Well, its that time of year again. Time for the conference championship games and the annual "dragging through the mud" of the BCS. The Bowl Championship Series is bound to produce some exciting matchups this bowl season, especially given how competitve the regular season has been. But, like always, I can't help but wonder...what if? What if that silly little thing at the end of the Div-I-AA  (FCS) season called a playoff existed here, in the Bowl-Series level of competition? What great matchups are we missing out on? How many more great games would we get to see? How many more meaningless arguments could we have with the homers of the blogging and message boards world? How much longer could we drag out the season of the greatest, most exciting team sport in America? Well, let's find out...

Now, the criteria for a playoff field will vary from person to person. What's fair? Who's included? How many teams? All that stuff. But, since its my playoff, and my blog, we'll use my criteria. Now, before we get too involved, let me note that this blog is intended to rant against the establishment and argue for a playoff system. Not only for fairness sake, but for entertainment sake. So, if you disagree with how many teams are in the playoffs, or which teams...or the simulated results of said playoffs:  I get it. I understand. This isn't meant to be definitive, just enjoyable.

Now, because we're taking a page from the geniuses down in the Championship Series of college football (Div I-AA), we're going to use a 16 team format. This is meant to be ideal, not realistic. (heck, I'd settle for a 4 team playoff as that format seems to be the most realistic option). Just like the BCS, each major conference champion will get an automatic bid into the playoffs. That's six teams. Now, unlike the exclusive BCS system, this playoff system does not automatically eliminate half the schools in the country from participation. Therefore, the other 5 conference champions will also get an automatic bid. Independents are eligible for an at-large bid, no special consideration. Don't like it Independents? Join a conference. After the 11 conference champs, 5 "at-large" spots will be filled. This is where polls come in handy. Though they are flawed, we'll use the poll rankings to assign the at-large positions in the field, as well as our seedings (I'm using who I think will win the conference championship games to determine final poll position). The sixth highest ranked non-conference champion team get's left out. If they don't like it....well, you should've gone undefeated and won your conference, then, shouldn't of you? There is no limit on how many teams from one conference can go...if you finish high enough, you get in. Period.

So, given that criteria, here's what our playoff picture looks like (The non-BCS conference champs' seedings may not be perfect, but you get the idea). The records are projected.

        1. West Virginia (11-1, Big East Champions)

      16. Bowling Green (9-4, Mid-American Champions)

       2. Missouri (12-1, Big XII Champions)

     15. Troy  (8-3, Sun Belt Champions)

 

       3. Ohio State  (11-1, Big Ten Champions)

     14. Central Florida  (10-3, C-USA Champions)

 

       4. Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC Champions)

     13. Brigham Young University (10-2, Mountain West Champions)

 

       5. Southern California (10-2, PAC-10 Champions)

     12. Hawaii (12-0, Western Athletic Champions)

 

       6. Tennessee  (10-3, SEC Champions)

     11. Florida (9-3, AT LARGE #5)

 

       7. Georgia (10-2, AT LARGE #1)

    10. Arizona St (10-2, AT LARGE #4)

 

       8. Kansas (11-1, AT LARGE #2)

       9. Louisiana State (10-3, AT LARGE #3)

For those who think that the top few seeds are getting by too easily, and that other major conference teams should be involved I say this: If the NCAA gave this format a few years, and the non-BCS conferences and schools got access to the money and attention generated by the BCS/playoffs, the gap would close really quickly. Even as it is, I would think that at least one of the non-BCS champs could pull an upset in round one. After this crazy season, would you doubt it?

Round Two:

       1. West Virginia

       9. Louisiana State

 

       2. Missouri

       7. Georgia

 

       3. Ohio State

     11. Florida

 

     13. Brigham Young University

       5. Southern California

 

Now, I don't want Virginia Tech fans getting upset here...just throwing in a few upsets for illustration purposes. I don't think BYU is better...VT rules...Go Hokies...blah. There.

