There's a trend that has been picking up steam ever since the release of Jose Canseco's book Juiced.  The trend that I am referring to is the trend of Congress sticking it's nose in both professional and collegiate sports...both places it doesn't belong.

Since Congress has developed this interest in sports, it has wasted millions of dollars and weeks of time looking into sports and trying to find ways to "fix" them.  The problem with this is that Congress has achieved nothing in its failed attempts at cleaning up the various sports.

For example, Major League Baseball has a steroids problem.  That has been quite obvious from the massive increase in batting statistics over the past five to ten years.  While MLB did nothing to correct this issue (and rightfully so..."Chicks dig the long ball"), Congress made a futile attempt at cleaning up the game (at Bud Selig's request).  All that came of that attempt was a mile long list of names that may or may not have used steroids.  Those names were mostly provided by a man who was facing thirty years of prison if he didn't cooperate with the investigators.  Not exactly the most reliable of sources.

And what has happened to baseball as a result of Congress' time and money?  Absolutely nothing.  Attendance numbers are right on par with (if not exceeding) previous attendance numbers.

Way to go Congress.

How about college football?  Three representatives from the House want Congress to take a look at the bowl system and are pushing for a playoff.  Nevermind the fact that these three representatives are from the states of Hawaii, Georgia, and Idaho...the home states of the three schools that feel they were jilted by the BCS.  This is a big deal for these guys.  They think that a college football playoff is the biggest issue in our country right now.

But even if Congress is swayed enough to waste time on such a moronic topic (compared to the other issues our country is facing), nothing will come of it.  Nothing.

Congress needs to take a hint, or several, and start focusing on the real issues.  How about we focus on getting our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  How about we focus on our fledgeling healthcare system, or the incredibly high gas prices.  These are the issues that Congress needs to take a look at.  Not sports.

Congress, get out.

On the first day of the men's NCAA basketball tournament, I came across a column posted on the NBA front page of Fox Sports by Charley Rosen.  In the column, Charley Rosen was discussing why he preferred the NBA over college basketball.

Of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but the arguments that Rosen was using for his preferrence were completely off-base.  Allow me to list (and rebut) some of those arguments:

1.  By and large, college teams are over-coached. Offenses are mostly ineffective. Defenses are primitive. Substitutions are frequently gratuitous and have little connection with matchups. And the sideline antics of too many coaches are over-the-top.

1a.  Offenses are ineffective?  Are you kidding, Charley?  A well-run offense in college basketball is one of the most fluid and artistic experiences one can find.  I understand that there are some teams...Memphis...who choose to not run an offense at all and just sprint up and down the court.  But when watching the likes of Wisconsin, one cannot help but be amazed by the Badgers' cerebral breaking down of the opposing defense that ultimately leads to points.

When one watches an NBA game, there is no offense.  It is typically one guy with the ball and four others standing around not moving.  There is more movement out of a snail in a 24 hour period than there is out of an NBA team.  But more on NBA offense later.

As far as the defenses go, see:  Wisconsin.  I hate to keep using Wisconsin as an example, but if you want to see a clinic of fundamental basketball, you watch Wisconsin.  They play strong offense, stout defense, and are consistently one of the top 15 teams in the country.  Meanwhile, NBA defense is as non-existent as their offensive movement.  I cannot tell you how many times I have watched a ballhandler make a move towards the basket and the man guarding him either stands up straight to allow his pass or starts running downcourt in hopes of an easy fastbreak bucket off of a missed shot.

2.  The only allure during the tournament is the constant threat of dramatic upsets. But except for bettors and alumni, who really cares?

2a.  Apparently everyone cares.  March Madness is the only event where even the anti-social nerd in accounting gets to talk trash with the rest of the office.  And it's not all about trash talking or who does a better job at filling out their bracket.  My parents and I go to a local sports bar on the first day of the tournament so we can enjoy all four of each cycle's games (for the record, no one does this for the NBA playoffs....or even the finals).  In games such as the first round's Duke/Belmont battle, everyone in the establishment had a rooting interest.  Yes, some wanted the upset to be completed by Belmont, but just as many were rooting for Duke (either for their brackets or because they are a devout fan).

