An NFL Nut.

Football stuff.

Team Composite

Managing Team Performance In The Human Resource Management Field

Introduction

Sumanski et al (2007) assert that in order to develop process based management, one must utilize teams. Additionally, teams provide a platform against which one can integrate a range of complex business processes. Teams have become the new buzz word in the corporate atmosphere but there is a need to examine how companies can make teams work for them. In others words, effective teams are well managed one. This literature review shall begin with a brief introduction on teams and then greater emphasis will be given to the process of managing such teams as explained in five journal articles.

The importance of teams

Pineda & Lerner (2006) explain that teams can increase flexibility within an organization. Also, they provide companies with a platform against which they can save on a series of costs while doing businesses. Through teams, it is possible for businesses to focus on the consumer more intensively. Also, one can be able to continuously improve and innovate their services or products through such an approach. In close relation to the matter is the fact that teams allow ownership and responsibility in implementation of business processes. Margerison & McCann (1995) even add that no individual is an island so team based approaches can therefore add to the level of happiness or contentment in a business.

Jordan and Lawrence (2006) are quick to clarify that sometimes some organizations may place too much emphasis on teams per say and fail to identify other essential elements that are required to make them work. Consequently, these latter authors argue that it is performance that matters more than the structural aspects of these teams. There are other pointers that the latter authors claim need greater emphasis when trying to understand teams. Teams are not merely about specific members; instead, greater emphasis needs to be given to the overall organizational design. On top of the latter Jordan and Lawrence (2006) explain that management philosophy should take greater precedence over structural elements of teams. In line with this, some companies have gotten it wrong by focusing on empowerment alone rather than ensuring accountability and responsibility.

Jordan and Lawrence (2006) bring in a different light to this affirmation by claiming that teams run their on small scale units within a larger business. Organizations need to be thought of as combinations of small enterprises that are closely associated. No single job in that company is absolutely independent from the other since each category relies on the other. Additionally, all members of the organization are aware of some of the basics that go on in other job groups since they are working towards one common organizational goal. Therefore teams allow interaction of these differing members. Teams share similar values and can contribute towards achievement of organizational goals more effectively. Most of the time, members of a team are more motivated and this eases the process of organizational goal achievement.

Jordan and Lawrence (2006) also add that when certain companies were asked why they chose to employ teams in carrying out their goals, they gave a number of reasons that could have  caused this.  First of all, they claimed that their productivity was improved to a great extent. Also, they added that teams could manage themselves more effectively than individuals could thus minimizing the resources required to make them more successful. Besides this, employees themselves were more satisfied with their work as different professions intermingled and worked together. Other companies claim that the amount of time put in to achieve certain results was much lower through teams than through individual approaches. Lastly, efforts put in by respective employees were not as much in teams than they were in the converse case. This shows that less resources and energy are employed.

Managing Team Performance

Higgs, Plewnia and Ploch (2005) explain that in order to manage team effectively, it is essential to first understand some of the factors that influence team performance. The latter authors identify five major factors that are essential in ensuring team success

1)      Cultural issues

2)      Rewards and compensation

3)      Measurement of performance

4)      Team management through team roles, training and other management issues

5)      Aligning team objectives with strategic objectives

In order for teams to perform, it is essential for one to understand that members constituting a team are individuals. This means that issues revolving around their differences need to be identified and addressed adequately. Most of these aspects include their social and cultural differences. Besides that, it is imperative for members of the teams to be adequately motivated. One of the methods in which this can be achieved is through the use of rewards and compensation.

Additionally, achievements made by the team need to be measured by the organization under consideration because it provides members of the team with a direction against which they can move. When team roles are clearly cut out, then chances are that members will have a better idea of what they are supposed to do and their performance is bound to improve. Additionally, training enables team members to handle their work challenges more effectively thus boosting their output. The latter two elements are crucial parts of team management. In line with the latter matter is the issue of aligning team goals with organizational ones. Doing this streamlines the team’s working process and this heightens their chances of doing well. (Higgs, Plewnia and Ploch, 2005)

While the latter authors identified five factors that are instrumental in influencing team performance, Sumanski et al (2007) identified other determinants of team performance. They claimed that in order for teams to do well, there must be identification and measurement of all the soft issues and hard issues affecting the members. They also asserted that one must understand the type of team that one is working with and how best to deal with its challenges. This means that one should determine whether it is more important to measure individual or team outcomes when dealing with the matter. Also, there should be adequate examination of how the team has integrated organizational perspectives in dealing with their specific issues.

