance to miss you. Well, this applies to sports.

There's a reason why baseball works on a literary level, even if it annoys the hell out of those who find its romanticization suffocating and obnoxious. Bart Giamatti, the late, great commissioner of our treasured game - and he truly was the last great, towering figure in the sport as Bud Selig just hasn't cut it - said it best when he wrote: "It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, you rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then, just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops."

And football too makes its devotees suffer for the good of the sport. Those who worship at the gridiron have to wait even longer every year for their beloved game to reappear. And just as baseball fans yearn for spring's arrival after the harsh and depressing winter, there are many millions who name autumn as their favorite season, as it heralds footballs return and a renewed love of Sundays.

Really, all sports should have a significant break between campaigns. Even basketball and hockey, though their seasons are about six weeks too long, take several months off.

But for diehard fans of tennis and golf there's just simply too much going on. And it's going to end up injuring - literally and figuratively - both sports unless something is changed.

Over the last few days both Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick, who are in Shanghai to play in yet another required event, have vented their frustration about the length of the tennis calendar. "It's impossible to play 1st of January and finish 5th of December," said the 23-year-old Nadal, who had to miss Wimbledon this year because of a knee injury. "It's impossible to be here playing like what I did the last five years, playing a lot of matches and being all the time 100 percent without problems." And said Roddick, "It's ridiculous to think that you have a professional sport that doesn't have a legitimate offseason to rest, get healthy, and then train. I just feel sooner or later that common sense has to prevail."

It's an egregious affront to the sport if the disorganized and misguided overseers of tennis don't remedy this situation quickly. What good does it do to have players who are only 70% healthy at any given time of the year?

Tennis should conclude just weeks after the US Open. The ATP could then stage a year-end championship, which could help sort out the final standings, in early October. This gives players a little more than three months rest before the first grand slam in Australia in late January. I'd be shocked if any player - whether ranked in the top 10 or 100 - would balk at such a proposal.

Maybe one of the only benefits derived from the dire state of the world economy will be a reduction in events. But since every nation - those developed and not-fully-developed, Asian or Western or African - seemingly wants to host a tennis event I doubt much change will come soon.

Rather, it will have to be the players who demand it. The top pros revolted in the early '70s - under the leadership of Arthur Ashe, Jack Kramer and other tennis dignitaries - which gave the main attractions of the sport a significant say in the administration of events. This must be reconfigured for the 21st century. Perhaps we need more boycotts or a strike of some sort to finally see a change. I'd love to see Nadal, Roddick or others band together and refuse to play until changes were adopted. I dare tournament organizers to stand up to them. Only then, when the pros commit to an act of definitive consequence will any action be taken.

Tennis' daunting and eternal schedule is a more urgent problem than golf's calendar obviously because of the physical demands of the sport. And since golf is primarily an American sport for the top pros, there's less of the grueling worldwide travel. But even with golf there's far too much tournament play toward the end of the year.

Are the Fed Ex Cup events in September really necessary, other than to further pad the coffers of these talented athletes with truly vulgar sums of money? Golf should have a season-ending event though, the competition calls for it. But let it be contested a couple of weeks after the final major - the PGA Championship - and let it serve, as in tennis, to finalize the rankings for the year. Maybe have the top 30 or 40 players compete in one event.

Or better yet, why not also stage a fun event in late August or September which would offer a "skills test" to the top pros - driving, putting, sand play, hitting from the rough, etc. Make it an obstacle course of sorts and have it count a little toward the ranking to make it legitimate, with any money awarded donated. I'm sure it'd make for enjoyable, compelling viewing.

Unless significant alterations to both the professional tennis and golf schedules are initiated immediately, both sports will suffer from physical burnout as well as fan ennui. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, you know - but that seems to be a lost notion in parts of the sports world.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

And earlier last week, when the Detroit Tigers, who had utterly choked down the stretch of the regular season, seemed on the verge of making that final week a wonderfully distant memory as they found themselves up a run going into the bottom of the 10th inning in that epic game against the Twins, one just felt that it wouldn't be enough to withstand the assault from both the Twins and their Metrodome fans. And sure enough, it wasn't. The Twins tied the game and then won it in the 12th.

