Has it Really Come to This?

This has happened way too early, way too often this year.

This has been a trying year for Rockies fans. While not considered a division favorite, Colorado was a popular dark horse pick because of the volatility of the NL West and the moves the team made in the offseason. The additions of Michael Cuddyer, Marco Scutaro, and Ramon Hernandez to the already potent pair of Carlos Gonzalez and Troy Tulowitzki created a lineup with the potential to light up scoreboards. Everyone figured the Rockies would hit, but the big question was whether it would hit enough to make up for a questionable rotation.

Starting pitching was universally identified as the team's weak spot, but nobody figured it would be this bad. The Rockies' rotation has been atrocious and is approaching historically-bad levels. Colorado starters have an ERA of 6.31, which would be the worst in history if it holds up. Rockies starters produce a quality start--at least 6 innings pitched allowing 3 or fewer runs--just over a quarter of the time. Fifty-year-old Jamie Moyer is third on the team in innings pitched despite being released nearly a month ago and generally making it only five innings. Reliever Josh Roenicke almost has as many innings pitched as every member of the starting rotation.

That's not good.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. None of the five pitchers in the team's Opening Day rotation are still in the rotation. Opening Day starter Jeremy Guthrie, acquired in the offseason for Jason Hammel and Matt Lindstrom to be the ace of the staff and a veteran innings-eater, sports a 2-6 record with an ERA of 7.02 and demonstrated some weird behavior in a terrible start against Oakland where he tipped his hat to the crowd a couple times. He's been so bad that the team banished him to the bullpen even while trying to trade him (You generally try and showcase people you want to trade, and sending him to the bullpen diminishes the return you can get for him). Jhoulys Chacin was sent down to AAA after a lackluster start to the season and has yet to throw a pitch due to some pectoral troubles. Juan Moyer's been released, Drew Pomeranz was shipped back to the minors, and Juan Nicasio is on the DL.

Oh, Jason Hammel, the man traded for Guthrie? After throwing a complete game, one-hit shutout this past Sunday against Atlanta--his first-ever complete game and shutout--he currently has a 7-2 record with a 2.87 ERA and has a good chance of making the AL All-Star team.

At their wits' end, or possibly under the influence of heavy drugs and alcohol at the time, Colorado management came up with a "solution": the team will go with a four-man rotation for the time being with each starter being held to a strict 75-pitch limit.

Look, I can see why the team did this: the rotation has been downright abysmal, so they had to do something. Despite being grossly overworked, the bullpen has performed admirably and offers a least a little hope of competency (last night's blown save by closer Rafael Betancourt notwithstanding). Hell, I even half-jokingly suggested an eerily similar course of action a couple weeks ago. Personally, I would have gone with firing pitching coach Bob Apodaca--as would pretty much every other Rockies fan in the Rocky Mountain region--but apparently Rockies management feels differently.

This is the stupidest idea I've heard in some time, and considering owner Dick Monfort said that Dan O'Dowd, who built this record-setting rotation, was the best GM in baseball, that's sayin' somethin'.

There is merit to a four-man rotation, mainly that having your better pitchers pitch more often instead of giving the ball to a mediocre fifth starter gives you better odds of winning more games. Teams use that same logic in the postseason every year. The number five guy goes into the bullpen as a long man while teams just go with their top four, or sometimes just three, starters. Just look at last year's World Series champions, the St. Louis Cardinals. If you're Tony LaRussa, do you want Chris Carpenter on the mound in a deciding game or Kyle McClellan? Would Yankees fans rather have CC Sabathia on the mound or Ivan Nova?

That's all fine and dandy if you actually have decent pitchers, but the Rockies starters are horrible. They should probably go with a six-man rotation just so these guys don't have to pitch as often.

The thing that irks me the most, however, is that damn pitch count. Seriously, 75 pitches a game?! What the hell! Talk about setting the bar low. The reason given is that the starters will need to keep their pitch count low because they'll be pitching on fewer days' rest. How about we quit worrying about the next start and concentrate on winning this one, eh?

Pitchers are babied too much these days. Pitchers used to routinely make 40 starts a year as teams went with four-man rotations. Nowadays, everyone is so concerned about innings and the 100-pitch mark, that it's led to coddled pitchers. Nolan Ryan and the Rangers threw all that out and just told their guys to go out and win the damn game, and a Texas staff that used to be one of the worst in baseball has now been to back-to-back World Series and is a favorite to reach a third straight. Ryan would be aghast and infuriated if someone suggested the Rangers use this harebrained idea.

Pitchers need to be mentally tough in order to overcome the stigma of pitching at Coors Field and have success, but having the young Rockies pitchers' goal be to get through just 75 pitches is only going to weaken their fortitude, not strengthen it. Screw the pitch count; their goal should be to throw a complete game every time they take the mound. It's not always going to happen, but that should be their mindset every time they step on the rubber. They should be pissed when they only make it five or six innings, not relieved that they "did their job."

On the bright side, Rockies starters should adjust pretty easily to the new setup since they're pretty much used to it by now. Seventy-five pitches is right around the point in the game where Tracy's walking out to take them out of the game because it's only the 3rd or 4th inning and they've already given up 5-6 runs.

Memorial Day

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the solider, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the organizer, who gave us the freedom to demonstrate. 

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag. 

And whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag."

-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC

1,319,475

That number is a rough estimate of the number of men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in service to America over her 235 years of existence.

Nearly one-point-four million lives.

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue." -Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz about the Marines who fought on Iwo Jima

And that number is only reported combat deaths; it doesn't include those who were wounded or the too many who are missing in action and never returned home. Just think of World War II and the vast Pacific campaign. How many sailors were lost when their ships were sunk? How many Marines and soldiers were swept away by the tides when storming the beaches at any number of Japanese island fortresses? How many airmen did the unforgiving sea consume after their planes were shot down or succumbed to mechanical failures, never to be seen again?

1.4 million.