Semi-Final Round:

 

       1. West Virginia

       5. Southern California

 

       2. Missouri

     11. Florida (sorry Buckeye fans...I just couldn't resist)

 

Finals:

       1. West Virginia

       2. Missouri

Winner: Missouri

Of course we all know that we probably wouldn't get 1 vs 2, but for the fan's sake I ran it out this way. Either way, any team in this field of sixteen has a shot at winning this thing, even schools like Troy and Bowling Green. And, like I said, the more inclusive the system is, the more evenly the wealth and attention is spread and the smaller the gap will eventually become among all of the teams in the country. Besides, it should be decided on the field.

 

It's that time of year in the College Football world for bowl matchups, conference championships, yearly rivalries and the annual BCS gripe-fest. Additionally, the former "most prostigeous award in sports" debate also heats up. I say former because the criterea for the annual Heisman trophey has, like modern college football, changed over the years. There was once a time when the Heisman was given to the best player in college football. Now, more and more, it seems to go to the best player on the best team in college football. I believe that there are two major problems with how the winner for this great award is decided. The first, and most obvious, is that the award is suppose to be for the best player in the country, or, more specifically, the player who had the best individual season of any player in the country. Now, helping your team win a lot of games is a sign o####reat season and the team's record should be part of the criteria used for making such a difficult analysis. However, it should not be primary statistic used for determining a winner. The last two seasons somewhat speak to this point. Now, before I go on, no one is arguing that Troy Smith and Reggie Bush did not have spectacular seasons in 2006 and 2005, respectively. The overall record and perspective of their teams did play a huge roll in helping them win the award. Please note that neither of them won the national championship that season, so it would seem that the primary indicator used to validate their Heisman campaigns were, in fact, inaccurate. Reggie Bush had a great season, but many believed Vince Young deserved the Heisman that year. The perception was, however, that Reggie Bush played for the best team, and thus was more deserving. To say that Southern California's perceived strength that season didn't have a decided impact on the vote would be insane. What I'm getting at (in a very long, round about way) has to do with the newfound parity in college football. It is becoming increasingly difficult to determine who the best team really is, especially using "old" college football standards (ie- polls). Furthermore, because such a determination is so difficult to make, to give so much credence and weight to an individual who is credited with being "the best player" on the best team thus becomes a flawed practice itself.

Secondly, just like the BCS Championship Game system, half the players in the country are almost immediately eliminated from consideration when the season begins because they do not play in a "major" BCS conference. Every now and then an exceptional Junior, like Colt Brennan, will return to his mid-major school in his senior season and be given a chance to win the award. A slim chance, but a chance nonetheless.The typical argument made against mid-major conference players is the strength of competition that they play against week in and week out.  There are two responses I'd like to pose to such an argument. First, let's not pretend that every major BCS conference team is a good team with a great defense. That is, in today's college football world it is very possible to find several, if not many, mid major teams (and apparently Div I-AA teams) that are better then some major conference BCS teams. Furthermore, there are many mid-major teams that are not as good, overall, as their BCS brethren, but do field better defenses, and would thus present more difficult challenges and hurdles for the skill players that could qualify for the Heisman. Given that, it is far from certain that because a player does not play for BCS conference team that he then has not faced the same challenges and obsticles that Heisman candidates from major conference teams have faced. Second, most great skill players from major BCS conference teams are surrounded by other high caliber athletes and football players. The best quarterbacks usually have a great running back, solid receivers and a good offensive line around him. Great running backs are usually not lacking holes to run through on a weekly basis. And great receivers beneift from having a quarterback who is well protected, and experienced enough to get him the ball, on time, when he gets open for the big play. On mid-major conference schools this isn't always the case. Oftentimes, a great player who would be considered for the Heisman trophey is one of just a handful of "good" players on his ball club. He doesn't have the support group around him that his BCS counterparts benefit from. More likely he is the centerpiece of his team's offensive attack, and every team that he faces knows this and does not need to prepare for any other contingency other then stopping the one great player on the other team. If its a great running back, there's no gaurentee that he gets to play along side a quality passing attack. Given that, he may face more eight man fronts then other running backs from major BCS schools.  Great quarterbacks on non-BCS conference teams may not always have that great offensive line to protect him, or a quality running threat to help keep the defense from pinning it's ears back. Now, none of this is certain, but it is food for thought. Certainly the argument can be made that each case should be carefully studied on an individual basis and that players shouldn't just be summarily dismissed because he doesn't play for a major conference team.

