sportsfanIQ

Surround seating will enclose the near court for matches.This week I had an opportunity to tour the brand new tennis facility, Sportime at Randall's Island, home of the New York Sportimes, located at One Randall's Island, just off the East River of Manhattan.  

Open year round, the $19 million complex - covering 160,000 square feet and comprising of 20 indoor/outdoor courts (five permanent indoor and 15 indoor/outdoor) - offers memberships ranging from individuals to corporate sponsors, adult and junior programs, the John McEnroe Tennis Academy, adult leagues 50 and over, summer camps, parties for kids, and as of this July will be home to the NY Sportimes as they enter the 35th season of the World TeamTennis Pro League. 

Prior to my visit to Sportime at Randall's Island, I'd never heard of the World TeamTennis Pro League, or WTT.  After five minutes of understanding its logistics, though, and previewing the season's schedule, I was intrigued.

Established in the early 1970s by Billy Jean King and Larry King, the WTT consists of ten teams: five from the Eastern Conference (Boston Lobsters, New York Buzz, New York Sportimes, Philadelphia Freedoms, Washington Kastles) and five from the Western Conference (Kansas City Explorers, Newport Beach Breakers, Sacramento Capitals, St. Louis Aces, Springfield Lasers).  

Each team is made up of a coach, two men and two women.  The format for every match consists of five sets and each set is played by: one men's singles, one women's singles, one men's doubles, one women's doubles and one mixed doubles.  The first to five games wins the set with a nine-point tiebreaker deciding a four all tie.  A point is granted for every game won and the team with the most points at the end of the match wins.  For the season, the top two teams from each conference make the playoffs.   

Seemingly designed to offer variety and a quick tempo, the dynamic of the league removes the every-man-or-woman-for-themselves mindset most tennis players are accustomed to, and instead replaces it with team camaraderie.   

Additionally, on paper, you would think an Andy Roddick vs. John McEnroe match (Wednesday, July 14th 7 PM at Sportime Stadium at Randall's Island) would be a mismatch.  But for one set, after watching McEnroe volley a few balls on his home facility during my tour, it wouldn't be a surprise to see him take the 28-year old Roddick, if only for a set. John McEnroe on his backhand.

As for the remainder of the talent participating this season, the defending WTT Champions, the Washington Kastles, are led by Serena and Venus Williams on the ladies side and former No. 1 men's doubles player, Leander Paes, who currently ranks No. 6 on the ATP Tour, on the men's.  Andy Roddick plays for the Philadelphia Freedoms.  International Tennis Hall of Fame inductee, Michael Chang, plays for the Sacramento Capitals.  The No. 1 ranked men's doubles tandem - Bob and Mike Bryan - play for the Kansas City Explorers.  James Blake leads the Boston Lobsters.  Maria Sharapova leads the Newport Beach Breakers. Anna Kournikova and Lindsay Davenport are St. Louis Aces.  Martina Hingis, who captured five Grand Slam singles titles throughout her career, plays for New York's "other" team, the Buzz.  And then there are the New York Sportimes.  Led by team Captain, John McEnroe, the Sportimes also feature reinvented Kim Clijsters, Robert Kendrick, Ashley Harkleroad, Jesse Witten and Abigail Spears. 

Having joined the WTT in 2000, the Sportimes are seeking their second championship and first since 2005.  Coming off a 2009 playoff appearance, and looking to build off its momentum, the former No. 1 junior player in the world, Chuck Adams, will begin his fourth season as head coach when the NY Sportimes unveil their new home on July 5th at 7 PM against the Washington Kastles.     

When asked his thoughts on the Sportimes' chances of capturing this season's WTT title, General Manager, John Dato, said, "We're one of the stronger teams in the Eastern Conference and our chances of making the playoffs are good." 

Standing between them and their goal - a trip to Kansas City where the Eastern and Western champions will face off for the title - is a 14-match schedule during the month of July, not to mention, of course, some of the best competitors in the game.  

