The death of Dan Wheldon is certainly a tragedy. As a person who doesn't really care for NASCAR or IndyCar, watching a successful young man, with a wife and kid die prematurely in a largely preventable manner is heartbreaking regardless.
Not that it changes anything about the death, really, the fact that he won the Indianapolis 500 back in May certainly leaves an even greater bitter taste in the mouth.
And I am okay with the amount of coverage that his death has received. Obviously, for a sport that is as popular as IndyCar, it should be expected. But my problem is what some media outlets are choosing to cover in this tragic incident.
The day after Wheldon's death, it was widely circulated that just the night before he died, he and his wife were tattooing the other's initials on their body as a sign of their love and dedication. A personal decision, done for personal reasons, because of personal feelings for their love.
So tell me why that story deserves a segment on Sportscenter? Not just a story about the death, but specifically about the tattoos. Why does there need to be an AP recap of that? Why should that story appear on Deadspin? A personal moment and gesture, made public to turn this hardship into a tear-jerking, sob story.
The nature of the sporting world has removed the privacy once protected for intimate moments such as Wheldon and his wife's. The media searches for every angle of a story to capture readers and viewers, exploiting the indelible pain that Wheldon's wife experiences.
Facts are what should be reported. And the public certainly receives the facts. But intimate anecdotes like this should remain private. No parties, particularly Wheldon's wife and family, benefits from it.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Monday, 17 October 2011
For the Sake of Tradition, and Higher Quality Play
If you are a soccer fan and you haven't had the chance to check out this piece on ESPN about a possible change to the EPL's setup, I highly suggest taking a couple minutes to read it.
For those of you who don't want to, I'll rehash it here. Basically, as foreign ownership of English Premier League teams increases, the mumbling of a possible alteration to the system of relegation and promotion grows more audible. Each year, the bottom three teams from the EPL are relegated to the first division, and the top three teams of the first division take the place of the teams relegated.
This is the way it always has been in the EPL. I am not usually one to defend tradition, especially in the cases were tradition is outdated and no longer beneficial. But to abolish one of the central points of the EPL seems utterly absurd. In my opinion, having a relegation system keeps teams from becoming complacent. There is a constant need to improve the team, the youth system, the coaches, everything, because if teams don't, then they run the risk of relegation.
What does foreign ownership have to do with a desire for change? These men who own the teams want to protect their investments, and if their team is relegated, then their team's value will depreciate. But look no further than our backyard to know why this a bad idea to get rid of relegation. In American professional sports, too many owners care about their team as a business, and not as a sports team. For every one Jerry Buss (Lakers owner), there are too many Rob Sarvers (Suns owner), Donald Sterling (Clippers owner), and Michael Heisley (Grizzlies owner) who are too concerned with whether their team turns a profit rather than wins games. And if the EPL stopped relegating teams, then we would see an rise in the number of owners who care more about money than they do championships.
Relegation and promotion guarantees a more competitive league from year to year. It is the way the league has always been and should remain. But if more foreign ownership continues to move into EPL territory, it could put an end to the system. For the sake of tradition and the quality of the game, I sure hope not.
For those of you who don't want to, I'll rehash it here. Basically, as foreign ownership of English Premier League teams increases, the mumbling of a possible alteration to the system of relegation and promotion grows more audible. Each year, the bottom three teams from the EPL are relegated to the first division, and the top three teams of the first division take the place of the teams relegated.
This is the way it always has been in the EPL. I am not usually one to defend tradition, especially in the cases were tradition is outdated and no longer beneficial. But to abolish one of the central points of the EPL seems utterly absurd. In my opinion, having a relegation system keeps teams from becoming complacent. There is a constant need to improve the team, the youth system, the coaches, everything, because if teams don't, then they run the risk of relegation.
What does foreign ownership have to do with a desire for change? These men who own the teams want to protect their investments, and if their team is relegated, then their team's value will depreciate. But look no further than our backyard to know why this a bad idea to get rid of relegation. In American professional sports, too many owners care about their team as a business, and not as a sports team. For every one Jerry Buss (Lakers owner), there are too many Rob Sarvers (Suns owner), Donald Sterling (Clippers owner), and Michael Heisley (Grizzlies owner) who are too concerned with whether their team turns a profit rather than wins games. And if the EPL stopped relegating teams, then we would see an rise in the number of owners who care more about money than they do championships.
Relegation and promotion guarantees a more competitive league from year to year. It is the way the league has always been and should remain. But if more foreign ownership continues to move into EPL territory, it could put an end to the system. For the sake of tradition and the quality of the game, I sure hope not.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Body Image and Sports
As a student majoring in communications and psychology, I find myself reading many articles and studies about the struggles that women endure daily in regards to body image. Obviously, anyone who tries to argue against the enormous pressure the media, from news, to movies, to magazines, places on women to remain slender has clearly not paid very close attention to this issue. Many times, I find myself grateful that as a male, these pressures hardly seem to exist in comparison to the modern woman's struggle.
But it dawned on me one day, males do face these same issues, but often times it is overlooked. In the world of sports, a seemingly insurmountable amount of pressure to perform at a certain level has burdened the life of many male (and female, but for the purpose of this post, I will focus on males) youth. And how will they eventually perform at this level? By crafting and shaping their bodies to fit this ideal of what a male athlete should resemble.
High school, middle school and even as young as grade school athletes train longer and more intensely than ever before. Parents, coaches, fellow teammates, scouts opponents are the primary sources that provide this pressure both directly and indirectly. In football, offensive lineman lift and eat more to try and add that extra pound. Receivers and defensive backs run more sprints and perform more cone drills to increase speed and agility. In running, distance runners strive to shed that extra pound to lighten their load in races. Every sport has some bodily ideal that the athlete competes towards.
But what is the cost? More and more athletes turn to steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to push their body to the limit. They lift earlier in age and longer. The endure multiple practices in a day. Training camps, off-season tournaments, personal trainers. The need for males athletes to perform a certain level directly correlates to how their body is developed both genetically and through hard work. Those whose genes were not quite as strong have to work that much harder to reach the pinnacle of their abilities.
Having competed in both cross country and track, I can attest to the enormous pressure that exists to look like the elite runners. You eat a little less, run a longer and more often, but to what gain? With those days behind me, I often wonder why we place so much focus on how we appear as athletes.
Every night the gym is packed. Weights clang together. Protein shakes are the drink of choice. This culture of pushing your body to the limit manifests itself early and can eat away at a male's self-esteem. With so much focus on the same issue, but in regards to women, often times the idea that males could struggle with this is swept under the rug.
Unfortunately, I have no solution to the problem. But simply knowing that there is an issue is the first step to addressing it. Males, and athletes in particular, face an enormous pressure to look and perform at a certain level and it is an issue I believe is worth noting.
But it dawned on me one day, males do face these same issues, but often times it is overlooked. In the world of sports, a seemingly insurmountable amount of pressure to perform at a certain level has burdened the life of many male (and female, but for the purpose of this post, I will focus on males) youth. And how will they eventually perform at this level? By crafting and shaping their bodies to fit this ideal of what a male athlete should resemble.
High school, middle school and even as young as grade school athletes train longer and more intensely than ever before. Parents, coaches, fellow teammates, scouts opponents are the primary sources that provide this pressure both directly and indirectly. In football, offensive lineman lift and eat more to try and add that extra pound. Receivers and defensive backs run more sprints and perform more cone drills to increase speed and agility. In running, distance runners strive to shed that extra pound to lighten their load in races. Every sport has some bodily ideal that the athlete competes towards.
But what is the cost? More and more athletes turn to steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to push their body to the limit. They lift earlier in age and longer. The endure multiple practices in a day. Training camps, off-season tournaments, personal trainers. The need for males athletes to perform a certain level directly correlates to how their body is developed both genetically and through hard work. Those whose genes were not quite as strong have to work that much harder to reach the pinnacle of their abilities.
Having competed in both cross country and track, I can attest to the enormous pressure that exists to look like the elite runners. You eat a little less, run a longer and more often, but to what gain? With those days behind me, I often wonder why we place so much focus on how we appear as athletes.
Every night the gym is packed. Weights clang together. Protein shakes are the drink of choice. This culture of pushing your body to the limit manifests itself early and can eat away at a male's self-esteem. With so much focus on the same issue, but in regards to women, often times the idea that males could struggle with this is swept under the rug.
Unfortunately, I have no solution to the problem. But simply knowing that there is an issue is the first step to addressing it. Males, and athletes in particular, face an enormous pressure to look and perform at a certain level and it is an issue I believe is worth noting.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
The NCAA: Only One Way Out
In the past year, the NCAA seems to have read the press about them turning a blind eye towards corruption and politicking in college football. Someone in the public relations department raised a red flag and said, "Guys, we may want to repair our image a little bit. People think that we have no control over the situations."
Well, the public is right. The NCAA doesn't have control over their constituents. The cheating, recruiting violations, payments made to players, and cover-ups have run rampant through college football over the past two decades. So last year, during the summer, the NCAA decided, albeit never officially announced, they had to address the issues. Forget that the NCAA likely knew of most of these infractions, but played oblivious because ultimately these teams made billions of dollars for the two-faced organization. Public perception of the leagues and officials were Titanically low and to remedy the situation the NCAA started throwing around punishments and sanctions without impunity.
It started with USC, Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo. From there they moved to North Carolina. To Ohio State. Oregon. LSU. Georgia Tech. Boise State. And most recently Miami. The NCAA has started investigating every incident possible, revoking scholarships and banning teams from postseason appearances. The iron fist they threw around actually started to instill a sense of confidence as the violators were finally being punished, or at least investigated.
Sure, the NCAA has a list of problems with its infrastructure that might make the EU blush. But at least they started taking steps to address some of the more pressing issues. Maybe there was hope for this widely regarded corrupt organization.
But, unsurprisingly, the NCAA took a black eye with this Miami incident. The articles on the internet want to point the finger at Miami because it is a flashy plot with a storied program. I'm more interested in seeing what the NCAA will do.
The black eye comes from the fact that the same person who started the whole firestorm of attacks on programs, beginning with USC, Paul Dee, was the athletic director at the time of Miami's biggest transgressions. Dee was the chairman for the Committee of Infractions in the case against USC. The man responsible for the harshest punishment short of SMU's death penalty finds himself in the center of the biggest college-football scandal ever.
What will the NCAA do? The progress they appeared to make seems tainted now. Dee rode his high horse through Trojan territory, condemning the program and their ethics. Has there been a bigger example of hypocrisy in sporting history? Could the NCAA look any worse, in the wake of these investigations, having hired Dee to tackle the USC issue?
Fortunately for Dee, and unfortunately for the NCAA, he is retired and no longer has an association with the NCAA. They can drag his name through the mud, cry they were misled, or ban him from college football forever. None of it will really matter. The only thing the NCAA can do right now is turn its attention to Miami and their inevitable punishment.
Whether Miami is the powerhouse they were in the 90's, or having Jacory Harris throw more completed passes to the other team than his own, they draw national attention. Miami makes money. They are a big name program that the NCAA would love to see return to the days of past glory. And as a big name in a weak conference, Miami helps keep the ACC relevant even when they aren't running the table.
Now? The NCAA doesn't have a choice. If they want the public to take them seriously, they will drop the guillotine. It does not matter if it is a big-name program like Miami or not, the death penalty is the only option for the NCAA. They have to prove to coaches, boosters, athletic directors and university presidents that they are serious about these infractions. And your school's name won't have a say in the matter.
That same decision made last summer to actively pursue offenders needs to repeat itself. The NCAA is undoubtedly embarrassed by having chaired Dee, but they can salvage a piece of dignity here. But if the NCAA doesn't act, and act quickly, the damage will already be done. And all of those revoked scholarships and sanctions won't me a thing to the other schools still uncaught.
Well, the public is right. The NCAA doesn't have control over their constituents. The cheating, recruiting violations, payments made to players, and cover-ups have run rampant through college football over the past two decades. So last year, during the summer, the NCAA decided, albeit never officially announced, they had to address the issues. Forget that the NCAA likely knew of most of these infractions, but played oblivious because ultimately these teams made billions of dollars for the two-faced organization. Public perception of the leagues and officials were Titanically low and to remedy the situation the NCAA started throwing around punishments and sanctions without impunity.
It started with USC, Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo. From there they moved to North Carolina. To Ohio State. Oregon. LSU. Georgia Tech. Boise State. And most recently Miami. The NCAA has started investigating every incident possible, revoking scholarships and banning teams from postseason appearances. The iron fist they threw around actually started to instill a sense of confidence as the violators were finally being punished, or at least investigated.