---

With all that said, I am proud to give you my current Heisman Top 5 Watch List. I will attempt to take all players, from all teams into consideration. Now, given that I just ranted against the establishment, the list will not look like a typical Heisman list and it is sure to ruffle some feathers. At least you'll have an idea on how I'm thinking and what criteria I'm using. If you disagree, feel free to respond. There are going to be people left out, probably people from your team that you feel deserve to be listed. There are probably 50 players in the country that can make an argument for consideration....I'm picking 5. That's 45 players, at minimum, that are going to get hosed and I'm sure someone is going to take exception.

 

1. Tim Tebow, QB, Florida; 198-289 (68.5%), 2,870 yds, 26 TD, 6 INT, 181 rush, 749 yds, 20 TD

The Buzz: I sat at my computer for a while, sifting through stats, records and other numerical data trying to find someone other than Tebow to place at number one simply for the sole purpose of being different then everyone else. I wanted to be the guy who found that gem of a Heisman pick....discover the diamond in the rough that no one else has thought of. Some explanation, or reason to list someone other than Super Tim as the front runner. As you can see, I didn't do very well. The Super Sophomore has done everything this season. For those who say he can't pass, he entered Saturday 2nd in the country in passer rating and is on pace for a 3,000 yard season. By the end of the day Saturday he stands alone in the NCAA record book as the only player ever in Div I (FBS) football to have passed and rushed for 20 touchdowns in the same season. And for the purists who might want to blame the extra (12th) game and the inclusion of bowl game stats for his accomplishments, he's done it in 11 games. The biggest knock on Timmy is the team's record, but this writer is more inclined to put those losses on the shoulders of the porous Gator defense, not Tebow.

 

2. Chase Daniel, QB, Missouri; 309-446 (69.3%), 3590 yds, 30 TD, 9 INT, 86 rush, 245 yds, 3 TD

 

The Buzz: This is one player who isn't getting nearly enough credit on the national stage. He leads a top ranked team that is still in the national title race and he's put up great numbers doing it. The Tigers' only loss is on the road against Oklahoma, a game where Daniel completed 79% of his passes and threw for 361 yards. Going into this Saturday he ranked 6th nationally in passing yards, 5th in completion percentage, 7th in passing touchdowns and 10th in quarterback rating. He's almost the ideal candidate. The only knock on Daniel is that he hasn't had the freakish, record setting season that Tim Tebow has had.

3. Kevin Smith, RB, Central Florida; 330 rush, 1,845 yds, 5.6 ypc, 24 TD

The Buzz: Here's a mid-major player that deserves an invite to New York this December. He may be the best running back in the country. A perfect example o####reat player on an average team, Smith has carried the Knights to an 8-3 record and the best record in Conference-USA. The Knights have a below average passing attack (104th in passing ypg), thus providing little relief to their stud back. Yet, even without playing within a balanced attack, Smith still ranked 2nd in the nation in rushing yards and 1st in the nation in rushing touchdowns, all while average 5.6 yards per tote. His yard per carry average ranks 10th nationally among players with at least 200 carries on the season. Against the three BCS conference teams that Central Florida played this season Smith carried the ball 80 times, for 421 yards (5.26 ypc) and 4 touchdowns. Against Texas...yeah, that Texas, Smith carried 27 times for 149 yards (5.5 ypc) and 2 TD. With one game left in the regular season and the Conference USA championship game ahead, Smith is all but a lock for a 2,000 yard season and is on pace for 28 rushing touchdowns.

4. Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech; 125 rec, 1,861 yds, 21 TD

The Buzz: It's the system, right? Forget the fact that there are similar systems being used throughout the country by other schools, yet none of their players are putting these types of numbers. Forget the fact that Crabtree is doing this in the Big 12. I wasn't sure about this one either. Michael Crabtree leads the nation in receptions, receiving yards and touchdown receptions and its not by a small margin. If he was just a few catches or a few yards ahead of the next guy, the “system” label might be enough to keep him off the list. Or maybe even the fact that he's a Freshman. But Crabtree is dominating the statistics. The “next guy” isn't even close. It also helps that he shows up in the big games for his team, catching 9 passes for 195 yards and 2 touchdowns against Texas and 12 passes for 154 yards and 1 touchdown against Oklahoma. When a guy is the best wide receiver in the nation, and is the best wide receiver by such a large margin, you have to give him an invite.

