THE RUNDOWN

Argentina provided all the skill you could want in the first half, and with a full-strength squad featuring names like Lionel Messi, and Ángel Di Maria, the South Americans showed why they are the 4^th placed team in the world.  However, for all their dominant possession and brilliant passing, Los Albicelestes could not break through both the American defense and the brick wall in goal named Tim Howard.

Argentina finally made their dominance count in the 42^nd minute when Esteban Cambiasso put the ball in the roof of the net, converting a save made by Howard on a Di Maria shot.  As the half came to an end, the US was giving their all in what seemed destined to be a hard fought loss.

Bob Bradley, whose team had their characteristic discipline and work ethic, made two changes at the half which turned the match on its head.  The 20 year old Timmy Chandler came on at right back for Jonathan Spector, and the 18 year old striker Juan Agudelo came on for midfielder Jermaine Jones.

Chandler provided great support on the right wing, connecting well with Landon Donovan and serving in great crosses.  Agudelo injected great energy into the game, and even seemed to bring out the best in strike partner Jozy Altidore.  With these two additions the US looked much more positive, and the game broke wide open with end-to-end play.  As the game opened up, Tim Howard was called in several times to make stunning saves in another fantastic performance for the Everton stopper.

The US’s reinvigorated play was finally rewarded just before the hour mark.  Landon Donovan served in a beautiful free kick, which US captain Carlos Bocanegra headed goalward.  The header was saved by the Argentine ‘keeper, but young star Juan Agudelo found himself in the perfect place to hammer home a heads-up, Raúl-esque goal (the highest praise from me).

The game continued at a high pace, and in the end the USA got exactly what they wanted, a brilliant display and a good result against a team who has beaten Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Brazil in the past few months.

THE GOOD NEWS

As the USA’s best players start to get just over their prime years, there seems to be a good crop of players who can become national team stars if they get the minutes.  This is especially true of the two subs tonight.  Timmy Chandler injected a lot of energy.  He made great runs, connected well with Donovan on the right hand side, held possession well when Argentina recovered, and served some great balls into the box.  Juan Agudelo scored his second goal in two matches for the national team, and his energy and brilliant positional play provided just the right support for Altidore, another youngster who seems to only play well with another young striker at his side.

The US defense did well to give up only one goal against a technically superior Argentina side.  This was due in large part to Tim Howard’s brilliant performance, but the defenders also made some very well-timed tackles in tricky situations.  It seemed that while they were often caught watching the fluid ping-pong passing of the little Argentines, the US midfield and defense stayed very well organized, and only the speed of the opposition gave them great trouble, although the footwork was sometimes hard to keep up with.

The counter-attack was in full force and was very well organized.  Michael Bradley seemed a little out of his usual form, likely due to his lack of matches on loan at Aston Villa., but his effort was as outstanding as ever.  Maurice Edu seems like he may be able to keep his spot on the team this time, especially with Stuart Holden being forced to miss the entire Gold Cup due to injury.

THE QUESTIONS RAISED

Is Juan Agudelo really going to be as good as it looks like he will?  Can he keep up his brilliant start and possibly become a national hero like Landon Donovan?  Or will he be a would-be savior turned bust, like Freddy Adu?  These are questions which only time will tell, and it certainly seems as though the Colombian-born youngster has the right attitude to become a great success.

If Agudelo really does become a big star, what will happen to the other young strikers Altidore and Davies when he returns?  Who do you keep on the bench?  Altidore clearly plays better alongside Davies and Agudelo better than he does alone up top, so whether Bob Bradley likes it or not, two up top is dimply the way it has to be.  But can Bradley put all three youngsters up top?  Are Michael Bradley and the US defenders good enough to keep the opposition out in a three-striker set with the offensive-minded Donovan and Dempsey in the midfield?  We know Howard is, good enough and smart enough, but what about the rest of the back half.

What do we do with Timmy Chandler?  If he plays consistently like he did tonight, there is no way he can stay on the bench, but will he be consistent enough?  Even if he is, if Bradley takes the chance to put three up top (which is incredibly unlikely), then what will become of adventurous backs like Chandler?  With Chandler against the field for a sideback starting role, we will see what wins out, youthfull skill or experienced maturity.

These questions don’t have to be answered immediately, and the Gold Cup could help answer them in large part, but they are some things to ponder and be very excited about for US soccer fans.

