SportsLegends

Most world religions teach love for your God and your neighbor; put in this simple version, only good should come from the existence of religion. Of course, as we know, the Christians used religion as justification for the Crusades, and currently extremist Muslims are using Islam as justification for terrorism. But I don't think that religion was the only force behind these unfortunate occurences. Men fight wars not because of religion, but because our natural desire for power. Religion, in my opinion, is often merely a facade that covers up our real intentions.For those of you not familiar with the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, he wrote "The Leviathan", a book in which he describes human nature to be "selfish, nasty, brutish, and short." I tend to agree with this assessment of human nature. In the "state of nature", man is ruled by selfish desires. The institution of religion tries to teach men to give up these selfish desires and replace them with altruism and love. Saying that religion is bad (or that the world would be a better place without it) because of the few people who use religion as justification for war or terrorism is like saying that politics is bad because some people are tyrants, or language is bad because some people use foul language to offend people. Even though there are some terrible things that happen in the name of "religion", there are also a lot of tremendous things- from the big, Christian charitable organizations whose goal is to prevent children from starving, to the little old lady whose smile brightens every room she walks into.The removal of religion would not prevent wars- it would change the proclaimed reason for starting them. If not for religion, men would still divide along the lines of race, socioeconomic status, geographic location, or political beliefs.

I think the first thing that I would do is I would find the fine print of this hypothetical game. I would figure out what I have to do to ensure that I get 1 million pounds, and not dollars, because pounds are worth more. Then I would convert all the pounds into dollars, because I live in America. Then I would visit England, because that is something that I have always wanted to do. So I would have to convert some of my American dollars back into pounds for spending money.

Yes, Peyton Manning is Peyton Manning, of course, but does he leave a legacy of greatness or disappointment? Of course he is a very gifted quarterback- I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes the leagues all-time leading passer by the time he retires. But the reason why he is a disappointment isn't just because he has not won a Super Bowl ring, because that it a team-dependent reward. Barry Sanders, for example, is, in my mind, the greatest running back to ever play the game (along with Jim Brown), even though he never won a Super Bowl. Barry was on consistently average to below average teams. But Manning does not have that excuse; the reason why Manning is such a disappointment is that he himself plays worse in the postseason. He has 275 touchdowns versus just 139 interceptions. That's great, Hall of Fame stuff. However, in the postseason, Manning has thrown 16 touchdowns versus 13 interceptions. That's average quarterback, hope you don't lose your job kind of stuff. Champions are made in the postseason- Manning has more of a stat-sheet kind of greatness. Reggie Jackson is known as "Mr. October", because he had a remarkable ability to step his game up during the postseason. To me, Peyton Manning is football's Mr. October. Unfortunately for him, that means he plays his best football in the middle of the regular season, not the playoffs.

As the Indianapolis Colts get set to host the New England Patriots this weekend in the AFC Championship game, the focus inevitably becomes the two starting quarterbacks, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Peyton Manning will likely eclipse Dan Marino to become the NFL's all-time leading passer by the time he retires. Tom Brady will hold no such records, but he has three Super Bowl rings already, and is looking for #4. Both quarterbacks have almost certainly reserved themselves spots in the Hall of Fame after they retire. But as the Colts continue to fall short in the postseason year after year, critics continually point the blame at Manning.Peyton can erase his reputation as a regular-season-only kind of quarterback this weekend. If his defense decides to play like it did the past several weeks, and not how it played at the end of the regular season, the Colts should win this game. It is not too late for Manning to rid himself of the dubious distinction of being Mr. Un-clutch- he probably still has another six or seven years in the league, maybe more. But this is his best opportunity yet- he has the Patriots, his old nemesis, at home, his defense is playing well, his teammates are healthy. No excuses this time: he needs to get it done.How much will Manning's legacy be tarnished if he never wins a Super Bowl ring? One analyst on ESPN asked rhetorically if Dan Marino's legacy was hurt by not winning a Super Bowl. Actually, I think it was. If I wanted to start an NFL team in 1996, I would have picked John Elway as my QB, not Dan Marino- the difference is how they perform in the clutch. If I was to start an NFL team today, I would choose Tom Brady as my QB, not Peyton Manning. Brady, like other great champions such as Jordan and Tiger Woods, actually raises his game when the pressure gets the highest, whereas Manning, and to a lesser extent Marino, fail to do so. Champions are made during the last drive of the fourth quarter. Can 2007 be Peyton Manning's equivalent to John Elway's 1987? I doubt it.

