What to do about Katie.

Why not sports?

CBS News has tried everything to get someone, anyone, to watch the CBS Evening News With Katie Couric. Nothing works. Which raises the question-Would you continue to watch the NFL if Katie was doing play-by-play? Or sitting between Howie and Terry before the games?

This is why football is America's #1 sport. Some are saying basketball is becoming the world's (and America's game) but I doubt Mr. Naismith's game could survive Katie. The NFL and college football could. It wouldn't be easy, it wouldn't be fun, but we'd still watch football. With the sound off, but that's just common sense.

Flip side. Couric joins the NBA and I'm out of here. Couric replaces #### Vitale? I don't care if it's Duke and Carolina undefeated with Roy WIlliams promising to donate body parts to science with no anesthesia on live TV if they lose. I would not watch her in a bar. I would not listen in a car. I would not watch her on TV. I would not watch her, watch and see. (Oh wow, man, the Seuss flashbacks are starting again).

I would, however, watch Couric paired in the studio with Charles Barkley. You can just see the disgusted look on Sir Charles' face. "Phoenix? You think Phoenix is going to shut down Duncan? You have to be out of your mind." ($50 says he's make her cry). It's one thing to interview the leader of Hamas, quite another to face down the big guy.

Baseball might survive Her Royal Perkiness (HRP). Nobody really listens to the announcers on TV games. It is a very relaxing sport and the voices of the announcers are just mild background noise. They could be saying anything.

For example:

"That one's just a little outside to Jeter. 2-2. Say, did you ever figure out who the blonde was in your room this morning? That one's a little high. 3-2. I've haven't seen that much white powder in one place since they hired those kids from State College to line the bases, that's a bouncer to Renteria, 6-4, two down and Abreu coming up."

There might actually be a place in baseball for Couric. I'm thinking the hamster wheel contests between innings of minor league games. Doing the evening news? Dullsville. Heels over head in a plastic bubble? That I would watch.

CBS should actually consider trading her to the Versus Network to do NHL games. She could be there right now for all we know. How would anyone find out? You wouldn't know she was missing from CBS because nobody is watching. You wouldn't know she was doing NHL games for the same reason. If an anchor falls in the forest and nobody is watching, would it make a sound?

Soccer could work, but only if she learns Spanish and goes on Univision. NASCAR is probably not an option, but the interview with Tony Stewart would be interesting. The Pro Bowler's Tour? That might actually work.

The moral of the story? Count your blessings. As bad as sports announcers are, they aren't network news anchors. So here's to you Skip, Charles, ####, Howie, and Tim. You aren't much, but you sure beat the alternative.

Memo to On-Air Staff:

The recent unfortunate remarks by Kelly Tilghman, suggesting the rest of the PGA take Tiger Woods out and "#### him in a back alley", point out the need for clear guidelines as to what unscripted remarks you may make. Remember, all unscripted remarks must now be submitted at least 24 hours in advance.

We thought you would be pleased to know Kelly is almost done with her suspension, and looking forward to returning. During her time off she has been helping us perfect a new device which will deliver a low voltage shock when any of a list of seventy-three potentially racially charged words begins to be formed by an announcer. When Kelly returns we ask that you not make loud noises near her or comment on her new hairstyle. (Thanks in advance!)

A few helpful pointers:

You may suggest the rest of the PGA players attack John Daly with a steak knife. Since his wife already has, it would not be inappropriate. Suggesting the rest of the field take him to an all you can eat buffet, leaving him there until he explodes or the restaurant declares bankruptcy, would be considered in poor taste.

In dealing with Tiger Woods greater sensitivity is required. You may suggest that he be taken by his competitors to a fondue restaurant where he might burn his tongue on hot cheese. Since no non-Caucasian has ever seen the inside of a fondue restaurant, no offense can be taken. However, Woods describes himself as "Cablinasian", so we are trying to clear this remark with a representative of that community. So far we have been unsuccessful in locating one.