Peterson probably just spoke before thinking, or at least I hope.  The problem is, I bet there are players out there who truly believe what Peterson said, calling the NFL modern day slavery.  How many slaves make AP’s $10.72 million per year?  In fact, let’s compare the NFL, where players work a few hours a day at most when averaged over the whole year, to something more common like a factory worker.  No player on an NFL roster has made under $285,000 a season for years.  Most factory workers, who work inside not outside, who spend at least 8 hours a day toiling on machinery, and who have little if any say in where or for whom they work, will never see a year where they make over $40,000.  Which one sounds more like a slave?  Neither really, but if you feel sympathy for one and it’s not the factory worker, you probably don’t know what sympathy is.

Still, Peterson would have at least a pseudo-valid point if one of two things happened.  The first would be if baseball’s reserve clause was still around.  This clause in the standard professional baseball contract gave the team the right to trade or fire the player at will, for any or no reason, without even giving the player notice.  More importantly, until the player was traded or fired, he could not sign for any other team, even when his contract expired, unless his current team allowed it, which they never did.  This essentially made the players very expensive property of owners, and was abolished only in 1974.  The second would be if the NFL were run like Major League Soccer, where the players sign with the league not the teams, so there is little to no wage competition in the open market for players.  This second one is a big stretch.

None of this should in any way be understood to imply that the NFL owners are without fault.  They are the richest guys in this whole ordeal, and that is by far and away.  Without being involved in the negotiation process, I cannot say who is at fault, although I think the fact that the owners refuse to make their financial records available is terribly disconcerting.  But the simple fact is I feel no sympathy for either side in this whole thing.  My only sympathy is for the fans who are really the only ones who would suffer greatly from the lockout (especially considering Chad Ochocinco’s bid to play for Major League Soccer team Sporting Kansas City).  The idea that millionaires can sit across the table from billionaires and not find a way to make more money together is mind boggling.  Meanwhile, us fans will sit, and wait, and agonize, and wonder why our enjoyment of the game comes second to increasing the fortunes of the mega-rich owners and the very-rich players.

This article is not about the mistakes made in the selection or seeding process.  As with any tournament there were plenty of those, but if you wish to read about them go to one of the countless websites and bloggers who are rightfully bashing the selection committee.  Anyone who thought adding three teams to the field would eliminate these controversies was naïve at best and foolish at worst; these will not go away unless all teams in Division I are included in the field, and I think we all pray that never happens.

I am talking about how the NCAA and CBS have effectively betrayed the nature of the sport of basketball, and millions of fans along the way, by taking the tournament away from the common man and leaving full enjoyment of the tournament to only those who can afford cable, and in many places cable with obscure channels at that.

Basketball is inherently a game for the common man.  It was invented in a YMCA by James Naismith, a farmer who was orphaned at a young age.  The only equipment needed for the original game was any type of ball (Naismith used a soccer ball) and a pair of peach baskets, the kind you find at any farmer’s market.  Today, even the poorest neighborhoods have one permanent structure: a basketball hoop.  Many of the greatest college and NBA stars came from humble beginnings.  LeBron James was born to a 16-year-old mother, who raised him alone after his ex-convict father left.  Shooting hoops at the Boys and Girls Club of America kept Shaquille O’Neal off the street and out of trouble.  “Magic” Johnson was born to a father who was an assembly line worker and a mother who was a school janitor.  Part of basketball’s incredible popularity in the United States and now around the world comes from its place as a game for the people.

The college game has changed that a bit.  While basketball used to be a chance for working class kids to get a college education, it is now often an unwanted hurdle in the way of millions of dollars.  The fact that an offensive revolution came from Princeton shows how the game has crossed all class lines.  Today, even the college game is a multi-million dollar business.

This season, the NCAA has showed that it prefers its new multi-million dollar status over its working class origins.  The basketball tournament is one that many see as a model for college football to follow.  By the end of March Madness college basketball has one undisputed champion, decided by the tournament format followed almost exclusively by American sports as the measure of each year’s best team.  The NCAA has turned its back on those who champion the tournament by taking away from many of them the ability to watch the teams they love in the tournament they are obsessed with.

For the first time, games will be shown on four television stations this year.  At first this seemed like good news, with many people believing this would mean the regular coverage plus additional games if you happened to have access to the addition stations.  Instead, many fans, including myself, were confronted with the harsh reality that the new broadcast schedule meant they could not watch their teams in action, unless they reach the Elite Eight, quite a feat for most schools in the country.  Each channel will show games in their entirety, and will show these games exclusively.  This means that not only will many fans be unable to watch the teams they love, but also that for the games they are only mildly interested in, there will no longer be stretches where you get to see the exciting finishes from across the country; the finishes which have made the tournament into the Madness it is today.