After understanding some of the issues involved in influencing teams, it is now important to look at how to manage those teams effectively. Sumanksi et al (2007) members of the team must be able to understand all the things that are important to the company under consideration and how the team can effectively carry this out. Besides this, one must be able to look at current organizational occurrences and then determine whether the team under consideration is capable of carrying these issues out. If this is not the case, then there may be a need to reconstitute the team under consideration.

Margerison and McCann (1995) identify three major frameworks against which one can manage teams and they include the building blocks together with deployment mechanisms. These building blocks are as follows:

• The business process
• The team process
• The organizational environment

Deployment mechanisms are the routes against which members of the organization can carry out the building blocks and they include the expectations of the respective organization. In line with this factor is an analysis of the current situation as it is and derivation of an action plan. Besides this, performance measurements must be made in line with the latter matter.

While the latter authors place greater precedence on performance frameworks. Higgs et al (2005) claims that it is more important to establish measures for every realm that the team carries out than to deal with overall goals. In other words, they concur with the former authors but believe that the best way to manage teams is by knowing what needs to be measured. They explain that team management measures are imperative in understanding whether a certain business has the right environment to enable the team and the process to do well.

It should be noted that team management measures are distinct from team performance measures as brought out in Sumanksi’s et al’s (2007) journal. These authors claim that team performance measures are used in determining whether a team is doing well. In other words, the latter term is normally linked to social interaction within the team, behaviors affecting the team or other health issues concerning it. In addition to team performance measures, one must remember that business processes need to be measured too. Business process measures are restricted to all those analyses that check on the business process that a certain team was to carry out. In the context of this topic, the most important measure will be the team performance measure.

Jordan and Lawrence (2006) bring out a different way of looking at this matter in that they look at ways of linking the process, the business environment and the team. In their explanation, these authors claim that there is a need for organizations to examine what they would like a certain business process to do for them. Additionally, teams need to know exactly what ought to be done to carry out that business process. This examination normally involves the assessment of competencies, skills and attitudes that are needed. Once teams are able to understand this, then managers ought to look at whether teams are currently carrying out those objectives. If this is not the case, then an action plan must be set up to carry out the right processes. Lastly, a method of measuring those actions must also be established. As it can be seen this assertion is somewhat similar to what had been suggested by Sumanski et al (2007)

Higgs et al (2005) explains some of the intricate details involved in carrying out team performance measures. This is largely because there are a number of elements that ought to be covered under such an arrangement. First of all, process performance measures are ways of analyzing how the process is being carried out. In certain companies, this may be done through autonomic methods. Conversely, some organizations may carry this out through generic methods. Besides the latter matter, it may be possible to find that certain organizations tend to rely on specify processes which may either be long term or short term depending on how one looks at it.

On the other hand, team performance measures can fall in either two categories. First of all, teams can be analyzed through the nature of their team life or the team task being carried out. Most organizations usually choose to analyze them through team tasks. In this regard, the tasks may either be high poor low and the team life may either be short or long. (Higgs et al, 2005)

Pineda and Lawrence (2006) have discussed a number of ways in which companies can deal with performance measures. This perspective is different from discussion put out by Sumanskis et al (2007) and Higgs et al (2005). Pineda and Lawrence (2006) argue that not all aspects of the team objectives can be measured. However, it is important to consider some of the quantifiable aspects and then look for ways of measuring them. Usually measures may be done in accordance with quality, quantity, cost and timelines. Measures can either be done numerically or descriptively.

The latter authors argue that feedback is an important aspect since team members need to know how they have performed. However, before feedback can be done, data should be collected. Team leaders need to know the data collected, when and how this needs to be done.

Since teams are guided by process based approaches, then the most effective way of ensuring that they perform is by fully understanding the business process involved in carrying out their respective tasks. First of all, businesses must identify the process objectives. Sumanski (2007) explain that a business process is any series of interrelated activities that have a set output and have the ability to boost primary processes or they add overall value to a business. These authors are bale o identify some of the issues that are important in making the process work. They claim that the activities making up business processes are those that have the capacity to yield results and these include; problem solving, consulting with team members or even report writing. It should be noted that these activities may have a direct influence on the business or they may assisted in achieving other objectives.

In line with the latter issue Higgs et al (2005) explain that businesses must be in a position to identify what the processes objectives are so that they can empower their teams to carry out their respective tasks. The best way to establish this is by examining who the consumers of the team really are. In this regard, consumers are those people who depend on the activities of teams within the organization. This also means that the team under consideration must then re-examine what they have been delivering to their internal consumers. This means that the performance criteria used to gauge these deliverables must also be clearly laid out.