5. Pat White, QB, West Virgina; 120-174 (69%), 1,391 yds, 11 TD, 3 INT, 147 rush, 958 yds, 12 TD

The Buzz: Long forgotten on many Heisman lists, Pat White is getting some “team record” love from me, primarily because of his clutch play down the stretch. The Mountaineers control their own destiny in the Big East and still find themselves in the National Championship hunt. Statistically, White has improved his passing game, ranking 7th nationally in passing efficiency and completion percentage. Over the last three weeks of the season he's arguably been the most exciting player to watch in the entire country. While other teams and their respective Heisman contenders are dropping like flies every week, Pat White has turned his game up a notch and seems to be sprinting towards the finish line. In the last three games against Big East rivals Rutgers, Louisville and Cincinnati, White has carried the ball 76 times, rushing for 458 yards (6.0 ypc) and scoring 4 touchdowns. Throw in a 65% completion percentage and 2 passing touchdowns during that same stretch and Pat White is officially putting on a clinic on how Heisman candidates finish out a season.

On The Fringe: Darren McFadden, RB, Ark; Dennis Dixon, QB, Ore; Colt Brennan, QB, Haw; Casey Fitzgerald, WR, NTex; Ray Rice, RB, Rut; Rashard Mendenhall, RB, Ill; Jamaal Charles, RB, Tex; Graham Harrell, QB, TTU;

A response to Boise State deserves more respect from voters

 

While I'm forced to agree with much of what Mr. Moneypenny writes in the article above, I'm afraid he has taken the chain of thought just a little too far. Here's what I do agree with: Yes, it was the votes, pollsters and coaches who screwed Boise State, not the system itself. The preseason polls and early season polls that prohibit mid-major powers like Boise State from moving up to what appears to be their rightful place among college footballs elite did some damage as well.

However, I completely disagree with the notion that this one win on this one night over a major conference power qualifies Boise State for the national championship game. The thinking and logic used by Moneypenny to prove this point is very shaky at best. Let's start with the TV argument since that's the one that makes the most sense. Yes, indeed, coaches and voters see less Boise State games than any of the other teams that finished in the top ten during the course of a typical season. But he doesn't stop and ask why they don't, and the why is important. Please note, that last season when Boise State played Georgia, it was on national TV. This season, when they played Oregon State, it was on National TV. The only other games that might get a sniff from the major networks are the few decent mid-major teams (yes, bowl teams, but not major bowl teams...we'll get to this too) that they play, and yes, typically blow out. Boise State, knowing that they are in a less respected conference, should be scheduling major conference opponents for all four of their non-cons if possible, certainly for as many as they can. I understand that there are scheduling issues, and that a lot of the elite teams from the big conferences don't want to play Boise State, but I believe there are enough "middle of the road" major conference teams (the South Floridas, Alabamas, Oregon States, Minnesotas, Missouris) out there that they could schedule more if they wanted to. Don't forget that the reason that the elite teams don't want to schedule Boise State is that their schedule is hard enough to manuever and get through without adding such a dangerous oppenent, but the door swings both ways. Perhaps we don't see Boise State playing more than one solid to good major conference team per year because it jeopardizes their chance of going undefeated. Just play one, keep the schedule easy and we can get the wins....sounds like a good strategy. Heck, why do you think the big schools schedule an easy out of conference schedule? Same philosphy. Just a thought...

