CHECK BACK TOMORROW

Sorry everyone. I'm away at a softball tournament taking and editing pictures. Everyone have a great Saturday and I will have a new post tomorrow.

Thanks,

Kyle

You did a fine job

Congratulations, David Stern. You finally grew a spine.

The commissioner of the NBA finally decided to fine LeBron James $25,000 after his display of poor sportsmanship after his Cavaliers were eliminated by the Orlando Magic this past weekend. The gist of the situation is that LeBron made a turn straight turn for the locker room without shaking any of the Magic players' hands. After he went to the locker room, he put a pair of headphones on and refused to field any questions and then left without doing his mandatory press conference afterward.

It was well-deserved because as wrong as it may be (another conversation for another day), LeBron is a hero to a lot of kids. What kind of message is LeBron transmitting to those kids if he doesn't hold himself to the highest possible standards of professionalism? Basketball needs a high-class superstar to reverse the alarming trend of poor sportsmanship that has seeped down through the ranks of basketball. LeBron's behavior just perpetuated and perhaps amplified the trend.

Of course, when you're LeBron $25,000 is something that you pull from under the couch cushions, but the real impact of this is not the amount that he was fined: it is the fact that he was fined at all.

At first, the league office decided not to fine LeBron because "we haven't had any issues with him before at all," according to NBA spokesman Tim Frank.

No. That is not a legit reason. Shaq was fined for skipping a news conference when he was with the Heat in the '06 Finals. Just because Shaq likes to stir the pot a bit doesn't mean that he should be fined while LeBron isn't because he hasn't done anything. Rules are rules, and violation of the rules should have clear and universal consequences.

And to be completely frank, that wasn't the reason at all. They can't say it, but the reason they didn't want to fine him is because he is the face of the league. He is the golden child of the NBA. And though it wouldn't have much of an effect, if he were to be fined it would reflect poorly upon other people and there would be a minute amount of the population that would be turned off to LeBron James. They want LeBron to be as universal as possible.

That is why I am so proud of David Stern for fining LeBron, albeit a few days late. It would have been easy to just let it slide because LeBron had a clean record up to that point, but what kind of message is that sending? That LeBron is above the system while players of such stature as Shaq aren't?

It makes sure that LeBron knows that he is not the league, just a part of it.

Kudos to you, David Stern. Let 'em know who's in charge.

Finals Stuff

Not to disappoint anyone, I figured I would give a quick rundown of the NBA Finals matchups and my opinion on them. At the end I will give a prediction.

PG - Raefer Alston (Orl) v. Derek Fisher (LAL)

D-Fish can still play good ball and seems to be a great guy by all accounts, but Raefer has finally matured into a high-level point guard. He can score and dish the ball out when he needs to, spreading the ball around - and the defense - to create shots for his teammates.

ADVANTAGE: ORL

SG - Courtney Lee (Orl) v. Kobe Bryant (LAL)

If you don't know this, leave the blog now. Of course I'm just kidding. Stay and read for as long as you would like.

ADVANTAGE: LAL

SF - Hedo Turkeglo (Orl) v. Trevor Ariza (LAL)

Both of these guys have made clutch plays down the stretch in games to help their team emerge victorious, but each have done it in a different way. Hedo has been brilliant in the clutch with the ball, as he single-handedly outdueled LeBron James in the clutch during the CLE series, and had it not been for James' shot at the end of game two, Hedo would have been the hero. Ariza's impact came on the defensive side of the ball, with several key steals and stops that helped clinch games for the Lakers. Both players do great things for their team.

ADVANTAGE: EVEN

PF - Rashard Lewis (Orl) v. Pau Gasol (LAL)

This matchup is very interesting, as well. You have two players who have very opposite styles of play. Lewis is more of a small forward; athletic and very prone to shooting the 3-pointer. Gasol, on the other hand, is more of a post player. Both of these players are going to do things that make the other unfomfortable and throw them off of their normal game plans. Whoever can do this the most effectively will win the battle.