Just how does this television format affect people without cable?  Take Cincinnati for example.  Here, the “tri-state” refers to Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.  In this year’s NCAA tournament, there are 11 teams from these 3 states (OH: Cincinnati, Xavier, Ohio State, Akron; KY: Morehead State, Louisville, Kentucky; IN: Butler, Notre Dame, Purdue, Indiana State).  Of all these teams, all the natives of these three mostly rural states without cable can watch only one first round game: Kentucky v Princeton.  According to SNL Kagan, as of 2006 64 million US households with TV have at least basic cable, and this number has fallen with the economy, resulting in 62.1 million in 2009 according to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  The numbers continue to fall.  With about 114.8 million households in the United States as of 2010, about 46% of American households will be able to watch just 8 out of 32 first round games, not including the first four.

After years of wondering who wants to take a 2 hour break from the tournament each night when news is on every other channel, there is now a much more egregious fault with the broadcast schedule.  At the risk of being dramatic, an injustice has been done.  The great game of basketball, and the greatest tournament in the sport, have been taken away from the very people who have benefited the most from it, not only in the form of players making money and getting good educations from the game, but in the form of fans who put so much heart, hope, and devotion into their teams.  The faith fans have in the game and those who run it has been betrayed, along with the very origins and nature of the game itself.  The NCAA Tournament is much more than a game to many people.  For players it is a chance for glory, and for fans it is a chance to celebrate their culture, their history, and their thirst for competition.  I certainly hope that this atrocity is corrected soon, that the powers that be realize the error of their ways, and that the great tournament as we all know and love it returns to its former glory before it loses its most dedicated fans.

If you are looking for solutions, my first would be to go back to the old system, under which there was one (I think, but only a couple at most) national games which everyone saw, unless a local team played, in which case that game would be shown locally in its entirety, and all other games were cut depending on the start times of the national games.  My second would be to go back to the old system, and for CBS to resell some games from the first couple of rounds either to other national stations (ABC, NBC) or to show different games on the extra channels (ie when a CBS local station has an HD .1 and .2).  My third possibility would be to go back to the old system, but start the games an hour or two earlier, cut out about an hour of non-game coverage per day, and stop breaking for two hours for news and local programming (I mean really, every other channel will give people all the news fix they want, and you can see weekly programs all year, but March Madness is only 7 days, 8 now, per year).  My final solution would be the easiest and most practical given the current situation.  Basically, it would be to keep the current system intact, but put local teams on local stations instead of fixing them to only their pre-scheduled station.  Any of these solutions would be better for the fans, and the last one would allow CBS to keep current contracts in place, increase revenue for the NCAA, and allow fans to see their teams.  I honestly believe that the only reasonable explanation for the idiocy that is the broadcast schedule this year is that maybe the NCAA is trying to give Buffalo Wild Wings more business.  Is that what March Madness is all about?

This is precisely the point made by Bayern Munich in their demands for money from the Dutch FA.

Bayern winger Arjen Robben is injured once again and will be out for two months.  The German club is now seeking financial compensation for the Dutch star’s absence.

According to Bayern, Robben’s torn left hamstring is a result of him being played before he was fully recovered at the 2010 World Cup.  The situation is very similar to the demand for financial retribution made by the Italian club AC Milan when US defender Oguchi Onyewu was injured in a world cup qualifier match played after the US had already sealed progression to the final stage.

In Robben’s case, however, his history of injury could be trouble for the Bavarians.  Robben was injured before, during, and now after the World Cup.  He did not play the first few games in South Africa.  He then seemed niggled in the middle of the tournament after a series of incidents including rough fouls and magical moves which seemed against the laws of anatomy (and apparently, they may have been since he was injured by them).  By the final, however, he was sprinting fine and had two chances to put the Dutch ahead with his pace but for the saving graces of Iker Casillas in the Spanish net.  Bayern argues that the pre-tournament injury was not allowed to heal properly while the Dutch FA points to Robben’s play in the final as evidence to the contrary.

For Onyewu, the situation was different.  He was healthy all season but rarely appeared for the Milan side.  He was fine going into a match which proved to clinch the USA’s first place qualification, and was injured in the course of the match.

Bayern has much more cause for reimbursement inasmuch as Robben is a regular starter and produced a great deal of goals.  Onyewu on the other hand was a defender who mostly saw the bench rather than the pitch.

While the Robben case is yet to be settled, Onyewu quelled the problem in a very classy way.  After missing almost his entire second season with Milan, Onyewu decided to extend his contract with the club by one year for free.  A far cry from Mike Brown saying that the Hamilton County’s debt problems with paying for Paul Brown Stadium are not the Bengals’ (the team playing in the stadium) problem.