Today is Memorial Day, the generally-accepted start of the summer. The weather is getting nicer by the day, and school's almost out. It's a time to head up to the mountains and/or fire up the barbecue.

Navy SEALs, and one Special Forces operator, honor their fallen comrade,  Special Warfare Operator 3rd Class Denis Miranda, by pounding their uniform Tridents into his casket on September 30, 2010 (Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Scorza)

It's also the time to remember and honor our fallen brothers and sisters.

If it weren't for the 25,000 brave patriots who fell to British muskets, who knows what would have happened? We certainly wouldn't be the country we are today. We might still be part of the British Empire.

Nearly 625,000 perished in the Civil War, America's bloodiest conflict. Without their efforts, we might be a fractured nation where one half still legalized slavery. We certainly wouldn't be the mighty nation we are today.

A photo taken after the Battle of Gettysburg

Say what you will about how our government treated Native Americans, but without the hundreds of cavalry troopers and infantrymen that died pacifying the wild western frontier, our nation would be markedly different. My own home state of Colorado might not have become a state, and California, the most populous state in the union and an important economic and cultural leader in our country, would not have developed the way it has (some of you may feel that would have been a good thing). Without the Transcontinental Railroad, would people have flocked to California the way they did?

Buffalo Soldiers of the 10th Cavalry Regiment on patrol

Fresh American soldiers provided the final push to end World War I that war-weary and ravaged France and Britain could not, and 405,399 brave Americans gave their life in World War II to defeat the greatest evil the world has ever seen.

In Korea, 36,516 Americans were killed in a war nobody remembers. Over 58,000 US servicemen gave their lives in an unpopular war. Two hundred sixty-six men, mostly Marines, were killed in a bombing in Beirut in 1983 during the Lebanese Civil War. Two hundred fifty-eight military personnel died during the Gulf War, and dozens more died in the line of duty in numerous smaller actions like Panama, Grenada, and Somalia.

After 9/11, America's warriors went to war yet again, to avenge their countrymen and rain retribution down on those responsible. To date, about 6,400 American military personnel have fallen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"It is God's job to forgive Osama Bin Laden. It is our job to arrange a face-to-face meeting." -General Arnold Schwarzkopf

These brave men and women deserve to be remembered and honored. Our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines sacrifice much so that we can enjoy the freedoms and comforts we have today. They are away from their families for months, sometimes years, at a time. They miss important events that we take for granted like graduations, weddings, and the births of their children. Some never get to know their children as they are killed in action before they can return home.

My biggest fear upon waking up this morning was having an upset stomach from something I ate last night. Our military men and women wake up knowing they might not make it through the day. They give up their own personal freedom so that the rest of us can enjoy ours.

These men and women represent the best of America, who we are and what we aspire to be. This country was built on their sacrifices. Without them, we would not be who we are today.

So today, take a moment to reflect upon their sacrifice. Look to them as an example and strive to take advantage of the opportunities they have given you. America is great because of them. It will continue to be great because of us.

First Round Draft Preview

I've been meaning to write a Rockies preview for awhile now, but for the life me, I can't figure out this team. I don't know what's going on with them. The Rockies started out slow, struggling to put up runs while the rotation was getting hammered. Then, they started to hit well and received some competent pitching. I was starting to feel optimistic that my initial feelings coming into the season were accurate... and then they lost two-of-three to the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Anyway, that's not the topic of discussion here. Tonight, the first round of the bloated NFL draft will take place, and the Broncos have the 25th pick in the draft.

I must confess that I'm not a fan of the draft. I find all the hype to be absurd and annoying. The "evaluations" particularly irk me. It seems like scouts and draft gurus will ignore a lot of things simply if a guy fits a prototype, and some of the knocks on guys are just ridiculous. (For a hilarious mocking of NFL talent scouts, check this out). I was reading something just this morning, and a stud defensive lineman who tore up the SEC was being knocked because his arms were a little short.

Seriously?

This guy made all sorts of plays in the toughest conference in the country, and you might not want to draft him because he doesn't have the wingspan of a condor?

Quarterbacks are especially notorious for this sort of thing. I remember a few years back when Kyle Boller was drafted in the first round. He hadn't done anything noteworthy at Cal and have a completion percentage of just over 50 percent. Jeff Tedford became the coach in Boller's senior year, and Cal had its best season in years, going like 7-5 or 8-4 and making a bowl game, but that was it. No Heisman Trophy or championship. However, since Boller could chuck a football 70 yards, he was worthy of a first-round pick.

Same thing with JaMarcus "Purple Drank" Russell. He didn't have a great college career, only having one decent season, yet he was the number one overall pick. Scouts and coaches were like, "OMGZ!!11!1 He can throw a football 60 yards on his KNEE! And look at his hands! They're ginormous!"

Let me ask you this: how often does a quarterback throw a deep ball from his knees in the NFL? Is that play in the playbook? Russell had bust written all over him, yet scouts became enamored with his physical gifts and ignored all the red flags.

Yet, they never learn.

Kellen Moore is the winningest quarterback in NCAA history, accumulating an astounding 50-3 record during his tenure at Boise State. His three losses were by a combined five points. Five. He is among the leaders in touchdowns, yards, and completion percentage, and is a wizard at running an offense. His anticipation is uncanny, and he is extremely accurate. He knows how to move around the pocket and avoid the rush, and he always knows where everyone is supposed to be on every play. Simply put, he's a football savant who dissects defenses.

However, he's likely not going to be drafted until the third day because he's not tall enough and doesn't have a howitzer for an arm. Ryan Tannehill may go in the top 10 despite only starting for just over a year and converting from wide receiver. Brock Osweiler, whose Sun Devils were mercilessly torn apart by Moore in the MAACO Bowl Las Vegas, may get drafted in the first or second round based on his "upside". Forget that he's only started 15 games and wasn't all that successful in them; let's draft him because he's a walking cactus that shoots footballs.

