The Longhorns got Hooked.

In tennis, unless you're playing on the pro circuit, you typically call your own lines during a match. When the other player deliberately calls a ball out to steal a point, you say you got "hooked" on the line-call.

In a bit of irony, it appears that the Texas Longhorns, whose supporters devotedly flash the ubiquitous "Hook'em Horns" sign during games, were themselves "hooked" this week when their arch-rival Oklahoma Sooners squeeked past them in the BCS polls, and snuck into the Big 12 Championship Game.

Now, the Longhorns were ahead in the Harris Poll and a mere 1 point behind the Sooners in the Coaches Poll, but the BCS computers were sufficiently impressed with Oklahoma's dismantling of their intra-state rivals to give the Sooners the edge. The result was troubling to most because the two teams had played each other on a neutral field on October 11th, and Texas had won the head-to-head matchup by 10 points. If that wasn't an accurate measure of which team was more deserving, the Texas fans argued, then what exactly is the point of playing the game? Sooner fans, on the other hand, countered that their team had not only beaten the team that had beaten Texas (Texas Tech), they had humiliated them by 40 points on national television. Accordingly, their team rightfully deserved the trip to Kansas City to play Missouri in the conference title game.

These partisan interests aside, most observers believed that the human polls should have done a better job of safe-guarding the process to better reflect the on-field outcomes of this 2008 football season. After all, freeing us from the inflexible and cold calculations of impersonal machines - incapable of weighing subjective, but nevertheless important metrics such as momentum and clutch performances - was precisely the reason that the BCS formula was tweaked in recent years to give the human element twice the weight of the computer portion (the BCS rating system is comprised of two human polls and one composite computer ranking gleaned from six individual computer ratings).

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a confession: I'm a Texas fan. Always have been, and always will be. My dad, fresh from Pusan, Korea (where American football was as foreign as black Angus steaks) went to graduate school at UT-Austin in the 70's, and something about Bevo, Earl Campbell, and the bright lights at Memorial Stadium really captured his imagination. He was instantly hooked. (No pun intended). As a result, I've always bled burnt orange, and I've always cheered for the Longhorns. From Eric Metcalf and Tony Jones to Vince Young and Ricky Williams, I've always had a deep-rooted interest in the team.

But I'm not going to use this space to argue whether Texas is more deserving than Oklahoma of a Big 12 Championship Game bid - that's something for the talking heads at ESPN or College Football GameDay to sort out. What I will do, however, is under-cut the argument that some pollsters made in ranking OU ahead of Texas on their latest ballots, despite the Longhorns' 45-35 victory over the Sooners in October: that is, as the argument goes, while Oklahoma did lose that game on a neutral field, they have played better than Texas in the six games since then. Erego, they are the stronger team; and thus, deserve to be ranked ahead of the Longhorns.

Truth is, that is an entirely subjective argument. While we can compare their relative bodies of work, we can only compare the teams meaningfully if they play again. So an argument that Oklahoma is a better team at this point in time (whereas they were not two months ago) is virtually impossible to substantiate.

But my question is: Is this OU team even playing better now than they were before meeting Texas back in October? Sure, the Sooners' recent streak of four consecutive 60-plus point games has been impressive. But people tend to forget that the Sooners were ranked a solid No. 1 in every poll after the first five games of the year. In fact, in the Coaches' Poll, they received every first place vote, save for two (Les Miles and Mack Brown presumably voted for their own teams for the No. 1 spot). Unfortunately for Texas, the deluge of OU points in recent weeks has washed away any memory of the first part of the season.

Let's take a look at the Sooners' season, however, just to tickle our fancy.

The following are the results from the Sooners' first give games before the loss to Texas, with the current BCS ranking (if any) of their opponent in parentheses:

UT-Chattanooga W 57-2
Cincinnati (13) W 52-26
Washington W 55-19
Texas Christian (11) W 35-10
Baylor W 49-17

The following are the results from the Sooners' last six games after the loss to Texas, with the current BCS ranking (if any) of their opponent in parentheses:

Kansas W 45-31
Kansas State W 58-35
Nebraska W 62-28
Texas A&M W 66-28
Texas Tech (7) W 65-21
Oklahoma State (14) W 61-41

Interestingly enough, Oklahoma's margin-of-victory in its first five games was actually higher (by nearly 6 points - 34.8 to 28.8) than it has been since the loss to Texas. Well, one might say, Oklahoma played a much easier schedule in the first month, with cream-puff out-of-conference teams served up on a platter.

