The GenericCorporateSponsor.com Bowl

Because I work in the sports world, go to a lot of games and am engaged to a sponsorship and marketing expert, I've become somewhat of an advertising snob.  In fact, my first true post on Caught Looking was about how Citi Field's outfield is completely plastered with ads, and how the Yellow Pages-esque view takes away from the ballpark's otherwise beautiful look and feel.  This isn't to say I'm some sort of old fashioned geezer who wants all corporate references removed from my sports - I understand that corporate affiliations are a vital part of each professional sports team's business, and find that in some instances sponsors can actually add value to the game experience.  All of the random sponsored college bowl games that have cropped up over the last several years, however, are not examples of sponsors adding value to the sporting events they attach their names and logos too.  In an effort to grow revenues, the NCAA has over expanded its bowl schedule and lessened the significance of making it to the college football postseason.

Last night I tuned in to ESPN for some of the Belk Bowl between Duke and Cincinnati, and I learned a couple of things.  First, I learned that Belk is more than the name of a random college bowl game played in Charlotte, NC - it's actually a chain of department stores with locations throughout the southeast.  Interestingly, I ddn't learn this from watching the Belk Bowl - not once did anyone mention what Belk was or why they were sponsoring one of the NCAA's 35 college bowl games.  In my Googling spree I also learned that while Belk does have over 50 locations in Duke's home state of North Carolina, they don't exist anywhere in Ohio and only have a few locations in border state Kentucky.  Why the Belk Bowl wouldn't include two teams from within Belk's regional footprint (the company has 16 states with stores to choose from), is beyond me.  Last, I looked up the Belk Bowl on Wikipedia and found out that  the game, which matches the ACC's #5 team against the Big East's #3 team, has changed names three times since its inception in 2002.  Originally founded as the Queen City Bowl, the game rotated through two other sponsors (Continental Tires and Meineke Car Care) before shifting to Belk for the first time last year.

A small crowd watched Cincinnati toak home the 2012 Belk Bowl title in Charlotte.

I'm picking on the Belk Bowl here because it's a game I actually watched, but a similar story is true for all of the NCAA's fringe bowl games.  They all feature random sponsors that are in no way integrated into the flow of the game, with no logical relationship to the teams playing or geographic regions represented.  There's zero fan recognition because the title sponsors change so often, the games are rarely memorable and there are too many of them to keep track of.  To top it all off, different bowls have sponsors that are arguably competitors - like Little Caesars and Chick-Fil-A, for example - that makes things particularly confusing.  The NCAA has created a college bowl landscape that is littered with random corporate tie-ins, which has made it very hard to create any sense of history or tradition.  Unlike NCAA basketball's post-season tournament, which is filled with memorable moments throughout its history, few of college football's bowls are thought of for more than their funny names.

What does it mean to win the Belk Bowl?  Is this something for Cincinnati to be proud of, or should they be disappointed that they're not playing in a bigger postseason game?  Should Duke be content with breaking the school's 18-year-long bowl-less streak thanks to the Belk Bowl invite?  Because of the inflated number of college bowl games and the inconsistency of the matchups from year to year, it's nearly impossible for players, coaches or fans to truly weigh the significance (if any) of a lower tier bowl game.  College football's current bowl structure leaves every bowl champion (except the national champion) with an unsatisfying feel of "what could have been," and despite the photo above I can't believe that Cincinnati is overjoyed with the way its season ended.  Unfortunately, if companies like Belk, AdvoCare and TaxSlayer.com keep putting up money for bowl title sponsorships, we won't be getting rid of these irrelevant postseason games in favor of a better system any time soon.

Never Had A Chance

Merry Christmas, readers!  I'll be spending the holiday watching the excellent schedule of NBA games on ESPN and ABC, a relatively new Christmas Day tradition that I'm a huge fan of.  Just like the NFL has left its mark on Thanksgiving and NCAA football (and, when there's a season, the NHL) have taken over New Year's Day, the NBA has done a great job of branding itself as Christmas's sport.  And unlike the NFL, the NBA has stacked its holiday game lineup with its best matchups and most popular teams, so I can catch Boston at Brooklyn, Oklahoma City at Miami and, most importantly, New York at the Los Angeles Lakers.  To get in the NBA holiday spirit, I spent Friday night at Madison Square Garden for Knicks versus Bulls, a highly anticipated matchup between two of the Eastern Conference's better teams.  Unfortunately, some questionable refereeing and sloppy early play from the Knicks effectively ended the game before it even started.

After the National Anthem ended, the game was effectively over.

Madison Square garden is known for having a fantastic atmosphere.  From Celebrity Row to the upper levels, Knicks fans are loud and energetic even when the team is struggling.  With the team on a roll early in 2012-13, the crowd has been particularly passionate; gone are the days of the mid-2000s when a Knicks vs. Bulls game would bring thousands of red-jersey-clad Chicago fans into MSG.  This season, there's only one way to knock Knicks fans out of a game - by putting them in a ~20 point first half hole.  The Knicks started out Friday's game ice cold from the floor, missing virtually every shot in the first quarter and falling behind 14-2 just minutes into the game.  But despite their offensive woes and a number of questionable calls / no-calls, the team trailed by only seven after the first quarter.  That's when the refs decided to take over the game.

I don't like to criticize officials - recall that, before I eventually ripped them apart, I stood by the NFL's replacement referees long after most people turned on them.  Refereeing a professional football or basketball game must be incredibly difficult - the game moves very quickly, there are a ton of calls to memorize and any hesitation leads to instant criticism from players, coaches, fans and commentators.  Despite these challenges, a professional referee has two critical jobs that stand above all others - to call the game evenly and consistently on both sides and to maintain control of the game.  While it's hard to tell if the refs accomplished the former on Friday night (Knicks players, coaches and fans would argue that virtually every call went to Chicago, but obviously their opinions are biased), after 50 personal fouls, nine technicals and four ejections it became clear that the officials took the game away from the fans.

It's been said before: Fans come to games to watch players play, not to watch referees ref.  By allowing the players to reach the boiling point where the game becomes more about complaining than about playing, the officials failed to do their job.  Knicks fans came to MSG expecting an exciting and entertaining game, but were forced to watch three of the team's best players (J.R. Smith, Carmelo Anthony and Tyson Chandler) get kicked out of the game.  Despite a furious comeback led by Jason Kidd, Raymond Felton and Chris Copeland (among a host of other bench players), the fans never really got into the game.  Thanks to the refs, they never really had the chance to enjoy what should have been an entertaining holiday weekend matchup.    

Brooklyn's Barclays Center

A few weeks ago, I had a charity meeting at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club in Manhattan.  As you might have been able to guess - I do write a "sports fan experience blog," after all - I'm not much of the clubbing type, and had never been to Jay-Z's establishment before.  I have to say, it was a pretty awesome spot - giant HDTVs everywhere showing (mainly) basketball games, tons of rare sports memorabilia on the walls and cool lighting that gave the club a very unique feel.  Surprisingly, I enjoyed my time in the 40/40 Club.  But while I can now officially say that I visited Jay-Z's club, in a way I wasn't really there.  Sure, I was physically inside the building, but the lack of a true club atmosphere makes it impossible for me to say whether or not I'd like the place at midnight on a Saturday.  Places like the 40/40 Club can't be judged solely on looks.  They need to be felt, and I can't say I've ever really felt what it's like to party with the 40/40 crowd (I imagine I'd hate it).

