@fjrabon. Thanks for your in depth view. Since writing this, I've realized that actually 7D for its pro's has gone out of my list and i feel the 60D would be more adequate based on its age etc. I know its doesn't have the same burst rate but as you said i have also read some not so great reviews on 7D image quality.
Noise is important, especially say for example the Formula one in Singapore at night, with the artificial lighting 1600 ISO is a min. So the noise handling of the D7000 is vital. I have experienced this at first hand using it myself a few weeks back.
I've known what i am shooting and have anticipated and know what direction the cars are coming so i can use the AF to track and then shoot. Like you say i don't really need continuous burst for long, a few seconds and a handful of images would suffice my needs so i think the d7000 covers this. I like your analysis of the AF, sounds good.
The only thing you have stumped me on is the Canon high end lenses, with the f2.8 70-200 which i had in mind. I would rent this lens at sporting events rather than buying but having this option would be great. I considered borrowing the Nikon equivalent to use at events and have seen others do this, but not as prevalent as Canon. This makes me think whether its worth switching to Canon over Nikon....
Overall your analysis has provided a great insight and i'm in a mind of d7000 fulfills my needs for everyday photography with the added advantage of being able to take great pictures at sports events, i just need to be more focused on the images i'm trying to get and to use the fps adequately and maximize the buffer limitations. If i think about it, i only normally take 4-5 frames continuously for my needs, after that i don't bother and by then i have got what i need. I did this for a recent event.
I just need to ponder the Canon lenses at the high range and whether its worth switching, but it would only be for events 2/3 times a year - is that really justified to move away from some lenses i already have with Nikon - these are mid range, not super expensive or good.
The super high end L glass is awesome, but for just a couple times a year, I wouldn't let that sway my decision too much. Its awesomeness is more of a 'becomes apparent when you use it every day' sort of thing. When I first started at my current job, I liked the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, but I also didn't really get the big deal about it either. However, after using it 6 days a week for a month, I fell in love. However, if you're not using it day in day out, as part of your job, the Nikon big lenses are excellent as well. I just feel like Canon has an edge here. I wouldn't say it's worth switching brands for, because Nikon has a lot of other edges too (I think right now they particularly have a large edge in bodies).
The 60D isn't a bad camera by any means, but it is a piece of junk compared to the 7D and D7000. It's more comparable to the D5100 in my opinion, and the D5100 has better image quality (since it shares the same sensor as the D7000). I've never met anybody who tried both the 7D and the 60D and preferred the 60D. I wouldn't mind the 60D as a hobbyist camera, but if I had to use it every day for work, it would drive me insane. It's slow to shoot, slow to focus (for all the 7Ds focusing issues, it is lightning fast to focus if you have good glass on the end), the controls are annoying to use if you're in a hurry (even though they seem at first glance to be similar to the 7D, they much more cumbersome). The AF system isn't better and the image quality isn't better. The build quality is SUBSTANTIALLY worse. Again, this isn't to make the 60D sound like a terrible camera. But it's just clearly in a class below the 7D (and though it rankles some hard core canonites, it's clearly below the D7000, if not the D5100).