It just always feels as if the road team is charged with a Herculean task when faced with an extra inning game in postseason play. Sure enough, the statistics bear this out. In my count, since the inception of the Wild Card in 1995, there have been 52 postseason games (including two "163rd" games to decide a playoff spot) that have gone to extra innings. In only two of these years - 2002 and 2006 - were no extra inning games contested. The home team has triumphed in 35 of these contests, for a 67% winning percentage. It's a startling statistic considering that in the playoffs the teams are often evenly matched, especially when it comes to pitching.

It's tough to compare with other sports. In NFL's overtime over the last decade, the team who wins the coin toss first has won 60% of the games according to various studies. The fact that it's not more than 60% is in some way surprising as the advantage of gaining possession in a sudden death situation would appear far more advantageous than both teams getting an equal chance, as in baseball.

Perhaps the closest analogy is tennis. When serving second, or "from behind", in the final set of a match it is a marked disadvantage - if you lose your serve, it's over. Whereas if the player who serves first loses his serve, there's that psychological edge that you can always get another shot. Just ask Andy Roddick. The poor guy had to serve to stay in the Wimbledon final against Roger Federer an unreal 10 times. But on the 11th try he came up short and just like that the match was over.

So it is just purely a psychological edge that the home team in baseball knows they get the last word, win or lose, that allows them to ease up? Is it the home crowd that can will a team to victory as many claim it did last week in Minneapolis? We'll never really know.

What is for certain is that some of these extra inning games have to be regarded as some of the greatest of all games played. Below is a short list which all can agree contain five of the finest games ever contested, postseason or otherwise. But I would take a fair amount of umbrage with anyone who disagrees with the No. 1 extra inning postseason game of the last 15 years.

THE GREATEST POSTSEASON EXTRA INNING GAMES SINCE THE INCEPTION OF WILD CARD PLAY:

5 -- 2001 World Series Games 4 and 5, 2001 World Series, Yankees vs. Diamondbacks - We'll count these as one game, considering the circumstances, with 9/11 as a backdrop. Brenly - inhumanly it seems - leaves Kim in both these games and forces him to face the Bronx crowd on consecutive nights.
4 -- 2003 ALCS Game 7, Yankees vs. Red Sox - Aaron Boone becomes the 21st century Bucky Dent to millions of New Englanders after Pedro is left in the game too long.
3 -- 2007 NL Wild Card Tiebreaker, Rockies vs. Padres - After surrendering two runs in the top of the 13th, the Rockies answer with three to complete their remarkable run to the postseason.
2 -- 2009 Twins-Tigers -- Greatest one-game playoff, ever.
1 -- 2005 NLDS Game 4, Houston vs. Atlanta - Houston was down 5-0 in the 5th and 6-1 in the 8th. They tied the game in the 9th and then after eight scoreless innings from both teams, won the game in the 18th on a home run by Chris Burke. A bizarre footnote to this game is that the fan who caught Burke's home run also caught the grand slam hit by Lance Berkman earlier in the eighth inning.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

Samuel Chi is Editor of RealClearSports. He may be reached at sam@realclearsports.com.

And yet this four-day competition held at a muni course on the western edge of San Francisco, Harding Park, a muni course that is not very far from the San Andreas Fault and very near the Pacific Ocean is not much different than most tournaments.

It's all about Tiger Woods.

He's only one player on a 12-man American team, a group which includes Phil Mickelson, Steve Stricker and two of this year's major champions, Lucas Glover and Stewart Cink. But as always Tiger is a majority of one.

He's the focus. He's the main man. In press conferences, where he's practically invisible behind a wall of television cameras. On the fairways where his galleries dwarf those of other players.

Tiger brings them in. Michael Jordan, his pal, is an unofficial assistant captain, chosen by Fred Couples as much because he is Tiger's confidant as anything else, is at Harding. So is Barry Bonds, back in the area where he grew up and played. So is the great Jerry West, a scratch golfer himself.

The event is special. San Francisco knows its place among the globe's chosen cities. Narcissism is not exactly unknown among the citizenry. When there's news breaking, no matter what the story and where the location, the live shot is always of someone standing with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. Unless it's the Bay Bridge in the background.