3.  Meanwhile, the skill level of NBA players continues to astound me. The NBA coaches and refs (ugh!) are far superior to their college equivalents. Pro offenses actually create spaces and angles that lead directly to shots. Pro defenses actually squeeze spaces and shut down angles that lead directly to misses.

3a.  There is no disputing the skill level of the NBA is superior to that of the NCAA.  Reason being:  the NBA only takes the best of the NCAA.  The same way the NCAA only takes the best of the world's high schoolers.  That is a pathetic argument on Rosen's part and one would expect better out o####lobally-syndicated columnist and author.

I can, however, dispute the idea that the coaches and refs are superior.  When given the talent that Phil Jackson was given with both the 90's Bulls and the early 00's Lakers, he would be viewed as a hack if he didn't win championships.  Even the likes of Stan Van Gundy could have coached either of those teams to championships.  And it is easier to lock up somewhat of a dynasty in the NBA because you maintain your players for many years, whereas college coaches get their best players for one, maybe two years at most.  They have other players for a maximum of four years.  Thusly, these coaches are forced to constantly reload.  It makes the jobs that Coach K, Tom Izzo, and John Calipari have done at their respective institutions that much more amazing.

And the officials...the officials are quite possibly the worst part of the NBA.  There are more uncalled travels in the NBA in a single season than there are in five seasons of NCAA basketball...but that is because NCAA officials actually have the guts to call a travel.  And lets not forget that little gambling scandal the NBA seemed to brush under the rug.

An argument that Rosen failed to acknowledge is that the fans at college basketball games actually give a damn.  Students strip down and paint themselves in school colors, the arena rocks when the opposing team attempts free throws, the band plays the school fight song at every intermission.  Those who go to NBA games rarely have a rooting interest and are typically there because they had nothing better to do.  The arena's are dead except for when the sound system blares some overly-synthesized, bass-ridden hip hop track.

When it comes down to it, the college basketball game is more funamentally sound, more entertaining, and a much bigger draw than the NBA has even hoped for since Jordan hung up the jersey (the second time).  That is why CBS shells out BILLIONS of dollars for the exclusive broadcasting rights to every tournament game and advertisers view the first round of the tournament and the final four/championship weekend as a second Super Bowl opportunity.  The NBA is a joke of its former self and that is why I, along with most everyone else in the country, choose to watch the college game.

Sorry Charley, but the NBA is only good as a sleep aid.

College football fans all over the country (if the country were only the state of Georgia) are crying for a Division 1 college football playoff.  Of course Georgia is pleading for a playoff because they weren't included in this season's national championship game.  If they were included, it is extremely doubtful that anyone would hear a word out of UGA president, Michael Adams.  But he has now taken it upon himself to push for this playoff, saying that the BCS has become a beauty contest and that it is in the best interest of college football's integrity to implement a playoff system.

But here's your problem with a playoff system:  a playoff does not crown the best team in the country.  It crowns the hottest team in the country.

Think about it.  Midway through UGA's schedule this year, did anyone view UGA as one of the top teams in the country?  The correct answer is no.  They were 4-2 at this point with a loss to South Carolina and a drubbing at the hands of Tennessee.  But then the Dawgs got hot...really hot.  And they ran off six straight wins against the likes of national powerhouses Vanderbilt, Troy (as in Alabama, not Troy as in Southern Cal), and Kentucky.  They were then pitted against a wildly overmatched Hawaii team that stood very little chance at even putting up a fight against a mainland team from a BCS conference.

Or how about we look at the other white hot team in college football:  USC.  Six games into their schedule, not a single person with any knowledge of college football thought of the Trojans when thinking about the national title picture, and rightfully so.  They had lost to a 41 point underdog in Stanford...AT the Coliseum.  And to add insult to injury, they lost again three weeks later to Oregon in Eugene.  But the Men of Troy turned it around, running off four straight against less than spectacular opponents and got a Rose Bowl bid to play Illinois, another team that had no business being in a BCS game.