Secondly, "the facts," as he calls them. The average margin of victory over bowl oppenents (20.4 ppg) as well as the bowl oppenents' record of 4-1 in their bowls (only loss belonging to Nevada, by one vs Miami). If this isn't selective reasoning, I don't know what is. Of all the stats that could be pulled to make this case, Moneypenney has picked some nice ones. My first problem with these stats, is that we fail to mention that Florida has played 10 bowl teams this season, and Boise State five. High averages like that are harder to maintain through more games. Also, Oklahoma is a bowl team, right? Did Boise State beat them by 20? Perhaps averages don't mean everything. Finally, yes, Boise State did play five bowl teams in the regular season, and beat them all, but these aren't exactly major bowl teams, playing and beating other top teams in their bowl games. San Jose St beat New Mexico and Utah beat Tulsa. I will give credit to Hawaii and Oregan State for beating some very good teams in Arizona State and Missouri, respectively. Bowl games aren't exactly the best stat to use, despite the popular belief that you can use them to determine who the stronger conferences and who the better teams are. Outside of the major games (BCS games) it is difficult to get both teams at their peak levels. Sometimes certain teams a pump up for a bowl game, sometimes the opposite is true and they come out flat, not showing alot of emotion. Case in point, Florida State vs UCLA. Congrats to the Seminoles for getting off the proverbial schnide, but lets face it, this bowl game meant a lot more to a struggling Florida State team that was looking for something to validate their season as well as build momentum for next year, then it did for UCLA. The Bruins capped off their 2006 campaign with that stunning victory over their cross town rivals. After that joyous occasion an Emerald Bowl victory over the 7th or 8th best ACC team just didn't seem quite as golden. Does that mean they didn't show up at all? Of course not, but I believe it does show that bowl results can be a little skewed (see BYU vs Oregon for another example).

Next, I believe a brief arguement was made concerning conference strength. The argument seemed to be that even though Boise State plays in a "weak" conference its okay because there are a few weak teams in every conference. Something along the lines of the Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Ole Miss (he apparently had to leave out Kentucky after their impressive win over Clemson....another example for the previous paragraph, btw) didn't exactly put the power in the term Power conference. This is obviously another poke at the Florida Gators...he of course fails to mention that the Gators only played one team from his list (Vandy) and the other seven conference opponents they played were all bowl teams (Five of them New Years Day or later bowl teams). The obvious counter-argument to this is that the "power" conferences have other "power" teams that you must play (unless you're Ohio State and get to slip by without a game against Wisconsin...not that they would lose, but it would be fun to watch, especially if it was at Wisconsin). Boise State has no other challengers.

Which leads me to my final point. The win over Oklahoma was fantastic. What a great game. The playcalling was phenominal, and not just at the end of the game, throughout the whole thing. Oklahoma played a great game (through the last three quarters and OT anyway). A great victory for a great program that does, indeed, deserve a lot more respect than they've received thus far this season. They have mine, that's for sure. But the failing occurs when we go too far, and try to say that they deserved a shot at the national title game over a team like Florida or even Michigan (I know, they lost, but no one knew that when the matchup was decided....though I did think it was going to happen=P). It was one game. That's all. Look at a team like Florida, though, who played at least five games like that, going 4-1(Tenn, LSU, Aub, UGA, Ark), or Michigan who played three games like that and went 2-1 (ND, Wisc, Ohio St). Specifically speaking about Florida, its a lot different to do it week in and week out. And you don't always get to play games like that at a neutral site, where half of your fans are sold tickets. Sometimes you have to go to Rocky Top and rub elbows with 105,000 screaming #### in orange shirts, or go to the Horseshoe, or a number of other hostile environments. I think this is the biggest flaw in the thinking of Moneypenny's article. One game that you can gameplay for a month for, get pumped up for, play the super-underdog role for is one thing, but being the team with the bulls-eye on your back, having a week to prepare, going to the other team's stadium and then having to do it all over again the very next week, and the next week is completely different.

 

Once again, hats off the Boise State. What a great game and a great win. I think we need more inclusiveness of the "mid-majors" into the BCS process so that we can see more games like the Fiesta bowl, and if they prove throughout the course of the entire season that they are worthy of the opportunity, the National Championship game. But lets just leave it at that.

It shouldn't have come to this. The great ones are suppose to possess a crushing edge, one capable of dismantling the opponent's postseason hopes and dreams. Michael had it. So did Magic. Does Kobe Bryant? Or did he simply borrow Shaq's during the Laker's first dynastic run? Up three games to one over the Phoenix Suns just a few days ago nobody, except the Suns themselves perhaps, thought there would be a game seven on Saturday night. Not with Kobe Bryant and his high flying Lakers playing their best basketball of the season. Not with legendary coach Phil Jackson directing the X's and O's from the bench. Yet, here we are, a little more than 24 hours from the first game seven tip off of this year's NBA playoffs.