Well, in each part of the season, the Sooners played two teams currently in the Top 15 in the BCS (#11 TCU and #13 Cincinnati in the first part, and #7 Texas Tech and #14 OSU in the second part). Admittedly, Oklahoma did benefit statistically from playing FCS bottom-feeding UT-Chattanooga and putrid Washington (1-22 combined record).

But even if we take out those cake-walks from the tabulations, Oklahoma's margin of victory in the first part of the season is almost within a point of its differential during the second part (28.8 to 27.7). Further, the relative combined winning percentages of those subsets are: 0.666 (24-12) to 0.611 (44-28), in favor of the season's first half opponents.

So then, what can we gather from all this? Just one ineluctable conclusion: Oklahoma has been playing at virtually the same level all-season - exceedingly well, of course. Granted, Oklahoma has impressed voters lately with their nationally televised annihilation of then-No. 2 Texas Tech, followed by a 61-point explosion against Oklahoma State in another national TV game. But, while it is easy to forget, they were just as dominant, if not moreso, in the season's first month.

As the numbers bear out, Oklahoma is no better now than they have been at any point this season. They simply played a superior team on October 11th, and they lost by 10 points. Fortunately for them, the pollsters seem to have a short memory.

Usain Bolt: 9.55?

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=3583692

Immediately after Bolt's astounding gold medal 100M sprint at the Beijing Games, NBC track and field commentator, Ato Boldon, speculated, "[Bolt] just threw away a 9.59" by hot-dogging during the last 15 meters of the race. After analyzing Bolt's split times, his own coach announced that Bolt could have run a 9.52 had he not pulled up before the finish.

Well, a physicist at the Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics at the University of Oslo has done the math: he calculated that Usain Bolt would have finished the 100M final in Beijing between 9.55 and 9.61 seconds had he ran straight through the finish. Incredible.

My guess is that we won't have to wait too long before we see Bolt run that time in reality instead of just theoretically. In fact, I'd be shocked if we don't see Bolt run sub-9.65 by the end of next year. Going forward, who knows what's possible? 9.5's? Don't bet against it.

Only one thing is certain: the ceiling has been lifted. Rather, Bolt has blasted through it with lightning speed.

Can Federer Surpass Sampras?

To cut the suspense - barring serious injury, yes he will. That much is a virtual certainty. After all, Feds only just turned 27 and he trails Pistol Pete by just one Grand Slam title.

The real question is: by how much will he break Sampras's mark?

Fortunately for us, it's quite easy comparing their respective careers, as they were born almost exactly 10 years apart - Sampras on August 12, 1971 and Federer on August 8, 1981.

Through his first 38 Grand Slam tournaments, Roger has already racked up 13 wins. By comparison, through his first 38 Slams, Pete won 11 of them. Overall, in his career, he competed in 52 majors, and finished with 14 wins - the last coming at the 2002 U.S. Open.

After winning his 5th Wimbledon crown and 11th Grand Slam in 1998, Sampras remained viable at Wimbledon - winning 2 more titles there - but he only managed to win one more title (that final U.S. Open victory) outside the All-England Club.

Meanwhile, Federer remains a viable competitor at all four major tournaments. He's won the U.S. open five times in a row, three out of the last five Australian Opens, and it took the greatest tennis match ever played for Rafael Nadal to finally wrest the Wimbledon crown away from Roger this year - snapping Federer's five-year winning streak there.

Only on the terre battue of Roland Garros has Federer been shut-out. Even then, he has made the last three finals.

Federer has expressed a desire to compete in the 2012 Olympics in London - meaning he's planning to play at least another 4 years, until the age of 31. It's not inconceivable that he can win at least two more Wimbledons in that span - after all, grass-court success seems to be the last to go, as evidenced by Sampras's enduring success on the surface into his late-20's. Notwithstanding Nadal's 2008 triumph, Federer remains the preeminent grass-court player in the world.

For all of his dominance at Wimbledon, he has been just as invincible, if not more, at Flushing Meadows, where he has won 34 consecutive matches. Again, giving Federer two out of the next four U.S. Opens seems to be a conservative number.

At the Australian Open, Federer's brilliance has been somewhat glossed over because of his less-consistent results. But we must take a closer look at his two losses there in the last five years. In 2005, Federer lost 9-7 in the fifth set to a freakishly talented Marat Safin peaking at just the right time. This year, he fell to Novak Djockovic in the semi-finals after being significantly weakend by a month-long bout with mononucleosis.

Otherwise, he swept through the 2004 and 2006 tournaments while losing a total of two sets in each of those years. In 2007, he became the first man since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win a Grand Slam without dropping a set. (A feat since duplicated by Nadal at this year's French Open.) In sum, when he has been healthy and prepared, Federer has been virtually unbeatable Down Under. Still, taking into account the vagaries and quirky things that happen at the year's first major, we can conservatively project that Federer will win at least one out of the next four Australian Opens.

