SBNation.com - Features

Augusta National Supports Girls Golf -- Yes, That Augusta National

2012-05-16T18:32:48Z

Guilt money? Maybe, but LPGA Tour commissioner Mike Whan appreciates Augusta National's support for girls golf.

The green jackets who run Augusta National Golf Club want more girls and women on the golf course -- just not on their sacred fairways.

In a wide-ranging interview with Forbes published on Wednesday, LPGA Tour commissioner Mike Whan dropped a bit of a bombshell when he said that Augusta National -- yes, that Augusta National -- was a huge supporter of the LPGA-USG Girls Golf program.

“It’s worth noting that Augusta National is an incredible supporter of some of our initiatives. They write us a six-figure check every year for Girls Golf, which helps gets girls into the sport,” Whan said. “I don’t think it’s a guilt check. Maybe it is.”

Another surprising tidbit from Whan -- who slammed Golf Magazine for sexism when the publication declined to name LPGA superstar Yani Tseng as its 2011 Golfer of the Year -- was his admission that he really did not care if the home of the Masters allowed women to join its exclusive little bastion of male supremacy. Instead, Whan, who is not a member of Augusta, said he would prefer that the club host a women’s tournament.

“At the end of the day I would have a difficult time explaining to my kids why dad was a member of all men’s club,” he said. “And I really doubt by the time my kids are my age this will even be a topic. They’ll have female members by then. It’s a private club they can do what they want.”

Whan conceded he was not above lobbying for the women in his organization to get their shot at conquering Amen Corner.

“What’s frustrating is that the best players now on our tour can’t play there,” he said. “I ask every year.”

2012 Nevada Football Preview: Beautifully Long Odds

2012-05-16T18:32:14Z

Chris Ault's Nevada Wolf Pack took on a rough early schedule and some serious personnel losses and cranked out yet another winning season in 2011. With an exciting, young quarterback in place and an underrated secondary returning almost intact, can UNR overcome long odds and fight for a conference title in their first season in the Mountain West? Related: Nevada's complete 2012 statistical profile, including projected starters, year-to-year trends, and rankings galore. Follow @SBNationCFB

For more on Nevada football, visit MWC blog Mountain West Connection.

Long odds are nothing new for Nevada football.

Recruiting rankings are all about odds of success, but the Wolf Pack don't do "recruiting rankings" -- in 11 seasons, they have landed just 31 three-star players according to Rivals.com, and of their three 2011 NFL Draft picks, only one received even a three-star rating (second-rounder Colin Kaepernick received the lowest three-star rating).
Coaches who return from retirement aren't known for succeeding at a high level, but Nevada coach Chris Ault not only returned after a hall-of-fame career, but has produced seven straight bowl seasons and went 13-1 in 2010.
New formations don't typically take off -- usually, there is a reason why a new formation hadn't yet been invented -- but Ault's Pistol formation, and the concepts behind it, have been adopted by a healthy portion of the country at this point.

Still, even for a program known for bucking odds, one had to assume that, when Nevada receiver Brandon Wimberly was shot in the abdomen outside of a Reno nightclub last June, odds of him returning to the football field were minimal. Hell, at first, the odds of him WALKING were far from fantastic. He was in intensive care for 10 days and in the hospital for three weeks. Even three months later, it felt a bit outlandish for him to be defiantly talking about playing again. But there he was, taking hits over the middle and bolting right back onto the first-string offense this spring.

Nevada overcame some interesting odds of its own in 2011, advancing to the aforementioned seventh straight bowl game despite taking on a brutal September slate and losing an incredible amount of talent from its all-time great 2010 squad -- Kaepernick, running back Vai Taua, defensive playmaker Dontay Moch, Wimberly, etc. But with a new batch of playmakers, and an intriguing young quarterback, the Wolf Pack won six of eight to finish the regular season.

Ault is one of the most underrated coaches in college football. He doesn't need recruiting rankings, and he doesn't need retirement; he's just going to keep winning games one way or another. And this fall, he'll have an incredible motivational figure in Wimberly on his side.

Related: Check out Nevada's statistical profile.

Last Year

Here's what I said about Nevada last August:

Chris Ault has won 219 games as head coach of the Nevada Wolf Pack. He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame for his accomplishments during his first stint in Reno, then returned to the job, invented a new offense and, in his 26th year on the job, just enjoyed his most successful season. He has raised Nevada from an iffy 1-AA team, to a 1-AA power, to a Big West power, to a WAC power ... and he's about to oversee UNR's move to the Mountain West (assuming Conference Realignment Armageddon doesn't leave large swaths of vapor over much of college football).

So why, then, does the 64-year old Ault always look so unflinchingly, mesmerizingly miserable on the sidelines? Look at the above picture. That's him happy. When he's less than happy, the corners of his mouth tuck down, the posture rolls up, and Ault generally looks like a dour cross between Chris Cooper's character from American Beauty and Fire Marshall Bill. […]

There will be an inevitable step backwards this season, simply because a) the Wolf Pack must replace a lot and b) that's what typically happens after you have your best season ever. But in their final season in the WAC, there's still a solid chance that they are the class of their conference. In the Football Outsiders Almanac 2011, we give Nevada a 90% chance of finishing 6-1 or 7-0 in conference (other teams: Hawaii 28%, Fresno State 16%, Louisiana Tech 4%) and a 99% chance of finishing better than 6-6. It's amazing what a worse conference can do for your win totals, eh?

That said, 2011 will certainly still offer quite a few challenges. Never mind the money woes, which will continue to weigh over everything ... Nevada starts the season with four consecutive road games against Oregon, San Jose State, Texas Tech and Boise State. Even last year's team would have likely started 1-3. The Almanac doesn't account for cumulative frustration, and a 1-3 start could make some teams implode, or at least fray at the edges. Survive that with their ego intact, however, and Nevada should destroy the rest of their schedule. Fresno State and Hawaii both visit Reno, and the only remaining road trips are to New Mexico and Utah State. The future may be uncertain for the University of Nevada-Reno's athletic department, but fans should at least have another winning team to root for in 2011 while they wait to see if the hammer drops.