But this Presidents Cup is special. Because in the last 20 years, since the Earthquake World Series, there have been only two notable sporting events which actually took place in the region, the 1998 U.S. Open and the 2002 World Series.

And because Tiger Woods is playing.

He once went to school at Stanford, but that was 13 years ago, before the legend had been established. Tiger doesn't come around here very much any more. But he's here now. So is the Presidents Cup.

On Day 1, Thursday, Woods teamed with Steve Stricker, who might be described as the anti-Tiger. Stricker is pure Midwest, quiet, unassuming, content to play the game and earn his money. A good guy. A very good golfer. But not the sort who has fans chanting his name. As they chant Tiger's.

Northern California weather can be mysterious. You're familiar with the line Mark Twain probably didn't say but no matter who did say is wonderfully accurate, "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.''

Earlier in the week it was among the warmest autumns anyone had ever spent in San Francisco. But the fog and chill arrived just before the first tee time. So there was Tiger, who doesn't like long sleeves because they restrict his swing, in a long-sleeve sweater.

Bright red. For the U.S.A. But, as locals noted, for Stanford.

Team golf is a bizarre animal. There's four-ball or better ball, in which two guys from, say, the U.S. play two guys from the Internationals. All four balls are in play. And the golfer who takes the fewest strokes wins the hole for his team.

But on Thursday, the game was foursomes, or alternate shots. That meant Tiger hit the drive, then Stricker the next shot, then Tiger the next shot and so on until the one ball they were playing was holed out. It's a form of torture when your teammate hits into a bunker or the rough and you are forced to make up for his wildness.

When John McEnroe still was active the toss-out line around tennis was that the best doubles team in the world was McEnroe and whoever was his partner that day. Same thing, in foursomes, with Tiger.

In the match-play format, meaning every hole is a separate entity and a match is over when one side leads by more holes than remain, Woods and Stricker overwhelmed Geoff Ogilvy and Ryo Ishikawa, 6 and 4. That's like beating someone by three touchdowns.

Woods now has the best foursomes record of anyone in the nine years of Presidents Cup play, eight wins, two losses and a half.

"I felt a little extra pressure going out today,'' said Stricker. "I was comfortable having Tiger as a partner, but I wanted to make sure he was comfortable having me as a partner because I didn't want to feel he had to hold up my end as well as his end.''

Tiger Woods will hold up both ends and the middle. He's a big reason the Presidents Cup is a sellout. He's a big reason the U.S. has the first-day lead.

"Where's Tiger?'' some breathless fan asked when he and Stricker were still in the distance.

Where's Tiger? Where he always is. By himself in the world of sport.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

So, with this in mind, I turn to the Yankees. Their awesome power and versatility on display in Game 1 in their playoff debut at the House That Ruth Did Certainly Not Build (more like the Stadium the City Got Bullied Into Giving the Steinbrenner Family after they threatened to vacate New York) dealt a blow to the heavily underdogged Twins who were clearly exhausted - and probably hungover? - after their thrilling win less than 24 hours prior in that embarrassment of a baseball field in the Mill City against the choking Detroit Tigers. I'd be surprised if the Twins are able to escape an 0-10 record against the Yankees in 2009 - they were swept in their seven games in the regular season prior to Wednesday's game.

And much will be made of this team's righting the playoff wrongs from the Yankees of recent years, where they had only won four of their previous 17 playoff contests. Alex Rodriguez will be a big story - for reasons other than steroids and Kate Hudson - as he seemed to exorcise at least a portion of his sizeable collection of postseasons ghosts last night by securing hits with runners on base, something he had been unable to do basically since the Great(est) Choke of 2004 against the Red Sox. And with Jeter being his usual sublime playoff self and the eerily ageless Mariano Rivera ready to hurl a demoralizing one inning knockout on a moment's notice, the Yankees appear for now to be the clear favorites to take the World Series and return the trophy to its rightful owner after eight years in enemy hands.

If the Yankees do indeed triumph in November (and by the way what the hell is up with this scheduling, having our summer game conclude several days into November? That month should be associated solely with the awe-inspiring World Series moments delivered after the 9/11 tragedy when there was a legitimate reason to play in the 11th month of the year. MLB could easily have managed the postseason itinerary in a more compressed manner) there will be the usual celebrations, both on the field and off, and New York will gloat about having its 27th world championship.