ADVANTAGE: EVEN

C - Dwight Howard (Orl) v. Andrew Bynum (LAL)

Andrew Bynum had better grow up quickly, because he is in for the fight of his life against Howard. This matchup is really the key to the whole series. If Dwight is able to have his way down in the post, that forces the Lakers to double-team him, leaving at least one of the Magic's prolific shooters open. If Bynum can make him work for his points, that closes the rest of the court down. And if Bynum can get Dwight in foul trouble early, the game entirely opens up in favor of the Lakers. I envision Dwight having his way with the younger, more foul-prone Bynum.

ADVANTAGE: ORL

X-Factor - Mickael Pietrus (Orl) v. Lamar Odom (LAL)

If MP can limit the efficiency of Kobe Bryant, as was the case with LeBron James, the Magic has a great shot at winning this series. If Lamar Odom can put down the candy and put together a couple solid games, then the Lakers have a very good shot at winning this series. My prediction is that both of these things happen.

Here's how the series is going to go down: (Winner)

Game 1 - Lakers

Game 2 - Magic

Game 3 - Magic

Game 4 - Lakers

Game 5 - Magic

Game 6 - Lakers

Game 7 - Lakers

There you have it. Kobe gets his first ring without Shaq, silencing the critics once and for all. Bryant is named MVP after averaging 30 ppg and dishing out 4 assists and grabbing 4 rebounds per game.

Enjoy what should be a fantastic series. It is the NBA, after all, where amazing happens.

Fundamentally flawed

Feeling inspired by yesterday's blog posting, I sat down and watched the entire Red Wings/Penguins Game 3 last night. Admittedly it was the first time that I had watched a full hockey game since Game 6 of last year's Stanley Cup in Pittsburgh in which the Wings wrapped up their claim of Lord Stanley's Cup.

I loved it.

Versus does a very nice job with their hockey coverage. I expected to get low-resolution video with cheesy-looking graphics - along the lines of a regional channel, like Fox Sports. But I was pleasantly surprised by a very high-quality broadcast with sharp visuals, nice sound clips and a broadcast team that had some personality. There were several times that I caught myself laughing out loud at some of the snarky comments that the play-by-play guy (whose name I never really caught), which never happens.

The game was a lot of fun, too. Within a few minutes, there was already a barrage of goals. And TV ratings can attest to this: the more offense there is, the better the ratings are. Take football out of the equation, because it is going to get the ratings regardless, and see what you are left with. Basketball gets higher ratings, and the lower-scoring baseball and hockey get lower ratings. If you took a look at the ratings, I think that it would reflect that trend as there wasn't another goal scored until the final ten minutes of the third period, and ratings would start to slowly decline and stay steady from that point in the third on.

For a stretch of years in which defense became the primary focus in the NBA, the Finals ratings suffered, starting in the 2004 Finals in which the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs. Not until last year when the high-scoring Lakers and the capable Celtics met in the Finals did the ratings improve close to their previous levels.

Now offense has taken center-stage in the NBA Playoffs, and the ratings are at levels that they haven't been at for nearly eight years.

To the NHL's credit, they took measures to increase the speed of the games and the volume of goals scored after the lockout a few seasons ago. Am I suggesting that they make more changes to increase the goals scored and thus the TV ratings? Not at all, I am completely and unequivocally against changing the structure of a game just to increase TV ratings. One round of changes is enough.

But as I watched the game, several things started to dawn on me. I realized why NHL ratings have always been lower than those of the other sports.

First of all, it's a very regional sport. Hockey is very, very big in the North, Northwest and Northeast, but the farther south you go, the less interest there is. That's not the case with the three other big sports. Football is universally loved everywhere, as is baseball, and basketball is becoming more and more universally enjoyed each year. Sure, teams can be added in San Jose and Tampa Bay and Phoenix, but it will take a long time to infuse hockey into areas that typically experience temperatures in the 80's and 90's and rarely experience naturally occurring ice of any sort. People start to wear light jackets and pants in these places at about 70 degrees! Good luck getting those people to go to hockey games.