Sure, the NCAA has a list of problems with its infrastructure that might make the EU blush. But at least they started taking steps to address some of the more pressing issues. Maybe there was hope for this widely regarded corrupt organization.
But, unsurprisingly, the NCAA took a black eye with this Miami incident. The articles on the internet want to point the finger at Miami because it is a flashy plot with a storied program. I'm more interested in seeing what the NCAA will do.
The black eye comes from the fact that the same person who started the whole firestorm of attacks on programs, beginning with USC, Paul Dee, was the athletic director at the time of Miami's biggest transgressions. Dee was the chairman for the Committee of Infractions in the case against USC. The man responsible for the harshest punishment short of SMU's death penalty finds himself in the center of the biggest college-football scandal ever.
What will the NCAA do? The progress they appeared to make seems tainted now. Dee rode his high horse through Trojan territory, condemning the program and their ethics. Has there been a bigger example of hypocrisy in sporting history? Could the NCAA look any worse, in the wake of these investigations, having hired Dee to tackle the USC issue?
Fortunately for Dee, and unfortunately for the NCAA, he is retired and no longer has an association with the NCAA. They can drag his name through the mud, cry they were misled, or ban him from college football forever. None of it will really matter. The only thing the NCAA can do right now is turn its attention to Miami and their inevitable punishment.
Whether Miami is the powerhouse they were in the 90's, or having Jacory Harris throw more completed passes to the other team than his own, they draw national attention. Miami makes money. They are a big name program that the NCAA would love to see return to the days of past glory. And as a big name in a weak conference, Miami helps keep the ACC relevant even when they aren't running the table.
Now? The NCAA doesn't have a choice. If they want the public to take them seriously, they will drop the guillotine. It does not matter if it is a big-name program like Miami or not, the death penalty is the only option for the NCAA. They have to prove to coaches, boosters, athletic directors and university presidents that they are serious about these infractions. And your school's name won't have a say in the matter.
That same decision made last summer to actively pursue offenders needs to repeat itself. The NCAA is undoubtedly embarrassed by having chaired Dee, but they can salvage a piece of dignity here. But if the NCAA doesn't act, and act quickly, the damage will already be done. And all of those revoked scholarships and sanctions won't me a thing to the other schools still uncaught.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Golden Tate and NASCAR
How hard can it be to continuously turn left for a few hours? NASCAR is so simple that regular professional athletes could practice for a few months and immediately compete. What sort of talent does it require that makes it a sport?
That's what Golden Tate, wide receiver for the Seattle Seahawks, wants to know. Irritated that Jimmie Johnson was included in the ESPY's Best Male Athlete category, Tate took to Twitter to express is disapproval. His thoughts:
"Jimmy johnson up for best athlete???? Um nooo .. Driving a car does not show athleticism."
"I've driven a car on unknown roads at night at 90mph no big deal. No sign of athletism."
"Guarantee he couldn't in million year play any SPORT."
"I've driven a car on unknown roads at night at 90mph no big deal. No sign of athletism."
"Guarantee he couldn't in million year play any SPORT."
"give me 6 months of training and I bet I could compete."
Tate ultimately backed down after NASCAR supporters attacked him for his uneducated responses. But one couldn't help but feel like he only admitted defeat so as to stop the assaults. Johnson was a good sport about all of it, not striking back at Tate, but rather inviting him down to the track to spend a day racing with him.
Obviously this isn't a big story, but it does shed light on how many people feel about the debate over whether or not NASCAR drivers are athletes. And as much as it pains me, I am going to have to side with NASCAR supporters on this issue.
You wouldn't catch me dead watching a NASCAR race. I don't get it. At this point, it has developed into a cultural difference between the South and basically the rest of the country. Nothing about the sport interests me. But it is tough to completely dismiss when those stadiums routinely fill 250,000 seats for a six hour race, even if much of the excitement comes from tailgating beforehand.
But just because I don't have an interest in it doesn't mean that I don't have respect for the men and women who compete. Here are two big myths about NASCAR that I would argue are misconceptions about the sport and those involved in it:
NASCAR drivers are out of shape. They don't need the same kind of fitness or athleticism that other "real" athletes need.
Here's what you should do: go put on four layers of clothing; pants; socks; sweatshirts; and heavy boots. Then find a motorcycle helmet and put that on. If that isn't available, wrap your head in scarves and beanies to simulate the heat. Then go sit in a room with the temperature turned up to 120-130 degrees for the next five hours. I'll be the one waiting to call the ambulance from dehydration.
On average, a NASCAR driver loses 10 pounds during the course of a race. Logically, most of this is water weight because the racers aren't moving around to burn fat. But this certainly requires a special kind of training and fitness level. Sure, Golden Tate can run a 4.4 and has a vertical of over 30 inches. No way Jimmie Johnson can do that. But something tells me that Tate couldn't sit in a NASCAR vehicle that long, let alone race it, and come out alive. They can't dunk a basketball or hit a home run, but NASCAR drivers have trained and conditioned their bodies to perform a remarkable feat just like these other athletes.
All they do is drive a car. Turning left requires no skill.
You're right, turning left doesn't require skill. Turning left while driving a car at 190mph, on the other hand, definitely requires skill. Especially when you consider that these cars are within inches of each other throughout the course of a race. The amount of control, reflexes and coordination that these drivers demonstrate is a demonstration of athletic prowess in my mind. Just as a baseball player has to have the reflexes and control to hit a 95mph fastball, NASCAR racers have to negotiate between minuscule-sized spaces to pass their opponents. Driving on the Mass Pike is a nightmare. Passing other racers at the Daytona 500 is the 8th circle of Hell.
Whether or not you think a NASCAR driver is an athlete or not definitely depends on your definition of athletes. The same people who dismiss these drivers are probably those who fight against golfers, and maybe even some baseball players, claiming a title of "athlete." Perhaps I have a more liberal definition of "athlete" than most. But in my mind, there is little doubt that a man as accomplished and talented as Jimmie Johnson deserves the nomination he received.
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
James Harrison has hit his head a few too many times
With all those helmet-leading tackles, James Harrison appears to have truly lost it. Not that much doubt existed about this after his rant last year about how he simply wants to "hurt people" when he makes plays on the field. This time he fired off on Commissioner Goodell calling him a "crook," and a "devil," among other insults.
He also inexplicably attacked his quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, and running back, Rashard Mendenhall. I'm not entirely sure why Harrison decided that now was the appropriate time to call out Big Ben for his Superbowl performance. Or why he felt that Mendenhall needed to be told that he has to do a better job not fumbling the ball (only two fumbles in 324 attempts in 2010). Both teammates claimed that they took no issue with what Harrison said about them, but I get the feeling that locker room stands at its whit's end from Harrison's motor mouth.
But the bigger part of this story is obviously his comments about Commissioner Goodell. The sad part about the whole situation is that Harrison actually made good points about the NFL's current safety policy with players. Unfortunately, because of all those body-crushing hits Harrison has laid across the league, he decided that an impassioned tirade, highlighted by the his declaration that if "[Commissioner Goodell] were on fire and [Harrison] had to piss to put him out, [Harrison] wouldn't," would be more effective than a calm and rational response.
Nobody should act surprised though. Calm and rational are words that have never been associated with Harrison. Immensely talented and a physical force no receiver or running back wants to cross, Harrison has failed once again to show control with his words.
James Harrison is in a position of unique power. He's definitely renowned, whether for positive or negative reasons, and with that notoriety comes a bigger pulpit to preach from. The press will pick up and run with what he says because of his history of outrageous comments and football skills. His criticisms of the NFL's policies are valid; but they aren't when he sounds like a raving lunatic discussing them.
Harrison may as fork over a portion of his paycheck each week from now on, because Roger Goodell isn't going to forget these comments. And he is exactly the type of man who would punish a player simply out of spite. Harrison didn't do anything to help labor negotiations through this interview. He probably didn't hurt them either. But he continues to damage his reputation, the team's, and the league's image in the eyes of the fans.
He also inexplicably attacked his quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, and running back, Rashard Mendenhall. I'm not entirely sure why Harrison decided that now was the appropriate time to call out Big Ben for his Superbowl performance. Or why he felt that Mendenhall needed to be told that he has to do a better job not fumbling the ball (only two fumbles in 324 attempts in 2010). Both teammates claimed that they took no issue with what Harrison said about them, but I get the feeling that locker room stands at its whit's end from Harrison's motor mouth.
But the bigger part of this story is obviously his comments about Commissioner Goodell. The sad part about the whole situation is that Harrison actually made good points about the NFL's current safety policy with players. Unfortunately, because of all those body-crushing hits Harrison has laid across the league, he decided that an impassioned tirade, highlighted by the his declaration that if "[Commissioner Goodell] were on fire and [Harrison] had to piss to put him out, [Harrison] wouldn't," would be more effective than a calm and rational response.
Nobody should act surprised though. Calm and rational are words that have never been associated with Harrison. Immensely talented and a physical force no receiver or running back wants to cross, Harrison has failed once again to show control with his words.
James Harrison is in a position of unique power. He's definitely renowned, whether for positive or negative reasons, and with that notoriety comes a bigger pulpit to preach from. The press will pick up and run with what he says because of his history of outrageous comments and football skills. His criticisms of the NFL's policies are valid; but they aren't when he sounds like a raving lunatic discussing them.
Harrison may as fork over a portion of his paycheck each week from now on, because Roger Goodell isn't going to forget these comments. And he is exactly the type of man who would punish a player simply out of spite. Harrison didn't do anything to help labor negotiations through this interview. He probably didn't hurt them either. But he continues to damage his reputation, the team's, and the league's image in the eyes of the fans.
Monday, 11 July 2011
Thank goodness Jack Nicklaus is here!
As talk about the British Open begins to heat up, Jack Nicklaus, desperate to remain relevant, is here to make sure that we don't get too caught up with young Rory McIlroy. Jack just wants everyone to know that just because he won one major tournament does not mean that he is the new powerhouse golfer on the tour. Once he wins three or four or five tournaments, Jack says, then it is okay for those talks to start.
Alright, I admit that the number of articles that came out after the US Open christening McIlroy as the second coming of Tiger were awfully hasty. Clearly those writers forgot that the young Irishman had just blown a Sunday Masters lead in spectacular fashion merely a month before. But you know what? If those journalists want to sound like idiots, then that is their prerogative.
The last thing that we need is a washed-up golfer desperately trying to fend off any golfer that would threaten his status. This incident by itself would not bother me, but in combination with his decade-long attempt to trivialize Tiger's success, Jack doesn't exactly present himself as a likable character. Rory McIlroy is not the new superpower in golf yet. Any person who even remotely follows golf knows this. They are smart enough to ignore the sports writers who want to take any one moment and glorify it so vociferously that they actually ruin it.
Jack, we don't need you to tell us these things. And it certainly doesn't change anybody's opinion on the situation. Golf fans will believe either he is an anomaly or that he is a young, talented kid who has a long journey ahead of him. The last thing we need is an irrelevant spectator downplaying the accomplishments of current golfers.
Alright, I admit that the number of articles that came out after the US Open christening McIlroy as the second coming of Tiger were awfully hasty. Clearly those writers forgot that the young Irishman had just blown a Sunday Masters lead in spectacular fashion merely a month before. But you know what? If those journalists want to sound like idiots, then that is their prerogative.
The last thing that we need is a washed-up golfer desperately trying to fend off any golfer that would threaten his status. This incident by itself would not bother me, but in combination with his decade-long attempt to trivialize Tiger's success, Jack doesn't exactly present himself as a likable character. Rory McIlroy is not the new superpower in golf yet. Any person who even remotely follows golf knows this. They are smart enough to ignore the sports writers who want to take any one moment and glorify it so vociferously that they actually ruin it.
Jack, we don't need you to tell us these things. And it certainly doesn't change anybody's opinion on the situation. Golf fans will believe either he is an anomaly or that he is a young, talented kid who has a long journey ahead of him. The last thing we need is an irrelevant spectator downplaying the accomplishments of current golfers.
Karma comes calling when flopping fails
If you haven't seen the highlights from yesterday's World Cup quarterfinals match between the US and Brazil, you either are a pro-Brazil supporter or you don't own a television. In last year's World Cup group stage showdown between the US and Algeria, Landon Donovan and the Yanks provided a last-minute thrilling victory that advanced them to the round of 16. The call was played countless times over the year and it appears the US women were listening carefully.
The game yesterday was one of the best, highest energized sporting events I have witnessed in a while. Between the iffy calls by the referee, the chants of "USA" ringing throughout the stadium, the last minute heroics of Wambach and Rapinoe, and the decisive penalty kicks, even the most disinterested soccer fans could find entertainment in the match.