Nevada did indeed regress offensively following the loss of so many stars, but two bright spots gave them momentum:

The Wolf Pack defense was rock solid. Nevada ranked 60th in Def. F/+, fielding their best D in recent history despite the loss of Moch. Seven players recorded at least four tackles for loss, and an aggressive secondary ranked 10th in the country in Passing Success Rate+. The unit started slowly -- seven touchdowns in the first eight possessions versus Oregon in Week Two -- and suffered some glitches along the way, but the Wolf Pack held Southern Miss to just 336 yards (4.1 per play), Boise State to 329 (4.6), Hawaii to 307 (5.0), Idaho to 306 (4.9), New Mexico to 257 (4.0), and UNLV to 110 (2.1).
Cody Fajardo happened. Splitting time with senior Tyler Lantrip, he announced his presence with 139 rushing yards in just 10 carries versus Texas Tech and fought through nagging injuries to offer plenty of interesting moments -- 20-for-25 passing with 86 pre-sack rushing yards versus New Meixco, 313 passing yards and 69 pre-sack rushing yards versus Fresno State, 290 passing yards and 97 pre-sack rushing yards versus Hawaii, 212 passing yards and 123 pre-sack rushing yards versus Louisiana Tech.

The defense suffered some losses in the front seven this offseason, and Fajardo has to prove he can stay healthy and take on the full weight of the offense (without Lantrip as a safety net), but 2011 proved that Nevada can take on serious turnover and still produce a good product. They will probably prove the same in 2012.

Offense

By now, we know the basics of the pistol formation. It's a quick-hitting, downhill running formation that utilizes large splits and allows smaller linemen to thrive in zone blocking. It gives you both power-running and sideline-to-sideline passing capability. It makes enough sense that other schools have incorporated it into their offenses. Hell, even Norm Chow tried it at UCLA. But even though it is a much more familiar concept than it was a few years ago, Nevada still does it better than most schools. In part, this is because it is their OFFENSE, not just a novelty, keep-the-defense-off-guard formation for occasional use. But beyond that, Ault and company have consistently made adjustments and figured out ways to stay ahead of defenses. Here's what Smart Football's Chris Brown wrote about it a couple of years ago:

When the offense is rolling (which it is most of the time these days), the pistol gives a team the best of both worlds: It has at its disposal all the Urban Meyer/Rich Rodriguez spread offense stuff, like the zone read and other gadgets, as well as the advantages of a "traditional" I-formation or pro-style single-back attack. Among these are that the runningback, aligning as he does behind the quarterback, tips no hand to the defense on the direction of the play, and the offense can get both good downhill running and play-action off those looks. […]

Old school with a new school twist. That's how Nevada puts its spin on the spread offense stuff, but what really makes Nevada different is its emphasis on old school plays in the context of its new school offense. […] When the pistol works, it's the best of both worlds for Nevada: Both I-formation and spread, both old and new school. Ultimately, however, there's only so much magic in simply putting your running back behind your quarterback -- that's not exactly a novel proposition. What has made Nevada dynamic offense go has been Ault and his staff's ability to teach these schemes and to adjust week-to-week. Without getting all Bill Callahan in a restricted space, Nevada actually has one of the most diverse playbooks in terms of the number of different blocking schemes; it's something they have developed to stay ahead of the game.

The larger question, though, is why no one else runs it except as an occasional novelty -- can this stuff work outside of the WAC? I would say so -- but not because the "pistol" is magical. Only because an offensive mind like Ault could coach it.

Colin Kaepernick was, quite simply, the perfect Pistol quarterback. He had the best play fake of the last decade -- when he kept the ball on a zone read, you didn't actually know it until he had taken a few steps up field, and with his ostrich legs, "a few steps" occupied about 12 yards -- and he had a good enough arm to spread the ball horizontally or vertically when the need arose. But Ault proved once again that his offense is bigger than just one player. With Lantrip and, eventually, Fajardo taking the reins in 2011, the offense certainly regressed, but the Wolf Pack still ranked sixth in the country in yards per game. Lantrip was a better, more decisive passer (Lantrip: 8.3 yards per pass attempt, 2.2 percent sack rate; Fajardo: 7.1 yards per pass attempt, 5.2 percent sack rate), but Fajardo offered quite a bit more on the ground (6.6 yards per carry), and the offense functioned a little bit better when Fajardo was healthy.

Nevada Offense With Lantrip: 27.8 Adj. PPG
Nevada Offense With Fajardo: 29.8 Adj. PPG

If he can remain healthy -- a decent-sized "if" considering he missed three games with injury and was severely limited in a couple of others -- Fajardo offers nearly a Kaepernick-esque ceiling for the Nevada offense. He is a lovely runner and decent enough passer. But with Lantrip gone and interesting third-stringer Mason Magleby off to Sacramento State, the supporting cast is devoid of any experience behind Fajardo. There is less of a safety net, especially if Ault cannot find suitable replacements for departed running backs Lampford Mark and Mike Ball, who combined for 1,615 yards and 13 touchdowns in 2011. Nevada is a bit of a running backs factory, of course, so one just assumes that Stefphon Jefferson, Nick Hale and company will suffice, especially running behind an experienced offensive line that ranked 26th in Adj. Line Yards and returns two all-conference linemen (Chris Barker and Jeff Nady) and 76 career starts.

A healthy Fajardo should also find some decent options in the receiving corps, as well, despite the departure of three of last year's top four receivers. Wimberly is not quite as explosive as since-departed Rishard Matthews (at least, he wasn't in 2010), but he should be able to handle the No. 1 spot, and sophomore Aaron Bradley should make for a decent No. 2. The pickings are slim after that -- the next leading returning wideout is beautifully-named Necho Beard, who caught one pass last year -- but Stefphon Jefferson offers a nice target out of the backfield, and two tight ends (Kolby Arendse and enormous senior Zach Sudfeld) could play pivotal roles. There are enough interesting weapons surrounding Fajardo that the Wolf Pack should once again thrive if he stays healthy. If, if, if.

