Will the Supersized Big East Become the Greatest Conference Ever?

Seven Big East teams qualified for the NCAA Tournament this year, three earned number one seeds and two have made it to the Final Four. This is an article that I wrote for the November 2005 issue of Eastern Basketball (a sister publication of Basketball Times) examining the top conferences in college basketball history and discussing the possibility that the Big East might top all of them.

Remember when conferences consisted of 8-10 teams? This year the Big East expands to 16 members. If conferences get any bigger they will need to use the U.N. General Assembly to hold their Presidents' meetings.

The Big Ten sent seven teams to the NCAA Tournament four different times—1990, 1994, 1999 and 2001—and the Big East accomplished this feat in 1991. The supersized Big East is expected to break this record in the 2006 NCAA Tournament, which has led some to suggest that it will become the greatest conference ever (3/31/09 Note: the Big East sent eight teams to both the 2006 and 2008 NCAA Tournaments). That is a bold prediction because the new Big East has a formidable task just to match the excellence attained by the original Big East during the 1980s. The Big East had seven charter members in 1980—Boston College, Connecticut, Georgetown, Providence, St. John’s, Seton Hall and Syracuse—before adding Villanova in 1981 and Pittsburgh in 1983. The upstart league quickly asserted itself as a formidable competitor to traditional power conferences such as the ACC, Big Ten, SEC and PAC-10; in the Big East's inaugural year three of its seven teams earned NCAA bids. St. John's lost to Purdue in the second round, Syracuse lost to Iowa in the Sweet 16 and Georgetown made it to the Elite Eight before also bowing to Iowa—not a bad showing but this was just a taste of things to come.

In 1985, the Big East placed six of its nine teams in the NCAA Tournament, became the first conference to provide three of the teams in the Final Four and topped it off by producing both participants in the championship game; that contest turned out to be one of the most memorable upsets in NCAA history, with Villanova shooting a championship game record .786 from the field to defeat the defending champion, Patrick Ewing-led Georgetown Hoyas, 66-64. Big East teams went 18-5 in the 1985 NCAA Tournament. No conference has ever won more games in a single NCAA Tournament; second place is 15 wins, accomplished by the Big Ten in 1989 and 2000.

The Big East had tremendous individual star power in 1985 as well: future Dream Team members Ewing and Chris Mullin (St. John's) shared Big East Player of the Year honors, Villanova's Ed Pinckney (the 1985 Final Four Most Outstanding Player) and Syracuse’s Dwayne "Pearl" Washington joined them on the All-Big East First Team and future NBA players Walter Berry (who won Big East Player of the Year in 1986), Bill Wennington and Michael Adams made the All-Big East Second Team. The 1985 Big East also had three coaches who eventually earned Basketball Hall of Fame enshrinement: Syracuse's Jim Boeheim, St. John's Lou Carnesecca and Georgetown’s John Thompson.

Some Ground Rules for Comparing Conferences

One challenge in comparing conferences, teams and players from different eras is that NCAA basketball has changed so dramatically over the years: from 1967-68 to 1975-76 the slam dunk was illegal during games and pre-game warm-ups, the 45 second shot clock was first used in 1985-86 (and then changed to 35 seconds in 1993-94) and the three point shot was introduced nationally in 1986-87—and these are just a few of the on-court changes. There have also been major shifts in the structure of post-season play. The NCAA Tournament field consisted of only eight teams from 1939-1950. In 1951 the field doubled to 16 and from 1953-1974 between 22 and 25 teams participated each year. Then came rapid growth starting in 1975—from 32 teams (1975-78) to 40 teams (1979) to 48 teams (1980-82) to 52 teams (1983) to 53 teams (1984)—culminating in 1985 with the creation of the 64 team field. In 2001 a 65th team was added via a play-in game. Younger fans who have grown up watching "The Road to the Final Four" may be surprised to learn that the phrase "Final Four" has not always been a part of college basketball’s lexicon. Its first documented, official use came on page five of the 1975 Official Collegiate Basketball Guide—and the phrase was not capitalized until the 1978 Official Collegiate Basketball Guide.

In 1966 Texas Western became the first team with five black starters to win the NCAA title, an achievement that literally changed the face of college basketball by shattering a senseless taboo. If we arbitrarily declare 1966 to be the beginning of the modern era, we can split the past 40 years nearly in half by dividing it into pre-1986-87 and post-1986-87. Post-1986-87 includes the shot clock, the three point shot and the 64 team field.

Now that we have a manageable period of time to examine, neatly divided in two, the next step is to define our terms. What makes a conference great? The most emphasis has to be placed on winning championships and generating legitimate title contenders. Another important consideration is the conference's depth. A great conference should have electrifying star players and fierce, competitive rivalries between its members.

Great Conferences of the Early Modern Era (1965-66—1985-86)

The ACC earned more Final Four berths than any other conference during this period, with four schools combining for 14 appearances and three championships. The PAC-10 (and its predecessors, the PAC-8 and the AAWU) made 11 Final Four appearances—all of them by UCLA, which won eight championships (one of the Final Four appearances was later vacated by the NCAA). The Big Ten sent six different teams to a total of eight Final Fours, winning three titles.

While UCLA was the dominant team of this era, the ACC and Big Ten were deeper, stronger conferences:

• In 1973, three ACC teams won at least 23 games--North Carolina State (27-0), North Carolina (25-8) and Maryland (23-7). North Carolina State, led by the sensational David Thompson, defeated Maryland 76-74 in the ACC championship game, but Maryland earned the conference’s NCCA Tournament bid because North Carolina State was ineligible for postseason play that year due to recruiting violations. Maryland made it to the Elite Eight. North Carolina, ranked 11th in the final regular season AP poll, finished third in the NIT.
  

• In 1974 the ACC could very well have provided two NCAA Finalists like the Big East did in 1985—but at that time each conference could receive only one NCAA Tournament bid. That made the ACC championship game pivotal not only in determining who went to the tournament but very possibly who would be that year's national champion. Not surprisingly, this situation produced one of the classic games in NCAA history, North Carolina State's 103-100 overtime victory over Maryland. Thompson scored 29 points for North Carolina State and 7-3 center Tom Burleson led the way for the Wolfpack with 38 points and 13 rebounds. Six All-Americans and 10 future NBA draft picks played in the game; Maryland's John Lucas (18 points and 10 assists) became the number one overall pick in the 1976 NBA draft. North Carolina State defeated Marquette 76-64 to win the national championship while Maryland, ranked fourth in the final regular season AP poll, did not participate in postseason play. North Carolina State finished the year 30-1, while Maryland went 23-5.
  

