NHL Needs to Take Advantage of Work Stoppage

2011 could be a terrible year for sports, with the NFL and NBA facing potential work stoppages. Roger Goodell is looking on the bright side, saying a new collective bargaining agreement "can and will" happen, while David Stern has been mum on the subject. However, many are not as optimistic, and the vast majority of football and basketball folks believe there will be at the very best a delay in the 2011-12 seasons.

For the NFL, the country's most popular sport that attracts the most television viewers and revenue, a strike would anger fans when the league has never been more popular. For the NBA, a strike would negate all the progress made in regaining its popularity from the MJ/Magic/Bird days, and the league would have to start again from scratch.

But one league needs to take full advantage of the potential work stoppages, because there may never again be as good an opportunity to become relevant in the American mind. The NHL needs to take drastic action.

It is pretty clear by now that hockey will never be as popular as football or baseball in America. And they can't act like they are. Other than the annual Winter Classic and to some extent the playoffs, hockey ratings are just dreadful. Even for the Winter Classic, which is advertised for months, the ratings aren't that good. This year's between the Capitals and Penguins -- featuring the league's two biggest stars since Gretzky and Lemieux on prime-time, national television -- drew 4.5 million viewers. It was the most watched regular season game since 1975. To put that in perspective, NBC's pre-game show prior to Sunday Night Football drew over 11 million viewers last week.

Bottom line, no matter what happens, the NHL will never be on the same level as the National Football League. But that doesn't mean it can't have a more significant impact in sports. Right now, can you name 10 hockey players not named Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin?

Ever since the 2004-05 lockout, the league has struggled mightily. I think Gary Bettman expected Crosby and Ovechkin to have the same effect that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa did on baseball. Fans were upset over the lockout that resulted in the cancellation of the 1994 postseason. It was the fourth stoppage in 22 years, and that anger was beginning to overcome the national adoration for the game. Then Big Mac and Slammin' Sammy come in and pump life back into the sport, catapulting it back into the forefront of American sports as they chased the single-season home run record (they were 'roided up, sure, but that's another story).  Bettman probably thought Sid the Kid and Alexander the Great would have this same effect.

He was wrong.

It was not until recently, within the last two years, where people have really begun to focus back on the NHL. This past Stanley Cup Finals between the Flyers and Blackhawks averaged 6.1 million viewers, its best ratings in 13 years. That's pretty good, admittedly. It is the largest audience in the sport's history, according to NHL officials. But for the best playoffs in sports to draw less than what an average NFL game will attract, or less than half of what the MLB postseason will draw, shows how irrelevant the sport is in the United States.

It is clear that Bettman's attempt to withdraw hockey from Canada and into the southern U.S. has not worked out. This year, of the 16 lowest attendance figures, only the Bruins, Oilers, Devils and Islanders existed prior to the 1990s. The other 12 were either expansion franchises or moved from one city to another. Since 2000, attendance has clearly shown hockey in the south and west to not be attractive to fans.

Season	Teams After 1990 in Bottom Half of Attendance	Teams After 1990 in Top 10 in Attendance
2010-11	12	0
2009-10	10	1
2008-09	10	1
2007-08	8	2
2006-07	7	2
2005-06	9	2
2004-05	(lockout)	(lockout)
2003-04	9	2
2002-03	8	3
2001-02	9	3
2000-01	8	2

Teams like the Thrashers, Blue Jackets, Predators, Panthers, Coyotes and Ducks are consistently among the worst in attendance. The only exception among these teams is the Wild, who are always in the top 10. But what makes them different than the other 11 teams that were created after 1990? They are in Minnesota. Attendance was never a constant problem for the North Stars. Their owner moved the team to Dallas in 1994, and the league promised a new team would be put there. They are the only team that gets any sort of regularity in attendance. Compare that to Canada. The Canadians and Maple Leafs are always among the best in attendance. For the gold medal game in these past Winter Olympics (the best hockey game since the Miracle on Ice, by the way), 75 percent of the nation watched. For the Super Bowl, less than half of America tunes in. 