Onyewu’s action was not exactly an everyday occurrence, but one which sets him far apart from most in the sports world.   I wonder is Robben will step in at all.

In D2 and D3, the second and third in the three-movie series, Fulton Reed from the original team met up in Team USA camp with Dean Portman who was brought in to help add to the team for the Junior Goodwill Games.  They quickly became inseparable and the two fed off of each other’s energy and gave energy to the entire team with their enthusiasm and passion for the game.  They became known as the “Bash Brothers” for their on-ice enforcer tactics (meaning they were the big hitters).

To start, the differences.  There are two main parts where this analogy fails but neither one is big enough to make it untrue.  First, the sport was hockey, not football (although what is a hockey player in appearance but a football player with ice skates and a funny helmet?).  Second, the original Bash Brother were known for laying out the big hits, whereas T.O. and Chad are more likely to take those hits.

There are several reasons that T.O. and Chad can be seen as the new Bash Brothers.  Just like the originals, the two are very similar in appearance, ability, and most importantly attitude.  I’m not sure I have ever seen two wide receivers quite as similar in personality than T.O. and Chad, with the exception that T.O. is much more willing to speak negatively about his teammates in public.

Also like the originals, the two both play the game with an unmatched excitement.  Both players of course have had their stretches where this excitement is lacking, but they have only been together for a couple days.  Beside, the real Bash Brothers didn’t find themselves until they came together.

The original Bash Brothers fed off of each others’ energy and as a result both players were more important to the team than either one would have been independently.  Fulton learned how to relax and let the fun happen from Dean, and Dean learned how to use his talent in a team setting from Fulton (and, of course, Coach Bombay, Emilio Estevez).  In the same way I think there is a good chance that T.O. and Chad can learn a lot from each other.  I think Chad can learn about blocking from T.O., and T.O. can learn how to talk to teammates instead of the media when problems come up.

Let’s face it, as wild as Chad can be sometimes he never bad-mouths his team in public.  He shows signs of frustration on the field at times, as a player with passion would, before Carson calms him down.  And T.O., for all the criticism of him (of which I am a proponent) he is a great talent and he can throw some very nice blocks, especially if the CB he’s blocking got in a good shot at him earlier in the game.

Carson Palmer may even be the Charlie Conway of this analogy.  Just like Charlie taught Fulton how to skate in the very beginning, Carson is in charge of making sure that the receivers know their routs and run them properly.  He is also in charge of seeing the bigger picture and making sure that his receivers don’t do anything to detract from the team.

The final, and what I hope become truest, part of the analogy is also about energy.  The Bash Brothers’ energy was contagious.  They pumped up the whole team and the fans.  They even got the little, mild-mannered, former figure skater Kenny Wu to join in the fun (Cedric Benson anyone?).

In the end, the T.O.-Chad combination has only existed a few days.  However, the energy of the team seems to be increasing.  It is yet to be seen whether the tandem can become the new Bash Brothers, and whether such a thing would help the Bengals win the Superbowl.  But, the offensive line is young, which always means easier to pump up, but also has some veterans who can harness the excitement on the field.  The same goes for the defense.  The energy of Chad plus the intensity and discipline of Mike Zimmer, when injected into a young and talented defense can create a high-flying defense that can unsettle if not terrify opposing offenses.

The results of the Chad-T.O. project are yet to be seen, but the potential is enormous.

True, T.O. (as he has pointed out several times) has never been arrested, which I guess puts him one up on a lot of Bengals players.  However, he is still a little child when it comes to dealing with teammates.  Before the Bengals signed him he told the world how he felt cheated because he has never been arrested but is seen as a troublemaker.  He fails to realize that most people, even most people in the NFL, never get arrested.  He still is a distraction if not a complete disruption in the locker room.

Not all hope is lost though.  As Paul Daugherty wrote in the Cincinnati Enquirer there is no quarterback in the league better for dealing with egotistical wide receivers than Carson Palmer.  Just ask Chad.  This is especially true of Tony Romo, who is plenty diva in his own right and with whom Owens had his last spat.

But, beware Bengals fans, for Terrell Owens is not the reason that the Bengals’ offense will underachieve for the _-teenth time in a row.  T.O. is at least a high-quality (if high-maintenance) player, and has at least one solid year of production left.

The fault for the constant underperformance of what should be the several-time reigning best offense in the NFL lies completely with well below average Offensive Coordinator Bob Bratkowski.  Unfortunately, Mike Brown’s homeboy is still in the booth.  He is still calling plays for reasons unbeknownst to anyone who has ever seen a game or thought a thought.

