The Million Dollar Alabama Marching Band. Kelly Lambert-US PRESSWIRE

One of the biggest debates that is will forever surround collegiate athletics is the compensation of the student-athletes who put all the hard work and dedication into making an athletics program successful.

Such a debate is centrally focused on college football, the cash cow for damn near every revenue-earning athletics program in the nation.

As you know, no college athlete — let alone college football player — is to earn a dime, save for scholarships meant to pay for college tuition.

But if players were to get paid? If we were to compensate the athletes that bust their asses to entertain us and provide us with something outside of academics to hang our hats on, as alums of colleges with athletics programs?

Then the system would have to take into account all affected parties. Let’s go through this system for college football, step by step.

The Schools: Avoid Letting The Rich Get Richer

The problem with just letting schools pay whatever the hell they want to whomever the hell they want would certainly allow prominent college football programs that receive massive revenue — such as Division I-leading Texas, which received a massive $150 million in revenue in 2011 — to totally impose their will by throwing around money as if it were water.

To avoid this, each school would be allowed to spend a maximum of $40,000 per regular season game, distributed to as many players as the athletics program chooses (with limits, to be discussed later).

That number didn’t come out of nowhere. It seems fair to only pay starters on a college football team. As a result, I factored in 24 starters per team (11 on offense, 11 on defense and two on special teams, presumably the kicker and punter). Given that tuition, room and board, and text fees are included, a $20,000 stipend per year per player seems incredibly fair, covering the cost of transportation, clothing, entertainment and other luxuries that an athletic scholarship can’t offer. If 24 players receive $20,000 per year, then that would amount to $480,000 in stipends given to college football players per year, a number that many — if not most — programs wouldn’t mind swallowing (no school according to this list suffers a deficit of more than $2 million a year), especially if providing such stipends could give them an edge in recruiting (since schools with less starters established could offer the possibility of immediate competition to incumbent players at that position and, thus, an immediate payday). These funds would be paid from the pool of money the athletics department uses for expenses.

But why are universities required to allocate this money on a maximum amount of $40,000 per week?

To avoid complacency and poor work ethic that could result, of course. If a starter is given a yearly salary, what’s to say that the spirit of college football won’t die as a result of paid players letting off the gas pedal, knowing they’ve already been paid?

Meaning each player will have to fight for a “paid position” as a starter, week in and week out. Paid players for the week would have to be reported to the NCAA to make sure nothing shady is going on (although we’re sure schools will try).

The Players: All for one and one for all

So what if a school decided to pay one player $40,000 a game, or all $480,000 per year to a stud quarterback with Heisman aspirations?

That shouldn’t happen. And by it “shouldn’t happen” I mean it most definitely will not.

Because there should be a restriction: No player would be allowed to make more than ten percent of the $40,000 a game, or $4,000. $48,000 is still a good chunk of change, but it also allows at least ten players the opportunity to get paid as opposed to a large sum of money being paid to each player.

This provides for further competition, since players won’t just resign to the fact that they’ll never get paid.

The Coaches: Even more leverage

Pulling stipends, but not benching the paid player, could also be another way for a coach to instill discipline in a player with a problem attitude. While such a talented but problematic personality might still contribute to the team, knowing that they had a stipend but lost it with their attitude provides a sticks-and-carrots approach and a compromise for coaches struggling with the idea of benching a player.

It also gives them the ability to retain players better. Because a player cannot step foot on the field for a year after transferring, then they are guaranteed to not earn money from stipends as a result since the stipend would only be available to starters.

The NCAA: More tools to punish

The NCAA has a hard time sanctioning colleges as it is — they seem to go all out or not out at all — and having the ability to take away a school’s ability to offer stipends, while the NCAA imposes no other sanctions, would greatly harm their ability to recruit talent, since every other school would be able to offer players money in the future. This would also make the decision for players to transfer much easier, a goal that is meant to be accomplished with NCAA sanctions at most times.

What policies need to accompany this system, or any system of paying players?

For any university wishing to disperse stipends to its college football players, they must require that their athletes attend, and pass, a financial planning course specifically tailored to athletes that could receive $4,000 a week.

Additionally, schools need to immediately strip stipends from players found to be using illegal substances for the remainder of their career at the university, as well as allowing previous substance abuse restrictions to take precedence.

***

Overall, such a system allows players to receive just compensation for their performance, as determined by their coaches, while giving coaches more leverage over problem players, all while the NCAA has more firepower to deter dirty recruiting or conduct.

And all for $480,000, a number that may seem like a good chunk of change for Mississippi Valley State, but not one that is entirely impossible for such a school with little athletics revenue. (And, mind you, no Division I school is required to use all $480,000 or, hell, any of it.)

It’s just enough to keep everyone happy.

Mark L. Baer-US PRESSWIRE

The NBA season is still quite a bit away (in late October) as is the college hoops season (in mid-November), but because we’re assuming you’re addicted to basketball and refuse to get help, we figure it’s never too early to look at the “upcoming” NBA draft.

For some reason, a large chunk of NBA fans seem to think that the 2013 NBA draft is “weak.” Although I can’t guarantee the 2013 draft will be anything special, the talent seems to be there for a nice — not 2003 or 1996 “nice,” mind you — list of players.

And it’s top-heavy, too, meaning the lottery picks might be worth holding onto for rebuilding teams.

This assessment could be wrong, though. Each and every one of these possible lottery picks could flame out, and 2013 would’ve been serious bad luck.

Because there’s two tales to every draft pick, I present to you a lottery mock draft, a short assessment of each player, and their best- and worst-case scenarios, exaggerated to the 14th power.

(Trust me, I almost majored in math.)

1. Shabazz Muhammad, UCLA

Shabazz is filled with potential. The dude is a versatile, solid 2-guard. At 6’6” and 220 pounds, Shabazz has the perfect frame to compete at any level, while also being pretty damn athletic. He’s a solid perimeter scorer and he’s got some serious ability to attack the basket. His defense is a bit shoddy though, and his three-point shot could use some work.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Kobe Bryant

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Jamal Crawford

At the very least, ‘Bazz will be serviceable, and this is if he’s lazy as hell. People seem to think that the Kobe comparison is lofty and they’d rather compare him to James Harden. I’ll stick that in my “pretty dumb idea” box because James Harden is James Harden because he lacks athleticism but is super crafty.