Payments are an important part of any team implementation process. This is largely because they form the basis against which teams know what they are being paid to do. Besides this, they also indicate some of the problems that may arise during the team process. In certain circumstances, teams may be required to do work that is in excess of their respective mandates and their payments may not reflect their respective roles. Consequently, most of them end up underperforming since their pay will have clearly defined their importance within that respective organization. (Jordan and Lawrence, 2006)

Jordan and Lawrence (2006) also give some details of how teams can be more effective in their current circumstances compared to other different scenarios. These authors say that there are certain ways in which one can look for these perspectives by setting up the most influential and effective ways of dealing with the matter. In this regard, it may be necessary to lay out some of the specifics on how one wants a certain team to behave. Organizations should be able to identify some of the needs that teams may have i.e.

• Rewards
• Motivations
• Education needstraining needs
• Empowering the team members
• Giving direction to team members

Once a company has been able to identify the latter matter, then it should be in a position to re-examine its current position. If it is not carrying out these matters, then it needs to set up a directive that will boost the way they are carrying out these requirements.

Aside from business process objectives, teams need to have mechanisms for knowing their own objectives. In order to do this, then team leaders or organizational managers need to know some of the behavior that is required to achieve business process goals. This means that team leaders must be in a position to analyze some of the activities within the organization and which ones can be able to contribute towards the overall team goal. Thereafter, companies need to know what values drive their team members and what values these team members have in common. Additionally, the process of identifying team processes needs to be done through identification of some of the processes or procedures required to do so. This means that adequate care must be taken to assess the kind of team required to achieve this. This also means that communication levels within these groups must be assessed and their importance determined. Lastly, teams need to examine their core competencies and determine which ones are important in carrying out team goals effectively. (Higgs et al, 2005)

Higgs et al (2005) have identified a number of questions that can assist team leaders or team managers in identification of these team objectives. First of all, a company needs to ask itself what it requires of the process under consideration. This means that some of the needs inherent within an organization ought to be identified and some of the may include

• Training
• Internal benchmarking
• Provision of resources

After looking at some of these needs, the latter authors assert that companies must then assess current practices and then look for ways in which they can implement those issues that they had discovered in the goal identification phase.

Pineda and Lerner (2006) bring in a different dimension to the arguments made by Higgs et al (2007) owing to the fact that they describe ways in which a company can identify team management objectives. This direction is slightly different because of the fact that it merges the business process and team objectives phases to come up with a comprehensive and direct way of managing team performance through team goals.

Pineda and Lerrner (2006) highlight the importance of technology in carrying out team work. Consequently, resource identification is an important part of setting out these team management objectives. Additionally, resources and knowledge have also been identified as crucial parts of this process.

Jordan and Lawrence (2006) bring in a fresh dimension to this matter by showing how respective teams can be able to be effective by prioritizing issues. This can be done by weighting their respective objectives. This is largely because when teams have no priorities, then most members end up being confused about what the important issues are what the non important are too. On top of the latter, such teams usually lack a shared vision and this can be highly detrimental to the achievement of objectives or overall success of team. Teams that do not prioritize issues are also prone to complaints from members who may claim that they have not received credit for their contribution to the team. This means that it is important for companies to prioritize some of these issues.

Jordan and Lawrence (2006) add that there prioritizing issues is best done through weighting team objectives. Usually, this is best done through assigning percentages that denote the relative importance of a certain result. Usually, this is important in linking some of the individuals and team objectives facing team members.

It should be noted that there are a number of ways in which team and individual objectives can be aligned as put to by Pineda and Lerner (2006). First of all, it is important for organizations as well as team leaders to recognize that human beings are competitive in nature. All individuals would like to be able to get some form of recognition for their efforts. This means that each individual has their own goals and aspirations other than those ones of the team. In line with this, paying attention to individual issues is important owing to the fact that coaching, rewarding and training can be determined through understanding individual needs. Besides this, team members will always be inspired to do more once they know that their rewards for them irrespective of team outcomes. In fact it is always important to reward team members in spite of the output so as to motivate them to work in subsequent years.

Pineda and Lerner (2006) claim that the best way for organizations to ensure effective team performance, companies need to look for ways in which individuals and team performances do not contradict one another. In other words, team leaders can deal with the possibility of such a clash by drawing a personal team matrix. Once the business is able to identify some of the similarities, then it can look for ways of implementing. It is imperative for team leaders to include team members in this process. They can be done by discussing with the team members ways in which their objectives can be aligned with those of the organization.

