What is going on in New Orleans?

After five weeks, the New Orleans Saints looked like one of two dominant forces in the NFC. They were 4-1, with the one loss coming to the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field, in a 42-34 shootout. Basically, the Saints would have been 5-0 if they had played anyone other than the Packers in Week 1.

After winning four games in a row, though, the Saints went to Tampa Bay and lost a head-scratcher to the Bunccaneers (who had just been dismantled 48-3 the week before in San Francisco). "Chalk it up to just one of those bad days that you occasionally get in the NFL," I thought. Then the Saints went and put up the most points since the merger in embarrassing the Colts 62-7. "Right, last week was just a hiccup," I thought. Now in week seven, New Orleans produced the most eyebrow-raising result of all: a 31-21 loss to previously winless Saint Louis (and the Saints' final score came in garbage time, when the game was over). After looking like one of the teams to beat in the NFC through five weeks, the Saints look more like an also-ran after eight. They are still likely to make the playoffs, but with their inability to win on the road, they wouldn't figure to be contenders when January rolls around.

So what the hell is going on with those guys? Clearly there is a big difference between home and road games for New Orleans right now. The Saints' two road wins came against Jacksonville and Carolina, and they have enjoyed three excellent offensive performances at home, putting 30 points on Chicago, 40 on Houston and the aforementioned 62 on Indy.

Right now, the Saints have two major problems. The first is Drew Brees' play recently. Over the last 5 weeks, Brees has thrown an interception in four games (the exception being vs. Indy) and three of those were multi-interception games. The Saints are always going to be relying on their offense to win games for them, because it is so explosive. Their defense is by no means bad, but it is typically not going to be good enough to win them games, especially when Brees is providing the opponents with short fields due to turnovers. So long as Brees is turning it over, the Saints will continue to struggle.

The other problem is with the Saints run-defense. Over the same stretch of five games, the Saints have allowed three 100-yard rushers. The two exceptions: the Indy abomination (of course) and when they played at Jacksonville and Maurice Jones-Drew averaged almost eight yards per carry but only carried the ball 11 times for reasons that will probably never be known. What other teams were doing is unimportant, though. The fact remains that the Saints have had a lot of trouble stopping the run. This is bad for the obvious reason that not being able to stop the run is bad, and also because teams effectively running the ball is going to keep the New Orleans offense off the field for longer, giving them bigger problems.

Whatever is going on in New Orleans, they've got to put a stop to it soon. The Falcons appear to have hit their stride somewhat and are playing better football, and the Buccaneers already have a tiebreak advantage on the Saints. They'll have to play much better football if they plan on winning the NFC South this year.

More lockout woes

I've been doing some reading on Twitter and internet sports sites that after yesterday's 15-hour marathon negotiating session, there is actually cause to have to hope for the NBA Lockout to be ending soon. I'm even told there is a possibility of the season still going 82 games. This all sounds very exciting initially. But is it?

First, the negotiations aren't even close to being over. According to the news outlets, during yesterday's session many things were agreed upon between the owners and the players, but they still are in different camps when it comes to the issue of basketball-related-income. This is the problem that anyone following the lockout hears about during every TV segment or reads about in an article or blog. The players used to get 57% to the owners' 43, and now the owners want it to be split down the middle, 50/50. The players have bent to 52/48, but no lower yet. The fact that this has not been agreed upon says to me that these negotiations have awhile to go. It is a good sign that the owners and players were able to set that issue aside and discuss other things, to hash out the other issues that need hashing. But BRI is the biggest issue. To say this lockout is close to being over is tantamount to the U.S. and Iraq negotiating while Saddam was still in power, and coming to friendly agreements about how Iraq would handle its oil and how Saddam was allowed to treat the people of his country, but not have the issue on WMDs figured out yet. Yeah, they've worked some problems out, but there are still NUKES IN THE COUNTRY. I'm not buying that we've got an end that close.

The other issue here is the possibility of still playing 82 games. It would be great to have a full NBA season, but that should only happen if there was a full preseason of preparation and a full allotment of months to fit those 82 games into. If the lockout were to be solved today, the season still would not start for a few weeks (after the last lockout, the procedures to get ready to a month, according to Henry Abbot), and if the NBA wanted to have an 82-game season, they would have to pack it into the amount of time they set aside for something more like 65-70 games. That is the best case scenario.