In spite of all this, I can't turn away from the draft. It's like a car wreck; I can't take my eyes off of it. As much as I detest the draft hoopla, I've logged into ESPN.com and SI.com about three times a day over the past few weeks to devour new draft information. It's sad, really.

I have to head out now to attend a draft watching party, but before I go, I'll pass along my thoughts on the Broncos' needs here in the first round:

Conventional wisdom says take a defensive tackle. Lord Tebow knows, the Broncos need some. They've avoided tackles like they were the plague the last few years, and teams gouged them with the running game last year. That hole became even bigger when the team's best defensive tackle, Brodrick Bunkley, departed in free agency.

Initially, I was all for drafting a tackle. However, I've rethought that a bit. First-round tackles haven't really fared all that well, so maybe it's better taking a tackle in the later rounds. I get the sense that Michael Brockers and Fletcher Cox are the best tackles available, and both are likely to be gone by the time the Broncos pick. Everyone else isn't really worthy of a first-round pick. There's plenty of depth at the position, too, so if Brockers isn't available (Cox will be gone), then Denver should take a tackle in the second round or later.

I read earlier that the Broncos want to trade back, and while boring, it makes a lot of sense. I'd be okay with that. There are plenty of good players, so adding some picks in the second round would be a good move. Someone like Devon Still of Penn State or Reyes from UConn would make sense there and fill the DT need.

If they choose to stay in the first round, then I would take Boise State running back Doug Martin. He's a stud, and he's been climbing up the draft boards. I don't think he'll be there by the time Denver picks in the second round. He's the complete package. Some of the other running backs (not including Trent Richardson) may be better than him in one area, but he's better than them overall. He's a tough runner who fights for extra yards, catches the ball well, and is a tremendous pass blocker. Plus, he can return kicks; against Arizona State, he took the opening kickoff back for a score. He's a no-frills player who works hard and would be a great fit for the Broncos.

I've read some mock drafts that have Denver taking Stanford tight end Coby Fleener, and my thought is, "No."

Look, I have nothing against Fleener, but the Broncos don't need another tight end. They drafted two or three last year and signed another two this year. It's not a crucial need, and the Broncos have other areas they need to address.

Manning Madness

In case you missed it, the Denver Broncos signed former Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning this past Monday in one of the biggest coups in NFL history. Manning is a surefire first-ballot Hall of Famer and will go down as one of the greatest, and possibly the greatest, quarterbacks of all time. In his illustrious career, he has completed 64.9 percent of his passes for 54,828 yards and 399 touchdowns against 198 interceptions. He boasts a career 94.9 quarterback rating, has won a Super Bowl, and is the only four-time MVP in NFL history.

We love 6'5" rocket-armed quarterbacks

Simply put, he is the greatest free agent ever to hit the market, and Denver--which is never a huge player for top-tier free agents in any sport (sigh...Rockies)-- managed to snag him. It is a huge move for a franchise on the upswing after hitting rock-bottom from 2009 to the early part of 2011.

Naturally, Denver fans were ecstatic about this development, and took to Twitter to laud revered icon John Elway, the team's Executive Vice President for Football Operations, with congratulatory tweets and Facebook posts such as:

"Plan B should be to get rid of Elway before he causes any more damage. But he is right up there with McDaniels now."

"@johnelway Shame on you for tossing Tebow aside!"

"The dumbassery is astounding. They're foolish enough to let @TimTebow go."

"@johnelway you sir are a prick. classless bastard."

"have fun in church repenting your sins you horrid SOB"

And:

"This is the worst day ever in my 30 years as a Broncos Fan"

Um... okay... that was definitely not the reaction I expected.

You see, Tim Tebow has an ardent, passionate fanbase that is borderline crazy. It's understandable; by all accounts, Tebow is a wonderful human being and fine man. He is a source of inspiration for many. He does tremendous acts of charity, such as building a hospital in the Philippines, and is one of the nicest guys around. Say what you will about his religious beliefs, but he stands by his convictions and is who he is. He's genuine and sincere. Most importantly, he's grounded. Tebow realizes how blessed he is (pun slightly intended) to be playing football for a living.

He is the consummate teammate and is a true team player. The guy's intangibles are off-the-charts. He is one of the fiercest, most fiery competitors around, and his will to win and work ethic are second to none. He has always been doubted yet has proved the critics wrong at every level. At the University of Florida, he became one of the greatest players in NCAA history, becoming the first underclassman to win the Heisman Trophy and winning two national titles.
  
Most NFL experts doubted he had the skills to make it as a quarterback in the NFL, but then-coach Josh McDaniels stunned everyone by trading up to draft Tebow in the first round. Last year, the Broncos stumbled out of the game to a 1-4 start under the much-maligned Kyle Orton. Tebow replaced Orton and rallied the team to an 8-8 record, AFC West division title, and a first-round overtime upset of the heavily-favored Pittsburgh Steelers. Along the way, Tebow unbelievably pulled out a win in the final minutes week after week, each victory topping the last on the "HOWINTHEHELLDIDHEJUSTDOTHATWHATTHEHELLJUSTHAPPENED?!" chart. "Tebowing" became a national phenomenon as Tebowmania took full flight, especially here in Denver.

Nobody knew what to make of the guy. He'd look downright awful and cringe-worthy for 3+ quarters, seemingly confirming all the experts' beliefs that he couldn't hack it as a quarterback, then in the fourth quarter, he couldn't miss. I was at the Jets game with my dad, and when Tebow ran 20-yards for the deciding score with under a minute left, we both just looked at each other and literally burst out laughing because we couldn't fathom how that had just happened.

Despite all of that, many were still not sold on Tebow, most notably Elway. Last year, Tebow ranked 34th in the NFL in completion percentage. In case you were wondering, there are only 32 teams in the NFL. Tebow completed a measly 46.5 percent of his passes for 1,729 yards-- an average of only 123.5 yards a game. He did throw 12 touchdowns against 6 interceptions and added another 6 rushing touchdowns, but he also lost 6 fumbles.

