Foot-In-Mouth Disease As Contagious As The Flu

Three straight days of sleepy, and tomorrow is not looking any better. Without further ado, I bring you the rundown:

1. Apparently another female sportscaster, this time ESPN's Dana Jacobson, landed herself in some hot water over some comments she made during a roast of Mike and Mike hosts (Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic) about Notre Dame (Golic's alma mater and Jesus Christ. It is virtually impossible to find exactly what she said without having been there myself, but apparently the Catholic church knows because they said she's anti-Jesus. Well, I don't know what she said so I can't say much about this. Even though her alleged comments sound inappropriate, I will say that I think women take a lot of flak that men don't for the things that they say. More on that when my eyes aren't shutting.

2. Five overtimes in the Baylor University vs. Texas A&M basketball game on Wednesday night. In one of the OT's the teams only scored 8 points combined. I can't say I have ever heard of 5 OT's before. That's 3 1/4 halves of basketball played. One of them must be regretting that decision to eat that full rack of BBQ ribs before the game. Five players fouled out for Baylor but they still managed to pull out the win against #16 A&M. The game even lost a ref, who went down with a pulled hamstring ($1 to anyone who can locate this video). Great for Baylor. If any team in college basketball could use some good news, it's Baylor. I'm not sure if they have fully recovered from the murder of Patrick Dennehy (I'm sure mention of the murder still makes its way at the end of any big story outside of Texas about the school), but pulling out tough games certainly helps.

3. NCAA crying "foul" for USC's O.J. Mayo taking tickets for a Denver Nuggets game from Carmelo Anthony. Eh. The coach is trying to take the fall, saying he gave Mayo permission after Mayo asked him if it was OK. I know there could be some undue influence if college kids were getting handouts from NBA teams, but I haven't been an NCAA fan before, so I'm not going to start now. Give the kid a break. Smack (on the hand, of course) the coach, though, because he definitely knows better.

4. The Toronto Raptors beat the Boston Celtics, further proving that the Celts are just another team. The stat line shows some pretty good percentages in this game from the floor and behind the arc for the Raptors, who held on for a two-point win, but I am most impressed - of course - with the fact that they went 100% from the free throw line. I can accept a miss or three, but a perfect percentage is . . . something that we shouldn't marvel at that should happen more often. Darn it.

5. Ah, the life of a kicker. Just ask the NY Giants' Lawrence Tynes. If he misses that last field goal (that sent the Giants into the Super Bowl), after missing previous ones, he says he is looking at real estate in Wisconsin. But, he made it, so he's on The Late Show with David Letterman talking about the dress shoes his wife picked out for him. Brett Favre could have thrown 5 interceptions and lost the game on a bonehead play and gotten carried out of Lambeau Field, but if the kicker misses from half a field away (because his offense couldn't get him any closer), he has to move his family to another state. Life's just not fair.

6. Even though I like to do an odd number of rundowns, I couldn't leave without updating you on the Australian Open happenings (I know you read the first five just to get to this point). Maria Sharapova ripped apart Jelena Jankovic, who is shockingly up to #3 in the world. I saw Jankovic at the U.S. Open and she doesn't really have the weapons and is fairly inconsistent, as she proved so aptly in her semifinal against Sharapova. Like I said, Sharapova's pretty much got this one on lock.

7. Splitting up men's and women's tennis gives me a #7. Woohoo. Over on the men's side, Roger Federer dusted off James Blake, per usual, in straight - but well fought - sets. I feel bad for Blake because he really is a good guy and a good player, but Federer is more than a thorn in his side, he's the chloroform cloth to Blake's mouth and nose. He'll get you one day, Federer, one day.

American Men's Tennis Woes, Part I: The 'Whys'

Continuing from yesterday's post on the U.S. men's Davis Cup team winning the title, I said that I was going to do two things: 1) explain why the game is in the valley, and 2) what can be done to get back to the mountaintop. Today, I'll give you my opinions on its valley-status. Tomorrow, we'll cover climbing Mt. Everest.

Before I begin, I have excluded the American women from this discussion based solely on the fact that Venus and Serena are holding it down pretty well. They have fans, they win tournaments, and they are single-handedly keeping the American women relevant in tennis. There's an issue, though, of the women coming behind them, but the issues are slightly different for different reasons, so I'll save that discussion for another time.

Just in the way of background, American men's tennis had its heyday in the '70's and '80's, when John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, and Arthur Ashe were at the top of the game and winning their fair share of Grand Slam titles. Since then, there was a sizable blip around Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, but since those two retired, the Americans have not reached the heights they once did.

