Unearned Interceptions

So, for a while now, I've been thinking it may be a good idea for the NFL, or football in general, to introduce a new stat to the league, the unearned interception.

Just as baseball pitchers don't have runs counted against them when a teammate commits an error, I feel quarterbacks should get the same treatment when their receivers make a mistake that leads to an interception. In this way, a quarterback's true ability would show.

Now obviously there would have to be a set of rules that would constitute what would be an unearned interception, but I would start with: If the ball hits the receiver in the hands and he should have caught it, it's the receiver's fault and should not be counted against the quarterback.

If the ball is tipped by a defender at the line or at any other spot on the field by a defender, you guessed it - quarterback's fault. I would also place blame on the quarterback if he throws a pick while being hit.

To me, it's very deceiving to see a stat line where a quarterback may have a few interceptions in a game, but some or most weren't his fault.

Obviously, there would also be a lot of changes to other stats as well. For instance, quarterback ratings would be higher and Brett Favre's interception record would be a lot tougher to reach.

With all the new rules coming into the league lately (most of which I disagree with), I would approve of this one. Let's not punish quarterbacks making a good throw.

A Hindsight Look At the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament So Far

After watching the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament so far, and even before the tournament started, I was extremely confused at this years' seedings. And after what's occurred the last few days, I guess I had reason to feel that way.

I don't know if the Tournament Committee knew what they were doing this year when they set up this years competition. For one thing, how did New Mexico get a 3 seed? Wisconsin a 4? And Washington an 11 after winning the Pac 10 tournament? We're even seeing now that Cornell is clearly better than a 12 seed.

First, we'll talk about New Mexico. There's no way that team should have been seeded that high. For one thing, they're in one of the weaker conferences. Second, they lost in the semifinals of their conference tournament. Third, the only big non-conference win worth mentioning for them is Texas A&M. Otherwise, they played nobody and even lost to Oral Roberts. Not the makings of a 3 seed if you ask me.

Next is Wisconsin. My first question after seeing the seeding was, "How can you give them a 4 seed when they didn't even win a single game in the Big Ten Conference Tournament?" Sure they had big wins versus Duke, Maryland, Purdue, and Michigan State at home (I'm not counting the Evan Turnerless Buckeyes as a big win since they're almost nothing without him), but can you really give a 4 seed to a team that finished 7-4 in their last 11 right before the tournament? Sounds more like about a 6 to me.

Lastly, let's take a look at Washington. Sure they had a really slow start in conference play, but after starting 3-5 in the Pac 10, they finished 11-2 in the conference and went on to win the Pac 10 Championship. They were one of the hotter teams in college basketball and I just think it's a bad idea to give such a low seed to a team belonging to a major conference. And don't forget they beat Texas A&M in non-conference play. It just wasn't a fair matchup for New Mexico.

I don't blame the Tournament Committee for giving Cornell a 12 seed due to the Ivy League's past in the tournament, but now it looks like they're clearly a better team than their seed entails because they aren't just winning, they're mopping up.

So so far, it just looks like a really bad year as far as seeding goes. With the exception of Wisconsin losing, I think it's been a great tournament and one of the more exciting ones in the past few years. All I'm going to ask is that the committee put some more thought into where they place the teams they feel are qualified to make the tournament.

Baseball's Big "Concern"

U.S.-born, black baseball players. It's not a new topic, but for some reason or another it's a growing "concern" becoming more prominent today.

So after I heard Angels outfielder Torii Hunter mention black latino players as "imposters" in Major League Baseball in regards to the lack of black African players, I once again had to ask myself the question, "Why is this even a concern in baseball?"

I thought America was a place where race didn't matter, so why is it a problem if black athletes want to play sports other than baseball? What, are people going to start forcing African-Americans to play the game? So many would rather play football or basketball. Big deal.

In 2007, the MLB consisted of 8.2 percent of U.S.-born, black athletes. That number inflated to 10 percent last year.

Now, I in no way consider Hunter's opinion as my own, but you know what? I think regardless of race, baseball is going to play whoever the best player is. If they happen to be black Latin players, so be it.

Hunter's comments also indicated he believes Latinos are getting the edge over black players because teams can sign them for, "a bag of chips." In the bigger picture, Americans as a whole, whether black, white, blue, purple, etc. are becoming less prominent in the MLB. The fact that Latino players can be signed from 16 years old without having to go through the amateur draft may be a reason.

You think the National Hockey League would like to see more black players in their game? You betcha. The thing is, at least for hockey, is that it just doesn't appeal to the urban community. For one thing, hockey is more expensive to get in to, as equipment can cost upwards to one hundred dollars. Baseball isn't as expensive, but it's a lot easier to play basketball or football in the urban community because all you need is a small basketball court or any type of field for football. Baseball diamonds are harder to find because of their size and hockey rinks are going to be extremely rare.

So if baseball wants to fix their "problem" they'll need to go out and "fix" it themselves through building fields and introducing it to the urban community, among other things.

MLB: "Wait, but that would cost money. Well, we can't have that. I like having all my money and I want more."