Plus, Tebow is as maddening as he is exciting. His footwork needs work, and he has the elongated throwing motion of a pitcher. He struggles reading defenses and hesitates to pull the trigger on throws. For long stretches, the Broncos offense was the most boring entity in sports, running up three-and-out after three-and-out. We'd pull our hair out in exasperation for three quarters watching drive after drive end with Britton Colquitt punting the ball away.  

There is no denying that Peyton Manning is a clear upgrade at the quarterback position. He would be an upgrade for all but 6-8 teams in the league. He instantly makes the Broncos better, and Denver is now a favorite to defend their division title in the weak AFC West.

Yet Tebowites are up in arms.

There are numerous arguments about why the team would have been better off going with Tebow over Peyton Manning-- no seriously, there are.

1.) Elway is jealous of Tebow and how the youngster is threatening Elway's legacy

"Elway is letting his ego get in the way of his brain. Can't handle Tebow getting the attention he was getting."

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It makes absolutely zero sense! John Elway is one of the top five greatest quarterbacks in NFL history. When he retired, he had won more games than any quarterback in history up to that point. He threw for over 50,000 yards with 300 touchdown passes, won back-to-back Super Bowls, a Super Bowl MVP, and was a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Why in the world would he be jealous? Further, if he really were jealous about someone surpassing him, then why would he go out and sign PEYTON MANNING? Elway even said that his goal is to help Manning go down as the greatest quarterback to ever play the game. Does that sound like envy to you?

Even when Elway traded Tebow, thus giving him the opportunity that so many of his fans desired, the fans were still seething at Elway because he traded Tebow to New York instead of Jacksonville. Many felt that Denver owed it to Tebow to send him where he wanted to go. Um... no. That's not how it works in sports. You try to accommodate if you can, but the franchise comes first. Never mind that Tebow actually preferred the opportunity with the Jets, how dare Elway put the needs of the team ahead of Tebow! New York gave up two draft picks for Tebow whereas Jacksonville only offered one.

2.) Manning is a significant injury risk

"Think @timtebow better long-term for Broncos. Manning long-in-tooth, coming off 4 surgeries. One hit and hysteria is OVER."

This is actually a legitimate concern. Manning will soon be 36 and is coming off four neck surgeries, so the worry is valid. However, Manning has been cleared by renowned surgeon Dr. Robert Watkins. Furthermore, doctors at Northwestern University did a study of 99 NFL players who had suffered herniated discs like Manning. Of those, 53 opted for surgery, and the study found that players who chose surgery had higher return-to-pay rates and longer careers. In an article in The Denver Post, Dr. Eric McCarty, chief of sports medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, said, "You do have to make sure that it's healed and that the bones are completely fused to each other. But once that occurs, that's not going to break." The real concern is nerve regeneration. Nerve damage affects arm strength, but by all accounts, Manning has looked great throwing the ball.

As for the "one hit and hysteria is OVER" sentiment, it's the NFL. Every player runs the risk of having their career ended with one hit. Football is a violent game. Tebow could suffer a career-ending injury as a result of a vicious hit. In fact, it's more likely to happen to him than Manning because of his physical running style. Tebow got battered pretty good in that New England game. If the Broncos had won, he would not have been available to play in the AFC championship game the next week. 

3.) Manning is old, only has a few years, and the team has no backup plan

Manning is 36 and no spring chicken. He likely will only have a few years left where he performs at an elite level. Considering he's Peyton Manning, I'll gladly take three of those years. Elway won back-to-back Super Bowls at ages 37 and 38. Kurt Warner took the Cardinals to the Super Bowl in the twilight of his career. Brett Favre had one of his best seasons and quarterbacked the Vikings to the NFC championship game at 40.

Sure, Manning is not the long-term answer at quarterback for Denver, but he is a nice bridge to whoever is. The team is going to draft a quarterback and groom him to succeed Manning in a few years, just like Aaron Rodgers did in Green Bay. Teams do plan for the future in the NFL. It does happen. Besides, who better to learn from than Peyton Manning?

As for not having a "Plan B", people are panicking because the only other quarterback the team has is Adam Weber, who spent last season on the practice squad. Again, the Broncos are going to sign a free agent to serve as the backup QB. Billy Volek, backup QB extraordinaire, is available and would be a good choice, for instance. Tebow would not be a good backup to Manning because the two are so different. Tebow simply cannot operate the same offense as Manning.

4.) Elway lied! LIES! DAMN LIES!

"worst move broncos ever made next to puting elway in charge - two faced elway KEEP TEBOW"

Much of the outrage stems from a statement Elway made months ago when he said that Tebow had earned the right to be the starting quarterback entering training camp. Obviously, that has no changed, and Tebow fans are furious. They are vilifying Elway for going against his word. How could do he do such a terrible, terrible thing to Tebow!

Elway made those comments about Tebow being the guy back in January. At the time, Peyton Manning wasn't even on the radar. It wasn't known whether Indianapolis would even release him. The Broncos were set to enter training camp with Tebow as the starter, and the team was going to bring in a free agent--backup Brady Quinn was a free agent and not expected to return-- as well as draft a young quarterback.

Two months later, a future Hall of Fame quarterback is suddenly available; would you expect Elway to not make a play for Manning because of comments he made weeks before? The situation had changed, and Elway had to react and act accordingly. He didn't intentionally lie about Tim Tebow. He had planned on going to training camp with Tebow as the starter, but when Manning became available, he decided to gamble and go all-in. There was no malice behind it.

Tebowites need to understand that this happens in sports all the time. Where was their outrage for Alex Smith, Matt Moore, Kevin Kolb, Matt Hasselbeck, and Jake Locker? I didn't hear them crucifying 49ers management for the way they treated Smith, who had just taken his team farther than Tebow took the Broncos.  