Defense

Last year, Nevada replaced an incredible defensive playmaker (Dontay Moch, who had 22 tackles for loss and 8.5 sacks in 2010) and improved. This year, they must replace another one: tackle Brett Roy, who logged an explosive-for-a-tackle 18.5 tackles for loss, 10 sacks and six passes broken up. His is not the only departure worth noting -- in all, five of the starting front seven are gone. Last year's second string returns intact, however, and overall production might not slip too much; but Roy's absence is a significant one.

Anticipating the need for extra help up front, Ault is bringing in a pair of highly-touted junior college linemen: tackle Cortez Woods, an undersized (260 pounds), high-three-star signee, and end Shane Pennix. If Woods, returning starter Jack Reynoso and a youngster like redshirt freshman Rykeem Yates can at least approximate Roy's production, everything else could fall into place nicely. The return of linebacker DeAndre Boughton, who missed 2011 with a broken leg, should offset the departure of playmaker Brandon Marshall. Boughton was one of Nevada's best performers this spring. He could be a nice complement to active strongside linebacker Jeremiah Green, one of the best pass-defending linebackers in the country.

There are certainly some question marks on the front seven. But if the linemen and linebackers can avoid serious regression, the secondary should thrive. Seven of eight from last year's two-deep return, and while the lone departure -- corner Isaiah Frey and his 21 passes defended -- was a weighty one, his absence is surmountable with depth. Safeties Duke Williams, Marlon Johnson and three-star sophomore Charles Garrett are among the Mountain West's best, and Khalid Wooten still gives Nevada a strong No. 1 corner. With only a decent pass rush (52nd in Adj. Sack Rate), Nevada fielded one of the best mid-major pass defenses in the country last year. They should do so again.

Defining Success

Nevada takes a step up to the Mountain West this year, but while the MWC doesn't feature teams like New Mexico State and Idaho, it still has its share of dead weight. Home games against Northwestern State, Wyoming, San Diego State and Fresno State and trips to Texas State, UNLV and New Mexico should get the Wolf Pack most of the way toward bowl eligibility, so we'll say that matching last year's record (7-6) will constitute a successful season, even if they slip up to the bigger names on the schedule (at California, South Florida, Boise State, etc.).

Prognosis

It would be easy to focus on losses -- two good running backs, Rishard Matthews, Brett Roy, two good linebackers, Isaiah Frey -- and predict some gloom for Nevada, but the job they did in stabilizing themselves last year after huge departures and a 1-3 start told me what I needed to know: Chris Ault still has his program in solid shape. With the Mountain West in transition -- TCU is gone, Boise State loses everybody, San Diego State loses everybody you've heard of -- Nevada enters with high aspirations and a reasonable chance to win quite a few games.

The key, of course, as I mentioned approximately 26 times above, is keeping Cody Fajardo healthy. There is no proven backup (of course, Fajardo himself was unproven 12 months ago), and while Ault will always field a decent offense, if his goals include "winning the Mountain West," he needs high upside at the quarterback position. A healthy Fajardo could mean a 9-3 season; a dinged-up Fajardo could result in a struggle to reach 6-6 or 7-5.

Mark Martin Interview: How NASCAR Racing Has Changed Since I Started

2012-05-16T18:21:12Z

The veteran driver talks about his new on-track philosophy, why racing is like high school and what makes him nervous.

Our series of weekly NASCAR driver interviews continues this week with Mark Martin, the ageless Michael Waltrip Racing driver who continues to be one of the Sprint Cup Series' top talents at 53 years old. Martin, despite missing three races this season, is still 23rd in points – ahead of even Jeff Gordon.

SBN: What percent of your career races can you remember?

MM: Just off the top of my head? Ten.

SBN: Just 10 percent? I thought you could remember your car setups from like 20 years ago.

MM: I can, and I can remember a lot of races – that might go to 60 percent – but just off the top of my head, there's only 10 percent of the ones that were really important. But if you say, "What about 1990 at Dover?" I can remember that and tell you I ran side-by-side with Earnhardt forever.

The instant recall, because I've raced so much, is only down in that percentage. But I do remember a lot of races, and they're different ones than people would think. It's not always the victories or great races, but really hot races or some of the wins I had that weren't Cup races.

Everybody thinks (Cup) is the biggest thing there ever is, but some of my biggest wins were things like the Arkansas State Championship in 1974. Or winning a dirt Late Model race at Bolivar, Missouri in '76. Or winning the National Short Track Championship in Rockford, Illinois in 1977. These were milestone wins, and they were Daytona 500s in my world at the time. And so I remember a lot of stuff like that.

SBN: What was your first win in any form of racing?

MM: When I first started dirt track racing, I think I won on the third night out in the 6-Cylinder division when I was 15, right there at Batesville (Ark.) Speedway. It was called Locust Grove Speedway at the time, but now it's called Batesville Speedway. My home track.

SBN: Who is someone in NASCAR you really enjoy racing with and always seems to race you cleanly?

MM: I've really dealt with this a lot since I've been on Twitter – your favorite win, your favorite paint scheme, your favorite driver. And I may be getting away from your question, but that's like asking which one of your children is your favorite. My favorite win? C'mon now! Can't it be all of 'em? They're all my children! (Laughs)

But you know, I'll say Tony Stewart. I like racing with Tony Stewart. But because I singled him out, that doesn't mean I don't love racing with 90 percent of the guys in the field right now. That's different from 20 years ago, where there were guys in the field I wasn't comfortable racing with. The quality of drivers is incredible now; there's not a driver in the Cup field that couldn't win with the right race car. Not one single one out of 43. It's amazing the quality level we have in the sport today.

SBN: Well, this may not apply to you then, but is there a driver who you don't like to race because he always drives you extra hard?

MM: That seems to run in cycles. Like it might be one particular guy for two, three, four years, but then it seems like you work through that and then not so much. That's what I've seen throughout my career. I really don't have any problems. I've shown everyone on the racetrack a certain level of respect and I've gotten that back from everyone. But I'm like everyone else, I've had my problems and issues. I try to race everyone the way I would want to be raced. It's a little more difficult today than it used to be, so I have to understand that when I'm on the tough end of it. I have to understand I have to be tough, too, in those situations.

