Before I start, I'd like to thank all of those who sent their well-wishes to my grandmother in my last post. She is doing well, and I thank you for your support. Yesterday, I observed the NFL's rules changes they accepted at their annual owner's meeting, which included the elimination of the force-out rule and the 5-yard facemask (I agree with both) and the limits of hair over the name on the jersey (the Troy Polamanu rule, and it's stupid). In light of that, I made a list of rules changes I'd like to see in other sports. This is a little different from my other lists, in that I'm not ranking them, but listing them according to sport. Here are my modest proposals, ranging from the serious to the silly:

NFL

Chris Henry gets 'Pac-Man' ed: As most of you are aware, Henry got arrested and charged with assault (among other things) on a teenager. The Bengals finally wised up and cut him loose (lest they have another weirdo to go with Ocho Cinco), and the NFL should (and likely will) give him at least a one-year, if not lifetime, ban. Henry simply will not make the right decisions, and playing pro sports is not mandatory, it's earned. He hasn't earned the right to play.

Re-seed in the Wild Card round: This issue will not be voted on until the next meeting, but it makes sense. Why should the Giants last year, at 10-6, go on the road to face the 9-7 Buccaneers? They do it for every other round; do it for the Wild Card, as well.

Dan Synder should be forced to keep his head coach for at least 5 years: Since he bought the Skins in 1999, he has had Norv Turner, Terry Robiskie, Marty Schottenheimer, Steve Spurrier, Joe Gibbs and now Jim Zorn. Only Gibbs lasted more than two full seasons. This rule would make watching the Skins more interesting; can you imagine how Snyder would react when he can't fire a coach?

NBA

No time-outs after calling a time-out: This goes for college basketball, as well. There's not much that's more annoying than, after watching a Viagra commercial during a time-out, coming back, then seeing another TO called, then sitting through a truck commercial. To eliminate that, you'd call a technical foul on the team who calls the TO, then after granting it, the ball goes back to the team that would have inbounded. The game would go much faster with this rule.

If a player doesn't make a legitimate effort to score a field goal when fouled, he gets only one free throw: This is one I've been harping on for two years; players like Manu Ginobili and Chauncey Billups going for fouls, just flinging it in the air, and shooting FTs because they shoot them well. Unless it's a flagrent foul, they shouldn't be rewarded for bending the rules. Give them 1 FT, and force them (mainly Billups, who seems to prefer FTs) to score FGs.

If a player, after shooting, lands on another player's foot (because said defender stepped right under him) and gets injured, defender gets one-game suspension: How often have you seen a player get a sprained ankle, and the reporter says "Look at how it happened; he landed on the defender's foot"? These people shouldn't move directly under someone after they shoot; they're asking for an injury. Suspend them, and maybe then they'll back off after the shot is away.

Oklahoma City gets... absolutely no team!: The way that NBA commissioner David Stern and Sonics 'owner' Clay Bennett have handled this situation is disgraceful. There's no way Oklahoma City should get rewarded for the collusion efforts of Stern and Bennett. Force Bennett to sell to another group of owners, and if O.K. City wants a team, earn it!

NHL

Contract four teams: It may sound like a bad business deal, but the NHL wasn't (and isn't) equipped to handle 30 teams. Reduce it to 26 (meaning four per conference) and you'd eliminate some dead weight that wasn't necessary anyway. The teams? Perhaps Columbus (never really competitive) and Phoenix (too hot for hockey) in the West and Atlanta (see Phoenix) and Florida out East.

MLB

Give the National League a DH rule, or eliminate it in the American League: Enough of this bull about "The leagues need something to be seperate" or something to that effect. There's a reason the AL has dominated the NL; it has way more offense! Most pitchers aren't good hitters, anyway. So give the NL a DH. More hitters could get a job if they did so (I know Barry Bonds must be thrilled by that prospect), and the games between the leagues would be much more competitve.

Intentional walks get you two bases, not one: It sounds silly, but the consequences would be much more intriguing; if a runner was on second with none out, it would be second and third with no outs. And that would make pitchers and managers think twice about those walks!