The majority of Bronco fans are ecstatic. They stench of the McDaniels era is finally dissipating, and the future is bright. Unfortunately, there is an extremely zealous and outspoken minority that is dominating the interwebs.

Tim Tebow took us all on a great ride in 2011, and it was one of the best stories of the year. It was like nothing I've ever experienced, and I'll always remember going crazy with disbelief as he brought the Broncos back time after time. From the miraculous triumph against Miami to the scintillating overtime victory in the playoffs against off Pittsburgh, Tebow restored hope and promise to a proud franchise.

However, it's time to turn the page and move on to a new chapter. I wish Tebow the best of luck in New York and truly hope he succeeds. If anyone can do it, he can.

In the mean time, I cannot wait to see Peyton Manning don the Orange & Blue and lead the Broncos out of the tunnel at Sport Authority Field at Mile High. 

Dealin' With Doherty: Iron Chef Edition

I am not what you would call a "foodie."

"Simpleton" may be a better choice. "Vanilla" is certainly an apt description, in more ways than one.

I am a notoriously picky eater and am one who doesn't like to stray from the box. I like the box. It's comfortable in there.

My roommate often likes to pick what I'm going to have at a restaurant because I am rather predictable. I'm also pretty plain when it comes to food. For instance, I love vanilla ice cream... but just vanilla. No chocolate syrup or other toppings. Just vanilla. I get a cup of plain vanilla at Cold Stone, and they look at me like I'm an escaped mental patient.

The reason I bring this up is because last night my roommate and his girlfriend were watching the Food Network. They caught the tail end of Worst Cooks in America and then the subsequent episode of Iron Chef America. I had never seen either show before, so it was an interesting experience.

Both my roommate and his better half are more accepting and daring when it comes to food. They both cook, and they like to try new things. Basically, they're the Anti-me.

My roommate proposed this idea: for his birthday, he wants his girlfriend and the wife of one of our friends to engage in an Iron Chef-style competition. He, along with our friend, would be the judges as well as one other fellow.

Me.

See, this is the flaw in his plan, one his girlfriend so gleefully pointed out. I'd be the worst judge ever, mainly because I wouldn't eat anything they would actually make.

High-end food is lost on me. My dinner that night was a burrito. I cooked some ground turkey that was roughly two weeks past the "use or freeze by" date--side note, apparently turkey that has been refrigerated that long is still good because I'm not dead yet--put it in a store-bought tortilla, added some lettuce and Kraft shredded cheese, and topped it off with Cholula. That's about as gourmet as I get.

In Iron Chef America, the competing chefs are given one ingredient that they must use in every course. If I were the judge for this competition, that ingredient would have to be vanilla because I don't have anything with my ice cream for dessert. My roommate's girlfriend just shook her head in shame for me when she realized that.

As the show went on, we starting talking about what it would be like if I were on Iron Chef. It would be hilariously disastrous.

For one, the chefs on that show get 60 minutes to create like five courses. They're racing the clock at the end, scrambling madly to get everything ready before the clock strikes double-zeroes.

Me? I wouldn't need the entire hour, not by a long shot. I'd be done in like 15 minutes and would just spend the next 45 sitting in a chair... probably eating what I just made.

The chefs make these creative, exotic dishes--okay maybe they're not all THAT exotic, but you're talking to a guy who goes to Cold Stone and just gets vanilla. They're exotic to me. Last night, they had to use sausage as their main ingredient. You know what I would have made? A sausage pizza and sausage sandwiches.

Another reason why I would fail spectacularly at this show: plating. It's one of the three categories chefs are judged upon. I have no idea what it means.

I said, "What in the world is plating?" and my roommate and his girlfriend looked at me with an odd mix of pity and bewilderment strewn across their faces. They explained that it was how the food was arranged on the plate to make it look aesthetically pleasing. I asked why that was important and received shaken heads and "Oh dear lord." I bring out religion in people, apparently.

See, that doesn't matter to me because I segregate my food. I'm a food racist, as a girl I once knew so eloquently put it. She called me that because of my love of vanilla and lack of fondness for chocolate. When I admitted that I like the filling of Oreos but am not a fan of the chocolate cookie part, that's when she labeled me a food racist.

The point is that I don't mix my food. I generally eat things one at a time. I'll have all the vegetables before going on to the spaghetti. If I have mac'n'cheese with a hamburger, I'm finishing the burger before digging into the mac'n'cheese.

I'm weird, I know.

Anyway, just the thought of what I would do if I were ever on Iron Chef should be horrifying to many of you who like fine food and, well, culture, but at any rate, it would be hilarious... and probably sad. Hilariously sad.  

What Could Have Been...

Last week, the Mountain West and Conference USA announced that they will form a new conference starting in 2013. The new conference would have at least 16 schools with the possibility of expanding to 18-24 and would be split into regional divisions. The new league would span from coast-to-coast and have members in five time zones. Perhaps the most interesting piece of information regarding the new conference is that not only would there be a conference championship game in football, but semifinals as well. That would be the first type of playoff of any kind at the Division I-level in college football.

As of right now, the schools forming the conference are Air Force, Colorado State, UNLV, New Mexico, and Wyoming from the Mountain West along with UAB, East Carolina, Marshall, Rice, Southern Miss, UTEP, Tulane, and Tulsa from Conference USA. Fresno State, Nevada, and Hawai’i are joining the Mountain West this coming year as well.

UNLV President Neal Smatresk said, “This is an exciting development that will stabilize the current conferences and create the first truly national conference with members in five time zones and television viewership from coast to coast. We are moving our plans forward rapidly and expect to complete our conversations in the near future. Look for further announcements soon as we work together on this exciting new venture.”

School and conference officials are, naturally, putting the best possible spin on this.

“This partnership brings together like-minded institutions to improve the integrity and stability of intercollegiate athletics,” Smatresk said.

Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowksy said, “It is apparent that this association has great potential and there are leaders within the group that are committed to maximizing it.”