Conclusion

Effective team management encompasses three major aspects. First of all, companies need to identify objectives to govern the team. The objectives can either be analyzed through business processes, team objectives and team performance methods. Also, companies need to measure their objectives and mechanisms should be sought on how to analyze some of the organizational objectives with team member goals.

References

Higgs, M., Ploch, J. & Plewnia, U. (2005): Influence of team composition and task complexity on team performance; Team Performance Management, 11, 8, 227

Pineda, C. & Lerner, L. (2006): Goal attainment, satisfaction and learning from teamwork; Team Perfromance Management, 12, 5, 190

Sumanski, M., Markic, M. & Kolenc, I. (2007): Teamwork and defining group structures; Team Performance Management, 13, 4, 107

Margerison, C. & McCann, D. (1995): Team Management – new approaches; Psychological Bulletin, 6, 35, 70

Jordan, P. & Lawrence, S. (2003): The Impact of Negative Mood on Team Performance; Journal of Management & Organization, 15, 4, 98-102

About the Author

Author is associated with ResearchPapers247.Com which is a global Research Papers and Term Papers Writing Company. If you would like help in Research Papers and Term Paper Help you can visit www.ResearchPapers247.Com

What are my chances of getting accepted into Bradley University?

I just sent my application, but I wanted to know if I should bank on getting accepted. Here is some acedemic info about me:
-24 act composite.
-3.72 out of 4.0 gpa
- 79 of 421 class rank

Here are some clubs that I've been:
-Math team (2 years)
-Web Club (1 year)
-Marching Band (3 years/ continuing into my 4th year)

So, that said, what are my possiblities?
Another detail: I'm going to study Mechanical Engineering

Bradley will have different requirements for the different majors. I went there a very long time ago, in 1982. They were much more picky for an engineering major than for an art major. I don't know it will be help because of how long ago it was, but I entered into the engineering prgram and had an ACT of 26, about the same GPA, and all I remember about class rank was that it was about the top 8%. In high school, I was active in the theater club and was in the gifted program for art - hence my knowledge that entering as an art major was easier than getting into the engineering program.

I hope it is of some help.

TLB Otters 2008 Summer Swim Team Composite Slide Show

Rawlings Edge Soft Composite Youth Football - Youth $17.99 Composite leather cover with neoprene foam backing. Patented double wall bladder. Youth Size.Youth - Youth

Baden Junior Composite Football - Youth $19.99 Deluxe Composite Cover. Pro Shape. Baden-engineered shape with Spiral Zone radius. Proprietary waterproof reinforced liner. Rigid Seams with Trigger edge for higher-RPM spirals. Textured polyethelyne lace. COMP Series. Youth - Youth

Wilson Youth TDY Composite Football - Youth $24.99 Wilson composite footballs feature a premium composite leather cover with high defenition pebble for superior grip. Patented ACL (Accurate Control Lacing) laces are made of pebbled composite leather which provides more grip than traditional laces. The stripes on the football are Wilson Grip Stripes and provide improved grip over traditional painted stripes. A multi-layered linig offers better shape and durability and the butyl rubber bladder provides maximum air retention. The TDY pattern composite football is approved for all youth leagues, and is intended for ages to . Youth - Youth

Under Armour Youth Composite Football - Youth $24.99 Exclusive Under Armour Gripskin technology features premium composite leather cover. Tackified black TPR lace provides superior grip. Multi-layer foam backed construction for ultimate grip and feel. Junior Size.Youth - Youth

Spalding Pop Warner Junior Composite Football - Youth $17.99 This Spalding Pop Warner Junior football is for ages -. This football is made up of a top quality composite brown leather cover with TPR lace and butyl bladder. Official Product Of Pop Warner Football. Youth - Youth

Wilson Composite K2 Pee Wee Football - Youth $22.99 This football features a Premium Composite Leather cover with high definition pebble for grip. Patented ACL (Accurate Control Lacing), made of pebbled composite leather, provides more grip than traditional laces. Multi-layered lining for better shape and durability. Butyl rubber bladder provides maximum air retention. This Pee Wee sized football is recommended for - year olds.Youth - Youth

Wilson Composite TDJ Junior Football - Youth $23.99 This football features a Premium Composite Leather cover with high definition pebble for grip. Patented ACL (Accurate Control Lacing), made of pebbled composite leather, provides more grip than traditional laces. Multi-layered lining for better shape and durability. Butyl rubber bladder provides maximum air retention. This Junior sized football is recommended for - year olds.Youth - Youth