But one of the things that I noticed that journalists overlooked in their analysis is the thank you that the American women owe Brazilian defender, Erika. She would be the wonderful flopper in the 115th minute who, cameras later showed, faked a back injury well after the play ended in order to run time off the clock. She faked it so far that medical crews actually strapped her down to the board and carried her off the field. The second that she was off the field, she flew off the board and sprinted up the sideline to check back into the game.
This action was greeted with an initial round of raucous boos, but followed up with a smattering of mocking applause. Needless to say, neither the American side screaming at her nor the German fans were partial to this poor demonstration of sportsmanship.
Looking back on it, the applause, albeit sarcastically, was prophetic in a sense. Because of the stunt Erika pulled, extra time was actually extended which gave the US the opportunity to score on that brilliant cross from Rapinoe to Wambach. Erika actually shot her team in the foot for her antics.
A perfect example of poetic justice, in my mind. One of the biggest issues people have with soccer, a poor showing of judgment and class, all coming back to strike down Brazil. I, for one, could not feel happier. Whether it had been Brazil, Argentina, Spain, or even the US if one of our players faked an injury like that, the country would not matter. The flopping and fake injury tactic finally came full circle.
After watching Ghana spill all over the field against the US last year in extra time, knocking the Americans out of the tournament, the thought that it might occur two years in a row anguished me. Fortunately, the American women avoided the same fate and avenged the men's loss a little over a year ago. Here's to hoping that the American women ride this wave of momentum to World Cup glory. And hopefully Erika and the rest of the Brazilians learned their lesson: flopping will come back to knock you down.
The game yesterday was one of the best, highest energized sporting events I have witnessed in a while. Between the iffy calls by the referee, the chants of "USA" ringing throughout the stadium, the last minute heroics of Wambach and Rapinoe, and the decisive penalty kicks, even the most disinterested soccer fans could find entertainment in the match.
But one of the things that I noticed that journalists overlooked in their analysis is the thank you that the American women owe Brazilian defender, Erika. She would be the wonderful flopper in the 115th minute who, cameras later showed, faked a back injury well after the play ended in order to run time off the clock. She faked it so far that medical crews actually strapped her down to the board and carried her off the field. The second that she was off the field, she flew off the board and sprinted up the sideline to check back into the game.
This action was greeted with an initial round of raucous boos, but followed up with a smattering of mocking applause. Needless to say, neither the American side screaming at her nor the German fans were partial to this poor demonstration of sportsmanship.
Looking back on it, the applause, albeit sarcastically, was prophetic in a sense. Because of the stunt Erika pulled, extra time was actually extended which gave the US the opportunity to score on that brilliant cross from Rapinoe to Wambach. Erika actually shot her team in the foot for her antics.
A perfect example of poetic justice, in my mind. One of the biggest issues people have with soccer, a poor showing of judgment and class, all coming back to strike down Brazil. I, for one, could not feel happier. Whether it had been Brazil, Argentina, Spain, or even the US if one of our players faked an injury like that, the country would not matter. The flopping and fake injury tactic finally came full circle.
After watching Ghana spill all over the field against the US last year in extra time, knocking the Americans out of the tournament, the thought that it might occur two years in a row anguished me. Fortunately, the American women avoided the same fate and avenged the men's loss a little over a year ago. Here's to hoping that the American women ride this wave of momentum to World Cup glory. And hopefully Erika and the rest of the Brazilians learned their lesson: flopping will come back to knock you down.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Wait, D-Will wants to do what?
Deron Williams announced today that if the NBA isn't playing games come the end of October, he's going to take his talents to Turkey. No, that is not a typo. Williams is exploring the opportunity to play overseas, and he's not alone in that category, in the event that the lockout continues into the regular season.
Certainly he can't be serious, right? I mean, this has to be a power play by one of the premier guards in the league to leverage power in negotiations. D-Will wouldn't possibly venture into Turkey just to play a few games while the NBA sorts this mess out.
Nope, the reports sound like he is fairly confident in this plan. And I cannot help but think this strategy is as idiotic as it is short-sighted. Let's say that Williams actually suits up for Besiktas, what would it mean for him, the Nets and Besiktas?
For Williams and Besiktas, they have to figure out a way to pay for the insurance that would cover Williams while he plays internationally. That burden, normally covered by the Nets, falls on the player and international team. Additionally, they will have to negotiate a contract, likely on a per-game basis since it is unlikely that Williams plays for an entire season. Even a mercenary appearance such as this will not come cheap, especially for a point guard of Williams's caliber. And while this would not be problematic for an NBA team, European teams do not have the kind of income nor popularity to support these endeavors. Remember all that talk about basketball players flooding to Europe after Josh Childress signed with Olympiakos? It never occurred because European teams, with exception for an infinitesimally small minority percentage, could not afford NBA stars.
Let's say that Williams hypothetically takes a pay cut to play, and they manage to cover his insurance. He steps on the court and in the game twists an ankle badly, tears a muscle, or breaks a bone. The Nets now have the ability to cut his contract entirely if they want. I admit, it is highly unlikely that they would considering the Nets are still delusional and believe that Williams will stick around long-term. But just as Monta Ellis faced a voiding of his contract after his moped accident, Williams could see the same situation. Admittedly, it is highly unlikely that this occurs, but is it even worth the risk? If Williams suffers a career-altering injury, does he really want to forgo the $18 million the Nets owe him over the next two seasons?
As for the Nets, most of their options were indirectly covered in the preceding discussions. They want to build around Williams, Brook Lopez and their to-be Brooklyn stadium. The organization has to be somewhat concerned that their franchise player would rather take his chances for a couple of weeks in Turkey than he would with the Nets. D-Will shoves the Nets between a rock and a hard place: if he goes and does get hurt, they'll want to cut him to save money, but they also will have an incentive to keep him since they are planning their future on him.
Ultimately the likelihood of any of this is low at best. Each time a player treks to Europe, Brandon Jennings skipping college, Jeremy Tyler skipping his senior year, Josh Childress signing as a free agent, the media cries wolf about American players flooding the European leagues. The talk of D-Will (and apparently now Kobe) moving to Turkey is nothing more than a tactical move by the players to put pressure on the owners. Now the real question: will the owners bite or stand their ground?
Certainly he can't be serious, right? I mean, this has to be a power play by one of the premier guards in the league to leverage power in negotiations. D-Will wouldn't possibly venture into Turkey just to play a few games while the NBA sorts this mess out.
Nope, the reports sound like he is fairly confident in this plan. And I cannot help but think this strategy is as idiotic as it is short-sighted. Let's say that Williams actually suits up for Besiktas, what would it mean for him, the Nets and Besiktas?
For Williams and Besiktas, they have to figure out a way to pay for the insurance that would cover Williams while he plays internationally. That burden, normally covered by the Nets, falls on the player and international team. Additionally, they will have to negotiate a contract, likely on a per-game basis since it is unlikely that Williams plays for an entire season. Even a mercenary appearance such as this will not come cheap, especially for a point guard of Williams's caliber. And while this would not be problematic for an NBA team, European teams do not have the kind of income nor popularity to support these endeavors. Remember all that talk about basketball players flooding to Europe after Josh Childress signed with Olympiakos? It never occurred because European teams, with exception for an infinitesimally small minority percentage, could not afford NBA stars.
Let's say that Williams hypothetically takes a pay cut to play, and they manage to cover his insurance. He steps on the court and in the game twists an ankle badly, tears a muscle, or breaks a bone. The Nets now have the ability to cut his contract entirely if they want. I admit, it is highly unlikely that they would considering the Nets are still delusional and believe that Williams will stick around long-term. But just as Monta Ellis faced a voiding of his contract after his moped accident, Williams could see the same situation. Admittedly, it is highly unlikely that this occurs, but is it even worth the risk? If Williams suffers a career-altering injury, does he really want to forgo the $18 million the Nets owe him over the next two seasons?
As for the Nets, most of their options were indirectly covered in the preceding discussions. They want to build around Williams, Brook Lopez and their to-be Brooklyn stadium. The organization has to be somewhat concerned that their franchise player would rather take his chances for a couple of weeks in Turkey than he would with the Nets. D-Will shoves the Nets between a rock and a hard place: if he goes and does get hurt, they'll want to cut him to save money, but they also will have an incentive to keep him since they are planning their future on him.
Ultimately the likelihood of any of this is low at best. Each time a player treks to Europe, Brandon Jennings skipping college, Jeremy Tyler skipping his senior year, Josh Childress signing as a free agent, the media cries wolf about American players flooding the European leagues. The talk of D-Will (and apparently now Kobe) moving to Turkey is nothing more than a tactical move by the players to put pressure on the owners. Now the real question: will the owners bite or stand their ground?
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Overlooked aspects of the lockouts
Suppose you open up a restaurant near a professional sports stadium. Supply your patrons with cheap beer, burgers and fries, and several large televisions to show the game and the idea is so solid not even Frank McCourt could ruin it. Sure, if it isn't a baseball team then the summer months are slow. But these sports bars thrive during the season and can afford a few down days.
But what happens when the sports aren't there for a prolonged period of time, say, during a lockout? All of a sudden, each dime must get stretched a little further. The bars probably aren't in any imminent danger right now, but if it is midway through October and there is still no NFL, or mid December and not NBA, the perspiration on the neck grows a little heavier. Aside from their proximity to the game, cheap food and sport-crazed atmospheres, what else do these establishments offer?
Sure, one might point out that it is simply supply and demand. What they offer, especially in the absence of sports, is not in high demand. People will say, "maybe they should serve better food," or "this should be more family-friendly." But I don't go to sports bars for good food. And I'm not looking for an Olive Garden type of family experience where everyone is laughing and sharing food. I go to sports bars to watch the game with fellow fans, drink cheap beer and eat fatty, greasy food. You don't mix crystal stemware with plastic cups, pretty simple.
When LeBron left Cleveland, an economist conducted a study that estimated the city would lose over $100 million because of the departure. Many other studies were released with numbers even greater than this. Regardless of the specifics, that was the effect of one player, albeit the most heavily marketed and known in the league, on one city. It wasn't like basketball moved away from Cleveland; only LeBron moved. Imagine what would happen to businesses on the whole, not just restaurants, if lockouts linger into the regular season. Yes, the small markets will struggle, but so too will the big markets, especially those that rely on both an NFL and NBA team for income.
Based on how the lockouts are covered, the public sees it as just the players against the owners. But many parties have a vested interest in the lockout, not just local businesses. Team employees suffer the consequences of a lockout just as players do. Ticket counters, security guards, concession stands, and all the way up to executives. These parts of the organization are locked out as well. These people wait for their paychecks just like the players. The difference is that they probably are not sitting on millions of dollars already, and they actually need the money.
People's futures depend upon these franchises and these leagues, whether directly or indirectly. And because sports is covered from a players/owners standpoint, these other parties' interests are seemingly ignored. The next time we chastise the owners' greediness or the players' selfish behaviors, we have to remember that many more are affected by these lockouts than just those parties. Sure, getting the games back on is important to the fans. But saving the season may be more important to saving others' livelihoods.
But what happens when the sports aren't there for a prolonged period of time, say, during a lockout? All of a sudden, each dime must get stretched a little further. The bars probably aren't in any imminent danger right now, but if it is midway through October and there is still no NFL, or mid December and not NBA, the perspiration on the neck grows a little heavier. Aside from their proximity to the game, cheap food and sport-crazed atmospheres, what else do these establishments offer?
Sure, one might point out that it is simply supply and demand. What they offer, especially in the absence of sports, is not in high demand. People will say, "maybe they should serve better food," or "this should be more family-friendly." But I don't go to sports bars for good food. And I'm not looking for an Olive Garden type of family experience where everyone is laughing and sharing food. I go to sports bars to watch the game with fellow fans, drink cheap beer and eat fatty, greasy food. You don't mix crystal stemware with plastic cups, pretty simple.
When LeBron left Cleveland, an economist conducted a study that estimated the city would lose over $100 million because of the departure. Many other studies were released with numbers even greater than this. Regardless of the specifics, that was the effect of one player, albeit the most heavily marketed and known in the league, on one city. It wasn't like basketball moved away from Cleveland; only LeBron moved. Imagine what would happen to businesses on the whole, not just restaurants, if lockouts linger into the regular season. Yes, the small markets will struggle, but so too will the big markets, especially those that rely on both an NFL and NBA team for income.