There is no doubt that if there was a playoff, UGA and USC would be the odds on favorites to win it all.  But neither of these teams was the best team in the nation.  They were just the hottest teams in the nation.

Despite the national hatred for the BCS, it does its job.  Since its inception, there has been only two instances where the team emerging as the winner could legitimately be disputed.  In 1998, Tennessee was the best team out there.  The same can be said for Florida State (1999), Oklahoma (2000), Miami (2001), Ohio State (2002), USC (2005), Florida (2006), and LSU (2007).  Things got a little messy in 2003 and 2004, but for the most part, the BCS has gotten it right.

And while some teams obviously did not belong in the extraneous bowl games (i.e. Hawaii, Illinois, and Kansas), the BCS got the championship game right.  It may not have been the most exciting game of the season, but Ohio State and LSU were the best teams when looking at the entire body of work, not just the second half of the year (or in USC's situation, the last four weeks of the year).

The only allure to a playoff is some of the matchups that can be worked out.  Take this year:  if you took the BCS conference champions, and two remaining highest ranked teams from the BCS rankings, the first round would look like this:

1. Ohio State vs. 8. West Virginia
4. Oklahoma vs. 5. UGA
3. Virginia Tech vs. 6. Missouri
2. LSU vs. 7. USC

There are some monster matchups there with the potential for even bigger second round matchups.  But you also run the risk of a team running the table that is not the best team in the country.  That is what the purpose of the postseason is:  to determine the undisputed best team in the country.

When it comes down to it, a playoff just doesn't do that.

Every year it's the same old thing.  "Oh, this guy's the next Barry Sanders.  This guy's the next Barry Bonds.  This guy is the next Michael Jordan."  The problem with making these statements is that there will never be another Barry Sanders, there will never be another Barry Bonds, and there will never be another Michael Jordan.

Of course, there will be some people that will come close.  Reggie Bush is getting recognized as the next Sanders, and I'm sure someone out there is likening a hot young Triple A prospect to Barry Bonds.  And then there is the Michael Jordan statement.

Right now, everyone says that the battle for the next Michael Jordan is between Kobe Bryant and Lebron James.  However, it is unfair to even compair these three men in the same sentence.  Michael Jordan was untouchable.  No one could stop him, and that was when the NBA was better than it is today.

Michael Jordan played every aspect of the game.  He had the physical and skills portion of the game down pat.  He may not have been the best physically or technically, but what he lacked in those aspects, he more than made up for with his mental and emotional skills.  Michael Jordan could (and would) will his teammates to play at a higher level than basketball experts said they could.  Jordan got into his opponents' heads and wreaked havoc.  And of course, there was that unstoppable spin and fade away jump shot.

In essence, the only person that could stop Michael Jordan was Michael Jordan.  That is hardly the case with Kobe and Lebron.  Phoenix proved that in Game 7.  Everyone argues now that Kobe quit and that is why he only had one point in the second half.  If he did quit, then he doesn't have the mental and/or emotional portions of the game down.  In all of Michael Jordan's many years, I can not recall one instance where it was obvious he gave up.  Where he was not competing at one-hundred percent.

There is no doubting that Kobe has the physical and technical skills to compete with Jordan, but to be a complete player and to be "The Next Jordan," he needs to control his emotions and not let a clothesline from an opposing player get to him.

Lebron, on the other hand, plays a different style game than Jordan did.  Lebron is a bigger and more physical player (he has a two inch height advantage as well as 40 pounds on Jordan).  Don't get me wrong, Lebron is a special player.  He's a smart young guy who carries himself well on and off the court.  He makes his teammates better and knows how to take a game over.

But Lebron is still raw talent.  There are some inconsistencies to his game that can be fixed (scary that he's so good and can get better, isn't it?).

In the end, there will not be another Michael Jordan.  He is an athlete that will live on as a legend, much like Babe Ruth does for baseball.  Kobe and Lebron will definitely have very special careers and will be remembered for years to come, but they will not match Jordan.  No one can, and no one will ever match him.