SBN: That leads right into the next question. I know a lot has been made about your personal code of conduct on the track, but where does it stand today?

MM: The sport used to be whoever was fastest prevailed, and there wasn't a huge payoff for trying to delay the inevitable, which was: You're gonna get passed. But the cars weren't affected by one another back then like they are today. So if someone was faster than me, I wanted to expedite this exchange on the racetrack; and vice versa.

Once other drivers that I raced with understood that I was interested in making that exchange and was willing to give when they were the faster ones, then they would in turn give it back to me. And that worked really well, because in a 500-mile race, there'd be goers and comers all race long.

The biggest thing you were doing for 440 miles of a race was logging time, making sure you were still there. You had a lot less reliability in the race cars. You were just seeing who could get to "the race" – the final part of the race – and who was the fastest at that time and who could pull it off.

It's different now. You have to try to be fair if you want to be treated fair. You certainly have to do everything to maintain your track position, because once you lose it now, it's pretty well lost. It's a little more difficult, and you have to make those decisions.

The same guys I used to race with one way – like Jeff Burton and Bobby Labonte and Matt Kenseth – we have to race each other differently. Now we have to adapt to the times. We have to take advantage of all the situations that we can, and sometimes we wish we didn't have to do that to our buds, but we do. You get, "Sorry, I had to do that" from your best buds.

SBN: And both you and them are cool with that?

MM: Yeah, yeah. I mean, they understand if you have a chance to go – even though you don't belong ahead – you gotta go. So even if Jeff Burton is faster than me, if I have an opportunity to get around him, then I've got to. I have to. I can't wait. And there's a good chance I'll stay in front of him the rest of that run, you know? It's unfortunate that's how we have to race even our best buddies.

Before, you'd say, "Well, I don't want to get in front of him, because he's going to have to pass me back and that will slow us both down – and we're all going to lose on that." That's how we would have handled that 15 years ago. But not now. If you have an opportunity or an opening to go now, you have to. You have to.

Back then, I think we would have looked at it and said, "Nah, he's faster than me and I don't belong in front of him, because then he'll slow us both down when he passes me back." Now, they might not pass you back even though he's faster than you, because of the way the cars are.

The competition is closer, but the cars are much more (influenced) by the air.

SBN: When people wrong you, do you keep a mental list of people you owe on the track?

MM: I do keep a list, but after X amount of time – depending on how severe it is – they fall off the list. It just kind of wears off. You get over it. And it might take a year or more if it's a bad one; if it's not so bad, it might take a month. I'm like everybody else: I've got my list, and whether you belong there or not, I thought you did. And if the opportunity comes next week to not cut you any slack, then I won't. But it usually doesn't. (Laughs) And then after a period of time, everyone is redeemed.

I think it's kind of like going to high school, because you had all these people around you and you had the ones you really liked, the ones who were OK and the ones you just tolerated. And the ones you just tolerate? Every once in awhile, they'll do something that makes you go, "Well maybe I'm viewing him wrong!" And you think, "Eh, he's OK! That's the way you're supposed to do it!" And they fall off the list.

SBN: If you could turn back time and team up with a driver who doesn't race anymore, who would you pick?

MM: Whoa. Whoaaaa. Well, I don't know, because it's kind of fun to beat your teammate. (Laughs) You know, I have a real weakness for David Pearson and Cale Yarborough. I wouldn't want to go up against those guys!

I asked David Pearson at Charlotte once – when he sat on the pole umpteen-million times in a row – how he did that. I was just getting started. He said, "Getrightupbythatwallcomingoff(Turn)4." That's how he talked, real fast. He was such a cool dude. So I always try to get right up by the wall coming off Turn 4. Didn't seem to get me the pole though!

SBN: What's the last time you got nervous about something?

MM: This morning.

SBN: About what?

MM: Am I good enough? I'm at Darlington. Am I good enough?

SBN: And that really makes you nervous?

MM (nods): Mildly. It's one of the things that has made me what I am. I'm not overconfident, you know? So I'm driven hard (by telling himself): "I've got to be on my game here today. This is Darlington. Am I good enough?"

SBN: You guys do a lot of appearances and autograph sessions and meet fans, and sometimes they can ask uncomfortable questions. Have you had any recent awkward fan moments?

MM: I guess I'm used to it. There's nothing recent, but I do get asked, "What's the strangest thing you've been asked to autograph?" And multiple times, I've been asked to autograph a sweaty bald head. And it doesn't work, it just doesn't work. A Sharpie won't write on a sweaty bald head.

SBN: If you had to pick one of these jobs after you retired from driving, would you rather be a NASCAR broadcaster or high-ranking NASCAR official like a Robin Pemberton or John Darby?

MM: Probably an official. I'm not cut from the right cloth to be a broadcaster. I'm not quick enough on my feet. I get caught thinking instead of talking. When something comes up, I like to think through it. I just don't think I'm quick enough or good enough to do that.

SBN: I've been asking each driver to give me a question for the next guy. Last week, Kurt Busch wanted to know if another tire war would be good for the sport. Your thoughts?

MM: My inclination is no, it wouldn't be good. Yes, it would mix things up, but it would physically hurt a lot of drivers. We weren't prepared to hit the wall like that (when the tires blew out in the last tire war). I know we've got better (safety) stuff now, but when you have a competition like that, you have to push the limits.

It's not good from a cost standpoint, either. There were races where we had to buy 12 sets of both (manufacturers' tires). And there were some races where if you were loyal to Goodyear, then you didn't (buy both) and you got your brains beat in. You had to make the choice. I just don't think it's good. I don't think we need that.

Editor's note: We asked Martin to provide a question for next week's 12 Questions interview, but the scheduled person fell through and the question only applied to them. So we'll pass along Kurt Busch's question again to the next driver.

ARCHIVE: All the previous 12 Questions interviews from this season

Are The San Antonio Spurs Boring?