And Bettman thought it would be smart to move hockey out of the Great White North...


But now is the time for change. The league needs to take advantage of being potentially the only major sport playing from November 2011 to March 2012. The television deal with Versus ends at the end of this season. Priority number one should be getting a deal with ESPN. Right now Versus reaches about 74 million households. However, only a quarter million watch games on average. For a professional sports league, having national ratings of that size is pathetic. And two of the Stanley Cup Finals games are aired there! The Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Phillies get that many viewers on a given night for a regular season game, and they are regional broadcasts that reach nowhere even remotely close to 74 million households. It's embarrassing.


Right now the weekly agreement with NBC isn't working. The deal expires at the end of the season, but is expected to be renewed. That's fine. However, to broadcast nine Sundays of the regular season that lasts five and a half months is not enough. To get as much exposure as possible, the league needs to get back on ESPN. 


Think about it: the worldwide leader in sports advertising the crap out of hockey. Ratings would certainly go up substantially. Why do you think the X-Games are on ESPN? Because they wouldn't get a tenth of the exposure elsewhere. Why do you think LeBron James aired "The Decision" on ESPN? Because he's a narcissistic jerk who needed as much exposure as possible and knew where he would get the most. Being broadcast from Bristol, Connecticut means you are getting the most exposure possible.


And that is what the NHL needs to do during this potential two-sport work stoppage, no?


Hockey is physical, exciting, has the best playoffs bar none, yet no one cares. The Winter Classic is a good start to gain national attention. But now is the time for the NHL to step up and do everything it possibly can to get into the focus of American sports. There will be no better chance than 2011.

Thrilling, Exciting, Amazing, Captivating: The Stanley Cup Playoffs

It's been a rough couple of months for me in sports. The Yankees won the World Series, and to add to it, Alex Rodriguez finally produced in October (hey, it had to happen eventually). Then I had to witness the atrocity that was the season of the formerly-defending Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers, who lost to the likes of Kansas City, Oakland, and Cleveland in midst of a 5-game losing streak. At least the Super Bowl was good right? I mean I have nothing against the Colts or the Saints, so the NFL season wasn't totally awful. Then March 5 came along, when Ben Roethlisberger had a biiiiiit too much to drink, yada, yada, yada, countless weeks of hearing about it later, he's missing the first 4-6 games of this season. Football happiness = shot. So March Madness comes along, and I feel really good with my bracket. Two hours into the first day and already one of my Final Four teams loses. And in the end freaking Duke wins the championship.

Could it get much worse?

When the New York Rangers were eliminated on the last day of the regular season in a shootout, I thought it could. After all, I had no real reason to watch the Stanley Cup playoffs. But au contraire my friends! I may have no reason to watch the NHL postseason, but it sure is a good thing I am, because what is happening is only reaffirming my belief that the absolute best postseason in sports far and away belongs to the National Hockey League. If you are ignoring what's happening on the ice right now, well I say shame on you.

Think of the absolutely best playoffs you can remember in the MLB or NBA. In a best-of-7 series, did every series except one go at least 6 games? Were both #1 seeds in danger of losing to 8-seeds? Were there 12 overtime games in the 1st round alone? How about 21 games decided by one goal? Because that is what has happened so far. And that does not include the 2 game 7s not played as of 7 pm Tuesday night (Detroit-Phoenix and Washington-Montreal). And this happens pretty much every single year.

Look at any series and you will see pure insanity. Start with the Capitals and Canadiens. Washington was the runaway winner of the Presidents' Trophy. They have the most prolific goal scorer in the league in Alexander Ovechkin, while Niklas Backstrom is one of the best hockey players you probably don't know about (because you know sooooo many hockey players already. I know. Don't lie.). So you would think it would be a fairly easy 4, maybe 5, game series against the Canadiens. 6 games later, the Caps are on the brink of elimination, and all of the pressure is on them. In Game 6 they outshot the Habs 54-24, yet lost 4-1, because they could not get the puck past Jaroslav Halak. It would be an enormous upset if Montreal wins Game 7.