2. Nerlens Noel, Kentucky

Noel is supposed to be a defensive monster in the paint. He’s a center (rightfully so, at 6’10”), but he’s a tad wiry right now. The dude is also a little raw on offense but he’s shown he has the basic framework down to absorb new post moves. Basically, he’s Anthony Davis filling in for Anthony Davis at Kentucky.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Kevin Garnett

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: 1992 Will Smith

Why 1992 Will Smith? Because flat-top.

3. Cody Zeller, Indiana

Cody is the opposite kind of center that Nerlens Noel is. He’s gorgeous to watch offensively, moves well in the paint, is crafty down low, and has a nice touch from the outside. He’s got a wide range of skills that allows him to be effective anywhere from the floor. He’s also a true 7-footer, although you’re coupling this with the fact that he’s more fit to play the four than he is the pivot.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Pau Gasol

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Mark Madsen

Fun Fact: Did you know that Mark Madsen can’t dance?

4. Steven Adams, Pitt

“Another big man?” you ask. “That’s three out of four. Mark Madsen can’t dance but I do know my math.”

We know, big men dominating the top-four selections in the 2013 NBA draft seems odd, but it’s fair to note that big men are at a major premium right now. Especially one like Adams.

Because Adams has incredible amounts of potential, much of it unproved. The dude is from New Zealand, so he’s not out there playing with centers like Noel in prep games. That said, he’s still incredibly athletic and really high-energy. He’s another defensive big, but he’s still got quite a few offensive skills to hold his own, and his work ethic and personality is something scouts rave about.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Tim Duncan

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Andrew Bogut

(Okay, so maybe we only said “Andrew Bogut” since New Zealanders hate Aussies.)

 5. James Michael McAdoo, UNC

McAdoo’s an tweener. He’s 6’8” but plays closer to a power forward than he does to a small forward, meaning he’s more likely to bang inside and use sweet post moves rather than play out on the wing and slash to the basket if given the opportunity. He’s solid from the outside, mind you, but he’s not a true three the way you’d like him to be at his size in the NBA. He’s solid defensively, too, and he can handle the ball, but he’s not exactly a point forward.

Best-Case Scenario: James Worthy

Worst-Case Scenario: Joel Anthony

The James Worthy comparison is a tiring one, because it’s the first thing people think of when they see McAdoo. Of course, his demeanor and his work ethic are things that scouts love, even if it means he’s not seen as aggressive, so you’d have to figure he’s at least serviceable the way Joel Anthony is “serviceable.”

6. Rudy Gobert, France

Gobert is an international dude, so we won’t get to see him at the collegiate level in 2012-13. That said, scouting reports love the center’s length — he has a 7’9” wingspan! — and knock him for his scrawny feel, while calling him raw on offense. Additionally, his athleticism is a total plus, especially for a big guy.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Pau Gasol (Again?)

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Darko Milicic

Ew. Darko? Milicic? Darko Milicic?

7. Kyle Anderson, UCLA

Kyle Anderson is easily one of the most under-the-radar draft prospects that was a top-five recruit out of high school in recent memory. There’s a reason: He’s an odd-ball, basketball-wise. He’s a 6’9” small forward that excels when he’s running the court and playing the point. His court-vision is ridiculous and although he’s slow and lacking in athleticism, he has a knack to get buckets and, more importantly, set up other players for open shots.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Magic Johnson

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: 2010-11 Hedo Turkoglu

No one wants to say that this kid could be the next Magic Johnson, but this kid could be the next Magic Johnson …

8. Ryan Harrow, Kentucky

Harrow is a quick-as-hell point guard that has the ability to find his teammates while also having a knack for putting up points, potentially in bunches. The kid has a high basketball IQ and has some really sick handles. Of course, his perimeter scoring needs work and he forces shots more often than you’d like.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Allen Iverson

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Stephon Marbury, after he was Stephon Marbury

The Allen Iverson comparison is cheap, but when you think “sexy handles” don’t you think of Allen Iverson immediately?

9. Tony Mitchell, North Texas

Mitchell is another forward tweener that can either player small forward or power forward, but can’t seem to fit either. He’s got a nice frame to him, and has a nose for blocking shots. At the same time, though, he has the ability to score from the perimeter and play some solid perimeter defense. He can be pretty clumsy with his ball-handling, though.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Lamar Odom

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Drew Gooden

10. Otto Porter, Georgetown

Porter is an incredibly raw player that plays within himself. He’s got all the tangibles — he’s a 6’8” small forward with a 7’1” wingspan and has the frame to support more than his billed weight of 205 pounds — and all the intangibles. He is a hustler and is solid defensively. What he lacks, though, are skills that are remedied by extreme amounts of sweat. He’s an awful shooter from anything further than 10 feet.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Rudy Gay

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Trevor Ariza, without a shot

For the Rudy Gay comparison to come to fruition, Porter needs to work on a lot.

11. Adonis Thomas, Memphis

Thomas is a 6’6” small forward whose primary strength is, well, strength. He plays a tad bigger than he is — scouts tend to think he plays more like a power forward, and at 240 pounds, it’d be tough to disagree. He’s erally damn athletic, though, and though his outside shot is lacking, he can score around the basket.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Charles Barkley

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Chuck Hayes

Barkley was very athletic but really tough and inside-oriented his entire career.

12. Rakeem Christmas, Syracuse

Christmas is a 6’9” power forward that has very solid athleticism but is incredibly raw on offense. He can’t score all that well, and he tends to check out of games. He can dunk, though, and explosively, and scouts love his quickness.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Serge Ibaka

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Kwame Brown

He’s very Ibaka-like in that he doesn’t defend amazingly great 1-on-1 but likes to roam and block shots.

