Let's get something straight here, folks. For those who don't remember, Mr. Bud Selig was in command during the '94 strike, the subsuquent home run explosion of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa in '98, and everything since. Blame Barry if you must, but the fact of the matter is that Selig and his cronies allowed all of this to go on. And in a fitting display, Selig had his hands in his pockets when Bonds hit #755. No one should be surprised by this. It's the same place his hands were when all of this started. Same s***, different year.

Glad you a-holes ran Faye Vincent out of office.

How does that egg taste, Bud? Get used to it. There's lots more where that came from.

In the past week, we were hit with another perfect example of why Pete Rose has yet to sniff Cooperstown. Depending on our allegiances, we sports fans will put up with just about anything. Michael Vick still has his supporters, as do Pacman Jones and Barry Bonds. But blindside the American public with a revelation that the playing field wasn't level, and that we were fooled in the process? Different story, indeed. When we learn that we put stock into a competition where the outcome may have been unduly and unnecessarily influenced, we don't take it too well. Once a shred of credibility is attached to a falsified outcome, conspiracy theories run amok. Whether it's a fixed game or the JFK assassination, they are there, although most are simply too far-fetched, too over the top, or can be made to sound far too convenient. What fueled the fire of the problem, of course, is that doubt was created in the first place.

 At his recent press conference regarding Tim Donaghy, David Stern appeared as we'd never seen him before; a defendant painted into a corner on the witness stand, rather than the confident-some would say over confident-head of the NBA. Stern has been lauded often for his achievements as commissioner, though one has to wonder how difficult it must have been to take over a league that had already had the kick-start of a lifetime courtesy of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, who were entering their prime, and was about to add a soon-to-be-superstar named Michael Jordan in Stern's first season.

 Critics of Stern would cite things such as a sometimes arrogant and condescending manner, (witness his interview with Dan Patrick on ESPN radio during the Suns-Spurs series, which, in a classic bit of irony, came roughly a week after Donaghy officiated game three), his staunch position that his officials were the most well-trained, best qualified, and most highly monitored in all of sports, and his tendency to sound as though he was lecturing us feeble-minded basketball fans. And those critics wouldn't be too far off on any of these.

 Without a doubt, NBA basketball is the most difficult to officiate of all the major team sports. Nearly every call, from traveling to three seconds to almost every foul, is a judgment call, and being an NBA referee is an unenviable task indeed. However, Stern's unconditional defense, or should I say outright praise, of his referees in the past has grated on many. Especially since the product on the floor has not measured up, in the opinion of the vast majority of fans. And when one takes into consideration his decisions regarding the situations of some of his officials in recent history, i.e., the cash-for-first-class-tickets and some bouts with tax evasion, his track record suddenly becomes very ordinary. I'm all for giving folks a second chance, but since Stern tried to convince us ad nauseum that his league's standards were much higher, one has no choice but to come to the conclusion that Stern did not meet his own verbalized standards. On the credibility scoreboard, he needs a slump-buster.

 Stern said in his press conference, "I feel betrayed by what happened on behalf of the sport, regardless of how protective I've been." Two observations come to mind. First, at least he admitted he's been protective. We all knew it, and he's now acknowledging it. That's a start. Secondly, he is not the only one who feels betrayed. NBA fans do too. And when all is said and done, we are the ones who dictate the success of his league. With the finals ratings spiraling downward, Mr. Stern cannot afford to misstep on this one. Since some cynics will say, for example, that Mr. Stern is more of the problem rather than the solution, since it may come out and be verified that Donaghy had prior gambling issues that the league knew about, Stern is now in a zero tolerance position.

 Stern's new ball didn't work out very well. Neither did his own zero tolerance answer to players, coaches and in some cases owners, who complained about the quality of officiating, only to have Stern respond with quicker technical fouls being called and even stiffer fines for the critics. His "best officials in all of sports" never were, and it was downright laughable that he consistently preached otherwise. Mr. Stern is living in our world now, his attention diverted towards trying to figure out how to fix a game that once was great, (and that a great game was only once fixed?), rather than trying to convince us that all is well, and how dare we infer otherwise. And if the trade off is his paying less attention to what his players wear off the court and more to the legitimacy of the game on the court, I will gladly take it. If another trade off is the ceasing of his convoluted view of the quality of officiating for a consistent, unbiased application of the rule book, I'll take that too. In a heartbeat. It's what we've all been yearning for all along.