• The NCAA changed its rules in 1975 and allowed two teams from the same conference to receive tournament bids; five years later the NCAA permitted more than two teams from the same conference to receive tournament bids. In 1976 the Big Ten became the first conference to send two teams to the Final Four—and both made it to the national championship game. Indiana, led by future pros Scott May, Kent Benson, Quinn Buckner, Bobby Wilkerson and Tom Abernethy, went 32-0 and beat Big Ten rival Michigan 86-68 to claim Bob Knight's first national title. Indiana is the last undefeated team to win the national championship. Indiana and Michigan combined for a 9-1 NCAA tournament record, the most wins by a conference in one tournament in the 1970s.
  

• In 1978 four of the seven ACC teams won at least 20 games and all seven finished over .500, for a combined winning percentage of .673. North Carolina (23-8) lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament, North Carolina State (21-10) fell 101-93 to Texas in the NIT championship game and ACC champion Duke (27-7) lost 94-88 to Kentucky in the NCAA championship game. Virginia (20-8), the ACC's fourth 20-win team, dropped a 70-68 overtime decision to Georgetown in the NIT.
  

• Six of the eight ACC teams in 1980 won at least 20 games; five made it to the NCAA Tournament and the sixth, Virginia, won the NIT. Duke and Clemson each advanced to the Elite Eight before being eliminated. The ACC's winning percentage in 1980 was .654, paced by Maryland’s 24-7 record.
  

• In 1981 the ACC had two 29 win teams and five 20-plus win teams. Four ACC teams went to the NCAA Tournament and two more went to the NIT. Two ACC teams reached the Final Four: Virginia (29-4) lost 78-65 to North Carolina (29-8) but defeated Louisiana State 78-74 in the third place game; North Carolina lost the NCAA Championship Game 63-50 to Isiah Thomas and Indiana.
  

• The 1982 ACC boasted four 20-plus win teams, including two 30 game winners led by future NBA All-Stars—North Carolina (32-2), which had Michael Jordan and James Worthy, and Virginia (30-4), which had 7-4 Ralph Sampson. All four 20-game winners made it to the NCAA Tournament, but only North Carolina enjoyed an extended run. Boosted by the jump shot that freshman Jordan later said put him on the map, Dean Smith won his first national championship as the Tar Heels defeated Georgetown 63-62.
  

• The ACC enjoyed similar success in 1983, but produced a most unlikely—and memorable—national champion. Five ACC teams won 20-plus games and four were selected for the NCAA Tournament. The fifth, Wake Forest, won three games in the NIT before getting blown out by Fresno State. Three ACC teams made it to the Elite Eight, but only North Carolina State made it past that round. The Wolfpack shocked everyone by upsetting heavily favored Houston 54-52 in the NCAA championship game; Houston, known as Phi Slama Jama because of the team's tremendous dunkers, had Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler, who were both named to the NBA's 50 Greatest Players list in 1996. North Carolina State finished with a 26-10 record, becoming the first team with at least 10 losses to win the NCAA title (since then Villanova had 10 losses in 1985 and Kansas had 11 losses in 1988).
  

• In 1984 the ACC produced five 20-plus win teams and none of its eight teams had a losing record. All five made it to the NCAA Tournament and two made it to the Elite Eight. Wake Forest lost in that round and Virginia lost 49-47 in overtime to Houston in the Final Four. Jordan's Tar Heels went 14-0 in conference play and 28-3 overall, but lost to Indiana 72-68 in the NCAA Tournament.
  

We have already mentioned the tremendous season enjoyed by the Big East in 1985, possibly the greatest single season by a conference. The SEC is similar to the PAC-10 in the sense that one team accounted for most of its NCAA Tournament success during this era—Kentucky, which made four trips to the Final Four and won the 1978 national championship. In 1986 the SEC posted a 12-4 NCAA Tournament record, sending LSU, Kentucky and Auburn to the Elite Eight. LSU advanced to the Final Four before losing to "Never Nervous" Pervis Ellison’s Louisville Cardinals, the eventual national champions.

Great Conferences of the Recent Modern Era (1986-87—2004-05)

Four ACC teams have made 20 Final Four appearances and won six championships since 1986-87, while seven Big Ten teams earned 15 Final Four trips and three titles. No other conference has even 10 Final Four appearances during this time. Duke has accounted for three of the ACC’s NCAA championships and nine of the Final Four berths, leading all teams in both categories. North Carolina is second in Final Fours (seven) and tied for second with Connecticut and Kentucky in championships (two).

ACC teams won at least 10 games in the NCAA tournament for seven straight years, 1989-1995. No other conference has come close to putting together such a streak. Duke won back-to-back titles in 1991-92 and North Carolina made it three straight for the ACC by claiming the 1993 crown. The ACC sent at least one team to the Final Four from 1988-1995. The rivalry between Duke and North Carolina is one of the best in sports and the drama is only heightened by the fact that most years the Blue Devils and Tar Heels are not only fighting for conference supremacy but are both viable national championship contenders—including 2005, when North Carolina won the title and Duke made it to the Sweet 16.

As for the Big Ten, let's start with the four years that the conference earned a record seven NCAA Tournament bids, the mark that the newly formed Big East is expected to break. In 1990 only Minnesota made it to the Elite Eight and the seven teams combined for an 8-7 record in the tournament. The Big Ten went 11-7 in the tournament in 1994, with Michigan and Purdue reaching the Elite Eight. In 1999 the Big Ten again sent two teams to the Elite Eight and this time both--Michigan State and Ohio State--made it to the Final Four before losing, leaving the Big Ten with a 13-7 tournament mark. Two years later, the Big Ten went 10-7 and sent two teams to the Elite Eight, with Michigan State advancing to the Final Four before being eliminated. The accomplishment of sending seven teams to the NCAA Tournament on four different occasions is somewhat diminished by the early exits of most of those teams and the failure of any of them to make it to the title game in the years in question.

The Big Ten had more impressive showings in 1989 and 2000 despite sending fewer teams overall. Michigan's Glen Rice set single season NCAA Tournament records for points (184; 30.7 ppg) and three pointers made (27) in 1989 while leading the Wolverines to the national title. Illinois made it to that year's Final Four and four of the Big Ten's five entrants advanced to the Sweet 16, giving the Big Ten an outstanding 15-4 tournament record. In 2000, the Big Ten went 15-5 in the tournament, producing three Elite Eight teams, two Final Four teams and the eventual national champion, Michigan State.

Who can forget Michigan's Fab Five teams? Who can name the "other two" who played alongside current NBA players Chris Webber, Juwan Howard and Jalen Rose? (Ray Jackson and Jimmy King) The Fab Five Era began with lofty expectations but only produced championship game losses by Michigan in 1992 and 1993. In 1992 Ohio State and Indiana joined the Wolverines in the Elite Eight and Indiana made it to the Final Four; in 1993 Indiana returned to the Elite Eight but lost in that round. The Big Ten went 14-5 in the 1992 tournament and 10-5 in the 1993 tournament.

