10. The scoring system in tennis
Love? 15? 30? 40? Deuce? Actually, I kind of like “deuce.” But why not just go to four, win by two. It’s the exact same thing and a lot easier to follow when you’ve already thrown back a couple of Bloody Marys.

9. The overkill of NASCAR
Does it really take 500 laps to figure out which car and driver are the fastest? Here’s an idea: Make every race 50 to 100 laps and limit the number of pit stops. Every decision will be magnified and second-guessed and strategy will become an even bigger part of the sport.

8. Offsides (in soccer and hockey)
Anytime that you have defenders trying to encourage offsides calls by pulling up as they run/skate back to protect their goal, it’s not a good thing. There’s no offsides in basketball and it works just fine. When Randy Moss outruns a cornerback, play doesn’t stop because he has a clear path to the endzone. Why not reward anticipation and speed, and make soccer and hockey that much more exciting by creating a flurry of one-on-one situations between the striker/forward and the goalie?

7. The Pro Bowl
Why? What’s the point? For years, the Pro Bowl was played in Hawaii after the Super Bowl, which is like going to a concert where the headliner plays before the supporting act. To its credit, the NFL finally realized it had a wet turd on its hands and moved the game to Miami to take place before the Super Bowl. This should help, but football is a violent sport, so why play the game at all? Guys don’t want to get hurt, so they’re only going to go half speed. Plus, with all the guys scratching due to injury and the players that won’t play because their team made the big game, the rosters aren’t nearly as good as they could be. Just forget it — hand out All-NFL awards and be done with it.

6. The NBA age limit
I was once a proponent of an age limit, but not anymore. It’s not that the NBA doesn’t have every right to restrict who can and cannot join the league — they do — but the age limit (19) is wreaking havoc on college basketball. Many of the top freshmen that would have otherwise gone straight to the NBA are making a mockery of the term “student athlete.” They know they only have to stay eligible for one season, so they only really have to attend class for the fall semester. Coaches are burning hundreds of man hours trying to recruit players that they know are only going to play for one season before bolting for the NBA. Players that went straight from high school to the NBA have a higher success rate than any other sub-group, so why not let them in? The NBA wants to improve the quality of its product, and that’s commendable, but this is not the way to do it. Maybe they should expand roster sizes to 18 or 20 to allow rookies to develop in practice. I think that if a player is draft-worthy when he graduates high school, then he should be able to enter the NBA. If a player isn’t draft-worthy and goes to college, he should be required to stay for a minimum of two years. This format would allow surefire stars to enter the NBA immediately, and would increase the continuity of the college game while at the same time giving borderline NBA prospects an opportunity to develop in the collegiate ranks.

5. The seven-game series
I get it. Professional sports is a business and leagues like the NBA and NHL need to squeeze as much money out of their playoff systems as possible. (The seven-game series makes sense in baseball; teams need to be able to take advantage of a strong pitching rotation.) But playoff series in the NBA and NHL don’t truly get exciting until a team is facing elimination, which is why the single-elimination format is by far the most exciting. (March Madness and the NFL playoffs are two great examples.) While single-elimination is too much to ask for, how about a three- or five-game series? The fewer the games, the more that each game will mean. This creates drama and interest (and, ahem, ratings). There is still the opportunity for the much-ballyhooed “chess match,” but there will be a better chance that an underdog could pull the upset. I know this isn’t going to happen, but a guy can dream, can’t he?

4. Exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket
I live in a condo with no view of the southern horizon, so every Sunday, I have to pack up my laptop and head over to my buddy LaRusso’s house to watch Sunday Ticket on his DirecTV. Don’t get me wrong — I like hanging out with my friends, but this Sunday ritual is a pain in my ass. And it’s not a technology problem — it’s all about money for the NFL. They realize that Sunday Ticket is a valuable product, and they know that the package is the lifeblood of DirecTV. But enough is enough. DirecTV now has 18 million subscribers, so it’s time to offer Sunday Ticket to cable subscribers as well. I have no problem with the NFL’s desire to make a profit, but it’s not wise (or fair) to leave a good portion of your fan base out in the cold. Most of what the league garners in exclusive rights fees would be covered by a huge increase in its subscriber base. Enough.

3. Seasons that are just too long (MLB, NBA, NHL)
People say the NBA regular season doesn’t matter, and for the most part, they’re right. The NBA’s postseason is so inclusive that sub-.500 teams regularly make the playoffs, so the regular season becomes a grind because the good teams know that they’re going to make the postseason come hell or high water. Baseball has a less inclusive postseason, but a 162-game season makes each individual game fairly meaningless. Who wants to go to a game when it doesn’t really matter who wins? Of all the leagues, the NHL has the least to lose. They should toss out their current format, cut the regular season in half and drop the number of teams that make the postseason from 16 to eight or 12. Suddenly, every regular season game would be crucial to a team’s playoff hopes.