Don't misunderstand me; I was in no way degrading soccer (as we in America call it) nor those who participate in this great sport. I am a huge fan of all sports, because I believe that they have an overwhelmingly positive influence on society. But I don't think that poor people necessarily "prefer" playing soccer than any other sport- I just think that they don't have a choice. Americans children, on the other hand, oftentimes have the economic support to play whatever sport they wish, so while soccer may be that sport, because it is not the only option, the best athletes in America tend to play different sports. But again, Americans only want to watch the most elite competition in the world. We call the champion of Major League Baseball the "World Series Champions", when, in reality, the league consists of 29 American teams and one Canadian team. Americans just don't care enough about soccer to watch a second-class league, whose greatest superstar is now a has-been.

David Beckham, the soccer superstar who used to play for perennial Champions League contenders Manchester United and Real Madrid, as well as the English national team, signed a five-year-contract with the Los Angeles Galaxy, a (United States) Major League Soccer franchise. Reports are saying that, including guarateed sponsorship money, Beckham will make around $250 million during his tenure in the states. What?????While soccer is a religion in most of the world, soccer is an AFTERTHOUGHT in America. Soccer doesn't just take a backseat to football, baseball, and basketball, it isn't even in the rear-view mirror. Can anyone explain the economics behind this decision? I understand that Galaxy merchandise will be able to sell worldwide, but Beckham is past his prime, and America doesn't care about current superstars like Ronaldhino, let alone fading superstars like David Beckham. I seem to recall the greatest soccer player of all-time coming to play for a brief time in the States, Pele, and he may have sparked some interest, he did not spark $250 worth (even when you count inflation). There are two very simple reasons why America will never embrace soccer the way that the world does. First, we like dominating sports. We get all of the best athletes to come to America to play baseball and basketball, and most of the best football players grow up in America. Americans will not watch second-class professional sports, so they will not want to watch an American league that is far inferior to European counterparts. Second, the reason why soccer is so popular in many countries is because any can play. All it really takes is a ball and some trees to hit the ball between. Hence, many countries end up playing soccer by default, due to poor socioeconomic conditions. American children, on the other hand, have easy access to the best football shoulder pads and helmets, baseball glove and cleats, basketballs and hoops, and golf clubs and shoes. We have a myriad of sports to choose from, and soccer is not at the top of the list.I will tell you who this deal does make sense for: David Beckham! Europe would never pay that much for an over-the-hill superstar; America, however, doesn't know any better.

If you look over the course of human history, I can't think of a single nation that was a world superpower but only "minded its own business." The Roman Empire was constantly trying to expand through miliary conquest, and the British Empire expanded to the point where "the Sun never set on the British Empire". Now that the United States is the undisputed superpower, its leaders will also try and promote the American way of life to the rest of the world- that means Democracy, freedom, and Walmart.So if you think that the answer is to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, that simply will not happen. Not under this administration, not under the next one, or ever during my lifetime. Now, given the fact that America is going to remain as the most influential country both economically and militarily, we need to figure out how we can best use our influence.I can't really disagree with the reasons why we have gone to war over the past sixty years- the prevention of communism, at first, at the removal of dictators/ terrorists, second. It's not like we are invading with the intention of removing good, moral, stabile regimes.I think that the answer to the original question is that, to regain our integrity, we should use our economic power to do some universal good, like alleviating world hunger, for example. If we can make positive social changes, perhaps our pre-emptive military strikes will not be the only focus when foreigners are discussing the policies of America.