Well, it may be your only option if you want to "correct" this.

The NFL: The Nanny Foo-foo League?

So I've pretty much had it with the National Football League (or Nanny Foo-foo League as I believe it's becoming) with all these rule changes in order to protect players. The final straw for me came when I heard Commissioner Roger Goodell was considering eliminating the 3-point stance in order to decrease the number of concussions at the line of scrimmage.

What happened to the game I pour my heart into every year? It's like it isn't even a contact sport anymore. They might as well get rid of the pads and we can watch them play touch or flag football at this point.

I mean, I'm all for protecting players, but you have to draw a line somewhere. There's a reason they pay these guys the big bucks. Football wouldn't be the same without big hits and full-on contact.

Players know what they're getting into when they play the game of football. Anyone could be injured at any point and it could be something as small as a bruise, or something like what happened to former Buffalo Bills tight end Kevin Everett when he almost became paralyzed. If players don't want to risk injury, they shouldn't play the game.

If Goodell wants to worry less about the effects of concussions on players in regards to when they should come back or want to come back, he should have them sign some sort of waiver. This waiver would state that the player wants to play and should anything concussion related happen during the game, such as another concussion, or God forbid something worse, the player is the sole person responsible and could not bring any type of action against the league.

Not only would this rule change affect professional football, but then college, high school, and pee wee football would have to follow suit, ruining football as we know it. Professional scouts would have trouble figuring out whether a college player could play out of a 2-point stance at the professional level, and the same would go for a college scout for a high schooler, so there's a definite trickle-down effect if the rule is changed.

In the end, it would completely ruin my favorite sport. There would be no way I could watch the games. Not only that, but I think it would be the demise of this country's most popular sport. I think there would definitely be some sort of uproar if the rule were to go through and people would stop watching. This would then leave nothing to entertain us in the sporting world between the World Series and college basketball.

It will be a very sad day in the world of football if that change ever comes to pass. It depresses me just thinking it's a possibility. So please, Goodell, don't ruin the only reason I can manage to make it through the winter.

A Born-Again NHL Fan

I don't know about everyone else, but I can sure say after watching both U.S.A. vs. Canada hockey games during the Winter Olympics, I want to get back into following the National Hockey League.

Prior to the 2004-05 lockout, I was somewhat an NHL fan and would generally watch the Stanley Cup Playoffs and Finals, but usually not much regular season. I would say the reason for not watching the regular season was because Wisconsin has no professional team, so there was no team for me to root for. However, the playoffs and finals are more intense, so it was easier for me to watch and just pick a team to win.

Once the lockout came to fruition, the league completely lost me. Without watching the NHL as an option whenever I was bored during football's offseasons for both college and the National Football League, I became disinterested in professional hockey.

Then came college. During my last year at the University of Wisconsin - Green Bay (2008-09), I would occasionally go to Green Bay Gamblers hockey games because, one, I had someone to root for, and two, because the special those nights were two-dollar, 16 oz. beers. I can definitely say those games were a lot of fun, especially the goalie fight I was fortunate enough to see one night, probably the greatest hockey fight I have ever seen. Those moments somewhat rekindled a fire that had once been forgotten and I thought to myself, "I should get back into hockey."

The problem with that was that it was only a thought and I never acted on it. The beginning of this year's NHL season came before I even knew it and I'm stuck with what's remaining. To make things worse, the problem I had before the lockout still looms. Who do I root for? For me, watching a sporting event without someone to root for is like watching grass grow. My attention span will be short and I'm going to try to find something more interesting to watch.

So, as of now, I am currently in search for someone to claim as my team. Being from Wisconsin, I have to automatically rule out the Minnesota Wild and Chicago Blackhawks due to my hatred for their teams in other sports, i.e. Vikings, Bears, and Cubs (I really don't have much of a beef against the Twins, Bulls, Timberwolves.). Plus, I just cringe from the thought that I could ever say anything along the lines of, "Go Minnesota!" or, "Come on Chicago!" It's just wrong to me.

When it comes to Detroit, I feel like it would be wrong for me to become a fan of them due to the fact that they can be dynastic from time to time and I'm not much of a fan of dynasties unless it's my team. You, of course, should respond with, "Well, if you made the Red Wings your favorite team, you wouldn't have to worry about that." However, it would be less exciting for me to become a fan of a team that has been there, done that so often. I almost feel like it would be better for me to give my fandom to a team that may not get there as often so I can be there for the good and bad times. Why do you think I've stuck with the Brewers and Bucks my entire life?

Then there's the Nashville Predators, who's American Hockey Leauge afilliation team is the Milwaukee Admirals. So, in baseball terms, their Triple-A team. I'd love to be a fan of them, but with their games rarely being shown on any TV station I receive (which consists of basic cable channels, so Versus is pretty much it for hockey. I can't afford better than basic.), it would be tough for me to watch their games. It would basically be the same situation for any other team.

So I've come to you NHL fans. Can you help me out? Does anyone out there have any suggestions or advice for me? I don't want my rejuvinated fandom of hockey to die off again.