With the NBA playoffs having begun, Editor Adam Adkins and News Editor Taurin Hickman are here to give you some opinions on who’ll win and why.

Are there any potential upsets in the first round?

Taurin: I really wish Memphis had a healthy Rudy Gay.   If so, I would pick them over San Antonio.  I also think New York has a chance over Boston.

Adam: We all agree that the Kendrick Perkins trade hurt, but I don’t see the Celtics losing to a team that is allergic to defense.  I’d watch out for the Portland-Dallas series.

What would be the most exciting second round matchup?

Adam: How does the Miami Heat playing the Boston Celtics grab you?

Taurin: Star-studded.  You could have seven All-Stars on the court at once.  The Lakers-Blazers series would be exciting.  If I’m a Laker fan, I’m scared of Portland.  They can definitely give Kobe fits.

Adam: The Gerald Wallace trade might cost the Lakers a fourth straight trip to the Finals and a third ring.  In the end, I’d take the Lakers, but it won’t be easy.  I think Thunder-Spurs could be neat, too.  Old Guard versus New Guard?

Taurin: Russell Westbrook versus Tony Parker would be interesting.  But Kevin Durant would go crazy.

Can anyone stop the Chicago Bulls?

Taurin:  The Pacers can!

Adam: Maybe if you make the Bulls play with only their bench, but even with that bench the Pacers would be taken to a seventh game.

Taurin: Sigh.  I know, I know.  But seriously, I think Miami can.  I think the Bulls are somewhat like the 2001 Philadelphia 76ers when it was Allen Iverson doing it all.

Adam: But, unlike Iverson, I think Derrick Rose wants to get more people involved.  A Derrick Rose and Carlos Boozer pick and roll is pretty good.  But, if the Heat start running a Dwayne Wade/LeBron James pick and roll, how do you stop that?

Taurin: You don’t.  You pray.  Hopefully, the Heat will give the ball to Chris Bosh in the post.  He can play down there.

Are the Lakers the team to beat in the West?

Adam:  They absolutely are.  They are deep, and they have a relatively healthy Kobe Bryant.  Still, if he gets in one of his funks, can they survive?

Taurin: I believe they are, I think the Lakers play the best when they go inside-out.  Hopefully Kobe realizes that and doesn’t jack up random threes.

Adam: Back in January, I’d have said the San Antonio Spurs were the favorite.  Are you buying them at all?

Taurin: One word, two letters: no.  They don’t play defense.  They aren’t the defensive team they used to be.  Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili aren’t what they used to be.  This is Tony Parker’s team; can he lead you to a championship?

Adam: I don’t think so.

Who wins it all and why?

Adam: I am taking the Chicago Bulls to beat the Oklahoma City Thunder in 6, with that point guard of theirs as MVP.  I think the Bulls’ defense and Rose making plays will be enough.  I don’t think the Lakers are good enough to win 3 straight.

Taurin: I’m going to pick what David Stern wants: Heat versus Lakers.  I’ll take the Lakers in 6, and Kobe is the MVP (by default).  So, bring back the Kobe and LeBron puppet commercials!

This NFL lockout is intriguing to me.  You must realize, I’m a sports fan, a politics nut  and have grown interested in financial markets.  The NFL lockout hits all three.

What really caught my eye is the anti-trust lawsuit.  The NFLPA has decertified. Why?  That’s a complicated question, but one answer is so the players on an individual basis can sue the NFL (and then form a class-action lawsuit) claiming that the NFL is a monopoly.  (The NFLPA cannot itself sue because it had collectively bargained an agreement, so in essence, it signed off on the monopoly.)

The NFL doesn’t agree.  No, they (the owners) think that each of the 32 teams is a separate business and subsequently, players have 32 different places to work.  What the NFL would like you to forget is that the marketplace as a whole is not just the NFL, but the whole sports landscape.  As the Wall Street Journal put it, the NFL is a “classic cartel—32 individual entities working in concert with one another.”

The players are basically saying, “the NFL has locked us out, and there is nowhere for us to make a living because the NFL is the only game in town, and they are the only game town because they are a monopoly.”

You might be asking yourself, isn’t it obvious that the NFL is a monopoly?  I agree.

The players are basically arguing that a cook can work at a number of restaurants and find comparable wages.  A quarterback can only make his market value inside the NFL.  The NFL is saying, no, you can work at 32 different places.

That’s the mumbo jumbo portion.  Now we get to a crucial point that I agree with the players on: the NFL’s amateur draft is utterly anti-capitalistic and unfair to the players.

A lot of you reading this will be graduating and moving into the job market soon.  Let’s say you are studying Nursing.  After you get your degree, the local hospitals take turns picking Nursing graduates, and someone calls you and tells you where you’ll work and  how much you’ll make.  Sound fun?

College players who wish to turn pro have no control over what company, in what city, they will work.  The ability to choose is a fundamental right to a free society. (Politics!)
That’s a great example of why the lockout interests me.  The problems being discussed can be intriguing if you apply them to your own life.