Based on how the lockouts are covered, the public sees it as just the players against the owners. But many parties have a vested interest in the lockout, not just local businesses. Team employees suffer the consequences of a lockout just as players do. Ticket counters, security guards, concession stands, and all the way up to executives. These parts of the organization are locked out as well. These people wait for their paychecks just like the players. The difference is that they probably are not sitting on millions of dollars already, and they actually need the money.
People's futures depend upon these franchises and these leagues, whether directly or indirectly. And because sports is covered from a players/owners standpoint, these other parties' interests are seemingly ignored. The next time we chastise the owners' greediness or the players' selfish behaviors, we have to remember that many more are affected by these lockouts than just those parties. Sure, getting the games back on is important to the fans. But saving the season may be more important to saving others' livelihoods.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Women play the right way
I haven't had a chance to follow the women's World Cup in Germany, but I caught snippets here and there of games on ESPN. Soccer is probably the best example of a sport where I can watch women play where the game most closely resembles their male counterparts. I also have a soft spot in my heart for women's soccer after the US won the in 1999 and Brandi Chastain privileged me when she tore off her jersey in celebration. For the record, I was nine, so that was basically the highlight of my life.
Regardless, watching the games, the obvious differences between men and women sports are clearly present in soccer as well. The game is just a little slower, touches rougher, and if one nation has an aerially-gifted player, they're probably going to win. If the US advances on, I'll probably watch their games. If not, I won't change my schedule to catch the rest of the tournament. On the whole, I'm just not that interested in it.
But one aspect of women's soccer that caught my attention was how they react to fouls. As most soccer fans know, to a male player, a brush on the arm or a step on the cleat is the equivalent to the medieval torture rack in their minds. They lay on the ground, roll around, scream and beg for medical attention. One minute later they are sprinting into the box crying out for a cross. Flopping in soccer has become an issue of pandemic proportions. And, worse yet, the flopping finds its way moving into basketball. A fate worse than death in my mind.
The women are different. They get knocked off the ball, and if they fall over, they are right back on their feet chasing after the play. This grandiose spectacle that exists in men's soccer is nowhere to be found in the women's game. The women play the game how it is supposed to be played. The men make a mockery of the entire process. The women show respect for the game and the calls.
The women ought to sit the men down in a video session and show them a game. Show them that soccer isn't about drawing attention to yourself by pretending to be shot when the ball is poked away. Create an instructional video to keep the game from worsening its reputation. But most importantly, show the men it is okay for them to play tough too.
Regardless, watching the games, the obvious differences between men and women sports are clearly present in soccer as well. The game is just a little slower, touches rougher, and if one nation has an aerially-gifted player, they're probably going to win. If the US advances on, I'll probably watch their games. If not, I won't change my schedule to catch the rest of the tournament. On the whole, I'm just not that interested in it.
But one aspect of women's soccer that caught my attention was how they react to fouls. As most soccer fans know, to a male player, a brush on the arm or a step on the cleat is the equivalent to the medieval torture rack in their minds. They lay on the ground, roll around, scream and beg for medical attention. One minute later they are sprinting into the box crying out for a cross. Flopping in soccer has become an issue of pandemic proportions. And, worse yet, the flopping finds its way moving into basketball. A fate worse than death in my mind.
The women are different. They get knocked off the ball, and if they fall over, they are right back on their feet chasing after the play. This grandiose spectacle that exists in men's soccer is nowhere to be found in the women's game. The women play the game how it is supposed to be played. The men make a mockery of the entire process. The women show respect for the game and the calls.
The women ought to sit the men down in a video session and show them a game. Show them that soccer isn't about drawing attention to yourself by pretending to be shot when the ball is poked away. Create an instructional video to keep the game from worsening its reputation. But most importantly, show the men it is okay for them to play tough too.
Friday, 1 July 2011
In the NBA, nobody's perfect
I've spent a great deal of time discussing what the possible implications of the NBA lockout are, attempting to look at the objectivity of it. While I try to avoid casting judgement on either side, now that the work stoppage finally arrived, I want to explain why I think both sides are wrong, and why that's terrible for the fan.
Let's start with the players first. They basically want to keep the exact same CBA that just expired, except re-lower the draft age back to eighteen so that high school seniors can bypass the NCAA and enter the draft. Status quo, and why not? They have a good lifestyle right now.
The problem is that the entire system is completely skewed so that the players benefit. At the end of the year, they receive 57% of the revenue pie, compared to the 43% that the owners see, despite fronting all the costs of the team. Doesn't it make sense that the owners in charge of your profession should get a larger cut of the money since they're responsible for your employment? That's how it works in every other profession in the world, so professional basketball probably should stick to that status quo instead.
Players fight to keep guaranteed contracts. Their argument is that owners who shell out millions of dollars must shoulder greater responsibility when it comes to their financial windfalls. And on the surface, I agree with the players. But unfortunately for the owners, two words haunt their existence: contract years. Want to know why the league needs to abolish guaranteed contracts? Because for every one Jerome James signing, there are five Boris Diaw extensions. In the NBA particularly, players perform at higher levels in contract years because their future depends on it. Too many owners are getting duped into signing players to long extensions only to have their star return to camp with about two-hundred additional burgers under his belt. No more guaranteed contracts ensures a more competitive league where the best players are payed the best money. And those who decide to spend more time eating than practicing? Here's a treadmill, we suggest you jump on it.
NBA players want to raise the cap? Of course they do, because that way they make even more money. The salary cap dictates where max contracts start and where veteran minimums end. A higher salary cap means higher salaries for the players. Add that on top of the revenue sharing, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the players want the system static. But teams and owners lose money each year, and maybe the players do not realize this, and if the owners continue to lose money, there won't be a paycheck because there a league won't exist.
Pat yourselves on the back, owners, because this makes you look like the victims. But frankly, you hold just as much responsibility for this embarrassment as the players, if not more. Owners possess the ultimate leverage in these CBA negotiations: they sign the players' checks at the end of the day. And despite this fact, they still managed to negotiate their way into this shackling situation. If owners wanted to avoid this mess, shouldn't they have held their ground more stringently back in 2005? I don't know who their general counsel was, but I hope he was promptly fired after the signing of the CBA.
Sure, the open market forces owners to sign players to larger contracts than preferred, but maybe if owners stopped throwing $90+ to Ben Gordon and Charlie Villaneueva, the market might be more fair. Take a player like Rashard Lewis for example. Good player, works hard, ceiling is probably the third best player on a championship team. So explain to me why Otis Smith and Richard DeVos decided they needed to pay him $111 million dollars for his services? The only teams they outbid are the Orlando Magic and the Orlando Magic. But this one signing holds significant consequence for players in the same tier as Lewis.
Owners, don't meddle in all transactions, but if you think that a signing is ill-advised, keep your GM from completing it. It is your business and your money. I would hope that you were better businessmen with the investments that enabled your purchase of a NBA franchise, but sometimes you make me wonder.
And this is where fans stand now: no basketball because one side wants to maintain the current system and the other scrambling to cover their errors that led to this mess. The players are not wrong for their wants, they're just crippling the system as owners hemorrhage money into a losing situation. And the owners aren't wrong for seeking change either, they just broke the system in the first place and suffer for their mistakes.
My one piece of advice: set aside your selfish interests and find a system in the middle. I may think that a hard cap is best for basketball, but frankly I would settle for a harder-soft cap if it means that basketball returns for a full season. The fans deserve better than this behavior.
Let's start with the players first. They basically want to keep the exact same CBA that just expired, except re-lower the draft age back to eighteen so that high school seniors can bypass the NCAA and enter the draft. Status quo, and why not? They have a good lifestyle right now.
The problem is that the entire system is completely skewed so that the players benefit. At the end of the year, they receive 57% of the revenue pie, compared to the 43% that the owners see, despite fronting all the costs of the team. Doesn't it make sense that the owners in charge of your profession should get a larger cut of the money since they're responsible for your employment? That's how it works in every other profession in the world, so professional basketball probably should stick to that status quo instead.
Players fight to keep guaranteed contracts. Their argument is that owners who shell out millions of dollars must shoulder greater responsibility when it comes to their financial windfalls. And on the surface, I agree with the players. But unfortunately for the owners, two words haunt their existence: contract years. Want to know why the league needs to abolish guaranteed contracts? Because for every one Jerome James signing, there are five Boris Diaw extensions. In the NBA particularly, players perform at higher levels in contract years because their future depends on it. Too many owners are getting duped into signing players to long extensions only to have their star return to camp with about two-hundred additional burgers under his belt. No more guaranteed contracts ensures a more competitive league where the best players are payed the best money. And those who decide to spend more time eating than practicing? Here's a treadmill, we suggest you jump on it.
NBA players want to raise the cap? Of course they do, because that way they make even more money. The salary cap dictates where max contracts start and where veteran minimums end. A higher salary cap means higher salaries for the players. Add that on top of the revenue sharing, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the players want the system static. But teams and owners lose money each year, and maybe the players do not realize this, and if the owners continue to lose money, there won't be a paycheck because there a league won't exist.
Pat yourselves on the back, owners, because this makes you look like the victims. But frankly, you hold just as much responsibility for this embarrassment as the players, if not more. Owners possess the ultimate leverage in these CBA negotiations: they sign the players' checks at the end of the day. And despite this fact, they still managed to negotiate their way into this shackling situation. If owners wanted to avoid this mess, shouldn't they have held their ground more stringently back in 2005? I don't know who their general counsel was, but I hope he was promptly fired after the signing of the CBA.
Sure, the open market forces owners to sign players to larger contracts than preferred, but maybe if owners stopped throwing $90+ to Ben Gordon and Charlie Villaneueva, the market might be more fair. Take a player like Rashard Lewis for example. Good player, works hard, ceiling is probably the third best player on a championship team. So explain to me why Otis Smith and Richard DeVos decided they needed to pay him $111 million dollars for his services? The only teams they outbid are the Orlando Magic and the Orlando Magic. But this one signing holds significant consequence for players in the same tier as Lewis.
Owners, don't meddle in all transactions, but if you think that a signing is ill-advised, keep your GM from completing it. It is your business and your money. I would hope that you were better businessmen with the investments that enabled your purchase of a NBA franchise, but sometimes you make me wonder.
And this is where fans stand now: no basketball because one side wants to maintain the current system and the other scrambling to cover their errors that led to this mess. The players are not wrong for their wants, they're just crippling the system as owners hemorrhage money into a losing situation. And the owners aren't wrong for seeking change either, they just broke the system in the first place and suffer for their mistakes.
My one piece of advice: set aside your selfish interests and find a system in the middle. I may think that a hard cap is best for basketball, but frankly I would settle for a harder-soft cap if it means that basketball returns for a full season. The fans deserve better than this behavior.
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
David Stern "hopeful" for a deal
With around twenty-four hours left until a lockout, and the clock ticking ominously like the Tell-Tale Heart, David Stern claims he is hopeful that owners and players can strike a deal to prevent it. Not likely, but at least he is optimistic, right?
The biggest issue with the NBA lockout is the problem is systemic. Whereas the NFL simply has to figure out how divide a few billion based on television profits, the NBA's problems arise from the foundation of the league. In the NFL, they don't have the problems with contracts and salary cap that exist in the NBA. The NFLPA simply needs to find a way to tell owners they can't have their 18 game schedule cake, and eat their stricter concussion testing too. Once they have solved that problem, the two sides mutually agree on a way to split the money and the lockout ends. On the surface, it seems like fans will have football to watch on Sundays come this fall.
Life isn't that simple in the NBA. The blood on the wall has been there since the last CBA. Writers will note that this is the first time the league has locked out since the 99-00 season. They'll point out that this does not help combat the image crisis that basketball continues to face. They'll act surprised when the end of October rolls around, and we still have no basketball to watch.
But they should, and probably do, know better. Even though the official lockout will not start until tomorrow, the league has been in a figurative lockout for the better part of half a decade. The current setup of the league is not profitable for owners and they want a change. Unlike baseball in 2002, fans should not expect a last minute deal to prevent a lockout. And unlike football currently, fans won't see the kind of progress that the NFL appears to make each meeting.
No, the problem in the NBA is bigger. And it has been since the last CBA in 2005. So when David Stern announces that the league and owners have officially locked out the players, we shouldn't be shocked. We've been in a lockout this entire time.
The biggest issue with the NBA lockout is the problem is systemic. Whereas the NFL simply has to figure out how divide a few billion based on television profits, the NBA's problems arise from the foundation of the league. In the NFL, they don't have the problems with contracts and salary cap that exist in the NBA. The NFLPA simply needs to find a way to tell owners they can't have their 18 game schedule cake, and eat their stricter concussion testing too. Once they have solved that problem, the two sides mutually agree on a way to split the money and the lockout ends. On the surface, it seems like fans will have football to watch on Sundays come this fall.