Tulane President Scott Cowen said, “We think this new conference will draw considerable interest from the networks.” Both the Mountain West and Conference USA have television contracts that run through 2015-16, and there is hope that the new conference will receive a new television deal.

Many college football fans and pundits have scoffed or laughed at the news. The Mountain West has long coveted an automatic BCS berth, but many believe that this new conference isn’t worthy of one. Conference expansion has gutted the elite of both conferences. BCS busters Utah, TCU, and Boise State have deserted the Mountain West for the greener pastures of the Pac-12, Big 12, and Big East, respectively. Mountain West basketball power San Diego State is also leaving for the Big East, and Houston, SMU, Memphis, and Central Florida ditched Conference USA in favor of the Big East.

The national appeal has also been called into question. Sure, the new conference spans from coast-to-coast and has schools in every time zone, but none are in major markets or have huge national followings.

Travel is also a concern. Hawai’i is 4,864 miles away from East Carolina and 4,358 miles from UAB. That will be mitigated by organizing the new divisions along regional lines, meaning that the Warriors will only have to travel to play the Pirates and Blazers every few years. Still, in these tough economic times when money is tight, questions can be raised about the wisdom of incurring more travel costs across the country, especially since many of these universities are smaller in size and budget than their BCS counterparts.

Finally the sheer size of the conference has led some to question its viability. After all, the WAC tried to create a 16-team superconference back in the early ‘90s. Its problems led eight schools to break off and form their own conference. That conference was the Mountain West. What makes school and conference officials think this time will be any different?  

Make no mistake; this consolidation between the Mountain West and Conference USA was done solely for survival.

Conference realignment has a ripple effect. The impact on the major conferences draws most of the attention, but the effect is most keenly felt by the smaller conferences. The Mountain West has seen five members depart over the past two years. It was the top non-BCS conference in the nation with numerous top-10 finishes over the past few years. Now, it is a shell of its former self, its fans aching over what it could have been. In order to survive, it raided the WAC: first Boise State, then Nevada, Fresno State, and Hawai’i. Those four schools won every WAC championship in football from 2002-2010.

That left the WAC in limbo, as questions arose about whether the conference could even survive. It was down to just five members, and adding schools such as Seattle, Denver, UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio, and Texas State isn’t exactly a strong recovery. Denver, Seattle, and UT-Arlington don’t have football teams while UTSA and Texas State are moving up to Division I football.

Utah State already turned down an invite to the Mountain West, but the Aggies are an obvious expansion candidate for the new conference. Louisiana Tech, the defending WAC champion in football, has long been rumored to covet a spot in Conference USA. The new conference is western-heavy, with only two schools located in the Eastern time zone. Adding Louisiana Tech would alleviate that. Those two schools are the two best remaining WAC schools in football, and losing them would be a huge blow to the conference, one that it likely would not recover from.

Conference USA is in better shape than the Mountain West, at least for football. Losing Houston--which was a game away from a BCS bowl last season—and Central Florida hurts, but Memphis has been absolutely dreadful while SMU has improved from atrocious to mediocre. Tulsa and East Carolina have enjoyed recent success, and Southern Miss knocked off Houston and won the conference last year.

Other leagues could be affected, too. The remnants of the WAC are the most likely candidates for expansion, but reports have indicated that schools in the Sun Belt, MAC, and A-10 are also on the list of possible targets.

For all of its many flaws, the worst thing about the BCS is how much it has changed the landscape. Automatic bids have created an unequal playing field that has left teams chasing after the almighty dollar. The Big 12 was nearly torn apart because of Texas’ power and the Longhorn Network. The Pac-12 expanded in order to get a championship game and a better television deal. Utah and Colorado bolted for the conference because they would receive more money. TCU originally departed for the Big East because of the greater revenue derived from the conference’s automatic bid to the BCS.

Syracuse and Pittsburgh dumped the Big East in favor of the ACC because of long-term stability. That caused TCU to back out and head to the Big 12—the one move in all of this that actually makes sense. West Virginia was desperate to leave the Big East for any conference that would take it, having been rumored to join the SEC and ACC before finally ending up in the Big 12. Louisville and Connecticut have made overtures to other conferences. Texas A&M wanted to get out of Texas’ shadow, so it left for the SEC. Missouri decided to join in on the fun and do what all the cool kids were doing, so it also left for the SEC.  

The Big East was on the brink of destruction, so it raided smaller conferences because it had the one thing they coveted: a BCS berth. The only reason Boise State is joining the Big East is because of that berth. The Broncos got tired of seeing lesser teams make BCS bowls while they were shipped off to second-tier games. This past season, the seventh-ranked Broncos played a 6-6 Arizona State team that had long given up on the season in the MAACO Bowl Las Vegas while four teams ranked lower played in BCS bowls. In 2010, the Broncos were left out while unranked and 8-4 UConn got shellacked by Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.

The irony is that when the current BCS contract ends in two years, automatic bids may no longer exist. If that happens, what will these teams do? It doesn’t make any sense for Boise State and San Diego State to play in the Big East. If there is no guaranteed BCS berth, then do they stay in the conference?

It’s depressing to witness what has happened to college sports because of the BCS and money. The storied Texas-Texas A&M rivalry may not continue. Kansas-Missouri, one of the most bitter and heated rivalries in college sports, is finished, at least for the foreseeable future. Colorado fans eagerly awaited the annual Nebraska game the day after Thanksgiving. TCU and Boise State could have had one of the best matchups in all of college football. Those two teams have played each other for three straight years, and each game was decided by a touchdown or less. Utah and TCU played with a BCS berth on the line. Can you imagine what the Mountain West would have been like if Utah, TCU, BYU, San Diego State, and Boise State had all stayed? Now that would be a fun conference. Instead, we’re left to wonder.