2012-05-16T17:45:02Z

The Spurs have won 15 straight games, they're scoring more points than ever, and more than a decade after their first title, they are title favorites in the West. So why does this all seem so boring?

Since March 1, the San Antonio Spurs have gone 31-5. They've won 15 straight, too. And over the course of their win streak they're averaging 110.8 points-per-game. So, they're playing the best basketball in the league and they've done it by playing the most uptempo style in the NBA, outscoring everyone.

We should love this team, right? These aren't the same old Spurs? A friend who's been living in China for the past two years asked me last night if the Spurs are still as boring as they used to be.

"They aren't, but they are," I said.

On the one hand ... As opposed to the grinding death machine they used to be, these Spurs play more like the Seven Seconds Or Less Suns teams they used to murder in cold blood. Tony Parker's a constant blur, they push the ball every chance they get, they lead the league three-point percentage, and they led all teams in offensive efficiency during the regular season. Plus, their scoring can come from just about anyone.

Kevin Arnovitz elaborates on this point at True Hoop today:

... boredom, at its very root, can be defined as the absence of choice. Get stuck with a program that uses the same formula to produce the same outcome over and over and over again, and you get bored. ... We're rarely bored when our expectations are challenged, and the most interesting way to do that is by introducing choice into the equation. Anything can happen means that the range of possibilities is endless.

When the Spurs bring the ball upcourt, that's usually the case. They relied on isolation plays only 7.1 percent of the time in the regular season. (Only the Magic used a smaller percentage of their possessions in iso.) In their first-round sweep of Utah, the Spurs ran isos only 24 times in four games. (The Knicks, in contrast, had 124 such possessions over five games.) Instead, the Spurs did what they usually do to get what they want in the half court -- rely on motion, timing, ball movement and, most of all, choice.

It's not just that the Spurs are scoring, but they do it in different ways every down the court. So they really shouldn't be boring. Except ... I don't know. They're still boring to me. The same old Spurs, even if they're completely different.

I want to like them, I know that other people enjoy them, and they are light years ahead of the grinding death machine they used to be. But they're still the Spurs to me, the team that makes art feel like science. It bugs me that I can't enjoy this Spurs team as much I probably should.

(Photo by Noah Graham/NBAE via Getty Images)

So let me try and explain myself.

To answer the True Hoop arguments above, anything can happen doesn't automatically equal excitement. The Princeton offense is full of possibilities on every possession, but there's a difference between Princeton running it to perfection or Chris Webber and the 2002 Kings doing the same. Charisma and creativity make a big difference. The Spurs may have found the latter, but the former is another story.

More than any other sport, basketball thrives on personality. Kobe Bryant definitely seems like a basketball sociopath off the court, sure, but we've learned the most about Kobe's true colors on the court. Same with LeBron, who we've come to know as vulnerable and fascinating almost entirely because of things that have happened on the court. Derrick Rose may as well be mute off the court, but we know there's more beneath the surface because we've seen him go ballistic with a basketball in his hands.

This is what makes basketball fun. You watch the game and read the way different personalities respond. It's not a perfect science but it's a game never gets old, and as such, neither does The Game. And what personality do the San Antonio Spurs have, even now?

They churn along and over the past few months they've churned out better results than anyone in basketball, but it doesn't change what we don't see. Everyone says that Tim Duncan's personality just isn't very interesting and that's why the Spurs have never gotten the credit they deserve, but that's not true. Tim Duncan's actually kind of hilarious. These commercials are great. His old Sprite and Nike ads, too. Duncan's problem is that he's got no personality on the court. His game's (still) deadly effective, but the way he does it makes Hoosiers look like an And-1 Mixtape.

It's not about age or athleticism, either. It feels like Paul Pierce's feet haven't left the floor in six years, but he's one of the most entertaining players in basketball because all he does is find new, ridiculous ways to put the ball in the hoop. If Tim Duncan is king of the bankshot from the post, Paul Pierce is king of splitting the double team, stumbling into the paint on a jump stop, bobbling the ball on an unnecessary pivot, then launching a fadeaway jumper from the foul line that hits every part of the rim and falls in. Both guys are incredible, but which would you rather watch?

Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker are two exceptions to the rule. Either one can take a simple play and make it exhilarating, but in the shadow of San Antonio's towering legacy of cold efficiency, it's harder to enjoy those guys. All due respect to Popovich's genius as a coach, wouldn't Manu be more fun creating offense from scratch for 35 minutes-a-night on the Clippers?

Even if the Spurs play like the '07 Suns these days, you get the feeling they do it because it works, not because it's fun for them, and definitely not because it's entertaining for us.

The nominal spontaneity of Tony Parker choosing from five different options makes no difference, really. It's not spontaneous if all roads lead to easy buckets and open jumpers. The Suns were fun because they forfeited sanity for the sake of raw offense. Nothing about the Spurs offense seems insane. They play this way because it's really, really effective. If it wasn't, they wouldn't.

(Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)

Ruthless efficiency isn't a crime, but it's not as fun as the radioactive lunacy we see when someone like Russell goes Westbrook careening into three people on a fast break. It's not as fun as Kobe pulling the ball out and taking a contested 23-footer with the game on the line. It's not even as fun as LeBron James pulling the ball out, then making "the right play" and passing to Udonis Haslem with the game on the line. Each one of those cases opens a world of interpretation that takes us right back to all the arguments that last forever.

You may think these arguments are stupid and that success or failure on a basketball court can be understood with statistics that show who really deserves to be lionized for crunch time heroics, and which teams really play the most exciting basketball. But maybe "That’s a load of shit."

All of those stats debates come back to the same truth: Basketball's a balance of art and science. And the Spurs live at one extreme on that spectrum. There's no room for interpretation when you have a formula that's proven and perfected. The results speak for themselves. Which is to say, they could score 200 points-a-game and the message would be the exact same.

San Antonio is really good and viciously disciplined.
Popovich's formula still works even as it's been tweaked over the years.
Gregg Popovich is probably the most underrated basketball coach of all time.

