The Lawnmower Series -- Part 1:Cognitive Dissonance

From Wikipedia: Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.

This struck me as I was mowing the lawn last night. Something that has bothered me for a long time is the natural contradiction found in today's prevailing political groups. The "conservative" group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet typically jumps in first whenever a restrictive new law is proposed (anything from gay marriage and abortion to no-smoking ordinances and "blue laws"). How can a group supposedly so grounded in "freedom" quickly support measures that would appear to limit its expression?

And on the other side, the "liberal" political group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet leads the charge for restrictive tax policies, government oversight of industry, and compulsory "public" service. How can a group that claims to celebrate individuality and acceptance attach itself to authoritarian measures?

This is cognitive dissonance. You cannot support restriction and freedom at the same time, yet seemingly both major political groups in this country are happy to do just that. How did we get to this state? Is one side more "correct" than the other? Is there a "better" viewpoint?

After ruminating on this for a while, I believe I have the key. It's a question of ownership. Most everyone, whether liberal or conservative, would agree with this statement: "I should be free to do what I want with what is mine." The difference comes in what groups believe is personally owned.

Conservatives believe that you own "stuff". Things like money, time, and cars are personal to a conservative. But conservatives don't believe you own people, not even yourself. Therefore, you should have the freedom to do what you like with "stuff", but not with others, even yourself.

Liberals take the opposite view. They believe that "stuff" is shared. Nobody "owns" things like land or water, but must share it. Conversely, they believe that everyone owns him/herself, and should be free to do what they want with their own self and anyone else willing to join them.

How did these opposing viewpoints originate? I believe the conservative viewpoint originated from the simple idea that human life is the pinnacle of creation. All the other stuff in the universe is secondary, and can be used however individual humans wish. Stuff may be assigned to individual people as they see fit, and there's nothing at all wrong with one person having more stuff than another. As the most precious item in existence, however, individual humans are too valuable to risk doing anything that might adversely affect their well-being. So freedom with stuff is perfectly fine, but freedom with individual human activity must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with (and largely derives from) the traditional belief that God created man to rule the earth.

The liberal viewpoint originates from the idea that all of creation is equivalent (or at least roughly so). The only "stuff" that we can own is the bodies we've been given. We can do whatever we want to our own self, and we can engage others so long as they are willing. But other stuff can only be "borrowed", and it's against the natural order of things for somebody to use more than "their share" of general resources. So freedom to do whatever with yourself is fine, but anything involving outside stuff must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with the belief that the universe is just a random grouping of particles.

With this, I believe we've answered the question of "how did we get into this state." People (largely, I'm not talking about each and every individual thinker on earth) generally base their political leaning on how they view the universe. Is it a design with humans at the top? Is it a random collection of particles with no defined hierarchy? That leaves the questions of which view is more "correct", and is there a "better" view. I'll tackle those questions next time.

Taking aim at the golden goose

The NFL has long been the most successful sports venture in America. Every franchise is solvent, and most are competitive. Unlike baseball, every team has a legitimate chance to compete, so long as the ownership is willing to try. Unlike hockey, every team has a relatively large and dedicated fanbase. Unlike basketball, any franchise (well... maybe not Cincinnati) can be home to an MVP-type player for multiple seasons. Unlike soccer, the league has national recognition and a built-in TV audience, including folks who really aren't even paying attention to the game. The NFL works. The NFL is popular. The NFL is beloved.

The upshot of all this is that the NFL makes money and entertains its fans. It has done so without any significant interruption for almost 25 years. But at this moment, a "labor dispute" is threatening to not just disrupt league proceedings, but potentially kill off the entire 2011 NFL season. Why on earth would all those involved, players, owners, and league officials, risk hurting such a demonstrably lucrative venture, especially during a rough economic time? As always, it boils down to pride and ego. However, the core issue is actually not one of players vs. owners, but of successful owners vs. unsuccessful owners. Let me explain, and then attempt to choose a "side" in this debate, if there can be a "good" side of a labor dispute.