So if you're a tennis fan, or even if you're not, I suggest you head out this summer and help the New York Sportimes christen Sportime Stadium at Randall's Island.  Choose to bring the family, come with a friend, or by yourself.  But the intimate setting Sportime at Randall's Island provides will surely present a fun experience either way.

Visit here to purchase your tickets today.  

After bashing the NFL Draft, and all the commercialism that it embodies, I decided to give it another shot this year.  With the first round cushioned comfortably in prime time (and the convenience of DVR), I tuned in to witness what all the hoopla was about.  

Who would go first?  Would Tim Tebow be one of the first 32 to get picked?  Would Ben Roethlisberger be traded for a top-10 selection?  

Like two fronts converging, these questions, and more, left the 75th NFL Draft shaping up to be a thunderous event.

In the past, frankly, I didn't give a hoot about anyone outside the first 10 selections.  Did I really care if Denver traded up to grab an outside linebacker from Fresno State?  Or that New England decided to forgo their first-round position for an additional one later on?

But because everyone, and I mean everyone, obsesses about this event as if it were sacrilegious not to, I decided to dive in head first.  

Here's what I noticed:

- Giving the draft, especially the first round, prime time relevance was the smartest thing the NFL could have done.  It's not that the NFL hasn't been orchestrating the draft brilliantly already, but allowing the first 32 picks to be televised by themselves—without the continued barrage of immediate rounds to follow—was, incredibly enough, more brilliant.  

How can I say this?  Because if the draft caught my eye, an eye that was intentionally blindfolded to this event in all years past, then the NFL captured the audience they were after—the small percentage that wasn't watching before. (Now if they can manage to gain my interest in rounds two through seven they'd really be onto something.)

- Can ESPN have more guys offering their opinions on each team's selection?  Besides the usual thoughts of Mel Kiper, Jr. and Todd McShay, the draft's panel consisted of Kiper, Jon Gruden, Steve Young, and Tom Jackson.  Out of this group, only Jon Gruden has a perspective worth a lick.  Kiper had Colt McCoy going 11th and McShay had Jimmy Clausen going 13th.  Considering they went 85th and 48th, respectively, why should we be subjected to their projections?  Give me someone who's been there before.  ESPN employs former athletes, coaches, and executives.  What about former scouts?  Now them I'll listen to around draft time.

- At one point during the lead-up to the No. 1 pick, after I was forced to watch the 40-second mock draft scenario, I wondered how many mock draft variations there are.  I then wished I paid attention in statistics more because I could have at least gotten in the ballpark of the answer.  Think about it: 224 picks, only Kiper and McShay know how many available to choose from, and every which way to mix them up to get another mock draft.  It's gotta be millions.  If anyone gets the answer, send it along.  

- Thirty-two picks is a bit long for my attention span.  I was told Tim Tebow would go in the bottom third of the first round so I hung around to find out.  Sure enough, with the 25th pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, the Denver Broncos selected Tim Tebow, quarterback from the University of Florida.  And then the questions for Josh McDaniels came.  What was he thinking taking Tebow at 25...Are they really filling their holes?    

And that's where I tuned out.

After this year, I'll admit, my reasons for disliking the draft were harder to come by.  Maybe it's the constant analyzing that pushes me away.  Or maybe it's the fact that every other sport has the exact same format for selecting their players, but only the NFL markets theirs to perfection and shoves it down our throats.

Of the three-and-a-half hours worth of first round coverage, I studiously took in about three.  I knew I'd be reporting my findings here, and for that I was determined to learn why the draft is so special.

My conclusion: It's special because there are others who enjoy it much more than me.  And now, after giving it a shot and not experiencing the same joy as those around me, I'm OK with that.

A lot of fans love the NFL Draft, it's just not for me.

In light of recent talks to expand the NCAA tournament, it seems only fitting to take a stance on one side of the debate—either in favor of a potential 96-team field or against it. 

With changes in mind, and the 2010 March frenzy less than a week away, pay special attention to the insanity that a 64-team bracket induces, while at the same time remain open-minded to the idea of adding another 32.  (I understand the current format has, technically, 65 teams, but the "play-in" game might hold more irrelevancy than Mark McGwire's steroid confession.)