The other big reason is that the stars aren't always in the game. Out of a possible 60 minutes Sidney Crosby was only in the game for about 22 minutes. Henrik Zetterburg played for 24 minutes. I understand that these are pretty standard amounts of playing time for the top players, but I'm used to LeBron James playing for 45 of 48 minutes. I'm used to Tom Brady being on the field for over half the game as his offense methodically works itself down the field. I'm used to Alex Rodriguez playing defense for half of every inning and going up to bat every 2 or three innings. As shift changes typically occur as the cameras are away from the bench in hockey, its hard for casual fans to tell whether or not the player they're supposed to be watching is even out on the ice. If these are the players that they are supposed to be watching, they want to see a lot of them; they don't want to have to look for them every other minute or two just to lose them again in a few moments.

As much as I want hockey to elevate itself back to the levels of the other three big sports in America, it has several fundamental flaws that it must overcome, somehow. It has gotten off to a good start, but it must continue to build upon the success it has experienced this season.

Two great playoff seasons? Who knew?

The late months of spring have been very generous to sports fans in delivering an exceptional NBA playoff season filled with intrigue and excitement. There have been a bunch of plotlines that have interwoven and played off of one another to create the most enthralling second season that I can remember, which is basically the post-Michael era.

Already, as we lead up to Game One of the NBA Finals on Thursday, we have seen perhaps the closest seven-game series in the history of the playoffs between the #2 Boston Celtics and the #7 Chicago Bulls, which seemed like it had more overtime play than regulation; the relentless march through the first two rounds and subsequent fall of King James and his Cavaliers, the personification of “the bigger they are, the harder they fall”; and several other series that either went six or the full seven games.

Little do most people know, however, that another great playoff season is taking place simultaneously with the NBA. A playoff season that already featured a match-up between its two best players, just as many close series going six or seven games as the NBA and a Finals rematch from last season filled with intrigue.

Of course, I'm speaking of the NHL. I must admit, I haven't watched a majority of the games in the NHL Playoffs. I've been catching the highlights every morning on SportsCenter. In general, I've never watched a lot of NHL. But I want to. It is something that I want to get hooked into.
But the NHL isn't helping me out at all, which is the underlying reason why a lot of people don't consider it one of the Big Four American sports. I can name a few of its biggest stars. I can tell you which teams are supposed to be good and which ones aren't. But outside of that, my hockey knowledge is pretty scarce.

Instead I'm getting hooked into the NBA and the MLB. What is the difference between these two leagues and the NHL? Marketing strategies. Think about it: How many times have you seen the puppet Kobe/LeBron commercial? How about the Shaq Scrabble commercial? Who can say they haven't seen a commercial with Derek Jeter?

When was the last time you saw a national advertising campaign with Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin portrayed by an inanimite object? Outside of the local Rahmani commercials, have you ever seen Pavel Datsyuk on a commercial? Evgeni Malkin? Ricky Nash? Ilya Kovalchuk? Teemu Selanne? Joe Thornton?

Have you ever even heard of these guys?

I'm sure if you asked casual sports fans to name the five best players in the NBA, they could give you a pretty reasonable list. Same for the NFL and, to a lesser extent, MLB. And a lot of them could even name the team they play for. But not the NHL.

The key to the NHL's success is the marketability of its biggest stars.

But here's where the NHL runs into a catch-22: In order to get these stars to shine a bit brighter in the night sky that is the sports landscape they must get a national TV deal. But in order to get a big TV deal, the stars need to be marketed more.