2004 Cardinals Team Composite $49.99 2004 Cardinals Team Composite - Framed Photographic Print

Rawlings Edge Soft Composite Pee-Wee Football - Youth $17.99 Composite leather cover with neoprene foam backing. Patented double wall bladder. Pee-Wee Size.Youth - Youth

Rawlings Edge Soft Composite Junior Size Football - Youth $17.99 Composite leather cover with neoprene foam backing. Patented double wall bladder. Junior Size.Youth - Youth

Baden Pee Wee Composite Football - Youth $19.99 Deluxe Composite Cover. Pro Shape. Baden-engineered shape with Spiral Zone radius. Proprietary waterproof reinforced liner. Rigid Seams with Trigger edge for higher-RPM spirals. Textured polyethelyne lace. COMP Series. Youth - Youth

Under Armour Pee Wee Composite Football - Youth $24.99 Exclusive Under Armour Gripskin technology features premium composite leather cover. Tackified black TPR lace provides superior grip. Multi-layer foam backed construction for ultimate grip and feel. Pee Wee Size. Youth - Youth

Under Armour Junior Composite Football - Youth $29.99 Exclusive Under Armour Gripskin technology features premium composite leather cover. Proprietary Grabtack lace provides exceptional grip in wet or dry weather. Multi-layer foam backed construction for ultimate grip and feel. Junior Size.Youth - Youth

Under Armour Pee Wee Composite Football - Youth $29.99 Exclusive Under Armour Gripskin technology features premium composite leather cover. Proprietary Grabtack lace provides exceptional grip in wet or dry weather. Multi-layer foam backed construction for ultimate grip and feel. Pee Wee Size. Youth - Youth

Rawlings ST5 Composite Leather Junior Football - Youth $21.99 Rawlings PU composite leather cover ensures the best possible grip. Neoprene foam backing for improved Soft-touch feel. Patented double-wall, air-tight bladder for excellent air retention. Meets NFHS specifications for game use. Junior sized.Youth - Youth

Worth 2012 FPX Composite -12 Fastpitch Bat - Fastpitch Softball Bats $99.99 composite barrel is made solely from composite materials. Balanced weight distribution for maximum control and consistency. Handle stiffness and barrel flex allow maximum batted ball speed. Silencer grip for vibration reduction and better feel. Length Weight Alloy Composite.Fastpitch Softball Bats - Fastpitch Softball Bats

Worth 2012 454 Composite -10 Fastpitch Bat - Fastpitch Softball Bats $279.99 composite technology extends sweet spot in both directions! mph composite technology allows for exceptions rebound. Handle stiffness and barrel flexibility result in maximum batted ball speed. Approved for all softball associations. Length Weight Alloy CompositeFastpitch Softball Bats - Fastpitch Softball Bats

Rawlings ST5 Composite Leather Youth Size Football - Youth $23.99 Rawlings PU composite leather cover ensures the best possible grip. Neoprene foam backing for improved Soft-touch feel. Patented double-wall, air-tight bladder for excellent air retention. Meets NFHS specifications for game use. Youth sized football.Youth - Youth

Rawlings ST5 Composite Leather Pee Wee Football - Youth $19.99 Rawlings PU composite leather cover ensures the best possible grip. Neoprene foam backing for improved Soft-touch feel. Patented double-wall, air-tight bladder for excellent air retention. Meets NFHS specifications for game use. Pee Wee sized football.Youth - Youth

Louisville Omaha X-1 Limited Composite Slowpitch Bat - Slowpitch Softball Bats $199.99 New! For the first time ever Louisville Slugger launches a NO WARRANTY TPX Omaha X- Limited Edition Composite Slowpitch Softball Bat. Featuring top grade composite materials and resins specifically designed for players looking for an incredible performance at a great price. This bat is hot out of the wrapper and in high demand while supplies last. TPX Omaha, a hot name in baseball now available in slowpitch. Approved for play in USSSA, NSA, ISA, ISF. Not approved for ASA. Length Weight Alloy CompositeSlowpitch Softball Bats - Slowpitch Softball Bats

Worth 2012 454 Composite -9 Fastpitch Bat - 34 25 - Fastpitch Softball Bats $279.99 composite technology extends sweet spot in both directions! mph composite technology allows for exceptions rebound. Handle stiffness and barrel flexibility result in maximum batted ball speed. Approved for all softball associations. Length Weight Alloy CompositeFastpitch Softball Bats - 34 25 - Fastpitch Softball Bats