 

There are alot of reasons (or excuses depending on which side of the basketball you look at) for tomorrow night's game. Steve Nash seems stuck in MVP-mode. Shawn Marion decided this whole "postseason basketball" thing might be worth doing a little while longer and Kobe's teammates decided it's not worth doing at all. The Laker's couldn't muster the energy to keep up with the Suns down in Phoenix and the Suns found just enough to get out of L.A. alive. Smush Parker is still trying to figure out what Steve Nash looks like and Boris Diaw is learning you get more air time when you flirt with triple doubles every night. Tim Thomas just seems thrilled to be back on the court again. While just a week ago we all thought the Lakers just looked like the better team it's obvious that looks can be quite deceiving. Phoenix was untouchable in the second half of game 5 and it took everything Kobe Bryant could give to keep the Lakers in game 6.

 

So what does this mean to Kobe Bryant's legacy? Is he forever going to overshadowed by the Big Diesal? Bryant is now 0-2 in series clinching games without Shaquille O'Neil at his side. Very un-Jordan-like. The Suns would love to extend that record to 0-3 and should have everything working to their advantage at home on Saturday night. But Bryant will be the most dominating force on the court, and that needs to count for something. Whenever anybody talks about Michael Jordan, and what made him so great, his competitiveness and unwillingness to lose is always mentioned. Indeed, its this special quality that seperates Jordan from all of his predecessors. The Grant Hills, Tracy McGradys, Kobe Bryants and Lebron Jameses that have since come have all failed to consistently show (yet) this killer instinct in the playoffs, where it really counts. Kobe will get his last chance to show us this postseason that he has what it takes to simply "will" a win out of a clutch game. That means doing more than just scoring 50 points, especially when your team is just so much more worse than the other team. For Kobe, it may mean scoring 50 AND getting everyone else involved. Perhaps not involved in the scoring and shooting columns, but certainly involved to the point where the team doesn't commit 20 turnovers and play soft defense. This is where "will" shows up in the box score. Focus, on both ends of the floor, combined with Kobe's amazing talent will win the game for the Los Angeles Lakers on Saturday night. The Lakers looked like they didn't care to show up in game five and looked completely unfocused in game six. Much of this is also on Phil Jackson's shoulders, but if Kobe Bryant wants to be remember amongst the greatest to ever play the game he must see it as his responsibility as well.

 

It's crunch time for Kobe Bryant. And while this certainly will not be Bryant's last trip to the NBA playoffs, it will be on his record, and part of his history. He is in the prime of his career and should be and will be judged on the merit of his and his team's performance. Scoring 50 and losing is not acceptable for the great ones. Scoring 20 and winning is. It's all about the 'W'. Kobe's first three titles will not be enough, in my book, to put him amongst the elite in the history of the game. Those were Shaq's teams. That is his legacy. Big Daddy was in his prime then and the most unstoppable force in the league. Kobe Bryant rightfully owns that title now, but he still needs to author his own chapter in the history books. Letting this series slip away from him wouldn't exactly make for good reading on Kobe's behalf. The setting is right for a dramatic finish: on the road against a superior team led by the two-time MVP. It's crunch time Kobe and history will be watching.

It was a memorable, historic day for New Yorkers. A day that the dominance and supremecy of the New York Metropolitans as Lords of the Baseball World was finally realized and accepted by sports fans across the country. Talk of a city wide holiday spread like wildfire through the local media. Water coolers everywhere ran dry as tired and frustrated fans of the "other" team in New York finally had their victorious next-day conversations at work. "Did you see it?" one overpaid guy in a bad suit asked another, "Did you see Pedro?" The crazed businessman, suffering from lack of sleep and too much caffene, was referring to Pedro Martinez's six and two-thirds innings performance against the ignorant, red-necked Atlanta Braves. Yes, those Atlanta Braves. The fourteen-consecutive-division-title-winners  Atlanta Braves whom the valiant, couregeous New York Mets had finally dethroned from atop the National League East division. Newspapers ran stories of the mighty Braves' collapse. At last, after fourteen years of oppression and misery, the Mets had finally accomplished the unthinkable. Internet blogs exploded with chatter. "This was the year," they all reported, "The Braves are done at last." And it wasn't just the bloggers trumpeting the Mets' success. Sportwriters and analysts had coronated the Mets and their 102 million dollar team salary as the new power in the NL East.