The man has his good days, don’t get me wrong, but all-in-all he is constantly outcoached by defensive coordinators throughout the league.  In a league with only 16 games, playing Cleveland twice a year is a saving-grace for many a Bengals season.

The Bengals have had a good defense that became great since Defensive Coordinator Mike Zimmer came to town.  They have enough talent to have had a Superbowl-worthy offense the past several years, especially with the improved offensive line in the past 2-3 seasons.

The simple fact is that the Bengals’ defense consistently punches above its weight considering the talent and experiences levels available, while the offense ranks with the featherweights with enough talent for a heavyweight champion.  The difference?  Coaching.

Zimmer has only three qualities that Bratkowski does not: passion, determination, and an understanding of how to play the game.  Unfortunately for the Bengals, those are what the team needs from an OC in order to convert talent into trophies.

Judge Stefan R. Underhill ruled on Wednesday that competitive cheer (as in not just on the sidelines at other games) was “still too underdeveloped and disorganized to be treated as offering genuine varsity athletic participation opportunities.”  Basically, this means that as far as compliance with Title IX is concerned, cheer is not a varsity sport.

The Background

Title IX is the common name of an article in educational legislation that makes it illegal for schools to disallow opportunities for participation based on a student’s sex.  Under Title IX, all schools (except those run by a religion whose tenets are contrary to the law, and military academies) must provide females with the same chance to join groups as males, based on proportions.  So, if a school has 40% female enrollment, then females must receive at least 40% of all the benefits and services of that institution.  This includes several things, but has been popularized mostly by its application in sports.  Title IX does not take into consideration any other variables, such as level of interest in such opportunities by the sexes (generally college males are much more interested in sports than college females), and the income generated by the sports in question.  These and other small points have made Title IX controversial since its inception.

This summer, Quinnipiac University, the defendant in this case, announced that it was cutting funding for the women’s volleyball team and promoting competitive cheer to the status of varsity sport.

The Plaintiff

The volleyball players whose team was being cut sued the school under Title IX, arguing that competitive cheer is not a varsity sport and therefore should not be able to fulfill the school’s Title IX obligation.  This would effectively mean that the volleyball team could not be cut, as the school would fall out of compliance with Title IX.

The lawyers were very careful to not to attack their fellow female athletes, saying that “We don’t question whether the competitive cheer members are athletes, but our claim was that competitive cheer as an activity does not meet the criteria to be recognized as a varsity sport at this time.”

The Defendant

Quinnipiac University argued that competitive cheer in fact did qualify as a varsity sport because it has a national governing body and national competitions, and is considered a varsity sport at other institutions in the USA.

The Judgment

Judge Underhill decided that the National Competitive Stunt and Tumbling Association, an association formed by the six universities that consider competitive cheer (or competitive stunt and tumbling) a varsity sport, was a “’loosely defined, unincorporated association’ without a board of directors, a voting system for members or ‘other hallmarks of a governing national athletics organization.’”[1] This coupled with the fact that it is not a NCAA sanctioned sport, meant that varsity status was invalid in terms of Title IX, according to Underhill.

The Reaction

The NCSTA was upset with the decision, saying that many of the facts in the case were outdates because the sport has taken large step in recent times.  There is now a board of governors, an official post within USA Cheer, and detailed rules for collegiate competition.  This board recently voted to change the name of the sport from competitive cheer, but the new name is yet to be announced.

The volleyball players were thrilled initially when they won, although the next paragraph will explain why their efforts were not enough to save their team.

Quinnipiac made an official statement declaring its disappointment with the decision.  They also announced that instead of reinstating women’s volleyball to comply with Title IX, they will instead promote women’s rugby to the level of varsity sport.

Judge Underhill took the decision a step further when he declared that indoor and outdoor track for Quinnipiac females were essentially sub sports of cross country, and therefore the athletes would all be counted once and not two or three times in the Title IX compliance numbers.

My Two Cents

For me, the Judge was .500 on this one.  His decision about competitive cheer was spot on.  Again, not to say that the participants are not athletes or that the competition is not a sport.  They are athletes competing in a sport.  I played Gaelic handball on a club team, which was not a varsity sport either, even though there is the United States Handball Association and a national tournament annually.  Sports can be considered a “real sport” even if they are not a varsity sport.  No question about it.