To evaluate both options, one must understand the history of this three-week phenomenon—and the transformative expansion it has gone through—in order to credibly offer a verdict.

In addition, it's important to consider the effect a 96-team format would have—whether it be on the students' educational inconveniences, the TV scheduling and how CBS would be impacted, or, perhaps the main driving force behind any changes, the finances.

Now, although the latter isn't this writer's expertise, we can, however, hypothesis on the tournament's structural changes and the students' educational demands. Before we do, let's dig into the history of March Madness.

In 1979 the tournament field moved to a 40-team format, up from 32 the year prior. The next year, the tourney saw its participants expand eight more, totaling 48. Finally in 1985, aside from the aforementioned irrelevantly added play-in game, the number settled at 64, and has been stagnant there ever since.  

Why the doubling of the tournament during the late '70s to mid-'80s?  

A logical explanation would be the media coverage and attention the game received. In 1979 the championship game was viewed by a record 35 million people, and over the course of the next six years (by the time the brackets finally landed at 64) averaged 30 million a year.

In fact, 16 years later, right up until the 1994 finals between Arkansas and Duke, the NCAA sustained a 30 million viewership for its final showdown.  

It wasn't until 1995 that the game began to see a precipitous decline in overall witnesses of the championship game. (Coincidentally, this is the exact time the Internet began to take off. Additionally, 1979 was the year ESPN originated. Just food for thought.)

Spanning the subsequent 15 years, from 1995 to 2009, the NCAA Championship game drew in an average of 22 million people.  

Why the tournament lost eight million viewers on its final night is beyond me. A quick suggestion would be the competition of the actual game. If this is true, wouldn't adding 32 more teams that wouldn't qualify under the current format worsen the possibility of a good final?  

Actually, it strengthens the chances of the best teams reaching the finish line. With 96, the structure would consist of adding the additional 32 teams, essentially the top 32, to a first round bye. This enables the elite to be the strongest towards the end, and the not-so-great, the ones playing an extra game along the way, to be the weakest.  

Furthermore, think about it. A 16 seed has never defeated a No. 1.  A 15 seed has only beaten a No. 2 four times. Basically, remove the poor match-ups early on, and the NCAA gets a better overall product, and we the fan get better games at the cost of an additional round.  

But withering the field down to the best isn't always the greatest formula for success. In 2008 (the only year since the field expanded to 64 that all four No. 1 seeds prevailed to the Final Four), the championship game drew in 19 million viewers.   

So at this point, from the NCAA's perspective, the thinking behind an additional 32 teams widens the fan base and attracts a larger audience. Add on more schools interested at the onset, and your chances of keeping those same fans around for the end increases.  

On the flip side, though, from the fans' point-of-view, adding an extra 32 teams compromises the integrity of the regular season, and dilutes what it means to "make it to the dance."   

Are we willing to forgo meaningful regular season games all for three weeks in March?

In contemplating all these factors, on the surface it appears as though 96 is better. But personally, explain to me how the scheduling would work. Because 16 games on Day 1 and another 16 on Day 2, both being Thursday and Friday of Week 1, works for me.  

When would that added round be? Tuesday before the start of the tournament? (Show me the ratings of the current play-in game on Tuesday night.)

No thanks!

As for the students, one more game simply means one more night of no classes in March. There are greater problems the NCAA faces from a student-athlete debate than one extra day of no classes. If you're deciding to favor expansion or not, please do not use this argument. Simply put: it holds no water.  

Finally, as noted, the finances of expansion are way too complex to analyze, and quite frankly, not worth it. The tournament is about heart, and taking home six consecutive games en route to a title. Whether a University makes money, or CBS negotiates a larger contract, is useless in my mind.

In the end, I've weighed the options many times over in my head. When it all boils down, I feel that if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. There are always going to be teams that don't make the tournament, and there is always going to be team No. 65 that feels slighted.

But where does it end?

If you add 32 more now, team 97 will be unhappy.  

Look, the tournament is perfectly structured the way it is: Thursday through Sunday for Week 1; Thursday through Sunday for Week 2; Saturday and Monday for the Final Four.