But it's just not the same. While walking around the city last night and watching the game in several watering holes to gauge interest, there was not that palpable sense of tension and excitement that is usually a built-in part of autumnal acoustics and environment in New York. In recent years one would have to jockey for position to get a good seat and watch these games. There's just no pulse on the street - and those Yankee diehards who would challenge this assertion are either in denial or blind and deaf.

One can't use a sense of ennui or jadedness as an excuse. As previously mentioned, the Yankees have not played well in the playoffs in some time and missed the postseason last year for the first time since 1993. So you'd think that fans would be more eager and intense with their rooting this time around.

And when the Yankees were winning repeatedly in the mid and late 1990's it never appeared to this observer that fans were losing interest. There was a distinct, almost civic, awareness and pride that those teams and players engendered. Those teams were, in fact, loved.

Is this Yankee team loved? Well, players themselves are but not as a unit. Most definitely Jeter and Rivera are loved, adored and worshipped and rightfully so. And to a lesser degree Posada falls into that category, followed by those who came up through the once-vaunted farm system - Robinson Cano, Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes.

So then what's the reason for this lack of Yeats' dreaded "passionate intensity" when it comes to the Yankees? It's hard to pin it on one thing as it's more of an accumulation of events that have led to - and I'll invoke Jimmy Carter here - a malaise of sorts for a segment of Yankee fans; a vulgarly overpriced and less intimate stadium in this time of economic distress most exemplified by New York's Wall Street, the stacking of free agent players that would make even prior Yankee teams blush, the steroid scandals with Roger Clemens and A-Rod, the absence of Joe Torre, etc.

Of course, the sellout crowds cheering like crazy over the next few weeks and loving this version of Yankee success would find this entire argument ridiculous and wrong, perhaps bitter. But there's no question that, well ... things were just better in Yankeeland back in the 90's.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

I have often utilized that self-guiding principle (which is basically a deeper, more personal restating of the "all's well that ends well" axiom) when analyzing a day's or week's activities, and I also apply the same when discussing sports. For instance, at September's US Open in New York, Juan Martin Del Potro and Roger Federer participated in a thrilling final that helped save a subpar tournament on the men's side. If the Open had been chock full of exciting matches up to the final but the championship match turned out to be a flat, dull affair, then the tournament would have lost a significant storyline.

This obviously holds true for all sports. And the just concluded regular season of baseball is a clear -- illuminating, in fact -- case in point. Yesterday's epic victory by the Minnesota Twins over the heartbroken Detroit Tigers, who represent that heartbroken section of our hurting nation, finally brought thrills to a season in which nary a pennant race existed until the last week of the season. Just days ago, the Twins were three games out with four to play. They would have to sweep their remaining games and hope the Tigers stumbled, which did indeed occur. And for the first time in the history of the sport, a team was able to overcome such a deficit.

And with their tiebreaking game to decide the rightful owner of the Central Division crown, these two Midwestern teams provided such a fantastic and superlative defying gift to fans of our national pastime that the 2009 season now, finally, has its signature moment. Of course, we'd all love it to be surpassed with an exciting and fitting conclusion in the postseason, but for now baseball fans are content with the brilliant contest in that profoundly ugly venue in its final year of hosting baseball.

So where does yesterday's game rank with the other 13 one-off games (or series) of seasons past to decide a playoff spot? Well, there are clearly four that stand out far above the rest, listed here in chronological order:

• October 3rd, 1951: Giants over Dodgers, 5-4. This was actually the third of a best-of-three format that was used before the current one game system was put into place. This game need no further explanation as it's regarded as one of the finest ever played as unlikely hero Bobby Thomson catapulted himself into history -- baseball and otherwise -- with his dramatic homerun to defeat the hated Dodgers and vault the Giants into the World Series against the Yankees. Few even remember the fact that the Yankees demolished the Giants to win the Series, but many remember "The Shot Heard 'Round the World."

