(Each week, the readers take over GarySheltonsports.com and play Ask Gary. They send in a question, or a couple, on Thursday night or Friday morning and we all talk about the world of sports. Think of it as a radio show where you don't have to be on hold. Join us and ask a question, make a comment or be funny. Send the questions to GarySheltonsports@gmail.com.)
Saturday, 4 a.m.
I was happy to see that ESPN rated the Lightning organization as the best in sports. Do you think that the Rays deserved to be so low? No. 90?
Jim, the challenge of making such a list is that you have to decide where your emphasis should be.
I don't know if they're No. 1 or not, but I think the Lightning is in the top handful of teams (they were third in 2015). And, if you're a Lightning fan, what is there really to complain about? The team is keeping its players, it's bonded with the community, and it's won. Jeff Vinik has a class organization; I imagine everyone would agree.
The Rays? Despite their low attendance figures, I think the Rays try. I really do. They've rated high in bang-per-buck for their ticket prices.
Content beyond this point is for members only.
Already a member? To view the rest of this column, sign in using the handy "Sign In" button located in the upper right corner of the GarySheltonSports.com blog (its at the far right of the navigation bar under Gary's photo)!
Not a member? It's easy to subscribe so you can view the rest of this column and all other premium content on GarySheltonSports.com.
But the standings also include consideration for what you do on the field (or ice). The Rays simply haven't won enough to be considered very high. The attendance figures, I'm sure, play a part to someone compiling these rankings in an office somewhere.
I don't know if No. 90 is right. But what would please you? No. 73 (the Bucs ranking)? No 58? Unless a team ranks in the top 10, what does it matter?
If I were the Rays, this would be my protest. The team was 45th last year, 35th the year before. Did they really fall 45 slots over one season? Really? The Bucs rose 18 slots in a year they ticket prices increased. I don't get that, either.
I'll say this: With the cost of tickets these days, the No. 1 thing I would want from my team is the hope of winning. No, I'm not talking about every year. But I'm talking about progress you can see.
I think the Bolts have a lot of faith in their stands. I'm not sure you can say it about the Bucs or Rays.
What odds would you give on Willie Taggart being back next season?
It's funny how a question can mean just the opposite of what it used to mean, isn't it? Before last season, a lot of people thought Taggart might be fired. This year, they're nervous that Willie might leave.
The odds, I'd say, are 78 percent that he's back. He loves the area. He likes the school. And I don't think he's quite won enough to open the door on a guaranteed winner. But say North Carolina or Kentucky come calling? Those would be tough choices for Taggart. More money, more prestige, etc.
The key for Taggart at this stage of his career is to be careful. I don't think he's accomplished enough, at this stage, to get a brand-name job: Oklahoma or Texas, if they came open. And he's be silly to go to Purdue or Texas Tech. Taggart has to find a place where he can win.
Would he leave? Heck, he left his alma mater. I can see the off-season coming, and Willie getting guidance from his buddy Jim Harbaugh and landing in the right spot. But it would take the right offer more than it would take money.
I think he'll be back, myself. But that's not forever. If Taggart keeps winning, schools will start calling.
The Lightning were named the No 1 franchise by ESPN in their annual ranking of professional franchises. The Rays and the Bucs by comparison were way down the list. Jeff Vinik is widely considered to be one of the best owners in sports who has built a model franchise. So does it follow that Stu Sternberg and the Glazers should be considered among the worst owners?
Not necessarily, although I'd take it that way if my team ranked low on the list. ESPN isn't ranking owners, but owners have a lot to do with some of the stuff they are ranking.
I saw, for instance, that the 49ers were listed as No. 122 despite their new stadium. But they've raised ticket prices 60 percent while delivering only five wins. The team is among the least accessible in sports.
It strikes me that so much of their list starts with winning and then considers other things. They talk about how happy fans are, but fans aren't happy when the team has been away from the playoffs for a while. Fans are also pleased with how they feel they're being appreciated, how comfortable they are, and the price tag of a night out.
Can the Rays quibble that they should have been, oh, 45th? And the Bucs can say they should have been 61st. But if I'm the owners, I take this is a message that my fans are relatively unhappy. And I strike to fix it. Now.
To be a successful college football coach, what is more important -- recruiting or coaching?
Define your terms, Scott. When you say coaching, are you talking just about game-day coaching? Game-day coaching is important, but by that point, the hay is in the barn. But if you count game-planning, player development (which goes hand-in-hand with coaching), scheduling and scouting, well, that's a different matter.
Recruiting is vital to win every year. But there are always programs that flourish despite not ranking high in recruiting. Where has Washington been in the recent recruiting rankings? Houston? Louisville? Bobby Bowden won for a long time before FSU became the recruiting powerhouse it is these days. I remember when Marquette Smith was such a high recruit; he shouldn't have been.
On the other hand, Alabama and Ohio State win at both recruiting and the playing of the game.
If I were going to cop out, I'd point out how vital both aspects are, which is why it's a good question. But let's don't cop out. I'm going to say coaching is first, recruiting is second and game-day coaching is about eighth.
I thought I heard next season that pitchers will be on the clock in an attempt to speed up the game? True?
The clock has just started on commissioner Rob Manuel's efforts to speed up the game. He has floated the idea of a 20-second pitch clock, which seems reasonable. Still, there are a lot of major league pitchers at the 25-26 second mark. It would be an adjustment.
The clock has been effective in the minors and college baseball, but the major leaguers are sure to fight it. They''ll say that it will increase injuries. Perhaps, but I think the bigger obstacle is mental. The players will learn to adjust. They usually do.
Any rule change, however, would have to be approved by the Players' Association.
I certainly don't see it for this year. Maybe a couple of seasons afterward.