During most of this period, PAC-10 teams tended to make early exits from the NCAA Tournament. Notable exceptions to this pattern occurred in 1995 and 1997. In 1995, five PAC-10 teams compiled a 9-4 NCAA Tournament record, headlined by UCLA winning the conference's first national title since John Wooden's Bruins claimed the 1975 crown. The PAC-10 did even better in 1997, with Arizona winning the championship, UCLA joining the Wildcats in the Elite Eight and five conference teams combining to win 13 tournament games while losing only four. The PAC-10 went 13-5 in 2001, sending three teams to the Elite Eight--but only Arizona advanced, eventually losing to Duke in the championship game.

The SEC enjoyed a great five year stretch from 1994-98, with Kentucky (two) and Arkansas (one) winning three titles; each team also lost once in the championship game during that time. That period accounts for five of the SEC's nine Final Four appearances during the recent modern era.

The Big East has enjoyed notable success in the recent modern era. In 1991 the Big East tied a record by sending seven teams to the NCAA tournament but none of them made it to the Final Four. St. John's and Seton Hall reached the Elite Eight and the seven teams finished with an 11-7 tournament record. Like the Big Ten, the Big East's most impressive seasons are not the ones that involved earning seven tournament bids. In 1999, five Big East teams went 10-4 in the NCAA Tournament, with Connecticut winning the championship and St. John's also making the Elite Eight. Syracuse won the 2003 championship, capping a 12-3 performance by four Big East teams in that year's tournament. Connecticut made it two titles in a row for the Big East in 2004; that year six Big East teams went 12-5 in the tournament.

The Challenge

So what does the new Big East have to do to become the greatest conference of all-time? Sending a record eight, nine or ten teams to the NCAA Tournament is not sufficient unless several of those teams advance to the Elite Eight and the Final Four. For single season excellence it will be difficult to match the 1985 Big East's combination of three Final Four teams, two Dream Teamers sharing conference Player of the Year honors and one very memorable NCAA championship game. The teams from the new Big East must make 20-25 Final Four appearances and win a half dozen or so national championships in the next two decades to rival the ACC's sustained excellence.

The Uncrowned: Fine, Benko and Kaidanov

Sometimes, even the greatest competitors in a given sport are unable to win one particular event--tennis provides several prominent examples of this, including Borg at the U.S. Open, Lendl at Wimbledon and McEnroe and Federer at the French Open.

Chess Grandmasters Reuben Fine, Pal Benko and Gregory Kaidanov won many strong, prestigious tournaments but never captured the U.S. Championship (though Kaidanov is currently ranked seventh in the United States and could end that drought next month when the 2009 U.S. Championship is held in St. Louis).

My newest article for Chess Life Online examines the U.S. Championship results of these three Grandmasters. CLO Editor Jennifer Shahade--who won the U.S. Women's Championship in 2002 and 2004--did a really nice job of selecting archival Chess Life magazine covers to illustrate the article. You can check it out here:

The Uncrowned: Fine, Benko and Kaidanov

What Part of the Word "Voluntary" Does ESPN Not Understand?

Various ESPN platforms--ESPN.com, SportsCenter, the Bottom Line, etc.--breathlessly informed the world on Monday that newly acquired Buffalo Bills wide receiver Terrell Owens "misses start of program," as the ESPN.com headline clumsily put it--the headline is clumsy because it sensationalizes the situation and stigmatizes Owens rather than simply conveying information in a concise manner; without reading the story, you don't know if Owens did not read the opening pages of a game program, if he did not attend a school play or if he failed to show up when the federal government began a new program to fix the economy.

It turns out that the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader" activated all of its platforms to Def-Con 1 because--brace yourself for impact--Owens did not show up for a voluntary offseason conditioning program. In case you have not been paying attention or forgot, this is the same player whose yoked physique appears to consist of approximately .0002% body fat and who purportedly runs faster at the age of 35 than he ever did before. You can take shots at Owens for a lot of things--as ESPN has done and no doubt will continue to do--but questioning his dedication to conditioning simply is not one of them. Considering that the Bills have been stuttering 7-9 records for three straight years, there are no doubt plenty of players on their roster who would be well advised to report to any and all conditioning programs but it is safe to assume that whatever Owens is up to at the moment he is most assuredly not getting out of shape.

"Voluntary" means optional, in case the headline writers, reporters and columnists at ESPN don't have a dictionary handy. If the league, teams and union agree to make these offseason programs mandatory then by all means it would be newsworthy to report about players who do not show up. Until that happens, surely there are better uses of ESPN's vast resources than this kind of drivel--or, if ESPN's editors really think that this is a big story, then they should take a league-wide survey and find out exactly how many players show up for voluntary programs. Of course, whether that number turns out to be 10% or 90% it still does not mean that someone is wrong to not do something that he is not required to do.

Five Things That You Didn't Know About March Madness

Has your bracket already been busted? Don't worry, no one is likely to fill out a perfect bracket this year (or any other year): the odds against that are 9.2 quintillion to one according to R. J. Bell from Pregame.com--that is 9.2 followed by 15 zeroes! You literally have a better chance of winning the Powerball than crafting a perfect bracket. If every single person on the planet filled out a bracket, the odds would be a billion to one against any of them being perfect.

That is just one item on AskMen.com's list of five things you probably didn't know about March Madness:

Five Things You Didn't Know: March Madness

Garry Kasparov: Great Chess Champion, Greater Human Being

Courage is essential in every walk of life, beginning with the courage to think creatively, especially in times of crisis. Fear comes in many forms related to decision-making. The fear of being wrong, the fear of change, fear of the unknown, the fear of hurting those who are important to us. Failure to control these fears leads to slower and inferior decisions and, in turn, to greater fear the next time--Garry Kasparov

Garry Kasparov is arguably the greatest chess player of all-time but--more importantly--he is also a courageous, passionate and well informed champion of human rights and political freedom. He understands how the forces of history and human psychology work and he is willing to risk his life to fight the evil regime of Vladimir Putin. "Evil" is not a popular word in today's era of moral equivalence but if you are unwilling or unable to properly identify evil then you have no chance to defeat it.

Kasparov recently visited India, where he gave a brilliant speech that discussed not only Putin's evil regime but also explained that change is an inevitable part of life. As Kasparov put it:

That is the first and most important message of change: it is happening whether you like it or not. If there’s rain, you can complain about the weather, you can take an umbrella, but you can’t stop the rain. You can ignore change, join it, or try to control it, but it is happening on a permanent and accelerating basis. Positive change is nearly impossible without courage, a word I will use many times here today. As Nehru said it well, “the policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all.”

In politics, as in the business world and in the natural world, the status quo is always dying. This is simply Darwin’s law. 150 years ago he wrote: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” This is also true for systems of government and international institutions. And even though we are in a time of great turmoil and change, they are not adapting nearly fast enough.