The immediate reaction of folks who hear that the league's owners might "lockout" the players is one of disbelief. We all know that the NFL is rolling in TV money. Their contracts with the networks is lucrative, to say the least. On top of that, ticket prices have been climbing much higher than the rate of inflation for a long time. Parking, concessions at the stadium, and merchandise have never been pricier. And yet attendance continues to remain steady, or even climb in almost every location. The owners are absolutely loaded with money. LOADED! So it doesn't pass the smell test when they cry that (unspecified) "costs" are killing their balance sheets.

Which is where we dive into the details. Most franchises are making money hand over fist. For them to be crying foul is nothing short of a lie. That said, there are a few places that are legitimately struggling. Teams like Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Cincinnati might actually be in danger of losing money. A few more teams are making money, but not nearly at the rate they would like. So what gives? Why does imbalance exist when the NFL's highly-touted "revenue sharing" system has been in place for so long?

It turns out that the NFL does not share all revenues among its members. It only shares TV revenues and some portion of merchandising and ticketing revenues. Parking, concessions, local media deals, luxury suites, and a hefty chunk of merchandising revenue belongs to the individual teams that sold those items. Therefore, a team like say.... Dallas is raking in money. Not only do they get their share of the TV money, but they're getting ridiculous income from a bevy of luxury suites, local media deals, and a large fan base eager to purchase anything with a star on it. Contrast that with say.... Buffalo. Even if the Bills were to sell out every Sunday (which they no longer do, apparently), Ralph Wilson stadium (named after the current Bills owner) simply doesn't hold as many people as Cowboys stadium, and perhaps more importantly, it doesn't have nearly the number of luxury suites.

So while Jerry Jones (owner of the Cowboys) is making more money than he knows what to do with, Ralph Wilson can legitimately say that his franchise is just barely making ends meet. As the owner of a business, if you are struggling for profits, you want to cut costs. What is the biggest cost for an NFL team? Player salaries. Therefore, Wilson and other NFL owners want to force the players to take a pay cut even while the league's overall revenues (and profits) are through the roof.

This is why the owners are asking the players to take the fall. This is why the owners are proposing such unwanted changes as the 18-game regular season (more games == more ticket/parking/concession/suite sales). It's really only a few owners who need these changes. Most of the owners would be fine with the status quo, but they don't want to antagonize their buddies in the club (plus lower salaries for players just means even more money for them).

The obvious reaction from the players (and many fans) is to ask why these "struggling" owners don't just ask the other owners to chip in a little more to the community pot. It's not like there isn't enough money to go around. But that would never be the first choice for these guys, for reasons of pride.

You see, the owners are big-shots. They are used to being treated as big-shots. A big-shot does NOT go to another big-shot and ask for a handout. That would be too humiliating. These struggling owners would much rather have a showdown with "labor" than to grovel for money from their fellow, more successful, owners.

And for all you wondering why the more successful owners don't just volunteer to carve out some extra funds to prop up the struggling teams, consider their point of view: They've worked hard to get new stadiums built (although usually with significant public monies). They've worked hard to sell suites and local advertising. They've invested a lot of time and energy into promoting their team and making it as lucrative as possible. Why should they throw money to guys who apparently can't get the job done (or in the case of Cincinnati, just don't care)? They would rather those owners make way for new blood (or move their teams to LA) so that the league would have more successful teams, rather than paying out for failure.

So should the players yield to the owners' demands? Why should they? They are paid a healthy sum of money, but it remains that only a few players make the kind of money that lasts a lifetime. Most NFL players last only two or three seasons, making far less than the millions of dollars given to Peyton Manning and such. They're certainly still well-compensated for their time, but does it seem fair that they take a "hit" when the league is so successful? Does it seem fair that the players should take the hit when overall NFL revenues and profits continue to climb? Should they take that "hit" just so a few bad owners can literally keep up with the Joneses?