In Boston, the Bruins finished off the Buffalo Sabres in six games. The highlight of that series was the double OT thriller in Game 4, by far the best hockey game of the season. The Sabres, 31-0 in the regular season when leading after 2 periods, blew a two-goal lead in the third as the B's forced the extra session. Boston youngster Tuukka Rask, who ousted Vezina Trophy winner Tim Thomas during the season, and Olympic hero Ryan Miller played insanely sick in goal, each saving the game multiple times for their teams. The last 40 minutes of the game (last 11 of the 3rd period, all 20 minutes of the first OT, then the 9 minutes in the second OT before Boston scored) were like a track meet. The speed the game was played at was unbelievable. It seemed a little upsetting that Boston's Miroslav Satan, a longtime Sabre mind you, scored on an easy backhand to win the game.

In the San Jose-Colorado series each of the first 4 games were decided by a goal, and Games 2, 3, and 4 went into overtime. And that was another 1 vs. 8 matchup. In the end the Sharks, the biggest playoff disappointment over the last half decade, finally got over the hump and won the series in six games.

I won't even bother going into detail with the other 4 series, which include the Blackhawks getting over their early scoring woes to beat Nashville, the seemingly struggling Flyers kicking the crap out of Marty Brodeur and the Devils (although Brodeur did do this. Disgusting), and the red hot Red Wings being cooled off by the back-from-the-grave Coyotes. You get the point. But did I mention that this all happened in the first round? Just imagine the possible scenarios in Round 2:

If Montreal shocks Washington, 6th seeded Boston will have home ice advantage versus the Flyers. Seeds 1-3 in the East will have been kicked to the curb after Round 1.

If Phoenix beats Detroit, that means 3 of the 4 teams remaining in the West have never raised Lord Stanley's Cup, and the 4th (Chicago) hasn't won it since 1961. The East isn't much better. The Penguins are the defending champions, but other than that, there has been no success. The Bruins haven't won a title since 1972, the Flyers since 1975, the Canadiens since 1993, and the Caps have never won one. To say these organizations are hungry for a Cup is as big an understatement as saying the Broncos were ill-informed to draft Tim Tebow in the first round.

It may seem that I'm a bit all over the place with this post, but there's just so much happening -- mainly lunacy and excitement -- that my mind is spinning in circles. The level of competition is incomprehensible. Compare that to the NBA playoffs. Yes, I am conceding the Los Angeles-Oklahoma City series. All of the intriguing storylines are there: Kobe-Durant, 1 vs. 8, Phil Jackson vs. the referees/league office, etc. And with the NBA's best young team going toe-to-toe with the defending champs, it has been a captivating series. But look at what else has been offered thus far. Every NBA analyst on ESPN said the Orlando-Charlotte series was the one to watch. The Magic swept the series with ease. The Bulls' Joakim Noah talks a big game, but his team is in a 3-1 hole against the Cavaliers, where LeBron James can put up a 40-12-10 with little to no effort. The Celtics are manhandling Dwayne Wade (I would put "the Heat" here, but it seems futile. When the other 4 guys in your lineup are journeyman Carlos Arroyo, former Clipper and Knick, I repeat, Clipper and Knick, Quentin Richardson, stoner ... er... I mean bust... er... I mean former #2 pick Michael Beasley, and 31-year-old Jermaine O'Neal, calling them a team is incorrect. Oh, and I'm a Heat fan by the way). The Spurs, the most boring team in a league that depends on flash and excitement, are beating the Mavs. Yawn. Give me the crappiest NHL playoff game over the best NBA playoff game everytime. With no hesitation.

Now that the NFL Draft is over and the anticipation of Major League Baseball's Opening Day is a month behind us, it's time for you to start paying attention to the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Why? Because there is nothing more exciting in sports, that's why. I've been watching already. I challenge you to start, too.