Those have been the lessons for a decade now.

So I guess I'd explain myself this way: Basketball's fun because there's almost always an element of unknown to the history that may or may not unfold. But the Spurs are so numb and surgical and brutally consistent, there's no intrigue left except to hope they fail.

I love Tim Duncan off the court, Gregg Popovich's interviews provide better theater than any coach this side of Stan Van Gundy, and both Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili should be fun as hell. Together, though, it's all sorta mechanical. Even the fast breaks, the threes, and the scoring that could come from anyone on the court. The basketball fan in me feels guilty, but I just can't get excited about the Spurs. They've gotten so good at this I can't help but root against them.

The All-Time Worst NBA Slogans

2012-05-16T15:57:07Z

Some NBA team slogans, like 'Bring On The World,' border on cocky. Others, such as 'See What They Can Do,' are terribly depressing, and still others, like 'We Work As One,' are Communist plots. Here's a look at some of the worst and weirdest.

In the second installment of Sloganalysis, we turn our attention to the NBA. Like any other league whose teams play upwards of 80 games a year, the NBA tends to suffer from attendance issues from place to place. Most teams have little choice but to deploy some sort of marketing campaign to draw people to the arena, and at the centerpiece of every marketing campaign is a slogan.

Some of these slogans are confident, some are humble, and some are unbelievably terrible. In all, I found 56 recently-used team slogans that fell into one of 11 different categories. I've charted each category below.

PREVIOUSLY: The Worst MLB Slogans Of All Time

Many of the team slogans I found expressed optimism, but only a handful of teams were bold enough to claim that they were gunning for the NBA Championship and/or would beat all comers. Three of these five teams ended up as NBA Champions that year, so hey, it worked! Correlation and causation: synonyms forever.

True Blue.

- 2006-07 Timberwolves

Wait, do people associate the Timberwolves with the color blue? Like they're the Dodgers or something? I never did. Then again, I've spent almost no time actually looking at their logo. If you asked me to draw it from memory, you'd probably end up with, like, a crude sketch of a wolf eating leaves off a bush (what do wolves eat?!??), and a straight green line to represent the ground. There would also be a yellow crayon sun in the upper-right corner.

Passion 4 Purple.

- 2006-07 Kings

I bet you thought the stylizing of "for" as "4" was stupid in 2006, but now we all have iPhones that are easy to text on, and not even the 13-yearoldiest of girls text like this anymore. And this is how a stupid slogan became even stupider with the passage of time.

Not all that bad of a showing here. The Magic were only a year away from reaching the NBA Finals, and while the Rockets, of course, lost in the first round of the playoffs, they played well in the regular season.

Ready To Rise.

- 2008-09 Bucks

If you assemble all the Bucks' slogans together, they're actually just the eHow article on how to bake bread.

Just like their baseball counterparts, NBA teams are fond of this "we're all a team" thing. I meaaaaan ... I get how you could interpret the producer/consumer dynamic as a form of teamwork, but teammates don't hijack each other's tax money or charge each other 11 dollars for a beer. If this is the way you're gonna roll, I'm not really comfortable with you calling me your teammate. I'm just gonna buy your tickets with the same emotional gravitas I feel when I buy Pop-Tarts at the grocery store. Cool? Cool. Good talk, glad we had this talk.

Be Part Of It.

- 2007-08 Sonics

sighhhh

Organized sports are really fun, and then you enter high school and it becomes this exhaustive grind that you couldn't possibly find fulfilling unless there is something fundamentally wrong with you. The kids who stay are total suckers. If you aren't with me on this, I challenge you to walk inside a high school gym or locker room, note all the slogans you see printed on T-shirts or hanging from rafters, and ask yourself what sort of person a slogan like TEAM IS EVERYTHING or WIN IS TEAM or THE ONLY TEAM IS GAME WIN WINNY GAME is targeted at. Yes, while the rest of us are playing backyard football or Goldeneye, you are sprinting your 14th lap around the gym because an employee of the state blew a whistle. Have fun, you poor sucker, and on your 15th lap around, just tell yourself that win is the only game team hustlepride winsport.

(It should be noted that I am kind of joking, but only kind of joking.)

Love The Game.

- 2004-05 Clippers

In all seriousness, though, I kind of dig this slogan. Ideally your team finds success, but absent that, you can just sit back and appreciate the game of basketball in general and/or enjoy the raps of noted hip-hop enthusiast The Game.

Team Is Everything.

- 2007-08 Spurs

Man. The 1990s had rollerblading and laser tag arenas and Michael Buffer and speed and Speed. Adrenaline has to be the most 1990s biochemical ever. (It later fell out of vogue, of course; the most 2000s biochemical was testosterone, and the biochemical of the 2010s is probably spittle.)

The NBA, as in the brand, espouses more style than the rest of the sporting world put together, but even in this league, a few teams have had a tough time letting go of the past. While other teams have moved on, these teams are rocking a Kangol and tracksuit and yelling things like P-P-PUMP IT UP into a (wired!) microphone.

It's A Pure Adrenaline Rush.

- 2007-08 Jazz

The easy route here would be to poke fun at the usage of "adrenaline" and "Utah" in the same sentence, but that would be awfully reductive, and I'm trying to put a cap on that sort of thing these days. I'm sure that Salt Lake City is a fun city full of neat stuff to do, because that's what you can expect of any city of that size. Except for Indianapolis.

Can You Feel It?

- 2008-09 Nuggets

Yep, the Nuggets just straight up bogarted the Spurs' slogan from five years prior. At least it's a terrific slogan! Whew!

Welcome To Planet Orange.

- 2007-08 Suns

SUNS ARE NOT PLANETS

Basketball In The Carolinas.

- 2004-05 Bobcats

I like this. Obviously the NBA has had a team in North Carolina for over 20 years, but even today, it registers with me as a non sequitur when expressed like that. It's like saying "Oregon Blazers" or "Georgia Hawks." I bet the league has had a team in Nebraska since like 1985 and we just haven't processed it yet.