Life isn't that simple in the NBA. The blood on the wall has been there since the last CBA. Writers will note that this is the first time the league has locked out since the 99-00 season. They'll point out that this does not help combat the image crisis that basketball continues to face. They'll act surprised when the end of October rolls around, and we still have no basketball to watch.
But they should, and probably do, know better. Even though the official lockout will not start until tomorrow, the league has been in a figurative lockout for the better part of half a decade. The current setup of the league is not profitable for owners and they want a change. Unlike baseball in 2002, fans should not expect a last minute deal to prevent a lockout. And unlike football currently, fans won't see the kind of progress that the NFL appears to make each meeting.
No, the problem in the NBA is bigger. And it has been since the last CBA in 2005. So when David Stern announces that the league and owners have officially locked out the players, we shouldn't be shocked. We've been in a lockout this entire time.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
McCourt embarrasses self, league and team
Frank McCourt finally hit rock bottom. I was beginning to wonder just how far down this seemingly bottomless pit would go before he landed with a spectacular splat. Yesterday, McCourt was forced to declare bankruptcy for five different companies: Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC, LA Holdco LLC, LA Real Estate LLC and LA Real Estate Holding Company LLC. In case you are wondering, those five companies add up to the entire Los Angeles Dodgers franchise.
After Bud Selig wisely rejected the Fox television deal that McCourt hoped would help keep the Dodgers afloat, McCourt was left to write a new chapter in Dodgers' history: Chapter 11. And although Selig deserves blame for allowing the problem to spiral this out of hand, he appears ready to fix the problem. He knows that the league must take the Dodgers out of McCourt's hands before the situation worsens.
And perhaps I spoke too soon about rock bottom. It appears that Mr. McCourt is still falling as he now must find a way to pay $92.5 million dollars to players (not including signing bonuses) and the nearly 300 full-time employees who work for the Dodgers. Time to see just how far this hole goes.
It is mind-boggling that a professional sports owner could screw this up as bad as McCourt has. One of the most well-known sporting franchises in all four sports, and McCourt has led it off the map worse than Edward Smith and the Titanic.
Now with the MLB attempting to block the $150 million Chapter 11 loan that McCourt applied for, the league seems finished with him and with good reason too. The man embarrassed a storied franchise, yet continues to play the victim. It will be nice to see McCourt finally hit the ground, because when he does, he'll no longer have any part with the Dodgers or professional baseball.
Again, I ask: why Frank McCourt and not Mark Cuban?
Monday, 27 June 2011
US Defense Costs Gold Cup
The US national team cannot compete consistently on the international level unless their defense starts playing better. It is as simple as that. After two early goals from Michael Bradley and Landon Donovan, the US proceeded to allow four unanswered goals. The victory gave Mexico a birth in the Confederations Cup two summers from now in Brazil.
Bradley punched home a header from Freddy Adu in the eighth minute as the Americans jumped to an early lead. Just fifteen minutes later, Donovan justified his re-insertion to the starting lineup by scoring off a brilliant needle by Clint Dempsey. The Yanks appeared in prime position to qualify for the Confederations Cup and build momentum as they work towards the 2014 World Cup.
But the ghost of the 2009 US Confederations Cup team took hold of the American defense as they allowed four unanswered goals in the final sixty minutes of the game. Just as the US had a 2-0 lead over Brazil in that 2009 match and ultimately lost, the defense seemed to shut down.
The biggest issue that the American defenders have right now is that they simply cannot stick to their marks. Strikers are having field days as they slip in the back lines of the trenches and knock home goal after goal. Pablo Barrea simply quietly sneaked away from his man when he hit a beautiful goal to give Mexico the lead. There was nothing spectacular about how he got open. No fancy footwork or passing by his teammates. He just moved into position and his defender did not follow him.
And as incredible as the Dos Santos goal was, it appeared deceivingly better due to the comically poor attempts by the American defenders to displace the ball. Dos Santos had about five white jerseys around him at the time as he juked his way back to the edge of the box and finish with a pinpoint floater. Dos Santos hit the perfect shot and credit goes to him for that. But he should not be allowed to take that many touches when there are so many defenders around him.
One thing that this team needs is a healthy Onyewu. Before his injury, Onyewu was a world-class defender starting for AC Milan. But after he ripped his knee to shreds, he's been a shell of his former self. After a horrific World Cup where he appeared rushed back and poorly conditioned, Onyewu did not receive the call this time. He was the anchor that this defense needs. He provided strength, solid communication and a "don't mess with us" attitude that is sadly lacking currently.
Without a central figure like Onyewu, this American defense struggles immensely. And in today's soccer world where an abundance of fast-paced strikers score with impunity, the US cannot afford to misstep like they did against Mexico. Giving up a 2-0 lead in the Gold Cup is eventually overlooked. But a performance like that anywhere beyond the Gold Cup and the US continues to hinder its efforts to become a world power. Unless the defense can tighten the screws, the US will remain a second-tier soccer country.
Bradley punched home a header from Freddy Adu in the eighth minute as the Americans jumped to an early lead. Just fifteen minutes later, Donovan justified his re-insertion to the starting lineup by scoring off a brilliant needle by Clint Dempsey. The Yanks appeared in prime position to qualify for the Confederations Cup and build momentum as they work towards the 2014 World Cup.
But the ghost of the 2009 US Confederations Cup team took hold of the American defense as they allowed four unanswered goals in the final sixty minutes of the game. Just as the US had a 2-0 lead over Brazil in that 2009 match and ultimately lost, the defense seemed to shut down.
The biggest issue that the American defenders have right now is that they simply cannot stick to their marks. Strikers are having field days as they slip in the back lines of the trenches and knock home goal after goal. Pablo Barrea simply quietly sneaked away from his man when he hit a beautiful goal to give Mexico the lead. There was nothing spectacular about how he got open. No fancy footwork or passing by his teammates. He just moved into position and his defender did not follow him.
And as incredible as the Dos Santos goal was, it appeared deceivingly better due to the comically poor attempts by the American defenders to displace the ball. Dos Santos had about five white jerseys around him at the time as he juked his way back to the edge of the box and finish with a pinpoint floater. Dos Santos hit the perfect shot and credit goes to him for that. But he should not be allowed to take that many touches when there are so many defenders around him.
One thing that this team needs is a healthy Onyewu. Before his injury, Onyewu was a world-class defender starting for AC Milan. But after he ripped his knee to shreds, he's been a shell of his former self. After a horrific World Cup where he appeared rushed back and poorly conditioned, Onyewu did not receive the call this time. He was the anchor that this defense needs. He provided strength, solid communication and a "don't mess with us" attitude that is sadly lacking currently.
Without a central figure like Onyewu, this American defense struggles immensely. And in today's soccer world where an abundance of fast-paced strikers score with impunity, the US cannot afford to misstep like they did against Mexico. Giving up a 2-0 lead in the Gold Cup is eventually overlooked. But a performance like that anywhere beyond the Gold Cup and the US continues to hinder its efforts to become a world power. Unless the defense can tighten the screws, the US will remain a second-tier soccer country.
Friday, 24 June 2011
Winners of the NBA Draft
Considering the distinct lack of NBA-level talent in this year's draft, a fair amount action took place last night. The first two picks came as no surprise, with Irving landing in Cleveland and Minnesota opting to keep Derrick Williams. This deserves attention because that places Michael Beasley square on the trading block. No doubt will David Kahn look to shop around the embattled power forward, presumably to find more front court help. Beyond the first two picks though, NBA executives actually produced a fairly entertaining draft. Believe me, I'm as surprised as you.
Let's take a look at the winners:
Winners
Let's take a look at the winners:
Winners
- Wizards: Jan Vesley (6), Chris Singleton (18), Shelvin Mack (34).
- I love what the Wizards did in this draft. Jan Vesley should come in and immediately help them with their scoring woes, but he might struggle initially with the physicality of the league due to his slight frame. Singleton can come in and grab the starting small forward spot. Rashard Lewis clearly appears checked out of the NBA at this point and is content counting his millions. In today's NBA, with so many athletic wings and guards, a defensive stopped like Singleton is essentially a necessity. Singleton will be asked to guard the opposing team's best player each night and hit three pointers, a skill he'll need to continue to develop. While I'm not a huge Shelvin Mack fan, he comes from a winning program in Butler and certainly has an NBA ready body.
- Spurs: Kawhi Leonard (15 from Indiana), Cory Joseph (29), Davis Bertans (42 from Indiana), Adam Hanga (59).
- It looks like all of the Tony Parker trade talk was for naught. Buford appears content with his main core of Parker, Ginobli and Duncan as he decided to ship George Hill off to Indiana for Leonard. That trade alone places San Antonio in the winners category. First, George Hill will be a free agent after this season and with so much money invested in those previous three, and the talk of a reduced salary cap, the Spurs likely would not have been able to keep Hill. Parlaying Hill into Leonard at fifteen is an absolute steal. Leonard is exactly the kind of player who will flourish under Greg Popovich. Remember, just a couple weeks ago there was talk of Leonard being a top five pick. The Joseph pick appears to be a Hill replacement, which obviously is a significant downgrade currently, but the Leonard pick easily offsets that difference.
- Bobcats: Bismack Biyombo (7 from Sacramento), Kemba Walker (9).
- His Heiress added two excellent pieces to a bare-bones Charlotte roster. Biyombo enters the league ready to contribute immediately on the defensive end. He will certainly cause problems for teams with his length and athletic ability. He is along the same style as Serge Ibaka for Oklahoma City and should be a pest on that end of the court. It may be a couple of years before he delivers anything on offense, but Charlotte is nowhere near ready to compete now so they can afford to take a few years of development for Biyombo.
I really like the Walker pick at nine. Walker is a proven winner in college, proved he is capable of the grind in the NBA after averaging almost 38 minutes a game at Connecticut. Sure, he more closely resembles a combo guard than a point guard right now. But he certainly possesses the tools to develop a better passing game as he won't be expected to score as heavily as he did at UConn. Sometimes I think that NBA executives underrate players who have proven they can win continuously at the college level. There will be a few teams that had point guard needs in front of Charlotte who will shake their heads when looking back at this draft.
Quick hit winners:
- The Warriors snagged Klay Thompson at eleven which I consider a victory simply because I cannot wait to watch the Warriors score 120 points a game, but still lose by fifteen. Who on that team can play defense or even has an interest in it?
- Lakers grab a potentially interesting pick in Darius Morris in the second round. There was a great deal of talk for him in the first round before the draft so keep a close eye here down the road.
- The Heat pick Norris Cole, who immediately wins the award for best flatop in the league. But Cole could help contribute right away as he should receive all of Bibby's minutes now.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
US Beats Panama, Will Face Mexico For Gold Cup
The US exacted revenge over a Panama team that beat them in the early stages of the Gold Cup just a week ago. Panama shocked a slow, seemingly disinterested American team 2-0, raising questions about the roster's makeup as well as Bob Bradley's future with the team.
Bradley made the risky decision to bring Landon Donovan off the bench, for the second game in a row, but it paid off as Donovan sent a pinpoint cross through the Panamanian defense to the left foot of Clint Dempsey, who punched home his second goal of the tournament. Donovan also came off the bench against Jamaica after missing team practice to attend his sister's wedding.
Now Bradley faces a difficult choice. Donovan is obviously one of the US's most talented and experienced players, with 134 international caps and 45 goals to his resume. He also has extensive experience against a tough Mexico team that has been known to bully the Yanks. The most logical, and safest, decision would be to start Donovan against Mexico. But after two games of coming off the bench, two victories for the US, and his hand in the US's last two goals, the prospect of bringing Donovan in as a high energy substitute should appeal to Bradley.
As mentioned, this Mexico team that the US will face is stronger than in recent years. Mexico has cruised through the competition, scoring eighteen goals and only allowing two. Despite five the dismissal of five players before the start of the tournament, Mexico establishes themselves as the team to beat.
Keep a close eye on Javier Hernandez who will certainly give the US defense, that has struggled dating back to last summer's World Cup, fits with his flair and pace. And although "El Chicharito," as Hernandez is fondly called, does not play over-physically, the rest of this Mexican side has shown grittiness and toughness.
A couple other key questions and sub-plots to examine in this championship bout:
Bradley made the risky decision to bring Landon Donovan off the bench, for the second game in a row, but it paid off as Donovan sent a pinpoint cross through the Panamanian defense to the left foot of Clint Dempsey, who punched home his second goal of the tournament. Donovan also came off the bench against Jamaica after missing team practice to attend his sister's wedding.
