Your initial, knee-jerk reaction, like mine, is probably "Well duh, the men's team is more impressive because women's sports is a joke." Not so fast my friend! While I may not completely disagree with you on how laughable women's sports may or may not be, that's not the question and you can't deny that going 40-0 in any sport is impressive! Personal opinion aside about women's sports, going undefeated is no small feat.

Let's take a closer look, starting with the Lady Huskies. After all, ladies first, right? Have you ever been a part of an undefeated team, at any level? I haven't. And few can say that they have because going undefeated is hard! Yet this group of women managed to reel off 40 straight victories, including a tournament title against another undefeated team. The last men's team to go undefeated and win a tournament title was Bobby Knight's 1976 Indiana Hoosier's and that was nearly 40 years ago. The only team in the NFL who's gone undefeated is the 1974 Miami Dolphins (thanks to Eli Manning and co.). No other team has come close to an undefeated season in the MLB, NBA, MLS, WNBA, PBA, PGA or WCP (can you go undefeated in poker?). So let's pump the brakes before we just dismiss the Lady Huskies right off the bat.

Am I arguing then that the women's team had the more impressive accomplishment? Not exactly. Not yet, at least.

The men's team's resume is just as impressive becoming the first team ever to win a tournament title as a #7 seed. Only the 1984 Villanova Wildcats have a tournament title to their name as a lower seed (8 seed) and further more, no #7 seed has ever even made it to the Final Four let alone the championship game. The Huskies weren't a product of upsets either. Their road to the championship game was as hard, if not harder, than any other. In order, the Huskies took down a #2 seed, #3 seed, the tournament darling #4 seed (Mich St) and then the #1 overall seed (Florida). Coming into the championship game, UCONN faced arguably the hottest team in the tournament, Kentucky. Even before the game the "experts" on the pregame show unanimously picked UK to win (maybe simply hoping that a certain young man wouldn't have to regret said tattoo forever). None of this, however, affected the Huskies as they came in and took care of business solidifying themselves as one of the greatest tournament performances ever.

So, which accomplishment is greater? Well, as impressive as it is to go undefeated in any sport, as I mentioned earlier, it seems to happen about every third year in women's college basketball. In fact, 7 out of the last 20 years in women's college basketball has ended with an undefeated team winning it all. And yes, 40-0 is a huge win streak, but doesn't seem quite as impressive when you consider that just three years ago the same Lady Huskies program had a 90-0 streak. And again, as I stated before, this is the first men's 7 seed to win a championship with Villanova being the only team to win it as a lower seed in '84.

You combine that with the road the Huskies went through to even make it to the championship game and this one is a no brainer. The men's team hands down had the most impressive accomplishment. Either way, it's a great time to be a Husky fan.

Maybe you're not a Texas Rangers fan, but you can't deny the fact that the AL West this year will be one of the most compelling story lines to watch. The Rangers, Oakland A's and L.A. Angel's all have a legitimate shot at a Wild Card spot, if not divisional crown. Sorry Mariners fans, but you're going to need more than Robinson Cano to give you a real chance. Maybe you could sign Russell Wilso… oh wait, the Rangers already did. Sorry.

FiveThirtyEight.com, an analytics site, has the Rangers with the best chance to win their division, but not by much. They project the Rangers to win 87.2 games, the A's 86.9 and the Angels 84.9. As you can see, the margin between these teams is razor thin.

And Houston? Doc Holliday said it best, "Why [Astros]… I forgot you was there. You may go now." I think that about sums it up.

This year the Rangers come into the season with quite a few new faces, some lingering injuries, pitching questions and the burden of proof that trading Ian Kinsler was the right move. With such a tough division, Ron Washington has his hands full this year.

The addition of Prince Fielder's big bat will no doubt help with the Rangers' offense, but there are still major questions in the pitching rotation. With a number of potential starters rehabbing injuries, Texas is left with a starting line up of pitchers no one could have projected. The best we can hope for is that they hold on, don't get smashed (allowing 14 runs in the home opener, for example) until we can get everyone healthy.

The injury bug has effected the Rangers in years past and we're seeing it already this year. Not only do we need our pitchers to get healthy, young star Jurickson Profar is out for another 10 to 12 weeks with a torn muscle in his shoulder. Profar is the reason we let Ian Kinsler walk and now he's hurt. We can only hope that the Rangers are able to get these players healthy and back in the line-up if they are to have any chance at keeping up with the Angels or the A's. But maybe if we can get the injuries out of the way early, we'll be healthy for a October run? One can only hope.

My projection: this year is going to be a race to 90 wins. Whoever can get there first will take the division. GO RANGERS!

In 2005, the NBA passed a rule raising the minimum age requirement to enter the draft from 18 to 19. In doing so, forced athletes to spend at least one year in college before "going pro." This rule was put in place after players like Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard and even Lebron James went straight from high school to the NBA skipping college all together. The worry was that more players, not quite of the same caliber as the aforementioned players, would skip college only to not make it in the NBA when they might have had a better chance after developing more in college. But unless you've been living under a rock, you already know all of this.

Has the one and done rule actually helped though? New NBA commissioner, Adam Silver, doesn't think so. He's advocating for the age requirement to be raised to 20, replicating what college football has in place. At an All-Star Weekend press conference, Silver said, "It is my belief that if players have an opportunity to mature as players and as people for longer amount of time before they come into the league, it will lead to a better league." I think what Silver points out here is key: let them mature as a player and a person. Far too many players come into the league unprepared to face the fame and glamor that comes with it. 

But not everyone agrees, current and former players alike. Magic Johnson said on ESPN that he believes that if a kid can go serve his country in the Army at 18 then he has the right to earn a living in the NBA at 18 too. And there are other players who disagree as well. During the 2012 NBA lock-out, this was one of the issues that the league had to consent on before the lock-out would end. I think it's safe to say that not all players are on board with this idea.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's not still the best thing for the NBA. I'd argue that there are a lot of biased opinions in NBA locker rooms when it comes to the one and done rule. 

Do I think that every player who comes out of college after one year needed to stay for another? No, of course not. There are always going to be those players who are ready after high school. That's why the LeBron James' of the world were drafted #1 out of high school. But for every LeBron there are 20 Kwame Brown's. And who knows what Kwame would have done after a few years of development in college.

That's the thing, it's all one big speculation. But if it's up to me, I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to the quality of competition in the NBA. Plus, it can only be good for college basketball. The way I see it is there is a much greater good that could come out of the age limit being raised than bad. 

In fact, look at what it's done to college basketball. These highly touted recruits come in to a program with their minds made up. One and done. They know that they just need one good year and they've solidified their draft status. No longer do you get athletes playing for their school, for a championship or for just the love of the game, but for the hope of money next year. This one and done rule has introduced an age of inconsistency in college basketball that is unprecedented. Because teams can't hold on to their good players it becomes increasingly hard to establish a core. If they have any success all, their starters instantly bolt to the pros (i.e. Kentucky). Bob Knight has gone so far as to say that the NBA has "raped" college basketball on ESPN's Mike and Mike show. Harsh words, but somehow I find it hard to truly disagree with him.

This is a no brainer for me. Let the kids mature for two years before trying to compete against grown men. It's good for the NBA and it's good for college basketball. And maybe after two years of college these kids might actually go back at some point and finish their degree! 

Go to college, develop as a player and a person, then go pro.