• October 2nd, 1978: Yankees over Red Sox 5-4. Bucky ------- Dent, as he's lovingly referred to in New England, a mediocre hitter at best, launched a shot that barely cleared the Green Monster that gave the Yankees a lead which they were able to cling to. And when Goose Gossage retired Red Sox great Carl Ystremski on a fly ball to third baseman Craig Nettles, the Yankees had accomplished the impossible, coming back from 14 ½ games back to claim the AL East. Though Dent's homerun is justifiably remembered as the highlight of the game, it was Reggie Jackson's mammoth homerun to the deep centerfield bleachers of Fenway in the eighth inning that provided the margin of victory. The Yankees went on to overcome a two-games-to-none deficit against the Dodgers in the World Series before winning four in a row to claim yet another championship.

• October 1st 2008: Rockies over Padres, 9-8 (13). Was Matt Holliday really safe at home? It doesn't matter because when the Rockies' star player made his controversial slide and touched -- or didn't touch, depending on one's rooting interest -- home plate to give the Rockies their incredible, come from behind win after being down two going into the bottom of the 13th, was the end ever in doubt anyway? After all, this was a team that had to win 11 in a row and 14 of their final 15 games down the stretch just to force the playoff. The Rockies' joy ride continued through the National League, but their progress was decidedly arrested by the Red Sox, who swept Colorado in the World Series. But that great run may have served as inspiration to this year's Rockies squad who reached the playoffs after an utterly miserable opening to the season.

• October 6th, 2009: Twins over Tigers 6-5 (12). I'll forgo the narrative of last night's contest as it will be covered in great detail in the ensuing days, but what elevated this contest into the upper levels of greatness was that game-saving double play when Tigers leftfielder Ryan Rayburn, making up for a botched play that almost handed the game to the Twins moments before, threw out Alexi Casilla at home plate to temporarily extend the game. Ironically, it was Casilla who stroked the game-winning hit in the 12th. There was also that missed call on the ball that grazed Brandon Inge ... so many related themes crammed into compressed moments in this already legendary match-up. Too many moments to enumerate.

Now, each game had its own overarching context that one could factor in. The Dodgers and Giants were hated rivals, making the Giants comeback in both their season and that final game that much more rewarding and dramatic. The same holds true for the Yankees and Red Sox. And the Rockies had that September to remember to even get them that close.

But for me, if one analyzes just the playoff game itself, stripping away the drama and back stories that preceded each, last night's Duel in the Dome rightfully deserves the title of Greatest.

NOTES:
The number of television ads for "erectile dysfunction" and other medical conditions is out of hand. One can debate whether they should be allowed to be aired in the first place, as it allows pharmaceutical companies to shape health debate, not doctors. But what I was also thinking about was kids. Should children be fed this bizarre, hyper-anxiety fueled parade of ads regarding men's "problems" in addition to other commercials showing a young daughter talking to her dad about how he may have a heart condition and then speaking to him of the virtues of Plavix? For me, I'd rather have my kid watch the alcohol industry push the joys of beer than having a child become immune to the overmedication of our country.

Chip Caray must go! His call in the bottom of the 10th declaring that the ball hit to Tigers left fielder Ryan Rayburn was a "hit!" ("Line drive BASE HIT, caught out there!") was perhaps the most egregious case of an announcer speaking to soon in a big moment that I have witnessed. Not only was that "hit" clearly a routine line-drive out, but the ensuing throw to nab Casilla at home extended the game. And how many times can Caray use "fisted" when referring to a weak fly ball? Perhaps a thesaurus should be present in the broadcast booth to help out with the adjectives.

Award-winning columnist Tim Joyce provides regular commentary for RealClearSports. His work has also appeared in Yahoo.com, MSNBC.com, and Tennis Week. Email: joyce.timothy@gmail.com

The Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis opened for business the year after the 1981 strike shut down baseball for fifty-eight days. Its last baseball game was supposed to be three days ago, but like Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, Rasputin, and Tom DeLay, it refuses to go away.

A month ago, the Twins were seven games behind the Detroit Tigers. A week ago, they were two games back, beginning a vital four-game set in Detroit - their last realistic chance to make up ground. They split the four games, losing vital calendar pages while getting nowhere. The Tigers' magic number was two, with three to play. It never reached zero.