You Can't Fix Stupid

College football is wacky, wild, and unpredictable. Unfortunately, so is the NCAA. In fact, the NCAA might be among the dumbest organizations in sports. Remember, this is the same group that brought you the BCS a dozen years ago, and look at how well that's worked out! But because there isn't enough stupidity already, they had to go and add to it by making rule changes that included taking back touchdowns for taunting. So for all those who love to high-step into the endzone in the Madden or NCAA Football video game series, you probably won't like this. This is not referring to endzone celebrations. That will remain a dead-ball foul, a penalty assessed on the following kick-off. No, this is a spot foul. Starting in 2011, if a player taunts his opponent before the goal line, a flag will be thrown, the TD is taken away, and it is 15-yards from the spot of the foul. Are you kidding me? These players make the NCAA and the schools millions upon millions of dollars each year, and never see a penny of it. They are 18 to 22 year old kids. Let them have some fun! What's the harm in it? Are they making the game look bad? It's not like it happens every game to the point where it is out of control.

This got me thinking. Where else in sports are there rules and regulations that drive me crazy? I found 8:

The NBA timeout rule: In the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter and overtime, when a team calls a timeout they can either 1) inbound the ball from the dead-ball spot or 2) inbound the ball from the 28' mark in the frontcourt. So basically if a team gives up a basket with a second to go, no magical Grant Hill to Christian Laettner prayers will be needed. Simply call a timeout, get the ball outside the 3-point arc, and get a good look. The fact that it takes 25 minutes to play out the last 70 seconds aside, I hate that there is seemingly no punishment for playing crappy defense. If a defensive stand goes for naught, the Kobes, LeBrons, or D-Wades of the league still have a legitimate shot to win. If a team can muster a basket in a key situation, make their opponent go all 94-feet please.

Shootouts: They say a tie is like kissing your sister. Not having a sister myself, I have never experienced such a thing (and for those of you who do, I hope you haven't either... that would be quite creepy). However, in a case of the NHL's shootouts, I would take a tie over the current format. With ties, both teams would receive 1 point. With shootouts, the winners get 2 points and the losers 1. I would like it better if the losers received no points. Maybe that would change my mind a little. But probably not. All I can say is thank goodness they don't do it in the playoffs. Ruining the best postseason in sports would be more than I could take.

Women's Hockey: That's right, an entire sport is one big, idiotic rule. No hitting is allowed. No hitting in hockey? I texted my buddy Zack, who hates hockey with pretty much all his heart, and when I asked him why he would watch, he merely said, "Fights". The physicality is why most people watch hockey. While I am a fan for other reasons, like how awesome it is, the vast majority in America want violence. Taking away hitting would be like taking away bumping in NASCAR or collisions at the plate in baseball -- they happen.

NFL Pre-Season Games: The stars won't play more than a series or two, yet season-ticket holders are forced to go. Basically people are paying half of their salary to watch perennial backups like Kevin O'Connell, Dan Orlovsky, and, in 4 years, Tim Tebow. Call me crazy, but people don't care about them. (What's that? I actually love Dan Orlovsky and would pay good money to see him play? Whoops.) The only reason there are 4 games is because of the revenue that comes in from them. Because the billions they get already isn't enough. Change it to 2 games and get over it.

All-Star Games: I love the idea of having the best players from each sport play in the same game, but the execution in every league is pathetic. In the MLB it decides who gets home-field advantage in the World Series. How about you alternate it each year? Or have the team with the better record have it? The NFL is doubly bad. If it is the week after the Super Bowl, no one cares. If it is the week before the Super Bowl, players from the participating teams won't play, and, still, no one cares. That includes players. This past Pro Bowl Vince Young was the AFC quarterback because Phillip Rivers, Tom Brady, Matt Schaub, and Ben Roethlisberger didn't want to play and Peyton Manning was in the Super Bowl. At this rate JaMarcus Russell will become a perennial Pro Bowler. In the NBA no one tries, but at least there all of the stars play. The NHL doesn't even have an All-Star Game in Olympic years, but when it is played, it gets worse ratings than reruns of According to Jim and, so help me God, Everybody Loves Raymond. WOO!