When the Arab world hated George W. Bush, I didn't mind. I know that our cultures have completely different values, and my values happen to coincide more closely with Bush's.When the Democratic Party started to hate Bush, I wasn't concerned. Of course members of the opposing political party are going to have contrasting views with the President. But now that even the Republican Party is turning against him, I am concerned. Very. Going against the advice of the most prominent military generals, his cabinet, and just about every human being who is interested in the Iraq war, Bush decided to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. I STILL believe that George Bush is doing what he truly believes to be the right thing. But at what point do you stop and think to yourself, am I wrong, or is the entire world wrong? If Bush ever asked himself this question, apparently he decided that the latter was at fault.I am a Republican, and I will probably always vote Republican, simply because my beliefs coincide with the party platform (gay marriage, abortion, tax cuts, etc.) But Bush has single-handedly given the Democrats an enormous advantage in the next few elections. Congress already is now Democratic, and only a catastrophic failure would keep the Democrats from taking the White House, too. The only way that the Democrats might fail to win the presidency is if they make Hillary Clinton their candidate. Even though America is moving gradually further left, Clinton is not the type of person that mainstream Americans can identify with and vote for. I think that John Edwards would be a good candidate for the Democratic Party, and John McCain would be the best candidate from the Republicans. It should be an interested next couple of years, watching the last few years of Bush's remarkable presidency, and seeing who takes his place.

As I was watching the BCS Title game, I couldn't figure out if a high school team had taken the place of the Ohio State Buckeyes, or if an NFL team had taken the place of the Florida Gators. One thing that I know for certain is that these were not the same two teams that I watched play throughout the course of the year. Not only did Ohio State have a 12-0 regular season, but they won with ease up until the Michigan game. Florida, on the other hand, could have had three losses this year had they been bit unlucky. Even though Florida does have a lot of tremendous athletes on their roster, I still didn't think that they had a legitimate chance of beating the Buckeyes. What happened??Without a doubt, the loss of Ted Ginn, Jr. on Ohio State's first offensive possession was an enormous loss, both emotionally and talent-wise. But Ginn could not have prevented the Florida defensive linemen from manhandling the Ohio State offensive line, or Chris Leak, who faced heavy criticism all four years at Florida, had the best game of his career. I can't imagine that Ohio State was unprepared or underestimated the Gators, since they have what Lee Corse calls "the best big-game coach in Ohio State history", Jim Tressel, on the sidelines.The only thing that I can come up with is that this game was a fluke; an abberration. Of course Florida had a chance to win the game, but there is no way that they are this good. I mean, they barely beat South Carolina!

Bill Cowher made it official today: the longest-tenured coach in the NFL is stepping down after coaching 15 years for the Pittsburgh Steelers. He leaves a legacy of both great accomplishment and a strong feeling of "oh-what-could-have-been." Cowher led the Black and Gold to 8 division titles. However, Cowher went just 1-4 in AFC Championship games at home. No coach has ever lost two AFC championship games at home before Cowher lost his four.Speaking as a Steelers fan who has watched the Steelers ever since Cowher became their coach, I think that Cowher gets blamed unfairly for these losses. Sure, the 15-1 team should have beaten the Patriots a few years back. But Cowher did take slightly-above average teams and molded them into Super Bowl contenders year after year in the mid 90s, and again in the 2000s.If I was an owner, the only coach that I would pick to head my team over Bill Cowher is Bill Bellicheck. Cowher is not nearly the strategist that Bellicheck is (but then again, who is?), but Cowher had an incredible ability to discipline his players without losing their respect. During Cowher's 15 years in Pittsburgh, there were virtually no major problems in the Pittsburgh locker room (at least that were made aware to the public). Dan Rooney I think deserves some credit for this environment of winning and professionalism, but Cowher was the other constant since 1992.I am expecting Bill to take one, maybe two years off, and then return to coaching. There are two reasons that make his return seem inevitable: first, Cowher will be the most coveted NFL coach whenever he decides to coach again, and the money will probably be hard to turn down (not that he is overly materialistic, but when someone throws a guaranteed $25 million at you, it is hard to turn down.) The second reason why Cowher is going to come back is that he is too much of a competitor to not be involved with the game of football. I expect him to be back in the NFL soon, but, unfortunately, in colors other than black and gold.Oh, by the way, his Super Bowl victory last year reserved him a spot in Canton. I hope he enjoys the next few years with his family.