Suggesting the field should have Fuzzy Zoeller attacked by waves of dwarfs with small, pointy sticks is not appropriate. We suggest you merely advocate Zoeller be attacked with pointy sticks, leaving all references to height and size out of your comments. It is then to the judgement of individual golfers to determine what sort of pointy stick to use.

Avoid suggesting Phil Mickelson be clubbed to death with a nine iron. Your credibility will be undermined, as even novice golfers understand the niblet should be used when beating Micklesons.

We would prefer you not suggest golfers allow Rorby Sabbatini die a slow and painful death by means of leaving his foot in his mouth. In this case, unlike that of Woods, it is entirely proper to suggest he be taken into a back alley and lynched.

Do not use the term "cute as a button" in describing Annika Sorenstam, even though she is. This term originally was used to describe the button quail, a soft and fluffy gray bird. Since cuteness is not a natural defense, it was quickly hunted to extinction. We do not want viewers to believe the rest of the LPGA field wants Sorenstam eliminated in this manner, despite widely reported rumors to that effect.

Excercise caution when reading biographical information prepared by Golf Channel interns. These young people sometimes become jealous of the on-air personnel and insert phony items into your folders. For clarification. Vijay Singh was never the lord high emperor of Fiji. In the early 1960's Arnold Palmer did not head the seven organized crime families east of the Mississippi. Finally, Charles Howell III is NOT the illegitimate son of Thurston Howell the III and a movie actress named Ginger Grant.

Being a member of the on-air team at The Golf Channel carries with it great responsibilities. You tell the stories of men and women most of the public hasn't heard of and could care less about. You bring the glory of the game of golf in to the homes of the 3,452 white guys with incomes over $500,000 annually who still believe a Buick is the coolest car on the road.

Don't let us down.

Bob Woolmer went down hard, just like the Pakistani cricket team he coached.  The Jamaican hotel room he was found in had blood on the floors.  A bone in his throat was broken.  A police investigator said he suspects more than one man would have been involved to subdue Woolmer.  He was a big man, in cricket and in life.

Cricket exists in parts of the world that don't know or care about baseball.  In the same way soccer is football to the world, cricket inspires great passion.  And now, violence.

Bob Woolmer coached Pakistan's team in international competition for five seasons, the last just ended with a surprising loss to Ireland.  Rumors are that among the most surprised were gamblers, who wager enormous sums on cricket's World Cup in the way Americans bet on March Madness or the Super Bowl.

The police interviewed and finger printed his players one day, got DNA samples the next.   It's been a bad year for the team, sponsored by President Pervez Musharraf.  Two players were suspending in a doping scandal, then the team forfeited a match to Britain after being accused of doctoring the ball.

Woolmer was well liked in cricket circles both in England (where he had been a star player) and in Pakistan, making his murder all the more surprising.  This is, naturally, big news in Pakistan and wherever cricket is popular.  To put the events in context, it is what it would be like here if Joe Torre was murdered after losing to the Tigers in the playoffs and police were photographed interviewing Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriquez.

Regarded as an honest man, Woolmer had proposed to write a book on cricket, including allegations about gambling and doping.  He was upset recently to discover that galley proofs on a book he was working on (which may or may not have been the one he had discussed) turned up missing.

We assume that however complicated "real life" is, that sports are what they seem to be.  When we watch March Madness we don't stop to ponder every odd looking pass or missed layup in the context of whether the games are on the level.  

Consider this.  Anywhere sports generates passion it also generates interest, interest gamblers turn into enormous profits.  Every dollar bet on sports is an enducement to change the dynamics of the game, to change outcomes by bribes and threats.  It happened to baseball in the 1919 World Series, it brought down New York City college basketball in the 50's, and put Pete Rose out of baseball.  In 2004 the NCAA surveyed college basketball players 388 players anonymously and found that 17 had taken money to play poorly in a game.