As I said yesterday, Roger Federer's dominance has done nothing good for U.S. men's tennis. But there's a problem when one of the richest countries in the world, in resources, technology, facilities -- where almost every foreign player comes to train at some point -- can't produce a serious champion of its own.


So what's the problem? Before I answer that, I want to be clear that this is not an indictment against any of the current top men's players, but is rather about the general state of men's tennis in the United States as a whole. With that out of the way, here are a few of my explanations for this issue:

1. Other sports are taking tennis players. With the dollars being made both on and off the court/field in other sports like football, basketball, and baseball, everyone wants to be LT (1 or 2), Michael Jordan, or A-Rod, the latter standing to make close to $300 million for 10 years of work. By comparison, Roger Federer made $10 million on the court this past year, which was a record-setting amount. Yeah, if I'm an elite male athlete with a choice in the matter, I'm not going with tennis. One American player on the tour is 6'6", and I apologize to him in advance, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he is probably far, far better in tennis than he is in basketball. Because I don't believe that there is any way that anyone in their right mind would choose to play tennis, which often requires spending at least 45 of the 52 weeks in a year on the road, without a good reason.

Especially when the Americans in these more popular sports are among the best in the world, if not the best. In tennis, that is hardly the case. Roger Federer is an awesome athlete, likely the best athlete from Switzerland, and some might say the best athlete ever, in any sport. And while he has been more fallible lately, he is still virtually untouchable by the American players ranked below him. I bet the American who could be ringing his bell is out playing golf somewhere. I know more than a few people who never picked up a tennis racquet again when Tiger came on the scene. The cream of the crop is not coming out for the tennis team.

For boys in particular, there are so many options in sports, and now tennis has to compete with new professional lacrosse and soccer leagues in addition to the other Big 3 (or 4 - if you count hockey . . . ). Tennis just hasn't kept up with the newer options.

Not to mention that tennis is fairly technical. It's not something you can just go out and start playing if you want to do well without having someone show you what to do (even if it's from a book or magazine . . . but who does that these days?).

American tennis hit a skid in the mid-90's, when Sports Illustrated infamously asked if the sport itself was dying, and the babies born then are now the "next generation of tennis" who never grew up playing tennis or being exposed to it. So, consequently, they don't play it.


2. The USTA isn't really doing "development." For some reason, in many areas in American life, training has fallen by the wayside. No, now we expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, know everything when they come in the door, and if they don't, it's their fault, not the people who didn't train them in the first place. Development does not occur. You either come in the door ready, or you're done.

If you're not familiar with the United States Tennis Association (USTA), it is the governing body that controls everything having to do with American tennis, from the amateur to the professional ranks. They run the U.S. Open as well as sanction 12 year old & under tournaments. They also provide training facilities, coaches, and staff for "top" junior (18 and under) players, and provide similar support for top American players on the professional tour. Their mission, they say, is to promote and develop the growth of tennis.

Perhaps the USTA just stopped developing talent. But whether or not the USTA ever did train players, I am going to explain my theory on what happened: Back then, when Connors, McEnroe, and Ashe were coming up, men's tennis was in a different era. The pool of talent was bigger, and the top players that made it through were easy to train because they really were the best of the best. Very little extra work was required to put these players at an elite level, and the U.S. had the top facilities in the world, where players from other countries came to train (more on this later).

Now, the pool is smaller, but the USTA appears to be preferring the ready-made, low-hanging fruit option. Rather than adjusting by, say, going out and recruiting players to play tennis who might be playing other sports, they're taking what comes to them (i.e., who's winning the tournaments). And what comes to them may not always be the cream of the tennis crop.

3. No marketing. At all.

Be honest. You didn't really know that the USTA was before a few moments ago. But it's not your fault. They aren't visible. Tennis is not visible.

Andy Roddick may talk to you about his American Express around U.S. Open time, but he's not telling you to pick up a racquet or making tennis look like something you want to do. Similarly, while it is great that Blake, Roddick, and the Bryan twins (Bob and Mike - tops in men's doubles) participated in the festivities at a Portland Trailblazers game during Davis Cup, I doubt too many folks went out and played tennis the next day. While marketing of the sport itself may not be important in a sport like football or basketball, tennis is not those sports. Because playing tennis is not that popular anymore, promotion of actually playing the sport needs to occur. It's hard when tennis is not seen on TV often enough to register with its target audience (in my experience, tennis courts are in short supply every year when Wimbledon is on TV). When poker seemingly gets more airtime than tennis on ESPN, something is wrong with that picture.