The vast majority of college football fans seem to agree that the BCS system has got to go. College football has the most exciting regular season, in which every game is critical, and the worst playoff system, in which an undefeated team might not even get a chance to play for the national title. College basketball, on the other hand, is the exact opposite; regular season games have virtually not important at all, except for the bubble teams- and those teams are not likely to win the national championship, anyway. The postseason in college basketball, however, is the most exciting tournament in American sports.The reason why the NCAA has not implemented a college football playoff system, from what I have heard, is that there is too much money that would be given up because of the huge sponsorship money that is poured into each of the bowl games. But the solution, to me, seems simple: keep the four big BCS bowl games: the Orange, Fiesta, Rose, and Sugar- and have the winners of these four bowls play a four-team tournament for the national championship. That way, you keep the sponsorship money and the tradition that is derived from the bowl games, but then you just add a few extra games at the end of the season in order to find the undisputed national champion. Adding three extra games at the end of the season can't possible be a bad financial move for the NCAA, can it? And if it is not, what other reason is there to prevent the implementation of this new system?

I am home from college and trying to log onto my CPanel on a different computer. However, I seem to have forgotten my username and password (it is saved on my other computer). How can I find out my user/pass?I seem to recall there being a low character-maximum for the username and/or the password. If someone can let me know what the character maximum is, it may help me remember what my user information is.Thanks!

It will be interesting to see, when Carmelo Anthony gets back, if the two top scorers in the NBA can co-exist. I have always been a huge Allen Iverson fan, because I love a guy who is under 6'0" taking it to the basket against defenders who are up to a foot taller than he is. Allen is probably the best player to ever play the game who was under 6'0" tall. He is also a pretty good passer.I don't think that AI could have played with a superstar like Carmelo five years ago, but I think that Iverson has matured to the point where he is willing to do whatever it takes to win an NBA championship. Carmelo is the best player that AI has ever played with in his career- especially considering how disappointing and underachieving Chris Webber has been in Philadelphia.Although this team will be very fun to watch once Anthony gets back on the court after his suspension is done, I still am not convinced that they can beat the likes of the Suns, Mavericks, and Spurs in a seven-game series. The Nuggets have two tremendous scorers, but no big threat from the low post, like an Amare Stoudemire/ Shawn Marion, Dirk Nowitski (sp?), or Tim Duncan. So even if the Nuggets can score lots of points, they have no answer for the big men that are on the rosters of the real Western Conference contenders.This was probably a better deal for the Sixers. The Nuggers were the only team who had the desire and the ability to give up TWO first round draft picks for AI. Add that to freeing up some cap room after the removal of Iverson's bulky contract, and the Sixers have a better chance of being competitive a few years from now.Nevertheless, I am cheering for you, Allen!

Yes, we (speaking on behalf of the Americans) should be afraid of Muslims- at least the extremists. I will not claim to be any sort of expert on the sacred teachings of Islam. I do know that a lot of Muslim terrorists use the Quran to justify their acts of terrorism, and I know that a lot of Muslims will condemn their actions as going against the spirit of Islam.But I don't see enough condemnation for these terrible acts coming from the mouths of government officials in the Middle East. Oftentimes it seems as if they will say just enough to please the Bush administration so that we will not declare war on them like we did Afghanistan and Iraq. But I think that a lot of terrorism is still being allowed by Muslim regimes. The Pakistani leader has done a decent job of refuting Islamic terroists. However, if these people are really that much of an afront to Islam, then I would think that the "good" Muslims should be more adamant about stopping the terrorists than we are. It seems to me that if an extreme group of American Christians started committing acts of terrorism in the name of Jesus Christ, there would be an enormous backlash against them. I am just not seeing this sort of outrage from the Muslim community.

As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms."Communism only works if you have a very positive view of the nature of man. If left without financial incentives, would a person really work just as hard as he would in a Capitalist system where he would reap precisely what he sowed (after taxes)? As was shown in the Soviet Union, the answer is "no". And because people do not have motivation to work when they are not being adequately compensated, it forces the government of Communist countries into one of three options: abort Communism, live in poverty, or scare the workers into working.That, in my opinion, is the major difference between capitalism and communism- in capitalism, the hard-worker is rewarded by financial gain- in communism, the slacker is oftentimes severely punished. I would prefer to live under the capitalist system- I prefer the carrot to the stick.