When you begin rewriting the definition of March Madness, you risk losing its identity.

And once it's gone, it'll never come back.

This article was inspired by a close friend, one whose NFL opinion I have the utmost respect for.  Last week, while referring to Peyton Manning, he declared the following sentiment: “I think we’re witnessing the best ever.”

I digested his remark, while I demurred slightly with my reluctance to cast him as the “greatest” ever because of the advantageous nature of playing half his career in a dome, and contemplated it some more.

After further thought and a little research, I offer you my conclusion here.

This Sunday, in Super Bowl XLIV, Manning looks to capture his second championship.  If successful, he’ll join a quarterback class of multiple Super Bowl winners: Bart Starr, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw, Jim Plunkett, Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, John Elway, Tom Brady, and Ben Roethlisberger. 

Of course, holding multiple Super Bowl trophies doesn’t automatically grant a quarterback the title of “greatest of all time.”  If it did, Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw, who each possess four Lombardi Trophies, would already be awarded this honor.  It is needed, however, as qualification for the conservation.

Regardless of the skills required to excel at the position, there are telling statistics that jump off the page when analyzing a quarterback.  Since all quarterbacks are made differently, comparisons using the standard metrics of touchdowns and interceptions, or even yards thrown, are hopeless endeavors. 

Instead, there are more indicative numbers that shall benefit our discussion. 

To begin with, because I raised the issue of Peyton Manning’s home field advantage, it would stand to reason that we should assess the other half of his career, as well as other Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, on the road.    

Here are the most notables. 

The first number represents each quarterback’s road winning percentage, followed by their playoff road record, then finally the number of road championship games they’ve won:

Montana—0.747, 2-4, 1
Brady—0.683, 2-3, 2
Manning—0.635, 2-4, 0
Roethlisberger—0.605, 3-0, 1
Bradshaw—0.500, 2-3, 1
Aikman—0.469, 2-4, 1
Elway—0.461, 3-3, 2

According to this measure, Manning doesn’t even crack the top two, especially because he’s yet to win a road championship game (he’s 0-1).  But these numbers do not tell the whole story.   

There are also the quarterback ratings for the same group, both home and away, which in some cases provide evidence of successful play, regardless of the outcome.   

They are as follows:

                       Home          Away
Manning            89.9          112.6
Roethlisberger    98.2          103.2
Montana           76.2           90.2
Brady              109.2           81.7
Elway              118.1           65.2
Aikman             90.8            36.5
Bradshaw          N/A            N/A

Judging by these numbers, Manning not only successfully orchestrates his offense at home, he marches them down the field to a tune of 23 more points on the road. 

But before we move on to the clinching statistic that will unveil our verdict, let’s appease those who desire the basics. 

Out of our seven quarterbacks being scrutinized, for their careers, Manning’s thrown 66 more TDs than second place Elway, almost 10,000 more yards than second place Montana, holds a point and a half higher completion percentage (64.8) than the rest of the pack, and leads everyone in QB rating with a 95.2. 

Nevertheless, the most convincing achievement is Manning’s ability to produce in the fourth quarter, both when trailing or tied. 

Manning’s QB rating when his Colts are trailing is a 109.9; when tied it’s a 108.8.  And although Joe Montana has the highest QB rating when his teams were tied (113.9), he had a 71.6 rating when they were trailing, which helps illustrate Manning’s worthiness. 

What’s more, even John Elway, who had a knack for leading two-minute-drive comebacks, posted a career 84.2 when his Broncos were behind.   

So in conclusion, it isn’t the fact that Peyton Manning can step up to the line, recognize the defense, and then call an appropriate play that makes him the leader at his position.  It’s that he executes and embodies the entire essence of what a quarterback is: intelligence, accuracy, arm strength, devotion to chemistry with teammates, and of course, an understanding of the defense.    

The Indianapolis Colts have won 12 games for seven consecutive seasons.  Whether they’re behind, tied, on the road or in a dome, they can always turn to their general—Peyton Manning.  

If he can seize his second Super Bowl on Sunday evening, he will become, at least for now, “the greatest of all time.”