13. Alex Len, Maryland

Len is a very skilled offensive player with decent — not great — athleticism for a guy who measures in at 7’1”. He moves fluidly, can shoot from the perimeter, and can finish around the basket, while also having soft enough hands and solid enough court-vision to pass out of the post. He’s scrawny, though, and the kid needs to bulk up.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Vlade Divac

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Michael Olowokandi

We were about to say Pau Gasol, but we used that one too many times already.

14. Josh Smith, UCLA

Smith is an extremely skilled player in the paint and is as true of an offensive center you can get. He has some sweet post moves and can finish well around the basket, especially since he’s 6’11”. He’s also strong as hell and can bully his way for position down low and can use that strength to finish around the basket. His weight has been his primary concern at UCLA and he may not be an NBA draftee unless he gets that together.

Exaggerated Best-Case Scenario: Shaquille O’Neal

Exaggerated Worst-Case Scenario: Eddy Curry

Smith is very close to Eddy Curry territory at this point.

Kirby Lee/Image of Sport-US PRESSWIRE

It’s a foregone conclusion that the second-largest city in the United States will receive an NFL team. The city of Los Angeles has just about everything you need for a professional football team to succeed. A rabid sports culture, diverse subcultures, money and, to a degree, a lot of space.

Of course, you could point to the current support for the UCLA and USC football teams to make a stronger case that football is as popular of a sport in LA as it is anywhere else in the country.

But that’s where things get sticky.

Because that’s an area that could screw an NFL team before it gets here; college football is well-established in Los Angeles and the UCLA-USC rivalry goes beyond tradition. It’s damn near religious in nature.

And, to a degree, the UCLA-USC rivalry has ruined the NFL’s tenure in Los Angeles before. Consistent out-performance in attendance and waning attendance compared to other NFL teams overall doomed the L.A. Rams’ and Raiders’ stay in the City of Angels.

Let’s take a look at the average attendance, in 1980 (two years prior to the Oakland Raiders moving to LA), for the UCLA and USC football programs while looking at the Los Angeles Rams’ attendance that same year.

• UCLA Average Attendance: 53,170
• USC Average Attendance: 64,255
• L.A. Rams Average Attendance: 62,550

At that time, UCLA finished ranked 13th in national polls, USC wound up ranked 12th in national polls (and it’s fair to note that they were not eligible for a bowl bid due to Pac-10 sanctions) and the L.A. Rams went 11-5. Basically, there’s quite a bit of parity between the three football teams in terms of attendance, but USC still managed to garner significantly more attendance than the L.A. Rams did that year.

How about the Raiders’ first year in Los Angeles in 1982? Was the transition smooth and attendance high compared to their L.A. counterparts?

• UCLA Average Attendance: 58,710
• USC Average Attendance: 55,814
• L.A. Rams Average Attendance: 49,690
• L.A. Raiders Average Attendance: 46,285

The Raiders’ first season in L.A. was disappointing, to say the least. Although they finished 8-1 that season, they still garnered the lowest attendance of any of the four LA football teams, while both NFL L.A. teams finished well below the average attendance of the two storied college programs.

It must be noted, though, that this was a lockout-shortened season, so perhaps interest in the NFL waned while college football became the focus.

So let’s fast forward to 1989, enough time for the L.A. teams to recover and enough time for the Raiders to build a fan-base that still is dominant in L.A. today.

• UCLA Average Attendance: 54,120
• USC Average Attendance: 64,667
• L.A. Rams Average Attendance: 58,846
• L.A. Raiders Average Attendance: 49,620

Once again, the NFL teams in Los Angeles were vastly out-performed by USC, although they were more competitive with UCLA in terms of attendance. It’s fair to note that the Raiders had a particularly mediocre year (at 8-8) while the Rams went 11-5 that season.

And the Rams’ and Raiders’ last season (in 1994) in L.A. probably defined the NFL’s tumultuous tenure in L.A. Here are the numbers.

• UCLA Average Attendance: 51,396
• USC Average Attendance: 58,538
• L.A. Rams Average Attendance: 42,312
• L.A. Raiders Average Attendance: 51,196

In essence, the NFL teams in Los Angeles never eclipsed UCLA and USC consistently during their tenures. College football was king in L.A. for that time, and is unrivaled today.

Of course, things are different these days. This time around, UCLA’s football program has been lackluster at best for the past decade, and while USC has all the hype it has ever received, the rivalry itself has been watered down. UCLA has become irrelevant nationally and that could factor into the success of an NFL team in L.A.

Even then, though, UCLA’s attendance hasn’t done terribly during this era of mediocrity and averaged nearly 57,000 in attendance in a laughable 2011 campaign. Meanwhile, USC averaged 74,800 in 2011, a season in which the program was not eligible for a bowl game. For comparison’s sake, the median attendance for an NFL team in 2011 is 68,986.

But what will happen if an NFL team winds up succeeding in Los Angeles after all? What if an NFL team hits, consistently, 70,000 in attendance?

Then the college programs suffer, because then those programs will have taken a backseat to the most profitable, most popular sports league in America. Even when USC is nationally relevant as it is now, or when UCLA awakens from its dormancy, an NFL team will cast a shadow that neither of these programs can move out of, because this is the NFL after all.

It won’t destroy UCLA or USC football, mind you. Attendance could suffer, but not drastically. Instead, merchandise sales — USC and UCLA gear are still highly sought after items — and branding may become more difficult in a city where the biggest sport in the nation becomes dominant.

An NFL team in L.A. won’t increase attendance at USC or UCLA games, nor will it empower college football fans to become bigger college football fans. If anything, some may sacrifice a Saturday night game at the Rose Bowl or Coliseum for a Sunday afternoon game in a stadium that’s going to blow the current stadiums out of the water, historical significance be damned.

Either way, an NFL team is landing in Los Angeles. It’s not a matter of if  but how soon and who. Don’t be fooled into thinking that an NFL team is good for everyone, that everyone in Los Angeles will be winners. An NFL team in L.A. won’t aid college football, nor will college football in L.A. aid the NFL.

No, as soon as an NFL team is established in Los Angeles, cutthroat competition begins. A fight for a bigger share of the market between the three teams will occur, and keeping the games on separate days won’t do anything to hinder that.

In other words, someone will win and someone will lose.