Word of the Braves' starting pitching woes raced through the sports world. The strength of the organization, the backbone of the unprecedented title run had finally run out of gas. Was it the loss of quality starters over the years? Or the loss of "the rocker," pitching coach Leo Mazzone? Mets fans didn't care. This was their day to shine. By the end of the fateful night the Atlanta starting rotation had posted a record of 1-5, with an ERA of 6.64 to open the season. Nothing could sour the taste of satisfaction they were enjoying. Life, in the baseball world anyway, was good.

But baseball is a parcular sport. You see, one game rarely makes or breaks a season, and those Atlanta Braves were still in town, ready to rumble the very next night. Behind the strong starting pitching of twenty-three year old Kyle Davies the Braves thwarted the victory party with a 7-1 spanking of the Metropolitans. Davies went nine solid innings, striking out six and allowing just the one earned run for his first complete game of the season. The next night it was Tim Hudson's turn. Hudson went the distance, giving up just three hits while recording six strikeouts for the complete game victory. What could have gone wrong for the Mets, I wonder? They were on top of the world, the team to beat.

So let us fast forward, then, to today. A similar scenario has unfolded before us and I give great credit to the Mets. They currently sit at 17-8, six games ahead of the Braves and the Phillies in the NL East. The season series with the Braves is tied, three games to three, with each team winning a series in the other's home park. The baseball world at large is already planning for the fall of the Atlanta Braves and the coronation of the New York Mets. An interesting side note, however, should be considered. Since Kyle Davies complete game masterpiece at Shea Stadium in New York, the Braves starters have posted an ERA of 2.37. The Atlanta offense has suffered through injuries to starters Marcus Giles, Edgar Rentaria and Chipper Jones and a slump by Jeff Francour, and because of these setbacks the starters have only posted 4 wins against 5 losses during this stretch. The idea that the Atlanta Braves' starting rotation has lost it's luster, however, has been put to rest. The last eleven games have proven that this is a quality rotation, capable of carrying the Braves to their 15th straight division crown. And if Mets fans believe their six game lead in the standings is safe, they should ask the Washington Nationals, who led the Braves by a similar margin at the All-Star break last year, just how insurmountable that lead is.

And the more and more that sports writers, bloggers, call-in audiences on talk radio programs and fans squirm and jitter over the Braves' slow start, the calmer Bobby Cox gets.

You see, it took the Mets a little while to figure things out in New York. You'd think it would be easy, with the Yankees and their bloated payroll sitting just across town, to figure out how to build a championship contender in the Big Apple. Just spend money. Home to the world's biggest media market and a wealth of fans yearning for success, the equation is quite simple. Spend the big bucks to make the big bucks so that you can continue spending the big bucks. And over the last three seasons that's just what the Mets have done, averaging close to 10 million dollars more in payroll per season than their archrivals down in Atlanta. It seems to be paying off with this year's group of Free Agent acquisitions. Whereas the Braves must rely on scouting, coaching and the best farm system in baseball for their stellar payroll, the Mets have been able to buy their way into contention this year. Now, that's not to say that the Braves don't spend money in the offseason. They typically save enough to add one big name Free Agent each year. Last year it was Tim Hudson and this year it was Edgar Rentaria. But they typically lose a player or two to make room for them on the roster(see Gary Sheffield, JD Drew and Rapheal Furcal).

But none of this concerns Bobby Cox. Someone had to have been impressed enough with each and every one of the players on his roster for them to be there, in Atlanta, on that ball club, and that's good enough for him. His laid back, hands-off approach to roster management has served the Braves well in the past and will do so again this season. The Braves have been slow starters the last few seasons, too, and I don't suspect veterans like Chipper and Andrew Jones, John Smoltz or Bobby Cox are ready to pack it in just yet.