I wasn't able to find complete information on how, exactly, the teams came up with these slogans, but I do know that the 2008-09 Hornets actually hired an ad agency to craft their slogan:

Passion. Purpose. Pride.

It took an ad agency to come up with three alliterative words! Haha, just kidding. IT TOOK TWO AD AGENCIES. I think that there should be an annual holiday in which you are allowed to just walk into ad agents' homes and offices and steal all their shit.

Fifty seasons! That's a pretty big deal. Entering your twenties isn't such a big deal; I mean, it's just a decade full of futons and leases. But at least it's a nice, round number.

20 Years Of Heat.

This lasagna is going to turn out terrible.

I'd like to take this opportunity to give the NBA a ton of credit. Like MLB, it's home to a number of hopeless, floundering franchises. Unlike MLB, these teams will sometimes gut up and say, "yes, we were bad, and now we will try to be better than bad."

SOMETHING2PROVE

- 2008-09 Heat

That looks like a vanity license plate, but it's twice as long as will fit on a license plate. What if two cars drove side-by-side on the highway, each with one half of their slogan on their license plates? Wouldn't that be neat? Absolutely not, but it's probably your average NBA owner's interpretation of "neat."

See What They Can Do.

- 2008-09 Timberwolves

"Huh? You want to watch some basketball? Well, we have all the goals and balls and stuff right here, but we suck pretty bad ... we'll see what we can do. Okay? That's not a 'yes'."

APPLAUSE. Two of these slogans stood out as brutally frank assessments of their teams.

Back To Basics.

- 2010-11 Wizards

It's fun to read this as "Back To Asics" and imagine the Wizards rocking Asics for a season. I bet their spokesman is, like, Chris Gatling.

So! Let's round all these up:

Lessons learned:

All in all, an NBA team that uses an official slogan has an average winning percentage of .515. (For baseball teams, it's .480.)
Super XXXXTreme slogans portend success.
If teams claim they're going to be good, believe them.
If teams claim they're terrible, for the love of God, BELIEVE THEM.

For further adventures in Sloganalysis, check out my study on Major League Baseball slogans.

Kings Vs. Coyotes: Which Phoenix Players Deserve Suspensions?

2012-05-16T15:23:07Z

Shane Doan, Martin Hanzal and Mike Smith all made some questionable plays in Game 2 between the Coyotes and Kings. Which of them deserve to sit for Game 3?

As the Los Angeles Kings systematically dismantled the home-standing Phoenix Coyotes Tuesday night in Game 2 of the Western Conference Final, three plays defined the Coyotes' truculence.

Those three plays might also define any chance the Coyotes have to get back into this series, one that appears lost after only two games.

Los Angeles won the game, 4-0, and exactly half of the goal damage was done thanks in large part to the Coyotes' lack of discipline. Trying to hit your way into a game isn't always going to work, and it backfired big-time on the hosts Tuesday.

Late in the second period, already short-handed, Phoenix captain Shane Doan was guilty of a boarding major on Kings forward Trevor Lewis. Seconds earlier, L.A. captain Dustin Brown had his stick broken on a slash by veteran Daymond Langkow. Already facing a two-man disadvantage, Phoenix' misery was extended when Doan was called for a major and ejected from the game.

(No, we're not here to argue the call on Langkow. It was a terrible one, especially given what Los Angeles got away with on the Coyotes' second power play, which was a lot.)

There are a lot of moving parts on this call. Lewis was bloodied and had to leave the game briefly. He was clearly hit from behind from a vulnerable spot and went hard into the boards.

However, Lewis also turned right before the contact. I thought Doan did try to limit the contact, but Lewis turned so late that it was going to be a lot to ask for Doan to do that. It was a hard hit, and by the letter of the law, it was probably called correctly.

Doesn't mean I like it. I don't like seeing players turn at the last second when they know a hit is coming. Lewis should be bracing for contact, not turning to face the boards, whether he's legitimately trying to play the puck or not. Yes, a hitting player has the onus to make sure he throws a clean, legal body check. But the player taking the hit has a responsibility, too. That responsibility is to not put himself in a vulnerable position when he knows a hit is coming.

That might not be something on-ice officials can account for when making a call without the benefit of replay, but it certainly is something the Department of Player Safety can look at.

Doan shouldn't be suspended for this hit, and I don't think he will be.

On the other hand, Martin Hanzal might not play again this season. In the third period, Hanzal provided the DPS with a great blueprint for what a flagrant boarding penalty looks like.

Pretty sure I don't need to go over this one very much.

Hanzal sees the "23" and "BROWN" on the back of the captain's jersey from at least the top of the faceoff circle all the way down to the point of impact. Unlike Doan, who hit a guy who turned at the last second, Hanzal had plenty of time to avoid or minimize this hit. Instead, he maxmized it, which strikes as "intent to injure" when you account for the time left (nine minutes), the score (3-0, L.A.), and the series situation (Kings have a stranglehold on it).

No excuses on this one, and I'd be shocked if Hanzal didn't get at least one game. He probably deserves two or three, which could very easily end his season with the way things are going.

Finally, we must discuss the antics of Phoenix goalie Mike Smith. When he wasn't allowing knuckleball shots by Jeff Carter to go in with his team only down one goal, or bus-chucking his teammates after the game, he was trying to chop down an oak tree. Or perhaps Dustin Brown.

Hilariously, Brown was called for diving, along with Smith getting a slashing minor.

I don't know that this is a suspendable offense, especially for a goalie, but why not? It's a pretty blatant and hard shot directed at Brown's knee. It's also either a move borne out of frustration, or a move meant to send some sort of message.

Either way, it'd be nice to send the message to Smith that this kind of garbage has no place in the game.

Instead, what will probably happen is Hanzal will get a game or two, and no one else will get anything more than what penalties were called during the game.

If Doan plays in Game 3, he'll probably be asked to fight someone, and all will be well. Smith will keep playing, and I doubt we'll see a goalie fight during the series.

Then again, if they want ratings to go up for this seemingly non-competitive series ... (yes, I'm kidding.)

