So the British Open just happened over the weekend and it's no big secret that Tiger Woods was not involved since he is out for the rest of the year with an injury.

When you see that golf is missing its main attraction, you have to wonder if it will make it better since there will be unpredictability with a wide-open field.

Most people could see it like that, but some people might not tune in because the ratings darling, Woods, is not going to play.

In my opinion, I think it is better when Woods is on the course. You win either way, if he wins or loses. If he losses to someone who came out of nowhere, you can only imagine what that golfer is thinking because he just beat the greatest golfer in the game today.

The same can be said when Woods wins.

If he is ahead of the pack, people tend to flock to their televisions to see if he'll hold on to win, or in some cases, see how many strokes he beats them by.

It's like watching a piece of history when Woods is on the golf course.

It's a shame that he is out, but it is for a good reason.

I'm sure, as well as 99.9 percent of the population, that Woods will continue to dominate once he returns in 2009.

This leads me to my topic for this week? What are sports without their superstars?

I know that right now, one of football's biggest superstars, Brett Favre, is going through some major issues on whether he is, is not, thinking about it, not thinking about it, or at least just considering coming back to football.

But what about some of the other big names in the sports?

If Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were out for the rest of the season, would we have a wider open race for the Super Bowl? Sure there are 32 teams in the NFL, but with the New England Patriots' Brady and Indianapolis Colts' Manning, either are almost always a lock for the bowl.

Would the rivalry between the Colts and Patriots be the same without them?

When we look at basketball, we have so many marquee players that I don't know where to begin.

After the resurgence of the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers, basketball was "back" for most people.

It was nice to see them go against each other since there is so much history with their rivalry, but did you notice that ratings suffered like nobody's business?

Last year, when the Cleveland Cavaliers and San Antonio Spurs played for the NBA title, not many paid attention.

Wait a second. I thought that people could not wait to see LeBron James have a shot to win his first title?

Apparently we got over it as the 2007 NBA Finals flopped.

But the Spurs won, so that was good for me. However, I understand that people want to see the overpaid, overexposed and overendorsed play in the Finals.

Baseball is already missing the greatest home run hitter of all-time…Hank Aaron.

OK, I know its Barry Bonds, but I'm still waiting on a verdict.

It's become obvious that in Bonds's case that without him, the game is not suffering.

In fact, without him, there really hasn't been a case of players getting questioned or being suspected for steroids this season.

Sure it can be a conspiracy since everybody and their mom is trying to get him to admit guilt. But it feels a little cleaner without him.

The thing about baseball is that stars can easily come out of nowhere.

There's always room for someone bigger and better to make his mark because of baseball's extensive minor league farm system.

So in baseball's case, what if instead of missing superstars, we would have missing teams?

Can you only imagine what baseball would be like without the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees. These are arguably amongst the most historic franchises in baseball history.

Can we possibly live without these teams? I don't think so.

Although they are dominant forces in the game, without them we are missing one of the great rivalries in the sport and we are also missing out on some of the best players to ever play like Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter for the Yankees or Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz and Kevin Youkilis for the Red Sox.

Without these two teams, baseball would not be irrelevant, it just wouldn't have that added flavor you need.

As we look at these major sports, sometimes the main star is needed. Sometimes a main star is a must to save the sport. Sure, golf was popular before Woods, but it got a little more enhanced once he began his dominance 11 years ago.

Remember when cycling was the thing because of Lance Armstrong? For goodness sakes, we have not even given a flip about cycling anymore since he retired after winning seven straight. By the way, it's happening right now, just in case you were curious.

A sport without its big star is like having chicken noodle soup without the chicken.

It's definitely much needed. Although I am a huge fan of the underdog winning, we do take pride in seeing the heavy hitters do what they usually do and dominate.

Juan Carlos Reyes is a sports reporter for the Record Star. Readers may contact him at 361-387-4511 or via email at