However, indoor track, outdoor track, and cross country should not be counted as one sport.  First of all, I threw on the track team in high school and I have never even seen a cross country course.  They are all unique, but the fact that many people on college cross country scholarships are forced to run indoor and outdoor track to keep it may be enough to put people on the fence about the issue, but certainly the throwers and sprinters are counted a second time if they play another sport, and therefore the distance runners should be as well.  Not to mention the fact that even the distance runners are using up the equipment, travel fees, and the spot on the team that could otherwise be given to another female athlete means that these runners are taking up two-people’s worth of the funding and benefits discussed in Title IX, which means that they should be counted separately for each sport under any circumstance.

I still have a problem with Title IX itself.  While I think it was passed with all the best intentions, it is really not fair to male athletes.  Researching for this article was the first I have ever heard about the argument that more men are interested in collegiate sports than females, but it to me is the simplest and most convincing argument there is.  My other major problem with the rule is that the only teams (with few exceptions) that ever make any money for the sports programs are football, men’s basketball, and at some schools men’s hockey.  Half of all the effort put into marketing, organization, and gameday sales are of no benefit to any of these teams because half the profit goes to women’s sports.  This is not to say that I am against schools funding women’s sports, and clearly most of the men’s sports are money-losers also.  However, the idea of equal rights should be just that, equal.  With equal rights come equal responsibilities.  For some reason or another, even the most popular female sports hemorrhage money.  I don’t think it’s fair to simply write it off as a case of “female sports are less interesting to watch for most people.”  Even if that’s true, there is always a market for sports, there is always a market for gimmicks (t-shirt days, dollar hot dogs, etc.), and there is certainly always a market for winning.  You could argue that even power-house schools like UConn and Tennessee for women’s basketball cannot profit, thus making it seem an impossible task.  However, truth be told if it were not for the profits of UConn and Tennessee men’s basketball, two very successful programs with huge and loyal followings, these women’s teams would not be as successful as they are.

I’m not trying to blame the athletes.  Perhaps the best women’s team would always lose to the best men’s team in a given sport (with the possible exception of USA national team soccer) simply because of talent.  Perhaps the fact that women’s sports are mostly just women playing sports invented and played exclusively by men for decades or centuries as the case may be is enough to explain that, but the competitiveness, the passion and the effort is there, and possibly even more intense in women’s collegiate sports (largely because the chances of going pro are so much smaller, the players play for sheer love of the game, mostly).  In my rather limited experience, I have never seen a female soccer player take a dive like those regularly perpetrated by Cristiano Ronaldo, or any dive at all for that matter.  The players have just as much passion and are often just as tough as their male counterparts.  Something in the upper-levels of women’s sports management has to be done proactively to close the gap between men’s and women’s sports, not in the amount of funding received, but in the amount of self-sustainability and popular recognition.  Something as simple as an exhibition between a schools men’s and women’s soccer teams, if properly marketed, could potentially generate a lot of funds for the two teams to use, and if the players perform well the crowds will come back.  The same could be said for a game between baseball and softball teams, although this would present more of a problem of in-game logistics.  And maybe the men would not play for fear of embarrassment if they were to lose.  If that happened, can you imagine the publicity on campuses the women’s team would get?  They might get more people in the stands on principle alone.

The point for me is that Title IX is trying to make two unequal things equal just by saying that they are.  Instead, the NCAA and the Department of Education should be the ones trying to raise the level of women’s sports up to the level of men’s sports.  I seriously doubt that any women’s sport will ever rival college football, but then again with the exception of basketball no men’s sports do either.  Equal funding is not the answer, the answer is that women’s sports but have superior drive, ambition, and creativity in order to catch of to the decades of men’s sports dominance, and Title IX leaves no need for that.  The real shame is that that drive, ambition and creativity are the fundamental values of all sports, and they need to be expressed in the leadership, and while women’s sports are in many cases on the rise, they simply are not yet equally appreciated in society to demand equal funding without equal share of the responsibility to provide it.

This story may be hard to believe, despite the fact that Mourinho and his family vacationed in Kenya and no reporters or photographers were permitted at any time.  Still, if it were true it would not necessarily be a bad thing.

Juju, or muti as it is referred to in other parts of Africa, has a long history in soccer.  This history does not come solely from Africa, as author Simon Kuper will tell you (Soccer Against the Enemy: Chapter 12).

In South Africa, witch doctors are often flown with club teams to matches, and sometime make more than most of the players.

Former Dutch internationals Marco van Basten and Ruud Gullit (who commentated for ESPN at South Afric 2010) had some bizarre rituals of their own.  They employed a personal trainer/psychologist named Ted Troost punch them, yell at them to be light as feathers, and grab them by the testicles.