Saturday Is About More Than Just A Trophy For Chelsea

2012-05-16T15:04:25Z

Just how much will Chelsea's future success in the transfer market be affected by Saturday's final?

Follow @SBNationSoccer

Come Saturday night Chelsea will either be the holders of the 2012 Champions League title or they won't. Either way, the club will go on and the business of building for the next campaign will begin in earnest. How well Chelsea is able to perform in the transfer market and find the players they need to rebuild their ageing roster could be greatly effected by Saturday's final in Munich.

Didier Drogba, Salomon Kalou and Jose Bosingwa are all out of contract at the close of the season, but before the Blues can worry too much about re-signing and/or buying players, they must first make a decision in terms of leadership.

The first order of business for Roman Abramovich will be to decide whether or not to give Roberto di Matteo the manager's job on a full time basis. If anything, this decision and how quickly they can hire a new coach, should di Matteo not be the man, will have a greater effect on Chelsea's buying power. Chelsea need to be able to be competitive in the transfer market, because this is a club with a aging core that needs some players at key positions.

Fernando Torres has shown signs on late late in the season but I doubt anyone expects him to be able to contribute in the way that Drogba has during Chelsea's run of success. There's the obvious fact that hey are completely different types of forwards, but Torres has not shown the type of consistency that the Blues will need should Drogba move on in the summer.

If Drogba leaves, the biggest question facing Chelsea will be who replaces him. Luring a top-level striker of Drogba's caliber is certainly within the financial ability of the club, but should they not be playing in the Champions League next season, will they be able to get the name they want, whomever that might be.

In the new economic world of football, even a club like Chelsea with Abramovich's deep pockets will struggle to compete with the avalanche of oil money that clubs like Manchester City and Paris St. Germain can unleash. Chelsea still has the ability to spend, as long as Abramovich is willing, but the one thing they cannot guarantee a transfer target without a win on Saturday is Champions League football next season.

Chelsea's struggles in the Premier League have left them with a Europa League spot and in need of a win to return to the Europe's richest competition. The allure of money will draw players in but if a top tier footballer is left with two contracts on the table, one with Chelsea in the JV tournament and one with the likes of City who will play in the UCL, there's a realistic chance that the Blues will lose out based solely on the fact they cannot offer a player a spot on the biggest stage in club football.

Ultimately, a loss on Saturday will not break Chelsea or prevent them from making a return to the Top 4 next season in the EPL. What it could potentially do is make it a little harder for them to attract certain players to Stamford Bridge, but that might not be a bad thing. Maybe that's just what Chelsea needs and a temporary setback could force them to be smarter with their investments moving forward.

Then again, who am I kidding? Time has proven that if Roman Abramovich wants something badly enough, he usually gets it.

We'll have updates throughout the week in our 2012 UEFA Champions League Final StoryStream. For more on Bayern, head over to Bayern Munich blog Bavarian Football Works. For more on the Blues, check out Chelsea FC blog We Ain't Got No History. For more on the entire world of football, follow @SBNationSoccer on twitter.

Kings Vs. Coyotes, Game 2: Lack Of Discipline Hurts Phoenix Beyond Game 2 Loss

2012-05-16T13:56:40Z

With 56 total penalty minutes and two ejections in Game 2 for the Phoenix Coyotes, they face bigger problems as the series shifts back to Los Angeles.

Back on Feb. 16, in a game between the Los Angeles Kings and Phoenix Coyotes, the physicality was evident, and it gave Phoenix an edge in a 1-0 victory over their Pacific Division foes. It's safe to say things weren't the same on Tuesday night, as the Coyotes let the rough stuff get a bit out of hand in their 4-0 Game 2 loss to the Kings.

With two ejections and 56 total penalty minutes, it was clear Phoenix lost its ability to play controlled hockey.

Down 2-0 in the second period with the game still in reach, Phoenix found itself with some pretty decent opportunities in front of Kings netminder Jonathan Quick; however, the tide turned when the Kings carried the puck into the Phoenix zone on the power play, causing some commotion along the boards. Shane Doan attempted to make a hard hit on Trevor Lewis, the King with possession of the puck in the corner, but he ended up getting Lewis from behind, smashing his face into the boards.

Granted, Lewis turned his back at the worst time and Doan was initially targeting the shoulder, but boarding is boarding, and Doan found himself with a five-minute major and a game misconduct thanks to Lewis' bleeding face.

At the exact same time as the Doan incident, Daymond Langkow was called for slashing, putting Phoenix down two men for a lengthy period of time without two solid penalty killers. Things just snow-balled from there.

Midway through the third period, Dustin Brown, who has made a serious case for playoff MVP, slowed up and made a quick play in the defensive zone when Martin Hanzal essentially hunted Brown and slammed him head-first into the boards.

Hanzal also received a five-minute major and a game misconduct for the hit.

When Raffi Torres was banished from playoffs in Round 1 for his hit on Marian Hossa, it wasn't part of a bigger problem for the team that they would need to change. Now possibly playing without one or even two of their best players, the Coyotes will have to dig deep and strap down to play far more disciplined than they have lately.

Phoenix has had the good fortune of playing some teams that have struggled mightily on the power play in the Nashville Predators and Chicago Blackhawks, so their high number of shorthanded minutes (90:25 for the entire postseason) had not nipped them too badly until Game 2.

Yes, the Kings' power play is pretty awful, but with the way things seem to be playing out in this series, the Coyotes are going to need every chance they can get offensively, and when you're playing on the penalty kill so often, you're limiting yourself when it comes to those chances.

Jeff Carter may have been the typical "blind squirrel finding a nut" with his two power-play goals in Game 2, but that doesn't change the fact that the the man advantage gives Los Angeles even more zone time, which carries over to the even strength game and pins Phoenix in its own zone even further.

Let's face it -- the Kings have been phenomenal at establishing their game in this series. Once they have the lead, they become absolutely unstoppable and their confidence only increases as the game goes on. If the Coyotes continue to give them chances to maintain their swagger through games, Phoenix's Cinderella playoff story might end sooner than they hope.