Weekly Sporties

-As the NFL continues to publicly float concepts to make people think they are trying to make football safer (while never doing things like taking an 18-game schedule totally off the table), all their ideas seem to focus on special teams. First they moved they moved kickoffs from the 30 to the 35 and then came the suggestion of limiting how much the guys playing on special teams are allowed to weigh. This week Commissioner Roger Goodell went a step further and hinted that the NFL may eventually just do away with kickoffs, but his proposal of how to replace them is beyond quirky. Under Goodell's plan after a team scored they would get the ball at their own 30 with the down marker reading 4th and 15. The team would then be able to try the long play and keep the ball or punt. First off, I don't really see how a punt is all that safer than a kickoff for the guy doing the returning. But I admit the idea of a team being able to keep the ball after scoring is intriguing. With the current level of quarterback play in the league converting a 4th and 15 would have a higher success rate than an onside kick. If they had enough good plays in their arsenal is entirely possible one team could keep the ball all game. Or if a team was down by two or three scores they could make them up much faster, meaning fewer people would turn away from blowouts. I still don't see this rule happening because you would essentially eliminate special team players and coaches, so the players and coaches unions would never allow it. Besides, it does seem more like something the Arena League would try before the NFL. But, at least for a couple days it got people talking about something other than concussions in football, their long-term affects on its players and whether they played any part in the Jovan Belcher tragedy, which I'm sure is all Roger Goodell really wanted to accomplish.

-In what was a largely dismal 2012 for the New York Mets, RA Dickey was the shining light. Previously a journeyman pitcher, the 38 year-old knuckleballer put together the season of his life and won the Cy Young with a 20-win season. Also he's media-friendly, appears to be a good teammate and has (by baseball standards) a pretty reasonable contract for next season. So, of course, since these are the Mets we're talking about, the team is actively looking to trade him. Reportedly there are a number of teams interested in him, including the Red Sox. Now, I know it seems crazy to get rid of him now but you have to remember that unless you are talking about a Hall of Famer, baseball is all about selling a player when he is at his highest value and there is a chance Dickey will never be at this level again. It took him from 2008-2011 to win as many games as he won this year, so you can understand why the Mets may think 2012 was simply lightning in a bottle. Still, I wouldn't trade him if I were New York. I'm not saying I expect RA Dickey to be able to repeat his performance next season, but if you are the Mets what else do you have to lose? They just gave a huge contract to a third baseman who can't stay healthy, so clearly money isn't an issue. They also don't appear to have a better replacement ready to go. Besides, the fact he throws a knuckleball means he shouldn't be looked at like any other 38 year-old pitcher. Remember, Tim Wakefield pitched until he was almost 50 and had to be forced out of baseball. The Mets need to be sure they know what they are giving up. Trust me, as a guy who watched Dan Duquette trade Jamie Moyer because he thought he was getting too old, only to have Moyer win another 203 games, you'd much rather hang onto a player for one season too many than let him go 15 seasons too soon.

-Of course, the Mets problems seem minor compared to what is happening just across town with the Yankees. Early in the week it was announced that Alex Rodriguez was going to need to have surgery on his left hip and won't be back until June or July. Now, there is good news if you are the Yankees because reports are that Rodriguez hurt his hip late in the season, which would explain his terrible performance in the playoffs. It's not much of a consolation for this year, but at least now they can try to convince themselves he will come back for next playoffs better than ever. (Of course, it doesn't change the facts that this is his second hip operation, he is 38 years old and is still owed $114 million over the next five years, but, you know... baby steps.) The latest reports have the Yankees targeting Kevin Youkilis as his replacement. Of course, some in the media are saying that this would be a huge betrayal by Youkilis because during his time in Boston he was seen as one of the biggest Yankee-haters of them all (and the feeling was mutual). As you know I always find it kind of funny when reporters try and tell you how upset a fan base would be, even if it isn't true. Sure, some of the pinkhats would be upset, but the realist among us already know that professional baseball is a business and these guys are only loyal for as long as you are paying them - everyone switches sides eventually. There are no hard feelings unless you sign with a rival and even then feelings are more bruised than hurt. Also, I have this very strange feeling the Sox fans will have no problem turning on Youkilis. He's the kind of player who is easy to root for when he is on your team, but easy to hate when playing for a rival. Heck, he was starting to wear out his welcome in some Boston circles even before he was traded. At this point he has a very simple choice: sign elsewhere and receive polite applause every trip back to Boston and some legend appearances after his playing days are over, or sign with New York and become a baseball nomad like Wade Boggs. I'm not telling him what to do, I'm just saying he shouldn't act surprised if the next time he comes to Fenway wearing pinstripes the reception is a lot chillier than when he came back with Chicago.