In the end, of course, somebody will have to give in. I expect that this time it will be the owners. Why? Because public sentiment is overwhelmingly behind the players. Unlike a lot of other pro athletes, NFL players take an obvious pounding to do their jobs. Unlike most other pro sports, NFL rosters are loaded with "rank and file" players who aren't making millions every season. And most importantly, people aren't stupid. They see the owners crying about money, yet drive off in Bentleys while the TV networks shower the league with enormous sums of cash. It doesn't add up.

For further proof, check out these articles for the general mood:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6177574
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=gallo/110217_nfl_labor_goodell_smith&sportCat=nfl
I'll grant you that all those links are from one site, and that Rick Reilly is always somewhere to the left of Mao and Lenin, but I think they represent a pretty broad section of NFL fans. Of course, there are plenty of people who still can't believe anyone could be "paid" to play a game, but they are in the minority.

So what will happen? I expect that the owners will either agree to some new revenue sharing that includes more items, or that they'll have to axe/move some of the underperforming franchises. They'll never do this without the players giving up SOMETHING, if only to save face after such public negotiations, but I expect to see the players "win" this showdown. Let's just hope that no matter what happens, pride doesn't cause us to miss the always-entertaining NFL season.

SAH

Lacie, the Babe

I met my wife Lacie's mother long before I met Lacie, although I didn't know it at the time. According to the legend, I was whining about the scarcity of quality single girls during a Wednesday night class and she said to herself "he just hasn't met my daughter." Turns out she was right.

I met Lacie through her little sister, Ola. It was a Wednesday night and I was leading the kids singing during our VBS-style main session. Afterwards, Ola came by and told me I needed to learn a certain song and sing it the next time. She said her sister could help her teach it to me. I only knew Ola was a pretty blonde girl from the high school group. I didn't even know her mom was the same lady who sometimes sat in the singing group with us on Wednesday nights. But I was happy to meet an older sister.

I followed her over towards another blonde girl, only a little older with a spiky haircut and gorgeous blue eyes. No, I didn't realize at the time that this was the woman of my dreams, the girl I would marry. But she certainly was pretty. Ola told her why we had come over and the two of them proceeded to belt out "Who's the King of the Jungle (Huh, Huh)?" complete with motions.

To be honest, what struck me more than Lacie's beauty was how frank and open she seemed to be. Here was a girl who was being introduced to a new person... a guy at that... and was immediately asked to perform a silly song (and yes, it IS a silly song... that's part of the fun) in front of said guy. I think a lot of ladies would have balked if their little sisters had made such a request. But Lacie just smiled and sang her heart out, motions and all. I thanked them for teaching me a new song, but made a mental note of this new person on the scene.

I next met Lacie at a Halloween party held by some folks at the church. I'll spare you the long story and cut to the chase. I recognized Lacie from the earlier meeting and decided to take a chance by striking up conversation with her. My smooth line? "Hey, you're Ola's sister, aren't you?"

The courtship began. Some highlights:

• My sister-in-law Jenni (a fantastic person with only one significant character flaw.... she refuses to bow at the altar of a Dallas Cowboys helmet) met me the morning after I first brought Lacie over to share some family Christmas time and told me, "She's perfect! Perfect!"
• My mom thought she was Ola when she first met her because she looked "so young."
• I accidentally knocked her over with my Charles Barkley move playing basketball. She told me that all she saw was "this big red thing" (I was wearing red shorts) and she hit the deck.
  
• Lacie made me a "romantic dinner" of PBJs and electric candles hosted upstairs in the music building at Sterling College where she attended at the time. She played songs from "The Princess Bride" for the mood.
• I traveled to Mexico accompanied by Lacie's mom and Ola (it was part of a church mission), but Lacie gave me the first hug when we returned.
• And of course, we were wed on March 15th, 2003.