In other words, the NHL is going to have to take a short-term financial loss in order to orchestrate a advertising campaign to get these players exposed. The results may not be immediate, but if people know the players – especially the big ones – they are more likely to tune into the games. Even casual sports fans that I know tuned into the NBA playoffs this year because of the exposure that Kobe and LeBron received, and that was evident from the high ratings that they have raked in.

And when people start tuning into the NHL – after they find the Versus network – they will finally get a stable, big-time national deal.

Maybe then more people will enjoy two playoff seasons instead of just the one each spring.

Not a joking matter

After the initial onset of a new strain of Influenza A H1N1 – otherwise known as the Swine Flu – in the midst of March, there was an uproar of concern – fueled mostly by the media – over what they believed could become a worldwide pandemic. In April, the U.S. Government urged Americans to suspend all “non-essential” travel to Mexico because of the Swine Flu. School trips to Mexico were being canceled across the country, including those at Michigan State and Central Michigan universities, as high school/college students on those trips were the leading harbinger of the disease's appearance in the U.S. There was legitimate concern throughout the country.

Fast-forward a few months and the attitude has completely changed. In the face of only 19 confirmed deaths in the United States as a result of the disease and only 99 World-Health-Organization-confirmed deaths worldwide, much of the concern – especially in the United States – has for the most part faded into the footnotes of history.

In fact, you can even google “Swine Flu jokes” and you will get pages upon hundreds of pages of legitimate results. Here's a few samples:

“It was once said a black man will be president when pigs fly... 100 days into Obama's presidency, swine flu!”.

“'Did you hear Kermit the Frog is sick?' 'Yeah, He got Swine Flu from Ms. Piggie, when he was asked about it he replied, "(She) told me she was clean."' ”

"The only known cure for Swine Flu has been found to be the liberal application of oinkment."
The Swine Flu may have become a laughing matter for a lot of people, but not Jordan Weiner, a pitcher at Robert F. Kennedy High School in New York City.

On May 22, Jordan struck out 14 batters and only missed a perfect game by base runner allowed on a passed ball in a playoff game as RFK won 10-0.

On May 21, he buried his father, Mitchell Weiner, after he died from the Swine Flu the previous Sunday. Mitchell is the only New York resident to have died from the disease and only one of 19 Americans.

But Mitchell Weiner is not merely a statistic. He is a father and a husband and a son, who shared a deep love of the game of baseball with his own son. In this context, 19 is not just a number; it represents 19 separate lives that were lost, lives of daughters and sons, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and friends and family. The loss of any single life is important to worry about.

The Swine Flu is not just some abstract idea to Jordan. It is not an over-hyped disease to Jordan. It is not a media concoction to Jordan. It is certainly not a joke to Jordan. It is the disease that took his father's life.

Words cannot describe how strong Jordan must be to go out and pitch an absolute gem the day after his father was put to rest. It would have been absolutely acceptable for Jordan to hang up the spikes for the rest of the season and try to cope with his and his family's loss. The loss of a parent is a devastating ordeal, and though I have not experienced such a tragedy, the mere thought of it is enough to chill my bones to the core.

But instead, Jordan went out and did what his father would want him to do: just play ball.
“I came out and won today for my father,” he said in an article written by Five Boro Sports. “Whenever I got flustered, I cleared my mind of every negative thought, and I just pitched to the best of my abilities. I know he wanted me to play today and I pitched the game of my life for him.”

You certainly did Jordan, you certainly did. And whether or not you believe in angels is irrelevant in this instance; there is no way you can deny that something special happened at that ball game and that the influence of his father was alive and strong within Jordan.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/sports/more/Swine-Flu-Victims-Son-Pitches-No-Hitter-Day-After-Funeral.html
http://www.fiveborosports.com/ssp/news?news_id=2856
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US313&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=swine+flu+jokes
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/27/begins-passive-screening-swine-flu-borders/

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.

MLB All-Star game losing its shine

MLB rewarding steroids user?