The reason I bring up this anecdote is because on Saturday afternoon I made my first trip to New York City's latest Jay-Z-inspired establishment, Brooklyn's Barclays Center.  I visited Barclays over the summer before construcution was finished, but this was my first visit to the arena for a real event.  Overall, I was extremely impressed with the building even before I walked inside.  The subway ride from the east side of Manhattan was incredibly convenient - a ~25 minute ride (tops) dropped us literally just steps from the building's main entrance - and upon exiting the subway we were immediately greeted by the Barclays Center's impressive and unique facade.  The staff was especially friendly - everyone we spoke to, from the people at Will Call to the security guards to the ushers in our section, was really sociable - and the building looks new, fresh and clean (as you'd expect from an arena that opened just weeks ago).

Thanks to a connection at the area, we had particularly good seats in the fifth row of the lower level (see the picture, below).  The arena is pretty small, both in terms of capacity and footprint, so virtually every seat is right on top of the court.  The upper level seats are stacked tightly, so that they seem simultaneously very close to the court (horizontally) but extremely high up (vertically).  Just like Jay-Z's 40/40 Club, Barclays has a modern, dark, sleek look - it's not bright and friendly like Indiana's Bankers Life Fieldhouse, but is instead chic and dark, like a bar. Our seats also came with access to one of the arena's eleven "Vault Suites," which are basically ultra-luxury boxes located under the arena with no view of the court.  We didn't hang out in ours for long - there were no other people there and there was no food, so we didn't have much of a reason to spend more time there - but it was apparent that the Vault Suites could be an awesome place for someone rich and/or important to host guests before the game or during halftime.

Check out the empty seats in the background - it looked like that in every single section.

While I loved the building, it's still hard for me to picture what it's really like to attend a big-time sporting event at Barclays.  I went for a Princeton basketball game versus Fordham, and at opening tip there weren't more than 1,000 people in the place (it might have been closer to a few hundred, realistically).  Never once did the crowd get up on it's feet, you could hear every sneaker squeak on the court, and I had dozens of empty seats on either side onto which I could stretch out, lay my coats, etc.  I'm guessing that, for a Knicks vs. Nets game or even the A-10 Tournament finals (coming to Brooklyn in March), the place could get loud and exciting, but I really can't say for sure.  In fact, the crowd was so sparse that I got selected for an on-court promotion (a shooting contest that I'm sad to say I lost) because I was virtually the only person in the entire lower bowl who was a) in my seat right after the opening tip, b) wearing a Princeton shirt and c) young enough to avoid having a heart attack under the basket.  The new Barclays Center has a ton of potential - I can't wait to see, hear and feel what it's like to be there for a "real" event.

      Replace "Ian Hummer" with "Deron Williams" and Barclays Center might feel a lot different.

There's an "I" in "Lin," But Not In "Team"

After last night's thrilling come-from-behind victory in Brooklyn I'll admit that I'm a little Knicks-crazy this week, so forgive me if this post comes off as a bit more biased than what you're used to.  Since the 2012-13 NBA season started, the Knicks have been grabbing sports media headlines with their consistently solid play, pair of 20-point victories over defending champion Miami and the emergence of Carmelo Anthony as a legitimate MVP candidate.  With Amar'e Stoudemire set to return before the end of the calendar year and join an already-deep rotation that features Anthony, reigning Defensive MVP Tyson Chandler, All Star-worthy PG Raymond Felton and a cast of other veteran role players (not to mention second year guard Iman Shumpert, also set to return from injury later this season), the Knicks seem poised to improve on last year's first round playoff exit at the hands of the Heat.  There's a positive energy around New York basketball that the Nets' move to Brooklyn has done nothing to slow down, and it seems like the Knicks are once again the talk of the town.

Last year's playoff run was, of course, largely thanks to the admittedly superb play of Jeremy Lin, once an obscure point guard out of Harvard who transformed into a household name (and a brand) virtually overnight.  Since New York refused to match Houston's offer to Lin over the summer, the Knicks and Lin have headed in completely opposite directions.  While the Knicks, at 16-5, sit atop the Eastern Conference with Lin's backup, Felton, leading the offense, Linsanity has struggled in his first year with the Rockets. His stats are way down from the ones he was putting up with the Knicks last January, and as a result the new look Rockets have struggled and currently sit at  9-11, 10th place in the West and currently outside the playoff bubble.  When Lin went off for a Linsanity-esque 38 points and 7 assists against San Antonio on Monday, the sports world barely took notice.  More importantly, Houston still lost to the Spurs at home.

When the Knicks let Lin walk in July, everyone was talking about how New York was making a huge mistake.  After all, Lin had become the new face of the Knicks franchise, and Lin supporters argued that the point guard's value to the team far exceeded what the Knicks would have to pay to retain him (even after including the Luxury Tax implications).  What are those supporters saying now?  Clearly hindsight is 20/20, and there was so way to know for sure that Lin would regress dramatically in 2012-13 and that a guy like Felton would drastically outperform him - in the article I linked to above, ESPN's Ian O'Connor wrote in July that "there's no good reason to believe that Lin, a better player than Felton last year, won't be a better player than Felton next year and beyond."  But even if O'Connor was right - maybe the Knicks did luck into the Felton over Lin decision when the former became too expensive - the fact remains that the Knicks can always make another Jeremy Lin, but Jeremy Lin doesn't make the Knicks.

Fast forward to today and take note of the fact that Knicks fans are falling for the 2012-13 roster, including Lin's replacements (Felton, Jason Kidd and Pablo Prigioni).  While the excitement around those three doesn't match last season's Linsanity craze, you won't find a Knicks fan who wants to talk about how much he misses Jeremy Lin or about how badly the Knicks need to bring Lin back.  If the Knicks are winning, New York basketball fans will rally around the players helping to grab the victories.  Last year, it was Lin (and admittedly it all happened in an unprecedented way).  This year it's Carmelo, Felton, Chandler and guys like Kidd, Steve Novak and Rasheed Wallace.  At the same time Lin is struggling in Houston, both on the court and with fans who have fallen in love with the newly-acquired James Harden and view the Lin signing as more of an afterthought.  I still wish Lin the best and hope things turn out well for him over his next three years in Houston, but as of now we can say that no player - not even Lin - is more important to the Knicks than the Knicks are to that player. 

Caught Looking, Take Three

The New Orleans Hornets are one of the NBA's least historic and least popular teams.  Since the Big Easy got the Hornets from Charlotte in 2002 the team has had minimal success, the current roster lacks big names (Eric Gordon is hurt, leaving Ryan Anderson as arguably the team's most recognizable player) and the franchise's savior (top draft pick Anthony Davis) is injured.  None of these facts, however, stopped sports fans from flipping out when the team announced earlier this week that it planned to change its name to the New Orleans Pelicans prior to the 2013-14 season.  ESPN created the Twitter hashtag #NewOrleansMascotShouldBe to let fans try and suggest better names for the team, and countless sports media personalities have weighed in and criticized the move.  If the announcement that one of the NBA's least followed teams plans to change its name, logo and colors can get top billing on SportsCenter, its clear that American sports fans care an awful lot about team branding.

On this note, Caught Looking has worked hard since its inception in April 2010 to bring its readers a clean look that's simultaneouly aesthetically pleasing and unique.  To that end, the site was reformatted for its one year anniversary in April 2011 to great reviews - the light blue / navy blue / dark red color scheme has become a defining element of the site, and the capitalized and italicized Caught Looking font was good enough for MLB Network to blatantly steal.  That being said, there were things I always wanted to improve.  I wanted a logo that was more differentiated from Major League Baseball's.  I wanted to bring out the dark red accent color a bit more.  I wanted to add a defining characteristic that could be used as an icon on Twitter, Facebook, etc.  While I didn't want to become the Houston Astros of blogs (changing colors and logos constantly), I thought that my readers deserved something better.