Kasparov's entire speech is well worth reading and, more importantly, it deserves serious attention from world leaders and all concerned citizens not just in Russia but everywhere, because Putin is a threat and menace not only to his own people but--by virtue of his support for and active collaboration with despotic regimes in Iran, Syria and elsewhere--to the freedom and security of the entire world.

Here is a link to a complete transcript of Kasparov's speech: The Politics of Change

Wilson Sporting Goods and the NCAA Team Up to Fight Cancer

Wilson Sporting Goods and the NCAA are taking advantage of the popular Facebook site to run a promotion enabling college hoops fans to participate in the fight against cancer.

All you have to do to take part in the "Every Pass Counts: Ultimate Assist" program is log in to Facebook and search for "Wilson Sporting Goods." Sign up to become a fan and then send virtual passes with a Wilson basketball to all of your friends with just a click of a button. Wilson will donate 10 cents to Coaches versus Cancer for each pass and the user who makes the most passes will win $1000 in Wilson Sporting Goods equipment. Wilson Sporting Goods has set a goal of 500,000 virtual passes.

Does Cutting Terrell Owens Bring Dallas Closer to Winning a Championship?

Although the declining economy has forced many owners of professional sports franchises to make moves purely to cut costs, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones--who just built a new football stadium that cost more than $1 billion--is not one of those owners. So, any evaluation of his decision to cut wide receiver Terrell Owens can be boiled down to answering one simple question: "Does cutting Terrell Owens bring the Dallas Cowboys closer to winning a championship?"

Terrell Owens is consistently portrayed in a negative light in the media, so it is not surprising that many commentators immediately praised Dallas for releasing him. The interesting thing about Owens is that even though he has had celebrated and very public disagreements with one or two players on each of his previous teams (including Philadelphia and San Francisco before he arrived in Dallas three years ago), when push comes to shove most of Owens' teammates have publicly taken his side in those disputes. ESPN's Mark Schlereth asserted that this is because Owens "lobbies" the other wide receivers and the defensive players in order to divide the locker room but that makes no sense; those players are all grown men and if there were not good reasons to support Owens then I'm sure that they would ignore his alleged entreaties. Usually, when most of a player's teammates support him that is considered to be something that speaks in his favor; Owens is the first player I've ever heard of who is considered by some people to be a bad guy because he allegedly "lobbies" his teammates to be in his camp. If Owens is that good of a "lobbyist" then maybe he should get a job on Capitol Hill.

Owens has never had any off field problems, nor has he ever run afoul of the law, so when Keyshawn Johnson--of all people--says that Owens will probably be signed by someone because a team would sign Charles Manson if Manson could play that comment is more than a little out of bounds. How can anyone justify comparing Owens to a murderer who tried to incite a race war?

ESPN reporter Michael Smith--one of the network's supposed resident football experts--hemmed and hawed when asked if Owens should be voted into the Hall of Fame. Fortunately, Smith prefaced his answer by noting that he does not have a vote. Let me clear things up for Mr. Smith: Owens ranks second in career receiving touchdowns (behind only Jerry Rice), is tied for fourth in career all-purpose touchdowns with LaDainian Tomlinson (trailing only Rice, Emmitt Smith and Marcus Allen), ranks fifth in career receiving yards (behind only Rice, Isaac Bruce, Tim Brown and Marvin Harrison) and is tied with Andre Reed for sixth in career receptions. He has led the NFL in receiving TDs in three different seasons and has ranked in the top ten in that category in 10 of his 13 seasons. He has three signature postseason moments: the game-winning TD catch for San Francisco versus Green Bay in 1999, his nine reception/177 yard/two touchdown performance in San Francisco's 39-38 come from behind win versus the New York Giants in 2003 and his nine reception/122 yard performance on one leg in Philadelphia's 24-21 loss to New England in Super Bowl XXXIX. Owens is a five-time first team All-Pro and a six-time Pro Bowler. He should be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Of course, Hall of Fame voting is highly mercurial, so I make no prediction about what actually will happen but it is absurd for anyone to even hesitate to say that Owens has accomplished enough to deserve to be inducted.

No one has ever questioned Owens' work ethic, preparation or on-field effort. In fact, Steve Young--who was Owens' quarterback in San Francisco for three years plus the first three games of the 1999 season and is ESPN's best, most thoughtful NFL analyst (along with Ron Jaworski)--said that Owens is the only player he has ever seen whose work ethic "challenged" the work ethic of the legendary Jerry Rice. Owens has had disagreements with Dallas Coach Wade Philips and Offensive Coordinator Jason Garrett, neither of whom could be accused of overpreparing the Cowboys last season; the Cowboys often looked unprepared and undisciplined--that kind of environment frustrated alleged malcontent Corey Dillon in Cincinnati but after Bill Belichick signed him Dillon helped the Patriots to win a Super Bowl. Schlereth snidely noted that Owens has been in the NFL for 13 years and has yet to win a Super Bowl--but I don't recall seeing Philips or Garrett holding any Lombardi Trophies, either (I'm not counting the two Super Bowl rings that Garrett won as Troy Aikman's clipboard holder). The Cowboys went 31-17 in the regular season during Owens' three years with the team after going 25-23 in the three previous seasons. Owens led the NFL in TD receptions in 2006 with 13 and ranked third in that category in 2007 (15) and fifth in 2008 (10). He not only makes plays but he demands extra defensive coverage that opens up opportunities for his less talented teammates.

Owens will be 36 years old in December, so he is obviously much closer to the end of his career than the beginning, but thanks to his brutal workout routine he is in terrific shape. He claims that he is faster than ever and his 15.2 yards per reception average in 2008 (better than his career norm of 14.8) belies criticisms that he is too old, too slow, unable to get open or unable to separate from defensive players.

The Philadelphia Eagles made the Super Bowl in Owens' last full season with the team after posting 13 regular season wins, the most in franchise history. As mentioned above, Owens caught nine passes for 122 yards in Philadelphia's 24-21 Super Bowl XXXIX loss to New England, making a miraculous comeback from a serious ankle injury that he suffered earlier in the season. Owens risked his career to try to help his team win a championship and, as he noted, Brett Favre would have been universally praised had he done what Owens did. Instead, after Owens asked to renegotiate his contract and criticized quarterback Donovan McNabb's Super Bowl performance, the Eagles released Owens in the middle of the next season and they have only won 10 regular season games once in the past four seasons. When the Eagles got rid of Owens, Michael Irvin said that they were "losing their ass to save their face" (i.e., appeasing McNabb for public relations purposes but actually making the on field product worse).

It will be interesting to look at Dallas' record in the next two-three seasons but it is hard to believe that cutting the team's hardest worker and most productive playmaker really brings the Cowboys closer to winning a championship.