Houston Texans 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Houston Texans 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Indianapolis Colts 2011 Team Composite $34.99 Indianapolis Colts 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Chicago Blackhawks Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Chicago Blackhawks Team Composite - Photo

2010 Carolina Panthers Team Composite $9.99 2010 Carolina Panthers Team Composite - Photo

Carolina Panthers 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Carolina Panthers 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010 Chicago Bears Team Composite $9.99 2010 Chicago Bears Team Composite - Photo

2011 Seattle Mariners Team Composite $9.99 2011 Seattle Mariners Team Composite - Photo

2010 Baltimore Ravens Team Composite $39.99 2010 Baltimore Ravens Team Composite - Photo

Atlanta Falcons 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Atlanta Falcons 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2011 Baltimore Orioles Team Composite $9.99 2011 Baltimore Orioles Team Composite - Photo

2010 Tennessee Titans Team Composite $9.99 2010 Tennessee Titans Team Composite - Photo

2010 Cincinnati Bengals Team Composite $9.99 2010 Cincinnati Bengals Team Composite - Photo

Cincinnati Reds 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Cincinnati Reds 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Tennessee Titans 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Tennessee Titans 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Miami Dolphins 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Miami Dolphins 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Boston Bruins Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Boston Bruins Team Composite - Photo

2010 Philadelphia Eagles Team Composite $59.99 2010 Philadelphia Eagles Team Composite - Photo

2010 Washington Redskins Team Composite $9.99 2010 Washington Redskins Team Composite - Photo

2010 Arizona Cardinals Team Composite $9.99 2010 Arizona Cardinals Team Composite - Photo

Philadelphia Eagles 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Philadelphia Eagles 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Portland Trailblazers 2010-11 Team Composite $9.99 Portland Trailblazers 2010-11 Team Composite - Photo

Pittsburgh Steelers 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Pittsburgh Steelers 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Chicago Bears 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Chicago Bears 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Boston Celtics Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Boston Celtics Team Composite - Photo

Dallas Cowboys 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Dallas Cowboys 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Philadelphia Flyers 2011-12 Team Composite $59.99 Philadelphia Flyers 2011-12 Team Composite - Photo

Buffalo Bills 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Buffalo Bills 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010 Indianapolis Colts Team Composite $39.99 2010 Indianapolis Colts Team Composite - Photo

Baltimore Ravens 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Baltimore Ravens 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Cleveland Cavaliers Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Cleveland Cavaliers Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Denver Nuggets Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Denver Nuggets Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Houston Rockets Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Houston Rockets Team Composite - Photo

Denver Broncos 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Denver Broncos 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Washington Redskins 2011 Team Composite $34.99 Washington Redskins 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Cincinnati Bengals 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Cincinnati Bengals 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Jacksonville Jaguars 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Jacksonville Jaguars 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Edmonton Oilers Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Edmonton Oilers Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Miami Heat Team Composite $39.99 2010-11 Miami Heat Team Composite - Photo

2010 Seattle Seahawks Team Composite $39.99 2010 Seattle Seahawks Team Composite - Photo

Philadelphia Phillies 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Philadelphia Phillies 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010 Dallas Cowboys Team Composite $59.99 2010 Dallas Cowboys Team Composite - Photo

2011 Texas Rangers Team Composite $34.99 2011 Texas Rangers Team Composite - Photo

Pittsburgh Penguins 2011-12 Team Composite $9.99 Pittsburgh Penguins 2011-12 Team Composite - Photo

Seattle Seahawks 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Seattle Seahawks 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Cleveland Browns 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Cleveland Browns 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Atlanta Braves 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Atlanta Braves 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Minnesota Twins 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Minnesota Twins 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Florida Marlins 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Florida Marlins 2011 Team Composite - Photo

2010 Minnesota Vikings Team Composite $9.99 2010 Minnesota Vikings Team Composite - Photo

2010-11 Pittsburgh Penguins Team Composite $9.99 2010-11 Pittsburgh Penguins Team Composite - Photo

Detroit Lions 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Detroit Lions 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Minnesota Vikings 2011 Team Composite $9.99 Minnesota Vikings 2011 Team Composite - Photo

Boston Bruins 2011-12 Team Composite $9.99 Boston Bruins 2011-12 Team Composite - Photo

Arizona Cardinals 2011 Team Composite $34.99 Arizona Cardinals 2011 Team Composite - Photo