Your move, NFL.

Kirby Lee/Image of Sport-US PRESSWIRE

This is a continuation of a 25-part series previewing all 25 teams in the FanSided Top 25, in a countdown to opening Saturday. So with 24 days until September 1st, we continue with the 24th-ranked Boise State Broncos.

The Boise State Broncos won’t die.

MAACO Bowl after MAACO Bowl after Hawaii Bowl, the underdog-turned-football-powerhouse Broncos continue to stay in the hunt for college football immortality despite three losses in the past four years earning them just one trip to a BCS bowl (the 2009 Fiesta Bowl). Kellen Moore, the winningest QB in NCAA football history, went undrafted, despite 142 touchdowns (and just 28 picks) in his four-year career as a Bronco.

This team, despite being ranked in preseason polls consistently, and in the AP preseason poll every year for the past three years, is still the unheralded squad that just can’t catch a break, except for being ranked somewhere.

And now they really cannot catch a freaking break, because, legitimately, Boise State is not worthy of these preseason top-10 rankings they’ve enjoyed. For the first time since 2008, Boise State isn’t projected to be a top-15. Not with all the turnover in Idaho.

Kellen Moore, as we said, is gone. Top running back Doug Martin, who ran for over 1200 yards last season? Gone. Their top pass-catcher in Tyler Shoemaker? Gone.  All-MWC first-team offensive tackle Nate Potter? Gone. All-MWC defensive linemen Shea McClellin and Tyrone Crawford? Gone. Leading tackler Bryan Hout? Nope, gone. How about all-MWC first-team safety George Iloka? He’s gone, too.

Boise State bled a lot of talent between January and now. So can you blame them for putting together one of the greatest, least-compensated runs in college football history and then “flaming out” into the bottom of a top-25 poll?

You can’t. But you can look forward to Boise State bouncing back. This team still plays in the Mountain Western Conference, and the Big East can wait until 2013 when BSU makes the switch. This squad — forced into a form of rebuilding and retooling because of all the departures — is still a top-25 team and still a regional hegemon, so to speak.

Boise State is still Boise State.

Key Returns: RB D.J. Harper, QB Joe Southwick, WR Matt Miller, DT Mike Atkinson

Key Losses: Everyone. (Kellen Moore, Tyler Shoemaker, Nate Potter, Tyrone Crawford, Bryan Hout, George Iloka, et al.)

Make Or Break Game: at Southern Miss, October 6

Boise State will have to learn to deal with “road bumps” and will have to swallow early-season losses that are actually expected. Right off the bat, the team will play Michigan State and a couple of weeks later, they play the BYU Cougars (OK, they aren’t that great, but they’re worth a worry). You’d expect that this team should beat BYU and will likely lose to Michigan State while plowing through the likes of New Mexico and Miami (OH).

In comes Southern Mississippi, a team that does well in the weak Conference USA. They shouldn’t pose all that much of a challenge, but it’s the first game of the new month of October, and by this time, you’d expect Boise State to have its stuff together and beat Southern Miss somewhat handily and make a run for yet another one-win season that will see them go to the MAACO Bowl.

This is about as make-or-break as you can get, because Boise State will have little to no trouble against the rest of the MWC.

Full Schedule:

8/31 at Michigan State

BYE

9/15 vs. Miami (Ohio)

9/20 vs. BYU

9/29 at New Mexico

10/06 at Southern Miss

10/13 vs. Fresno State

10/20 vs. UNLV

10/27 at Wyoming

11/03 vs. SDSU

11/10 at Hawai’i

11/17 vs. Colorado State

12/01 at Nevada

Season Outlook

Boise is losing a ton of talent, the same talent that lost only three times in the past four years. But the recruiting classes that BSU has brought in have been solid and so the talent disparity in the weak MWC should continue. Boise State might have a losing season for about a week when it opens against Michigan State — and even then, Michigan State has to re-tool too, so they could win that game, remarkably — but after that, it should be absolutely smooth sailing, even with a defense that’s losing half of its starters and without an offense that was manned by a Heisman contender. The defense will struggle and the offense may stall, but they’ll walk away winning damn near every game on their slate.

So much for rebuilding.

Kirby Lee/Image of Sport-US PRESSWIRE

Recently, the fine folks at Saturday Blitz conducted a poll among a variety of FanSided’s college football blogs. The results of that poll have USC on top — thanks to eight first-place votes — with Alabama and LSU also getting first-place votes.

Other things of note? Utah narrowly missed the top-25 with 20 votes for inclusion, while, somehow, the Illinois Fighting Illini got a vote (the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl can do wonders for you, I’m telling ya).

Here’s the FanSided preseason top-25 poll:

Others Receiving Votes: Utah 20, Auburn 12, Washington 10, Georgia Tech 7, Iowa State 6, Louisville 6, NC State 5, USF 4, Washington State 4, Illinois 1, Louisiana Tech 1

Of course, no poll is perfect and, to these eyes, neither is this one (though it’s pretty damn close).

My first issue with it? USC is on top, and although some would say I have some sort of bias, it’s a pretty fair ranking to question. Despite the fact that Matt Barkley is the early favorite to win the Heisman Trophy this season, and despite the recent arrival of former Penn State running back Silas Redd, these Trojans are being given quite a bunch of hype for what was essentially just a very solid late-season run in 2011 defined by a win over Oregon and a 50-0 shellacking of crosstown rival — but incredibly embattled — UCLA.

But obviously, college football is being dominated by the SEC for a reason — supposed biases be damned — and that reason just so happens to be defense. While USC certainly has the best offense in the nation with Robert Woods, Marqise Lee, Curtis McNeal, Redd and Barkley leading the way, the defense is just alright, and “pretty good” for a Pac-12 school. In case you didn’t notice, the 2012 national champions held an LSU team that averaged damn near 36 points a game to absolutely nothing, and never let them cross the 50 yard line.