Other sports are feeling the effects, too. The Mountain West is the best basketball conference out west. San Diego State made it to the Elite Eight last year. The Aztecs and UNLV are both in the top 15 this year, yet both are trailing New Mexico in the conference. Wyoming and Colorado State have pulled off upsets. Missouri is one of the best teams in the country this year and is having an unbelievable season, yet those thrilling matchups with Big 12 powers Kansas and Baylor will be a thing of the past.

It’s sad to see what has become of college athletics, even more so when you think about what could have been.  

A Battle for the Ages

This past Sunday morning, I did not go to sleep until around 9:00 am. That's extremely late, even by my standards, yet I don't regret it all.
I was too busy watching the greatest tennis match, and one of the best sporting events, I have ever seen.

Novak Djokovic, the top-ranked player in the world, outlasted #2-ranked Rafael Nadal in an epic five-set thriller, winning the 2012 Australian Open after a 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7 (5), 7-5 victory that was the longest final in the Open era. The match took nearly 6 hours-- 5 hours and 53 minutes, to be exact-- and was Djokovic's third-straight Grand Slam title, all of which came at Nadal's expense.

Words simply cannot describe what occurred the other night in Melbourne. In the 2008 Wimbledon final, Nadal bested Roger Federer in another epic five-setter, a match that many called the greatest of all time. While Djokovic's victory may have lacked some of the astounding shot-making that the Wimbledon final had, it more than made up for it in sheer determination and willpower.

Make no mistake, though, this was not a sloppy match. This was a fine display of top-notch tennis. Almost every game was tightly contested and full of long rallies. Seemingly every Nadal service game went to deuce. There were amazing shots and even better gets. The defense in this match was incredible.

Djokovic was coming off a five-set victory over #4 Andy Murray while Nadal has dispatched #3 Federer and was looking to exact some revenge on the man who had owned him in 2011. Djokovic was shaky in the first set, missing with his forehand. Nadal came out aggressively, winning a first set that was two minutes shorter than the woman's final from the night before.

Djokovic rebounded to take the second set and cruised through the third (I can't say what happened during the third set because I dozed off  and missed it). The Serb looked to have the match in hand at this point. He had finally gotten his game untracked, and it seemed inevitable that he would eventually break Nadal's serve. He had his chance at 4-3, 0-40, but Nadal rallied to hold serve. The match went to a tiebreaker, and you just had this feeling that it would be decided here. Nadal was on the rise, and Djokovic seemed to be faltering just a bit. Djokovic went up 5-3, but Nadal roared back to win the next four points and take the match to a deciding fifth set.

Rafael Nadal presents an interesting dichotomy. He is one of the nicest, most gracious people off the court, but on it, he is a vicious predator. He snarls and glares constantly as he stamps around the baseline. Whenever he wins a big point, he pumps his fist as shouts of "Vamos!" echo throughout the arena. He is a beast in a man's body... actually, judging from how ripped and muscular he is, he might just be a beast.

Nadal is one of the fiercest competitors in all of sports. He is blessed with prodigious talent and is insanely fit, but it is his iron will and refusal to yield a single inch that are his greatest strengths. He simply wears down opponents mentally, browbeating them with his fighting spirit. He won't go away, and as soon as they get just one seed of doubt planted in their mind, it's over. When Nadal senses there is blood in the water, he pounces like a shark.

Even Roger Federer, arguably the greatest player in history, is not immune. Federer dominated men's tennis for years. Nobody could beat him. In final after final, his opponent would have to play lights out with miscues from Federer just to take a set, and even then, it was won in a tiebreaker. They couldn't sustain that level of play against his brilliance. He won all four major tournaments and set the record for most Grand Slam men's singles titles with 16. People lauded him as the Greatest of All Time.

Then a funny thing happened: he couldn't beat Rafael Nadal. At first, it was simply dismissed as Nadal being so dominant on clay. Then Nadal beat Federer on the grass courts of Wimbledon, a surface and event that Federer had owned. Nadal kept on winning, proving that it wasn't just the clay where he was superior. Questions began to arise: how could Federer be the greatest of all time if he wasn't even the greatest player now?

Federer has an elegance that harkens back to the aristocracy of Europe. If this were another time, he surely would have been a nobleman. He plays tennis with an artistry and a flair, rarely showing emotion. His backhand is a picturesque thing of beauty, and his creativity is something to marvel at. Nadal, on the other hand, is a brute, all muscles and physicality. His passion and desire fuel him, and his heavy southpaw shots break down Federer's one-handed backhand. He can run down anything Federer throws at him. Nadal outlasts the Swiss star; he simply wants it more than Federer.

Entering 2011, Nadal seemed poised to break all of Federer's records. He had nine major titles and would add another at the 2011 French Open after defeating Federer in the final. He had beaten Djokovic at the 2010 US Open in four sets to claim the career Grand Slam. He was the unquestioned top player in the world.

Then Novak Djokovic brought that all crashing down.

Djokovic started the year on a tear, winning his first 43 matches. By the time the year was over, he had won three of the four major tournaments and ascended to the #1 ranking. He'd beaten Federer in two semifinals, dispatched Murray to win the Australian Open, and vanquished Nadal at Wimbledon and the US Open. He had one of the best seasons in tennis history, and Nadal even admitted that the Serb was in his head.

Going into the 2012 Australian Open final, Nadal had lost his past six matches to Djokovic, and all came in tournament finals. He was determined to stop the bleeding and show that he could beat Djokovic. As he had time and time again, the Spaniard dug deep into his reserves and clawed his way back. You could just feel the tide rising in Nadal's favor as the fourth set tiebreaker loomed. Djokovic had to seal the deal before the match went to a tiebreak. The Nadal onslaught was coming, and you had to like his chances in a tiebreak.

Lo and behold, the fourth set went to a tiebreak. Nadal jumped out to an early lead, but Djokovic came back and eventually got a mini-break to take a 5-3 lead. Nadal took it right back and then clinched the set when Djokovic pushed a forehand wide.

