SF reroutes torch relay, but misses the point

Since it was my day off, I had the luxury of sitting at home and watching the torch relay live on TV as it dove and ducked throughout the streets of San Francisco. As I watched the torch disappear, only to reemerge in the city on an unannounced route, listening to the media trying to figure out where the flame was going, it became quickly apparent something more was going on.

I can understand why the route was changed. There were thousands of people lining the Embarcadero. Throngs were gathered at AT&T park and the plaza by the Ferry Building. The main job of the city and the police is to keep everyone safe, and there was too much potential for things to get out of hand.

But this was more than just crowd control. The first torch bearer smiled and waved to the crowd, then ran the opposite direction straight into a warehouse where she stayed for at least 15 minutes. Boats circled outside the warehouse - were they going to carry the torch to the plaza near the Ferry Building over the Bay? A motorcade peeled out, but where were they going? Former Mayor Willie Brown, a torch bearer, was whisked by boat to the Ferry Building and told to wait outside where cameras could clearly capture him - was the relay scrapped? Was the mayor told he was bumped? Would the torch end up at the plaza after all? - before he was rushed to the new route to be one of the final torch bearers. When the relay finally ended, they stopped at the foot of the Golden Gate Bridge just long enough to make everyone think the flame was heading across - and to back up traffic just as rush hour was starting - before piling into the bus and heading, well, no one knew where they were heading.

Eventually NBC confirmed that they were heading to the airport. They also found out that, as of last night, the Chinese were calling the shots for the relay. Again, this was more than crowd-control. This was a carefully choreographed operation meant to intentionally deceive not just protestors and the media, but everyone who gave up their day to come to San Francisco's waterfront and share in the Olympic spirit.

Again, I understand that changing the route was probably necessary for everyone's safety, but engaging in a bait-and-switch, secret service-like deception operation, the city and the relay organizers did the relay a disservice. The image of the Olympic flame in the United States will be one that was, yes, successful. But it will also be one of a flame that had to be guarded and ultimately hidden from the people.

San Diego proves WCC suits were right to move tourney

Gonzaga is still going dancing, although its seeding may have suffered. Saint Mary's must must anxiously wait to see if the fairy godmother will come with an invitation to the Big Dance.

And San Diego, on the wings of its home crowd, already has a ticket punched.

Nothing should diminish the Torrero's achievement's this weekend in San Diego. Coming back from a seemingly insurmountable deficit (helped by SMC's sudden inability to find the basket) to make it to the finals, then stunning powerhouse Gonzaga to win the West Coast Conference championship. Their play was inspired and thrilling to watch.

But it's ironic that all of this happened the same weekend the WCC announced that next year's tournament will be held on an neutral site, in Las Vegas. San Diego's victory showed precisely why the WCC tournament needs a neutral court, and thus that the conference made the right decision.

The reasoning behind rotating the tournament between schools makes some sense. It allows the action to remain close to home. Many I'm sure feel that by playing the games in some far-off arena, the tournament loses some of its charm.

But the WCC is no longer a sideshow conference, exciting to watch for the students at those schools and the alumni who still follow games, but few else. In basketball, at least, it has become a player on the national stage. Gonzaga has been a Top-25 team for most of the past 10 years. Saint Mary's is quickly becoming the conference's second powerhouse. And each year an upstart challenger not wearing blue and red seems to provide trouble for the Gaels and the Zags: San Diego this year, Santa Clara last year, Loyola Marymount the year before.

Hosting the tournament gives the home team an incredible advantage. This usually mattered little since Gonzaga was a sure shot to win the conference anyways, but now it's different. Other teams, notably Saint Mary's but increasingly San Diego and Santa Clara, are posing an increasing threat to the Zags' dominance.

In addition, the tournament is not even rotated fairly. Of the eight teams in the conference, only half are allowed to host. Saint Mary's, Loyola Marymount, San Francisco and Pepperdine are ineligible because their gyms don't meet the requirements. So while Gonzaga, Santa Clara, San Diego and Portland can travel to another school's home court knowing that in a few years they enjoy playing for the title in front of a friendly crowd, the others will never get that advantage.

Few analysts doubt that, had the tournament been held anywhere other than San Diego, the outcome would have been different. True, if you're good enough to make the NCAA tournament, you should win tough road games. But the Big Dance is held on entirely neutral courts.

Home court advantage is rightly a part of the regular season, because its evened out. You know you're going to have face their team in their gym, but you also know that, sometime else in the season, you'll face them again at home. But in the postseason, when its one-and-done, you don't have a chance to make up for any advantage the crowd provides. And in college basketball, the crowd provides a huge advantage.

Your postseason chances should be determined by the statement you made - your record - in the regular season, not by the noise level of a partisan crowd. The WCC was right to elect to move the tournament, and with the WCC on the rise in the college basketball world, let's hope the decision stands.

A funny thing happened on the way to New Hampshire

Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses.

As a big-time supporter of Sen. Obama, I was extremely excited. It was happening. While I've been passionate about politics for many years, and as a primarily partisan political junkie have taken up the banner of most Democratic candidates no matter how lackluster (see Kerry, John, presidential campaign of), Obama has been the first one I have truly believed in and been inspired by. He was gaining momentum, and with John Edwards becoming less relevant (he carries the same "change" banner as Obama, but with less money and less charisma), a win in New Hampshire could strike a big blow to Hillary Clinton and give Obama a significant advantage heading into Super Tuesday.

But then another feeling came up: sadness. I began to see the double-edged sword that has resulted from the Democrats' stacked deck of candidates this year. A win for Obama, the first African American with a serious shot at the White House, means a loss for Clinton, the first woman with a serious shot (and, to a lesser extent, Bill Richardson, the first Latino).

While the Republicans race has been primarily a bunch of Protestant (with the exception of Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani) white guys arguing amongst each other over who is most like that popular Protestant white guy who was the president during the 1980s, the Democrats were busy putting together a line-up of candidates that looked more like the new America.

The new America is one in which whites are becoming less of a majority (they have already been relegated to a mere plurality in California and Texas). It is one in which the Latino vote is becoming more and more crucial. It is one in which blacks and women are gaining more and more leadership positions. Last election, Devan Patrick became the first African-American governor of Massachusetts. We have a black woman as the secretary of state. More and more women are breaking the glass ceiling to become powerful business leaders.

But with all the potential "firsts" on the Democratic side - first woman, first African American, first Latino - only one can be the nominee, and then he or she must do battle with the white guy from across the aisle.

I began to look at things from Clinton's perspective. The first student commencement speaker ever at her alma mater, Wellesley, and a graduate of Yale Law School with incredible potential, she put aside her personal ambitions to marry Bill Clinton. She waited as his political star rose, and she endured his many marital infidelities. In 2000, her turn finally came. She was elected to the Senate in New York, and was re-elected in 2006. She was smart, talented, and in the Senate. Nothing could stop her ascendency to the presidency; she was going to make history.

Until Obama. You can understand why she got a little choked up while campaigning yesterday. All her hard work and patience may be over as soon as today if Obama wins in New Hampshire.

And therein, again, lies the double-edged sword. As much as I want to see an Obama win and an Obama presidency, part of me will always be sad for the lost chance, at least for now, of Clinton breaking the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton steadies and pulls out the win, I will support her enthusiastically. If trends continue and she loses, I will be happy that it was not because she was a woman. It was because she was faced with a new, often-times more inspirational rival who is also trying to make history, and Democratic voters simply went with him instead. And I will hope that she will have inspired other women to realize that the most powerful position in the world is no longer off-limits to them.

And then I will cheer on Obama, as he goes head to head with yet another white, male Republican.