Former Manchester United ‘kepper Gary Bailey used muti while playing in South Africa.  He let in 7 goals in his first three Wembley Finals at United.  Then, on the advice of a witch doctor, he tied a red and white ribbon around his goal-post and locked a padlock to the net before a 1983 FA Cup Final.  He moved the padlock with him when he changed goals, and Man U won 4-0.  The same trick was used in his next two Wembley Finals, recording a 2-0 victory over Liverpool and a 1-0 victory over Everton.  To recap: without muti, 7 goals against in 3 matches; with muti, 0 goals against in 3 matches.

In 2003, English long-distance runner Paula Radcliffe rubbed the oil of an emu’s belly on her injuries after being hit by a bicycle.

In 2009, Arsenal forward Robin Van Persie became the most famous of a series of soccer players to fly to Belgrade to receive an unusual treatment from a Serbian woman.  The woman massages the injured areas with horse placenta.  The placenta has nutrients, as many animals eat their own to recover from giving birth, and scientists are beginning to explore the possibilities of this treatment.

In short, whether Mourinho went to see the jujumen or not is irrelevant.  It would be nothing more than superstition on his part, and why would a man in his position not try to get all the luck possible?  Superstition has been in sports since the beginning.  Many people put a certain shoe on first.  Some people have lucky clothing.  I myself wore the same boxers for every high school football game I played in, and I even put my work clothes on in the same order every time I get dressed (I am paid largely on commission).  Most baseball players will not step on the chalk lines at any cost.

Superstition is one of the most fun and interesting aspects of sports.  All athletes look for every edge they can get, physically, mentally, and perhaps most important emotionally.  If this is true, there is no shame at all.  I simply hope it works!

First of all, to put this into context, the LWC is essentially the World Cup of Lacrosse.  It is held once every four years.  The Iroquois, who along with other tribes invented the game hundreds of years ago, are currently ranked fourth in the world.

What many people do not understand (which is itself understandable because it is often glossed over in American schools) is that Native American Indian reservations are their own states.  They are self governed, and their citizens are not American or Canadian citizens, but citizens of their tribe’s state.  These states just happen to be within US and Canadian borders.  If that is still confusing, just think of the reservation lands operating the same way as Vatican City in Italy.

Each nation, in this case the Iroquois, has their own passports because they are legally independent states.  In many cases, these passports contain handwritten material.  These passports do not satisfy the requirements of passports acceptable for entry to the United States.  Since 9/11, the passport security requirements have been increased, and the Iroquois and many other native nations are currently in the process of upgrading their passports to meet new US and international standards, but the players hoping to attend the 2010 championship do not have these passports yet.

Since the passports do not meet requirements, the US government said that the players would not be allowed to reenter the US on their current passports.  This in spite of the fact that the Iroquois teams have been travelling abroad since the 1970s for international competitions.

The 2010 tournament is being held in England.  The British Embassy in New York told the players that they could not be granted visas for the tournament unless they were guaranteed to be able to go back home.  Since the US could not guarantee this, the visas were denied.

Many politicians and academics publicly supported the cause of the Iroquois.  The State Department offered to give the US-based players American passports so that they could be guaranteed reentry and therefore visas.  This presented the players with two problems.  First, they are not US citizens and do not want to be.  Many players have said that they would never accept a US passport because it would be denying their own culture, history, and heritage.  Second, in order to compete in the tournament the players must play for the team whose passport they carry, and the Iroquois play for the Iroquois, not the USA, which has its own team in the tournament which has been in England for some time now.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton granted the team a one-time waiver, giving them the right to reenter the USA on their current passports.  The English authorities then denied visas because they say that their government does not recognize the Iroquois passports.  While it has not been specifically stated (at least that I’ve seen) I assume it is mainly the same security issues that the US has with the passports.  The English have told the Iroquois that they must obtain either US or Canadian passports depending on where the players live.

So, the way it stands now, the team is still in New York, practicing at a Long Island lacrosse club’s facilities.  They now have the permission to reenter the US that they were told they needed for visas, but they have not yet been given visas.  They have already missed their opening match, which was supposed to be against hosts England who played Germany instead with a 12-3 victory the result.  The Iroquois are scheduled to play again on Saturday, and as we speak it may already be too late for them to get a flight to England in time to take the field.