At that point, the result seemed a foregone conclusion. Nadal had all the momentum. He was fresher, and Djokovic was showing signs of fatigue after being on court for almost ten hours in two days. Nadal was outlasting another opponent yet again. He had seized the upper hand; the finish line was in sight, and he would not be denied.

Djokovic had the look of a man who knew the end was only a matter of time. Sure, he was going to keep fighting. He is a champion after all. It's just that it seemed like he didn't have enough left in the tank. This was not an easy match. Nearly every point was a hard-fought affair. Both players were sprinting back and forth as they ran each other ragged. There are only a few players on tour who can go toe-to-toe with Nadal physically. Djokovic is one of them, but he wasn't coming in 100 percent. That epic semifinal against Murray had taken its toll. It's tough to keep up with an energized Nadal even when you're at your peak. Djokovic was walking slowly between points and definitely did not have the same energy as before. You could see his legs start to give a bit, and the commentators were suggesting that he start conserving energy during Nadal's service games. If he didn't win the first point or two, they suggested that Djokovic concede the game.

Serving 2-3 in the final set, Djokovic finally faltered. Nadal, who had barely touched Djokovic's serve since the first set, broke to go up 4-2. That was the chink in the armor that Nadal needed. He had the match in his grasp, and like a terrier, he was not going to let go. His indomitable will would carry him through. We'd seen it so many times before.

Yet this match would not play out that way. Just as Nadal is the one man who can get the upper hand on Federer, there is one man who can do the same to Nadal. That man is Novak Djokovic.

Affectionately known as the Joker for his sense of humor and comedic impressions of fellow players such as Maria Sharapova, Djokovic is somewhere between the contrasting styles of Federer and Nadal. He plays with the same brutal, single-minded efficiency as Federer but without the artistry and elegance. He does not exude the same raw physicality as Nadal, but if there is one man who can get to a shot that Nadal can't, it's Djokovic. He has a more potent serve than Nadal and a better all-around game, and he is perhaps the best returner in the game since Andre Agassi. As this match revealed, he also has heart, grit, and tenacity to rival that of Nadal.

Djokovic promptly breaks Nadal back to put them back on serve at 4-3. The key play was when Nadal, up 30-15, pushed a backhand wide. It would have been a winner and given him a 40-15 advantage. Instead, it was 30-all. The break rejuvenated Djokovic. You could see the fire return to his eyes, and while you knew Nadal wasn't going to back down, you could tell that Djokovic was going to rise up. It was going to be a titanic clash all the way till the end.

At this point, these two warriors had been on court for over five hours. They'd sprinted almost a combined 30 miles. In the next game, they had an epic 32-ball rally that Nadal finally won. Djokovic collapsed on the court afterwards, gasping heavily. It was a miracle that he could even stand, let alone sprint all over the court like a jackrabbit. Nadal was beginning to feel the effects, too, which is something you never see. While Djokovic was sprawled on the ground, Nadal was doubled over with his hands on his knees. These two were giving it everything they had.

Nobody had ever been able to out-Nadal Nadal until now. The Spaniard is renowned for his mental toughness, yet much like Federer against him, Nadal's confidence gets shaken when it comes to Djokovic. The Serb summoned his own final reserves and willed himself to victory. His legs were rubbery, his fleet bleeding, and he was facing a pumped-up Nadal, yet he persevered and would not yield. He dug deep, tapped into his last remaining reserves, and simply refused to be beaten. That's what Nadal does; people don't do that to him, yet Djokovic did. He broke Nadal again to go up 5-4 and wouldn't surrender the advantage. After saving a break point in the final game, Djokovic hit a sharp serve that Nadal could only put back in play. Djokovic charged the short return and hit a forehand winner to end it. He had defeated Nadal for the seventh-straight time and third-straight major.

Both players could hardly stand during the lengthy trophy presentation. They were both stretching, trying to avoid cramping up, and Nadal eventually sat on the net. Mercifully, someone finally brought them chairs.

What made this match so remarkable was the determination and grit displayed by both players. They would not cede and inch. When Nadal wins the first set, his is practically unbeatable. Djokovic responded by winning the next two sets. Down two sets to one against the man who had owned him for the past year, Nadal did not give up. He fought tooth-and-nail to win the fourth and take it to a deciding fifth set where he had all the momentum and advantages. Djokovic was gassed at this point and could not have been blamed for resigning himself to his fate. Instead, he summoned the strength--God only knows how-- to keep chasing down balls and launch blistering groundstrokes at his opponent.

Every game was tightly-contested. There were countless 20- and 30-shot rallies. For nearly six hours, the two best tennis players in the world blasted away at one another, each doggedly chasing down the other's punishing groundstrokes. When one would make a tremendous shot, the other would answer in kind. Nadal was hitting the ball harder in the fifth and final set than he was in the first. Djokovic somehow found the energy to engage in a 31-shot rally after being on court for nearly 11 hours in two days. He lost that point yet somehow had the fortitude to not let it affect him as he went on to win the game and the match.

It was an incredible display of willpower and high-level tennis. It was truly a match that nobody deserved to lose and was a scintillating way to start the 2012 season. Djokovic now has five career Grand Slam titles and has won four-of-the-last five majors, including the past three. He has beaten Nadal in their past seven matches, all finals. The only major that Djokovic has not won is the French Open, where he lost in the semifinals last year to Federer, snapping his 43-match winning streak. Djokovic has never made it to the finals at the French, and it is a tournament that Nadal dominates. The Spaniard has won six-of-the-past-seven French Opens and is widely considered to be the best player in history on clay. Will Djokovic complete the career Grand Slam and triumph over Nadal in Paris, or will Nadal put and end to the streak and finally beat Djokovic, putting him one title closer to Federer's record? Speaking of Federer, will he show that he is far from finished and win another title, either by overcoming his nemesis on his own turf or defeating the reigning champion of men's tennis?

The answers remain to be seen, but one this is for certain: the French Open can't get here soon enough.