It appears baseball has found itself in quite a conundrum. Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder/performance enhancing and women's fertility drug abuser Manny Ramirez is an uncomfortably close 4th place in the National League All-Star voting as of this writing with 442,763 votes, just over 34,000 behind New York's Carlos Beltran.

What? Please stop for a moment and think about this. We are in the “steroid era” of baseball. All we hear about is how disappointed we are in such former stars as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens, yet the fans are still rewarding Manny with a potential All-Star game appearance? Heck, the Dodgers may even be rewarding him if he has a contract caveat that pays him a bonus should he make the All-Star team.

Why is there not a rule that stipulates that players who have been caught using performance enhancing drugs are ineligible to participate in the game? I am losing a lot of faith in the management of Major League Baseball for not taking a more proactive approach in curbing the use of steroids. By allowing Manny to potentially participate, what is the message that Commissioner Bud Selig is sending? Is it perfectly acceptable for players to violate the current drug policy and still be shown for display on a night that is meant to display the most positive aspects of the league?

Here's something I just stumbled upon. Apparently baseball does have a policy in regards to this situation, and it states: “A player shall be deemed to have been eligible to play in the All-Star Game if he was elected or selected to play; the commissioner's office shall not exclude a player from eligibility for election or selection because he is suspended under the program.”

Honestly, I'm starting to think that the league executives are simply putting on a facade of caring about steroids usage in their league. Think about it, their most profitable times came as a direct result of steroids users; the McGwire/Sosa home run race of '98, Bonds' single season home run record and Bonds' chase for the all-time home run record. If they really wanted to cut down on steroids usage, they would not have budged on issues like this and the rule in the paragraph above. They must not have been too concerned if they let offenders of the current drug policy still participated in their premier showcase event outside of the World Series.

Of course the better part of me dismisses such notions, but the MLB allowing Manny to potentially participate after breaking what would appear to be the league's most sacred rule raises a lot of questions in my mind: Is the league more concerned with ticket sales and TV ratings than the integrity of its game? It needs to balance those two very carefully or else it could end up on the wrong side of both of those issues.

The best of the best?

Who can tell me definitively what the purpose of the All-Star game is?

How about Dodgers manager Joe Torre?

“To me, I think the significance of the All-Star Game is to reward players who have a good first half.” Sounds reasonable. Let's get a second opinion.

What are your thoughts, Charlie Manuel? You must have a valid opinion, being a world champion manager for the Phillies and all.

“The All-Star Game is for the fans and I think if (Manny) got voted in, then it would be appropriate for him to play.” So it's not about rewarding the best players from the first half? It's a popularity contest?

We need a tiebreaker. How about the league? They should be a definitive source.

According to a 2003 New York Times article: “Despite initial opposition to the idea, the Players Association agreed yesterday to a two-year experiment that will link the outcome of the All-Star Game to home-field advantage in the World Series.”

So now the game is about home-field advantage in the World Series?

The league seems to be in a state of perpetual miscommunication on this issue. There cannot be three different aims for this single exhibition game. It just won't work and all it will do – and it certainly has done – is cause controversy. Is that really something the league wants on its biggest night outside of the playoffs? Sure it generates discussion, but its also turning viewers off to the game.

Out of the four major sports – NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL – the baseball All-Star game is the only one that is experiencing a downturn in television ratings. Last year's edition of the midsummer classic did have more views than any other since 2002, but a lot of that can be attributed to the setting at Yankee Stadium. Overall, The game has been on a downward trend since the 2001, and the game two summers ago got the lowest ratings since the 1970's.

Obviously something must be done by the executives of the league to turn this trend around, since the World Series home-field advantage thing just isn't working out (a debate for a later posting). It is on that note that I present my idea to boost ratings: add another game.
I call it the “All-Stats” game. More often than not, the players that are doing the best are often pushed out of the All-Star game because of the fans' votes. In order to get some more exposure, these players should have a game of their own. What would happen is that after the All-Star rosters are announced, a team from each league would be compiled from the remaining players featuring the two best offensive and defensive players at each position, based on statistics, and the top two pitchers from the major pitching stat categories (ERA, Wins, Strikeouts and Saves). These teams would be managed by the manager from each league that had the largest win-loss improvement from the previous year at the All-Star break.