NASCAR

On random laps, put oil slicks on the turns!: This one is just because I want some laughs, but would you imagine how much more exciting it would be to see the drivers angle to avoid these hazards? It would certainly make the TV product worth watching!

Boxing

Give each weight class one championship belt: One of the major reasons boxing has struggled somewhat is that there are too many 'champions' in each division (at least three!). Remember back when Ali was in his prime? There was just one heavyweight title. If you unify the belts and have one undisputed champ per division, maybe the fans would recognize more of the champs.

Put it on regular TV more often: The fact that most boxing is on PPV makes it hard to know who the best fighters are. Give it a home on ESPN or some network that gives it a regular slot, and people can be exposed to it and maybe like it.

Olympics

If the site has air quality issues, it cannot host the Olympics: Hard to do, but if some of the top athletes are skipping the Olympics (like they are in Beijing), why not? Have a standby site ready in case the primary one isn't. Gives the host city more incentive to actually be ready to host.

Golf

Show us only the rounds by players who matter: I don't care if Tom Thanax hits a bogey! Show me Tiger and Phil! Only those players who people know a lot about, or those at the top of the leaderboard, should be shown.

Speaking of Tiger, give him a +2 score at the start of each major: Just so the field can think they actually have a shot to beat him.

Tennis

For Roger Federer, give him a one set deficit to overcome: See the Tiger rule.

College Football

Eliminate the BCS: You know why; it doesn't produce a legit champ. Get a playoff in order. I'm sure the know-it-alls at the NCAA offices can figure out how to make it where we have a legit champ and they keep the millions they so think they deserve.

Soccer

For five minutes per period, the teams must pull their goalies: The offenses are so abysmal, this would probably be the only thing that could increase offense. Just have your defenders try to stop them.

No more overrun (or whatever it's called) time: This one just just plain stupid, folks. Think about it; they agree to play more (even though it doesn't count in game time) and goals scored are counted as legal goals! That's absurd! Get rid of it!!!

No penalty kicks to decide a championship: Would you decide the Super Bowl on a field goal kickoff? Or the World Series on a home run derby? Hell no! So why should soccer have a title decided on penalty kicks? Play OT, you BLEEP!

All Sports

Mandatory limit on tenure for coaches/executives who consistently fail: Call it the Millen-Thomas-Baylor rule. If you consistently fail (say, 5-7 years with losing records), you must be fired. Force these lasy owners like James Dolan, William Clay Ford, and Donald Sterling to actually care about the fans than about money/their friendship with these guys.

Let's not limit it to sports. Let's do networks.

 ESPN

Mute Stepehn A. Smith and Skip Bayless (you can insert your most annoying, as well): They'd be just as effective without sound as they are with!

Allow Smith and Bill Walton to battle in a steel cage on NBA FastBreak: After it ends, at least one will have been knocked out!

CBS

Give Jim Nantz and Billy Packer a third commentator for color: Packer is as exciting as watching a car rust, and he was more effective when NBC had Al McGuire as a third wheel to balance him. So find someone to do that at CBS, as well.

NBC

Force John Madden to actually make a valid point: I don't want to hear, after a hit for example, "That was a big hit."! Give me analysis! That's what you're paid to do, isn't it?

Fox

We don't need the graphics to be kept on the screen the entire game!: Remember during the playoffs, they kept the graphics up telling us that Joe Buck and Troy Aikman were the commentators? As if we didn't know that! Remove them!

There's the list. Have any rules changes you'd like to see, no matter how trivial? Send them here. Until next time, may your party not have Chris Henry!

Today, I was reading a blog where the debate raged about whether Donnie Walsh would take over the Knicks at the end of the season. If this is true, then it will mark the end of Isiah Thomas' days as the head of the Knicks. With that in mind, let's look at him and nine other former superstar athletes who found out just how difficult it was to run a team, either as a coach, GM or both. here's the list:

10. Wilt Chamberlain: Confused? Well, here's the story; Chamberlain, having just retired from the Lakers, was named player-coach for the San Diego Conquistadors of the ABA. The Lakers blocked him from playing, so he coached one year (30-54) before deciding to stay away from coaching. It was a mere publicity stunt, and was thankfully forgotten.