Coke Zero "March Madabase" Provides Fans an Opportunity to Contribute to a Nationally Featured Ad

Coke Zero's "March Madabase" is a place where fans can share photos or videos of their favorite college basketball teams. The best images may be featured in a national ad that will air during this year's Final Four. Coke Zero has previously made two such ads featuring fan submitted material. Here is one about the Kansas Jayhawks:

Rick Reilly's Fastball Still Hums

I'll be honest: there are very few people in this business who I truly respect for their writing abilities; I've dealt with a few nice people and far too many jerks but very, very few people in either category who can really write, who can make words sing and dance off of the page (or computer screen). A real writer sculpts his words like Rodin, paints a verbal picture like Van Gogh, composes his thoughts like Beethoven--but too much of what is being cranked out nowadays reads like it was hacked together by Edward Scissorhands or simply popped out unedited from the uneducated mind of a distracted child. Yeah, I read a lot less than I used to, because writing that truly engages your heart, mind and soul has become an endangered species.

Forgetting the "real world" for a second, in the sports world there used to be high quality writing in Sport, Inside Sports, the Sporting News and SI, plus periodic lengthy features in mags like Esquire and GQ. The first two of those no longer exist and the others are empty husks compared to their glory years. If you grab an old enough back issue of any of those titles, you can find work that stands the test of time. When was the last time you saved a sports mag because the writing was just so great?

A lot of the people whose writing I respect the most are, sadly, no longer with us.

Dick Schaap.

David Halberstam.

Ralph Wiley.

Read some of their writing and compare it to most of what is out there now and you want to cry. Seriously. Billy Joel was right:



Michael Hutchence's succinct take comes to mind, too: "You can stop the world and let off all the fools." Of course, the world keeps right on spinning and, last I checked, none of the fools have volunteered to leave.

I've heard some chatter that Rick Reilly--formerly of SI, now with ESPN--has lost some MPH off of his literary fastball. I'll admit that I cringe at some of the dog and pony garbage that ESPN has him doing. The sports' Mt. Rushmore? You hire a guy who basically retired the Sportswriter of the Year award--he only owns as many of them as Bill Russell has NBA championship rings--and that is the best forum you can create to showcase his talents? Really? Of course, they previously turned Tony Kornheiser--a truly top notch sportswriter in the 1970s and 1980s, one of my favorites--into a caricature on PTI and MNF, so I'm not really surprised. It's not like I'm crying crocodile tears for those guys, either; ESPN has helped make them as rich as Croesus, while I'm sitting here...just sitting here, definitely not rich as Croesus.

Anyway, if you bought into the fiction that Reilly's heater only hits about 85 on the gun now, then take a couple minutes and check this out:

Hey, pro, don't want to be a role model? It's not your choice.

Yes, Rick Reilly's fastball still hums. Hopefully, ESPN will let him throw it more often instead of using him in the equivalent of slow pitch celebrity softball.

Curious Start to Mangini Era in Cleveland

The Cleveland Browns have only had winning records twice in the 10 seasons since the franchise's rebirth in 1999 and they have only made the playoffs once, as a 9-7 Wild Card in 2002. It is certainly understandable if newly hired Coach Eric Mangini looked at that track record and decided that the organization and the roster need to be completely overhauled. However, some of the early moves of the Mangini regime look puzzling on the surface.

The Browns have not exactly been stuffing the Pro Bowl roster in recent years, so one would think that retaining Pro Bowl quality players would be an organizational priority. Instead, during this offseason the Browns have already traded one Pro Bowler and may have irrevocably damaged their relationship with another Pro Bowler.

Tight end Kellen Winslow--a 2007 Pro Bowler after tying the franchise single season record with 89 receptions--has literally been injured for half of his pro career but no one can deny that he has great hands and that he always plays hard. The Browns shipped him to Tampa Bay for a second round pick this year and a fifth round pick in 2010. Maybe he has already seen his best days; maybe he will never be healthy for long enough stretches to be productive--but he is a 25 year old who was the sixth overall selection in the draft just five years ago: what if he plays 10 more years and makes the Pro Bowl several times? The Browns are unlikely to get players who are that productive with the two draft picks that they acquired. Mangini deserves the benefit of the doubt and must be given an opportunity to build a team the way that he thinks it must be constructed to be successful but watching the Browns the past few years I did not get the impression that Winslow was the big problem. Put it this way: without shaming anyone by naming names, there are more than a few other players I would have gotten rid of before shipping off Winslow. The Browns have a long history of giving up on players who become productive elsewhere, which reflects poorly not only on the people who are evaluating those players but also the people who are coaching them. Of course, Mangini is not responsible for those past failures but Browns fans have to hope that he has not added one more name to that list.

Whether or not this seems petty, Pro Bowl defensive tackle Shaun Rogers is convinced that Mangini snubbed him at a Cleveland awards banquet. Rogers is upset that Mangini has not reached out to contact him personally and that the Browns apparently have questioned his conditioning even though that was not a problem at all last season. Rogers has indicated that he no longer wants to play for the Browns, though his options in that regard are limited and the team is attempting to smooth things over with him. Rogers had a questionable reputation in Detroit but he seemed to completely turn his career around last year. He is the kind of player who you build a playoff team around. What kind of message does it send--to players on the team as well as players who the Browns might try to sign--when the new coach gets off to such a rocky start with arguably the team's most productive player? Maybe Rogers is overreacting, maybe he is simply posturing to try to get a bigger contract but a big part of being a leader is forming solid relationships and this situation does not reflect well on Mangini in that sense.

As a Browns fan, I have no problem whatsoever with Mangini cleaning house--but I expected him to start with the underperforming players on the roster, not the Pro Bowl tight end and the Pro Bowl defensive tackle.

GM Kiril Georgiev Displays Mental and Physical Stamina in Setting World Record

Uninformed people may believe the stereotype that chess is a game played by old men in the park but the reality is that it takes a tremendous amount of mental and physical stamina to play elite level chess; that is why most of the top players in the world are in their teens or twenties and why the performance level of elite chess players tends to decline after the age of 40.

Bulgarian Grandmaster Kiril Georgiev has just accomplished a remarkable feat of mental and physical endurance, setting a world record by playing 360 opponents at the same time! He scored 284 wins, 70 draws and just six losses (88%) in a simultaneous exhibition that lasted for more than 14 hours. He had to walk about half a kilometer just to make one move on each board, which is why part of his training for this event consisted of walking for five to six hours a day.

I am a USCF rated expert who has done simultaneous exhibitions of between one and three hours against 10-30 players, so I can say from firsthand experience that what Georgiev did is incredible.

HAVA Technology Enables You to Watch Games on The Go

The HAVA Player is described by its developer Monsoon Multimedia as "a revolutionary TV place-shifting device that allows you to watch and control live home TV from broadband Internet or data network connected PC or mobile phone." All you have to do is connect a HAVA Player to any TV or video source and then you can stream what you are watching to your PC or mobile phone; the HAVA Player also has the capability to pause, rewind and fast forward live TV programs and to save live TV broadcasts onto your PC's hard disk for later viewing.