I will argue that this game would be much more exciting and intriguing than the All-Star game and would draw back the baseball purists who have been turned off by the politics of the midsummer classic. In addition, it would be another game worth of revenue for the league, the stadium and Fox Sports, who covers the game.

Because, as seems to be a recurring theme on this blog, everything boils down to money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4215510
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4210101
http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/weekly-ratings-mlb-all-star-game-leads-fox-to-ratings-win/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/nba-all-star-game-ratings_n_167404.html
http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d806a6a1a&template=with-video&confirm=true
http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/nhl-all-star-overnights-up-12.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUKN1436552520080715

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.

Even the pros worry about the tax man

Since the beginning of the summer – and the subsequent lack of cable television in my room compounded with TV's in my house ALWAYS being occupied – I have been listening to what most would consider an excessive amount of sports radio. Sirius/XM Radio has a fantastic variety of sports news and talk channels, along with NBA, NHL, MLB and select conferences of college football, baseball and basketball games. In fact, I haven't watched a second of the NBA Conference Finals games on TV – I have listened to a large majority of the games on ESPN Radio, though. Those of you that know me well know that this is exceedingly rare. I have found that listening to the games on the radio brings a completely different level of anticipation and edge-of-your-seat thrill than does its visual counterpart, providing a fully-enriching, though not necessarily better, experience.

In addition to listening to the NBA on ESPN Radio – which is available locally for free on 100.9, along with Loons games – I have become enthralled with sports radio talk shows, particularly The Herd with Colin Cowherd. What sets Colin apart from most other sports radio talk show hosts is the fact that he talks about things that transcend the boundaries of sports on a daily basis, while still making them relevant to the world of athletics.

One point that he continually makes that I have taken great interest in is the role of state income tax in regards to where a player chooses to play – and more importantly, live and settle down with his or her family. I know, pro athletes and team owners and other executives make enough money to not have to worry about how much they are paying for state income tax, right? I don't think so. Pro athletes are human just like the rest of us and it is human nature to want to keep as much of their earnings as possible.

One example that Colin frequently cites in regards to this is Tom Golisano, the owner of the NHL's Buffalo Sabres, who moved from Buffalo to Naples, FL, to avoid having to pay state income taxes. In an article written by the Business Review in Albany, NY, Golisano is quoted as saying that he will save $13,500 per day in what he would have previously payed to the state of New York. Yes, you are reading that correctly - $13,500 per day.

Holy crap.

If you haven't already done that math, that is $4,927,500 per year. Now regardless of your political beliefs on the issue of taxes, no one is going to turn down an extra five million per year. Sure, that money could be better served, perhaps, within the government funding some of the programs that they are running and balancing the debts they are compiling/trying to erase, but it's his money and he is not doing anything illegal to keep it. I say more power to him.

Aside from Florida, which is obviously a top destination due to factors other than the non-existent income tax – beaches, Disney World, consistently warm weather and booming cities like Miami, Tampa Bay and Orlando – there are several other states that do not levy state income taxes, though some local governments do. These states are Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, Washington, Nevada and Texas. Now, of these states only two are currently relevant in the world of sports – Washington and Texas. Texas has obviously taken advantage of this with three NBA teams, two MLB teams, two NFL teams and an NHL team, and Seattle has its fair share of franchises – and it is my belief that they were wrongly denied an NBA team and will get one back in the near future. But those other states could become relevant in the near future.

Enter Reno, NV.