Now Bradley faces a difficult choice. Donovan is obviously one of the US's most talented and experienced players, with 134 international caps and 45 goals to his resume. He also has extensive experience against a tough Mexico team that has been known to bully the Yanks. The most logical, and safest, decision would be to start Donovan against Mexico. But after two games of coming off the bench, two victories for the US, and his hand in the US's last two goals, the prospect of bringing Donovan in as a high energy substitute should appeal to Bradley.
As mentioned, this Mexico team that the US will face is stronger than in recent years. Mexico has cruised through the competition, scoring eighteen goals and only allowing two. Despite five the dismissal of five players before the start of the tournament, Mexico establishes themselves as the team to beat.
Keep a close eye on Javier Hernandez who will certainly give the US defense, that has struggled dating back to last summer's World Cup, fits with his flair and pace. And although "El Chicharito," as Hernandez is fondly called, does not play over-physically, the rest of this Mexican side has shown grittiness and toughness.
A couple other key questions and sub-plots to examine in this championship bout:
- Will Mexico appear laggard on the field after their overtime game against Honduras? Or will enough time have lapsed for them to regain their full fitness?
- The last match between these two in the Gold Cup? 2009, when Mexico beat the US 5-0 in the championship. Mexico posted five goals in the final 34 minutes.
- Although the tournament has been played on American soil, the final game will be played in the Rose Bowl, which doesn't exactly guarantee an American advantage. Expect a mainly pro-American fanbase, but the Mexican supporters will be there in full force as well.
- Was that really a Freddy Adu appearance against Panama? And did he really assist Donovon's assist? Bob Bradley has said that Adu is finding his form and performing at a higher level, so maybe fans can expect to see the once-phenom in the final.
- Bradley heard the whispers for his dismissal turn more audible after the earlier loss to Panama, but a win against Mexico would essentially re-secure his job. A loss keeps him in unfavorable territory.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Erik Spoelstra, your job is safe...for now
Pat Riley made sure today that he gave his public support for Erik Spoelstra, head coach of the Miami Heat. And why not? Spoelstra led the Heat to the NBA championship in his third season with the team, weaving together the talents of James, Wade and Bosh through the course of the season. Spoelstra performed admirably as he controlled the players' egos, convinced them to buy into his defensive schemes and kept the Heat in contention the entire year despite a rash of injuries to their bench.
This is the final year of Spoelstra's contract and the expectations are simple: win a championship. Because this is Spoelstra's last year, I suspect that Riley won't yank him midseason like he did with Stan Van Gundy in 2006. Sure, Riley said that he still "[has] the fire" to continue coaching, but he claims that he is content remaining just the President of operations for the Heat. Riley wants everyone to think that his coaching days are over.
But the media and fans should know better than to believe him. Riley faced harsh criticism for the way he handled the Van Gundy incident, despite delivering Miami's first championship. He eventually turned the reigns over to Spoelstra and said he was done with coaching. He's wiser this time around and knows that cutting a coach midseason will only generate bad press for his reputation. But anyone who thinks that Riley would hesitate at the chance to coach again, say at the end of Spoelstra's final year if he doesn't win a championship, needs to have their head checked.
Riley's ego is as large as they come. Nobody can argue that he possesses an immense capacity as a coach and an executive. He deserves to feel proud for the accomplishments in his career. But it is obvious that Riley wants another shot. NBA coaches, especially the great ones, have a hard time leaving the game for good.
Spoelstra is safe for now. Based on how everyone responded to the Van Gundy firing, Riley won't make the same mistake twice. But, rest assured, if Spoelstra doesn't deliver a championship next season, he won't be coming back. It doesn't matter if the Heat win 65+ games, anything short of the Larry O'Brian trophy and NBA fans will once again see Riley on the sidelines.
This is the final year of Spoelstra's contract and the expectations are simple: win a championship. Because this is Spoelstra's last year, I suspect that Riley won't yank him midseason like he did with Stan Van Gundy in 2006. Sure, Riley said that he still "[has] the fire" to continue coaching, but he claims that he is content remaining just the President of operations for the Heat. Riley wants everyone to think that his coaching days are over.
But the media and fans should know better than to believe him. Riley faced harsh criticism for the way he handled the Van Gundy incident, despite delivering Miami's first championship. He eventually turned the reigns over to Spoelstra and said he was done with coaching. He's wiser this time around and knows that cutting a coach midseason will only generate bad press for his reputation. But anyone who thinks that Riley would hesitate at the chance to coach again, say at the end of Spoelstra's final year if he doesn't win a championship, needs to have their head checked.
Riley's ego is as large as they come. Nobody can argue that he possesses an immense capacity as a coach and an executive. He deserves to feel proud for the accomplishments in his career. But it is obvious that Riley wants another shot. NBA coaches, especially the great ones, have a hard time leaving the game for good.
Spoelstra is safe for now. Based on how everyone responded to the Van Gundy firing, Riley won't make the same mistake twice. But, rest assured, if Spoelstra doesn't deliver a championship next season, he won't be coming back. It doesn't matter if the Heat win 65+ games, anything short of the Larry O'Brian trophy and NBA fans will once again see Riley on the sidelines.
Monday, 20 June 2011
NBA owners give ground, still lots to be bridged
A week after the Dallas Mavericks won the NBA championship, the last professional basketball game in the foreseeable future, the owners and the players continued their labor negotiations.
NBA fans, who have every right to exhibit concern for the state of their league, saw a slight improvement in the situation as the owners decided to drop abolishing guaranteed contracts from the new collective bargaining agreement. The players, however, were not overly impressed with this gesture.
The biggest problem that the players have with this act is that it doesn't really benefit them in any way. This preserves the status quo, but guaranteed contracts were likely the first off the table for the owners. I suspect, despite the number of general managers with big-spending reputations, that front offices will begin to stop overpaying players across five or six years. But that's because contract lengths will be shortened, ultimately, to three or four years at the most. The issue of guarantees was never really at the heart of the discussions.
The two sides now stand about $700 million apart in regards to revenue sharing and polarized on the hard salary cap. Even though the issue of guaranteed contracts is no longer in play, the players and owners have a substantial gap to bridge. And fans should expect both owners and players to fight more vociferously over these two points than they did over guaranteed contracts.
While I believe that the owners and players will eventually come to terms over the new collective bargaining agreement, the sides will likely sacrifice part of the season to accomplish that.
NBA fans, who have every right to exhibit concern for the state of their league, saw a slight improvement in the situation as the owners decided to drop abolishing guaranteed contracts from the new collective bargaining agreement. The players, however, were not overly impressed with this gesture.
The biggest problem that the players have with this act is that it doesn't really benefit them in any way. This preserves the status quo, but guaranteed contracts were likely the first off the table for the owners. I suspect, despite the number of general managers with big-spending reputations, that front offices will begin to stop overpaying players across five or six years. But that's because contract lengths will be shortened, ultimately, to three or four years at the most. The issue of guarantees was never really at the heart of the discussions.
The two sides now stand about $700 million apart in regards to revenue sharing and polarized on the hard salary cap. Even though the issue of guaranteed contracts is no longer in play, the players and owners have a substantial gap to bridge. And fans should expect both owners and players to fight more vociferously over these two points than they did over guaranteed contracts.
While I believe that the owners and players will eventually come to terms over the new collective bargaining agreement, the sides will likely sacrifice part of the season to accomplish that.
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Boston Wins, Vancouver Riots?
For the first time in 39 years, the Boston Bruins hoisted the Stanley Cup after a 4-0 win over Vancouver in game seven. After three disappointing losses in Vancouver, and three Boston massacres, the Bruins conquered the Canucks in convincing fashion.
Vancouver played like a juggernaut all season, wrecking teams that crossed their path. Their speed, style, and finesse kept opponents on the back of their skates which resulted in the most goals in the league and highest goals for to goals against differential.
But the Bruins proved that hockey is not just a game of style and fancy finishes. The Bruins demonstrated greater toughness and grit as they punished Vancouver. In game seven, especially, the Canucks appeared to play scared. Sure, they outhit and outshot the Bruins, but at no point did Boston seemed concerned. The closest that the Bruins came to making a mistake was when Chara blocked a shot in the second period when Thomas was on the ground. Other than that, Boston simply executed better than Vancouver, controlling the puck and the game with confidence.
And perhaps someone ought to tell Roberto Luongo that he ought to put down his tire pump and put his goalie gloves back on when it comes time to play. Luongo, long the story of this series for his words with Tim Thomas, once again failed to deliver, allowing four goals on his home ice to bring the total number of goals allowed in the series to twenty. Meanwhile, Tim Thomas won the Conn Smythe Trophy for his remarkable .967 save percentage in the series. Think Luongo would kept his mouth shut if he could go back in time?
Aside from the question of, "what happened with Luongo," Vancouver fans are probably curious to know what happened to the Sedin twins. Known for their prolific scoring abilities, the two twins combined to score three goals and register two assists over the entire series. Credit Boston's defense for an impressive performance, but that's not the first tough defense that the Sedin twins had seen all season. They simply failed to deliver.
Boston proved to the sports world, just as Dallas did, that even in the face of inferior talent, desire and teamwork can triumph. They squared off with the best team in the league, took them to seven games and then tore Vancouver's hearts out with a commanding victory.
Note: What the in the world was with the Vancouver fans who decided to flip cars and light them on fire after they lost? Don't they realize that that is usually what happens when your team wins? I am just surprised that Boston, a city known for its unruly behavior in the face of sporting events, managed to remain relatively calm and that the people of Vancouver were the ones causing problems. Rioting, in the event of a win or a loss, has no place in sports. Ever.
Vancouver played like a juggernaut all season, wrecking teams that crossed their path. Their speed, style, and finesse kept opponents on the back of their skates which resulted in the most goals in the league and highest goals for to goals against differential.
But the Bruins proved that hockey is not just a game of style and fancy finishes. The Bruins demonstrated greater toughness and grit as they punished Vancouver. In game seven, especially, the Canucks appeared to play scared. Sure, they outhit and outshot the Bruins, but at no point did Boston seemed concerned. The closest that the Bruins came to making a mistake was when Chara blocked a shot in the second period when Thomas was on the ground. Other than that, Boston simply executed better than Vancouver, controlling the puck and the game with confidence.
And perhaps someone ought to tell Roberto Luongo that he ought to put down his tire pump and put his goalie gloves back on when it comes time to play. Luongo, long the story of this series for his words with Tim Thomas, once again failed to deliver, allowing four goals on his home ice to bring the total number of goals allowed in the series to twenty. Meanwhile, Tim Thomas won the Conn Smythe Trophy for his remarkable .967 save percentage in the series. Think Luongo would kept his mouth shut if he could go back in time?
Aside from the question of, "what happened with Luongo," Vancouver fans are probably curious to know what happened to the Sedin twins. Known for their prolific scoring abilities, the two twins combined to score three goals and register two assists over the entire series. Credit Boston's defense for an impressive performance, but that's not the first tough defense that the Sedin twins had seen all season. They simply failed to deliver.
Boston proved to the sports world, just as Dallas did, that even in the face of inferior talent, desire and teamwork can triumph. They squared off with the best team in the league, took them to seven games and then tore Vancouver's hearts out with a commanding victory.
Note: What the in the world was with the Vancouver fans who decided to flip cars and light them on fire after they lost? Don't they realize that that is usually what happens when your team wins? I am just surprised that Boston, a city known for its unruly behavior in the face of sporting events, managed to remain relatively calm and that the people of Vancouver were the ones causing problems. Rioting, in the event of a win or a loss, has no place in sports. Ever.
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Mark Cuban, What a True Owner Looks Like
Mark Cuban wants you to feel like he is just one of the guys. He lives and breathes sports. He is passionate about many different sports. He runs his mouth when he disagrees with call. He wears t-shirts and jeans to the game and heckles referees like it's his job. Yep, Mark Cuban is just like you and me.
Except he is a billionaire who owns the Dallas Mavericks. But aside from the many, many more zeros he sees in his bank account, at the end of the day, that is all that separates us, the fans, from Cuban, the owner. The bravado, the opinions, the desire for a championship. Mark Cuban is the ultimate fan of his team. And no matter how much money he has, at his core Mark Cuban is just a regular guy who appreciates his team for their entertainment, not what they do for his portfolio.
Cuban catches plenty of criticism for acting this way. He has been fined over a million dollars by the NBA for criticism over officials. Many NBA owners consider him reckless, abrasive and dangerous to the league. He was basically blackballed out of Major League Baseball when he attempted to purchase the Texas Rangers and Chicago Cubs (but Frank McCourt and Fred Wilpon can each own teams). The "I'm a regular guy, just like the fans," attitude that Cuban holds threatens the status of wealthy owners across the board. Professional sports owners do not want to feel like their fans. They supply the fans with entertainment and treat their team like a business.