BCS: No explanation necessary.

The Brady Rule: There is hitting in football. As a result, injuries occur. But because Bernard Pollard hit the golden boy Tom Brady and tore his ACL to open the 2008-09 season, the NFL instituted a rule where quarterbacks cannot be hit below the knee. As sad as it is that stars have this kind of power in the NFL, it's more upsetting that it has essentially become two-hand touch when it comes to QBs. You are asking defensive lineman to find ways to get around 350-lb monsters, locate the quarterback, read his eyes, but slow down to make sure he isn't hit below the knee. All lineman have to do is get their defenders to the ground. Reggie White probably vomited in his grave. Steelers' safety Troy Polamalu was right, the NFL is becoming soft.

The NBA age limit: There is no point in making an 18-year-old go to college for a year before he enters the NBA Draft. None. Be serious here. The kid doesn't care about classes. He misses class during the season, and once the season ends, there is no point in him showing up. The school isn't going to make him do the work during the season because that's the world of college basketball today. He isn't there for the education, and everyone knows it. The schools get horrid graduation rates and are wasting money. The NBA loses potential superstars for a year, and we all know money is the only thing that matters to the league. Either let the kids enter the Association right out of high school or make them attend college for at least 3 years. Don't be in-between, because no one benefits from it. It isn't helping the kid, it isn't helping the schools, it isn't helping the NBA.

None of these are the athletes faults. There is really not much they can do about it. People are stubborn. Stupid people are even more stubborn. It's why you simply can't fix stupid. But I can complain about it, that's for sure.

Everything 2000s Part I

As the 2000s wind down and we enter a new decade, every sports outlet imaginable has made and debated over all-decade teams. Silly? Yes. Do I love every minute of it? Of course! Therefore, I'll take it one step further, and create an all-decade team for the NBA, NHL, and women's college basketball. (Men's college bball is left out because the best players left early for the NBA, and there's no college football because it was way too ridiculously difficult to choose between so many different positions with so many good players, and with unlimited factors) The NFL and MLB all-decade teams will come in a few days. I'll also name the team of the decade for each sport. Just remember, all the stats are from the '00s only. Some choices are obvious, others, maybe not so much. But nonetheless here they are! Part one of my all-decade teams:

NBA (yes, it is the same as Sports Illustrated's all-decade team. I realized this after I made the list): PG - Steve Nash (Dallas, Phoenix): The man one two MVP awards, probably should have won a third, was named to 6 All-NBA teams (3x first team, 1x second team, 2x third team), and was a 6-time All-Star. Led the league in assists from 2005-07. He has that X-factor that won't show up in the box score and can't be taught. Other considerations: Jason Kidd, Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups

SG - Kobe Bryant (Los Angeles Lakers): Flat out the greatest player in the NBA this decade, and one of the best ever. Period. He won 4 titles, including last year, and has averaged 28.6 points per game this decade. Was an All-Star every season, named MVP in 2008, made 7 All-NBA and All-Defensive first teams, and won back to back scoring titles in 2006 and 2007. Also won a gold medal on the Redeem Team. The most obvious choice on this list. Other considerations: Allen Iverson, Dwyane Wade

SF - LeBron James (Cleveland Cavaliers): Being the #1 overall pick in the 2003 Draft, he didn't even play the first three years of the decade. Still, he was another obvious choice. Arguably the greatest combination of pure speed, strength, and athleticism ever, King James already has an MVP (2008), 5 All-Star selections, 3 All-NBA first teams, and a gold medal to his name. He has also vastly improved his defense, and is now one of the best defenders in the game. When he's on, he simply is not possible to stop. Oh, and he turns 25 on the 30th, so expect him to show up on this list next decade. Other considerations: Paul Pierce, Carmelo Anthony