There are four different versions of the HAVA Player, ranging in price from $99.99 to $249.99. You can get find out more about the HAVA Player--including ordering information--here.

Alex Rodriguez: MLB's "Joe Isuzu"

In the late 1980s, "Joe Isuzu" (who was played by actor David Leisure) made outlandish statements about Isuzu cars while assuring viewers, "You have my word on it." Listening to Alex Rodriguez talk about his use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), one cannot help but think of "Joe Isuzu." The two most important things to remember about Rodriguez are (1) he is a criminal (using steroids without a proper prescription is a violation of federal law) and (2) for several years he has been a bold faced liar about his criminal activities; obviously, committing a crime and lying often go hand in hand but when considering whether or not to believe Rodriguez now it must not be forgotten that he has a lot of practice being a liar in front of TV cameras and members of the media.

Jayson Stark provides an important account of the inconsistencies and omissions in Rodriguez' recent public remarks:

What Rodriguez most needed to accomplish Tuesday was some semblance of closure. Instead, he merely unleashed a whole new set of story lines. So if he thinks this is over, oops. Just wait a day.

But there are other important areas where A-Rod failed the credibility test Tuesday.

For instance, try to glue all these quotations together into one coherent, consistent thought:

• He said at one point that whatever he took, whatever his cousin was injecting into his body, he "didn't think they were steroids."

• But he was still so terrified of anyone finding out, it was "one of those things you try not to share with anyone."

• For "all these years," he said at another point, "I really didn't think I did anything wrong."

• Yet just minutes later, he said: "I knew I wasn't taking Tic Tacs. I knew it was something that could perhaps be wrong."

OK, everybody following that?

One minute, he's continuing to insist he had no idea he had tested positive--or, apparently, done anything wrong--until this story broke. The next, he's grateful that this confession was allowing him to lift the boulder on his shoulder he's been carrying around for eight years. So which is it, exactly? I'm confused. And I'm not alone.

Rodriguez claims that he used PEDs because he was "young and naive" but he was already a 25 year old, seven year MLB veteran in 2001, the first year that he admits taking PEDs. He certainly was old enough and savvy enough to know that what he was doing was illegal and wrong. Why else would he have covered this up for years and lied about it multiple times? Rodriguez' power numbers shot up during the time frame in which he has admitted using PEDs (2001-03), dipped in 2004 but then spiked in 2005 and 2007. Why should we not suspect that he switched to using undetectable PEDs during those years? Also, some research suggests that PED users enjoy permanent competitive advantages that persist even if they stop taking the drugs.

Unless MLB Commissioner Bud Selig is forced to act (whether by Congress, fans or some other outside entity) he will never do anything about this but what he should do is take a page out of the playbook used by the Olympics and by the governing bodies in track and field: at a minimum, Rodriguez should be stripped of the three Silver Slugger awards and one MVP that he received in 2001-03--and MLB should give serious consideration to erasing his home runs, RBI and other statistics from those years. One complicating factor is that in track and field it is easy to expunge one individual's stats without affecting the stats of other competitors but if Rodriguez' stats are expunged then there is the matter of what to do with the stats compiled by the pitchers who faced him. Frankly, I'm not sure how to completely fix this mess--but I absolutely and without hesitation can say that Rodriguez does not deserve his 2003 MVP and 2001-03 Silver Sluggers any more than Marion Jones deserved the Olympic medals that were stripped from her.

A-Rod's Confession Prompts More Questions Than it Answers

Unlike Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and many other disgraced Steroid Era stars, Alex Rodriguez has made the correct p.r move by admitting that he did in fact use performance-enhancing drugs from 2001-2003. However, this confession does not in any way alter the reality that the Steroid Era Has Trashed MLB's Record Book. In fact, Rodriguez' remarks raise more questions than they answer. First, though, here are some important facts to keep in mind:

1) Regardless of when MLB banned steroids or what punishments the union collectively bargained in negotiations with the owners, using steroids without a proper medical prescription has been illegal in the United States since 1990.

2) Anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in 1990. Therefore, using them without a proper medical prescription is a federal crime punishable by up to seven years in prison.

3) Although MLB did not institute a punishment mechanism for steroid users until 2004, the sport banned steroids in 1991.

Thus, all of MLB's steroid cheaters in the Steroid Era have violated both federal law and a ban implemented by the sport itself--do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

Rodriguez says that he used steroids because of the pressure he felt to live up to the 10 year, $252 million contract he signed with the Texas Rangers in 2001: "When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure, felt all the weight of the world on top of me to perform and perform at a high level every day. Back then, it was a different culture. It was very loose. I was young, I was stupid, I was naive and I wanted to prove to everyone that I was worth, you know, being one of the greatest players of all time. And I did take a banned substance. For that, I'm very sorry and deeply regretful. And although it was the culture back then in major league baseball overall...it was very...I just feel that...I'm just sorry. I'm sorry for that time, I'm sorry to my fans, I'm sorry to my fans in Texas. It wasn't until then that I thought about substance of any kind, and since then I've proved to myself and to everyone that I don't need any of that."

The idea that Rodriguez illegally enhanced his performance because he was "young" and "naive" does not wash. He was hardly some innocent babe in the woods by that time; he was a 25 year old, eight season MLB veteran who consciously made a bad decision to illegally enhance his performance--and the steroids clearly worked: in 2000 he hit 41 home runs but in the next three years he blasted a career-high 52, a new career-high 57 and then 47, which still ranked as the third best total of his career at that time. He won his first AL MVP in 2003, the third year of his admitted steroid use. In 2004, when Rodriguez claims that he discontinued his steroid use, he dropped to 36 home runs and had his lowest slugging percentage and on base percentage since 1999. SportsIllustrated.com reports that the new contract that Rodriguez signed with the Yankees in November 2007 guarantees him a $6 million bonus for each time he ties one of the top four players on MLB's all-time home run list (Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds), with an additional $6 million for passing Bonds. If he sets the all-time career home run record then that amounts to a $30 million reward for at least three years of illegal activity that boosted his production! I don't care how many speeches Rodriguez gives about the evils of steroid use, if he collects more cash for his cheating than the average lottery winner then how much impact will his words have? He is poised to earn a fortune as the fruits of committing a federal crime.

Rodridguez' confession is a good p.r. move but his story has holes in it. He claims that he does not even know exactly what substances he took. Call that the "flaxseed oil" defense; it has not worked for Bonds and it should not work for Rodriguez. No one should believe that an elite level athlete does not know exactly what substances he eats, ingests and/or injects.

Although the MLB steroid testing results from 2004 were supposed to be confidential, now that Rodriguez' name is out and he has confirmed that he did take steroids, MLB and the Players Association should agree to release the names of the other 103 players who flunked drug tests. Otherwise, a cloud of suspicion hangs over several hundred players from that era who were clean.