Why there isn't a big-time professional sports team there yet is a mystery to me. Having been to Reno, I can tell you that it certainly lives up to its billing as “The Biggest Little City in the World.” The place has the feel of a big-time town. As we have witnessed in my home town of Midland, when a pro sports team comes to town, the economy of that area is boosted, regardless of the level. New stadiums require people to build them, which means an influx of jobs; the operation of the stadium requires hundreds of people, which creates jobs; and the areas directly around the stadium experiences an increased amount of traffic, which leads to to greater economic success for businesses located in those areas and fosters the growth of new businesses. Plus people get a form of local entertainment on most given nights within a certain time of the year. It's a win-win for everyone involved. Midland is on the upswing, especially the downtown area, because of the baseball team.

Within the past year-and-a-half or so, pro sports have begun to make their way into Reno, albeit at the minor league levels. They have the Reno Aces, a Triple-A affiliate for the Arizona Diamondbacks and the owners of a really snazzy name, and the National Basketball Developmental League's Reno Bighorns. These teams arrived in the area in 2009 and 2008, respectively.

It is my prediction – and you can say that you heard it here first – Reno will have a major pro sports team in the next seven years.

Why not Vegas? you may ask, as it seems a more logical first step into Nevada. Think of it in these terms: would you want to have a bunch of young athletes - who are in many cases immature and unfamiliar with how to handle large sums of money – running around Vegas if you were the owner of a team? Me neither. Besides, you will still draw the same regional audience from Reno that you would in Vegas.

And Reno is perfect for fostering a major pro team. Its growing – the 95^th fastest-growing city in the country; it has a large population of 18-35 year-olds, roughly 25% or so, which is the core of the sports demographics and it has a consistently warm climate – without the humidity of Florida. That alone is enough to make me want to live there. That's not even mentioning the benefits for an owner of a pro franchise not having to pay state income taxes. As proved by the owner of the Sabres, this could be a very profitable option, who could, in theory, put that money saved back into the organization to give it the best competitive advantage possible.

It may not have all the amenities that Florida or Texas has, but it is certainly an area on the rise and an area that I believe will be the home of a major pro franchise within the next seven years.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2009/05/11/daily53.html

http://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/blog/2009/03/30/top-10-fastest-growing-cities/

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US3260600&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno,_Nevada

http://www.govspot.com/know/incometax.htm

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.

One is the lonliest number

No one has enjoyed watching the dethroning of King James and his band of Cavaliers at the hands of the oft-written-off Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Finals more than I have. I typically try to be as objective as possible when I watch games, but I find myself rooting for the Magic. Part of it may be an ongoing debate with my roommate, who said that the Magic weren't legit, while I tapped them as my dark horse. The talk always focused on Cleveland and Boston, and rightly so, but I feel that the Magic were unfairly written off after the injury to Jameer Nelson earlier in the season just before the trade deadline.

The other part of this series is that I am very intrigued by is a paradigm shift that seems to defy what the pundits have said for about fifteen years. Ever since Jordan won those six championships the NBA has become a “stars' league.” Every single team in the league is bent on building up excesses of salary cap space so that they can lure a LeBron James or a Kobe Bryant or a Dwyane Wade to their team with a max contract.

But is that really the way that teams should approach constructing their teams? Is offering top-tier players max contracts and eating up salary space the best way to win? Well, let's take a look at recent history, post-Michael.

The San Antonio Spurs have had Tim Duncan, but they have always had a solid supporting cast around him, whether it be Sean Elliot and David Robinson or Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, who could all be perennial all-stars. The focus of that team was not simply Duncan, but team basketball in which everyone was involved.

The Lakers may be a semi-exception, as they acquired Shaq just before they went on their run, but they had a very solid team. Derek Fisher, Rick Fox and Robert Horry were all very capable players in their own rights. But the difference is that they built their team around two players – Kobe and Shaq. They had a combo that was tough to counter.

The team that upended the Lakers – the Pistons – were the antithesis to the star power theory. They had no real superstars or big-time players, just a nice collection of players that were dedicated to a common goal – defense and winning.