It's possible a Pakistani fan (and many were very upset with the loss to Ireland) killed Woolmer, or even that his death is unrelated to his role as coach.  But the death of Woolmer may be another line crossed on the path to gambling putting an even harder grip on sports.  And what happened in Jamaica could easily happen here to a player or coach. 

Alex, I'll take things that have nothing to do with sports for $200.

Sports Illustrated has always had a social conscience. When women were oppressed by having to wear clothes, SI struck back and gave us the swimsuit issue. Now they have brought us an inconvenient cover story, complete with a photo shopped picture of Dontrelle Willis standing in a flooded Dolphin Stadium. Inside the issue, four pages of dire warnings about the destruction of sports as we know it thanks to climate change.

The SI cover was enough to make me put down "The Economist" article on Kobe Bryant and turn over to see the Oprah Winfrey special report on the Cubs pitching rotation. Of course, those didn't really happen because you don't read "The Economist" for the sports reports or watch Oprah for her insights on shoulder injuries. And you don't read Sports Illustrated for environmental coverage. Well, actually not even environmental coverage, more like "War of the Worlds" meets "The Wide World of Sports" meets "The Weather Channel".

Environmentalists have done, and continue to do, great things for humanity. If you're reading this while looking out at a city skyline not a hazy shade of smog gray you can thank an environmentalist. Clean drinking water, species protection, wetlands conservation. All thanks to the green influence on science, business, and politics.

So where does "Sports Illustrated" fit in, and what do they add to the debate? Surprisingly little, actually. Most of the article is a dry recap of information you've probably read elsewhere, reduced to almost cartoonish generalization.

We learn from the article that the cancellation of a ski team practice in the US because of heavy snow, and the cancellation of a European practice for lack of snow are both caused by man made climate change. When a game is rained out it's because of global warming, and when it doesn't rain in Texas and football practice is called off it's also due to global warming. The Super Dome was attacked by a hurricane on global warming's version of steroids, and the Super Bowl put a million extra pounds of carbon dioxide in the air due to people travelling to the game.

Finally, in a paragraph of breathtaking incoherence, we are told that sports are "the last of the semi-pagan calandars we keep" (although I suspect there are a few people who squirreled away the SI Swimsuit one).

And so it goes, backed by a raft of quotes from a cross country skiing, author and activist. It goes without saying that skiiers are experts on climate science, mainly because they aren't.

That the climate is changing is undeniable. The only constant in climate studies is that the climate is constantly changing. The degree and cause are rightly subject to scientific study and debate. But does that debate belong in a sports magazine? To the extent that the issue has become politicized, the SI article amounts to little more than a partisan broadside. Does it offer compelling evidence? Hardly. Does the article have the power to pursuade? Not likely.

What's the point, then? The article follows a comment about NASCAR using unleaded fuel with a musing on the importance of converting "Joe Sixpack" to the cause. That would be us sports fans, presumably. Mindless sheep waiting to be lead to enlightenment by morally superior cross country skiiers.

I dare say many, if not most, sports fans care about political, economic, social, and environmental issues that are complex and often intellectually and emotionally draining. We don't retreat from the real world when we come to sports, but by and large we check those cares at the door. Sports is a refreshing break from a world increasingly divided by partisan passion.

So, to Dontrelle Willis I say this. Stay away from flooded infields and head inland when you become a free agent (Houston is lovely in the summer and quite dry). And to "Sports Illustrated" I offer this advice. Read everything you can on climate change on both sides of the argument, think about it carefully, and the next time you run into a cross country skier talk to him. About skiing.

From the "a plague on all their houses" department:

Duke University President Richard Brodhead today called on Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong to withdraw from the case of three Duke lacrosse players charged with rape in connection with an incident earlier this year.  Brodhead said Nifong's divisive public statements and decision to drop the charge bring into question the remaining charges of kidnapping and sexual offense.