9. George Mikan: The NBA's greatest player of it's early years wasn't as successful after retiring in 1956. He coached the team for 39 games in 1957-58, losing 30 of them, as the Lakers suffered their worst season in their history (even by today's standards). He later was named commissioner of the ABA in 1967, but didn't last (although he is credited for inventing the red, white and blue ball).

8. Bill Russell: Russell, like Chamberlain, couldn't win effectively without playing himself. He had that ability when coaching Boston from 1966-69, winning two titles, but his stint in Seattle (162-166 in four seasons) and Sacramento (17-41 before resigning) say he just couldn't tolerate players not playing as if their lives depended on it. On the plus side, at least he wasn't commentating during those years!

7. Ted Williams: For years before and after his retirement, Williams insisted he didn't want to manage. But manage he did in the late 60s and early 70s for the Washington Senators/Texas Rangers. At first, it was good, as he led the Senators to a winning record his first year. But things eroded quickly as Williams got into disputes with players (most notably Denny McClain) and got the ax the year after the Senators became the Rangers.

6. Wayne Gretzky: Even hockey gets into the act. This was akin to the Chamberlain move; Gretzky moved from the owner's box to the bench to drum up interest in the NHL after the strike. So far, his tenure in Phoenix has produced no playoff berths, and the most noteworthy thing to occur in town was the Rick Tocchet gambling scandal. So little for the Great One.

5. Larry Bird: As coach of the Indiana Pacers from 1997-2000, Bird was highly successful (made conference finals all three years and NBA Finals in 2000), but in fairness, Richard Harter and Rick Carlisle coached those teams. Since joining the front office in 2003, the team has steadily slipped into oblivion. His trades (Artest for Peja, the Harrington and Jackson trade) have not worked, and the talk is that Bird my leave. Home, (not so) sweet home, huh, Larry?

4. Michael Jordan: Jordan may have been the NBA's greatest player in many eyes, but as the leader of the Wizards and now the Bobcats, he leaves much to be desired. The defining move of his executive career was drafting Kwame Brown in 2001, perhaps the biggest mistake of the decade. And his comeback from 2002-04 tarnished his playing legacy. He seems to be making similar mistakes in Charlotte (the Richardson trade hasn't worked out; neither has hiring Sam Vincent as coach).

3. Elgin Baylor: The godfather of ineffective GMs, Baylor has hung on to his Clippers post because Donald Sterling has no care about whether his team is competitve. Baylor has been on the job for more than two decades, and has two winning seasons in that time. On just about any other team, he would be long gone by now. To say it best, just ask Ron Harper, who compared playing for the Clippers to being incarcerated!

2. Isiah Thomas: Thomas has been a disaster in New York, and being in the big city has just magnified how bad things are. He has given numerous players such hefty contracts, the Knicks never have room under the cap to pursue better players, and his feud with Stephon Marbury has been absolutely comical. If Walsh does take over, he'll have a lot of work to do (and will likely have to can Thomas as coach to start cleaning up). And yet, there is one person whose worse than Zeke...

1. Matt Millen: Millen is the posterchild for any team looking at ex-jocks on Tv and thinking about hiring them to run the team. In short, don't believe the packaging! Millen has the worst record of any executive in the NFL over his tenure, and the Lions, who had a winning record before he arrived, have been no better than 7-9 over his tenure. His draft picks (Joey Harrington, Charles Rogers, Mike Williams, and now Kevin Jones) have tanked, his free agents have stank, and fans have been on the verge of mutiny in recent years. Millen may not have techincally been a star athlete, but his name must be included on any list of former players who haven't been good GMs/coaches.

There the list. Are there any ex-jocks I didn't mention? Or disagree with the picks? Let me know.

We're reaching a high point in the sports calender. March Madness is raging, the NBA and NHL (for those who care about hockey) are nearing the postseason, and the NFL draft is looming. Draft not withstanding, with all these playoffs happening within a month of each other, which one gives fans a worthy champion, and provides excitement at the same time?

Look no futher! I'm here to give my take. Let's look at each relevent playoff system and see what it's strengths and weaknesses are. After that, I'll pick a winner. Let's start with the NFL:

Setup: 12 teams out of 32 reach playoffs (six per conference); division champs are seeded 1-4 based on record; top two get 1st round byes; single elimination.