USC’s offense is explosive, but the way that SEC defenses can negate the most prominent offensive options is pretty ridiculous. Personnel turnover be damned, either one of LSU or Alabama should have ranked ahead of USC and the case for both of them being ranked higher is fair. A pair of wins via shoot-outs and a great recruiting class is pretty much all the claim that USC can claim to the top spot, and all this hype is predicated on the fact that Lane Kiffin is a great coach, despite the fact that his up-and-down 10-2 season with USC last season was probably the greatest football season he’s ever been associated with.

And the schedule doesn’t seem to cake-y either. They’ll have to stay undefeated in a schedule that involves Stanford in Palo Alto and Oregon (twice, when they play in the Pac-12 title game). They’ll also have to beat Notre Dame at home, while also having to travel to Rice-Eccles Stadium to take on the Utah Utes. Speak of the devil …

Another glaring issue? Utah’s exclusion, yet again, from the top 25. Somehow, Utah fans have sky-high expectations — national championship aspirations, even — and have a pretty nice schedule to go along with their hopes. Utah’s most important game — and, quite honestly, the most important game in recent memory for these Utes — is against USC at home. Aside from that, though, Utah doesn’t have to go through Oregon or Stanford in the regular season and their second-toughest match-up might be the Washington Huskies or their in-state rivals, the BYU Cougars.

They also have arguably the best defense in the Pac-12 and could very well boast a top-tier defense nationally with their level of talent at the front-line and the return of much of their solid secondary. What Utah struggled with last year was offense — is this seriously a Pac-12 team? — and that was due to serious injury. Now, though, Jordan Wynn is coming back and he should be provide the team a much-needed boost at the most important position in football. Meanwhile, John White IV will probably be the top rusher in the Pac-12 considering how much he delivered after Utah leaned on him an incredible amount in 2011.

Utah will be a force to be reckoned with if they’re healthy, and could very conceivably finish the season 12-1 if they can get past USC and make it to the Pac-12 title game. In this writer’s opinion, they’re outside national championship contenders.

Those are lofty expectations, but a couple losses here and there (probably about two, possibly three) won’t kill Ute fans.

Overall, though, FanSided’s college division did pretty damn well in their preseason top-25 and there seems to be broad agreement with it in the college football blogosphere.

Keep an eye out for updated polls throughout the season.

Visit Saturday Blitz for more college football news. 

Brace Hemmelgarn-US PRESSWIRE

In case you missed it, the USA Olympics basketball team beat the crap out of the Spaniards by a score of 100-78 in the team’s final exhibition game before the Olympics begin on July 27.

Before, there was a lot of back-and-forth talk between the Americans and the Spaniards. Spain is the only team that’s been given much of a chance against the vaunted American squad — despite the fact that USA is missing some key players — and quite a few Spaniards believed as much.

And though the game technically was an exhibition game, the atmosphere and the interviews made us forget that the game didn’t mean much of anything.

Such a sentiment is validated in a little friendly trash talk between Minnesota Timberwolves teammates Kevin Love of the US and Ricky Rubio from Spain. Here’s what Ricky Rubio said before the game:

@kevinlove are u ready to lose against Spain tonight?

— Ricky Rubio (@rickyrubio9) July 24, 2012

Obviously, Spain lost, and badly. So Kevin Love, who I firmly believe would’ve been a sports blogger if he wasn’t great at basketball, had a retort:

. @rickyrubio9 how’d that work out for you buddy?

— Kevin Love (@kevinlove) July 24, 2012

You have to love the budding rivalry between the two nations, especially with the international game picking up after the US dominated the sport of basketball since the beginning of time, and even some time before then.

You also have to love how Kevin Love immediately took to Twitter to remind his friend and teammate that there’s a reason Rubio is playing in the NBA and not in some Spanish league.

Rubio didn’t play, mind you, and neither did Marc Gasol — starting center for the Memphis Grizzlies and a consensus top-five center in the NBA — as both sat out with injuries (although Rubio will not be participating at all this summer where Marc may be back in time to play the US once more). So the bragging shouldn’t be so drawn out, because the Spanish team is a little depleted.

(So are the Americans, since Andrew Bynum, Dwight Howard, and Dwyane Wade aren’t involved, but we’ll let the Spaniards have this one.)

If you’re a basketball fan, though, you’d rather have a friendly rivalry internationally than just watching the Americans steamroll everybody.

I’m sure Ricky Rubio would prefer that, too.

For more on the NBA, visit Sir Charles in Charge. For more on the Minnesota Timberwolves, check out Dunking With Wolves.

Mark L. Baer-US PRESSWIRE

The Baltimore Ravens and Pro Bowl running back Ray Rice have agreed to a five-year, $40 million contract, per ESPN’s Adam Schefter:

Ray Rice signed a five-year, $40 million contract that includes $17 million in year one and $25 million in the first two years.

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) July 16, 2012

As Schefter notes, the contract is front-loaded, with just under 63 percent of the total contract value being paid out in the next two years. The final three years of the contract will average out to $5 million per year.

In essence, the contract was constructed to account for projected production. Rice will be 27 years old by the end of the second year of the contract (he’s 25 years old now), and running backs tend to start their decline at the age of 28, when Rice will be paid $5 million a year.

Last season, the fifth-year pro ran for a career-high 1364 yards — while averaging 4.7 yards per carry — and found himself in the endzone 15 times (12 running touchdowns and three receiving), also a career-high. He was second in the NFL in rushing yards, trailing Jacksonville Jaguar tail-back Maurice Jones-Drew. He also earned the second Pro Bowl berth of his career in 2011 and led the Ravens’ running attack all the way to the AFC Championship game where the team lost to the New England Patriots.

In the postseason, however, Ray Rice ran for just 127 yards off of 42 attempts, did not score a touchdown, and caught only five passes.

For more on the NFL, visit our NFL site, NFL SpinZone. To read more about the Baltimore Ravens, please visit Ebony Bird.

Since, however, fans have been stuck with one NFL video game to vicariously live through their controllers. As a result, the criticism of Madden has been loud. With Madden 2006 upsetting fans to the core, the series has improved only marginally, often leaving fans thinking they paid $60 for a roster update.