PF - Tim Duncan (San Antonio): Duncan did not put up record-breaking numbers. But 2 MVP awards, 3 titles, and 2 Finals MVP awards in the 2000s, plus being an All-NBA/All-Defensive first or second teamer every year is enough to get him on the list. Like Nash, he has natural leadership that can't be taught. Put it this way... without Duncan, the Spurs aren't very good. Other considerations: Kevin Garnett

C - Shaquille O'Neal (LA Lakers, Miami, Phoenix): From 2000-2006, there was absolutely no doubt that Shaq was the most dominant center since the days of Chamberlain and Russell. Think about it: of 18,991 career shots, 18,969 have been inside the 3-point arc (99.9983%). He has missed over 5000 free throws. Yet he is still 5th on the all-time scoring list. That is how dominant The Big Aristotle was in his heyday. Over the last few years, time and injuries have slowed down his Hall of Fame career, but 4 titles, 3 Finals MVPs, an MVP award, and countless other honors puts him among the greatest ever. Other considerations: Dwight Howard

Team of the Decade: Los Angeles Lakers - They won back-to-back-to-back titles from '00-'02, added another last year, and appeared in one other Final, in which they lost to Boston. Finished first in the Western Conference five times, and never finished below fourth. No contest here.


NHL: G - Martin Brodeur (New Jersey): The all-time leader in wins, shutouts, most 40-win seasons, and virtually every other major record, this one is a no brainer. No one has been nearly as consistent or dependable as Brodeur. He won 4 Vezina Trophies for best goaltender, 2 Stanley Cups, and a gold medal. His performance in the 2003 playoffs, where he recorded 7 shutouts, 3 in the Finals, was the greatest postseason performance ever by a goaltender. Other considerations: Miikka Kiprusoff, J.S. Giguere, Evgeni Nabakov

D - Nicklas Lidstrom (Detroit): One of the best defenseman ever. Won 6 Norris Trophies for best all-around defensive player, 2 Stanley Cups, and was named to 8 All-Star Games, and was on 7 All-NHL first teams. Was the Conn Smythe Trophy recipient in 2002 as playoff MVP. He was named "Player of the Decade" by the Sporting News, and is widely considered one of the greatest European-born players in history.

D - Chris Pronger (St. Louis, Edmonton, Anaheim): At 6'6", Pronger is big and powerful. Combined with the ability to score, it makes Pronger a force to be reckoned with. In 2000 he won the Hart Trophy for league MVP, the first defenseman since Bobby Orr to win the award. He has never won a Norris Trophy, but that's largely because of Lidstrom's dominance. Led the Ducks to a Stanley Cup in 2007. A sure fire Hall of Famer. Other considerations: Scott Neidermeyer, Ed Jovanowski

F - Peter Forsberg (Colorado, Philadelphia, Nashville): My, oh, my what could have been. Riddled by injuries throughout his career, Forsberg was the best player on the ice. The only problem is, he couldn't stay on the ice. Still, the impact he had when he played cannot be ignored. He never scored more than 30 goals in a season in the '00s, but his point production was through the roof. In every season, he averaged more than a point per game. Had it not been for his aggressive style of play, we can only wonder just how much better he could have been. Other considerations: Ilya Kovalchuk, Jarome Iginla, Jaromir Jagr

F - Alexander Ovechkin (Washington)/Sidney Crosby (Pittsburgh): It's simply not possible to mention one without the other. Sid the Kid is the golden boy who is going to save hockey. Alexander the Great scores the highlight-reel goals that drive fans wild. The impact each player has had on the game post-lockout is similar to what Magic Johnson and Larry Bird did to save the NBA. Crosby was the youngest player ever to lead the league in points and win MVP in any North American sport, and is the youngest captain ever. Ovechkin has won the Rocket Richard, Art Ross, Hart, and Lester B. Pearson Trophies, all in his first 4 seasons. They will be the face of the league for years to come.