8 years later, Lacie is the best person in my life (excluding Jesus, naturally). She is still the same open, cheerful person I met back then. She has shown tremendous character overcoming a painful loss and greets each day with new hope. She continues to inspire me by the way she tirelessly cares for our daughter Jesstine. She graduated from Wichita State with a degree in Music education, and teaches elementary kids how to recognize rhythms and sounds. She still sings like an angel and looks like one too. Simply put, Lacie makes life better. As Dick Van Dyke would sing, "It's a jolly holiday with Lacie...."

Happy Valentine's Day, Babe. I love you!

FIFA's "I'm Keith Hernandez" moment

On Thursday December 2nd, FIFA (the world's governing body of soccer) announced their decision to hold the 2018 and 2022 World Cup Finals in Russia and Qatar, respectively. While the choice of Russia is not completely out-of-character for the event, choosing to place the finals in Qatar represents a radical departure from past precedent. Qatar is a tiny nation with virtually no stadiums, no soccer culture, a litany of human logistical concerns (average summer temperature over 100 F, Sharia law in full effect, dangerously close proximity to violent locations, etc.), and a population roughly equivalent to Milwaukee's. Short of divine intervention, nothing can be done to change these things in twelve years.

Why on earth did FIFA make this choice? On the surface, there is no logical reason to choose Qatar to host the world's biggest sporting event. But FIFA is no longer looking at the surface of things. The World Cup is no longer about soccer, parties, or even the crass standard of the past.... making money. Now, the FIFA selections are all about ego.

When it started, the World Cup was simply a soccer tournament. From the beginning, the decision of where to hold it was contentious. However, back then the decision usually boiled down to who could actually hope to at least break even on the cost of hosting. It is easily forgotten that the first world cup contained a mere 13 teams, largely because several nations balked at the cost of sending their teams to Uruguay. The locations of the '50, '54, and '58 tournaments were chosen mostly to avoid the mess that much of Europe found itself in after WWII.

After time, however, the tournament's growing popularity made it into the cash cow for FIFA, and the tournament was positioned in places to actually make a profit for organizers, rather than merely break even. Eventually, FIFA was starting to rake in cash from both the tournament and rights fees. That emboldened it to stretch out to even more potentially lucrative locations, such as the USA in 1994 and Japan/South Korea in 2002. But even then, there was always the foremost concern that the tournament be properly hosted, that the atmosphere matched the expectations, and that the sponsors were happy.

That changed with the selection of South Africa to host in 2010. There was simply no conceivable way that South Africa would match the atmosphere of the arenas elsewhere in the world. There were too many logistical issues to think that the tournament would be a money-maker. But FIFA was forced to pay some political capital back to the African federations, and they wanted the highest-profile event on African soil. They succeeded, but at the cost of the tournament itself. Generally poor soccer, half-empty stadiums and the incessant vuvuzela wail remain the legacy of World Cup 2010. But FIFA learned a lesson. Despite all the problems, the tournament still came off without any major disruptions, and they still made money. The lesson FIFA has taken to heart is that they can run a successful World Cup anywhere. FIFA now believes they can make ANY location work. The criteria for selecting sites is now about.... what?

To hear the Brits (denied the opportunity to host in 2018 by the Russia decision) tell it, the selection is all about back-room deals and manila folders full of cash. They may be right. It is no coincidence that the Russia and Qatar bids were the most expensive (by far). It is no coincidence that both Russia and Qatar have essentially promised FIFA to pay them for their troubles, regardless of how the tournament works out. But I think money was essentially secondary to something else.

A revealing item is the remark in the FIFA "technical committee's" evaluation of the USA's bid to host the 2022 finals. After exhaustive praise of the available facilities, infrastructure, and growing soccer culture, the committee dinged the US for the horrendous crime of "less than full government support." In other words, the US had not given FIFA a blank check to do whatever they wanted within US borders for the tournament. The US government had not knelt sufficiently at the FIFA altar. As it turns out, the same fate befell the British bid. They were supposedly neck-and-neck with the Spanish and Russian bids until British papers exposed some corrupt practices of a couple FIFA executive committee members. In apparent retribution, England was the first nation eliminated from consideration. According to many well-substantiated reports, "How dare they examine us!?!?!" was the theme expressed by many FIFA members. FIFA was more impressed by how well the various bid committees prostrated themselves before the almighty FIFA than by any other factor.