Brodhead's response to the rapidly unravelling cases against the players mirrors the reaction of the public in general.  Unfortunately, all sides in the case want a situation where heroes form a line on one side and villians the other.  It seems obvious there is little evidence to substantiate the charges, and just as obvious that the lacrosse team was a male version of "girls gone wild".  It should not be forgotten that at least one player threw gasoline on the fire by using highly charged racial rhetoric in an e-mail just after the event.

In light of Brodhead's new found interest in due process, it would be a good idea to look back at the statement issued at the time by the executive committee of the academic council at his instigation.  The text will come first, in the original geek, and then a translation into English.

"The following statement is based on the Executive Committee of the Academic Council’s best overall sense of that meeting, and it is ECAC’s attempt to convey some of the intensity and cogency of faculty responses -- not only to events unfolding around the March 13/14th episode involving members of the lacrosse team, but also to the host of related concerns about the undergraduate experience at our school that this episode has made especially and painfully evident."

'we're mad as heck at these young punks.'

"We recognize clearly that the legal process relating to this incident and any individuals who may be named in it must and should take its own due course; charges of this grave nature belong in the jurisdiction of governmental and not university educational authorities. That said, and aside from any charges ultimately emerging from the prosecutorial investigation, it is the sense of the faculty that we have reached the point where a critical mass of information and witness concerning lacrosse team behavior compels a comprehensive inquiry into the program, its culture, its staff, and its effects on the daily lives of our students and our neighbors."

OK, we know there will have to be a trial, but we already know who these thugs are and what they are about.

"Across college campuses, already volatile issues of race, gender, and class privilege intersect negatively with the powerful social reaches of sports culture and alcohol use on campus. The events of the past weeks have occasioned collective reflection and collective anguish on the part of the Duke faculty. The anguish comes from faculty who already felt too familiar, by experience and by expertise, with the taxing terms and conditions of campus life for many segments of our student body."

Now, we aren't saying they actually own white robes and have burned crosses in people's yards, but they are wealthy white kids so you do the math.

"The problem now in front of us, individually and as a collective body of teachers, presents vast challenges. Not the least of these challenges concerns the formulation of a response that will be both substantive and consequential when relevant structural realities and cultural practices far exceed the reach of any one university. What we need now is to determine which aspects of our local manifestation of the mix of race, gender, sexuality, sport, and alcohol in undergraduate culture can be addressed effectively by the means available to us as an academic community -- not in an attempt to curtail social life on campus, but in order to promote justice, a more respectful social and educational environment, and real conviviality."

One wonders how many words it takes the Duke faculty to say 'supersize it' when going through a drive through window. In short, the committee is rubbing it's hands together gleefully contemplating how much group think they can collectively inflect on the student body in the name of reform.

"Regardless of developments in the narrower legal situation, or in a review of the lacrosse program, we as faculty need to develop richer forms of attentiveness to the lives and hopes of our students."

Our students are rudderless, drunken, ships careening from one set of rocks to another with only a vague sense of ethical conduct.   Who knew?

As you can see from the statement, Duke University itself was engaged in exactly the same sort of rush to judgement that Brodhead now condemns in Nifong.  Worse still, the faculty pushed it's way to the front of the mob in order to advance their own idealogically driven agendas.  You can't read the statement without a clear idea that the faculty believed the accuser and thought the players were guilty.  This before an investigation was even fully underway.

Now, I have little sympathy for the lacrosse players.  I question whether the money their parents have spent educating a number of these young men shouldn't have been set aside to pay for future attorneys fees for divorces, sexual harrasment suits, and drunk driving convictions.   But  the parents sent their children to be educated by a lumpen mass of intellectually vacant posers in exchange for being able to put a "Duke Parent" bumper sticker on their Lexus SUV's so perhaps they have gotten some measure of deserved comeuppence.

So, let's hope Nifong quickly grabs the skids of the last helicopter out of this mess and withdraws from the social Vietnam he created in Durham.  The accuser can exit stage left.  The clowns, jugglers, and drunken lacrosse players stage right.  May it be a cold, cold day in the long distant future before we see any member of this particular circus on our sports page again.