The team and the competition are both hurt by this because if the team cannot play in the group stage they cannot be properly seeded for the knockout parts.  The FIL, lacrosse’s governing body, tried to help by the Iroquois some time by taking them out of the Blue Group, a group composed of the last tournament’s top 6 teams.  Germany will take their place in the Blue Group, making the England-Germany match an official one.  The Iroquois have been moved to the Plum division. As far as I can tell (wiki page for tournament structure), this means that it will be tougher for the Iroquois to play for the final, especially if they miss a match because of the travel restrictions.  While the group is an easier one than the Blue Group, they will have to either finish first in the group or be one of the top 2 second placed teams in the tournament in order to reach the top bracket.  Any team that does not qualify for the top bracket cannot win the title, but the middle and lower brackets are still played out.  However, in the Blue Group (which has 6 teams instead of 4), the top four teams can still win the title.  So, the Iroquois would have had to place 1-4 in the Blue Group, but now must win or place a high second in the Plum Group in order to advance.  In short, Blue Group: 66% of the teams can still win title after group stage, Plum Group; 25-33% of the teams can still win the title.  So while their group will be easier, their percentage chances of advancing are cut at least in half.

That’s the situation.  Bureaucracy stands in the way of a top team competing at the top event in their sport.   I know that the law should be applied equally to everyone, but the simple fact is that not everyone has the same circumstances.  This is not a group of Iroquois students who want to go travel Europe, it is a well-known set of specific players travelling with a specific purpose.  Everyone in the lacrosse world will know these players, and with the attention of the event it would be immediately apparent if they did do something wrong.  There is no harm in both powerful countries allowing a one-time exemption so that this team can participate.  Even without the historical background of oppression and mistreatment, it would still be the only right thing to do.

Another thing that I cannot quite grasp in this story is what the Canadian stance is.  The US had to grant a one-time reentry guarantee, but I have not heard of the Canadian government doing the same.  I understand that since the team will be going home via the US not Canada the US reentry policy is the most important, but surely Canada has a view on all of this.

Becoming an all-star is great.  Appearing in the game is great, even though he only pinch-hit into an out.  But perhaps the thing that made Joey Votto jump so high up my list of Reds heroes in the last two days was not what he did with his bat, but what he did with his mouth.

When asked about Marlon Byrd’s game-winning play, Votto basically said that it was cool even though he is a Cub, and Votto does not like the Cubs.  He also said that he would not usually pat a Cubs player on the back even in the All-Star Game because he dislikes them so.

Thank you Joey Votto for showing what sports are all about.  Here is a hard-working player, not given due credit by the American public who in general cares more about the names they vote for rather than who deserves to be given the title All-Star, within whom the passion for the game is fierce.  Not just passion for the game, but passion and loyalty to his club which are intense enough to drive him into a deep feeling of the rivalry between the two teams.  This from a player not only born outside the Midwest, but outside of the United States.  If you look at the history, Chicago only started a professional baseball team because they couldn’t stand that Cincinnati had the best in the country while the windy city didn’t have any.  Not to say professional ball wouldn’t have come anyway to Chicago, with a city that size it most certainly would have, but that is just and example of the rivalry between cities which creates the best rivalries.  These rivalries are one of if not the best part of sports because of the passion they give an outlet for; a passion Votto clearly shares.

No real Reds fan likes the Cubs.   Many Reds fans have friends that are Cubs fans, but usually not the kind of fans that actually care about the team or the game, which is why they are tolerated so easily in baseball-mad Cincinnati.  The green flame at the bottom of this anti-Cubs fire is beloved Hall of Fame broadcaster Marty Brennaman, who (rightly) criticized Cubs because of their fans when an Adam Dunn homerun at Wrigley prompted the Chicagoans to unnecessarily (and stupidly) throw a dozen and a half baseballs onto the playing field.  In an all-too-politically-correct world where many people are afraid to say what they think for fear of over-scrutinization, men like Brennaman and Votto tell it like it is, or at least like the fans feel it.

Some may think Votto stepped out of line.  That’s crap; plain and simple.  I was appalled when Lou Piniella signed with the Cubs.  I’m sure some Cubs fans felt betrayed when Dusty Baker signed for the Reds, but to be fair “Sweet Lou” did far more for the Reds than Dusty did for the Cubs.  Baseball without rivalry is worthless.  As a Reds fan, I would not root for the Cubs if they played against the Taliban.  And while Votto did not go that far, I think that his expression of his dislike for the Cubs is a great thing to see.  I’m sure Derek Jeter feels the same about the Red Sox.  Votto’s attitude means one of two things.  Either (like Marty says) it is true that no one likes the Cubs, or he feels dedicated enough to his club to partake in the rivalries with all of his heart and soul.  Is there anything that professional sports today are starving for more than heart and soul?  I think not.