And don't quite count-out Federer at the one major that's eluded him - the French. Unlike Sampras, Federer has been knocking on the door every year for the past five years, and he's clearly established himself as the second best clay-court player in the world, next to the tenacious Mallorcan southpaw. Still, the smart money probably says not to bet that Federer will crack Nadal's indomitable reign at Roland Garros anytime soon.

That brings our total tally over the next four years to five Grand Slams. And remember, those are only conservative estimates. It's easy to picture Federer, with his dedication to training and his love of the sport, playing well into his 30's, as fellow tennis great Andre Agassi did. In fact, Agassi won 5 majors after the age of 29. Of course, Andre was a unique specimen. But still, it's too early to dismiss the notion that Roger could potentially emulate the great American's late-career success.

So, in short, Roger is likely to finish his career with at least 18 Grand Slam titles, and if he stays healthy and hungry, he may even push that total to over 20. Either way, he seems primed on obliterating Sampras's record.

But perhaps the real juicy question is: who would win a match between the two if they could play each other in their respective primes?

(The answer to that one, coming soon.)

Return of the King

As his opponent's final overhead return sailed into the net on match point, Roger Federer crumbled to the court in a mixture of boundless euphoria and downright relief - putting an exclamation point on his 13th Grand Slam win after a 6-2, 7-5, 6-2 trouncing of Scottish upstart, Andy Murray.

And just like that: the Man was back.

Not that he had really gone anywhere. Notwithstanding the grumblings of most "experts" and tennis fans worldwide, Federer was quietly having a terrific season under anyone's standards except his own. To wit, in the year's three Grand Slams coming into New York, he had made two finals and one semi-final - that one after battling a month-long bout with mononucleosis at the year's outset.

But after losing an epic match against Rafael Nadal in the Wimbledon final (widely considered the greatest match ever played), Federer seemed to sleep-walk through the summer hardcourt season - including a disappointing quarterfinal loss to James Blake at the Olympics. He did, however, salvage his Beijing experience by winning the gold medal in the men's doubles with countryman, Stanislav Wawrinka.

That win, according to Federer, served to lift his spirits and injected him with some much-needed confidence heading in the year's final Grand Slam. Federer has always enjoyed playing on Broadway - he has stated he feels like a New Yorker at times - and perhaps what he really needed was another taste of the bright lights and center stage to lift his game back to its normally transcendent heights. After all, he was coming in as the four-time defending champion and riding a 27-match winning streak at the Open.

Indeed, as the fortnight progressed, Federer seemed to re-discover his game. He breezed past the first three rounds without dropping a set. His lethal forehand - the linchpin of his offensive attack, which had failed him at crucial times all year, returned with frightening potency. His underrated footwork, notably absent during the clay court season, resurfaced as Federer glided effortlessly over these hard courts like a streamlined gazelle.

His four-set demolition of last year's finalist, Novak Djockovic, in the semi-finals signalled to the tennis world that he was back in top form. Federer himself seemed to sense it as well. The normally stoic Swiss star began flashing his emotions and punctuated winning key points with hearty fist pumps and joyous shouts throughout the tournament. His increasingly improved play through the last week was only a harbinger of things to come in the final.

Tropical Storm Hanna forced the USTA to push the men's final from its normal Sunday date to Monday. But it was Federer's game that caused the most uncomfortable climate for first-time Grand Slam finalist Murray. Cracking lightning bolt serves and thunder-clap forehands from start to finish, the venerable champion simply overwhelmed the young up-start in just under two hours.

"It was a dominant performance," reflected U.S. Davis Cup captain, Patrick McEnroe.

With this win, his 13th major tournament victory in the last five years, Federer cemented his legacy as perhaps the best player to ever pick up a tennis racket.

His opponent in the final, for one, wouldn't argue.


"I ran into today, in my estimation, the greatest player ever to play," said Andy Murray in his on-court post-match interview.

Entering the 2008 season, many felt it was a foregone conclusion that Federer would surpass, or at least match, Pete Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slam singles titles. After the year's final Grand Slam, Federer still trails Sampras by one.

But with this victory, he left no doubt that he has in fact returned to top form - a scary proposition for the rest of the men's tour heading into 2009. The record seems as vulnerable as ever.

Federer himself, with a new-found confidence and renewed swagger, promised, "I'm not going to stop at 13 for sure."

This time, nobody can doubt him.

All Hail the King.