2. No salary cap in baseball
The top four payrolls in MLB — Yankees, Mets, Cubs and Red Sox — combine to spend more than the bottom ten. The Yankees alone outspend the Marlins, Padres, Pirates and Nationals combined. The Yankees’ payroll is 5.5 times the lowest payroll in the league (the Marlins). How can there be a level playing field when certain teams can afford to spend three or four or even five times as much as the competition? Sure, a small market team with savvy management can make a run every so often, but they can’t afford to keep their stars because the big market teams can simply outspend them. Forget ridiculous — this is ridonkulous. Yeah, I said it.

1. The BCS
The BCS is like a bad marriage. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but somewhere along the line, you realize that it’s an awful mess. You don’t know when it’s going to end, or how, but you know that one day it will be over. And that will be a fine, fine day. We ran a poll a while back and 90% of fans want to see some sort of playoff system in college football. The current system is so asinine and flawed that there’s no point in rehashing all that is wrong with it. I’m a proponent of an eight-team playoff where the six BCS conference champs get an automatic bid (unless they are ranked outside of the top 15). The first round of the playoffs would be held at the home stadiums of the higher seeds and the two semifinal games and title game can be rotated amongst the four BCS cities — Pasadena, Miami, New Orleans and Phoenix — so that they don’t lose any revenue under a new system. Television ratings for the non-title games would go through the roof. That would be like true love — everybody wins.

Those are my top 10…what is it about sports that drives you crazy?

The Nebraska State Paper.com sat down this week with University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor Harvey Perlman, who was recently appointed as chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, which ultimately decides how the BCS is set up on a year basis.

So in other words, if college football were to ever have a playoff, this is the man who would give it the green light to happen. And considering he crapped all over the idea in the interview, it looks like we fans will be waiting a long time for BCS to adopt a playoff system.

Why is a playoff not a viable alternative? Is it because it would cut too many teams out of postseason play?

It would diminish the bowl structure and it would reduce the number of opportunities for student-athletes to play in the postseason and that’s not a good thing. If you look at college football now, it’s the greatest sporting event spread over September, October, November, December and a little bit of January that the country has. A playoff would seriously diminish the regular season, as it has in college basketball.

I don’t think it’s good for college football, I don’t think it’s good for student-athletes and I don’t think it’s good for fans. I don’t see fans travelling around the country three weeks in succession between December and January following their team. So you’re either going to have to play at home sites – which I’m sure everybody will want to play in Nebraska in December and January – or you’re gonna have to travel, which means that bowls will cease being intercollegiate events, but will become corporate events, where everybody in, you name the city, will be there except the fans of the teams.

This isn’t basketball. This isn’t March Madness. Football’s a different game, different environment. We have different traditions. It’s hard to see why a playoff is a good idea.

A playoff would diminish the bowl structure? How ironic, Harvey – because the bowl structure diminishes the college football season.

This whole notion that a playoff system would diminish the regular season is absolutely ridiculous and is the worst argument that BCS-supporters have made to date. Is the NFL regular season diminished by a playoff? Hell no. So why would a playoff diminish the college football season? Teams still have to fight to get into the playoffs, making every week just as exciting as it has ever been.

Sure, nobody is interested in Bengals-Browns in Week 17, but that’s unavoidable. Nobody cares about Washington-Washington State when both teams are lousy either. Whether there’s a playoff format in place or not, there are going to be bad games on the schedule.

The traveling argument makes sense, but if they regionalized the games as best as they can, fans will still travel to see their favorite teams. Hell, look at how Pittsburgh Steeler fans; there are often more Steeler fans in opposing stadiums than there are fans of that city’s team. Granted, it’s a little different when we’re talking about poor college students compared to adults with jobs, but the students would still find a way to pack the stadiums.

But I digress. Perlman has already made up his foolish mind and we’ll once again be where we always are come December and January – frustrated and wanting more. The BCS is a joke, the arguments for it are a joke, and the people that are running it are a joke.

Remember Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas? He’s the congressman who wants to see college football adopt a playoff system and who compared the BCS to communism.

Barton is making headlines again as he plans to investigate testimony from Alamo Bowl executive director Derrick Fox made at this month’s BCS subcommittee hearing in which Fox claimed that millions of dollars are donated to local charities thanks to the revenue generated by bowl games.

Fox, while representing all 34 bowl games during his appearance on Capitol Hill on May 1, claimed in his argument against a playoff that “almost all the postseason bowl games are put on by charitable groups” and “local charities receive tens of millions of dollars every year.”

In fact, 10 bowl games are privately owned and one is run by a branch of a local government. The remaining 23 games enjoy tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service, but combined to give just $3.2 million to local charities on $186.3 million in revenue according to their most recent federal tax records and interviews with individual bowl executives.

“That doesn’t seem like something that’s really geared toward giving to charity, does it?” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) after being presented with Yahoo! Sports’ findings.

“It’s perjury if it’s knowingly said,” Barton said of the sworn testimony, which he called “misleading.” “It’s also contempt of Congress. You’ve got to give [him] some sort of due process, but ultimately the remedy is to hold [him] in contempt of Congress on the House floor or send it to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution of perjury under oath.”

Barton, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee and a playoff proponent, did caution that in today’s political climate there is no certainty that charges of perjury or contempt would be filed even if the investigation found wrongdoing.