Which is where FIFA stands today. They're about FIFA, not soccer, and not even money. In the famous Seinfeld episode, Keith Hernandez encourages himself with, "I'm Keith Hernandez!". (See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%27m%20Keith%20Hernandez). FIFA just did the same thing. It could've given the World Cup Finals to countries where it was guaranteed to have fantastic tournaments with big crowds and good times. It could've guaranteed itself a huge payday and few headaches. Instead, it chose to put the World Cup in Russia and Qatar. Why? Because "We're FIFA, and we can do whatever the heck we want!" If FIFA decides that it can hold a tournament in > 100 degree summer heat in a small desert with no stadiums, then by golly... it CAN! And nobody will tell it differently!

There are some (especially within FIFA itself) who will applaud these decisions as "expanding" the scope of the game and trying to bring in new audiences. Others will portray the locations as opportunities to open up previously closed societies. Both reasons are irrelevant. The real reason that the World Cup Finals are scheduled to travel to Russia and Qatar is that the FIFA hierarchy is now a bunch of Godfather types looking for whoever will kneel down and kiss their rings. Flush with money and success, they believe they can do whatever they want. And mark my words, it will come back to haunt them. Russia may be able to pull off a decent tournament, but 2022 is destined to be a total disaster, the likes of which no World Cup finals has ever seen. Thank the hubris of FIFA executives, who apparently believe themselves to be divine.

SAH

Please don't "just vote"

Election day is today. Over the past 20 years or so, I have seen numerous public pleas urging folks to "just vote." The sentiment seems to be to encourage folks to voice their opinion in the most effective manner possible... at the ballot box. It appears to be a noble sentiment, and free of partisan leanings. It's also a crock. Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do NOT "just vote."

Many people want to exercise their "right" to vote (we'll ignore the technical arguments about whether voting is a right or a privilege). Fine and dandy. Please exercise your rights intelligently. "Bearing arms" is a right. It is so fundamental that it was written into the initial passage of the constitution as the 2nd amendment (Quick history lesson: the original constitution was comprised only of the "articles." The "bill of rights", comprising the first 10 amendments, were added before the entire document was actually ratified. Those amendments won a lot of ratification votes).

But would you encourage your local teen to go grab a gun and start shooting "just to exercise his/her right?" Would you tell him or her that it's not important who or what you aim at, "just so long as you shoot?" Of course you wouldn't. So why would anyone tell folks to vote "just to exercise your right?" Why would you ever say "It's not important who you vote for, just so long as you vote?" In many ways, voting is more powerful than shooting a gun. The winners of these elections will be given positions of authority and responsibility that cover hundreds, thousands, potentially millions of lives. They will create laws and enforce them. They will confiscate money and property "for the public use." Words cannot do justice to how critical the need is for trustworthy, intelligent, and responsible folks to be making these decisions. Showing up at a voting precinct and randomly choosing names (or picking the name that somebody handed you on a flyer) will not do this.

Yet we still see too many campaigns designed not to educate voters or discuss the various issues of the day, but rather to merely enlist as many potential voters as possible and send them to the polls with only the vaguest notion of what they're doing (and yes, I'm speaking of MTV's asinine "Rock the Vote" series in particular.....). Doing this is irresponsible at best, and wantonly destructive at worst. It must stop.

It begins with you. You have the power today. Will you vote after researching the candidates, issues, and positions, or will you merely pick someone's name from a hat? Will you consider a candidate's background, voting record, and policy choices, or just look for the party affiliation (BTW, there's nothing inherently wrong in voting a party line...just so long as you know what that party stands for and want to align yourself with it)? Will you use your powerful right to vote to choose good people for important posts, or will you squander your privilege (and give the finger to the thousands of folks who worked and sacrificed through our nation's history so you c0uld have that privilege) by just picking the "cool" candidate or randomly picking names?