Take a look at the top of the screen this morning and you'll see Caught Looking's brand new header and logo, custom designed by Santiago Formoso (@truhoax).  Santiago came up with the idea to integrate the backwards "K" into the logo - the symbol for a strikeout looking in baseball scorekeeping - and I loved it.  Not only is the new header more unique, but it brings out the dark red accent color and, with the backwards "K," adds an element that readers can easily associate with this blog.  I've still retained my signiture font, and replaced the old MLB-esque logo with something that's both new and classic.  The other change you'll notice is that, for the first time, I'll be publicizing my real name (not just "MLBwhiz") front-and-center.  I'm proud of what I've been able to accomplish over the past 30+ months of writing, and I think it's time to promote myself a bit more than I have.  I'm really excited about the site's new (and third-ever) look, but would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions for ways I can improve what the blog looks like moving forward.  If the New Orleans Pelicans can spark a national debate, there's no reason Caught Looking can't do the same.

I also want to use this format change as another opportunity to thank you all for reading this blog.  As always, it is your support that continues to fuel my desire to analyze, criticize and write about the sports fan experience.  As we head towards 2013 and I start to think ahead to some upcoming sports experiences that I have scheduled (including my first official trip to Brooklyn's Barclays Center for Princeton basketball vs. Fordham, an in-person look at Marlins Park in Miami and a Duke basketball game at Cameron Indoor Stadium in Durham, NC), I'm excited to post on them for you below my awesome new blog header.        

TV Anywhere . . . Sort Of

So, my excuse is admittedly a lame one.  After having been away for five days over Thanksgiving break and with only limited time to watch TV last week, our DVR has gotten pretty full.  In an effort to avoid recording any additional shows, last night our TV was turned to CBS in order to watch 2 Broke Girls and Mike & Molly in real time.  Now, I know what you're thinking.  First: who watches sitcoms in real time anymore?  Second: 2 Broke Girls and Mike & Molly?  Really?  And third: What about Giants at Redskins on Monday Night Football?  Well, desperate times call for desperate measures (and yes, a full DVR classifies as a desperate time), CBS is America's most watched network for a reason, and thanks to Time Warner Cable's TV Anywhere app I was able to watch the first half of the Giants' crippling loss on the iPad.

This summer I bashed Time Warner Cable on this blog, and I stand by that bashing: Their channel selection is terrible, their services are overpriced and their TV quality is spotty at best.  All of that being said, I've been relatively impressed by the TWC app for the iPad.  In an effort to avoid turning into a zombie, I've resisted the urge to put a TV in the bedroom.  When there's competition for TV time, I've started using the iPad as a second, portable TV screen.  Partly because the iPad screen is pretty small, the picture quality on the TWC app is extremely good, and the application is relatively user friendly.  You can watch live TV and stuff from your DVR, and it all loads pretty quickly.  Yes, the NFL viewing experience is far superior on a larger screen (though I guess "bigger is better" applies to 2 Broke Girls as well), but there are benefits to watching sports on the iPad.  I'm not going to say I watched the Eli Manning-to-Martellus Bennett touchdown pass while on the toilet, but I'm not going to say that I didn't, either.

The TV Anywhere app might be TWC's best product, but that's not saying much.

Before I go and give too much credit to the TWC app, it's important to highlight its (many) drawbacks.  Primarily, despite the fact that it's called "TV Anywhere," it only works when connected to your home wireless network.  So while it's good for watching NFL games on the toilet, you can't watch TV while riding a WiFi-enabled Bolt Bus from D.C. to New York, as I tried to do a few months ago.  Thus, the universe of instances where TV Anywhere is useful is most certainly a finite one.  I understand why this is the case - local market restrictions, concerns over cannibalization of traditional television, etc. - but it doesn't make it any less frustrating.  Because the video content is designed for a large TV screen, some of the graphics on the ESPN broadcast were also difficult to read - again, I don't blame this on ESPN or TWC, but it's a fact.  So TV Anywhere should probably be renamed "TV Anywhere Inside Your 800 sq. ft. Apartment."

Would I watch a sporting event on my iPad again?  Absolutely.  It's certainly not ideal for a game that you really want to focus on, but it's great for passively watching something while you're also walking around doing other stuff or restricted to a room without a TV.  Now, if we can get the TWC app to truly work anywhere, that would be something different.  Either way, next time I get kicked off the coach because Mike & Molly is on, I'll have my iPad ready to go.   

Battle 4 Atlantis: Part II

While I don't typically love watching sporting events at bars, I do appreciate the camraderie and the opportunity to spend time alongside fans of teams other than my own.  When I used to watch the Giants games every Sunday at a bar in Palo Alto, CA, I learned to appreciate the atmosphere and grew to enjoy being seated next to other diehard NFL fans (assuming they weren't rooting for the Eagles, Redskins or Cowboys, that is).  Now that I'm back in New York, sometimes I wish that I could take in a differentiated fan perspective a bit more often - I've returned to watching most games at home this fall and, when I do go out, I'm usually surrounded by other Knicks or Giants fans.  Along those lines, the Battle 4 Atlantis was the perfect remedy for my suddenly-insulated sports lifestyle.  Not only did I get to watch some great basketball games alongside energetic and passionate fans from VCU, Duke, Louisville, Missouri, Minnesota, Northern Iowa and of course Stanford (I never saw Memphis play), I also had a great time talking to many of these people while at the resort's many restaurants, beaches and water slides.

Even before we reached the Bahamas, we ran into countless college basketball fans.  On our connecting flight to Nassau from Orlando, I struck up a conversation with a couple of retirees from Jacksonville who were heading the the Atlantis to cheer on Memphis; they both attended the university back when it was still known as Memphis State.  The shuttle bus that we took from the airport to the hotel was filled with fans from each of the tournament's eight schools, and we spent the 45-minute-long ride mocking a couple of Minnesota Golden Gophers fans for snapping pictures of everything from the bus window, as if they had never left their cul-de-sac in St. Paul before.  While sitting in an inner tube, riding a conveyor belt built to take people to the top of a water slide, I got into a conversation with a guy from Missouri about their game against Stanford from the day before.  The entire weekend was filled with random conversations with college basketball fans about the tournament and occassional run-ins with the players and coaches themselves.  While playing blackjack in the casino we spotted Coach K and his Blue Devils, we saw Stanford and assistant coach Mark Madsen on the way to dinner, and passed the rest of the teams while walking in and around the Imperial Arena.

Stanford prepares for its first game of the tournament versus Missouri.


Often, when we think about college basketball fans, we think about college students - the Cameron Crazies at Duke, for example.  Interestingly, there were virtually zero college students at the Battle 4 Atlantis, likely spending their Thanksgiving holidays at home with family and friends or at a more wallet-friendly vacation destination.  Instead, the Battle 4 Atlantis fans fit into a few main categories.  Of course, there were lots of young and middle-aged alums, including myself.  There were also lots of retirees, eager to find an excuse not to cook Thanksgiving dinner and find some warm weather in the process - I was constantly running into a giant pack of elderly Minnesota fans wearing matching t-shirts made specifically for the trip.  Then, there were the super-fans -some of whom might've also have been alums - who never miss a game regardless of what country it's played in.  Last, there were a few locals sprinkled in here and there - Bahamas residents excited enough about the sport of basketball to spend money to watch kids from colleges they've almost certainly never been to (or, in the case of Northern Iowa, heard of) before.

Neutral site tournaments are always fun, from college basketball's March Madness to the FIFA World Cup, and the Battle 4 Atlantis was certainly no exception.  With only the most diehard fans willing to pass on a traditional Thanksgiving in favor of non-conference college basketball, I spent five days in a beautiful setting talking about sports with some of the country's most intelligent and passionate college hoops fans.  While I would have loved to have seen a larger Stanford contingent with which to talk about Dwight Powell's inside game or Aaron Bright's injury - as usual, the Stanford fans left much to be desired in the attendance department - it was kind of fun to be part of an underrepresented fan minority.  After two straight months of being surrounded by fellow Giants and Knicks fans, it was great to get away from New York for a few days and be the token cardinal red-clad Stanford fan in the Bahamas.

Battle 4 Atlantis: Part I

In the sports world, Thanksgiving is seen as a holiday for NFL football.  But while most turkey-eating Americans were watching Houston and Detroit go to overtime, New England destroy the lowly Jets and RGIII tear up the

Cowboys secondary, I was at the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas for the Battle 4 Atlantis, a college basketball tournament made up of eight of the nation's top programs (including the eventual champion, Coach K-led Duke).  Over the three days of the tournament I went to four full games and saw parts of four others (out of 12 total) - not to mention interacted with a ton of college hoops fans of Louisville, Missouri, Northern Iowa and more while exploring the resort grounds - so my coverage of the tournament will spill over into a second post to come later this week.  Today, let's talk about what has to be one of the most unique sports venues I've ever been to - a basketball arena erected inside a hotel ballroom.

Last season, Harvard took the first ever Battle 4 Atlantis championship, defeating Central Florida in the finals while highly ranked UConn and Florida State played in the consolation game.  While following that tournament, all anyone could talk about was how difficult it was to shoot at Atlantis' Imperial Arena, and now I can see why.  The resort converted its largest ballroom into an arena, laying the hardwood in the center and surrounding it with 15-20 rows of temporary seating which holds ~2,500 fans.  Rather than looking up into a sea of people while shooting, the players see only a few rows of seats and a black curtain behind them, as well as two old-school scoreboards hanging in the corners of the room (see below).  If you watched any of the games on NBC Sports Network, you'd have seen that the seats were covered in purplish-blue lighting, making the shooter's background especially dark.  It's unlike any other venue I've ever seen, and the first day's games were low scoring (and somewhat ugly) as players adjusted to the conditions.

Duke vs. VCU in the semis, with the famous black curtain and scoreboard in the background.

For the fans, though, the conditions really couldn't be better.  We had seats in the fourt row right at center court - which obviously would have been great seats at any arena - but at the Imperial Arena all that stood between us and the court was a narrow aisle and the media table.  The only way to get to your seats is to walk right around the court (while rounding the corners, you actually had to step onto the hardwood), so you're always right on top of the action.  With the seats only extending ~15 rows deep, even the worst seats in the house would be in the middle of a lower level section at a typical NBA or large college arena.  And, despite the black curtain surrounding the entire venue, the Imperial Arena held in the noise really well, making it sound like there were more people there than there really were.  This was particularly helpful during some of the consolation bracket games (like Stanford vs. Northern Iowa on Day 2), when the stands were mostly empty as people stayed at the beach and pools during the afternoons and saved their basketball consumption for the big games in the evenings.

The Atlantis also did a great job in converting the conference area of its Coral Towers into a makeshift basketball venue.  The convention center lobby and hallways were turned into a temporary entry gate and concourse, and the surrounding ballrooms were converted to concession stands and merchandise stands.  Unlike typical stadiums, all of the bathrooms and hallways were clean and open, and the area wasn't cluttered with a ton of advertisements (other than the courtside signage, there was virtually no corporate branding at all).  As for in-game entertainment, the tournament did a great job of adding local flavor to the event, as each game had some form of Bahamiam entertainment at halftime - from a steel drum band to a sea lion that dances to "Gangnam Style."  From the moment that I walked out from behind the bleachers and got my first look at the court to the championship trophy presentation (featuring indoor fireworks and streamers shot from air-powered guns, below), the Battle 4 Atlantis was incredibly unique.  And the uniqueness of the tournament extended far beyond the arena itself - stay turned to Part II, to come.  

Glass Half Full

Note: Caught Looking will likely be on hiatus this week while I'm out of the country for Thanksgiving break.  When I return I'll post coverage of the Battle 4 Atlantis from Paradise Island in the Bahamas, and I'll have another special surprise to unveil toward the end of the month.  Stay tuned!

After witnessing two consecutive crushing defeats at the hands of the Oregon Ducks, I was thrilled to see the Stanford Cardinal take down the nation's second-ranked team and give themselves a legitimate chance at a Pac-12 championship and a trip to the Rose Bowl.  Once the final whistle sounded, I started to process all this might mean for the Cardinal program - the first league championship since the 1990s, a third consecutive BCS bowl bid (to three different bowls), and the continuation of the program's top-ten status post Andrew Luck's departure for the NFL.  Eager to relive the game, I turned on SportsCenter when I got home and was looking forward to hearing some commentary about the win's significance for Stanford.  Instead, all anyone was talking about was how Oregon blew their shot at the National Championship game, and how Stanford excelled in their role of spoiler.

Now, there's no doubt Stanford played the role of spoiler on Saturday night.  The Ducks are no longer really part of the National Championship picture, and I'll admit that there was an essence of "sweet revenge" to this win.  After all, Oregon ruined Stanford's last two seasons - both years, the Cardinal were undefeated before meeting Oregon, and both times Stanford left the game licking their wounds.  But for me, this win was about much more than just getting back at a Pac-12 North rival.  Traditionally when we talk about the role of spoiler, we think about an underdog team with nothing to play for except for the thrill of ruining a season for a team otherwise destined for great things.  That wasn't the case on Saturday night, though, when the Cardinal had a lot to play for above and beyond knocking the Ducks a few rungs down the BCS ladder.

Earlier in the evening, an unranked Baylor team knocked off previously top-ranked Kansas State, and sports commentators everywhere basked in the glory of the Wildcats' suddenly flawed season.  In this case, though, Baylor (and its partially empty stadium) wasn't playing for much -at 5-5 with two games remaining, the Bears are scrapping for bowl eligibility and a trip to a lower-tier bowl.  Stanford, however, is in a completely different situation.  After grabbing Oregon's top spot in the Pac-12 North standings, the Card deserve to be talked about as more than David to the Ducks' Goliath.  The Cardinal have established themselves as a program that can compete with anyone in the country, and they should be considered  more than a footnote in the story of Oregon's 2012 season.

I've been critical of the Cardinal all season, from their struggles throwing the ball to their questionable play calling in key situations.  But despite the team's uninspired early season loss at Washington and a controversial defeat at Notre Dame, I have to admit that I was wrong about this 2012 Stanford team.  I figured they'd struggle severely this season, but with just one regular season game to play (next week at a tough UCLA team) it's clear that this is a legitimate college football powerhouse.  Now that I've admitted I was wrong, it's time for the sports media to start talking about Stanford as if they're more than the little engine that could.  This is a big, powerful engine that might be a few weeks away from adding another BCS bowl victory to its resume.

Why Basketball Is An Indoor Sport

Last night, I watched the second game of the State Farm Champions Classic, which pitted Duke against Kentucky in Atlanta, GA.  The game, which followed Michigan State's thrilling victory over Kansas, was an exciting contrast of styles - a well-played, high-profile non-conference matchup that we don't get enough of prior to March Madness.  If there was a downside to the first game between the Blue Devils and the Wildcats since 2001, it was the fact that the Champions Classic organizers held the event in the cavernous Georgia Dome rather than (at worst) an NBA building like Atlanta's Phillips Arena or (at best) a classic college venue like Cameron Indoor Stadium or Rupp Arena.  While playing the game in a football stadium undoubtedly increases paid attendance, allowing more people to see the contest live (reported attendance was 22,847) and generating more revenue for the event organizers and the participating schools, it diminishes one of the best parts of college basketball - the in-arena atmosphere.  Buildings like Cameron, Rupp and Butler's Hinkle Fieldhouse are what distinguish college games from the most-homogenous NBA variety, and moving Duke vs. Kentucky to the Georgia Dome definitely took away from what could have been an even more intriguing matchup.

Clearly, the Georgia Dome was not meant to host a basketball game.

While Duke vs. UK would have been a lot more awesome if it was played on a college campus, it could have been worse - at least the game wasn't scheduled to be played on an aircraft carrier.  Since North Carolina played Michigan State onboard the USS Carl Vinson last November, the NCAA and its schools have become obsessed with scheduling non-conference games where planes should be landing.  Despite the fact that, last year, a Michigan State player injured his knee when he slipped on a wet spot on the floor (who would have thought that a court built atop a floating vehicle might have moisture issues?), three additional aircraft carrier games were scheduled for this past week.  Mercifully for the players, two were cancelled - Florida vs. Georgetown on the USS Bataan in Jacksonville, FL and Ohio State vs. Marquette on the USS Yorktown in Mt. Pleasant, SC.  Florida and Georgetown actually played a hideous first half, after which the game was called for moisture with the Gators leading the Hoyas 27-23.  Syracuse and San Diego State got their game in on the USS Midway in San Diego, but the game was postponed two days from Friday to Sunday because of weather.  Even when it was played on Sunday, though, "the gusty winds on the deck of the USS Midway were so strong that the outside shooting in Syracuse's 62-49 victory wasn't quite so pretty" - San Diego State shot 1 of 18 on three pointers and 14 of 33 on free throws. 

Long sleeves!  Pants!  It's Syracuse vs. San Diego State on the USS Midway!

In my mind, there are three main reasons to hate these suddenly-en-vogue aircraft carrier games.  One, there's a real injury risk here - playing on a moist wooden surface is extremely dangerous, and these outdoor matchups put all of the players at risk.  Second, the quality of play during these games is bound to be consistently terrible - between the wind, the cold and the sun, players can't calibrate their shots and the games are sloppy and low scoring as a result.  Third, and perhaps most unfortunately, these games come at the expense of battles that could be among the highlights of the non-conference college basketball season.  The teams invited to play in these nationally televised aircraft carrier games are all top-tier schools; matchups like Florida vs. Georgetown or Ohio State vs. Marquette would be intriguing regardless of where they are played.  The best case scenario here is that the game will be ruined by the outdoor elements and an otherwise great matchup turns into an ugly one, like in the Syracuse win over San Diego State.  The worst case scenario is what happened with the other two aircraft carrier games - they get cancelled because of weather, they don't get rescheduled and the fans lose out on the opportunity to see two big time programs play each other during a mostly uninteresting November of college hoops.  Going forward, I hope the NCAA and its schools get smart and move these games to indoor venues, both for the sake of the players and the fans.  

What Changed for Mike Brown?

On Friday, the Los Angeles Lakers fired head coach Mike Brown after the team's 1-4 start to the 2012-13 season.  The Lakers were all over the NBA headlines this offseason, from the acquisitions of high-profile superstars Dwight Howard and Steve Nash to the instillation of a new Princeton offense.  Of course, its nothing new for head coaches to be fired in the midst of a disappointing season - the Knicks 2011-12 season, for example, was partially marked by the firing of Mike D'Antoni (currently a candidate for the Lakers vacancy) and the promotion of assistant coach Mike Woodson.  From that perspective, I have no problems with the Lakers dumping Brown.  My question, however, is: Why now?

I'm confused too, Mike Brown.

Mike Brown has been an NBA coach since 2005-06, when he took the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Eastern Conference semifinals.  Since then, his career has been marked by a series of "almosts" and "could have beens."  His Cavs teams finished either first or second in the Central Division in each of his five years with the team, but only once reached the NBA Finals and never won the title despite having a roster that included arguably the best player in the NBA.  Last year with the Lakers, Brown took Kobe and Co. to the Western Conference semis, but couldn't get past the Oklahoma City Thunder.  Basically, after getting half a dozen seasons to prove himself, Mike Brown is who we thought he was (as Dennis Green might say) - a coach good enough to get you to the playoffs, but no further.  I'm pretty sure that Mike Brown is the same coach today as he was this past summer, when the Lakers decided to bring him back for this season to lead the newly revamped Lake Show.

If Brown was good enough for the Lakers a month ago, what's changed in the last few weeks that lead the Buss family to change their minds about Brown?  I find it almost impossible to believe that it was the team's 1-4 start - firing a head coach based on a five game sample size would be an extremely shortsighted panic move that I refuse the believe a franchise like the Lakers are capable of committing.  Yes, the Lakers are 1-4, but so what?  The Denver Nuggets - a team many expect to contend in the Western Conference this year - started the year with three consecutive disappointing losses.  Since then, they've won four straight and have people talking about them as a force to be reckoned with.  The NBA season is long, and the Buss family has been around long enough to know that a rough five game stretch - especially for a team bringing in a bunch of new players and instilling a new offense - means very little.  So no, I don't buy the team's slow start as a rationale for Brown's firing.

So assuming Los Angeles knew what Brown was about way before this season started, and assuming that they're not overreacting to a slow first two weeks, why did the team make this move on Friday?  Some are arguing that its so they could pursue either Phil Jackson or Jerry Sloan, but those two legendary coaches are no more available now than they were over the summer.  I don't think Mike Brown is a particularly good coach and don't think he was ever a great fit for the Lakers, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's more true now than it was just a few weeks ago.  I think the Lakers will be competitive with whomever they bring in to run the ship (yes, even with D'Antoni), but it's a shame to think about what they could have been if they used the offseason to integrate a new coach instead of making a strange move in mid-November.

Enjoy It While You Can

Yesterday, I came across a great NBA-related article on Grantland entitled "The 5 Percent Theory: Why NBA teams shouldn't time their rise to avoid a juggernaut. Plus, 10 great things about the season so far."  The article, written by columnist Zach Lowe, argues that "If you have some pieces, you're almost there, and if you're almost there, you go for it — even if the chances of toppling a superpower are slim."  He backs his assertion up with comments from (among others) highly-respected Houston GM Daryl Morey and Dallas owner Mark Cuban, the latter of which compiled a championship-winning roster in 2011 even though everyone said that the Mavericks had no chance of toppling the Lakers, Celtics or Heat.  Given how much luck and injuries play into the run to an NBA title, I strongly agree with Lowe - just because the Heat seem dominant and the Lakers and Thunder could be scary doesn't mean that the next set of teams should be treading water until LeBron and Wade are pulled apart and Kobe retires.

I thought about this article a lot in the context of the start that my beloved New York Knicks have had to the 2012-13 NBA season.  While many fans are (perhaps overly) thrilled with the team's 3-0 record and, in particular, its impressive and inspired opening night victory over Miami, I've heard a ton of naysayers out there arguing that the Knicks are wasting their time and money on veterans like Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby and Jason Kidd when they should be building towards a future that doesn't include Heat and Lakers rosters headlined by any sort of "Big Three."  These people argue that the Knicks are fooling themselves by thinking they have any chance to compete this year, and as such shouldn't try to do so.  This argument relies on the logic that the only goal a team should have going into an NBA season is to win a championship.  Is that the right way to look at it, though?

As a fan of the Braves - a team that consistently stays competitive but rarely wins it all - I might be biased here, but I don't believe in a championship-or-bust philosophy.  True, there's nothing better than seeing your team take home the trophy - I still remember the Braves 1995 World Series victory like it was yesterday, and the two Super Bowls that the Giants have captured this decade sit at the top of my Best Sports Moments list.  But as good as those highs are, the lows associated with following a truly uncompetitive team can be extremely painful - particularly when you feel like your team's ownership and management are willing to tolerate the losing.  I agree with Zach Lowe - even if your team has just a 5% chance to capturing a title this season, you owe it to your fans and players to go for it.

Do I think the Knicks are going to win the NBA title this season?  No, I don't.  But do I think that, with a core of Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler and Amar'e Stoudemire and a surrounding cast comprised of useful veterans, the Knicks are at least in the conversation?  Sure, why not!  And as such, I applaud their moves to go get some veterans with playoff experience who can add leadership and play key roles this season without mortgaging the team's future.  Just as I'll never understand why the Washington Nationals shut down Stephen Strasburg to preserve their chance at future World Series titles when they could have won a World Series with him this year, I don't understand the argument that the Knicks should lay low and let the Heat and Lakers battle for the 2013 title.  I advise all Knicks fans to give this new roster (and coach Mike Woodson) a chance, and enjoy the good start while you can.

Opening Night on Celebrity Row

Thanks to a generous last-minute invite from a friend I had fantastic third row seats to the New York Knicks home opener, 104-84 drubbing of the defending NBA champion Miami Heat.  Over the years I've sat all over Madison Square Garden, but had never been this close to the court for an NBA game before (I once sat courtside for a New York Liberty WNBA game, back when the team was still playing at MSG).  In addition to providing an excellent view of the game, the first few rows at the Garden afford fans the opportunity to people-watch, get your face on TV and stare at celebrities.  While the surrounding atmosphere can be somewhat distracting - sometimes you forget that you're at a basketball game - it's a unique way to take in a sporting event.

As I looked around MSG's Section 2, I assumed that everyone I saw was either super-rich, someone famous that I just couldn't recognize out of context, or both.  After some not-so-discrete staring, I was able to point out hip-hop artist Mary J. Blige (sitting two rows directly in front of us) and New York Giants defensive end Justin Tuck.  Everyone in our section, though - not just the celebrities - stuck out from the typical basketball fan in one way or another.  Rather than Knicks jerseys and hoodies, the guys were wearing blazers and ties while their dates wore leather pants, stilettos and, in one instance, a see-through black tank top.  The people holding beers were heavily outnumbered by those holding cocktails, and people stared at me when I got out of my seat to cheer after a big Raymond Felton three-pointer.

When you sit in the cheap seats, you spend a lot of time starting at the Jumbotron watching other people shown on the big screen.  When you sit in the third row, you are one of those people.  At one point in the second quarter I was featured prominently on the Jumbotron - another friend at the game texted me to let me know he recognized me - and toward the end of the game I was spotted on TV during the MSG broadcast (see if you can spot me Where's Waldo-style in the photo below).  Along with all of the media exposure comes a downside, however - camera men constantly blocking your view and Knicks staffers camped out in the aisles ready to pounce on the next available photo opportunity.

    Can you find me?  Hint: Look all the way to the right.

Overall, I really enjoyed my experience rubbing elbows with the one percent in MSG's floor seats.  What better way to take in the Knicks season opener against the star-studded Heat than sitting alongside the likes of Mary J. Blige and Justin Tuck?  Going forward, I'll have no problem heading back up to the higher levels to cheer with the "real" fans - but for Friday night there was no place that I'd rather have been.

Here I Am . . .

UPDATE:  Turns out the Nets home opener vs. the Knicks was postponed afterall.  I think this only proves my point, though - if Sandy was able to delay an NBA game scheduled a full 3 days after the storm, imagine what it could have done to the World Series . . .

I woke up this morning, took a look out my window and saw something I haven't seen much of over the past 72 hours - the sky.  Like many in the Tri-State area, I spent the last few days holed up at home, bracing for Hurricane Sandy's impact and going borderline stir crazy.  That being said, I was extremely lucky - we didn't lose power even once throughout the storm, so I was able to keep tabs on what was happening in other areas of the country and pass the time by watching TV and going on the internet.  In between local news updates I would periodically flip to ESPN for sports scores and highlights, but I realized that very little was going on in the sports world on Monday and Tuesday.  Given the havoc that Hurricane Sandy could have wreaked on the professional and collegiate sports world, it's very fortunate that the MLB, NBA, NFL and NCAA all emerged relatively unscathed.

First off, the fact that the hurricane hit on Monday was extremely fortunate.  Had Sandy reached the coast on Saturday or Sunday, dozens of college football games and a handful of big NFL games would have been negatively impacted.  Given football scheduling, these games would have been very difficult to postpone or reschedule - what would the Dolphins and Jets have done if they couldn't have played at MetLife Stadium on Sunday?  How would the undefeated Falcons have been affected if they couldn't get through their battle with the Eagles in Philadelphia?  The NFL also dodged a bullet by scheduling Monday Night Football on the west coast - the weather was obviously fine in Arizona this week, and the 49ers had no problem flying in from northern California.  What could have been a football scheduling nightmare turned into a non-event for the NFL and NCAA.

One of the few silver linings in what was one of the least competitive - and likely to be least memorable - World Series in recent memory was the fact that no games were impacted by Sandy.  If MLB had gotten its pre-World Series wish, we would have seen the Yankees playing in a seven-game Fall Classic.  In retrospect, however, that scenario would have been a complete disaster.  Check out the video of "Citi Field Lake," below, and you get an idea of what the playing conditions would have been like on the east coast.  What if MLB had consecutive World Series games postponed because of the weather?  Game Five of the World Series was scheduled for Monday, with Tuesday supposed to be a travel day back to the National League City.  Had an East Coast American League team like Baltimore or New York made the series (instead of the Tigers), we'd still be waiting for the Fall Classic to resume.

Indoor sports could have been impacted by Sandy, too, but the NBA schedule also worked out perfectly.  The hurricane arrived a full day before the start of the 2012 basketball season, and the Tuesday games were all played outside of the storm's impact radius (in Cleveland, in Miami and in Los Angeles).  With the much anticipated Brooklyn Nets home opener against the New York Knicks scheduled for Thursday night, the NBA gives itself a chance to get the Barclays Center up and running prior to tomorrow evening and keep the early season schedule intact. As of now, it seems like the next wave of home openers will be played as scheduled on Wednesday.  While Hurricane Sandy unleashed a lot of devastation on parts of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, the sports world was very fortunate.

Island(er) Hopping

As one of only ~500 New York Islanders fans seemingly left on the planet, many of you have asked me to comment on the recent announcement that the Isles will be moving to Brooklyn in 2015.  Before I get into my reaction to the move, let me first give you a little glimpse of what it's been like to be an Isles fan over the past two decades.  When news of the relocation leaked yesterday morning and ESPN picked up on the story, I was excited just to see to Islanders mentioned among the Headlines on the upper right corner of the ESPN.com homepage - I can't remember the last time anything Isles-related graced anything other than the deepest NHL-only bowels of The Worldwide Leader in Sports' website.  The Isles have set the bar pretty low. 

Sadly, the big headline wasn't focused on something the team did on the ice or even in a roster move - instead, the news revolved around the Islanders' pending departure from Long Island and the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.  To the average sports fan, a move from Uniondale to Brooklyn, separated by a distance of only 28 miles by car, probably doesn't seem like much of a shift; even the Los Angeles Lakers' move from the Great Western Forum to the Staples Center was a 10 mile trip.  Culturally, though, this represents a big shift among New Yorkers.  The Islanders have always been a blue collar, suburban team.  Whereas Madison Square Garden's Rangers catered to the wealthy city-dwellers, Nassau Coliseum was the home of Long Island's Average Joes - a place for fans to share their hockey-related inferiority complexes.  While Brooklyn isn't far away geographically, the sleek new Barclay's Center doesn't exactly fit the team's working class image.

The Islanders will keep their name and logo, but if they change their minds . . .

From that perspective, the move is unfortunate.  As I've written about before, the Islanders have a uniquely Long Island vibe that no other New York area team can replicate.  In a perfect world, Nassau County would have gotten a deal done to build a new arena in Uniondale, providing the team with a state-of-the-art venue while preserving the franchise's Long Island presence.  I've heard a lot of grumbling from disgruntled Islanders fans about how disappointing the move to Brooklyn is, and in a way that's true.  After all, being a fan of the team was always more about being an "Islander" than it was was about being from "New York," and the move to Barclays is definitely going to change that.  While the rivalry with the Rangers will undoubtedly be recharged in a mostly positive way, it will never be the same.  Rather than white collar vs. blue collar, we'll have bankers vs. hipsters - potentially cool, but decidedly different.  Throw in the fact that the new arena isn't really made for hockey (see below), and the solution is far from ideal.  So, no, in my mind the move to Brooklyn wasn't the perfect outcome for the Isles.

A U-shaped NHL arena, coming to Brooklyn in 2015.

However, I'm realistic enough to know that a perfect outcome was not a realistic one.  After years of trying unsuccessfully, it had become painfully obvious that the Islanders were never going to get a new arena on Long Island.  Because the team couldn't possibly make money playing at the Coliseum - I've gone on the record calling it "one of the worst venues in professional sports" - they had to go somewhere else, and for a while it looked like that new place would be either Kansas City or some random town in Canada.  So, compared to the realistic alternatives, I'm happy with the Brooklyn solution.  It's going to be a lot easier for me to get to games, the smaller capacity should help the team move more tickets, and the draw of Brooklyn and the Barclays Center should help attract top-tier players.  Yes, it would have been great to have kept the Isles on the Island for another 40 years.  But no, that was never going to happen, and after judging the alternatives a move to Brooklyn seems like the next best thing.  

Losing Lance

On the whole, I'm not a big fan of individual sports.  I've actually gone on the record as saying that I don't think most individual competitions - including track and field, gymnastics and swimming - are actually sports, arguing that they are at best athletic competitions and at worst recreational activities.  99 times out of 100, I'll rank a football, basketball or baseball player's accomplishments ahead of anything that a runner, gymnast or swimmer can do, and as a result I don't find it at all surprising that we spend every day of our lives following either the NFL, NBA or MLB (and even the NHL) while individual sports grab the national spotlight only once every four years.  All of that being said, however, I have always had an irrational and unexplainable affinity for Lance Armstrong, and have been more affected by his use of PEDs than I have by similar injustices on the part of baseball, basketball and football players.

Lance Armstrong had all of the necessary ingredients for becoming an American sports icon.  Regardless of how you feel about the sport of cycling and the Tour de France, no one would argue that Armstrong isn't a phenomenal athlete, and virtually everyone acknowledges that winning any worldwide, annual competition seven times is a row in a remarkable accomplishment the likes of which may never be seen again.  In addition to his athletic abilities, Armstrong had the same charisma and charm that has caused Americans to fall in love with guys like Peyton Manning and Derek Jeter, highlighted by his Oscar-worthy cameo in Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story.  And perhaps most importantly, Armstrong seemed to have the leadership qualities that you rarely find in an individual sport athlete.  I know that cycling / the Tour de France is supposedly a team sport (though I can't say I really understand it) so I'm sure that had something to do with it, but his work with the Livestrong foundation really led me to believe that Armstrong, like Manning and Jeter, was the kind of guy you'd follow into battle.

When news first came out about Armstrong and PEDs, I didn't believe it.  I'm typically pretty cynical when it comes to this kind of stuff, and have often adopted a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset when it comes to athletes accused of doping.  But for Lance, I truly believed he was clean - I didn't want to believe otherwise.  I wanted his seven consecutive Tour de France victories - all after recovering from cancer - to be legitimate, and figured that some jealous former opponent who got tired of losing (or teammate who got tired of staying in the shadows) was trying to defame cycling's golden boy.  Now that every officiating body - not to mention Nike and Livestrong - have parted ways with Armstrong and stripped him of everything that he "earned" as an athlete, I'm depressed.  When other athletes have been found guilty of doping, I've found myself feeling happy that justice has been served.  When it comes to Lance, however, I just want to wake up and have all of the PED-related news and accusations just disappear.

As I followed his utter domination of the sport of cycling, I always believed that we'd never see anyone monopolize the spotlight like Lance Armstrong did from 1999 to 2005.  Now that we know why Armstrong was so much better than the (allegedly clean) competition, I hope we never do.  The only thing sadder than Lance's fall from grace is what this says about our champions, particularly in individual sports.  The next time we witness a prodigy like Armstrong, we won't be focusing on the impressiveness of his or her feat.  Instead, we'll be wondering what sort of illegal boost he or she used to reach the top.

Avoiding Controversy

Earlier on Wednesday, Kansas City Chiefs head coach Romeo Crennel announced that quarterbacks Matt Cassel and Brady Quinn would compete to be named the starting signal caller going forward.  Since the announcement, basically everyone in the world seems to agree that this is an absolutely awful decision.  Amazingly, even coach Crennel himself acknowledges that having his two top QBs compete for the starting gig is likely to result in disaster:

"It is distracting," Crennel said. "Everybody's wondering who the guy's going to be, and all those kind of things. Then what happens, some guys on the team kind of favor one guy over another guy. Even though everybody's got a job to do and they will do their job. But it is a distraction."

My question: Why does everyone out there (including the guy who made the decision) seem to think that this is such a bad choice?  Through six weeks of the 2012 NFL regular season, the Chiefs are 1-5 and, in the eyes of many (myself included) are the worst team in the entire league.  They're coming off a week where they lost 38-10 to a mediocre Tampa Bay team (2-3) in a game that Quinn wasn't actually that bad (Cassel was ruled inactive after injuring himself the previous week).  Whereas a jolt of some sort seems in order, most people are calling for Crennel to make a semi-arbitrary starting QB selection and just stick with it.  Nevermind that his team might not win another game for the remainder of the year.  Apparently, the negative ramifications of a QB controversy are so severe that you'd rather stick with one guy and lose than roll the dice a little bit and improve your chances of winning.

Cassel or Quinn?  Shouldn't the decision be based on who plays better?