Jerry Lai-US PRESSWIRE

NFL 2K5 fans have legitimate gripes, too. The gameplay for the series still feels miles better than Madden 12 does, and the physics-friendly engine that 2K implemented made gameplay far more realistic and smooth. Meanwhile, Madden players are stuck with animation-based engines which feels just cheesy.

Of course, Madden 13 has been well-discussed since their announcement that the game will implement the new Infinity Engine, which will feature more physics-based gameplay, which will primarily impact tackling. No longer will touching a ball-carrier knock him over, so the guys at EA say. Finally, Madden is listening to their haters and is trying to make gameplay more realistic.

The engine will be based on mass and velocity, which is innovative, for EA Sports, at least.

The criticisms aren’t dead until Madden 13 finally comes out, though, and the fans see for themselves. Already, fans have cried foul, saying the engine will only be implemented for tackling, while the other aspects of the game — the trenches, movements, etc. — will stick to Madden’s long-running and oft-maligned animation-based engine.

Of course, it’s truly do-or-die time and Madden 13 will determine the future of NFL gaming, since EA Sports’ exclusive license with the NFL and NFLPA runs out after 2013.

Meaning, if Madden 13 fails to catch up to an eight-year predecessor, they’ll be stuck having to play from behind a competitor who revolutionized basketball gaming with NBA 2K11 and 2K12.

Which might not be so bad for us after all.

Read more about the NFL at NFL Spin Zone and keep an eye out at FanSided.com for a review of Madden 13 when the game hits stores August 28.

Gary A. Vasquez-US PRESSWIRE

Los Angeles Clippers’ power forward Blake Griffin will miss the remainder of his tenure with the USA Olympics basketball team due to a torn meniscus in his left knee, according to the L.A. Times.

Griffin hurt his knee — the same one that was sprained in the 2012 NBA playoffs — during a scrimmage in Las Vegas with the Olympic team.

Making matters more complicated, or at least more bleak, Blake Griffin recently signed an extension with the L.A. Clippers worth five-year, $95 million deal, the maximum contract Griffin can receive.

According to the L.A. Times, however, Griffin will be back in time for the 2012-13 NBA season, and the recovery time has been tabbed as taking up to eight weeks.

Although the Times notes that this injury is unrelated to his fractured knee-cap on the same knee which forced Griffin to miss his first NBA season in 2009-10, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Griffin may be slightly injury-prone. The Clippers have had a long history of injuries occurring to bright, young stars, so this is somewhat disheartening.

Of course, the injury hasn’t been historically debilitating if the recovery process is carefully done. Stars such as Andrew Bynum have bounced back from the surgery as strong as before.

This also helps to bolster the argument that Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban — as well as NBA stars Ray Allen Dwyane Wade — put forth regarding players being paid for their time on the USA Olympics team. The fear of getting injured while not being compensated — thus hurting the player’s long-term financial outlook — is only reinforced, as was the case with Griffin.

Anthony Davis will replace Blake Griffin for the USA Olympics.

Follow USA basketball at Sir Charles In Charge or read more about the L.A. Clippers at Fully Clips. 

Gary A. Vasquez-US PRESSWIRE

The USA Olympics basketball squad is doing its thing in Vegas, preparing for the upcoming Olympic Games in London.

Of course, every four years since 1992, every Olympic squad — either unfairly or not — is compared to the Dream Team which consisted of the greatest players to ever step on the court.

This time, a reporter asked Lakers legend Kobe Bryant if this current Olympic squad was better than the Dream Team.

His answer? Yes.

Is he wrong? Yes. You were four years too late, Kobe.

Kobe notes that quite a few of the more prominent players on the 1992 USA Olympics squad were nearing the end of their careers. Of course, Bryant was referring to Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, who played the majority of their careers in the 1980s and retired in the early 90s.

The rest of that squad? All were at their respective primes, with Michael Jordan and John Stockton finishing their eighth seasons, Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone at the end of their seventh, and Scottie Pippen finishing his fifth. In essence, the core guys of Team USA were entirely comprised of 90s legends rather than 80s retreads.

The biggest irony here is that Kobe Bryant, himself, is in the twilight of his career. The problem some Lakers fans have with him is that he doesn’t seem to want to accept this fact, and for him to say that the Dream Team was filled with players nearing the end of their careers is somewhat funny. In this equation, Kobe is the 1992 Dream Team’s version of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson.

Of course, seven of the 2012 roster’s 16 players were born in 1988 or later (and only Kobe was not born in the 1980s), meaning that the perception of this team will be seen much differently a decade later since many of these players may or may not become superstars that have cemented themselves in basketball history.

Kobe may have had a solid argument in 2008, while he was in his prime, when the USA team traveled to Beijing for the Olympics. This squad, given their inexperience and overwhelming youth, doesn’t have much of an argument.

We enjoy and embrace the confidence though, Kobe.

USA! USA! USA!

Mark J. Rebilas-US PRESSWIRE

Tim Duncan will likely finish his career as one of the best power forwards in NBA history with the San Antonio Spurs.

The terms of the contract? It’s close to a three-year, $36 million deal, meaning he’ll be paid around $12 million per year for the remainder of Duncan’s storied career. To compare, Kevin Garnett, who was drafted two years prior to Tim Duncan’s arrival into the NBA, received a three-year, $34 million deal

If Duncan plays out the remainder of this contract instead of retiring, he’ll have played in the NBA for 18 years and through the age of 39.

For the past three years, Duncan has averaged career-lows in minutes played per game, with the past two years seeing Duncan play just 28 minutes a contest. As a result, Duncan has averaged career-lows in points per game and rebounds per game.

However, Duncan’s reduction in minutes were more a result of Spurs head honcho Gregg Popovich preserving Duncan’s legs for the playoffs and important games.

Despite Duncan’s reduction in minutes, he’s managed to maintain a Player Efficiency Rating (or PER, a stat meant to measure per-minute production) of 22.2 over the past two years, well above the average PER of 15.

In his time with the Spurs, Duncan has appeared in 13 NBA All-Star contests, won the regular season NBA MVP award twice, was named the NBA Finals MVP three times, and has ranked in the top ten in Player Efficiency Rating twelve times. He also made the All-NBA first team nine times and the All-Defensive first team eight times.