Voting is serious business. Treat it as such. Do your homework before you vote. If that sounds like too much to handle, then don't vote. Elections are far too important to be decided by ignorant rubes or slavish myrmidons. Please, please, PLEASE do not "just vote."

SAH

MLS Regular Season concludes

Long time since my last post, but I finally have something else to talk about. I've avoided talking about the crazy NFL season thus far, where a team that leads the league in total offense and defense has a record of 2-5 and the defending Super Bowl champs can be humbled at home by the sad-sack Cleveland Browns. The whole "Any Given Sunday" trope has to be trotted out yet again....

But instead of focusing on that, I want to talk about the just-completed MLS regular season. I think this year will mark a turning point in MLS history. One sure sign of this is the retirement of several league legends and a couple of original members. There were very few of those hardy souls left in the game, and now I'm not sure if there are any left. The biggest name belongs to Brian McBride, the first-ever MLS draft pick from way back in 1996. After a stellar college career, McBride slammed home 4 goals in his MLS debut that season and garnered enough interest over a few seasons in Columbus to earn a big payday in England. He became something of a folk hero at Fulham for scoring timely goals, and only returned to MLS last season to play out his twilight years ("twilight years" in soccer terms... meaning he's just middle-aged for life).

Another legend retired this season. Jaime Moreno will leave MLS as the league's all-time leading scorer. It's doubtful that his record will hold up for very long (second-place all-time is Jeff Cunningham of Dallas, who is expected to return next season and only trails by a single goal), but Moreno isn't purely a "stats" guy. Moreno was with DC United from their inception in 1996 and was a crucial member of that team for all 4 of their titles (including the shameful 2004 title earned courtesy of a blatant Alecko Eskandarian handball... and yes I'm still bitter about it!). Moreno possessed a deft touch on the ball and lightning-quick reflexes around the penalty area. While never a speedster, he routinely surprised defenders with a quick short-distance burst and a calm head in front of goal. It says something (both in favor of Moreno and indicting this year's DC squad) that even at an advanced age (again... advanced for pro soccer players) and minus his youthful quickness, Moreno was perhaps the most dangerous player on his team. He will be missed.

That still leaves guys like Eddie Lewis, Mike Petke, Chris Klein, and CJ Brown out of the discussion, and quite frankly those players are all deserving of their own career epitaph. It's truly the end of an era.

But with the passing of the old comes opportunity for the new, and MLS is not wanting in those respects. After a handful of seasons that saw some underwhelming play and distressingly bland styles, competition and intensity has returned to the league. While recent years have seen teams of no-name young legs running around in support of a lone player of note, 2010 saw almost every team play a roster of quality players. Nearly every team had at least two or three players worthy of note and capable of making something happen. The number of goals scored went down (again), but that was largely due to a horrible run of games early in the season while teams were still trying to find themselves amidst the scheduling quirks of the World Cup year. Post-World Cup, teams added some significant players such as Thierry Henry, Geovanni, and Rafa Marquez. The overall quality of play jumped up appropriately, and the intensity rose as the pressure mounted.

Also, for the first time ever, only half the teams made the playoffs. With a full 16 teams, 8 playoff participants represent a mere 50%. Compare that to the early days of 10 teams, when all but a couple of teams made the playoffs, and you see why this season saw more competitive games through the summer.

Add it all up and you get a very promising picture. MLS now has more stars than ever, and the games mean more than ever. I'm not completely sold on adding even more teams to the league (Vancouver and Portland are already scheduled to join next season), but for now it's good. This year's playoffs will actually feature matchups of good teams, any one of which could legitimately claim the title, a direct contrast to past seasons when a sad-sack team could back into the playoffs and hope to get lucky against a real contender.

For now, I want to briefly recap the seasons for the 8 teams that failed to make the playoffs, in order of their finish. For them, the season is truly over and the thoughts turn to 2011. The 8 playoff contenders still have something to play for before we write their summary...