Most everyone knows the setup, so let's examine it. The NFL postseason is dramatic; observe last season's upset in the Super Bowl. But these games are exceptions, not the rule. While the SB is very highly rated, more often than not, the game stinks (although the trend has been towards closer games). But the fact that any team can win the title makes it worthwhile to watch.

NBA Setup: 16 out of 30 teams make playoffs (eight in each conference); all series best-of-7

The NBA playoffs usually aren't that exciting because the best teams (at least one of the top three per conference) make the Finals. Since the NBA went to 16 teams in the playoffs in 1984, only the 1995 Rockets, the 1999 Knicks and the 2005 Mavericks made the Finals seeded lower than 3rd, and only the Rockets have won from lower than 3rd (about the Mavs, they were 4th under the old seeding rules). Another strike against the NBA is that their series drag out too long (what once took a week at most now takes two, it seems) and with the first round being best-of-7, last year's Warriors notwithstanding, upsets of top seeds arre unlikely.

NHL setup: 16 teams out of 30 make playoffs (eight in each conference); all series best-of-7

The same setup as the NBA, so you'd assume the same problems. Not true! The NHL has more of a chance for upsets i####oalie on a low seed gets hot. As seen (by some people) in previous playoffs, 8th seeds have rode a hot goalie to the Stanley Cup Finals. That makes the NHL playoffs more dramatic than the NBA playoffs (and Preakness pre-race coverage)!

MLB setup: eight teams out of 30 make the playoffs (four in each league); first round is best-of-5, all other rounds best-of-7

Baseball tried to structure it's playoffs after the NFL and NBA, but it's setup is awkward. The team with the best record in the league has no tangible advantage in it's 1st round series against the 4th seed (usually the wild card). Even with the fifth game at home, the low seed only needs to win once on the road for the possibility of an upset. While I like upsets like anybody else, the top seed needs advantages here. Otherwise, you'll end up with years like 1997, where the two teams (Florida and Cleveland) didn't look like the best, but simply the luckiest.

College football: the BCS

To explain it futher would give me (and you) a headache. The BCS is mind-numbing in how it 'computes' the two teams who play for the championship. When this system was introduced in 1998, it was supposed to produce a clear national champ, with no debate. What it has done is cause even more debate than the old system. I always find it amusing when BCS backers say "Well, we like that we're talked about (negatively). We love debate!". Wouldn't you love to have a definative champ? A playoff would accomplish that, and I guarantee you if the power conferences could split the money as well as they do for the BCS, we would have a playoff! This moral high ground ("we don't want the players to miss school") is baloney!

College basketball: March Madness

I'll admit I don't closely follow college basketball, but I do follow March Madness. The tournament makes up for what is a lackluster regular season by offering upsets and a deserving champion. There's another argument against a playoff in football; it cheapens the regular season. I'd rather have a cheap regular season than a cheap champion! Anyway, March Madness is exciting from beginning to end, and it explains how work productivity decreases around this time.

NASCAR: The chase

I'm not a NASCAR fan either, but the system for it's champion is very good (golf tried to shamelessly steal it with the FedEx Cup; big time failure). The old system made it where the champ in wiating could build a big lead, then coast to victory. Here, you must earn your title, and it makes the races more exciting.

So, there are the major playoffs. Which is the best? Here's my rankings from 7 to one:

7. College football (the BCS stinks too bad)

6. NASCAR (like the format, but the race is hard to watch)

5. NBA (The best usually win, and there's no excitement)

4. MLB (Great drama, but the best don't always win, and you need at least one great team)

3. NHL (Good drama; deserving champ)

2. NFL (Highest rated; SB is must see despite potential for dud game)

1. College Basketball (March Madness is always exciting all the way through)

There are the rankings. Have I left any relevent sports tourneys out (soccer fans, turn away now)? And what's you're favorite playoffs? Let me know; I've got to eat and watch March Madness!