Also at issue is the NFL’s salary cap.  In no way is a salary cap okay in a capitalistic society.  Again, imagine you are a nurse, you are doing a great job, but you can’t get a raise because all your potential employers have together decreed nurses can only be paid so much.  Does that sound fair?

The NFL must know it is a monopoly.  The owners are not happy that the players brought this up again; billions of dollars are at stake as the courts debate the question.

September is a long ways away, so don’t expect any type of agreement until around then.  I don’t think either side will think about budging until they start losing money.  After all, both of their business is playing football games, and I’ve never seen an NFL game in April.

Super Bowl XLV has so many interesting things going for it.  The Pittsburgh Steelers have won the most Super Bowls; the Green Bay Packers were coached by the guy they named the Lombardi Trophy after.  These two teams know what it means to be championship quality, for sure.

Despite the history, this matchup intrigues me for one simple reason.  Ben Roethlisberger is an excellent postseason quarterback (10-2 in the playoffs) and Aaron Rodgers has already put up two seasons that match or surpass anything that Brett Favre (remember him?) ever did.

These are really two pretty good offenses.  The Steelers are a team that can open things up in the passing game.  This isn’t a “three-yards and a cloud of dust” team anymore.  They can make big plays.

The Packers can, too.  Rodgers can make things happen.  He put up an 8.4 yards per attempt (side note: that’s the best stat to use for QBs) and threw 28 touchdowns this year.  That YPA ranked 2nd in the NFL; Ben was 3rd, by the way.

The big difference between the two is, Ben has already proven he can win big games.  And, despite their quarterback and his talents, the Steelers have serious issues to contend with, mostly in the form of injuries.  Troy Polamalu, Aaron Smith, Maurkice Pouncey and others are hurt.  Pouncey, the Steelers rookie center, is a big loss because the Steelers offensive line is bad as it is.  The injuries make it much worse.  Plus, the Packers can really bring pressure on the quarterback, especially with Cullen Jenkins and Clay Matthews.

The Packers themselves are dealing with injuries, but most occurred early in the year.  Losing Jermichael Finley and Nick Barnett (among others) was a big loss, but the Packers have adapted and still find themselves one victory away from being fitted for rings.

As always in the NFL, it comes down to who has the better quarterback.  Who will play better?  Who can handle the moment?  Who can lead that big drive, late in the game, with 100 million people watching around the world, to win a Super Bowl?

Given that specific situation, only one quarterback in the NFL has my trust, and I’d feel safe putting my dollar on him.

The Pittsburgh Steelers will win Super Bowl XLV, and your Most Valuable Player will be Ben Roethlisberger.

Lots of students here at Sinclair play sports.  They work hard, run hard, study hard, play hard, all of that.  And–this is key–Sinclair makes money off that.  They sell tickets, hot dogs, ball caps, shirts, hoodies, basically anything and everything.

The market for those items is strengthened–but not entirely created by–Sinclair having good athletes.

I’m reaching a bit here because the biggest grossing sport by a mile tends to be football, and Sinclair does not have a football team.  Football makes a lot of money.  Don’t believe me?

Despite the rough economy, Bloomberg reported earlier this year that the University of Texas’ athletic department–fresh off two appearances in the last five years in the sport’s biggest match up, the National Championship Game—now has an operating revenue of $138.5 million, up 32 percent from $90 million four years ago.

The point of the article was that Texas decided to invest in refurbishing their stadium instead of investing in stocks four years ago, and now they are reaping the rewards.  But that’s not my point… my point in bringing the figures up is… well… $138.5 million!  Yes, that is revenue, not profit, and of course Texas has expenses, but I’m sure they’re doing fine.

My proof is coach Mack Brown’s massive new contract—$5 million per year for as long as he’d like to coach there—and that Texas’ football program generated $87.5 million in 2008.  That doesn’t smell like ‘struggling to pay the bills,’ does it?

The big story here is the jump in revenue seen after Texas reached their second title game.  As good a coach as Brown is, he should not receive sole credit for that.  I’m pretty sure he has players, and they had a hand in all of this success.

But should they get paid?  The answer is yes.  Without question.

The one major myth in this that I want to immediately dispel is the idea that the scholarship they are probably coming to Texas on is payment enough.  Absolutely not.  Not in a million years.  That education is worth a lot, but it’s not quite worth what they are providing.  Remember, the players are in essence providing a very lucrative service to their university.

Here’s my solution, though.  Each player is not worth an equal figure, obviously.  The punter doesn’t equal the quarterback.  Plus, many college presidents have complained that paying the players would crush the schools financially.  Okay, fine.

If that’s the case, then change the rules and allow NFL teams to draft high school players.  The best players will still come from college due to the experience, but if a player is good enough right now to play professionally, then he should be allowed to.  Let the market work it out; if making the jump is too hard, then players will stop and everyone will go to college.

But at least give them the choice.  If paying them is not possible for a college team, then they should be allowed to make a living plying their trade elsewhere.