 We may learn down the road that the problem runs deeper than "A rogue, isolated criminal," as Stern said in reference to Donaghy in the press conference. He also said that it was limited to only one, as far as he knew. But a couple months ago he would have STERN-ly admonished us for implying that there was even one doing it. For the sake of you and the league, Mr. Stern, I certainly hope you're right this time. The ball--the classic leather version hopefully--is in your court. Now tap into those millions of dollars in fines you've collected and address an upgrade in officiating. It's unfortunate it's taken this dilemma for you to do so, but at least the funds will be put to good use.  

Thanks for taking the time to read.

As is the case every year, there has been an abundant amount of words spent on how difficult this year's U.S. Open will prove to be. Some are calling this year's site, the Oakmont Country Club, the toughest Open venue there is, which would be hard to believe after Winged Foot last year, and Pinehurst, Shinnecock, and Bethpage Black in recent years. But this year, the source of the carnage, if there is indeed any, will be of a different nature. At 7,230 yards, Oakmont is not one of the longer U.S. Open venues. In fact, the course is only slightly over 300 yards longer than when the first Open was held there in 1927. Granted, at par 70, it lends itself naturally to scores over par, but with the length being what it is, the major hurdles this week will come from on and around the greens. In fact, it's been reported that greens will vary greatly in their speed (from 11.5 up to 15 on the stimpmeter) due to elevation and how much sun and wind they are objected to based on where they are located on the course. Not to mention the severe undulations that exist on nearly every green. While the two par fives on the course both measure over 600 yards and the 288-yard par 3 eighth hole is a bit ridiculous, it also has four par fours under 400 yards, almost unheard of by today's standards. So it's not the overall length of the course that will cause the heartache, it's the greens, and three-putts and even four-putts may be commonplace.

All of this may add up to what a lot of golf fans have been waiting for; something that opens up the field to everybody, even the short hitters. Whether this actually plays out is anybody's guess, and make no mistake, longer hitters will always have an advantage. Provided they can place it where they need to be. But this course may level the playing field somewhat. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Without further ado, here is who I think we'll be watching come the weekend of the 107th U.S. Open.

Is it their time/Are they ready?

-Adam Scott-Greatness has been predicted and expected for this Aussie for several years. And those expectations got even greater after he won the 2004 Player's Championship. His current driving accuracy stats (59.65% of fairways hit, 109th on tour) could be his undoing this week. But if he can find a way to maneuver his way around Oakmont, his putting (currently 10th on tour) could secure his first major. At just 26, is he ready? Perhaps.

-Luke Donald-His driving distance is nothing to write home to England about (159th), but his accuracy is (21st). This week, that's a combination that may bode very well for the 29-year old. He also has five top-ten finishes in 13 events this year, and is ranked ninth in the world. He may be jumping up a bit after this weekend, if he has the maturity to be patient.

-Sergio Garcia-Believe it or not, Sergio is 27th in putting this year. He has long had a tee-to-green game rivaling anyone's, but it's been his putter which has let him down many times. Unfotunately, his driving accuracy is way down this year, as he currently ranks 161st on tour. But this week, he may be able to get around that. With Oakmont not being beastly long, as I mentioned, he can probably get away with hitting a fairway wood or long iron off the tee on many holes. If he has the mental discipline to do so. If he can keep it in the short stuff, I like his chances. A lot.

Is it now or never? These players have not won a major, and time is running out . . .

-Stewart Cink-Had a nice run at the Open from '98-01, including three top tens. And other than his driving accuracy this season, his stats are all pretty good (33rd in both putting and greens in regulation this season). Find a way to keep it in the short grass, Stewart. Many of us are pulling for you. You've had many a close call in majors before, and we'd like to see you win one.

-Padraig Harrington-Hard to believe he is 36 already. Like Cink, he has hung around long enough to win a major on more than one occasion, but it just hasn't happened for him yet. If not for his disastrous finish last year, he may be the defending champion. He has the game, and if he can put the close-but-no-cigars out of his mind long enough, which is much easier said than done, he could very well be your 2007 U.S. Open winner.