9th place -- Kansas City Wizards
Despite another year of missing the playoffs (and still possessing what is most likely the most boring team emblem in all of sports... go ahead and check it out if you want: http://www.kcwizards.com), the Wizards have to feel good about what they accomplished in 2010. They improved almost everywhere on the field, scoring more goals and giving up fewer than they did in 2009. They struggled early, but picked up after the World Cup break when coach Peter Vermes settled on a standard starting lineup. KC got some decent (if inconsistent) production from guys like Birahim Diop and Kei Kamara. Newcomer Ryan Smith could be a star on the left wing. There's hope up front with rookie Teal Bunbury and next year's addition of Mexican veteran Omar Bravo. Kansas City will also get a new stadium in 2011, only furthering the good vibes. There are still some questions on the roster, such as how the team can replace veteran leader Jimmy Conrad (who has clearly lost his edge), but Kansas City fans are looking forward to good things.

10th place -- Chicago Fire
It wasn't supposed to end this way in Chicago. They were considered underachievers the past two seasons when they lost out in the league semi-finals (although their classic semi-final against Columbus in 2008 was perhaps the best MLS game of the past three or four years). So what can you consider a team that flops all season long and ends up out of the running entirely? The loss of veteran Cuahtemoc Blanco was clearly much bigger than the Fire anticipated, as the team struggled to create opportunities without him. More damning was an inconsistent streak that saw them flatten opponents one week only to disappear the next. Collins John was a flop. Nery Castillo did little. In a desperation move, the team traded for Freddy Ljungberg, who was as frustratingly inconsistent as he was in Seattle. Chicago now faces some daunting offseason questions. Who will replace the legend McBride up front? Do they pony up the cash for John, Ljungberg, and Castillo after all three disappointed? Who stays and who goes? What about guys like Calen Carr that simply haven't developed? It's clear that the team needs an overhaul.

11th place -- Toronto FC
The season started with a new coach and a supposedly new attitude. MLS legend Preki had been marginally successful coaching an under-talented Chivas USA side, so he seemed like a good choice for under-achieving Toronto. Alas, he clashed with players and staff while experimenting with lineups and the season slowly slipped away. The front office fired Preki halfway through, but it made little difference. The truth is that Toronto's core simply isn't good enough. Dwayne DeRosario has rarely been better, but he can't do it all himself, and he's 33 years old. Julian DeGuzman was a big-dollar signing who produced precious little. Spanish import Mista also proved to be a waste of time. Young goalkeeper Stefan Frei leaked goals at inopportune times. At times, Toronto looked like a competitive team, but too many key contributors came up small. Like Chicago, Toronto must ask some tough questions during the offseason. What kind of style do they want to employ? Who can supplement DeRosario in attack? And even bigger... who could potentially replace him soon? He's no spring chicken.....

12th place -- Houston Dynamo
Perhaps we should've seen it coming, but it was still jarring to see the ultra-defensive former champs leak goals all season and wind up out of the picture even before the leaves started to fall. The team relied far too heavily on big Geoff Cameron, whose injury revealed a frightening lack of depth. Houston had to abandon it's traditional "10 men in the box" defensive style in order to score a few goals. While the team still managed to poke in a few goals thanks largely to veteran striker Brian Ching, the defense was left exposed. Adrian Serioux disappointed in yet another MLS stop. Veteran goalkeeper Pat Onstad committed some uncharacteristic gaffes. Eddie Robinson suddenly looked a step slow. Veteran midfielders Brad Davis and Richard Mulrooney couldn't maintain their production while the younger guys like Corey Ashe didn't look ready to step into larger roles. Big-money Mexican signing Luis Landin flopped so badly the team cut him. Houston still has some talented players, and it's entirely possible that this season will end up merely a blip on a larger run of success. But the Dynamo really need to address their stadium situation (they play at the University of Houston's football field), shore up the defense, and find younger options in goal and up front.