Recently, I thumbed through my TV Guide, and I looked at the weekend schedule for ESPN Classic (despite the feelings about the network in general, I can tolerate it because it usually doesn't feature their most annoying scribes). While looking at it, I noticed their Saturday sched (which features a marathon of something) was a bunch of shows about... cars! Not NASCAR, mind you, just shows profiling cars. That left me thinking "Who the heck decides what's shown on this network?".

The problem isn't limited to ESPN's channels, though. Many sports channels have put on unwatchable programs that do nothing but bore the life out of me. With that in mind, I decided to make a list of the ten 'sports' (in some cases, that term is used loosely) that make me immediately change to any network without them. Here's the ranks:

10. Pool: This doesn't make the scheds as much as some of the others, but pool/billiards shouldn't be shown on TV because there's no real excitement involved here, and I watch sports to get excited and entertained. The lack of stars hurt it as well (don't give me any names).

9. Winter sports like Skiing/Snowboarding: This is the rage around this time (well, maybe January/February) created by the X Games and with the marketing blitz of people like Shaun White. Personally, when I see snow, I don't think of what kind it is; I think "D*** it; I've got to shovel again!". So anything that glorifies that is something I don't watch.

8. Auto Racing: This may get me in trouble with NASCAR fans, but I can't bring myself to sit for 3-5 hours to watch cars drive in an oval. The drivers needs athleticism and skill to manuever those cars, but that doesn't appeal to me. The sad thing is that the times NASCAR is usually shown prominently are when someone is suspected of cheating (see Carl Edwards) or a horrific crash occurs (Jeff Gordon).

7. Bowling: Bowling gets air on Sundays on ESPN and is a regular feature on Classic. The question I have is "Why???". Bowling isn't a sport for two reasons: (1) any game where you can improve by drinking beer and smoking isn't a sport (thanks, Jim Rome!), and (2) you have to rent the shoes (thanks, George Carlin!). And by the way, it's just too boring to care about.

6. Hockey: I've lightened up on hockey recently, but the TV product is abysmal. The mere fact that the NHL's games are featured on Versus and sometimes NBC is a joke. Though the league has hit upon a new idea with outdoor games, the underlying fact is that you can't be considered a major league without a major home network. Having a playoff OT game preempted by prerace coverage of the Preakness says a lot about the NHL's TV popularity right now.

5. Golf: I've even lightened up on golf, but the game is seriously flawed to me. I've maintained that golf, in smaller doses, isn't a bad idea; the problem occurs when networks like ESPN give it THE ENTIRE DAY to bore us. What have we missed if we don't see Richard Putz doesn't get TV time? Golf is the ultimate 'participation sport'; you have to play golf to like golf.

4. Tennis: Tennis' decline in America can be attributed to the lack of star power of American players; Andy Roddick is the only male most people can identify, and besides the Williams sisters, who plays on the female side (American only)? The sport is not only dominated by other countries (and despite what people think, that's a big reason why we don't watch), but by stoic players like Roger Federer. Robert Parish would have been a big star in tennis because he personifies the sport; too quiet for our fired up tastes.

3. Car Shows: Let's get back to what inspired this post: car shows on sports networks? Why can't that be handled by Bravo or E!? What so athletic about selling a car? Talking about selling a car? Holding up your hand? Car shows/auctions are not sports, are inherently unexciting, and are just a bad idea to have on TV, period.

2. Poker: This is the one that I have a major beef with; everywhere I look, poker is on the TV! ESPN and FSN feature it almost every day (it seems that way), and networks like GSN, Bravo, and the Travel Channel have shows/days with poker. There's nothing athletic about poker players! Sure, they have to have mental acumen to win money, but where's the physical aspect of it? The way you throw down that Ace of ####s? Ryan Newman, the winner of this years' Daytona 500, recently said that NASCAR drivers and poker players are athletes. I agree on NASCAR, but totally disagree with poker. Get this stuff off of sports channels and banish it permanently to GSN!!!!