But at the end of the day, there are already too many Donald Sterling's, Michael Heisley's, and Maloof brothers in the NBA alone. Too many owners watch their games from their suites, seemingly disinterested and disengaged from the team. Cuban sits behind the bench or behind the basket at every Mavericks game. During the tough economic times, NBA owners pinch pennies throughout the organization. Mark Cuban invests over $80 million in remodels and a new, high-definition replay screen for fans.
I challenge you to name one other owner who willingly accepts fine after fine for comments about officiating like Cuban does. The man spends millions of dollars every year on the team, and then continues to take it on the chin from the league as he defends his players, organization, and ultimately, his fans.
Mark Cuban once ordered the people in charge of the jumbo screens to replay an egregiously blown call by the referees. He didn't ask them to replay it once. He told them to put it on a loop as fans left the stadium after the Mavericks lost. That little stunt cost him over $100,000. But if he were the owner of my team, I would be proud to say it because of actions like these.
Cuban gets the last laugh. He has owned the Dallas Mavericks for eleven years and finally won an NBA championship. While most owners would take this opportunity to have the city honor them, he wants to pay for the entire parade himself, so that the city doesn't have to. If there were more Mark Cuban's, sports would mean more than they do to many cities. Fans would see more competitive leagues, because owners would have less concern for the bottom line and more concern for winning.
Let Cuban run his mouth and say what he wants. After winning a NBA championship, he deserves it. He's just a passionate fan who happens to own the team, rather than simply root for it.
Except he is a billionaire who owns the Dallas Mavericks. But aside from the many, many more zeros he sees in his bank account, at the end of the day, that is all that separates us, the fans, from Cuban, the owner. The bravado, the opinions, the desire for a championship. Mark Cuban is the ultimate fan of his team. And no matter how much money he has, at his core Mark Cuban is just a regular guy who appreciates his team for their entertainment, not what they do for his portfolio.
Cuban catches plenty of criticism for acting this way. He has been fined over a million dollars by the NBA for criticism over officials. Many NBA owners consider him reckless, abrasive and dangerous to the league. He was basically blackballed out of Major League Baseball when he attempted to purchase the Texas Rangers and Chicago Cubs (but Frank McCourt and Fred Wilpon can each own teams). The "I'm a regular guy, just like the fans," attitude that Cuban holds threatens the status of wealthy owners across the board. Professional sports owners do not want to feel like their fans. They supply the fans with entertainment and treat their team like a business.
But at the end of the day, there are already too many Donald Sterling's, Michael Heisley's, and Maloof brothers in the NBA alone. Too many owners watch their games from their suites, seemingly disinterested and disengaged from the team. Cuban sits behind the bench or behind the basket at every Mavericks game. During the tough economic times, NBA owners pinch pennies throughout the organization. Mark Cuban invests over $80 million in remodels and a new, high-definition replay screen for fans.
I challenge you to name one other owner who willingly accepts fine after fine for comments about officiating like Cuban does. The man spends millions of dollars every year on the team, and then continues to take it on the chin from the league as he defends his players, organization, and ultimately, his fans.
Mark Cuban once ordered the people in charge of the jumbo screens to replay an egregiously blown call by the referees. He didn't ask them to replay it once. He told them to put it on a loop as fans left the stadium after the Mavericks lost. That little stunt cost him over $100,000. But if he were the owner of my team, I would be proud to say it because of actions like these.
Cuban gets the last laugh. He has owned the Dallas Mavericks for eleven years and finally won an NBA championship. While most owners would take this opportunity to have the city honor them, he wants to pay for the entire parade himself, so that the city doesn't have to. If there were more Mark Cuban's, sports would mean more than they do to many cities. Fans would see more competitive leagues, because owners would have less concern for the bottom line and more concern for winning.
Let Cuban run his mouth and say what he wants. After winning a NBA championship, he deserves it. He's just a passionate fan who happens to own the team, rather than simply root for it.
Youth and Adoration: A Dangerous Combination
A couple of days ago, an official at the University of Oregon rented a car and lent it to Cliff Harris, the football team's starting cornerback and All-American. That was mistake number one. Mistake number two occurred simultaneously as she lent him the car when Harris had a suspended license. Why anyone would let a college football player borrow their rented car, presumably under all their insurance information, and not know that he had a suspended license baffles me.
But the biggest mistake came at 4:30 on Sunday morning when Cliff Harris decided it was a good idea to drive 118 mph down Interstate-5, a notorious trapping route for those unfamiliar with the area, not that that is the reason he shouldn't be driving that speed.
Cliff Harris deserves a two game suspension, minimum. And, yes, I am aware that the Oregon Ducks open on the road in Baton Rouge. Actions like this are simply inexcusable as he put his life, his friends life, and anyone's life on the road they passed in reckless endangerment. It doesn't matter that it occurred in the offseason. It doesn't matter that Harris is an All-American. And it doesn't matter that Harris would feast on an LSU passing attack that threw more interceptions than touchdowns last season. Harris must sit for his mistake.
Teams must hold players accountable in these situations. Otherwise, what stops Oregon's program from mutating into one like Ohio State?
A situation of this nature is indicative of a larger problem in college sports. The amount of attention and adoration that these athletes receive is unparalleled to times past. They are usually the best athletes in their class growing up, no matter where they are and their friends and family are quick to remind them of this fact. With all this respect and spotlight focus, players develop a sense of indestrucability. Nothing can touch you and nothing can hurt you.
This deity status that the public places these players in directly results in incidents such as Harris and the Ohio State debacle. The athletes feel larger than life and, consequently, their actions are rash and unsafe. Harris was lucky. One blown tire, minor bump in the road or animal crossing and we're discussing the short, unfullfilled life he led. But somewhere down the line, another athlete won't be so lucky. And when that moment arrives and we find ourselves asking how this could have happened, we must simply look in the mirror for the answer.
Do the right thing, Chip Kelly. Suspend Cliff Harris and make a statement that you put responsibility ahead of wins and losses.
But the biggest mistake came at 4:30 on Sunday morning when Cliff Harris decided it was a good idea to drive 118 mph down Interstate-5, a notorious trapping route for those unfamiliar with the area, not that that is the reason he shouldn't be driving that speed.
Cliff Harris deserves a two game suspension, minimum. And, yes, I am aware that the Oregon Ducks open on the road in Baton Rouge. Actions like this are simply inexcusable as he put his life, his friends life, and anyone's life on the road they passed in reckless endangerment. It doesn't matter that it occurred in the offseason. It doesn't matter that Harris is an All-American. And it doesn't matter that Harris would feast on an LSU passing attack that threw more interceptions than touchdowns last season. Harris must sit for his mistake.
Teams must hold players accountable in these situations. Otherwise, what stops Oregon's program from mutating into one like Ohio State?
A situation of this nature is indicative of a larger problem in college sports. The amount of attention and adoration that these athletes receive is unparalleled to times past. They are usually the best athletes in their class growing up, no matter where they are and their friends and family are quick to remind them of this fact. With all this respect and spotlight focus, players develop a sense of indestrucability. Nothing can touch you and nothing can hurt you.
This deity status that the public places these players in directly results in incidents such as Harris and the Ohio State debacle. The athletes feel larger than life and, consequently, their actions are rash and unsafe. Harris was lucky. One blown tire, minor bump in the road or animal crossing and we're discussing the short, unfullfilled life he led. But somewhere down the line, another athlete won't be so lucky. And when that moment arrives and we find ourselves asking how this could have happened, we must simply look in the mirror for the answer.
Do the right thing, Chip Kelly. Suspend Cliff Harris and make a statement that you put responsibility ahead of wins and losses.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Do or Die Time, Dallas
Now or never, Mavericks. Win game five or forget about the series. Hard to believe entering the series, Miami seemed in control of their destiny. Now, after a massive role reversal, Dallas is the one who holds the keys to the championship. Standing in the face of a 2-2 tie, the Mavericks have a chance to put tremendous pressure on the Miami Heat. Dirk nailed it earlier today when he was quoted saying: "This is our game seven."
That should make Dallas fans breathe a little easier. It has come to the point where no matter how badly Dirk struggles early in the game, there is no doubt that he'll show up for the final two minutes. Dirk finally shows the maturity and intensity at the end of games that critics harped for throughout his entire career. He seems to will in every jumper, drive to the basket and free throw he attempts. Spectators used to cringe when Dirk commanded the ball late in games. Now, no matter what defense they throw at him, little doubt exists that Dirk will falter.
Dallas enters game five riding a tsunami of momentum. They played game four with a sense of neccesity, but in complete control. They dominated the glass and locked down on the defensive end, forcing Miami into their early-season offense: forced isolations and stagnant movement. On the flip side, Miami should feel a little perspiration growing on their necks. Struggling immensely in the fourth quarter, which cost them the game, one has to question Miami's fragile psyche. Can they bounce back from another late-game collapse? Can LeBron silence the critics with a big game? Dallas is playing with the house's money right now. Miami, unfortunately, is the house.
Game five, tonight in Dallas, holds enormous implications. If Dallas wins tonight, they have to be considered the favorites to win it. While that doesn't seem like a bold prediction in the face of a 3-2 series lead, this is a Miami team that has still only lost two games at home during the playoffs. Miami taking games six and seven at home is completely in the realm of possibility. But a game five victory for Dallas would certainly make life significantly more stressful for Miami.
But if Dallas loses tonight, this series is over. Winning one more game on the road, especially with a 3-2 lead, would not be insurmountable. Winning two games on the road, after losing game five at home, would devastate the Mavericks' chances. LeBron said today that tonight's game is the "biggest game of [his] life." And while it is the biggest game of his life, this game could ultimately, justified or not, determine Dirk's legacy. Because if he struggles tonight, and Dallas loses, everyone will point to game five as the turning point of the series, re-opening the door for the Heat. The perils of the franchise player.
Dallas has to treat this like their game seven. Anything short of that effort will cost them this series. But given the backbone that Dallas and Dirk have shown so far in the playoffs, the Mavericks have a chance, and they certainly won't go down without a fight.
That should make Dallas fans breathe a little easier. It has come to the point where no matter how badly Dirk struggles early in the game, there is no doubt that he'll show up for the final two minutes. Dirk finally shows the maturity and intensity at the end of games that critics harped for throughout his entire career. He seems to will in every jumper, drive to the basket and free throw he attempts. Spectators used to cringe when Dirk commanded the ball late in games. Now, no matter what defense they throw at him, little doubt exists that Dirk will falter.
Dallas enters game five riding a tsunami of momentum. They played game four with a sense of neccesity, but in complete control. They dominated the glass and locked down on the defensive end, forcing Miami into their early-season offense: forced isolations and stagnant movement. On the flip side, Miami should feel a little perspiration growing on their necks. Struggling immensely in the fourth quarter, which cost them the game, one has to question Miami's fragile psyche. Can they bounce back from another late-game collapse? Can LeBron silence the critics with a big game? Dallas is playing with the house's money right now. Miami, unfortunately, is the house.
Game five, tonight in Dallas, holds enormous implications. If Dallas wins tonight, they have to be considered the favorites to win it. While that doesn't seem like a bold prediction in the face of a 3-2 series lead, this is a Miami team that has still only lost two games at home during the playoffs. Miami taking games six and seven at home is completely in the realm of possibility. But a game five victory for Dallas would certainly make life significantly more stressful for Miami.
But if Dallas loses tonight, this series is over. Winning one more game on the road, especially with a 3-2 lead, would not be insurmountable. Winning two games on the road, after losing game five at home, would devastate the Mavericks' chances. LeBron said today that tonight's game is the "biggest game of [his] life." And while it is the biggest game of his life, this game could ultimately, justified or not, determine Dirk's legacy. Because if he struggles tonight, and Dallas loses, everyone will point to game five as the turning point of the series, re-opening the door for the Heat. The perils of the franchise player.
Dallas has to treat this like their game seven. Anything short of that effort will cost them this series. But given the backbone that Dallas and Dirk have shown so far in the playoffs, the Mavericks have a chance, and they certainly won't go down without a fight.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
LeBron's Performance Proves He's No Jordan
I don't usually like to write people or teams off when it comes to small sample sizes. Generally, when examining a player's impact, one must look at their entire career. They should not be judged on one game or one series alone. However, I am going to make an exception to this rule after a performance last night from the so-called "Chosen One."
Scottie Pippen made headlines last week when he said that LeBron James, the ringless king, could ultimately end up a greater player than Michael Jordan. He was roundly criticized by the media, fans and players for voicing such blasphemy, particularly about his own teammate. All the critics would have never said that LeBron was a greater player at the time, but few would argue that he has the physical talents to reach the level of superiority that Jordan achieved.