The Metrodome has long been the Twins' loud secret weapon. When they won the championship in 1987, their record at home was twenty-seven games better than on the road. In League Championship Series and World Series play, the Twins have gone 12-2 at the Metrodome while losing ten of fifteen on the road. They've been in three World Series, including one in 1965; each Series went seven games, the Twins won two of them, and they have yet to win a World Series game on the road.

Down the stretch this season, Minnesota won nine of their last ten at home leading up to yesterday's one-game playoff. It's the second year in a row that the Twins played a 163rd game to determine the Central Division champion. Last year, they lost to the Chicago White Sox. This year, they defeated the Tigers.

Care to guess where each of those games was played?

Its baseball diamond is shoehorned into a basically rectangular structure intended for football. The outfield dimensions are irregular, proving that asymmetry is not synonymous with charm. The large sheet of vinyl beyond the right-field boundary (it's difficult to call it a wall) covers the seats that extend outward for Vikings games. The roof is Teflon, the ceiling a shade of whitish gray, with intermittent holes that accommodate lighting and do a wonderful job of mimicking balls in flight. Fielders are urged to keep a constant eye on what would be routine pop flies anywhere else; if you lose sight of the ball, you'll have to choose among the many small round options in your range of vision. As with any enclosed arena, it holds sound very well; crowd noise at games can reach levels associated more with fighter jet engines than baseball's bucolic roots.

Worst of all, the dome forced Minnesotans to make a choice no fan should face: Do I want to spend a beautiful day outside, or do I want to go to a baseball game? If you live in Minnesota, chances are you love the outdoors; summers there are too short to waste much time watching others play, especially inside.

The passing of the Metrodome from the major leagues will reduce the number of artificial surfaces in baseball to two: Toronto's Rogers Centre and St. Petersburg's Tropicana Field. Perhaps it's true that, as the bumper-sticker has it, Nature Bats Last.

The dome isn't going away; the Vikings will continue to play games there, squandering the home-field advantage they enjoyed when they played outdoors in the cold. Young twin-cities fans will discover a new baseball sensation: the smell of fresh-cut grass on a summer evening, one that's been denied them for nearly 30 years. The great bubble will still be around, a reminder of futuristic visions from someone else's past. And, for at least another week, it will cast its inflated shadow on the game that fits it so poorly. The Yankees will be overwhelming favorites to eliminate the Twins and quickly, but no one's gotten rich yet betting against the monster in the night.

Jeff Neuman is a sportswriter and editor, and co-author of A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.

Not a bad evening for the man. Too old? Too spectacular.

We worry more about others more than about ourselves. We're always giving advice but rarely listening to advice. Maybe we should just shut up.

That goes for sports journalists, writers, announcers, former players. The whole lot of us virtually demanded Favre give it up. Insisted he was making a fool of himself, was embarrassing the NFL.

Favre didn't hurt anyone. If you don't include the Green Bay Packers.

He's a football player who wants to play football. Disingenuous? Flip-flopping? That's trivial stuff. The way he passed against Green Bay is not.

There's lyric from "South Pacific,'' a show which even predates Brett Favre.

"...So suppose a dame ain't bright or completely free from flaws, or as faithful as bird dog or as kind as Santa Claus. It's a waste of time to worry over things that they have not; be thankful for the things they've got.''

Be thankful for what Brett Favre still has, which is a remarkable ability to throw a football, an unfulfilled passion for competing at football.

He will be 40 before this week is finished. The term "graybeard'' is descriptive, not only a cliché reference. But he's young as springtime when he's given time in the pocket. When he can thread a ball through defenders.

The Packers didn't want him after the 2007 season, not under his terms. It was a painful separation. But once he took his leave, Favre was under no obligation to walk away from the game.

We carry images in our mind. We hated to see Joe Namath stumble when he spent that season with the Rams, winced when Johnny Unitas tried to hold on after he joined the Chargers. It's not so much what the veterans do to themselves, but what they do to us.

We want to remember the homecoming queen when she was 21, not when she was 61.

Yet Favre at 39 is as memorable as Favre at 29. A father could poke his 7-year-old Monday night, assuming the kid hadn't gone to sleep, and tell him, "You're watching history, son.'' Because, Brett Favre indeed is history.

An athlete is only what he can produce, only what his body allows. It was Joe Montana, the great 49ers quarterback, the winner in four Super Bowls, who had a ready answer when someone asked why he didn't quit. "What do you have to prove?'' was what someone wanted to know from Joe.

Nothing, in effect. Except for himself, to himself

"When I retire, I won't be coming back,'' Montana had explained. "I'm not like an accountant who can take a sabbatical. So I'm going to keep going as long as I feel like I can play and I enjoy it.''

No regrets. That's the essence. No wondering what might have been. Just do it until you no longer can do it. And then don't look back.

You know there are individuals who wanted Brett Favre to make a mess of things. Individuals who were aching to say, "I told you so.'' What are they saying now?

That despite their misgivings, their disenchantment, Brett Favre is a champion, a player who makes other players better, a player who makes teams better.

The Vikings knew all about Brett Favre. They had lost to him more than enough. They saw him as the one who could be the leader, be the winner. So far they are correct in their assessment.

We can never be sure when an athlete is done. A change of scenery, a new outlook, a revised dedication may resuscitate a career. We're too eager to write an ending. There, it's over, so go about your business and get away from us.

A Sports Illustrated article by the wordsmith Selena Roberts questioned Tiger Woods' future. In a year Tiger came back from knee surgery, a year he won six tournaments but not a major, he suddenly was on the downside and probably never would catch Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 majors. What?

Tiger is only 33, and to conclude his golf had reached a plateau is wild thinking. Maybe Selena is right. Most likely she's wrong. Nicklaus himself went three years without a major and then started winning them again with great frequency.

Tiger's going to be around a long while. So is Brett Favre. He looked brilliant against Green Bay, looked like someone who deserved to be given the chance to work his magic.

Tiger Woods didn't suddenly lose his touch. Brett Favre never may lose his touch.

The great ones need listen only to themselves.

As a reporter since 1960, Art Spander is a living treasure of sports history. A recipient of the Dick McCann Memorial Award -- given for his long and distinguished career covering professional football -- he has earned himself a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was recently honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the PGA of America for 2009.

But there is one thing the theories about the reasons have in common. Arrogance. Good ol' American arrogance.

Instead of dedicating three days and nights working the IOC members, as we hear Tony Blair did for London in its successful bid for 2012, President Obama figured all he had to do was show up for a few minutes here at Bella Center after an all-night flight on Air Force One.

He had normally blasé media types pressing their noses against the windows of this sleek convention center just to get a glimpse of him stepping into his flown-in Cadillac. His very presence shook down the tight schedule the IOC usually likes to keep. His very name peppered the cacophony of unfamiliar languages all over town with little hints of recognition.

But Obama was long gone by the time his ripple factor had flattened out. By then, Brazilian President Lula da Silva was wowing the room with his avuncular, rumpled flair.

"Among the countries that today compete to host the Games, we are the only one that has never had this honor," Lula reminded the IOC. "For the others, it will be just one more Games."

Lula came off more street savvy than his more-scripted comrades in world leadership. Looking like the old-guy version of Raymond Burr as Perry Mason. Sounding like a Portuguese-speaking Dick Vitale.

With his nearest spin doctor as far away as the Amazon, Lula made his counterparts - Obama, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatomaya - look like metrosexual façades. And the freshly scrubbed politician just did not resonate the way the guy with a face full of hair did.

Maybe this is the latest edition of the new world order. Four years ago it was Blair, slickly going where no politician had gone before. Vladimir Putin was inspired, shortly after. He showed up in Guatemala with a sudden ability to speak English, pushing Sochi, Russia, over the top in the bidding for the 2014 Winter Olympics.

By the time Obama made his cameo here in Copenhagen, the IOC had been there and done that. It was not much of an appearance after all.

Even the disgraced ex-president Juan Antonio Samaranch - pushed out the door in the wake of the Salt Lake City bribery scandal - reached out and grabbed his old IOC friends with his "I know I am near the end of my time, I am 89" speech on behalf of Madrid. Damned if it didn't get them to the final vote.

It is safe to say more people will remember Samaranch and Lula from Copenhagen 2009 than they will Obama. Air Force One made a bigger impression. But to say Chicago lost because Obama mailed this one in would be missing the problems churning deeper in the Olympic waters.

The IOC and the U.S. Olympic Committee have been at odds over money for years. American companies provide the biggest share of sponsorships; American TV networks have kept the cash flow constant. So the USOC commands a great deal of revenue, something that has to rub more than a few IOC members the wrong way.

Add the USOC's ill-timed and since-suspended decision this year to poke the sleeping bear and start its own TV network over the IOC's loud objections, and the kindling is there to ignite a firestorm against anything American.

The Obama factor was merely an interesting distraction to what was really going on inside the big clubhouse in the middle of this Danish nowhere.

So Chicago is summarily dismissed in one vote as New York had been in two votes four years ago in Singapore. So what's next for an American Olympics that will become no less than 16 years on from Salt Lake City 2002 and at least 24 years between Summer Games?

As New York went noisily into that good night, expect Chicago to do the same.

"It's already in this hemisphere with Rio, and it would not make sense for an American city to try again in 2020," Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley said. "It's in this hemisphere, and they have to move somewhere else."

Does that bring us back to Los Angeles - spurned this time around by a USOC convinced Chicago would be the better bidder? And does this mean putting in a call for 2024? Probably. By then, word is Paris will want to celebrate the centennial of its "Chariots of Fire" Olympics.

America, this Olympic thing may take a while.

Ron Flatter is an American free-lance journalist based in New York who has covered international sports since 2004 for Radio Sport 927, Melbourne, Australia.  He also does sports updates for 1050 ESPN New York and has anchored the news nationally for Fox News Radio.

But despite nearly a week of red-carpet glitz starring Oprah Winfrey, some old-fashioned politicking by Michelle Obama and an 11th-hour cameo from President Obama, Chicago was a first-round knockout victim in the International Olympic Committee's vote to determine the host of the 2016 Olympics.

Even the final awarding of the Games of the XXXI Olympiad to Rio de Janeiro seemed anticlimactic in the wake of America's colossal failure.

Chicago polled only 18 of the 94 votes cast in round one. Most of those shifted to Rio, which came within two votes in the second round of getting the necessary 50-percent majority. With Tokyo then eliminated, Rio easily defeated Madrid 66-32 in the decisive third round.

"Some days you win; some days you don't," said Pat Ryan, the chief of the Chicago 2016 bid. "To use a sports metaphor, I think we had a great team. We had a great plan. But it wasn't our day to win today."

The tide was turning against Chicago even before Air Force One touched down at Copenhagen Airport. President Obama's anticipated presence alone made for front-page headlines in Danish newspapers early in the week and provided the drumbeat leading up to the vote.

But by rolling out America's big stars, some IOC members wondered aloud if Chicago was not turning their vote into a referendum on the importance of style over substance.

"I think frankly that's starting to get out of hand," said Dick Pound, the anti-doping pioneer who remains one of the IOC's most influential members. "I'm not sure that with all the things on the plate of a head of state of a serious country - let alone the leader of the free world - should have to come to the IOC to say in person that his country is serious about the Games. I think we ought to look at that in the future."

It was not as if political power did not have its place in this campaign. Where Obama was matter of fact and filled with gravitas during his touch-and-go mission to Denmark, Brazilian president Lula da Silva was the laughing, crying, ebullient hip-shooter who tirelessly campaigned for Rio all week.

"Some fellows here saw Air Force One arriving in Copenhagen," Lula told a news conference tonight. "My friends said, ‘Obama has arrived, and we're going to lose.' I was at the G-20 meeting with Obama, and I invited Obama to come to Copenhagen today. (I told him) if you don't go I'm going to win, because I'm going. And then he came.

"But God wished that we would win, even if he did come here."

IOC president Jacques Rogge had a simpler explanation for Rio's victory than divine intervention or political backlash.

"The message is clear," he said. "There was absolutely no flaw in the bid. The members I believe choose also for the extra, added value of going for the first time to a sub-continent that never had the Games."

Ron Flatter is an American free-lance journalist based in New York who has covered international sports since 2004 for Radio Sport 927, Melbourne, Australia.  He also does sports updates for 1050 ESPN New York and has anchored the news nationally for Fox News Radio.