-Moving from one of my least-favorite athletes to another, this week Kobe Bryant became just the 5th player in NBA history to score 30,000 points, joining Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Karl Malone, Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain. Surprisingly this milestone was met with very little fanfare outside of Los Angeles, which leaves me in the uncomfortable position of having to defend something Kobe Bryant has done. I may not like Bryant, but at this point I have settled into a level of begrudging respect for the man and his accomplishments. Admittedly, points are not the most important historical stat in basketball - they are obviously vital to the game, but players are judged by Championships, not points (as evidence by the fact that all week you've been hearing how Malone's inclusion on this list proves that points are meaningless). Honestly, I'm as big of an NBA fan as you are going to find and while I knew Kareem had the most points, I couldn't even venture a guess as to what the number was. Still, the fact that Kobe is only the second guard to reach this total should speak volumes about his place in history (in fact, Oscar Robertson is the only other guard near the top, checking in at #10). His detractors will point out that Kobe has always been a selfish player. Well, he is hardly the first player to looking to shoot as soon as he gets the ball and he will not be the last, yet none of those players have sustained this level of success for this long. It's an amazing thing he has done here. I can only assume people are ignoring this story because Kobe is still active and people never seem to appreciate greatness until it has passed them by. Hopefully in the future as Bryant continues to climb the points ladder people in the media will take the time to acknowledge the history he is making in front of their eyes, because I certainly don't like being the one who has to do it.

-It's that time of year again - time for college football coaches to be fired for having the audacity to only win 7 games in a season. (Seriously, some of these programs need to remember where they were just a couple of seasons ago.) Of course, this also leads to a bunch of coaches getting new and better jobs. And while I think the current system (which essentially forces coaches to abandon the players they recruited and coached before finishing the season due to a long delay between when the season ends and bowls start, coupled with a short window before recruiting picks up again) is really flawed, I'm never going to fault a guy for taking a better job. The thing is that every year there is also one guy who takes a new job that I am not sure should actually be considered better. This year's questionable mover is Bret Bielema leaving Wisconsin to coach Arkansas. Now if you just want to look at conferences, sure, top-to-bottom the SEC is better than the Big 10. However, Wisconsin is the class of their conference whereas, in the hierarchy of the SEC, you have to figure Arkansas is great but definitely a step behind schools like Alabama and LSU. Also, that conference depth means the road to a major bowl or a National Championship is much easier through the Big Ten (I expect that Wisconsin job to be filled quickly). Now, for some reason I never got the sense Bielema was fully embraced by Badger fans and I'm sure he is going to make more money at Arkansas so I can understand why he would take the job, but I'm just not sure it is going to turn out to be the right move for both sides. Still, as long as he's not crashing a motorcycle with a state-funded mistress on the back, he can't do any worse than the last guy.

-Of course, college football's coaching carousel also means it is time for college football's end-of-the-year awards and the biggest prize of them all continues to be the Heisman Trophy, which will be given out later tonight. This year the finalists are quarterbacks Collin Klein from Kansas State, Johnny "Football" Manziel from Texas A&M and Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te'o. Obviously I'm biased toward Manti, but all the experts of saying it will come down to Manziel or Te'o, which is rather exciting because it means history will be made either way. Manziel is a red-shirt freshman and no freshman has ever won the Heisman, just like no defense-only player has taken home the trophy in its 77 years of being awarded. Both have compelling arguments: Manziel put up better stats than either Tim Tebow or Cam Newton in the years they won the Heisman and Te'o is captain of an undefeated team which was led to the National Championship game by its defense. No matter which player wins, at least I can be satisfied to know a stupid tradition which should never have been allowed to go on this long will end. Much like baseball writers carry on their idiotic "no baseball player should get unanimously elected to the Hall of Fame" rule for no good reason other than someone decreed it years ago, college football writers have blindly followed an unwritten rule that states "no freshman can win the Heisman." Also, I get annoyed when sportwriters decide things like, "it's hard to measure the impact a defensive player has on a game so they can't win it either" and then never get challenged on the fact that its not that hard, they are just lazy. Apparently they forget it's not automatically supposed to be given to the best upperclassman on offense. The award should be given to the best player, regardless of class or position. So, hopefully this year caused a few people to see just how foolish they were to let those two biases stand for as long as they did. Of course, this entire thing becomes a moot point if Klein pulls the upset. But at least if that happens we'll know just how deep at least one of those prejudices still runs.

-I'm largely against professional teams changing cities. I feel like fans are loyal the team and the team should be loyal to the city in return. But if any team feels they have to move the pain is at least lessened slightly if they leave the team name and mascot with the city. I hated the Sonics leaving Seattle, but it would be worse if the Oklahoma City Sonics were running around. That is why I am kind of happy to hear that the NBA's New Orleans Hornets are rumored to be about to change their name. Whenever I hear Hornets I still instinctively think Charlotte, so a name change may be the fresh start the team is looking for. Allegedly, the front runner for a new mascot is the Pelicans. Not what I would have picked, but it is the state bird of Louisiana and owner Tom Benson thinks the mascot should have more ties to the area. (The main problem I have with the proposed nickname is that people immediately started suggesting alternatives which were better. For example: the New Orleans Sinners. I think that is much more appropriate, especially when you remember Benson also owns the Saints. Owning the Sinners and the Saints? Very cool.) Anyway, there is talk that once the Hornets nickname is no longer in use the current Charlotte team may look to re-brand themselves as the Hornets, ditching the Bobcat moniker which never seemed to catch on. (I think it had more to do with the team being terrible versus a bad team name.) If the NBA is going to allow this kind of mascot swapping what they really need to do is force the Utah Jazz to change their name, allowing New Orleans to be re-born as the Jazz. Then Charlotte can be the Hornets again and the Utah can finally get a nickname that fits. I'm not sure what that nickname would be, but I feel pretty safe in assuming they won't want to use Sinners.