4. Americans don't want it as much. This may be one of the most important - and controversial - factors in why the American men's game is at its nadir. My father has always made a big deal out of being hungry. He has mentioned in a few discussions about American sports in general that parents should take the "creature comforts" from their children if they really want them to be good.

Now, I think that might be a little extreme, but I do believe he has a great point. Kids need to be hungry.
There are a lot of foreign players in college these days. Not just at the big, Division I programs, but everywhere. A lot of people complain about this phenomenon, which has been on-going for many years now, but I think they just want to be there more than Americans do.

Americans, on average, are a fairly comfortable bunch compared to the rest of the world. When it comes to tennis in this country, one of the most expensive sports (perhaps only surpassed by golf), then the vast majority of the participants are people who aren't wanting for much. Here, we are playing tennis because it's fun and we like it, or we're just good at it, and we're competitive.

Now, take your average top player from another country. They are growing up in an entirely different system than we have here. They probably started playing tennis earlier. Tennis pays a lot more than their other sporting and "normal" options, and so they may be playing tennis to make a way for their family. Not only that, but they have a large talent pool of players trying to do the exact same thing, so they represent the best athletes in their country, not just the best tennis players. For many, tennis represents a way out for them and may be the only way that seems within their grasp. When you come from less and have more on the line, your performance is going to take on a different level of significance, I don't care who you are.

Now, we bring these two types of players into the same competitive environment. The American player, who will just drive his nice car to his nice condo if he loses vs. the non-American player who may not be able to afford a plane ticket home. True story.

The bottom line is that American men -- and women -- just aren't as hungry as their non-American counterparts. They simply have too many options available to them in terms of other activities, and including living a life as or more comfortable than they would if they never picked up a tennis racquet. I don't exclude myself from this category, either. Had my options been more limited or I really wanted to make a run on the tour, I think I would be in a totally different place than I am right now. So I am not suggesting that it's necessarily a bad thing that we're not as hungry, but I do believe that it is affecting the quality of the game.

Having different levels of motivation simply cannot be underestimated. (I avoided making a "no match for . . . " pun here. You can thank me later).

So what can be done to reverse the course in light of the above? Stay tuned for tomorrow's post where I will give my Top 10 suggestions on fixing this quagmire.

American Men's Tennis Did Something Cool . . .

Newsflash: The United States men won the Davis Cup for the first time in 12 years.

What? You didn't hear about that?

Well, take heart because I am ashamed to admit I didn't either until someone told me. I didn't even watch a single point of the entire Davis Cup. They beat Russia, by the way. And the Davis Cup, is an international team tennis event akin to the World Cup in soccer, an event that the American men have won 32 times since 1900.

And no one even knows it took place. Why? Because, as much as I hate to admit this, American men's tennis is just not relevant.

Unfortunately, I think American men's tennis would be more popular if there wasn't this guy named Roger Federer around. I've had enough of seeing Andy Roddick and James Blank make it to the semis and finals of a tournament just to see them ultimately lose to Federer or someone else - but mainly Fed.

If they didn't get dealt with so handily, then perhaps it might be sort of interesting to watch them play. It's not really fun when you know someone is not going to win. I've seen Roddick play (and lose very badly) to Federer enough times to know that this guy just has his number, maybe for life. Once he or Blake, or some other American breaks through against Fed for the first time, or Fed retires then maybe people will start watching again. Even then, I see another hungry Fed-like player right behind him.

Add that to tennis just not being anywhere close to football (or even basketball, for that matter) in the realm of interesting sporting events going on in December. It really hasn't seen a serious base in this country since Agassi first came on the scene.

And, I have seen the new crop of players coming up and the sad part is that there are just not as many kids playing anymore. It's just not as popular.

People will watch a Federer match at least once just to see what the hype is about. I'd put money on the fact that less Americans have seen Roddick and Blake combined play than have watched a Federer match.

Because the American men are not winning, they haven't really drawn people in or received the endorsements. Because Blake may be a nice-looking guy, but you have to have some on-court results to get Anna Kournikova publicity if you're a man.

Will this Davis Cup win do more for their popularity here? Maybe. But if you didn't know that they'd even won the Davis Cup before you read this post, then I think we have our answer right here.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I will give my theories on why the American men's tennis is not as good as it could be, and my 10 suggestions for making it better . . .