Ah yes, it's that time of the year.  That time of the year when the NBA almost comes close to mattering.  But not quite.  It's at this time of the year that I might have the stamina to sit down and watch an entire NBA game.  As any casual NBA watcher can imagine, it's a very tiring event.

However, while watching my one NBA game of the year, I noticed something was missing.  And it was the same thing that I noticed last year in my one viewing experience, and the year before.  There is still no defense being played.

'Tis an amazing phenomenon.  I watch hours of college basketball games a year.  And even though the defense in the college ranks is suspect at times, there is evidence of defense being played the majority of the time.  But once an NBA contract is signed, these college kids that were once amazing defenders morph into the brainless lugs that stand flat-footed and stationary when on the defensive end of the court.

Is there some sort of clause the NBA contract stating that defense is not allowed?  Sure, one could argue that fans want to see high-scoring affairs where impossible dunks and behind the back passes occur every trip down the court, but a game where defense is played to perfection and any points scored were truly earned is a thing of beauty.

Kobe scored eighty points in a game this year...EIGHTY POINTS!  That is beyond ridiculous.  I will give Kobe his due though, he is a great athlete with amazing skill.  However, if there was any defense being played in that game, he should have been limited to no more than half of that point total.

And I understand that there are guys that you just can not stop.  In Dennis Rodman's book Bad As I Wanna Be, there is a section where he discussed defending the Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan era.  According to Rodman, the gameplan was always "Stop Scottie (Pippen) because Michael will get his points one way or another."  There was no reason to attempt to stop Jordan because Jordan was unstoppable.  And there is a hint of that in Bryant, but eighty is stretching that.

The NBA is supposed to be composed of the best, most complete basketball players in the world.  But it has turned into the best offensive-minded basketball players in the world.  They say that defense wins championships.  That's not exactly the case in the NBA though.  In the NBA, it's the team that is lucky enough to face the worst-shooting opponents that wins the championship.

That is what I feel like everytime I get in the same old debate with some stubborn Nascar fan.  What debate is that?  Jr. or Gordon?  Johnson or Stewart?  Chevy or Ford?

No, the debate that I am talking about is whether or not Nascar is a sport.

As is the case in any debate, the focus must be defined.  So what distinguishes and activity from a sport?  Dictionary.com defines sport as "Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively."

That said, the most physically demanding aspect of Nascar has nothing to do with the drivers, but rather the men that jump the wall during pit stops.

Of course, the pronascar side talks about the high speeds, the stamina required to drive that long in those conditions, the amount of beers it takes as a fan to make it through a mind-numbingly boring race.

Wait, that last one was one of my arguments.  Regardless, there is no athleticism involved in making two thousand left turns in a day...and Nascar drivers still have yet to fully master that.

Sure the speeds nearing 200 miles per hour and the G-Force involved thanks to the banked turns may make those left turns more difficult to make than the left turn you make into the neighborhood McDonald's.  But Nascar drivers don't have to deal with oncoming traffic, or that jerk who insists it still is not dark enough to necessitate him turning on his headlights.  Not to mention that if a right turn is thrown into the mix, the race turns into a demolition derby and the last driver standing is deemed the winner.

All that I am saying is that the car does the athletic part of Nascar, and when a machine is doing that work, we cannot rightfully say that Nascar drivers are athletes.  Has anyone taken a look at Tony Stewart lately?

But Nascar fans, do not fret.  For I have an idea to propose that could catapult Nascar into the realm of sports, and make it worthy of being on Fox Sports and ESPN.  We shall take other activities vying for the title of "sport" and combine them with Nascar to make it a supersport.  I have already made contact with the World Series of Poker and the World Curling Federation.  Both are on board for this massive merger.

I'm sure Greg Raymer will be scared away by Jeff Gordon's "Rainbow Warrior" poker face.  And I can not wait to see some of the accidents caused due to curling stones sliding across the track.  Because in the end, isn't that what Nascar is all about?