The Miami Heat were configured very similarly to the Lakers, with Kobe being substituted for Dwyane Wade alongside Shaq. They had two players that teams had to deal with that could kill them on any given night.

The Celtics of just one year ago had three players – Garnett, Allen and Pierce – that could light it up and torch a team. In addition, they had a cast of solid role players.

So it is through that lens that I view the current situation in this year's playoffs. If we take past precedents into consideration, Cleveland is the least like the teams that were mentioned above. Outside of LeBron, there is not a consistent threat on the floor. Mo Williams has his moments, but he has been disappointing to say the least during the Conference Finals. Delonte West is in the same boat. Despite LeBron averaging numbers that no human being should average over a number of games, he just doesn't have any support from his mates. Sure, last night he finally got some help and the Cvs won, but that was the first time this series that multiplie players outside of LeBron have put up decent numbers.

Looking at Orlando and Denver and Los Angeles, however, those teams are built for championships. Each of them have undisputed team leaders – Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony and Kobe Bryant, respectively – solid support players – Rashard Lewis/Hedo Turkeglo, Chauncey Billups and Pau Gasol/Andrew Bynum/Lamar Odom, respectively – and solid role players. If one of these teams has an off night from one of their players, there are more than enough adept players to pick up the slack. That just isn't the case with the Cavs.

Perhaps that is why the Cavs are the team that has the longest shot to get to the Finals.

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.

Rewarded for losing?

Last week the Clippers won the NBA Draft lottery, ensuring the opportunity to draft college superstar/man-beast F Blake Griffin from Oklahoma. Now although the Clippers weren't the odds-on-favorite to win the ping-pong ball lottery - with about a 17% chance - was anyone really surprised that they ended up with the top pick? During the past 25 years of the Clippers' miserable existence in Los Angeles, they have made the playoffs four times - advancing past the first round only once - but have only finished with a winning record three times. In their extended history back to the 1970 inaugural season as the Buffalo Braves, they can boast only two more playoff appearances.

In short, the Clippers are the bottom of the bucket when it comes to the NBA hierarchy, and they have been since the 70s.

That seems to go against what everyone seems to call parity in the NBA. Sure, there are cycles in which some teams have down years, but even in those down years those teams still make the playoffs or at least come close. Take the Boston Celtics, for example. In their 63 years of existence, the Celts have missed the postseason just 17 times. , a majority of which were a consecutive streak in the 90s. But the Clippers, they don't even come close.

Part of the problem may be the current system that the NBA currently employs in the form of the lottery and the Draft. It's common knowledge - or at least commonly perceived - that teams sometimes tank the last portion of the season in order to ensure a better chance at a top pick.

How about instead of rewarding teams for doing poorly, how about punishing them, so to speak?

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine that is crazy about football - soccer - about how her brother's favorite team in the English Premier League nearly got relegated to a lower league last season. In the EPL, the bottom three teams get sent down to the minors, so to speak, and three teams from the lower league come up to take their places.

What a fantastic idea! Why haven't American sports taken this same approach? Granted it may be too late to take that approach now that many American sports are well-set in their ways, but if we think that there is parity in professional sports now, actual incentive to compete - aside from money, which is currently the motivation to win - would make professional sports infinitely more interesting.

When it comes right down to it, American sports team owners would never approve this sort of system, though. For them , its all about money. If their team were to be relegated they would lose out on millions and millions of dollars. In order to compensate for this, a new collective bargaining agreement would have to be signed mandating that luxury taxes be paid by those teams in the highest league and spread out to the lower league(s).

Ultimately money would get in the way of creating a more competitive sports landscape in America. But should that really surprise anyone, because aside from the Clippers finishing in the lottery, the biggest guarantee in sports is that money will always be the foremost factor in dictating what teams and leagues do, not competition.

Think I made some great points? Did I say something that you disagree with? Anything that you think I missed? Let me know: comment below.