C - Joe Sakic (Colorado): The consummate teammate and captain. Could score, play defense, and was the leader of all leaders. He is 8th on the all-time scoring list, and at 37 became the 2nd-oldest player ever to record 100 points in a season. And in one of the classiest moves a player can do, after winning the 2001 Stanley Cup, Sakic's 2nd title, he accepted Lord Stanley's Cup from commissioner Gary Bettman. But instead of traditionally skating around with the Cup first, he immediately gave it to teammate Ray Bourque, who for 21 years was the NHL's best player to never win a title. He's on this list not only because of his stats. His leadership is his best quality. Other considerations: Joe Thornton

Team of the decade: Detroit Red Wings - It only seems fitting that HockeyTown is the home of the team of the decade. They won 2 Stanley Cups (2002, 2008), lost in the Finals in 2009 to Pittsburgh, and simply dominated the Western Conference. They won their division every season, led the league in wins 3 times, and total points 4 times. There's no question that the train going towards a championship runs through Detroit.


Women's College Basketball: PG - Sue Bird (UConn 1998-2002): All-time great Nancy Lieberman once said that no one meant more to their team than Sue Bird. At UConn, Bird led the greatest senior class in women's basketball history to a perfect 39-0 season and a national championship in 2002 and was named Player of the Year. She also won a title in 2000 with the Huskies, was a 3x winner of the Nancy Lieberman Award for best point guard, was the 2002 Sportswoman of the Year, and is 2nd in UConn history in assists. Finished her college career with a 144-4 record. Other considerations: Kara Lawson, Renee Montgomery

SG - Kristi Toliver (Maryland 2005-2009): Toliver started 128 of the 139 games she played in as a Terrapin. Her freshman year she burst onto the scene after hitting the game-tying 3-pointer in the NCAA Title Game against Duke. The Terps would go onto win in overtime to win the school's first ever title. She was a 2x AP All-American, Player of the Year finalist three times, and a Nancy Lieberman Award finalist three times, winning the award in 2008.

G/F - Diana Taurasi (UConn 2000-2004): Simply put, UConn had Diana, and you didn't. A two-time Player of the Year, Taurasi is one of the greatest in the game's history. Geno Auriemma said she plays like a guy, bringing an attitude and intensity that couldn't be matched. She won 3-straight NCAA titles to end her career, helped the Huskies win 70 consecutive games from '02-'04, and won 139 games in her career, compared to just 8 losses. D has done more for the women's game than perhaps anyone else, and it all started in Storrs.

F - Candace Parker (Tennessee 2005-2008): In only three years, Parker was one of the most dominant forwards ever. With the ability to dunk and hit the 3, she was stronger than guards and faster than forwards. Helped win the Lady Vols win back-to-back national titles in '07 and '08, and was Player of the Year twice. Among all the greats that came from Knoxville, Parker is second only to Chamique Holdsclaw.

F - Seimone Augustus (LSU 2002-2006): The only person on the list who didn't cut down the nets in April, Augustus was still one of the more dominant forwards of the decade. Consensus Player of the Year in '05 and '06, she led LSU to three consecutive Final Fours (they would go on to two more after she graduated), but never made it to the title game. A career average of 19.6 ppg, Augustus could beat you by aggression or finesse. LSU athletic director Skip Bertman called her, "the most important recruit in the history of LSU." Good enough for me.

Other considerations: Courtney Paris, Tina Charles, Ruth Riley

Team of the decade: Connecticut - 5 national titles ('00, '02-'04, '09). Two perfect seasons ('02 and '09). Four National Players of the Year (Bird, Taurasi x2, Maya Moore). Two other Final Four appearances. A record 70-game winning streak from 2002-2004, which which is being threatened with a 50+ game winning streak by - of course - the current Huskies. Challenging Tennessee as the most storied program in the women's game, here's how successful the decade was for Coach Auriemma and Co. After not winning a championship in 4 seasons, and a 3-year absence from the Final Four, the Husky faithful complained. Should we refer to '05-'08 as the Dark Ages of UConn basketball then?