-Colin Montgemerie-No one will dispute the fact that Monty has the game. His achievements are well-chronicled. His best chance may have come last year. After hitting a near-perfect drive on the final hole, he had a mid iron into the green. Always a strong iron player, he hit the one shot that he no doubt will think about for the rest of his life if he never wins a major. His short-and-right second shot into thick rough led to a double-bogey, when a par would have won and a bogey would have put him in a playoff. Monty has had one of the world's most well-rounded, and best, games for a long time. But he'll be 44 later in the month, and the clock is ticking on his elusive first major victory. It would be a shame if he never wins one. It could very well be now or never for Colin.

Do no be surprised, even a little, 'cause you heard it here first, if . . .

-Steve Stricker wins. There are certain players who always seem to show up in tournaments like the U.S. Open and the PGA Championship. Players who have a solid game and the mindset to compete in those; Payne Stewart, Lee Janzen, Corey Pavin, etc. Players who may not be much of a factor at other majors, but have the formula to fair well in certain venues like the two I mentioned. They hit fairways, hit greens, and make a few putts. In the late '90s, Stricker was becoming one of those, and appeared on the doorstep of the elite players' home. He knocked a few times, but couldn't get in. He finished fifth at the U.S. Open in both '98 and '99, and second in the PGA in '98. Great things were on the horizon. But as we all know, golf is one of the most fickle of sports. He did win the Accenture Match Play title in '01, and finished tenth at the Masters the same year. But then, for whatever reason, he fell on hard times for the next few years. In 2005, he lost his fully-exempt card for the first time since '97 after finishing outside the top 150 on the money list for the third straight year. But in '06, he was back, winning comeback player of the year award. He's back even farther now, and up to 22nd in the world rankings. Look for him to be a major factor this week. And don't be surprised if he's holding the trophy on Sunday.

-K.J. Choi wins. Another player who flies a little under the radar, but always seems to show up in major championships. He's got the game for this layout. And his victory at the Memorial a couple weeks ago, where he came from five shots down at the start of the final round, showed a stalker's mentality that I don't think he knew he had. But he does. And he's mentally strong enough to win this week.

Maybe someday, but not just yet

-Aaron Baddeley, Paul Casey, Charles Howell III, and Trevor Immelman-I would be surprised if all of these don't win a major by the time they're done. But the U.S. Open is as much of a mental test as it is about talent. Each of these are stellar shotmakers, and players on the rise. They will be a factor in this tournament for years to come. Perhaps as soon as next year. But not quite yet.

The Favorites

-Tiger Woods-If I need to expound on this, you've clicked on a golf blog by mistake. And it would be hard for you to explain why you've read this far.

-Phil Mickelson-Perhaps his name should be a question rather than a statement. Yes, I know his wrist injury will be a factor. But it may be a blessing in disguise. He may be forced to swing less than full from the tee with his driver, which may in turn put him in the fairway more often. If that's the case, he would have longer shots to the greens, to be sure. But if he can stay out of the brutal rough, he could very well be in the mix on Sunday afternoon. How ironic would it be that he wins the U.S. Open at the place he first injured the wrist while practicing for this tourney a few weeks ago?

-Jim Furyk-He seems to have the game that fits this course perfectly, for what it's worth. He's won it before, and has all the prerequisites required of an Open champ. A lot of smart money is on him this week, and I can't say I disagree much. As this Open starts, he's about as steady and solid as anyone in the field.

-Vijay Singh-Just about the time people forget about him, he shows us why we shouldn't. Winner of three majors in his career, it doesn't appear that his game has tailed off any, even well into his 40s. He's putting as well as he has in a long time, which could be a very scary thing for the rest of the field.

My pick for this year's champion? Sergio Garcia. It seems like he's older than 27, since he's been a factor in majors for quite awhile now. Which has given him invaluable experience. And I think his mental game, which is what ultimately determines almost every U.S. Open winner, has caught up with his ability. He has all the tools to win. Is he ready? Yes, he is. And this could be the start of something big. Really big.

Thanks for taking the time to read.