ESPN's Peter Gammons asked Rodriguez if admitted steroid users should be inducted in the Hall of Fame but Rodriguez essentially avoided the question by saying that he has been clean for many years now and that by the time he has retired the bulk of his numbers will have been put up outside of the three seasons that he admits are tainted. Frankly, that just doesn't cut it. He has already admitted to breaking the law, cheating the sport and then lying about it, so we cannot know for certain that he only did steroids for three years and/or that he is not taking undetectable illegal substances now. Also, there is evidence that steroid use elevates performance even after athletes stop using the drug, which has raised the issue of whether steroid users should be banned for life.

Steroid Era Has Trashed MLB's Record Book

Major League Baseball's record book should be reshelved in all bookstores and libraries; it belongs squarely in the fiction section. Five of the top 12 home run hitters of all-time--including Barry Bonds, who tops the list with 762--have been implicated in some way as users of performance-enhancing drugs; the latest revelations concern Alex Rodriguez, who reportedly failed a drug test for steroids in 2003. That drug test was part of the anonymous testing that MLB conducted to determine how big a problem performance-enhancing drug use had become in the sport--and 104 players, including Rodriguez and Bonds, flunked a test that they knew was coming.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig encouraged fans to view Rodriguez as the sport's clean poster boy--in contrast to the disgraced Bonds--but, as Howard Bryant writes, "If Bud Selig did know the individual results, he knew that Bonds' 73 home runs were steroid-tainted, and that in touting Rodriguez to be the player to pass Bonds and restore glory to the home run record, he was willing to replace one steroid-fueled slugger with another, albeit one with a better reputation and nicer smile."

When Hank Aaron became the all-time home run king he was a thick-wristed, wiry strong athlete who was listed at 180 pounds; he was undoubtedly a bit heavier than that by the end of his career but the extra weight had come naturally with age, not in the form of outsized, comic book-hero style bulging muscles fueled by illegal performance enhancing drugs. He and the other old school athletes who did things the right way do not deserve to be surpassed in the record book by liars and cheaters who belong in jail. Steroid cheater Marion Jones was rightly stripped of her tainted medals and MLB should do a similar cleansing of its record book.

Another Perspective on Borg/Nadal/Federer

I have written several posts comparing the accomplishments of Bjorn Borg, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer; I most recently offered my take on that subject here. I maintain that Borg should still be considered the greatest Open Era (post 1968) player and that anyone who tried to pass that crown to Federer acted prematurely. I consider Pete Sampras to be the second greatest Open Era player and I think that Nadal and Federer's places in that pantheon are yet to be determined. Nadal's head to head dominance over Federer coupled with the powerful Spaniard's ascension to the top of the ranking list are two strong pieces of evidence that my initial assessment well over a year ago--before Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and took over the number one ranking--was quite correct, although some readers who have posted comments here vigorously disagree.

Raymond Lee has extensively researched Open Era tennis for various articles that he has written for Tennis Week. He recently sent me an email offering his perspective about these issues and he granted me permission to quote some of the contents of that message:

"One of the reasons I wrote some of these tennis articles was because of the misuse of the information given in tennis. For example the reason Sampras is often mentioned as the GOAT is because he holds the official record of 14 majors. That's great and true but it isn't mentioned that he played in over 50 majors, if memory serves I believe it's 52. Borg won 11 in 27, Budge won 6 in 11.

It's like saying I'm a better free throw shooter than Larry Bird because I made 100 free throws in one day. Of course I may have attempted 1000 free throws and shot at a percentage of 10% while Bird made 99 out of 100 for 99%. By their logic, I'm a better free throw shooter because I made one more than Bird."

In a subsequent email, Lee added, "Borg was described by Arthur Ashe as a player without stroke weaknesses. I don't think I can say that about Roger Federer. Don't get me wrong I think Federer is a fabulous player but I try to put things in perspective."

Borg's lack of weaknesses and his Grand Slam dominance over an eight year period (1974-81) are persuasive reasons to still rank him ahead of every other Open Era player. Sampras displayed impressive longevity in setting the record for Grand Slam singles titles won (14, three more than Borg) but Sampras had an Achilles heel on the clay courts of the French Open. Federer has won 13 Grand Slams and perhaps he will match or surpass Sampras' mark but Nadal has clearly established himself as the best active player--and how can Federer be the greatest of all-time when he is not even the greatest of his time while still in his (late) prime years?

Polamalu Coke Ad, Uncut

The Coke zero ad reprising Mean Joe Greene's classic Coke commercial earned a solid ranking in USA TODAY's 21st Annual Super Bowl Ad Meter.

Here is an "uncut" version of the Polamalu ad:

Nadal Gives Federer Good Reason to Shed Tears

Can we officially place a moratorium on calling Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all-time? I have repeatedly insisted that it was premature to even consider Federer for such status in light of the fact that his main rival Rafael Nadal enjoys a dominant head to head record against him and it is becoming increasingly clear that I was quite prescient to say this at a time when the so-called tennis experts were throwing flower petals at Federer's feet. Despite having to make a quick return to action after surviving a record five hour, 14 minute semifinal victory over Fernando Verdasco, Nadal improved to 13-6 against Federer by beating him in a five set Australian Open final match that lasted well over four hours. Federer openly sobbed during the trophy presentation and for good reason--he, better than anyone, surely understands that the window of opportunity has most likely shut for him regain the number one ranking or to break Pete Sampras' career record of 14 Grand Slam singles titles. The tennis world firmly belongs to Nadal, who has now defeated Federer in the most recent finals at the French Open, Wimbledon and the Australian Open.

Don't let the closeness of the Australian Open match score deceive you--yes, Federer extended a fatigued Nadal to five sets and certainly had some chances to win but Nadal has proven that on the big points in the big matches he simply will not lose to Federer. This is not a fluke; Nadal has beaten Federer the last five times that they have played and is 5-2 against him in Grand Slam finals. For a brief time, Federer advocates could try to claim that he was still superior to Nadal on grass and hard courts but Nadal's Wimbledon and Australian Open wins have ended that argument.

Anyone who ever touted Federer as the greatest ever must look at the following numbers and concede that Nadal is way ahead of the pace that Federer set at a similar stage of his career. When Federer was 22 he had a 259-112 match record, had won 14 titles (including two Grand Slams), had spent 10 weeks as the number one player and had notched a 2-3 record in matches against players ranked number one; Nadal tops Federer in every one of those categories, enjoying a 344-78 match record, winning 32 titles (including six Grand Slams), spending 24 weeks ranked number one and posting a 12-6 record against the number one ranked player (with all of those matches coming against Federer before Nadal passed him in the rankings). Nadal is just the sixth player to reach the finals at three different Slams by age 22 and only the third player to win three different Slams by that age; Federer did not accomplish this, while Bjorn Borg reached three different Slam finals by 20 (the youngest to do so) but never won the U.S. Open.