Doesn't that sound a little bit insane? As it is, NBA players already endure some nightmarish segments of the season, doing things like playing 10 games in 15 days, all while traveling in between. Playing 82 games with a start of the season at the end of November would mean those types of roadtrips (or even homestands) would be even worse. There's no way that is the best bet for the NBA. Players would be worn completely thin, and the quality of basketball would suffer.

Last year's NCAA Tournament was an excellent example. Connecticutt won 5 games in 5 days in the Big East Tournament, then got into the grueling NCAA Tournament less than a week later. Butler had to play three games in four days in order to secure a berth in the tournament, then killed itself in the tournament as well. The result? Two below-average Final Four games and probably the worst championship game in the history of the tournament since its expansion from 32 teams. And the reason was clear as day: the players were exhausted. They couldn't keep doing what they had been doing any longer. What happened? We the fans suffered. That championship game was unwatchable.

I don't want half an NBA season to be unwatchable because they wanted to play 82 games. Give me 65 games over the originally designated amount of time, and I'll be happy to have any games at all.

The World Series steals the show

It doesn't involve the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Mets, Angels or Dodgers, but the 2011 World Series has been better than any of those teams could have provided.

Quite simply, through five games, this has been one of the best World Series ever. Four games have been close, the type of game you had to watch to the finish because it felt like both teams had a shot to win it. The one game that wasn't close, game 3, was an extremely entertaining 16-7 slugfest in which Albert Pujols went absolutely bonkers and made history with three home runs. If the entertainment and intensity level of these games continues for two more games in St. Louis, in my mind this would go down as one of the greatest World Series ever.

What's a shame though is how I keep reading about how the losing team's mistakes cost them the game. How Ron Washington's inability to manage a game cost the Rangers game 1, and how Tony La Russa's mistakes cost the Cardinals in games 2 and 5. Really? Give me a break. Managers just don't sway the game that much. And the fact of the matter is, at least in both cases with La Russa, his "mistakes" came in games that were tied, so you can't say the Cardinals were going to win if he doesn't make that move.

What's more, is that even with leaving the wrong pitcher in the game, the advantage is still to that pitcher. The big complaint about La Russa in game 5 was that he left in lefty Mark Rzepczynski to face Mike Napoli instead of bringing in closer Jason Motte (and this was possibly due to a miscommunication with the bullpen so Motte wasn't ready). Whatever happened, the numbers don't lie. Jonah Keri of Grantland.com wrote that Napoli is a much better hitter against lefties than righties, hitting .294/.400/.555 vs lefties and .253/.343/.498 against righties. So was the right-hander Motte the best option against Napoli in the eighth inning? Absolutely. But try and keep it in perspective that Napoli is still hitting .294 against lefties. That's a great average, but in the grand scheme of things, that means he only gets a hit 3 out of 10 times. And in the situation Napoli came up in, with the bases loaded, a single is all he would have needed to score two runs (he hit a two-run double, as it turned out). So even with a lesser option in the game at pitcher, La Russa and the Cardinals still had the advantage on Napoli.

At a certain point in time, you just have to start giving guys their due for making plays. The Cardinals got unlucky with a grounder bouncing off Rzepczynski that would have certainly been one, perhaps two outs. But after that, Napoli came up and delivered a hit. It's that simple. To say he wouldn't have done it if he'd been up against Motte is ludicrous. You can't possibly know that. Napoli has been one of the hottest hitters in baseball since the All-Star break, so he's got a great chance of getting a hit off just about anybody.

Give credit where credit is due. This has been an awesome World Series, and that is because for the most part great baseball has been played and the games have been close. Have both managers made less-than-ideal or head-scratching decisions during the series? Yes. But that happens in just about every game of the the 162-game regular season. Quit nit-picking and enjoy a phenomenal series.

College Ball: not as far off as you think!

Among all the hubbub and commotion of pro sports that is going on right now--The World Series, mediation for the NBA Lockout, the NFL season happening--the first rankings for college basketball came out.

Yes, the best sport of them all is sending out the tell-tale signs that its start is closer than we realized. The first college basketball games of the season are actually less than 3 weeks away. As such, we have our rankings. The preseason rankings are rarely a surprise as far as where teams stack up are concerned. Most big college basketball fans know who next year's best teams will be once the day to declare for the NBA Draft has come and gone. Case in point: this year, fans of the schools waited with bated breath to see whether Kyrie Irving, Harrison Barnes and Jared Sullinger would put their names into the NBA draft. Irving did, but Barnes and Sullinger did not. As a result, North Carolina and Ohio State are viewed as top contenders for 2012's crown, and Duke is expected to be good as always, but a step below the country's best teams.

This college basketball season offers and especially exciting prospect, though. Due to the impending (at the time) NBA Lockout, many top college freshman (like Barnes, Sullinger, and UConn star Jeremy Lamb) stuck around for another year. Those guys can spout off about coming back to school because they wanted a championship all they want. Fact is, if not all, the vast majority of them would have bolted for greener pastures (see what I did there?), and justifiably so, if there had not been a lockout looming at the end of the season.

But I'm not complaining about any of that. It's exciting, because for the first time since the NBA disallowed players to enter the draft from high school, we have a chance to see what a couple classes of McDonald's All-Americans can do together. UNC is bringing basically everybody back from last year's team, and adding a couple Mickey D's All-stars in the process. Ohio State is more or less in the same circumstances. I don't like either team, and I can't help but be excited about the prospect. Meanwhile, Kentucky is bringing probably the best recruiting class ever. Their would-have-been sophomore stars Brandon Knight and Terence Jones will be playing pro, but the potential for this team makes your head spin if you think about it for too long.

These three teams, the fact that we are coming off an NCAA Tournament where two mid-major teams proved they were worth taking seriously, and the always tough Dukes, Syracuses, Connecticutts and Kansases of the world mean this is shaping up to be one of the great college basketball seasons of all time. It could be the last season of its kind for quite awhile, assuming the NBA ever solves its lockout (24 hours+ in a 32 span didn't do the trick, I've lost all faith in these guys). It can't get here soon enough. The basketball fan in me is getting restless. The 6-0 Packers and the NHL just aren't going to satiate me for much longer.

Bring on the madness.

The Quarterback Shuffle

The Miami Dolphins led the way, starting Matt Moore (16/34, 204 yards, 2 INT) after a Chad Henne injury. Now, due to injuries and poor play, both the Raiders and Redskins are following suit. As is always the case in the NFL, some of its poorer teams (read: the ones without good starting QBs) switch things up midseason to try and turn things around. For the Dolphins and Redskins, a QB change was only a matter of time. There was never any way Henne and Rex Grossman were going to be good enough for an entire season. The Dolphins' decision was aided by Henne's injury. For the Redskins, Sexy Rexy's 4 INT performance in week 6 showed us just how short Grossman's leash was. At the first sign of trouble, he's done.

The Raiders were a team who were certainly had a strong possibility of switching QBs midseason due to poor play. Jason Campbell has been inconsistent in his career and never great, and the Raiders picked up Ohio State castoff Terrelle Pryor in the supplemental draft.

That makes the fact that Carson Palmer is most likely going to start this week all the more confusing. First of all, Palmer was not a member of the Raiders' roster until this week. Somehow he is a better option than Kyle Boller and Pryor (not good options) despite never having looked at the Raiders' playbook. Second, Palmer has not practiced this year due to a spat with his former team, the Cincinnati Bengals. How can he possibly be in good enough shape to play an NFL game? He can't. Third, why draft Pryor if you're not going to at least give him a shot?! He cost the Raiders a third-round pick in next year's NFL Draft, a very high value to just have a guy who you don't believe is capable of stepping in when your starter goes down with injury.

As mind-numbing as the Raiders' Palmer decision is, it will only add to the awesomeness that comes from the quarterback shuffle. It's probably the best part of the NFL midseason. You get to see these guys come in and try to either keep their team afloat or turn things around, and almost invariably fail because it's next to impossible. The QB shuffle has led to Craig Krenzel, Chad Hutchinson, Johnathan Quinn and Rex Grossman starting games for the Bears in the same year, Brian Griese playing for seemingly half the NFL, and perhaps most notably, a 68-ish-year-old Steve Deberg playing for the Falcons. Watching these guys scramble around in the backfield amid salivating defensive linemen is some of the best TV there is.

Which is why I wish the best of luck to Matt Moore (not a great start), John Beck and Carson Palmer. And it's why I'll be tuning into every one of their games I am able to, to watch when things inevitably go terribly wrong. Hell, it'll be worth it just to see a shot of and a pudgy Palmer on the sideline. Can't wait for week 7.

NFL Contenders: who is for real?

So far, there are just three teams that I can confidently say fit the bill as far as being as good as their records indicate and being good enough that we should expect to see them in the playoffs, probably at least in the divisional round: the Packers, Ravens and Patriots. Those three teams have proved through six games that they are the real deal, winning close games, blowing teams out, and generally playing well. The NFL currently has 10 more teams with records of 4-2 or better, indicating that they are probably pretty good. I'm not sold on any of them though, so I've decided to investigate why. In reverse order how much of a player they really are, here are the "good" teams I haven't bought into yet.

Cincinnati Bengals ESPN.com PowerRank: 18
The Bungals are without a doubt the most surprising of these teams for me. What's even more shocking is that their two losses are by a combined seven points, meaning Cincy could have pretty easily been 5-1 or even 6-0 at this point in the season. A quick look at the Bengals' schedule, however, and it is easy to lose your interest in them as a great team. Three of their wins have come against Cleveland, Jacksonville and Indianapolis. The fourth was a home win over the Bills, a good team, but a team that has not proven itself on the road yet. The Bengals schedule will get harder, with four games against the Steelers and Ravens coming up, but otherwise it is pretty weak, with games against Seattle, St. Louis, Cleveland and Arizona--all winnable games. Still, a young team like this one is going to be due for a road loss or two against some no-so-great opponents. The silver lining for Cincy is that even a poor finish of 4-6 still results in an 8-8 record, which has to be considered a success for this team, especially with getting two first round picks after finally (potentially at the time of this writing) moving Carson Palmer. The future may be brighter than expected for Bengals fans.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers ESPN.com PowerRank: 12
The Buccaneers are an extremely perplexing team through six weeks. Coming off a 10-6 mark last year, they looked like a team that could make some noise despite being in a tough division. They began giving up a lead to the Lions (who have turned out to be pretty good), then won three straight games against by smaller margins than would have been expected against weak teams (Vikings, Falcons, Colts). In week 5 they suffered the most lopsided loss in the NFL season so far, losing by 45 to San Francisco. So it makes perfect sense, then, that looking completely overrated going into a game with the red-hot Saints, that the Bucs would shut down New Orleans' offensive attack en route to a 26-20 win. The Bucs have been impossible to predict. They are still a young team, so perhaps their inconsistency is a product of youth. Josh Freeman has only played in two games this year (Indy and New Orleans), so if he can get it going, they figure to be a tough out. The one thing the Bucs have going for them is their division appears to be a good bet for getting two teams in the playoffs with the NFC East and West both looking bad. Still, it's really hard to put much faith in a team that loses 48-3 no matter what the circumstances.

Oakland Raiders ESPN.com PowerRank: 9
The Raiders dropped on this list several spots with the injury to Jason Campbell. Campbell is by no stretch of the imagination a great quarterback or even a very good one, but he is a huge improvement over Kyle Boller and Terrelle Pryor. Campbell is good enough to keep teams from throwing eight guys into the box so Darren McFadden has a chance to succeed. With Boller, Run can just kiss his dreams of a rushing title goodbye. That is why the Raiders are going all-in for Carson Palmer--they believe he can keep teams honest enough for them to keep running the ball. Beyond that, the Raiders still have the glaring issue of committing tons of penalties. Until they are able to cut down on the mistakes, I'm not hopping on the Raiders bandwagon.

Buffalo Bills ESPN.com PowerRank: 10
The Bills are 3-0 at home and 1-2 on the road. Their one road win came in week 1 when they beat the Chiefs 41-7. For the first three weeks of the season, though, the Chiefs were completely out of sorts. The Bills caught them at the right time. What's more, is each of the Bills' other five games have been decided by seven points or less. Four of them were three point margins. And at 3-0 they went on the road and played really poorly in Cincinnati. That kind of thing would never happen to a team that was really a contender. As much as I love Fitzy and Fred Jackson, the Bills will have to show more on the road to contend. In weeks 11 and 12 they travel to Miami and New York to face AFC East teams. By week 13, we'll know if the Bills are definitely for real or not.

New York Giants ESPN.com PowerRank: 11
When the Giants pop into my head, I'm inclined to think that they are one of the NFC's better teams. But a quick look at what they've done so far says that intuition is wrong. Their two losses are at Washington and vs. Seattle. Their best win is their most recent one, a 27-24 win over Buffalo at home (again, the Bills have not been good on the road). Also, Eli Manning, one of the most inconsistent players in the NFL (just ask his fantasy owners), is their quarterback. As things stand in the NFC East at the moment, the Giants look good to make the playoffs due to the poor start of the Eagles and Cowboys, in addition to the fact that the Redskins' implosion is imminent if it didn't happen last week during Sexy Rexy's 4 INT performance. The Giants still have a great defensive line, as they have for the past decade, and that is still a difference-maker in the NFL. Nonetheless, are these Giants for real? No way, not yet. A likely also-ran come playoff time.

San Francisco 49ers ESPN.com PowerRank: 4
I don't have a great statistical reason for not buying into the 49ers, and especially not for having them so low on this list. Just from watching them, I refuse to believe they will keep up this winning pace. They will almost certainly make the playoffs; they still have five games against NFC West teams left, as well as games against Cleveland and Washington. An 11 or maybe even 12 win season is well within reach for the 49ers. But Alex Smith is still their quarterback. Yeah, he's had a bunch of different head coaches and maybe he's never been given optimal chance to succeed. So sure, he's probably going to be consistently better this year, but he's still not very good. That's why the niners are 30th in passing yards per game right now. Smith has only thrown two interceptions this year, an excellent job. But I don't believe he will only throw 5-6 interceptions on the season. Think about that. That would be insane! So what happens if the 49ers fall behind? I don't see much ability to come back in games because of the poor passing offense. You can't make me believe in Alex Smith after he's had six mediocre games. Sorry, not gonna happen.

Detroit Lions ESPN.com PowerRank: 6
Yes, I know the 49ers beat the Lions in Detroit last weekend, so this is completely unfair of me. But this is not a power rank, it's a ranking of who I believe we are most likely to be looking at as contenders when the final month of the season comes around. From what I've seen, that's the Lions. The Lions' biggest problem is that they share a division with the Packers. I wrote recently about how much I liked the way the Lions were playing, but that doesn't mean they don't have some problems. Their inability to get any power-running game going has been talked to death recently. Matt Stafford is good for 3 to 4 egregious overthrows on would-be touchdown plays per game. That being said, the Lions were playing with fire in most of their games this season and were due for a loss. They are still an explosive offense, and still have a pretty good defense. Sounds like a team that is just on the cusp of being a contender to me.

Pittsburgh Steelers ESPN.com PowerRank 8
If I was writing this based on the chances I believed a team had of making the playoffs, the 49ers and Steelers would be 1-2 without a doubt. That's because the Steelers have sneaked their way to 4-2 despite playing the worst football that's been seen in Pittsburgh in five years. They have been shut down by the Ravens and Texans, and only beat Indy and Jacksonville by a combined seven points. They aren't that good. However, they are the Steelers, which means they will eventually put it all together and start playing well again. O, and they still have four games against the Bengals and Browns to look forward to. Still, they've only played one good team so far, and got absolutely smashed by the Ravens. The Steelers might have lost just enough to not be one of the league's elite this year.

San Diego Chargers ESPN.com PowerRank: 7
For once the Chargers have started the season quickly, with a 4-1 record so far. The only problem is they have played like garbage. The only game they've looked good is ironically in their one loss, a 35-21 setback at New England. Otherwise, they've beaten Minnesota, Kansas City, Miami and Denver by 7, 3, 10 and 5 points. Not that impressive. As is always the case, though, the Chargers are one of the most talented teams in the NFL, and this year appear to have a more reliable running game with Ryan Mathews getting it together. With the way this team has played football the past several years (not caring 75 percent of the time), it's hard to include them in any contenders list. I picked them to make the Super Bowl in my NFL preview and I'm already pissed at myself for that one. They're 4-1, but the Chargers still just don't look like they have any drive to win. Watch the Bengals play on Sundays. They aren't talented, but they give a crap. They play hard. Then watch the Chargers. You won't that mentality at all. Until I see that, the Chargers will never be contenders.

New Orleans Saints ESPN.com PowerRank: 5
Through 5 weeks the Saints were a no-brainer contender. They were 4-1 with the loss coming in a shootout at Lambeau Field against a decent (ha) Packers team. Then the Saints suffered a head-scratching loss at Tampa Bay (who was coming off a 45-point drubbing and looked like crap) in week 6. Drew Brees has now thrown eight picks in the Saints' last four games. Call me crazy, but I don't think Drew is going to throw 20 more picks this season. His turnover numbers go down, and the Saints probably don't lose those head-scratchers anymore. You know what? Screw it. I just wrote myself into putting the Saints back into my contenders category. I panicked after seeing the TB loss, and just talked myself back off the ledge. New Orleans is for real.

eNBArrassment

See what I did there? Pretty clever. Wait, you're not a fan? No? Okay, probably best if that kind of thing stops here and now.

At any rate, I wanted to throw myself into the unending and ever-growing group of people complaining about the NBA Lockout. And I'm angry for four big reasons.

1. Just like the NFL lockout, fans can't help but feel like this is a ridiculous argument between a bunch of rich guys and richer guys who want more money (In the NBA of course this is not completely the case: the owners say they are losing money, and the players just don't want to feel like they are getting ripped off in the new deal).
2. Two excellent articles by Malcolm Gladwell that he wrote for Grantland.com. These articles present two well-written ideas against the owners in this lockout mess.
3. The nonsense that we are continuously fed with the goal of keeping us from going insane. In the most recent story on ESPN.com, Commissioner David Stern said he doesn't think Christmas games would happen if a deal wasn't reached by Tuesday. This comes a week after Stern told us the first two weeks would be gone if a deal wasn't reach by the past Monday. So in a week, we went from losing two weeks to losing eight?!?! If the potential start date moved back one or two weeks, that might make a little bit of sense. But this is completely out of proportion. Quit lying to me, please! I just want to know how salty I should get about how much basketball I'm going to be missing.
4. I had really gotten into the NBA again. I grew up watching the NBA as religiously as any other type of basketball. I saw the end of Jordan's career (with the Bulls) and the rise of the Spurs. But at that point I was just a 9 to 12 year old kid. And when the last lockout season hit the NBA, it pissed a lot of people off. One of those was my dad, who stopped watching the NBA entirely. As a young guy, I didn't go out of my way to catch NBA games on TV, especially since there is no local team to champion when you're leaving in Dayton. But the NBA had started to get my attention the last few years, and I was really following it closely in 2010-11. From the people I speak to about these things, the NBA had regained a lot of fans it had lost. It's popularity was on the rise. If an entire season disappears again, what is going to happen to those fans? I'm guessing they'll depart, just like they did in 2003.

Sigh. Sometimes I wish these morons could just see the consequences of what they're doing beyond how it is affecting them for the next two weeks. Yeah, owners, it'll be great if you get a 50/50 deal. But if you piss off half your fan-base in the process, guess what? You'll still be losing money!

Quit wasting my time and yours.

TCU's Shameful Move

When the Big 12 was formed, Texas Christian University was not invited to join, despite the fact that its in-state rivals (Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech) all were. Instead, TCU had to go join the Mountain West Conference, and live in college football obscurity as a traditionally great program stuck outside the BCS.

TCU was still able to create a national brand for itself with excellent play each season, and even took home a BCS Bowl game over Wisconsin. Still, it wasn't enough for the Horned Frogs. They wanted to be in the discussion every year, so they negotiated a deal to join the Big East, the worst of the BCS football conferences, in 2012. It was a shame that TCU was leaving the Mountain West, a very good football conference in its own right. But who could blame them? They were simply playing a system that refused (and still refuses) to change and accommodate some of its best teams.

It seemed TCU was walking into a dream situation, because they would be able to run through the Big East just about every year and play in a BCS Bowl as a result. Then the conferences around the country really started shaking up. The Big 10 became a 12-team conference, the Big 12 became a 10-team conference, the Big East fell apart and the Pac-10 almost became a 16-team conference. As things began to look more and more bleak for the Big 12, they reached out to TCU. The Horned Frogs, despite the snub they had gotten from the conference earlier, jumped at the opportunity and turned their agreement with the Big East into a Qwikster-esque joke.

Sure, it makes more sense for TCU to be playing in the Big 12. That's where their rivals are. But whatever happened to sticking to a commitment? The conference realignments that have taken place over the past few weeks have been an embarrassment to college sports, highlighted by TCU's jumping ship before it even had the chance to participate in a Big East game. Before, the NCAA and universities' boards of directors tried to pull the veil over our eyes and tell us college sports were pure, just athletes competing because they enjoyed playing and had pride in their schools. It's clear now that just isn't the case. The draw of college sports was in the passion we saw on the fields and courts, and now it has been tainted.

Even a great mid-major program, the type of team that a true fan of the sport loves to see (think George Mason or Butler in basketball), has now fallen victim to this greed bug. TCU certainly did not start college sports on their way to oblivion, but for me it marks that we are most definitely closing in. TCU used to take the hard road: it overcame disadvantages in recruiting, size, talent and money, and competed with its bigger neighbors every year. They used to be inspiring to watch. There is nothing inspiring about what they're doing now.

Just another story of seeing nothing but dollar signs in front of their faces, and nothing else mattering.

Baseball Playoffs

After such a thrilling end to the regular season, the baseball playoffs have really flown under the radar so far. Perhaps that is partially because the MLB has lost its two biggest-market teams in the Divisional series with the Yankees and Phillies making early exits. Perhaps it's because the United States is happy football is back. Maybe it's even a little bit due to AMC transitioning from people with big problems in the Southwest to people with big problems in the Southeast.
It's a shame, too, because these playoffs have been excellent. Three of four division series went the maximum five games, the Yankees/Tigers and Cardinals/Phillies game fives were both nail-biters (with the former setting a cable TV ratings record).
Maybe Phils and Yanks gone things are looking bleak for baseball as it tries to contend with a football TV schedule that between college and the pros now covers five nights a week, as well as battling for viewers with Barney's love triangle in "How I Met Your Mother." Don't let that scare you off, though. The remaining baseball games should be awesome.
Every game should be exciting because each of the remaining four teams (Brewers, Cardinals, Tigers and Rangers) all make their mark at the plate, not from the mound. Think about it. Between the four teams, there is exactly one great pitcher (Detroit's Justin Verlander), and he hasn't even been great in these playoffs. With teams that rely more on their offense than their pitching to win games, plenty of 8-7 or 13-11 type games should be on the horizon. With mediocre pitching from start to finish (the Rangers appear to have the only reliable bullpen with Alexi Ogando and Neftali Feliz closing things out), comebacks will always be available, especially to teams that boast hitters like Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and Miguel Cabrera.
Maybe the baseball playoffs have lost their most recognizable teams, but don't let that deter you from tuning in to these games the rest of the way. They figure to just continue the great run of games baseball has been having since the end of September.

Lions and Tigers (no bears) oh my!

What the hell is going on in Detroit?

With a 4-0 Lions team and an ALCS-qualifying, Yankees-killing Tigers team looking like a serious World Series contender all of a sudden, things haven't been this bright in the Motor City for a while. Factor in a Red Wings team that will be a player in the Western Conference of the NHL like it is every year, and Detroit could be enjoying an unprecedented amount of success for any city, let alone one that suffered through an 0-16 mark just a few years back.
That winless season is what's particularly perplexing about what's happening in Detroit right now. As much as everyone watching the NFL could see the Lions were putting together a core group of very good young players, their stark turnaround starting at the end of last season (when they won four straight, including over the champion Packers) and the beginning of this season has been insane. Things change quickly in the NFL, but not usually when a team doesn't add a soul. Typically, when you've got the same guys playing as last year, you're going to improve in smaller increments.
Not so with this Lions team, a team that has to have Barry Sanders muttering and cursing under his breath whenever he's alone, wondering why Matt Millen couldn't surround him with one or two good players like Matt Stafford, Calvin Johnson or Ndamukong Suh. (O wait, he's Matt Millen. Nevermind). The young, resilient Lions have been fantastic this season, and so far without showing much of a running game. That will eventually change, because a talented player like Jahvid Best cannot be shut down for an entire season. The really crazy thing about this turnaround is that looking ahead, there is no reason they couldn't be undefeated going into their Thanksgiving matchup against the Packers. The Lions have home games against the Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta and Carolina, and away games at Denver and Chicago. The toughest game in that group looks like at the Bears, but can the Bears really score with the Lions? The only way I see Chicago beating Detroit right now is with a turnover margin of at least +3, and at least one defensive touchdown.
Am I going crazy? The Lions have a legit shot of being 10-0?!? Writing that sentence any time before right now would have been a joke. And it wouldn't have even been funny. But heading into week 5, the Lions one of the best defensive lines in football, a good tight end, a good running back (I think), one of only two WRs in the NFL (Fitzgerald is the other) that you can waste two downs in the redzone knowing you can throw it to him for a 90% shot at a TD on 3rd or 4th, and a quarterback who can actually throw it to him (sorry, Kevin Kolb). This team looks good. I'm a Packers fan, but I hope injuries don't mess things up in Detroit. It could be a contending team for the next several years the way things are going.