The baseball world, and Mets fans in particular, should keep all of this in mind before initiating the coronation ceremonies prematurely. The gaps and weaknesses you thought in saw in the 2006 version of the Braves may just be figments of your imagination, or the occasional injury on the mend. So don't get too excited Mets fans, because October is a long way away, and Bobby Cox and the Atlanta Braves are just getting warmed up.

In this age of slanted statistics, enlarged egos, and bloated biceps the world of baseball needs the occasional breath of fresh air to remind all of us just what makes this game so great. Enter Greg Maddux, the unassuming, under the radar, could be your 10th grade science teacher, pitcher from the Chicago Cubs. A 4-0 start and a 0.99 ERA to launch the 2006 season has put Maddux back where he belongs, in the spotlight. The personification of everything right about baseball, Maddux is drawing the eyes of the baseball world away from the distractions and investigations, the chases and the syringes that have consumed the sport's biggest star since the start of spring training.

Maddux's hot start has given us the opportunity to shy away from the steroid scandal, if at least for just a short moment, and once again stand in awe of the greatest pitcher of our time. That's right, I said it. The greatest pitcher of our time. Not Roger Clemens, not Randy Johnson and not Pedro Martinez., but Greg Maddux. Though some may find this difficult to believe, as Maddux's colleagues garner more time on SportsCenter, make the cover of more video game cases and, in the case of Pedro and the Big Unit, play in the biggest  media market in the world (a location that gave of itself to Clemens at one point in his career as well). Ironically, it is his unassuming nature that lends itself to Maddux's legacy. Never the center of scanal, no six foot, ten inch frame, and no trade demands or publically aired contract disputes. No pinstripes or green monster. If you look closely, however, into that back corner of the baseball world where bench warmers and no names sit, waiting patiently to be acknowledged by the media at large, you'll see Greg Maddux, compiling win after win every fifth day. That's not to say that no one pays attention to Greg Maddux, or that the media at large is in the dark about his accomplishments. He doesn't sit there because that's where the media wants him, either. It's just his preferred table and you'll have to excuse him if he doesn't want to get up any time soon. But consider the numbers. The 322 career wins, 3000 plus strikeouts, 4 Cy youngs, 15 gold gloves, 108 complete games, 35 shutouts and an ERA of 3.01. Maybe's that's not quite as impressive or doesn't draw the ratings that 715 does, but every now and then we have to step back and put his accomplishments into perspective. It also isn't all about the numbers, because as we all know, numbers don't tell the whole story. If they did, this would be about Roger Clemens, not Greg Maddux. Perhaps the most impressive part of Maddux's work is that he has compiled his numbers without the aid of overpriced, all-star loaded lineups at his disposal, without the biggest, most athletic body, and over a very long period of time. In the end, when all is said and done, these will prove to be his greatest assets. He's more adaptive then the other great pitchers of his time and this ability to adjust will allow Maddux to pitch longer at that high level of performance than his competitors. Put him on a team that doesn't have the best lineup in the league? No problem, he's done that. Put Roger Clemen's ERA and WHIP with a less than stellar lineup during his years in New York and he may not have made it to Houston. Worried about age diminishing his skills? He's never been about strength and power, so, unlike Randy Johnson, there's no concern that the loss of velocity on his fastball will diminish the effectiveness of all of his other pitches. Worried about the Cubs kicking Greg Maddux out of town because he feels he's underpaid? Not likely, but hopefully it all works out for Pedro in New York. The cameras should be flashing every time he steps out into public for just the chance o####limpse of this pitching legend. It is his nightly performace that should be the first highlight aired on SportsCenter when he hits the hill. Where's his reality TV show? No Maddux on Maddux? Perhaps later, but that's just not Maddux's style. Just wait though, because when he's fifty, going for his record setting 8th Cy Young and his 20th "Greg Maddux Fielding Award" (they'd have to change the name from gold glove to this by 2016), Greg will finally get his own reality TV series. He'll finally make the cover of the latest video game console's baseball game.  It's a sure thing.