Nearly two years ago, I made the case that Borg should still be ranked as the greatest player of the Open Era; Borg owns numerous records, including career won-loss percentage in matches (.855) and percentage of career Grand Slams won (.407, light years ahead of anyone else), but perhaps his most impressive feat is his "triple double": winning Wimbledon and the French Open in the same year three straight times (1978-80). When Borg retired, he owned the Open Era records for Wimbledon titles (five) and French Open titles (six) and his multi-surface dominance is simply unparalleled.

The real question now is when do we start considering the possibility that Nadal could prove to be the greatest player of the Open Era? Nadal's case is actually better than Federer's ever was, for two reasons: Nadal does not have a rival who enjoys personal dominance over him and Nadal has won a Grand Slam on all surfaces, something Federer has yet to accomplish. I would still rank Borg's eight year run of dominance from 1974-81--highlighted by his French Open/Wimbledon "triple double"--ahead of what Nadal has achieved but if Nadal continues to add French Open and Wimbledon crowns to his resume he could potentially surpass Borg. Like Borg, Nadal led his country to a Davis Cup victory. Nadal also won the Olympic Gold Medal in singles, a prize that did not exist during Borg's career.

One for the Ages and a Sixth for the Trophy Case: Pittsburgh Outlasts Arizona in a Classic Super Bowl

In one of the most dramatic Super Bowls ever, the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Arizona Cardinals 27-23, claiming their second title in four years and sixth Super Bowl win overall, breaking the record that the franchise shared with the Dallas Cowboys and San Francisco 49ers. Santonio Holmes caught the game winning touchdown pass from Ben Roethlisberger with just :35 remaining, balletically tapping both of his feet inbounds while reaching full extension to snare the ball as it sailed just over the outreached hands of three defensive players. Just moments earlier, it seemed as though the Cardinals had the game won after Kurt Warner completed a 64 yard touchdown bomb to Larry Fitzgerald. Warner finished with 31 completions in 43 attempts for 377 yards, three touchdowns and one interception, compiling the second most yards in Super Bowl history; he now owns the top three single game yardage performances in Super Bowl history but is only 1-2 in those contests, with those two defeats coming in the final seconds by a combined seven points.

Roethlisberger completed 21 of 30 passes for 256 yards, one touchdown and one interception. He only had two yards on four rushing attempts but his ability to move around in the pocket and buy time proved to be critical throughout the game, particularly on the game-winning drive. Holmes led both teams with nine receptions for 131 yards and was awarded the Super Bowl MVP but ESPN's Steve Young insisted that Roethlisberger should have won the MVP, declaring, "The Steelers are beat--dead beat--unless Ben Roethlisberger makes about seven or eight improvisational plays at the end of that game on that critical drive and he was the MVP in my mind because of what he did right there. It was like what Dr. Seuss said--he grew three sizes right in front of my eyes...He made play after play after play and without that they are beat." Holmes made some huge plays but I have to agree with Young, who I consider to be the best football analyst on TV; if Roethlisberger does not scramble around, elude the pass rush and then make some tremendous throws, Holmes would have never even had the opportunity to make those plays. The Steelers franchise is justifiably renowned for their punishing running game and hard hitting defense, so it is somewhat ironic that three of their six Super Bowl MVPs have been wide receivers (Lynn Swann and Hines Ward are the other two).

The Cardinals got off to a very slow start and were fortunate to only be trailing 10-0 early in the second quarter; the Steelers seemed to have scored a touchdown on a short run by Roethlisberger to cap off the opening drive of the game but the Cardinals challenged the call and the officials ruled that Roethlisberger had been stopped just shy of the goal line. Pittsburgh Coach Mike Tomlin elected to kick the chip shot field goal instead of going for it on fourth and one, a conservative call but certainly an understandable choice. The Cardinals only managed one first down on their first possession before having to punt the ball and this time the Steelers drove 69 yards for a touchdown. Warner finally got Arizona on the board by engineering a nine play, 83 yard touchdown drive to cut the lead to 10-7. After Roethlisberger threw an interception deep in his own territory late in the first half, the Cardinals were poised to at least tie the game and possibly take the lead. Instead, on first and goal from the one yard line Warner was intercepted by Defensive Player of the Year James Harrison. Holmes' late TD catch will forever be remembered as the signature moment of this game but the biggest play overall was undoubtedly Harrison's 100 yard interception return for a touchdown as time expired in the first half; that was a 14 point swing in a game that was not decided until the final seconds. With all of the talk about what constitutes a Hall of Fame career, that play is a tribute to why Pittsburgh assistant coach Dick LeBeau should be inducted: LeBeau designed the zone blitz that the Steelers have perfected and it was a classic zone blitz call that fooled Warner, as Harrison faked like he was going to rush the passer before dropping back into coverage.

The Cardinals did not score in the third quarter but held the Steelers to three points, meaning that Arizona would need to make the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history to win the game. After the teams traded punts, the Cardinals went to a no huddle offense for the first time in the game and put together an eight play, 87 yard touchdown drive in just 3:57, passing on every down, including a one yard jump ball to Fitzgerald for the score. The teams again traded punts but the Cardinals were able to pin the Steelers in at the one yard line, which led to a safety after the Steelers were called for a holding penalty in the end zone, making the score 20-16 Pittsburgh.

After the free kick, Arizona took over at the 36 yard line. Warner threw an incomplete pass on first down but on second down he hit Fitzgerald on a short slant over the middle and, much like Jerry Rice used to do, Fitzgerald outran everyone to the endzone. The Steelers held Fitzgerald in check for most of the game but he finished with seven receptions for 127 yards and two touchdowns. The Cardinals now led 23-20 with just 2:37 remaining. That set up the heroics by Roethlisberger and Holmes, who had four receptions for 73 yards and a touchdown on the final drive.

Prior to this game there was talk about how a victory could put the final touches on Warner's Hall of Fame resume, although I think that the two regular season MVPs, one Super Bowl MVP and top five career passer rating that Warner already had make a pretty compelling case on his behalf; Warner certainly played well--though the big first half interception was costly--and he put together what could have been the game-winning drive but--as Young stated so strongly--Roethlisberger is really the player who added to his legacy. Roethlisberger is now the second youngest quarterback to win two Super Bowls and, considering that he has a young coach and a strong defense, it is entirely possible that he could match Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana's record of four Super Bowl victories.

Polamalu Reprises Mean Joe Greene's Coke Role--With a Twist

Mean Joe Greene's Coca-Cola commercial from the 1980 Super Bowl is one of the most famous--and touching--TV spots of all-time. For this year's Super Bowl, Coke Zero is having Troy Polamalu reprise Greene's role, but with a twist that will not be revealed until the ad runs during the game.

Here are the first 12 seconds of the new ad, plus some behind the scenes footage from the filming:



Here is Greene's take on the new ad: