The country's best player, Evan Turner, broke his back and missed five weeks mid-season, during which his Ohio State team went 1-3 in the Big Ten. Just two months later, he's the seemingly unanimous Player of the Year and his Buckeyes are outside candidates for a No. 1 seed.

The Pac-10 barely found two tournament teams and will get out-represented by the Atlantic 10 and Mountain West. The ACC stunk for most of the season. West Virginia won the Big East tourney for the first time. The bottom line: this year, nothing is sacred.

Is there a single team you'd want to stake your life on reaching the Final Four? Heck, even the Sweet 16? Syracuse, Kansas, and Kentucky are, in some order, the class of this college hoops season, a backhanded compliment if there ever was one. And then there's everyone else.

So when you fill out your brackets, pick those upsets with confidence. And, of course, pay attention to my analysis below.

Midwest

Best Round One Game: (8) UNLV/(9) Northern Iowa

Two tournament mainstays that, every year, seem to be in interesting first-round games. In fact, let's hope this will finally spawn what everyone's been begging for: the Mountain West/Missouri Valley Challenge. Who's with me?

Geographic X-Factor: Michigan State and Maryland to Spokane

I'm not sure why the NCAA feels compelled to pick a Pacific Northwest first weekend site every year. Seattle and Portland, sure. Spokane and (I'm pushing Pacific here) Boise, hmm. They're tough to get to for fans and teams, and unless Gonzaga or Washington is really good, a leftover four-seed will get banished there because it's the only site left. I'm sure those itineraries from College Park and East Lansing to Spokane will be ugly.

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Ohio State/Georgetown

It seems pretty likely these two will find each other in the tournament for the third time in the last five years (they split the last two). Both sides have great size and athleticism on the wings. This will probably be the best Sweet 16 matchup. Unless...

Best Upset Potential: Georgia Tech to the Second Week

Always, always be afraid of those big conference teams that underachieved below their potential, especially if they get out of round one. I won't call the Yellow Jackets over Oklahoma State as a real upset, but Georgia Tech's front court could give Ohio State fits, especially if Dallas Lauderdale finds a couple of early fouls.

Blowout Time-Filler

This is where I'll give you a preview of how the announcers will fill time in an ugly game. And when the Hoyas hammer Ohio U, you'll hear for the 72nd time that Austin Freeman was diagnosed with Diabetes a few weeks ago. Best of luck to him, of course. And best of luck to the producers in finding something a little more timely.

My Elite Eight Pick: Kansas over Georgetown

The Jayhawks will get tested after the first round, but their average level of talent across all five positions is too much for anyone else in the region. The Hoyas could give them a game if they can keep the tempo slow, but Rock Chalk rolls to Indianapolis.

West

Best Round One Game: (5) Butler/(12) UTEP

Brutal, brutal plight for both. UTEP cruised through Conference USA, and it would have been interesting to see where they would have been seeded had they beaten Houston in the conference finals. Butler ran the table in the Horizon League, but they don't get a lot of easy points and could struggle with UTEP's athletic advantage.

Geographic X-Factor: Can BYU Get to Salt Lake?

It's a stretch, but if BYU can somehow get through to the Sweet 16, they'll have one of the great home court advantages we've seen in the tournament in some time. Throw in the altitude, and there will be a very, very cranky coach on the other side of the scorer's table.

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Syracuse/Kansas State

Pittsburgh, Vanderbilt, and Butler don't exactly bring out the best in anyone. Gonzaga and Syracuse could be fun in round two, maybe. Slim pickings here.

Best Upset Potential: UTEP over Butler

Good contract of styles; see above.

Blowout Time-Filler

The last time Syracuse and Vermont met in the tournament was 2005, and wouldn't you know it, the Catamounts shocked the Orange. Not this time. Expect lots of 2005 clips to cover the carnage.

My Elite Eight Pick: Syracuse over Kansas State

They'll need Arinze Onuaku along the way, but the Orange are the class of the region. If Pitt could overcome its nasty underachieving tournament habit, a Big East Elite Eight tilt could be competitive if not pretty. I'd be very surprised to see anyone else out of this quarter.

East

Best Round One Game: (5)Temple/(12)Cornell

More non-major conference intrigue! I think the Owls will win respectably, but I'm mostly intrigued to see the Big Red get a crack on the big stage. They've heard about the squeaker at Kansas for months now; has it been enough to make them believe?

Geographic X-Factor: Three Teams Laying in Wait For Marquette

Don't pity the poor Golden Eagles because they got sent out to San Jose; pity them because all three other teams in their pod probably had half the trip.

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Kentucky/West Virginia

Not only would it open the way for 48 hours of banjo jokes, it would be a great game. I don't think we could see a better matchup outside of the Final Four. Kentucky's talent is well documented, but West Virginia has a stable of guys that seem like they've been there for a decade. It would be a fun youth vs. experience subplot.

Best Upset Potential: Washington over Marquette

Yes, the Pac-10 blows. But Marquette likes to fling it from deep and those teams can get picked off by anyone. And in this case, Washington really would be as bad as anyone. Besides, if it wasn't this one, I'd have to try to explain why Texas beating Wake Forest would somehow still be an upset even though they're seeded higher. Let's move on.

Blowout Time-Filler

Wofford's first trip to the tournament. To review, as of this week: Wofford, 1 tournament appearance; Northwestern, 0. I have a feeling we'll see a little too much "We're just happy to be here!" in this one. Badgers roll.

My Elite Eight Pick: Kentucky over West Virginia

I touched on it above, but this is probably the second best matchup (you'll have to get to the end of the column for the best) we could see in the whole tournament. Plus, you know Bob Huggins has no love saved up for UK after his Cincinnati days.

South

Best Round One Game: (4) Purdue- (13) Siena

Poor Boilermakers. They won at Ohio State a few weeks ago, looked poised to own the Big Ten title outright and possibly a No. 1 seed. Now they're just a few days removed from being disemboweled by Minnesota as they try to fill Robbie Hummel's shoes. On CBS' selection show Sunday, Seth Davis actually wondered aloud if Siena might be favored. Hey, a 13 over a 4 is still an upset, no matter how contrived it is.

Geographic X-Factor: Texas A&M or Baylor in Houston

Now here's a realistic Regional site factor. Either Big 12 team would get a big boost from being close to home for rounds three and four. A&M is within two hours drive, and Baylor is a little closer to four, but could you imagine...

Game I Wouldn't Miss: Duke/Baylor

This would be clearer-cut than the Empire versus the Jedi. Baylor, overcoming the aforementioned history, in their home state, taking on everyone's favorite heels. And, of course, Gus Johnson would have to be involved somehow.

Best Upset Potential: Siena

Poor, poor Purdue.

Blowout Time-Filler

Baylor's recovery. This is the story that will actually be worth the time. You remember the disaster at Baylor. Player shoots player, coach tries to cover up shooting, NCAA turns program into glass desert. They were banned from playing non-conference games for a year! Somehow they've risen out of the ashes. And most of all, do you really see Sam Houston State making it a game?

My Elite Eight Pick: Texas A&M over Baylor

It's been painfully obvious for five years that Duke lacks athleticism. Perhaps Coach K has made a concerted effort to not recruit one-and-done guys, but for whatever reason, the Blue Devils are at an athletic disadvantage to top teams. This is a very weak region (then again, they all are this year) and Duke is far and away the best team here, but I just can't get past the measurables. This Blue Devil team is more than the sum of its parts, but as in years past, those parts will get exposed. I like the Aggies to do that exposing and ride that wave past the Bears to a surprise Final Four berth, a reward for their ambitious out-of-conference work.

The Championship: Kentucky over Kansas

John Wall and DeMarcus Cousins have money to make and this is the stage to make it on. Now whether NCAA investigators will allow either program to acknowledge this happened in five years, that's a different story.

The arguments against league involvement have been discussed countless times. The league is shut down, and the risk for injury to its best players casts a shadow during the tournament. Additionally, the All-Star Game is canceled, which means one less marquee event for the league and lost revenue for a league city. For these reasons and others, it is easy to see Bettman's apprehension about committing to the 2014 Olympic games.

It is time to for the Olympics to benefit the NHL. Everyone is in agreement the NHL needs to find ways to use the Olympic momentum to its advantage. Advancing the game of hockey through the Olympics is nice, but advancing the NHL through the Olympics is better. After all, the NHL is in the business of advancing the league, the owners, and the players.

Here are five ways for the NHL to capitalize on the Olympics and to justify staying in the Olympics:

1) Buzz. What the Olympics lacked was discussion about the NHL. How many times did NBC tell viewers the Americans hadn't beat the Canadians since 1960? The only NHL buzz was if the league was going to allow its players in the 2014 games. The NHL needs to create attention-grabbing storylines about the league and opportunities for the press to talk about the NHL. Creating buzz can be done three ways:

A) Have a week-long winter meeting in the host Olympic city. The agenda topics will the include announcement of the flex NHL schedule (see No. 2), top prospects and the draft (see C), and the trading deadline, among other league business. The advantage is that many press outlets are concentrated in the Olympic city at this time making it easier for the NHL to get attention.

B) Move the trade deadline to two weeks after the Olympics. During the Olympics there will be talk about the future of the players in the tournament. This year's deadline was four days after the Olympic gold medal game. There needs to be more time to speculate on moves during the Olympics and after the Olympics. The longer the rumor mill can run the better.

C) Invite the top 100 NHL prospects in the world to a week-long combine and four-on-four tournament two weeks prior to the Olympics. Run prospects through drills and give them a chance to play each other. The press will talk about the future Olympians and future NHL stars the week before the games and throughout the games. Some of these prospects may actually be Olympians, which won't hurt either. Some of these prospects will be undrafted, creating more buzz for the NHL draft and those who are property of teams will be talked about as trade bait.

2) A post-Olympics flex schedule. The schedule after the Olympics will be decided at the Olympic winter league meeting and announced during the Olympics. The teams separated by 10 points, and fighting for the last two playoff spots before the Olympics start will have a weighted schedule. These teams will play each other more often during the last weeks of the season. Roughly 9 points separate seven teams fighting for the last two playoff spots in the West. Six teams are separated by 8 points in the East. Let these teams play each other during the last 20+ games of the season

As it stands now, Detroit plays eight of its last 21 games against the teams fighting for the last two playoff spots, while Anaheim plays only five games against these teams in their last 20 games. Teams battling for the last playoff spots should have a minimum of half their remaining games against each other.

3) A marketing campaign during the Olympics should send the message that the best players in the world wear the NHL shield. For the most part, the best players in the world are in the Olympics, and it should be emphasized that the best players in the Olympics are playing in the NHL.

4) A second Outdoor Classic with a twist. The second game should be hosted by a Canadian team at a small outdoor rink. This Field of Dreams type game would have limited tickets available and emphasize the Canadian origins of the game. The press relentlessly emphasized how Canada invented hockey during the Olympics. This Outdoor Classic would take fans back to its roots at a small outdoor venue. Ticket demand and the marketing possibilities would enhance the NHL. The home team would need to receive financial support for losing a home game, but it would be worth it.

5) Heavy television saturation after the Olympics. The Versus television network needs to air five consecutive nights of the flex schedule games. The weekend after the Olympics should have Versus or NBC air three consecutive flex games on Saturday and Sunday. NBC and Versus would essentially be airing playoff hockey immediately after the Olympics.

The above plan creates a lot of disruption to the league, its schedule, and the Olympics. As a result of the above plan, the NHL may become a slight distraction and cause some disruptions during the Olympics. But ultimately, it allows the NHL to take Olympic momentum and make it NHL momentum.

Winners

Chicago Bears

I think it is clear thus far that nobody has made as bold of moves, or as good of moves, as the Bears. They signed arguably the best free agent available in Julius Peppers, solidifying a defense that was plagued by injury in 2009. They also signed the underrated Chester Taylor from inside the division.

Of all the 30-plus running backs available, Taylor was, in my opinion, the best available, simply because he has not incurred the damage that Brian Westbrook or LaDainian Tomlinson has over the years. Also, considering the Bears' hiring of the extremely pass-heavy Mike Martz as offensive coordinator, Taylor is a great fit with solid hands and great blocking ability. True, Westbrook would have been a better fit, but he would have cost at least twice as much and been less reliable.

While the Bears perhaps paid Peppers a bit too handsomely ($91.5 million for six years, $42 million guaranteed), they had to in order to sign up. They certainly paid a fair price for Taylor ($12.5 million for four years, $7 million guaranteed).

Baltimore Ravens

I think if there is an AFC team that is clearly better since the end of the season, it is the Ravens. Trading for Anquan Boldin gives Joe Flacco the best target he's had in his young career. Hopefully that will be a nice match.

Jacksonville Jaguars

Signing Aaron Kampman was a good move. I think they may have spent some money on the wrong side of the ball, but there is nothing wrong with signing a good player who has good years ahead of him. There is still a lot to be done before the Jags are back to playoff contenders, but they seem to be on the right track. Re-signing Troy Williamson, not such a good idea. If the Jags are going to get it right for 2010, they will make a move at wide receiver more significant than re-signing a complete bust.

Losers

Carolina Panthers

To be truthful, the Panthers started becoming 2010 losers in 2009 when they signed Jake Delhomme to that ridiculous deal. Releasing him meant losing $13 million dollars. The real reason the Panthers are losers thus far this offseason is because they failed to perform in 2009. An 8-8 record after a 12-4 record in 2008 sends the message that this team is headed in the wrong direction and fast. That's not the way to sign free agents and improve your team.

Arizona Cardinals

Losing Anquan Boldin wasn't good. Getting repaid with third- and fourth-round picks doesn't seem like ample re-payment. Sure, there is room for paying others money, but they've lost a quality player and didn't get enough for him. Throw in Kurt Warner's retirement and a large portion of Arizona's offense disappeared for 2010. They picked up Safety Kerry Rhodes and lost Safety Antrel Rolle; insignificant compared to the changes in the offense.

Green Bay Packers

I know, shocking, the Packers aren't spending money. They lost Kampman. I know he didn't fit the 3-4 scheme as well as the 4-3, but you hate to see good players go because your front office refuses to spend money. The Packers' offensive line improved throughout the season, but they still could use some help there. Re-signing Chad Clifton helps, but they could use more.

Pittsburgh Steelers

Regardless of what they're doing with transactions, distractions provided by Ben Roethlisberger cast doubts and uncertainties. That makes them losers. Period.

LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Westbrook, Jake Delhomme, and NFL Fans

In an era of sports where it is rare to see a player stay with the same team for his entire career because of their own ambition, 2010 is showing us a new trend has arrived. NFL teams are unwilling to stick with players who have performed well for years and are on the down-slopes of their careers. I think players will suffer for the next five years because of this trend, but soon a new trend will arise (or at least should arise) where players will realize their value may decrease after a certain age and will accept new roles as backup players simply to stay with the same organization.

Toss Up

Minnesota Vikings

I would say they will end up being in the winners' column before all is said and done, but there hasn't been enough happening to call them winners. They lost Chester Taylor, which hurts, especially considering he didn't travel far and makes Chicago a formidable force.

But one can't help but look at their approach to the Brett Favre situation and at Favre's refusal to leave the game and think he'll be back, which I think puts them in the winner's column. I don't expect Favre to perform at the same level as 2009, but I do expect him to perform better than Tavaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels could perform.

The only other concern for the Vikings is if Pat Williams decides to retire. If that happens, the defense will need to fill that void well. I'd consider it top priority in the draft if Williams does retire.

San Diego Chargers

Perhaps you consider losing the best running back of the previous decade and the face of your team a bad thing, but from a purely economical standpoint, it was the right move. L.T. won't perform in San Diego well enough to be worth his paycheck. Perhaps a new setting will help. Perhaps nothing will and he is simply on the way downhill, much like 30-year-old running backs throughout the NFL.

But losing such an important part of the organization for fiscal reasons, I'm not such a fan of that. I understand L.T.'s need to be paid well and be the feature back, but there is a lot of me that wishes there would be more realism in the minds of NFL players, accepting their limitations that come with age and signing for less money than the previous year when it is clear their production is waning.

What's the right price for L.T.? Perhaps what Chester Taylor got paid? Perhaps a bit more? I wouldn't pay more than $4 million a year for him and I wouldn't sign him to more than three years. I think somebody will exceed both of those, but I truly don't know who. The top candidate at the moment I think should be Seattle, but it seems they're looking to spend money at receiver, perhaps pursuing Brandon Marshall.

Philadelphia Eagles

I think we'll see them in the losers' column very soon, but as with the L.T. deal for the Chargers, releasing Brian Westbrook was a financially-sound move. I think pairing that with the fact that most people seem to think Donavan McNabb will end up outside of Philadelphia means this team is going to need a new identity on offense. I think Thomas Jones would be a good fit in Philly, but there are no free agents on the market at quarterback who could come in and get the job done without serious doubts.

I can't imagine Eagles fans would be too happy seeing Jake Delhomme or Daunte Culpepper suit up. Nor are there any quarterbacks in the draft I would count on to perform in year one. Unless the Eagles want to go through some major rebuilding, they're going to have to make a trade for a quarterback or find a way to keep McNabb.

Uh oh. Did the two-time Super Bowl champion go and give somebody the 'ring finger' without their consent? Maybe, maybe not. But something, or someone, went down that night, and hopefully the court system will render justice. Details, like Roethlisberger's bar-going history and his accuser's believability, are sketchy. One thing is for sure — if the case goes to trial, Roethlisberger's legal fate lies in a word he seems to not fully understand: consent.

Roethlisberger allegedly sexually assaulted a 20-year-old college student at a nightclub in the party mecca of Milledgeville, Georgia. Did Roethlisberger take advantage of a star-struck, nubile college chick, a young lady who was eager to "go pro?" Or did she take advantage of him, using her charm and good looks to lure an easy mark into a compromising position, where the lines of consent can be easily misread and cashed in to pay off school loans? Or did a simple misunderstanding of the word "matriculate" transform an innocent encounter into an alcohol-fueled romp where "yes" and "no" had dual meanings? In other words, did Roethlisberger "Ben Her," or did she "call an audible" just a smidgen too late? Was his quarterback "sneak" turned back by a "goal line" stand?

Either way, they both got more than they bargained for. And as a second harassment claim would seemingly attest, Roethlisberger is developing a reputation as a "bargain hunter." On the football field, Roethlisberger is known for his quick decision-making. Sure, when he's being pursued by 300-pound defensive lineman, Big Ben's critical thinking skills are top notch. However, in a bar, with too much alcohol clouding his judgment and his libido, he handles "pocket pressure" in a completely different manner.

While it will be hard for authorities to ascertain fact from fiction is a case like this, this much we know is true: this is most talked-about incident of an unwanted sexual advance in Georgia since Ned Beatty was violated in Deliverance. Unlike Roethlisberger, Beatty never put himself in such a situation again. And, unlike Beatty, Roethlisberger doesn't have Burt Reynolds to get him out of his predicament.

It would be easy to paint a picture of Roethlisberger as guilty because this is the second such accusation against him. And I'm sure that's what his accuser's attorney will attempt to do, probably in civil court after criminal charges fail to stick. And it's certain the photo of a drunken Roethlisberger in a "Drink Like a Champ" t-shirt, posing with a young lady will, like Big Ben, be making a court appearance. Roethlisberger may be a "habitual idiot," but that doesn't make him a "habitual offender." Yet. Committing two legal acts does not constitute a habit. Committing two illegal acts? That's not quite a habit, but is dangerously close. Committing two illegal acts under nearly identical circumstances? You might as well assume it will happen again, which is the very definition of a habit.

That's assuming Roethlisberger did, or has done, anything illegal on the two occasions in which women have accused him of inappropriate behavior. Remember, Roethlisberger has probably experienced thousands of interactions with women, in bars or elsewhere, in which one or both parties where under the influence of alcohol. Of those, only two have led to legal situations. That would give him one heck of a quarterback rating, and maybe lead one to believe that he just happened to come in contact with two women, who, for whatever reason, saw a reason, or a chance, to cry foul.

Or, quite possibly, Roethlisberger, in these thousands of interactions, has mistreated or offended in some way more than two of the women, and only two have come forward to point out wrong-doing. Maybe Roethlisberger is a deviant, and fame, money, and recognition have distorted his morals to the point that he feels he has the right to treat these women as he pleases. Chivalry may be dead, but douchebaggery is alive and well.

Being guilty of sin is one thing; being guilty as sin is another.

Of course, Roethlisberger has yet to be convicted of anything, not in this case, nor in the 2008 assault case. I'm not sure if that statement in itself is more of an exoneration of Roethlisberger, or a condemnation. But guilty or not, it can't look good in a biography, and it can't look good for sales of Roethlisberger's No. 7 jersey. No. 7 doesn't seem to be a lucky number for NFL quarterbacks these days. Michael Vick went down for mistreating dogs. Now Roethlisberger may soon face the repercussions of treating women like dogs.

Now, the very fact that this young lady has hired her own attorney lends a considerable amount of doubt to her case. I'm no lawyer, but since when do you need an attorney to simply accuse someone of a crime? You don't, but it always helps to have professional guidance when navigating such an emotionally-draining, yet potentially fruitful court case. I'm guessing her counsel's expertise lies not in trial law, but in negotiating settlements.

Of course, Roethlisberger felt the need to hire high-powered attorney Ed Garland, who has also defended Baltimore Raven Ray Lewis against a murder charge in 2000. Garland also defended rapper T.I. against weapons charges in 2007. In the black community, that's called "representin.'" T.I. went to jail, so I'm guessing Roethlisberger hopes his defense can be like the prosecution in that case and beat the 'rap.' Whatever the case, Big Ben's got an attorney with rhyme and reason skills.

While hiring such a quality attorney is by no means an admission of guilt, it does seem to indicate that Roethlisberger feels he needs a top-notch barrister to extract him from this jam. And it's apparent this will be a case in which ruining the accuser's credibility will be the defense's main objective, should a trial ensue. Garland has already stated that Roethlisberger "did nothing wrong." That sounds like a veiled statement. Roethlisberger did "something." Whether it was wrong or not remains to be seen. Obviously, Garland's job is to convince a jury or judge that Roethlisberger felt the accuser's actions and words implied permission.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Roethlisberger's affinity for partying and club-hopping. It's only natural for a wealthy professional athlete to want to hang out with his less fortunate and eager-to-mooch acquaintances, who are no doubt there to ride the coattails of their famous friend. When Big Ben goes out with his buddies, the drinks are on him, and apparently, so is the burden of proof. It looks as though Roethlisberger continues to say "bottoms up" long after the drinks are finished.

While charges have yet to be filed in the case, police in Milledgeville are still gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses. According to sources, police will soon be taking a DNA sample from Roethlisberger. That can't be a good sign for Roethlisberger, which is ironic, because for years now he has been praised for his "fluid release."

Whether he's convicted or totally cleared of charges, Roethlisberger will be a "marked" man. Not on the football field, but in public, and especially in bars. Oh, he'll still have his admirers. Heck, dogs love Michael Vick now.

But can Roethlisberger wear the stigma as a possible sexual deviant as well as he wears his eye black? Someone should tell Big Ben he's not the chick magnet that he thinks he is, and let him know that magnets repel just as well as they attract. If he's not careful, he may find his exploits reported more often on TMZ than ESPN. If this type of behavior continues, Roethlisberger may soon see his fate in the hands of 12 jurors as opposed to 11 defenders. He may feel he has done nothing wrong, and they may quite possibly be true, but it still should serve as a warning to clean up his act. Or, at the very least, be more careful with his act.

Big Ben has struck "two" ... a third strike may very well spell the end for him.

Bavasi was just as likely as his boss Walter O'Malley to slip a player an extra hundred to five hundred after a particularly outstanding game or for stepping up in a swift enough emergency. Dick Tracewski was a small-time supporting player when he was pressed into full-time service for the 1963 World Series. He barely hit his weight, but he played a credible enough second base, and Bavasi rewarded him with the roundtrip tickets to take his wife on a Hawaiian vacation.

But Bavasi learned the hard way that fleet center fielders who generally know the lay of the field and the play of the ball don't always turn out to be fleet off the field. When a washed-up Willie Davis was traded to the San Diego Padres from the St. Louis Cardinals after the 1975 season, the Padres' most compelling reason to keep the former Gold Glove center fielder was so Bavasi (who'd become the team president when the Padres came into the National League in 1969) could get some of his money back.

Bavasi had, according to John Helyar in The Lords of the Realm, loaned or advanced Davis "so much money at Los Angeles that he had to sign him at San Diego after becoming president there just so he could get repaid. The Padres paid Davis $70,000 in his last year, of which Bavasi garnished $35,000."

Davis's life seems not to have gotten too much simpler after he left baseball, which he did following a 43-game 1979 comeback with the California Angels, though his troubles hardly outweighed the fondness with which he has been remembered since his March 9th death in his Burbank apartment. "Everybody liked Willie," said former Dodger owner Peter O'Malley. "I can't imagine someone not liking him. He was memorable. I was fortunate to know him. Just a very likable guy."

Likable guys do unlikable and even shocking things, or so they are accused, as was Davis in 1996, when he stood charged with threatening his parents with a ninja sword and throwing stars unless they fronted him $5,000. Those charges were dropped, but Davis and money seem to have been a mix volatile at best, a mix O'Malley did his best to neutralize when he authorized the Dodgers, whom he still owned at the time, to do whatever they could to help their former center fielder.

Former Dodger pitcher Don Newcombe told reporters at the time that the team wasn't going to front him money unless the reason he needed it was sound, but pondered whether Davis needed medical or even psychological help.

It was too far removed from the Willie Davis whose defense — he might have won more than three Gold Gloves but for the presence of a still-peak Willie Mays and a successor Curt Flood — and batting (unfairly tagged as an underachiever, Davis may well have been a more productive hitter than his statistics suggest but for the hitting conditions of Dodger Stadium in those years, as Bill James has limned in a sterling analysis in The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract) helped his Dodgers to three pennants and two World Series rings.

Some believed Davis, who succeeded Duke Snider in center field, had a streak of laziness. "One time I was asked to help with his bunting," catcher John Roseboro wrote in his memoir, Glory Days with the Dodgers, "and he told me he didn't need any help. 'How many bleeping bunts did you beat out this year?' he asked me. I never tried to help him after that. Willie wasn't willing to work."

Perhaps Davis believed too deeply in the ability he had already. Felipe Alou will tell you of a game in which Davis swatted a single over first and into right, where Alou ran it down and thought he'd finally accomplished what he believed the impossible, bagging Davis trying to stretch a hit.

"I saw the umpire call him out," Alou told the Los Angeles Times, "and I said, 'I finally got that guy trying to stretch a single into a double.' The next day I saw the newspaper and it said Willie Davis had a double. I said, 'I threw him out.' My teammate said: 'We tagged him out. He had passed second.' He was that fast."

And perhaps even a cool, swift center fielder has an occasional streak of over-anxiety to overcorrect. Davis flashed that streak even more fatefully in the fifth inning of Game 2 in the 1966 World Series, against the Baltimore Orioles. With an exhausted, probably ailing Sandy Koufax working more on mind than matter, his fastball tapering off and his curve ball imitating itself, but still matching shutout innings with a rookie named Jim Palmer.

One on (Boog Powell, a single), one out (Davey Johnson, a foul pop), and Paul Blair lofting a fly toward center field and right in the Dodger Stadium sun. Davis lost the ball in that sun and Blair helped himself to second on the miscue. Up stepped Andy Etchebarren, who'd been Koufax's only punch-out to this point (looking at a third strike fastball that made up in movement what it lacked in power), and he, too, lofted one to center field, a little more shallow than Blair's loft. This time, Davis had a bead on the ball ... and dropped it, shockingly, allowing Powell home, before his bid to hold Blair on third went sailing into the dugout, allowing Blair home and Etchebarren to third, from where Luis Aparicio would double him home a strikeout later.

Koufax retired the side on a fly to right from Curt Blefary and Willie Davis — who had driven home the winning run to help Koufax secure a stupefying World Series sweep of the Yankees — wanted to crawl into the nearest available mousehole. Except that Koufax wouldn't let him. The Hall of Famer scurried to the far end of the dugout where Davis planted himself and had to break the grips of a few miscomprehending teammates before slamming himself down next to Davis and throwing an arm around him protectively.

"Willie, forget it," urged the pitcher whose streak of 22 consecutive World Series shutout innings had just been vaporized. "Don't press. Don't let it get you down."

Taking that counsel in life as well as in the Dodger dugout might have made the rest of Davis' life just that much gentler.

It's time for the NCAA tournament to expand to 347. Aren't we headed there anyway? Let's stop worrying about bubbles and stop waiting for expansion every few years.

Give everyone a chance in a single-elimination 10-round tournament. As it stands, the current tournament is seven rounds. Remember, the play-in game is a round and if a play-in team ran the table, seven wins would take the tournament.

The nine reasons to expand the tournament:

1) The NCAA committee makes the BCS look fair. The NCAA committee sits behind closed doors and swears everyone to secrecy involved in the selection process as to how the at-large teams are selected and how teams are seeded. If the process were transparent, we would not need bracketologists. It would not matter who is on the bubble, who the last four in are and who the last first four out are. We would know who is going to make the tournament every year and each team's seeding.

2) The NCAA does not invite the best 65 teams. They invite conference champions and some others. Instead of inviting the 65 teams who the committee thinks would make the best tournament, how about letting the teams decide the championship on the floor? Isn't this the biggest complaint with the BCS?

3) Having 347 teams does not necessarily mean more games, it means a 10-game postseason tournament with a level playing field. Currently, many teams are eligible for 10-game postseasons anyway. Some conferences have champions that need to win 5 games in their conference tournament, and then if they make the NIT, they could get 5 more games or if they make the NCAA, they could play 7 (assuming they are in the play-in game). This amounts to the possibility of playing 10 to 12 postseason games. If the field were expanded to 347 teams, the maximum number of games needed to be played would be 10. If teams have the possibility of playing 10 to 12 postseason games anyway, why not have a winner-take-all tournament?

4) Mid-majors and small conferences could finally unravel the NCAA power conference monopoly. One of the big complaints in college basketball is mid-major teams like Butler can't find a team to play them because they are a little "too good" for the power conferences. Under the plan below, conferences will have to play other conferences and this will raise everyone's level of play and level the playing field.

5) The end of the "we were robbed" and "we did everything we could to get in the tourney" whining. Isn't everyone tired of this selection show bitterness that then must be turned around into"we want to win the NIT tourney to lay the ground work for next year" optimism? The whining and complaining of teams feeling left out would be eliminated.

6) Conference tournaments are not the opening rounds of the NCAA tournament. If they were, then only conference champions would be eligible to play in the tournament. Can the seventh-best team in the Big East that qualifies for the current tournament beat the second place team in the Ohio Valley conference 10 times out of 10? Are you ready to guarantee this?

7) People watch the tournament for Cinderella not Godzilla. We pull for George Mason and Gonzaga to upset teams, not for Kansas to run through teams or Duke to get a No. 1 seed and win six in a row. There is widespread hope of Cornell getting a high seed and having a chance to advance in the tournament. There doesn't appear to be outrage that North Carolina isn't going to qualify for the tournament or that the Pac-10 has only one or two teams that might make it. There is excitement because this means the Missouri Valley Conference could put more teams in the tournament.

8) A 10-round winner-take-all tournament means a serious amount of incremental revenue for television networks and the NCAA and tragically, that is what expansion and NCAA sports are all about anyway, isn't it? Why not find a way to make more money, and make it fair for everyone? There is a way to get more money and fairness in the NCAA? Clearly, this is an oxymoron whose time has come.

9) Power conference teams already play small conference teams in November and December. How about playing these teams with everything on the line in March and April? If the argument is that the teams from the lesser conferences are that much worse than the power conferences in March and April, then why are the lesser conference champions even invited to the tournament? If the thinking is the tournament should be reserved for "good teams," then setup a tournament for BCS conferences only and the rest can go home ... wait, that is the college football system.

How to Expand the Tournament

Seeding

Seed all 347 teams using three components: RPI, conference vs. conference, and conference championship. The RPI is worth 60% of a team's score, conference vs. conference 20%, and conference championship 20%. The team that has the No. 1 RPI is given 347 points and the weakest gets 1 point. This way the scores can be added together.

The three components:

1) The RPI would remain in its current form.

2) Conference vs. conference is a series of mini-tournaments. Currently, there are 32 conferences (including independents as a conference) in NCAA Division 1 basketball. Conferences would need to face four other conferences similar to the ACC vs. Big Ten Challenge. Conference matchups would be drawn like the lottery numbers are drawn: air-driven ping-pong balls. Each conference would randomly draw 7 teams from their conferences with the same ping-pong ball method (the smallest conferences has 8 teams).

The conference that wins 4 out of 7 games is the conference head-to-head winner. In their overall seeding score, each team from a winning conference is then awarded 20 points. Each conference is required to play four conferences, and if they play more than four, there is a possibility of getting more points. The chance for another 20 points per team increases the chances of conferences of playing each other.

3) The conference champion of each conference is awarded an extra 50 points. For independents, their "conference champion" is the team with the highest RPI.

Rounds Explained

After seeding all 347 teams, the tournament is setup the following way: rounds 9 and 10 are play-in games. Round 10 has team 346 vs. 347 play at the home site of team 346. Winner of 346 vs. 347 plays seed 257 at 257's home site. The rest of this round is the following: Team 258 vs. 345 at Team 258, Team 259 vs. Team 344 at team 259, etc.

The 45 teams to emerge from round 9 then advance to round 8 as teams 211 thru 256. These 45 teams get re-seeded with the highest seed to emerge from round 9 becoming 211, next highest seed 212, third highest seed 213, etc. Once round 8 begins, there are 256 teams left and seeds 1-128 get home games. Round 7 will again re-seed the teams the same way round 8 did and seeds 1-64 will again have home games. Round 7 will again re-seed teams using the same methods previously discussed, but at this point, the bracket and seeds get locked and the tournament functions the way it does now. Round 6 forward will have teams go into regional parts of the country, similar to today as higher-seeded home teams will be placed closer to home than lower-seeded teams.

It may be argued that teams 257 to 347 don't belong on the same court as teams 1-256, but remember more than half of these teams won't advance and teams 1-256 were given a bye anyway. If it is argued that teams 96 thru 256 don't belong on the court with teams 1-95, then let 1-95 prove it. From round 7 forward, all teams have to play 7 games to win. The current setup asks two teams to play 7 games to win it all. If a team has to play seven games to win a championship, why not make more teams play seven?

The real question on the table is not why the tournament should expand, but when will the tournament expand and give everyone a chance? The tournament started with 8 teams and is now looking at 96. Also, if Kansas wants to play Hofstra November 13, and Central Arkansas November 19th, with nothing on the line, why not have Kansas play these teams in March with everything on the line? Time to face your fears power conferences and let all of the Davids line up to play all of the Goliaths, not just the Davids who get hot in the first week of March and win their conference tournament.

Football's over, and while I love me some March Madness, and soccer also gets me through, in my heart, I'm always pining for football. To paraphrase Kissing Suzy Kolber, to hell with your coworkers gleefully noting that pitchers and catchers are reporting this week (or last week, or whenever). It's even over three months until the only offseason acceptable football equivalent (I speak not of Arena football, but of the Canadian Football League) starts up.

So as I've done in this space before, I look teasingly ahead to Week 1 — and Week 1 only, not to look at Week 2 until Week 1 is complete — of the college football slate seven (gasp!) months away. Most of the games do not have television homes yet. Many will be moved to Thursday. But the matchups are mostly written in pen now, and collected at the wonderful Matt Sarz Sports.

Southern Miss @ South Carolina

This is one of the games already slated for Thursday Night, September 2nd. I think we can officially say it is a tradition that the college football season will kick-off with a South Carolina game; it's been at least three years running. Quite a step up to the spotlight, though, for Southern Miss, a middling Conference USA program and the beloved alma mater of, for my money, the best college football blogger on the web. It makes you wonder if someone backed out at the last second.

USC @ Hawaii

This game is also slated for Thursday, and is the first one to have a kickoff time scheduled: 11:30 Eastern. It's ESPN's way of saying, "Take a four day weekend (the following Monday is Labor Day)!"

Purdue @ Notre Dame

This is the first time since at least 2003 (I can't be bothered to look farther than that) that Notre Dame has opened against an every-year opponent. Look for Brian Kelly to have a great first season, be hailed as a savior, get Notre Dame back on the cover of Sports Illustrated, have a shakier second season, and have the bottom fall out in years three through dismissal. It's the Notre Dame way.

By the way, did you hear what Charlie Weis is doing now that he's been fired from perhaps the most prestigious coaching job in sports? He's moved on to the second most prestigious coaching job in sports — offensive coordinator for the Kansas City Chiefs.

LSU vs. North Carolina in Atlanta

This is another burgeoning opening week tradition — a great ACC/SEC neutral site matchup in Atlanta. Alabama vs. Virginia Tech last year. Alabama and Clemson the year before. LSU this year. And North Carolina? Huh? Again I ask, did someone back out at the last second? I hear ya, Tar Heel fans, "Oh! We've been to the Meineke Car Care Bowl two years straight!"

Washington State @ Oklahoma State

The game itself isn't particularly notable, but I have a strange fasciation with the carrion that is Washington State football.

Did you know, in the very decade that just ended, they put together three consecutive 10-win seasons? Now, they are the reigning worst team in a BCS conference, and might've the year before, as well.

It just goes to reflect how crucial coaching and recruiting is in college football for programs like Ohio State and USC that don't have an immutable legacy. The campus, in Eastern Washington, is snowy, no big cities nearby, and without a lot of attractions for recruits who are not nature lovers nor interested in one of their specific academic programs. The larger area, which encompasses part of Idaho, is known as the Palouse (rhymes with moose).

Boise Stae @ Virginia Tech

This one will be on Monday (Labor Day) and the game (besides the games I have a natural rooting interest for) that excites me the most. Who doesn't like to see Boise win still another "statement" game and collect a BCS scalp? This one will be played in the Washington Redskins' home stadium.

Oregon State @ TCU

How unremarkable did this game look just a couple years ago, before TCU went on their BCS bowl berth run and Oregon State finished a game away from a Pac-10 championship and the Rose Bowl? My Dallasite girlfriend tells me that the local radio stations were abuzz with calls for TCU to be brought up to the Big 12 last year. I don't get behind that, but really, this game is on the same order of Boise State/VT.

Other games you may be interested in:

Navy vs. Maryland in Baltimore (the battle of Maryland)
Pittsburgh @ Utah
UConn @ Michigan
Washington @ BYU

The rivalry games that historically occur in Week 1 (and will continue to in 2010):

Colorado vs. Colorado State in Denver
Missouri vs. Illinois in St. Louis
Kentucky @ Louisville

All of this is associated with the love of college football. That, I can live with. However, as odd as it may seem to have college coaches, most of them millionaires, traveling to high schools to beg and persuade an 18-year-old kid to come play for them, how odd is it more that they have ... agents?

That's right, agents. There are now high school recruitment companies ... companies, whose purpose is to promote and help streamline the process for recruits. They offer a slew of flashy alternatives to promote a kid's ability on the field ... for a fee that is usually a few thousand dollars a year, and then they offer to help campaign the recruit to various programs.

Basically, these companies make money recruiting coaches. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? How long do you really think it'll take before these companies start getting some gifts from interested boosters, if they are completely neutral to all schools in the first place? Which, if one is a fan of college football, they're going to have at least a slight bias towards the alma mater.

Shoot, go back to when John Calipari left Memphis for Kentucky. Remember how most of his class followed him, and the discussion of someone that helped lean players towards the controversial coach? No matter what all went down, the seed was planted.

One such company in Arkansas, Pinnacle Preps, is already facing controversy. The company was sued recently by a local family who alleges the company did not deliver as advertised. Furthermore, the same company caused an uproar in the state when its founder was seen in a picture with recruits inside an Auburn University locker room.

Granted, it's his right to go to campuses if he pleases. However, it does raise suspicions, mostly because the founder's high school coach was Gus Malzahn, Auburn's offensive coordinator, hence the uproar from Arkansas fans.

See what I mean? I certainly don't know all the facts to the story, but even if it's just coincidence, the whole "high school recruiting company" just oozes of trouble. And let's face it, college football has enough debate and controversy as is.

What's more shocking is that the NCAA hasn't taken a serious sniff at this situation. With all the inquiries the organization has had with boosters paying players or giving out favors, wouldn't you think they'd try to either get some rules straight or nip some of this in the bud? Does it not seem a little suspicious that high school recruitment is becoming less and less between coach and player (and his family), and more and more towards coach, player, family, and promoter?

I'm sure they'll get around to it in 2018 ... I mean, they're making some speedy headway this year by talking to Reggie Bush about his USC days, right?

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson's two-race winning streak was snapped in Atlanta, as a pesky tire-rub issue that forced a four-tire pit stop late in the race negated any chance for the win. Still, Johnson brought the No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet across the finish in 12th, a solid finish and one that kept him well in sight of points leader Kevin Harvick.

"How's this for irony?" asked Johnson. "After a four-tire pit stop in Las Vegas won me the race, it was a four-tire stop in Atlanta that likely cost me the race. But that's the nature of this sport. One week, you're being handed your fifth Sprint Cup championship trophy; the next, you're a mere afterthought. That's going from 'iconic' to 'ironic' in the span of a week."

"But what better way to deflect the 'Jimmie Johnson domination is bad for the sport' talk than a mediocre finish coupled with a spectacular crash? My teammate Jeff Gordon recently spoke of the need for rivalries in NASCAR. Well, we've got a big one now. Unfortunately, it's between a driver who needs algebra to count his enemies, and another who hasn't won a race in two years. For Carl Edwards, it seems that 'V' is indeed for 'vendetta,' and not for 'victory,' while for Brad Keselowski, 'V' is for 'victim.'"

2. Kevin Harvick — A qualifying run of 35th forebode a difficult race day for Harvick, but persistence and astute pit calls by crew chief Gil Martin gave the No. 29 Shell/Pennzoil team a hard-earned ninth-place finish in the Kobalt Tools 500 in Atlanta. Harvick still leads the Sprint Cup point standings with a 26-point cushion over Matt Kenseth.

"Once again, Carl Edwards has let his temper get the best of him. One would think fatherhood would have mellowed him out, but it seems that his infernal instincts have overwhelmed his paternal instincts. When NASCAR's done with him, he may just get some paternity 'leave.'""

"There's only one person that calls him 'Daddy.' After NASCAR levies a fine that is sure to be in the thousands, there will be lots of people calling him 'grand' daddy. Last week, all the talk was of Carl's first born; now all the talk centers on Carl's first airborne."

3. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth scored his fourth top-10 finish of the year with a second in Atlanta, surviving a race marked by late crashes and 16 extra laps. Kenseth moved up two positions in the point standings to second, and trails Kevin Harvick by only 26 points.

"I think we're starting to reap the benefits of switching crew chiefs," Kenseth said. "Todd Parrott was the right choice, if for no other reason than his name is easily pronounced. Besides, Parrott's presence has spawned another unoriginal nickname for my pit crew. No longer known as the 'Killer B's,' these guys now prefer to be called the 'Parrott-heads.' Changes in latitude have resulted in changes in 'Matt-itude.' If Jimmy Buffett has a problem with any of our copyright infringements, we hope he'll at least let us enjoy it through the weekend. 'Come Monday,' if it's still a problem, we'll cease and desist."

"As for our esteemed Roush Fenway teammate Carl Edwards, my team loyalty, as well as my team owner, forbid me from criticizing Edwards. Besides, criticism at a time like this is counter-productive. There's only one thing Carl needs more than my support, and that's counseling. And I'm sure he'll get lots of it. Heck, he might even need counsel, in the form of a lawyer, when he faces council, in the form of NASCAR's disciplinary board."

"You know, they call him 'Cousin Carl.' After NASCAR parked him for aggressive driving, they're now calling him 'Cousin Carl, once removed.'"

4. Greg Biffle — After hitting the wall in Saturday's Happy Hour, Biffle resorted to a backup car and went to the back of the field for the start of Sunday's Kobalt Tools 500. Biffle steadily climbed up the leaderboard in the Census 2010 Ford, and was near the front for a number of late restarts. A further charge to the front was nullified when spinning tires ahead of him slowed his line, considerably holding up a train of cars.

"There's a name for those guys," Biffle said. "They're called tire 'scrubs.'"

"I'm just happy we finished well and didn't get caught up in any of the Carl Edwards-Brad Keselowski melees. Those two are akin to Aaron Fike and heroin — when they 'get together,' someone gets 'high.'"

"I think, in the coming days, Carl's going to be schooled in the difference between 'retaliatory' and 'conciliatory.' I think Carl immediately realized the severity of his actions and acted quickly to make amends. That's probably why he drove through pit lane in the wrong direction after being black-flagged. Obviously, Carl's version of the 'Polish Victory Lap' was a tribute to Keselowski's Polish heritage."

5. Kurt Busch — Busch led 129 laps at Atlanta, including the final nine after darting to the lead on a lap 332 restart, and won the Kobalt Tools 500, repeating his spring Atlanta victory of last year. With his first win under new crew chief Steve Addington, Busch jumped nine spots in the point standings to 10th, and trails first by 142 points.

"I know Steve feels vindicated now that he's got a win as my crew chief under his belt. Kyle Busch's No. 18 M&M's team took Steve's job; now. Steve gets to tell them to shove it."

"As for the Carl Edwards-Brad Keselowski incident, I'm sure NASCAR's new policy of allowing drivers to 'police themselves' will be put to the test. On one hand, you've got Edwards showing the 'personality' that NASCAR hoped for. On the other, you've got a car sailing through the air, endangering drivers and fans alike. I hate to say it, but NASCAR asked for this. Edwards may be a loose cannon, but the subjective interpretation of NASCAR's new edict makes their law a loose 'canon.'"

"In any case, the Edwards-Keselowski history is 'feud' for thought."

6. Mark Martin — Martin blew a left-rear tire on lap 115, sending him sliding through the infield grass, as the Hendrick Motorsports team struggled with tire issues all day in Atlanta. Martin recovered from his blown tire, but was collected in a lap 331 wreck started when Jamie McMurray got loose. Martin finished 33rd, 10 laps down, and fell four places in the point standings to seventh.

"One would think," Martin said, "after Goodyear's infamous history in Atlanta, they would have had this tire problem completely resolved by now. And one would think, having not driven the Viagra car for three years, I'd no longer be subject to jokes about 'inflation.'"

7. Clint Bowyer — After a quick, two-tire pit stop during a caution after Brad Keselowski's crash, Bowyer held the lead for the first try at a green-white-checkered finish. After taking the green, Bowyer's No. 33 BB&T Chevy was easily picked off by cars with four fresh tires, and soon after the No. 33 was collected in a crash initiated by Jamie McMurray. Bowyer remained on the lead lap, however, and finished a respectable 23rd. He dropped three places in the Sprint Cup standings to fifth.

"It was an up-and-down day for us in Atlanta," Bowyer said. "And speaking of 'up-and-down,' I had a front row seat for takeoff and landing of Brad Keselowski's No. 12 Dodge. If you ask any of his rivals, they'll tell you that's as close to heaven as Keselowski will ever get."

8. Kasey Kahne — Kahne led 144 of 341 laps in Atlanta, finishing fourth to lead a contingent of three Richard Petty Motorsports drivers in the top six. RPM teammates Paul Menard and A.J. Allmendinger came home fifth and sixth, respectively.

"Richard Petty was as happy as could be," Kahne said. "I believe King Richard was 'nighted' on Sunday, meaning he slept very well."

"Now, I would be remiss if I didn't offer my opinions on the Carl Edwards/Brad Keselowski shenanigans, or at the very least Twitter or Facebook my thoughts. Some may deem it odd that Edwards chose to explain himself on his Facebook page. I don't. I think it was wise. Where else could Carl go and be surrounded by 'friends?'

"I think it's interesting that the opportunity for drivers to 'police themselves' arose one week after Danica Patrick left. It seems that for the first three races of the year, drivers were less interested in the chance to 'police themselves,' and more interested in an occasion to 'cop' a feel."

9. Tony Stewart — Starting from the back after an engine change, Stewart quickly worked his way to the front in Atlanta, only to be shuffled back after a loose wheel forced an unscheduled pit stop on lap 307. The No. 14 Office Depot emerged in 30th, but Stewart recovered to finish 13th, thanks to a few wrecks that eliminated much of the field, and thanks as well to Stewart's ability to avoid those wrecks. Up three spots in the point standings, Stewart is now eighth, 134 out of first.

"It's been a somewhat uneventful year for me so far," Stewart said. "You know it's been a quiet year for Tony Stewart when there's an Atlanta race with tire problems and you still don't hear much from me. A top-10 finish in Bristol, or a Rolling Stone article, will make some noise."

10. Juan Montoya — Montoya was a force all day in Atlanta, qualifying third and finishing third to rebound from a tough day in Las Vegas last week. It was Montoya's first top-five and second top-10 finish of the year.

"What a difference a week makes," Montoya said. "Last week in Las Vegas, Jamie McMurray wrecked his teammate. This week, he wrecked everybody but his teammate."

"I may drive the Target-sponsored car, but the No. 42 clearly wasn't the most 'Target'-ed car on the track. That belonged to Brad Keselowski's No. 12 Dodge. I think the people at Aflac chose a good race to keep their logo from prominent display on the No. 99. Carl Edwards may usually be sponsored by a duck, but, at least on Sunday, he was crazy as a loon."

Since then, the Bears are 23-25 with no playoff appearances. They haven't been terrible, but there have been plenty of low moments, and many fans see little reason for optimism. Smith is on the hot seat, and it's time for drastic action if he and GM Jerry Angelo are going to keep their jobs. No one can say the Bears aren't giving him the resources he needs; drastic action is exactly what the team is taking.

No club has been more active this offseason. They've hired Mike Martz as offensive coordinator, signed coveted free agent Julius Peppers, and grabbed Chester Taylor from the division rival Minnesota Vikings. They're even getting Brian Urlacher back from a wrist injury. None of those moves are sure things, but all of them have the potential to make this team a lot better.

Martz, who was Smith's boss in St. Louis, where Lovie was defensive coordinator, will try to recapture the magic that has eluded him since 2003. Martz's mentor Norv Turner has been a head coach for three different teams, but has always excelled as an offensive coach. Martz did great things when he had Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, and Orlando Pace from 1999-2001, but his erratic decision-making, combined with inconsistent success and a health problem, eventually cost Martz his job. He then oversaw mediocre offenses in Detroit, clashed with Mike Singletary in San Francisco, and didn't coach at all last year.

During his 38-year coaching career, Martz has actually held 18 different positions, meaning he switches jobs an average of once every two seasons. A few of those position changes were promotions, but Martz is hardly a steadying influence for a team dealing with turmoil. They don't call this guy "Mad Mike" for nothing.

Peppers is one of the great defensive players of this generation. He has double-digit sacks in five of the last six seasons and ranks first or second among active defensive ends in INTs (6), INT yards (177), INT TDs (2), and passes defended (46). He's a physical marvel and phenomenal athlete who probably still has room to improve. The questions about Peppers are his motivation and motor; he sometimes seems not to go 100%. He's also 30-years-old and moving to a new defense. Will his productivity be the same?

Taylor, I think, is the one no-lose proposition. He rushed for 1,200 yards three years ago and has remained an effective third-down back and substitute for Adrian Peterson. In a perfect world, the Bears would like him to play a similar role with their team, but if Matt Forte struggles the way he did in 2009, Taylor should get an opportunity to be the primary ball-carrier. At the very least, Minnesota has to replace him, and the Bears get someone who's been inside the enemy's locker room.

It's not unusual for linebackers to be effective into their 30s, but Urlacher is a 10-year vet coming off an injury and a year away from the game. The supporting cast that once kept blockers away is a shadow of what he had in 2005, when Urlacher was named Defensive Player of the Year. Will a rejuvenated Urlacher recapture the form he had during Chicago's '06 Super Bowl run, or will he look old and beaten up, an old warrior who refuses to admit that the team can't build around him any more?

Obviously, the Bears have more questions than answers right now. Will Martz help Jay Cutler justify the team's investment in him? Is Brandon Manumaleuna a perfect complement for Martz's offense, or does his acquisition translate to limited playing time for Greg Olsen? Will the team's young receiving corps continue to develop, or will the lack of a star wideout doom the air attack? Can Peppers help Mark Anderson and Tommie Harris recover their 2006 form? Does the team have two good options at RB, or a pair of guys who should be backups?

I have limited faith in Martz, who hasn't put together a really good offense in nearly a decade, and I don't think Cutler has ever been as good as the hype. Peppers is a powerful acquisition for any team, but I think the Bears need to concentrate more on the weakest link, solidifying their interior line and defensive backfield, than on superstars opponents can game-plan around. Offensive line remains an area of concern and should probably be the team's top priority in April's draft. Taylor and Manumaleuna are positive additions, but they aren't impact players.

We won't know until next season how this all plays out, but the team is obviously working hard to build a winner. Coach Smith knows that if the team doesn't show progress this year, he'll be looking for a new job next season, and if this is Lovie's last stand, he's going down fighting.

The press release announced that Sony Ericsson was extending its global sponsorship of women's professional tennis through 2012. In the extension, Sony Ericsson will still be the primary sponsor and have the most prominent signage, but they are giving up the tour title sponsorship and also giving up title sponsorship of the year-ending tour championships.

So in a short time, the full name of the tour will revert to just the Women's Tennis Association Tour, or WTA Tour and the year-ending championships will not have any title sponsor. I've discussed the current world economic situation and its effect on the professional tennis industry here many times, and this is just another indication that while tennis remains a viable advertising and marketing medium, the sponsors are having to tighten their belts.

It was announced just last week that after the final tally, the Australian Open had its greatest ticket sales and attendance ever, and that the ticket sales were able to balance out the loss of sponsor and advertising revenues at this year's tournament. That is good news, but does show the revenue shift back to consumer sales, not B2B sales. This may not seem significant, but for both the ATP and WTA tours, it is critical.

If profitability is going to rest now on the attendance and ticket sales of the tournaments in a much greater proportion, then the tours,especially the WTA, need to recognize that the major players must absolutely keep their commitments, and also that the WTA Tour needs to build new stars and re-invigorate the old rivalries almost immediately. This shouldn't be a problem, given that Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters have returned with a bang, and it seems that the Williams sisters will be consistent contenders. Go any deeper, though, and there are problems.

A great example is the Monterrey Open that just concluded in Monterrey, Mexico. In the tier three WTA tournament, the relatively unknown Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova (RUS) defeated once-top-tier player Daniela Hantuchova (SVK) easily, 1-6, 6-1, 6-0. Hantuchova was a former top-five player and was once thought to have a shot at one of the major tournament titles. But she is still a dangerous player, and her 22nd ranking is deceptive. Her play and results, however, no longer make her an interesting story. Ditto for Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic, even though Jankovic currently is still in the top 10.

It may be unfortunate, but what sells the WTA tour is not only the tennis talent, but its off-court marketability. Hantuchova, Ivanovic, Maria Sharapova, and Maria Kirilenko are all model quality and winning on the court directly leads to their marketability off-court. Their marketability off-court directly feeds into the consumer base for the WTA tour. It's a hard balance, especially given that the most revenue generating players aren't going deep enough into most of the tournaments.

Anna Kournikova never won the big ones, and never made it to the final of a big one. But she did win, went deep into most tournaments she played, and was around often for the TV coverage. I remember going to the old A&P tournament in Mahwah when she played it and on her match days, the place was packed. This is part of what makes the WTA tour as watchable as it is.

The BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells is a perfect example. Neither Venus nor Serena Williams are here, sticking to their pledge to never return after the controversial comments and sneers made here a few years ago. The draw is nearly half empty, with most of the top seeds getting first-round byes in what is normally a full 128-player draw. Of the seeded players, Svetlana Kuznetsova is seeded first and the recognizable names are few and far between. Maria Sharapova is in the draw, as well as Kim Clijsters, but then it drops off quickly. Yes, the young, new faces of the tour are here, led by Agnieszka Radawanska and Victoria Azarenka, but they aren't draws yet.

In a week or so, we will know how the tournament fared and who the winner will be. Based on the draw, Kim Clijsters should come away with another Premier Mandatory Tour title. And based on the draw, I guess we have a new meaning for the word mandatory...

Academy Awards, we hardly know ye.

My favorite gimmick since I starting writing for Sports Central over three years ago was to combine my two favorite things, movies (and along those lines, awards shows, due to all of the unintentional comedy and all-around smugness in the building) and NBA basketball, into one column, which I cleverly called "NBA Oscars."

The Oscars have thrown me a curveball with all the subtle changes this year.

Still, the show must go on.

Being able to make adjustments on the fly is an important trait that all NBA champions must possess to be successful in the playoffs. And, luckily, it's a trait that I possess as well.

At first, I hated the idea of the academy expanding the Best Picture nominees to 10. Everyone knows that there are only two or three movies that even have a chance to win to begin with, so why double the field?

However, when I realized how much easier 10 Best Picture nominees made writing the annual NBA Oscars column, I was all for it.

I've decided to embrace the 10 Best Picture nominees and scrap the old format. Because, unlike the Oscars, where there are only a select few movies that have a chance to win, the NBA seems wide open right now.

Sure, there are some favorites (L.A. and Cleveland), but there are several other teams that can take home the most coveted prize in the game — the Larry O'Brien Trophy.

In today's third annual NBA Oscars column, we take a look at the parallels between the 10 Best Picture nominees and the 10 teams competing for an NBA title.

"Avatar" — Los Angeles Lakers

The Lakers are the "Avatar" of the NBA right now. Everyone knows about them. Everyone has seen them. Every one either loves them or hates them. Their coach/director can probably be best described as a pompous genius.

Winning the title last season for the Lakers and Kobe Bryant is the equivalent of Avatar setting all sorts of box office records. It's great, but it wasn't everything. For as much as Kobe wanted that first ring on his own to step out of Shaq's shadow, he knows that nothing short of a dynasty will put him in the same breath as Michael Jordan.

Just like how making billions of dollars was great for "Avatar," James Cameron knows that history will only remember "Avatar" as little more than a summer blockbuster if it doesn't take home significant hardware Oscar weekend.

"The Hurt Locker" — Cleveland Cavaliers

Much like "The Hurt Locker," the Cavs are the trendy favorite heading into this week. Everyone seems to love them, and everyone wants to make a case for them over the Lakers.

But, just like "The Hurt Locker," I don't think the Cavs are as good as the hype. Yes, they are possibly the best team in the league right now. Yes, they are going to have home-court advantage throughout the playoffs. And yes, they are going to get big Z back for one last big push late in the season.

Still, I can't help but feel like I've heard this story before. I liked "The Hurt Locker," but I feel like I've seen that movie before. I get it, war is intense, and it changes the young men and women who fight in it. I was hoping for a little more from it.

Same with the Cavs. I get it. You can win a ton of games in the Eastern Conference. You can beat good teams in the regular season. Show me something new. Show me that when you play an elite level team in a seven game series that you can overcome that.

Until that happens, the Cleveland Cavaliers are just another good NBA team, the same way "The Hurt Locker" was just another good war movie.

"The Blind Side" — Denver Nuggets

The Nuggets relate more to "The Blind Side" than any other team relates to any movie on this list.

How can you not root for the Nuggets right now? Their biggest star, Carmelo Anthony, seems to have turned the corner and matured into the great, well-rounded pro that we knew he would be, a la Sandra Bullock.

Their driving force, Chauncey Billups, is as likable as any star in the league. It's hard not to root a consummate professional like Chauncey.

And, oh yeah, they have also cornered the "feel-good story" market with George Karl. First of all, he seems like the most likable and personable NBA head coach I've ever seen. He's the kind of guy you like to root for anyway.

But when you throw in the fact that he's one of the winningest coaches to never win an NBA title and he's battling cancer for a second time, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to want to root for a guy like that.

"District 9" — Utah Jazz

The Jazz are "District 9" because, well, I haven't seen "District 9," and I don't really know what it's about. Aliens living in South Africa, maybe?

That's how I feel about the Jazz: I don't really know what they're about. It's the same core of players that has maxed out as "good, but not quite legit contender" over the past three seasons or so, only they are playing better than ever before.

Have they finally turned the corner and reached their max potential, or, like the "District 9," do they just fall into the category of nominated teams because there's 10 now, and we gotta nominate someone?

We'll find out in April.

"An Education" — Oklahoma City Thunder

OKC is "An Education" because that's exactly what they're going to get this postseason. I've written it before, but it's worth revisiting right now, I don't think that a team can have any success in the postseason without having first suffered some pretty heartbreaking series defeats and learning from them.

Take a look back at all the champions of the past 20 years or so. With minimal exceptions, each team that has won the title has been beaten in the playoffs in heartbreaking fashion, only to learn from it and come back stronger than ever.

"Inglorious Basterds" — Atlanta Hawks

The Hawks look like they might have the best team chemistry of all the Eastern Conference contenders. They play well as a team, have no egos, and have had a lot of recent success — just like the Basterds.

Unfortunately, Brad Pitt and Ryan from "The Office" get captured at the end of the movie by the Jew Hunter. The moral of the story, no matter how good you are at what you do, there's always someone out there that is just as good, if not better.

The Cleveland Cavilers are to the Atlanta Hawks what the Jew Hunter was to the Basterds (I promise that's not nearly as racist as it sounds if you've seen the movie).

I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say that doesn't exactly mean that the Hawks are headed for an early exit.

"Precious" — Boston Celtics

Has there ever been a group of people that took themselves more serious than the cast and crew of "Precious" did last night?

From Mo'nique and the screenwriters' over-the-top acceptance speeches to the best actress chick crying when Oprah introduced her as a best actress nominee, the whole thing reeked of smugness. Honestly, you guys made a movie, you didn't alter the course of history or rid the world of hunger and disease. Get over yourself.

That pretty much sums up how I feel about the 2009-10 Celtics.

"A Serious Man" — Orlando Magic

The Orlando Magic are "A Serious Man," because that seems to be the consensus on what it's going to take for Dwight Howard to become and NBA champion: he needs to get serious.

I don't buy it. Yeah, Howard is a fun-loving goofball, but it doesn't translate onto the floor, at least not all the time.

Take yesterday's game against the Lakers. He may have flashed the million-dollar smile a few times more than Kobe, but don't try and tell me that Dwight Howard wasn't just as intense. Teams feed off their leaders. They emulate them in tough situations.

Dwight Howard is the leader of the Orlando Magic, and if yesterday was any indication, he will have no trouble getting this team mentally ready to go to battle during the playoffs.

The Magic might not win it all, but it they do come up short, it won't be because Dwight Howard isn't serious enough.

"Up" — Dallas Mavericks

Dallas wins the distinction of "Up," because that's what happened to their chances of winning the West at the trade deadline — they went way up.

There are some negative things that you can say about Mark Cuban, but you can never question how much he wants to win. He has a reputation of doing whatever it takes, at any cost, to help the Mavericks win an NBA title.

He delivered on that reputation again at the trade deadline, acquiring Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood from the Wizards.

The move doesn't necessarily put the Mavericks over the top, but it makes them better right now than they were at the start of the season, which is the whole point of making moves at the trade deadline.

In my opinion, Dallas is still in a class below the Lakers and Nuggets, but they still have a fighting chance to surprise those teams and take the West, which is higher praise than anyone had for "Up's" chances of taking home the Best Picture.

"Up in the Air" — San Antonio Spurs

If we are comparing teams to movies, then we should be able to compare actors to players, too. And if we're doing that, isn't Tim Duncan George Clooney?

Think about it, for at least the last decade, both men have been as consistent as it gets at their craft. Duncan goes about his business, quietly makes the first or second team All-NBA, and you can never count him out in the postseason. The Spurs don't always hit home runs, but they are always a threat.

Clooney makes a lot of movies, 22 since 2000, and more often than not, he is good. He's made comedies, dramas, romantic comedies, animated films, and vampire movies, and he's been good in just about all of them. He's made blockbusters, independent films, and everything in between. And when the Oscar nominations come out, you can expect that he's going to be on the list. He's been nominated for five Oscars in the last five years.

When I saw the previews for "Up in the Air" that said it was going to be released on Christmas Day, and I saw that it was starring George Clooney, I immediately thought that it had Oscar written all over it.

When the Spurs acquired Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess, then stole DeJuan Blair in the second round this offseason, I immediately thought this season had NBA Finals written all over it.

Well, unfortunately for "Up in the Air," it didn't have Oscar written all over it. It came up short in all six of its Oscar nominations. But the point is, mostly because of Clooney, it took until the final 30 seconds of Oscar night until we found out that "Up in the Air" came up short.

Once every year, the basketball world known as the Big Eight used to converge on my hometown to decide their automatic bid for the NCAA tournament. For many years since 1996, the same location has sent the Big 12's first representative into that season's Big Dance. This coming week will provide yet another opportunity for a large state-run school to gain momentum heading onto the national stage.

Saturday, the Kansas/Missouri showdown continued for all fans around my hometown. Even as I live almost 450 miles away, I still pined to watch the game and rooted on my beloved Tigers (to no avail). But inside all of the hoopla, there's another school that lives in the shadows. It has no bowl game tradition. It's never been to a College World Series. And its mascot ... is a marsupial.

That school would be the University of Missouri at Kansas City (and its Kangaroos). The university is located in the heart of the city, but basically goes unnoticed when it comes to athletics. The 'Roos have only been a Division I basketball program since 1987, a member of the Mid-Continent Conference (now the Summit League) since 1994, and haven't reached the game's penultimate goal. (Unfortunately, the fans of UMKC have little more to root for this year. The Kangaroos got eliminated in the Summit League quarterfinals.)

But even though my allegiances are tied to places named Columbia and Ames, I have had those moments where I said, "Oh, cool. UMKC's playing. Let's go, guys."

My favorite time of the year will occur in less than two weeks. To me, there's nothing like the chaos of the first two days of the main draw. However, I've got to say that I'm a bit conflicted. I'm guilty of my fondness for the super-conferences of the college landscape. I'm disconnected to the close-knit nature of those "non-major" communities. I'm jealous of the passion that fans of a lot of these smaller schools hold, not over two days, but possibly over two weeks.

This is something that kids and alums of Winthrop, East Tennessee State, and Murray State can flaunt today after their teams earned Saturday's golden tickets to the Madness.

While many fans of the big programs are more focused on seeding and winning a big game to get in position for the tournament, followers of Big Sky, Southland, and MEAC schools know one thing: you have to win a trophy to get a trophy. (Definition: Unless you win a league title, you have no shot at a national title.)

I'm fortunate in the fact that Missouri had no chance to win the Big 12 regular season title, and a small shot at repeating as tourney champs, yet, they will more than likely be playing a week from Thursday or Friday. You can't say that about UMKC, or Southeast Missouri State, or Arkansas-Pine Bluff, etc. Those squads are in a more desperate position.

Sometimes, though, desperation can lead to elation. Syracuse is expected to win. People will see campaigns at Kentucky and Kansas as failures without a Final Four berth. Any big school should get to the Sweet 16. And Heaven forbid for the ones that didn't even make the field.

To the ants getting squished under the feet of the giants, they've made it. They've won. Any progress in the Dance is a mound of sugar cubes. And, trust me, any big school alum has seen their team's dreams get carried away like a block of C&H disappearing down the anthill.

We don't remember that Indiana beat Kent State in the 2002 South Regional final. We know that the Golden Flashes got there. The fact that Connecticut defeated Gonzaga in the 1999 West Regional final is a mere footnote to Casey Calvary's buzzer-beater and the main story of the Bulldogs' Cinderella run. And while few can say that Rhode Island beat Valparaiso in the 1998 Sweet 16, most remember Bryce Drew's improbable three to upset Ole Miss two rounds before.

These are just some of the teams that have made their mark in the mainstream. And the commonality — they all grinded through and won their one shot at Madness life, the conference tourney. They took the baton and provided pride for their respective conferences. They made a statement that quality basketball could be played outside programs that catered to seven-figure coaches and eight-figure budgets.

For the next few days, everyone will once again get to witness the corners of this basketball-crazed country, where fans actually can reach the rafters and regular season wins might actually equal a true advantage. And while a big chunk of us viewers can commiserate (or celebrate) from afar, the majority of us won't feel the frenzy that makes your do-or-die situation so special.

Here's to the fans of Siena, Quinnipiac, UC-Santa Barbara, and Jackson State. Your teams can be the 2010 upstarts of March. And watch out for those upset-filled potholes. One thing's certain ... I wish I was there.

1. The national championship game will feature at least one Big 12 team.

I'll admit that this was based on a now apparently mistaken belief that the Texas Longhorns were a legitimate contender. The only reason this prediction still has a chance to hold true is that Kansas is still looking as strong as ever. I'll stand by this prediction and say that Kansas wins at least five tournament games.

Kansas is only half of the picture here, however, and without predicting the other team that will be playing in Lucas Oil Stadium on April 5th, I'm kind of taking the easy way out. When it comes to picking that team, I've got a pick that's not too farfetched to seem reasonable, but won't make me any friends in Lexington.

Kansas won't be playing Kentucky for the national championship, and Syracuse won't be there either. The runner-up of this year's tournament will be the Ohio State Buckeyes.

Why, you might ask? There are many reasons, ranging from the best perimeter shooter in the nation, Jon Diebler, to the electrifying William Bufford. But for the most convincing reason why, read the next prediction.

2. John Wall won't win National Player of the Year, and neither will Sherron Collins.

I did have a specific player in mind when I wrote this, and now that he's lived up to his potential, I've got no problem saying that Evan Turner is clearly the best player in college basketball. John Wall and Sherron Collins are both great players, but Turner stands head-and-shoulders above them both.

At this point, it's mainly become a two-horse race, with Turner and Wall pulling away from Collins and the field. Early in the season, it looked like Wall might prove this prediction wrong, and it's not even that he's gotten worse since that time, it's just that Evan Turner is playing at a level that is simply astounding.

A quick statistical comparison between the two shows that Turner beats Wall by 3 points and 5 rebounds per game, while Wall averages just under 1 assist more per game. These numbers on their own don't mean Turner is better than Wall, but they do seem to say that at the very least, Turner is as good as Wall.

The real proof is found in what Turner means to his team. Without him, they dropped out of the top 25, and since his return, they've climbed close to the top five. John Wall helps Kentucky, but with players like Eric Bledsoe, DeMarcus Cousins, and Patrick Patterson on the same team, he's not quite as critical to his team's success.

I don't buy some of the recent hype about Turner getting drafted before Wall, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have Turner as my go-to-guy.

3. The Kentucky Wildcats will win 30 games this year.

It seemed fairly obvious then, and it seems like a lock now. Barring one of the worst collapses in history, the Wildcats will have 30 wins by the end of the season, and they'll probably reach that mark before Selection Sunday.

Not really much to add to this one, although my new prediction for the Wildcats' win total might prove to be more risky than the last one. I'll revise the old prediction by adding that the Wildcats won't reach 35 wins.

4. The UNLV Runnin' Rebels will play in the Elite Eight.

This prediction was based on the amazing play of UNLV's guards, who, since that time, have been considerably less impressive. Only one of those guards, Tre'Von Willis, is averaging 10 or more points per game right now.

There is a glimmer of hope here for the Runnin' Rebels, and for this prediction, and that is the athletic play of this team. Even in most of their losses, UNLV showed the ability to make a run at different points in the game, and teams that can consistently do that generally have sustained success in March.

This team has the ability to top 100 points if all of their players show up to play, and that's just enough for me to stick to my guns on this one.

5. The Gonzaga Bulldogs won't finish first in the WCC.

I'm honestly not sure what possessed me to make this prediction. The Bulldogs will win the WCC, and probably one or two games in the tournament as well.

This is a lesson in not buying into early season struggles, and the only prediction I'll retract completely.

We can't be certain about any of this, but we do know one thing for sure.

March Madness is here, and not a moment too soon.

That's right; for one perhaps-brief moment, hockey was the most popular sport in the United States. Of course, back in 2002, Team Canada and Team USA played for the gold medal to strong ratings and some buzz, and there wasn't much sustained momentum for the NHL to tap into. So can this be different?

Yes. And no. In some ways, technology has advanced the way we communicate, research, and socialize, and all of that has made it easier to grab on to new trends. And when your new hot trends are Sidney Crosby and Ryan Miller, then that's only going to benefit hockey as a whole. General awareness of those guys, along with Zach Parise to a lesser extent, is through the roof. One mainstream commentator even mused that the instant Crosby put the puck in net, he became the most talked-about person in North America. That's quite a feat for a hockey player.

It helps that the actual game was competitive, fast-paced, and hard hitting — much different, in fact, from the 2002 game, which saw the Americans open the scoring before Team Canada took over. For much of that game, the Canadians pushed the Americans to the outside and you never really got a sense that Team USA could come back. In the 2010 version, the Americans not only pushed back, they fought hard to battle the more-talented Team Canada squad to the brink. It was exciting and ferocious — exactly the type of tilt that's needed to sell hockey.

And of course, it was broadcast in brilliantly-clear HD. Think about how many people actually had HD back in 2002 compared to now. Also, consider the difference HD makes for the casual sports fan in following hockey. When you add that to the pace of the 2010 gold medal game, it's bound to leave an impression on the Joe Football in the Mid-West.

The flip side to all of this is that today's audiences are more fickle than ever, with short-term memories and shorter attention spans. While more people may know who Sidney Crosby is, will they tune in? Early post-Olympic Versus ratings show some bump, but the true test will be the Stanley Cup playoffs.

It's difficult to sustain the level of momentum the NHL experienced from the Vancouver games. Just about everything went right (minus the Team Russia implosion, but that's a story for another time) to create the ultimate marketing situation. More people were exposed to hockey at its best, and it was presented with the latest technology that could showcase the both the sport (HD) and the stories (online coverage through Twitter, blogs, and video).

The NHL may not see a tangible bump in terms of TV ratings over the long term, and some will pencil that as a disappointment. However, the difference is that the Olympics created awareness, not just for the sport but for the ever-marketable brand of Sidney Crosby. With awareness comes potential, and if the casual sports fan can come to know who Crosby is, then maybe a strong playoff run from Alexander Ovechkin can stir the same thing. Maybe a thrilling seven-game Stanley Cup final will capture the eyeballs of some of those sports fans, and perhaps that can build. No single event can generate instant long-term fans, but it can create a foundation.

The future, then, is a combination of luck and smart marketing. A boring Cup final with smaller-market teams won't necessarily hurt the league, but it may not get the most out of that new potential. If, say, the Washington Capitals make it to the Cup final against a high-profile team like the Chicago Blackhawks, there's a good chance the league can sustain some of its momentum from Vancouver.

There are no guarantees, but these Olympics have shown us that hockey can be a major player in the American sports landscape. Now it's just up to the league, teams, and players to realize that potential.