Ladies and gents, the Tim Duncan era of the NBA is not yet over.

For more on the San Antonio Spurs, visit FanSided’s Spurs’ blog, Air Alamo. 

Even if you’re not a fan, you’re likely to be curious of the NBA 2K player ratings. Personally, I pay attention to them to see how much better my team’s player ratings are in comparison to the rest.

Either way, let’s predict the top 30 NBA players’ NBA 2K13 ratings.

How do we decide the top 30 NBA players? We look at the PER rankings of each player, an advanced stat that measures per-minute production (the average is always 15). We know that there are issues with PER (because it’s a per-minute stat, so guys who look better with less minutes might have their PER inflated, even when that’s accounted for by having a cut-off the way John Hollinger does), but it’s the most objective way possible. I know you’re going to say something in the comments anyway, but I have to cover my ass, no?

Yes, I do. So let’s get started.

30. James Harden: 85. (2k12 rating: 74) PER: 21.13

It only makes sense that James Harden receives a huge boost in his ratings. In 2011, he wasn’t a top 50 player based on PER (with a 2010-11 PER of 16.42). The dude was OKC’s only legit playmaker last season and was the runaway pick for Sixth Man of the Year in 2012.

29. Josh Smith: 85. (2k12 rating: 84) PER: 21.14

Last year, Smith was given a disproportionately high rating and was on par with Joe Johnson last season while also being rated higher than Al Horford. Although Smith was very good last season, he didn’t rank higher than Horford in PER and fell out of the top 30. This year, though? He’s justified that rating and is a top-30 player based on PER. So we’ll give him a slightly — damn near insignificant — higher rating than last season.

Carmelo has never been crazy efficient, and even less so in 2012. BYE-BYE 91 NBA 2K13 RATINGS. Steve Mitchell-US PRESSWIRE

28. Carmelo Anthony: 88. (2k12 rating: 91) PER: 21.15

Carmelo had arguably the worst year of his career in 2012, shooting at a 43 percent clip and averaging his lowest points-per-game in eight years. Injuries played a part, and so did the fact that the Knicks have had a lot of turmoil with their coach, Mike D’Antoni, who jammed in the middle of the season. However, ‘Melo was terribly inefficient — based on his standards, and more than usual — and for this, he should take a knock on his ratings.

27. Marcin Gortat: 79. (2K12 rating: 73) PER: 21.21

Marcin Gortat had his first full season as a starter in 2012, and made the most of it. His PER went up significantly, from 17 to 21.2. However, it’s likely that Gortat benefited from playing alongside Steve Nash and being perfect for Nash’s style of pick-and-roll-happy play. We’re giving the benefit of the doubt to Gortat here, because this progression was foreseen when he first left Orlando.

25a. Ryan Anderson: 77. (2K12 rating: 63) PER: 21.23

Ryan Anderson was a candidate for Most Improved Player of the Year in 2012, but his candidacy showed how flawed the award is. His PER went up from 19 to 21.23, but his points-per-game average went from 10 to 16 as a result from starting all 66 games. Thus, it was a crime that Anderson was rated so low last year and this year, he should get some sort of vindication in the ratings.

25b. Stephen Curry: 81. (2K12 rating: 80) PER: 21.23

Steph Curry is the Golden State Warriors’ best player; however, an injury-riddled 2011-12 campaign saw his numbers drop significantly and he played in only 26 games this season.  Thus, although his PER went up from 19.5 last year, he’s also an example of why PER is flawed, even for “qualifying players” who play a certain amount of minutes.

24. Nikola Pekovic: 70. (2K12 rating: 55) PER 21.47

Nikola Pekovic saw an incredible jump in his PER and thus, his minutes per game. The dude had a PER of just 11.29 last year, and though he only played in 47 games last year, his huge leap in production deserves a 15-point leap in his now-criminal-looking rating of 55 from last year.

23. Kyrie Irving: 84. (2K12 rating: 76) PER: 21.49

Last year’s No. 1 selection in the NBA draft proved that he was worthy of the top pick, and had a rookie PER of 21.5, good enough to land him the 23rd spot in PER rankings. He managed to put himself in a position to throw himself into the discussion for the label of best point guard in the league next season.

22. Brandan Wright: 69. (2K12 rating: 64) PER: 21.66

Wright is another reason that PER is a poor measure; dude only played 16 minutes last season. However, he proved to be a solid bench player for the Dallas Mavericks. We’re hesitant to put Wright in the 60s considering how much he played, but Wright’s PER went high enough to give him a five-point boost in his ratings.

21. DeMarcus Cousins: 79. (2K12 rating: 71) PER: 21.72

Cousins continued his development — despite having an up-and-down relationship with his higher-ups — and had himself a very efficient 18-point, 11-rebound season. Sure, he shot only 45 percent from the field (terrible for a big man, and just OK for perimeter players) but he’s showing he’s worth the potential. We gave him a high raise in his rating, and that’s a result of his PER raising to 21.72 from 14.62 a year prior.

CLICK TO NEXT PAGE FOR 11-20.

Derick E. Hingle-US PRESSWIRE

If you wanted more transparency from the BCS during bowl selection, then it’s likely that the new college football playoff selection committee — which will choose four schools to compete in a four-team playoff to name a national champion — will have all the transparency you need.

Because now, it’s likely that the committee could have its selection proceedings monitored and recorded by a member of the media.

The BCS higher-ups like executive director Bill Hancock are pretty giddy about the idea, because, in their eyes, it would legitimize the process and allow for any biases and shoddy selection to be written and put for everyone to see. In essence, the public could get to hear what these conversations were like through a media member, likely a member of the Football Writers Association of America.

It’s about damn time.

Because transparency is something that the entity that is college football has lacked since forever. For a decade, fans have lambasted the BCS because of its biases towards the SEC or its bias towards whatever school they wound up selecting for BCS bowls and the national championship game. Anything that had the potential to become a narrative among fans and the media has become a narrative.

Whether the claims by crazy-as-hell fans were justified is irrelevant. The point is, the higher-ups will seek to minimize any dissatisfaction with the process and will do anything in its power to make sure the committee reaches a consensus with the public, even if it means subjecting the selection committee to extreme scrutiny in their proceedings.