As fans, are we expected to believe this?  As rational people, are we supposed to just accept the fact that a quarterback battle should be avoided at all costs because "some guys on the team kind of favor one guy over another guy" or because "everybody's wondering who the guy's going to be?"  I'm lucky to have been raised a New York Giants fan, so I haven't had much QB controversy experience as of late (and with Eli Manning playing well and seemingly getting better, I don't anticipate confronting what Chiefs fans are going through for at least a while longer).  But if my favorite team was 1-5, I don't think I'd be shying away from a QB battle.  I think I'd be willing to try any reasonable measures to improve a team that just lost by four touchdowns to the Buccaneers.  NFL fans shouldn't have to accept subpar quarterback performances just because a positional battle might get a little "messy."

I understand that quarterbacks are the leaders of their offenses, and that in a perfect world you want a steady and confident presence under center to run the show.  I also understand, however, that the Kansas City Chiefs and their fans are not living in a perfect world right now.  Instead of pretending that everything is good and convincing themselves that either Matt Cassel or Brady Quinn is definitively the man for the job, shouldn't the Chiefs coaches let both guys play until one of them emerges as the better candidate?  We see running backs and wide receivers compete for playing time regularly, even for high-performing teams.  Haven't the Chiefs reached the point where they owe it to their players and fans to have Cassel and Quinn do battle on the field?  Good for Romeo Crennel for throwing his top two QBs into the proverbial ring.  Now if only he could have done it with a little more conviction and a little less apologizing.

Pulling The Plug

First off, let me caveat this post by stating that I have no idea whether or not this article is true.  If you're not in a link-clicking mood, the New York Post is reporting that "after being replaced in the bottom of the eighth inning in Game 1 of the American League Championship Series, [Alex Rodriguez] openly flirted with a pair of pretty women two rows behind the dugout — even sending them a ball bearing a note asking for their phone numbers" (see right)  The report follows the well-publicized news that A-Rod, the highest-paid Yankee, was benched for the win-or-go-home Game 5 of the ALDS against Baltimore, and has been a non-factor so far in the 2012 American League Playoffs.  With Derek Jeter out for the remainder of the post-season with a fractured left ankle, some are hoping that Rodriguez will step up and fill the massive void on the left side of the Yankees infield, while others argue that he should be benched in favor of Eric Chavez.  Who's right?

Earlier this week, a friend sent me this link, which notes that A-Rod has the 21st highest post-season OPS all time among players with a minimum of 150 playoff at-bats, just a few ten-thousandths of a point behind perennial October hero Jeter.  I'm not sure why this friend emailed me this data, but I can only assume it was to defend Rodriguez from all of the criticism he's receiving this month (and from the criticism he's gotten every October since he joined the Yankees).  While I admit I was surprised to see A-Rod on this list just below Jeter - after all, we're always talking about how bad Rodriguez has been in the playoffs - I dug a little deeper into the numbers.  Without going into any real analysis here (that's not what Caught Looking is all about), it's clear from the data that A-Rod has fallen off in recent years.  While he was great with in the early 2000s and again in 2009 when the Yankees won the World Series, he's been pretty brutal over the past three years.  So if you're a Yankees fan, do you ignore the recent trends and hope that the "old A-Rod" comes back, or do you look at the numbers and acknowledge that A-Rod's post-season batting average is below .200 over the past three years?

Let me make a comparison to fantasy football here, if I may.  Despite knowing a lot about the NFL, I suck at fantasy football.  In my 16-team college league, I think I've made the playoffs twice in nine seasons (22% of the time, while 37.5% of teams make it each year).  I think much of the reason why I'm typically unsuccessful is because I stick with big name stars for too long and leave higher-producing (but lesser known) guys on my bench or on the waiver wire.  Just because a receiver is named Randy Moss, for example, doesn't mean he's the same player that he was half a decade ago.  The guys that win fantasy football are the guys who react quickly and put production over reputation.  The same is true for the MLB playoffs, and keeping Alex Rodriguez in the middle of the Yankees order is like keeping Moss in the starting lineup of your fantasy team.  It's time to make a change.

If Yankees fans are hoping for a big 2012 playoff comeback from A-Rod, they're going to be disappointed.  The 2012 version of Rodriguez has little in common with the guy from a decade ago (or even from 2009) except for the name.  A-Rod is now older, supposedly rid of PEDs, and clearly distracted (as the New York Post article, if true, makes plainly clear).  Down 2-0 in the ALCS, it's time for Joe Girardi and the Yankees to roll the dice and make some big changes heading into Detroit.  One of those moves should be to give someone else a chance at third base and acknowledge that this version of A-Rod isn't going to get it done.  It's comforting to know I'm not the only one out there clinging to big name players long past their expiration dates. 

Hoops in the Hoosier State

Before this week, I had been to the state of Indiana twice - once when I drove across the country and spent a night in the South Bend area (right off I-80) and another time for a business trip to the NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis.  While the latter trip was highlighted by a visit to Bankers Life Fieldhouse (then called Conseco Fieldhouse) for a Pacers game, I never got a glipse at "real" hoosier state basketball until this week.  Not only did I get a second, more casual look at Bankers Life Fieldhouse - this time for a WNBA Eastern Conference Finals game between the hometown Indiana Fever and the Connecticut Sun - but I also got to play pickup basketball at Hinkle Fieldhouse, home of Butler Bulldogs basketball and the place where they filmed much of the classic sports film Hoosiers.

First, let's talk about Bankers Life Fieldhouse, one of the NBA's hidden gems.  You don't hear much about the home of the Pacers, mainly because Indiana hasn't been overly competitive since the arena was built, but it's one of the best NBA arenas that I've been to and supposedly served as an example for what the Brooklyn Nets wanted the brand new Barclays Center to look like.  It's got a great old-school, retro feel to it that does a great job of showing respect for Indiana's rich basketball history, and is also extremely well-designed.  The seats are packed in tight, making the arena feel louder and more crowded than it really is (especially relevant during the sparsely attended Game 2 of the WNBA Eastern Conference Finals), and the building has a clean look that makes is easy to navigate.  It's also located in the heart of downtown Indianapolis, right by Lucas Oil Stadium (home of the Colts) and the majority of the city's large hotels.  Overall it's a great place to see a game, and will be even better starting this NBA season when the Pacers install a brand new, giant scoreboard.

 Even without the new scoreboard, Bankers Life Fieldhouse is a great basketball arena.

On Wednesday morning, I got up at 5:45 AM (no small feat after a night out on the town in downtown Indianapolis) to play pickup basketball at Butler University's Hinkle Fieldhouse, one of the most iconic arenas in college basketball.  As a fan of Ivy League basketball, I've always considered Penn's Palestra ("The Cathedral of College Basketball") to be the perfect type of college hoops venue - ideal size (not too big, not too small), classic look-and-feel and a great energy.  While it was hard to tell with the place completely empty, I'm pretty sure that Hinkle is that kind of college basketball arena.  With the fans right on top of the court and accoustics akin to that of an indoor pool, I'm sure that a packed Hinkle Fieldhouse is an intimidating road test for opposing A-10 (and formerly Horizon League) players.  Playing on the Hinkle court just felt special, as if I was sucking down rarified air.  Truly a memorable experience (and I hit a few nice shots, too).

There's nothing like walking onto the playing surface of an iconic sports venue.

Between Bankers Life Fieldhouse - one of the NBA's stronger arenas - and Hinkle Fieldhouse - at one time the largest and most state-of-the-art basketball arenas in the United States - Indianapolis is home to two of the country's premier places to watch basketball.  Add in the fact that Hinkle Fieldhouse is where they filmed many of the key scenes in Hoosiers, and Indianapolis becomes an extremely desirable tourist destination for basketball and movie fans alike.  While I wasn't originally ultra-excited about a two-night trip to Indiana, the visits to these two great venues highlighted a thoroughly entertaining week in the Midwest.