1. Soccer: And yet, even poker isn't as bad as soccer. Soccer is a lot like golf; you must play it to enjoy it. Soccers' rules are beyond a joke; any 'sport' where one goal can and usually wins; where they play 'overrun' or whatever it's called time (which is agreeed upon by the teams; why would you agree to play more for free?!?); and where your Super Bowl (the World Cup) is decided on penalty kicks isn't a sport. It's akin to deciding to end the Super Bowl with a field goal kickoff or the World Series on a home run derby; it deflates the meaning of the title! Soccer tries vainly to enter the national conscience; the Beckham signing is a recent example. But the fact is that until it does something to ####e up the action (it will never happen), it will never be popular on TV here.

There's the list. What sports do you think shouldn't be on TV? And which ones on this list would you have a beef with? I will say, I almost but baseball, but I narrowly avoided doing so. Until next time, may poker and soccer stay off my TV!

I meant to get this up earlier today, but the d*** computer at school didn't let me. Anyway, I came across this clipping in the Detroit Free Press Sunday. It was an except from the Chicago Sun-Times, where Jay Mariotti (who also does ESPN's Around the Horn) discussed the Bulls trading Ben Wallace, among others. To make a long story short, Mariotti throws Wallace under the bus and praises the Bulls for dealing him. That I can understand. What he says to defend it, however, must be questioned.

In his column, Mariotti states that "Dollar for dollar, inch for inch, Ben Wallace leaves as the biggest and most uninspiring bust in the long, gnarly history of Chicago sports". He also brings up that he fought management over his headband, "brought down (the) master plan", basically got Scott Skiles fired, didn't play the defense he did in Detroit, and "was exposed as a vastly overpriced roleplayer without the comfort zone of his talented Detroit teammates". Let's review Mariotti's claims:

Brought down the master plan: Well, he may not have won you a title, but you won your first playoff series since Jordan retired. That's better than nothing.

The headband: Who cares? Seriously, Skiles should have lightened up sooner. Speaking of which...

Getting Skiles fired: The entire Bulls team was on the verge of mutiny. Joakim Noah yelled at an assistent coach right before the ax was used, and Skiles is the kind of coach who wears out his welcome after so much time. His firing was inevitable, so I can't blame Wallace.

Didn't play like a four time DPOY: Maybe, but his style of play was predicated on hustle and determination; both are in short supply. Maybe John Paxson should have noticed that when he signed Wallace before last season (we'll get to Pax in a moment).

Exposed as a vastly overpriced roleplayer outside Detroit: See above.

All these things could have been prevented if Paxson had noticed what Joe Dumars did and not signed Wallace to that megadeal. Team GMs are payed to know when a player may break down, and Pax simply didn't do his homework. But the one thing that Mariotti said that really made me laugh was calling Wallace "the biggest... bust in the long, gnarly history of Chicago sports". Really?

Let me get this straight; in a city where the Cubs, despite some good players, haven't won a title in 100 years; where the White Sox traded Sammy Sosa for George Bell; where the Blackhawks stink; and where the Bears have drafted Cade McNown, Curtis Enis and Rashaan Salaam; Wallace is the city's biggest sports bust? Give me a break!

Mariotti doesn't even mention his favorite QB, Rex Grossman, as a bust, and Grossman did nothing but make mistakes. Heck, Mariotti screamed in horror on ATH when Grossman reupped! What about McNown, taken so high, and falling so fast. What about Enis entering and exiting quickly? Or Salaam being the lastest Heisman bust? Wallace wasn't as bad as those guys were (and are). So Mariotti just blowing smoke here.

In summation, Ben Wallace's signing was a mistake because the team around him (i.e. lots of perimeter O, no post-up O) wasn't built for him. That's the fault of his GM, not of Wallace himself. That's makes him a financial mistake, but not the biggest bust in Chicago history. Maybe next time Mariotti does a column, he should check his facts a little more carefully, because if he doesn't, he could be the next Cade McNown!

First off, hopefully this post actually posts; I've had trouble getting them to do so recently. Now then, here's my rant. It's October, a time when the baseball playoffs are in full swing (by the way, great performance from Beckett, and stupid decision by Sweet Lou), the NFL season is moving swimmingly, and the NBA is right around the corner. As this takes place, I can't help but notice that the major sports networks, namely ESPN, still are trying to cram soccer and poker down everyone's throat. Why?

I've stated this before in several blogs, but soccer is and never will be a major sport here. The reasons are simple; there's no action and thus no excitement. You want a major reason why "football" is so big elsewhere? Because there are no viable alternatives in these usually poor countries! Here in America, we have good, no, better alternatives, so soccer gets (rightfully) pushed aside.

The rules for it are ridiculous enough. For starters, there's this overrun (or whatever it's called) that doesn't count in terms of gametime, but goals scored there do count. It led to perhaps the most ridiculous tie in the history of mankind during the recent Women's World Cup, where I think Japan and Mexico were playing. Japan led 2-1 after regulation ended, only to see Mexico score in the overrun to force a tie. That's bull if you ask me! And speaking of ties, doesn't that make you sick? Even the poorly run NHL found a good way to end ties; the shootout! If soccer wants more viewers, don't trot out an injured, aged David Beckham; do away with overrun and allow ties to be settled (in all regular season games) by a shootout. But for title games (World Cup) play to the bitter end. Then soccer could have some traction.

But at least soccer does exibit some athleticism. Poker's inclusion on sports TV (and many other networks) baffles me. Where's the athleticism in poker? From the players throwing down their cards on the flop?!? There is a mental aspect of the game, but in general there's nothing here that makes it a sport. Tap dancing isn't a sport; I rest my case (yeah, I know it's a George Carlin bit, but it makes sense). The game should be reserved for networks like GSN (which shows this #### and blackjack on Mondays), not FSN or ESPN.

And yet the networks are enthralled by it. So much so that ESPN allowed the baseball playoffs to go to TBS so they could show this and The Contender. Wow, what a boatload of #### that is! A non-sport and a lame reality show over the baseball playoffs? Sounds like Must-Miss TV to me! And there are no people I want to see on these shows; I don't respect anybody who looks like a blind tourist, and Sugar Ray Leonard could knock out any of these scrubs on his show... today! Where's the appeal in this?

In fact, any palor games should be left in the palor. That goes for pool, bowling, chess, checkers, Scrabble, etc. These games aren't sports! So get them off the TV! There is nothing inherently athletic about these GAMES! So enough is enough!

Am I the only one who thinks these games should be banished to Versus or not? Or do you think there's something that I left out? Let me know. I've got to go watch some real sports.

Having been under the weather recently, I didn't get the chance to post Tuesday and thus didn't have my usual list ready. Today, I thought, since there not much action in the sports world, the time is right for a little fluff piece. What sports don't translate well (in my opinion) to TV? Here's the list...

10. Swimming: You ever wonder why sports shows break in with world records in this sport? I do. Beyond Michael Phelps and the newest Playboy cover girl Amanda Beard though, what's there to like? I like to quote George Carlin when he says "Swimming isn't a sport; it's a way to keep from drowning!". That about sums up my point.

9. Lacrosse: It did provide us with perhaps the most controversial stories of the past year at Duke, but have you seen it on TV? It looks like a combo of hockey and soccer (we'll see them later). It just looks weird when you see it. Worse still, thanks in part to the Duke case, it has seen an explosion in viewership. I just wouldn't want to be seen out in the field with the stick they play with!

8. Boxing: Let me clarify here; I don't want to see mediocre boxing. When marketed properly and when legit stars are fighting, yes, boxing is watchable. When you can't identify whose fighting who and bouts end in three rounds or less, what's the point? After all of fighter 1's "I hate you!" and #2's "I hate you, too!", there needs to be substance. Boxing will never be the bell cow it was in the past because it has been run by crooks like Don King for too long for people to care.

7. Winter and most Summer Olympics: Let me say that I'm very patriotic, but unless Americans are in the running for gold in particular events, we (mening the viewers) don't care. The Winter Olympics were such a disaster for NBC in 2006 that they were easily outdrawn by American Idol. Such a thing would have been unthinkable during the Miracle on Ice. The main problem: too much time for too few events. These Olympics are streched thinner than Nicole Ritchie. As for the Summer, it's more of the same. Solution: eliminate some of the events, shorten the time devoted, and show only the events we care about. One more thing: show it live at a time we can watch. Having the results be shown before we see them just defeats the purpose.

6. NASCAR and other auto racing leagues: I know these motor sports are very popular, but think about what you're watching. It's not this simple, but you are watching men (primarily) driving around an oval for hours with not much changing over that time. Admittedly, I only watch it to see what kinds of crashes occur; those are some really spectacular crashes! And usually, that's the only tme they are mentioned on the news. As for IndyCar, enough about Danica! Did you see how the recent race was promoted? "See Danica take on Dan Wheldon"! Why not just put them in a steel cage and let them go!? It was bush league.

5. Pool: This and poker really get on my nerves; the sports channels are loaded with this stuff! Are either one of these games sports? I say no. Pool is a difficult game to master, but it still shouldn't be shown on a sports channel. Give it its own channel; perhps the Poker and Pool Channel, and show it there. Poker is the ultimate craze; even the major networks give it time (NBC and CBS have). That game requires more luck than skill, so it shouldn't be on TV. Period.

4. Tennis: This was part of the reason for this post; Wimbledon has started. I think I can speak for many Americans when I say "If the Williams sisters or Andy Roddick aren't winning, who cares?". Roger Federer is the best player, and Rafael Nadal is a good #2, but where are the McEnroes, the Borgs, the Connors, even the Agassis that made this fun to watch at one time? Everyone today talks like Tiger Woods is their speech coach, and that is what drives people away.

3. Hockey: Want to know why the NHL is down on its luck (besides being on Versus, the worst commish in sports, etc.)? Becuase it really isn't much fun to watch on TV. It's hard to see the puck, and most times, it's too low scoring for me. Like NASCAR, the only times we hear about hockey is when someone gets maimed by a cheap shot artist. The NHL needs to hire a new commish, cut back on fights, get back on ESPN (although it won't, now that it has its comfy home on Versus for a few more years, by which time it will have completely disappeared from America) and maybe then it can recover some viewers.

2. Golf: Just because Tiger is hot doesn't mean his sport is. To paraphrase Carlin (and I believe this too) golf could be fun if you could play by yourself, but you must play with other hacks, making it boring. I'll take it a step futher; you need to play golf to enjoy golf. If you spend upwards of six-eight hours watching golf, you need to get a social life. There's no imagination here; everybody does the same things on the same holes everyday. At least it isn't as bad as...

1. Soccer: The world's most watched sport is the ultimate disgrace when it comes down to it. Like golf, you must play soccer to enjoy it. It is by far the most boring game on TV. When games are ended in 0-0 ties, that's bad. When goals are scored in overrun (or whatever that is) time, that's bad. When your World Series of your sport (World Cup) is decided on penalty kicks, that's unforgivable. That's akin to ending a tied Super Bowl on a field goal kicking contest or the seventh game of the World Series with a home run derby; it cheapens the championship. In short, soccer should be banned from TV until the rules are overhauled. Until then, enough Beckham! He's not saving soccer here!

There's the list/rant. Agree? Well, I certainly can't argue. I must go now; I can't miss Wimbledon!

This is my first posting on a hockey topic, and I know the Detroit Red Wings fans will probably storm my house when they hear this, but it has to be said. Wings fans, you better  start praying that your AARP goalies can raise the bar higher than they have in the last three playoffs, where the Wings have been dispatched in the 1st round twice and in round 2 the other. You see, this team has had major problems come playoff time because (usually) they face a goalie who suddenly becomes hot (think Jean-Sebastien Gigure in 2003 or Dwayne Roloson last year). And guess what? You face Calgary's goalie (I can't spell his name right), who was the goalie of record for the second round loss in '04 that was apart of your recent failures. Like it or not, your team still has the same problems that have plagued them for the last half decade, namely a lack of scoring punch that pops up from time to time and bites you where the sun don't shine. But Dominik Hasek is just one step away from the retirement home, and Hasek and Chris Osgood scare the hell out of me! Not only that, but they are in a conference where their opponent could have been a legit contender to win the East! If they win this series, they would have to beat at least two 100 point teams (and likely a third) to win the Stanley Cup! I have a bad feeling that they are doomed to face another hot goalie (whoever that is) and fall way short once again. But hey, at least the regular season was fun! And there's always next year.