As we know, though, monitoring these meetings will deter any sort of groupthink and will force the members of the committee to think twice about their own biases and be objective as humanly possible.

Obviously, there are caveats. One of them is that the members of the committee will become far too driven to eliminate their biases — to avoid scrutiny by the media — that they will select teams against their own beliefs, even if the teams they had originally chosen are likely to be the correct ones. The fear of becoming “too political” — much like some Supreme Court justices may vote opposite their political lean to avoid seeming too far left or right — could soil this whole thing.

But that’s pretty damn unlikely, in a group that could have dissipated accountability with 11 to 19 people being involved in the selection committee. It isn’t as if the proceedings will air live on CBS or something. So long as the members stay objective, there won’t be a problem with biases.

Of course, that isn’t to say there won’t be a select group of fans who will cry foul on the members for being cheating douchebags or what have you. There’s always going to be dissatisfaction with leadership, and the minority will always be more vocal than the majority. But there will be no excuses — save for crying that a team was selected as the fifth best team as opposed to the fourth, which is pretty petty, but it’ll happen — come 2014. Fans will have nothing to whine about when a national champ is crowned in a couple of years.

Finally, fans will be able to have some closure.

Read more about college football at Saturday Blitz. 

Steve Dykes-US PRESSWIRE

This time last year, NBA fans were cursing at their computer screens as the prospects of a 2011-12 NBA season slowly faded away. The owners were painted as greedy and difficult, knowing full well that the players had no leverage whatsoever. In the end, the owners got nearly all the provisions they were pushing for and the season was cut short. At the time, it had seemed the NBA owners had won in a landslide.

Fast forward to now, in July, with free agency in full swing. In hindsight, the owners may have gotten all the provisions they’ve wanted, but have somehow managed to learn absolutely nothing.

Roy Hibbert? A big man averaging 13 points per game shooting at under a 50 percent clip, playing 30 minutes a game and grabbing nine rebounds? He’ll get a max contract — which was offered by the Portland Trailblazers — for four years and $58 million. Not only have the Blazers outbid everyone, likely by a mile, but they’ve managed to set the market price for a solid-at-best big man, meaning any center who is just “solid” (or serviceable) or better will automatically be worth the max, actual value be damned.

Eric Gordon? A player who has yet to start in more than 64 games in a season, played a whopping nine games in 2011-12 and whose last full season was his rookie year, over four years ago? A player who shoots at 45 percent clip for his career, and does little else? He’s a max player now, as evidenced by the Suns outbidding for his services. Though this deal is a bit more defensible than Hibbert’s soon-to-be contract, note that Russell Westbrook and Kevin Love are also getting max contracts. Is Eric Gordon on that level? He very well could be, but the dude’s injury-prone, and giving him a four-year, $58 million contract is the definition of a risk.

Dwight Howard? He’s demanding a trade and trying to determine where he lands, something David Stern tried like hell to eliminate in last year’s CBA negotiations, and an intention cemented by Stern’s veto of the Lakers’ trade for Chris Paul last November.

Steve Nash? The possibility of a sign-and-trade — something the NBA owners whined about during the CBA negotiations — is likely, with the Los Angeles Lakers in the mix. In essence, this would tie the Phoenix Suns with salary instead of allowing them to shed Nash’s contract off the books while helping a “big market” team like the Lakers obtain a top-tier free agent despite being absolutely cash-strapped with $30 million over the salary cap.

The NBA teams’ front offices are throwing money at players that probably don’t deserve such money and owners are tempted to engage in sign-and-trades — which would lock them up for more salary to get something in return for their lost free agents. For the owners, there’s always multiple max contract players in every free agent class. To the common man with common sense, only a handful of players are worthy of a max contract.

And it’s obviously unfair to blame the players, for taking more money. Try turning down a raise you didn’t fully deserve, and then come talk to me about players being greedy.

No, this is on the owners, for again, giving in to their temptations to land the free agent class’s biggest name — which isn’t always a superstar and, more often than not, is a decent to really good player — to a contract that you would give to a superstar. The same issues that the owners complained about in the summer of 2011 are the same issues that have yet to be resolved.

Sure, teams that were way over the cap are now frantically shedding salary to avoid receiving a $2-for-every-$1-over-the-cap luxury tax, but they’re also saving money at the expense of the teams losing free agents because those teams give in to temptation for sign-and-trades, and those teams that spent less are getting stupid with their cap space and offering large, risky contracts to anyone and everyone. Players that demand trades still hold a crap-load of leverage over where they want to go, essentially making threats to become a free agent (instead of signing a max extension) if unwanted, prospective teams  trade for them.

So here we are, just a year into a CBA meant to create more parity, while teams that haven’t had success in the past couple years have begun to show that adding rules will not deter poor management, impulsivity and irresponsibility.

Perhaps the owners — the same owners who claimed their poor decision-making was a result of a poorer system — just aren’t competent owners.

Perhaps, in the words of hardline owner Michael Jordan, the owners should just sell their teams.

For more on the NBA, visit Sir Charles in Charge. 

Each school is filled with pride and each receives strong supports from fans, students and alum. However, Texas A&M would like to sully all those traditions and mock all the strong support that fellow SEC schools receive, as evidenced by their recent video, which attempted to give itself a warm welcome into the conference. Just … watch:

The intention here was to be as kind and cordial as possible. Texas A&M is grateful to be a part of the cash cow that is the SEC, and is really trying to get into each school’s good graces.

Instead, they’ve probably embarrassed themselves to no end. If the goal was to make each school’s cheer sound as boring, dry, and dorky as possible, then they’ve done a hell of a job.

We get it, Texas A&M. You want your new rival schools to love and respect you, and you want to make sure they know that you respect them. But remarkably, you’ve managed to somehow enter into the SEC with a splash that saw the water accidentally landed in the plate of food that the girl you have had a crush on since sixth grade was holding.

Somehow, A&M has managed to negate all the future trash-talking your students will direct at the other SEC schools, because no Aggie will ever be able to live this down.