Fox said in a written statement the “tens of millions of dollars” testimony was “a good faith estimate based on information initially supplied by the FBA [Football Bowl Association].”

Yet Bruce Binkowski of the FBA said the organization doesn’t compile such figures and in literature doesn’t assign a dollar amount to the bowls’ charitable donations because “we just don’t know.”

As Barton stated, perjury charges may never come in light of Fox’s statements, but it is interesting that the main argument made for keeping the current non-playoff system in place is an outright lie. If you read the entire article, it notes that Fox and ACC commissioner and BCS coordinator John Swofford stated several times during the subcommittee hearing that donations to local charities and economic impact on host cities are the two main reasons of why bowl games must be saved at all costs. Yet there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the local charities receive “tens of millions of dollars every year” from the BCS, so either Fox and Swofford fabricated those statements or they flat out lied in effort to keep the current college football format in place.

If the BCS did generate millions of dollars for charities every year, then a case could truly be made that college football is better off without a playoff system. (Although if bowl games generated money for charities, I don’t see why a playoff system couldn’t.) But again, there isn’t any evidence that that is indeed the case and therefore Fox and Swofford have some explaining to do.

Hopefully this is just the start of the BCS’ unraveling.

com-mu-nism
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

If the above definition sounds familiar, Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas says that it’s probably because you’ve been watching college football and are familiar with the BCS.

A congressman who wants to see college football adopt a playoff system is comparing the Bowl Championship Series to communism.

Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas said Friday that efforts to tinker with the BCS are bound to fail. He told a House hearing that the BCS is like communism and can’t be fixed.

Barton has introduced legislation that would prevent the NCAA from labeling a game a national championship unless it’s the outcome of a playoff system.

The coordinator of the Bowl Championship Series told the panel that a playoff system would threaten the existence of celebrated bowl games. Fans, President Barack Obama and some lawmakers favor a playoff system.

While I agree that there is a massive need for a playoff to be implemented into college football, I wouldn’t go as far to compare the BCS to communism. Fascism? Maybe. Communism? Not so much.

Does anyone else find it ironic that Barton is a Republican representative of Texas and is comparing the BCS to communism after the Long Horns didn’t get a shot to play for the national championship last year?

Dear NCAA Men’s Tournament Selection Committee,

This weekend, the Final Four will be played at Ford Field in Detroit, and I want to thank you for another lackluster tournament. The aristocrats of college basketball trampled their opponents en route to the Motor City. Your selection process favors the haves (30 of the 34 at-large bids went to schools from the six largest conferences) and discriminates against the have-nots (four at-large bids to mid-major conferences).

An alarming trend has shown that the number of at-large mid-major schools has dwindled from the high water mark of 12 in 2004 to a low of four schools (Xavier, Dayton, Butler and Brigham Young) playing in this year’s tournament. You’re slowly taking away the madness of March. Please don’t BCS the most anticipated playoff format in all sport.

Your chairman, Mike Slive, proclaimed, “It’s all about who you play, where you play, and how you do,” when describing the criteria for selecting the 65-team field. He added that the committee looks at schools individually and not at their conference affiliation. I beg to differ, as a bailout package was handed to a couple of major conference schools (Arizona and Wisconsin) to salvage their seasons, while the mid-major schools were left standing at the altar.

St. Mary’s had a 26-6 record (13 road victories) and played the final third of their season without All-American guard Patty Mills, who broke his hand against Gonzaga. I applaud you for not taking former national champions like Kentucky and Florida, but I roll my eyes with the selection of Maryland, who couldn’t even muster a .500 record in their conference. Why reward the larger schools that are able to pick and choose their opponents prior to their conference season, while the mid-major schools have to hope that a big conference school is willing to play them early in the season? The result? This year, the closest thing we had to a Cinderella was an underachieving Pac-10 team that has no fewer than three future NBA players on its roster.

I propose that the mid-major schools withdraw from your tournament and takeover the National Invitational Tournament to determine their champion. This will restore the status of the mid-major school and give college basketball a fighting chance to make March memorable again. We’re pleased that Gonzaga has turned their Cinderella runs of the past few years into an unofficial automatic bid. We want to relive the memories like the 1986 Sweet 16 matchup between unlikely foes Cleveland State and Navy, but that isn’t going to happen under the current selection process.

There are good reasons why coaches of mid-major schools cannot resist a call from a major conference school. Those teams that finish in the top half of those conferences have an excellent shot of receiving a NCAA at-large bid. Consider the alternative – finishing second in a mid-major conference and receiving a pat on the back for your efforts. Lobbying isn’t supposed to have an impact on who gets into the tournament…but it does. If Coach K wants to comment on the level of play in the ACC, he will be heard.

You promise us basketball’s best tournament. Instead, we receive a watered-down version of a classic. Stop turning March into a tournament of major conferences fighting it out for a national title. Please, no more third or sometimes fourth encounters between conference rivals on a neutral court. We want pressure-packed, unlikely matchups. That’s where the drama is.

Just give us our damn tournament back.

Signed,
Disgruntled Fan

At the 1:05 mark, Will Forte debuts his “BCS Song”…

That pretty much sums up how we all feel about the BCS, doesn’t it?

Poll Answers