13th place -- New England Revolution
The Revs once again held out hope (and a roster spot) that forward Taylor Twellman could return to his goal-scoring ways, but he once again missed an entire season. He's battled injuries and concussions during his career and has now missed the past two years entirely. His absence forced the team to once again lean on goalkeeper Matt Reis, midfielder Shalrie Joseph, and a bunch of kids. It wasn't enough. Injuries shelved Matt Reis (and also his backup, Preston Burpo) for long stretches. And while youngsters like Sainey Nyassi and Zack Schilawski showed flashes of promise, they were too inexperienced to hold up over a 30-game season. The Revs made too many mistakes and gave away too many games. The good news for Bostonians is that this roster is loaded with young potential stars. Guys like Kenny Mansally, Kevin Alston, and the aforementioned Nyassi and Schilawski are all in their early-to-mid 20s. With the addition of a proven striker (whether that's a healthy Twellman or a new player) and a little more luck on the injury front, the Revolution should be right back in the hunt next year. There's hope for tomorrow.

14th place -- Philadelphia Union
As an expansion team, one couldn't expect too much from Philly this season. They didn't disappoint. That said, they were also usually competitive and featured some exciting games from forward Sebastian LeToux. LeToux was mainly an afterthought with Seattle in 2009, but he exploded for double-digit goals in 2010, with several of the highlight-reel variety. Perhaps LeToux didn't fit with the "speed" plan in Seattle, as nobody will confuse him with Usain Bolt; But he proved his nose for goal this season and Philly can build around him. Philly's downfall this season can be traced to some other names. Defender Danny Califf is a veteran of the national team scene, but his reckless fouling caused problems. Goalkeeper Chris Seitz was hailed as the keeper of the future, but his present was shaky at best. Not all is lost, however. Young Jack McInerney showed promise, and the team traded for the talented Justin Mapp during the season. If coach Peter Nowak can coax a little more from Mapp (an underachiever in Chicago), develop youngsters like McInerney and Seitz, and find a veteran piece to match LeToux, Philly could quickly morph into contenders.

15th place -- Chivas USA
At this location in the standings, things get ugly. Chivas was supposed to bounce back this season, not sink into obscurity. They crumbled early and never got things going in the right direction. Perpetually injured Maykel Galindo was let go. Enigma Sacha Klejstan was shipped overseas. Young Guadalajara loanee Jesus Padilla showed promise but wasn't ready for primetime. Veteran leader Johnny Bornstein made good at the World Cup but seemed distracted by an upcoming move to Mexico afterwards. The team quickly started rotating a bewildering number of players through their roster, and nothing really worked. It's safe to say that Chivas USA is starting over next season. They have no focal point (unless young Sal Zizzo can become one... he's only now getting back into form following a devastating knee injury suffered overseas), no names you'd recognize, and no established plan for the future. The one bright spot is the play of Justin Braun, who showed that he could be a top-notch target forward with just a little help. I'm not sure he's the kind of guy you build around, but Chivas has to start somewhere.....

16th place -- DC United
Following last year's debacle in New York, a team would have to be astoundingly bad to get much attention. DC United wasn't up to (or down to... I should say) that level, but they made it interesting for a while. United started the year with Curt Onalfo as head coach, but he lasted only a few weeks as the team looked confused and disinterested from the get-go. Santino Quaranta tried to lead the group, but he's really more a role player than a playmaker. The team tried bringing back striker Luciano Emilio, but his mojo was clearly gone. Designated player (read: BIG $$$) Branko Boskovic was so quiet most people (even soccer fans) never even knew who he was. DC United was so starved for talent that castoffs like Kurt Morsink and Adam Christman saw major minutes. Shining through all the dregs was Andy Najar, who looks like he could be a dynamic player in years to come. United could do a lot worse than to try to build around him and Quaranta. It's time to get rid of high-priced disappointments like Danny Allsopp and Boskovic. DC fans deserve better than this.

SAH