Four games into the 2011 NBA Finals and evidently what LeBron lacks isn't physical dominance, it is the mental game that separates him from Jordan. Michael Jordan would have never posted a performance like LeBron did last night: 3-14 from the floor, 8 points total, one missed shot and two turnovers in the fourth quarter. Jordan never played that poorly. At no point in his NBA Finals appearances did he ever score fewer than twenty points. Jordan's teams lost games in the finals, yes, but by no fault of him. Jordan wanted every big shot he could take. And when he decided that he would take a game over, there was no stopping him. He simply out-desired his opponents.
LeBron simply cannot flip the switch like Jordan in the finals. LeBron supporters point to his outstanding defense and that he has played 176 of the 192 minutes in the finals thus far. Certainly LeBron's defense has been exemplary and he did look gassed at the end of game four. But Jordan scored all of those points while guarding the opposing team's best player AND playing that many minutes. Jordan did everything that LeBron is doing, but at a higher level.
The silly LeBron and Jordan comparisons need to stop. LeBron is an immensely talented player. He is arguably the best player in the league right now. And I know referencing simply just this finals goes against resorting to small samples sizes. But sometimes the writing on the wall is clear. LeBron will never be Jordan. It looks like NBA fans will continue to wait for the real chosen one.
Scottie Pippen made headlines last week when he said that LeBron James, the ringless king, could ultimately end up a greater player than Michael Jordan. He was roundly criticized by the media, fans and players for voicing such blasphemy, particularly about his own teammate. All the critics would have never said that LeBron was a greater player at the time, but few would argue that he has the physical talents to reach the level of superiority that Jordan achieved.
Four games into the 2011 NBA Finals and evidently what LeBron lacks isn't physical dominance, it is the mental game that separates him from Jordan. Michael Jordan would have never posted a performance like LeBron did last night: 3-14 from the floor, 8 points total, one missed shot and two turnovers in the fourth quarter. Jordan never played that poorly. At no point in his NBA Finals appearances did he ever score fewer than twenty points. Jordan's teams lost games in the finals, yes, but by no fault of him. Jordan wanted every big shot he could take. And when he decided that he would take a game over, there was no stopping him. He simply out-desired his opponents.
LeBron simply cannot flip the switch like Jordan in the finals. LeBron supporters point to his outstanding defense and that he has played 176 of the 192 minutes in the finals thus far. Certainly LeBron's defense has been exemplary and he did look gassed at the end of game four. But Jordan scored all of those points while guarding the opposing team's best player AND playing that many minutes. Jordan did everything that LeBron is doing, but at a higher level.
The silly LeBron and Jordan comparisons need to stop. LeBron is an immensely talented player. He is arguably the best player in the league right now. And I know referencing simply just this finals goes against resorting to small samples sizes. But sometimes the writing on the wall is clear. LeBron will never be Jordan. It looks like NBA fans will continue to wait for the real chosen one.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
With a Revoked Title, Only the Players Lose
Earlier today, the BCS and the NCAA decided to strip University of Southern California's 2004 Orange Bowl victory over Oklahoma for the national championship. In conjunction with this action, they also wiped the record clear of USC's appearance in the 2006 Rose Bowl against Texas. This news comes, not surprisingly, after the NCAA rejected USC's appeal of the sanctions in place from the infamous Reggie Bush violations. This final execution of the football program effectively erases three years of utter domination by USC.
The BCS Presidential Committee decided that they would not re-award the national championship of 2004, angering Auburn and Utah fans everywhere. Tommy Tuberville, then coach of Auburn stated: "Someone should be awarded (the) title. If not, the team that had to forfeit is not really punished."
Sorry Mr. Tuberville, but you are wrong. Plenty of punishment has been thrown around USC's way, and crowning another national champion would only hurt the people who have suffered enough from this entire debacle: the USC athletes at that time.
I know this isn't the most popular opinion, but by stripping USC of the national championship, the NCAA only hurts the players who were on those historic teams. The sanctions will continue to haunt the program while they are in place, but the second those restrictions are lifted, USC will return to dominance. And they will probably do it the same way they did during those years. They will continue to pay expenses for players, just like every other big school does. USC was made into a scapegoat; they could have easily nailed Auburn, Florida, Oregon, Oklahoma, or Texas. The cheating, according to NCAA rules, is rampant in football.
But what about all those players who didn't receive any benefits? What about the offensive and defensive lineman who made it through USC all on their own? What about the linebackers and safeties? Aren't they forgotten about in this entire process?
These players are exploited by the NCAA on a daily basis. The blatant hypocrisy that the NCAA exudes as an "amateur" organization is downright laughable. Billions of dollars are invested in these players to turn a profit. And at the end of the day, most (excluding high profile players like Reggie Bush) players do not see a cent of that money, but they are left with the memories and pride of their accomplishments.
Now that the NCAA stripped USC of their title, eviscerating them from the record books, the only people who truly lose are those players. Their hard work, time, dedication, and effort are all for naught. These athletes gave three years of their life to their school and the NCAA and now the NCAA wants to say that it doesn't mean anything. Those years never happened in their minds. But all the money that those players made certainly did.
The fact of the matter is that the national champion is the best college team in the world. And without a doubt, USC was the best team in 2004. Yes, USC made a mistake with Reggie Bush. They broke the rules and they now face the consequences. But maybe the rules need to be changed. Maybe the system doesn't quite work all the time (see: Tressell, Jim), because in five years these sanctions probably will not still affect USC. But those players still won't have their names in any record books.
In my mind, the winner of the Heisman Trophy in 2005 was Reggie Bush. The National Champion in 2004 was USC, in arguably the most dominant performance in national championship history. And USC-Texas provided the best college game of all-time in 2006.
I don't care what the record books say.
The BCS Presidential Committee decided that they would not re-award the national championship of 2004, angering Auburn and Utah fans everywhere. Tommy Tuberville, then coach of Auburn stated: "Someone should be awarded (the) title. If not, the team that had to forfeit is not really punished."
Sorry Mr. Tuberville, but you are wrong. Plenty of punishment has been thrown around USC's way, and crowning another national champion would only hurt the people who have suffered enough from this entire debacle: the USC athletes at that time.
I know this isn't the most popular opinion, but by stripping USC of the national championship, the NCAA only hurts the players who were on those historic teams. The sanctions will continue to haunt the program while they are in place, but the second those restrictions are lifted, USC will return to dominance. And they will probably do it the same way they did during those years. They will continue to pay expenses for players, just like every other big school does. USC was made into a scapegoat; they could have easily nailed Auburn, Florida, Oregon, Oklahoma, or Texas. The cheating, according to NCAA rules, is rampant in football.
But what about all those players who didn't receive any benefits? What about the offensive and defensive lineman who made it through USC all on their own? What about the linebackers and safeties? Aren't they forgotten about in this entire process?
These players are exploited by the NCAA on a daily basis. The blatant hypocrisy that the NCAA exudes as an "amateur" organization is downright laughable. Billions of dollars are invested in these players to turn a profit. And at the end of the day, most (excluding high profile players like Reggie Bush) players do not see a cent of that money, but they are left with the memories and pride of their accomplishments.
Now that the NCAA stripped USC of their title, eviscerating them from the record books, the only people who truly lose are those players. Their hard work, time, dedication, and effort are all for naught. These athletes gave three years of their life to their school and the NCAA and now the NCAA wants to say that it doesn't mean anything. Those years never happened in their minds. But all the money that those players made certainly did.
The fact of the matter is that the national champion is the best college team in the world. And without a doubt, USC was the best team in 2004. Yes, USC made a mistake with Reggie Bush. They broke the rules and they now face the consequences. But maybe the rules need to be changed. Maybe the system doesn't quite work all the time (see: Tressell, Jim), because in five years these sanctions probably will not still affect USC. But those players still won't have their names in any record books.
In my mind, the winner of the Heisman Trophy in 2005 was Reggie Bush. The National Champion in 2004 was USC, in arguably the most dominant performance in national championship history. And USC-Texas provided the best college game of all-time in 2006.
I don't care what the record books say.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Lord Stanley's Glory
I'm not much of a hockey fan. Not because I do not enjoy the sport, I just did not grow up around it. Born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, hockey was about as foreign to me upon my arrival in Boston as winning basketball games is in Minnesota. People skate around with sticks and hit a little puck that is impossible to follow. What else was there to this game?
Now, my knowledge of the sport has grown somewhat, but I still fail to understand the nuances of the game. Line changes confuse me. I couldn't break down an offensive attack with Wayne Gretzky tutoring me. I can name about fifteen players in the entire NHL, about half of which play for the Boston Bruins. Let's face it: I'm still a hockey amateur.
But at this point in my life, I have watched enough sports to tell when players really want to win a championship. I do not question the desire of the Miami Heat or the Dallas Mavericks as they compete for the Larry O'Brian trophy. They worked their entire careers for these moments, breathing, eating, sleeping, and simply living basketball. Fans can say the same about the MLB and the NFL with their respective championships. These athletes dedicate their lives to reach the pinnacle of their profession.
Except the NHL takes this passion and desire to a whole new level. Watching game two of the Stanley Cup Finals last night, the effort that each team exerted and the passion in their eyes they demonstrated--each extra skate, hard hit and dive to block the puck--proved to me that NHL players want to win the Stanley Cup more than any other sport.
Witnessing Vancouver celebrate after they scored eleven seconds into overtime, the Canucks looked like a group of high school cheerleaders who just won the state championship: laughing, smiling, slapping high fives, one gigantic mob jumping up and down. Their bliss was evident as each man appeared as though he was one step closer to completing his ultimate life goal. Similarly, as Boston skated off the ice at the same time, their dejection seemed to imply a life failure. Down two games in the biggest moment of their life, each man sprinted off the ice to hide the shame of losing.
This contrasting dichotomy swirls to create an atmosphere unmatched by the other major American sports. When I watch the NBA Finals, when a team loses they appear upset. Heads lowered, short answers with interviewers, sunken eyes.. When I watched the Stanley Cup Finals, when a team loses they seem to feel like an utter failure. A disgrace to their teammates, their organization and their city. The players want to capture and harness all of the glory that comes with the Stanley Cup. It is the same reason that each team member is granted a day with the Stanley Cup, just for himself. That trophy means more to them than anything else in the world.
I could never turn my back on the NBA. But the passion and zeal that hockey players have for their sport makes me reconsider how I prioritize my sports interests. Watching two teams engage in a life-or-death mental and physical struggle for the ultimate prize piques even my uneducated hockey mind. Lord Stanley may just have another follower.
Now, my knowledge of the sport has grown somewhat, but I still fail to understand the nuances of the game. Line changes confuse me. I couldn't break down an offensive attack with Wayne Gretzky tutoring me. I can name about fifteen players in the entire NHL, about half of which play for the Boston Bruins. Let's face it: I'm still a hockey amateur.
But at this point in my life, I have watched enough sports to tell when players really want to win a championship. I do not question the desire of the Miami Heat or the Dallas Mavericks as they compete for the Larry O'Brian trophy. They worked their entire careers for these moments, breathing, eating, sleeping, and simply living basketball. Fans can say the same about the MLB and the NFL with their respective championships. These athletes dedicate their lives to reach the pinnacle of their profession.
Except the NHL takes this passion and desire to a whole new level. Watching game two of the Stanley Cup Finals last night, the effort that each team exerted and the passion in their eyes they demonstrated--each extra skate, hard hit and dive to block the puck--proved to me that NHL players want to win the Stanley Cup more than any other sport.
Witnessing Vancouver celebrate after they scored eleven seconds into overtime, the Canucks looked like a group of high school cheerleaders who just won the state championship: laughing, smiling, slapping high fives, one gigantic mob jumping up and down. Their bliss was evident as each man appeared as though he was one step closer to completing his ultimate life goal. Similarly, as Boston skated off the ice at the same time, their dejection seemed to imply a life failure. Down two games in the biggest moment of their life, each man sprinted off the ice to hide the shame of losing.
This contrasting dichotomy swirls to create an atmosphere unmatched by the other major American sports. When I watch the NBA Finals, when a team loses they appear upset. Heads lowered, short answers with interviewers, sunken eyes.. When I watched the Stanley Cup Finals, when a team loses they seem to feel like an utter failure. A disgrace to their teammates, their organization and their city. The players want to capture and harness all of the glory that comes with the Stanley Cup. It is the same reason that each team member is granted a day with the Stanley Cup, just for himself. That trophy means more to them than anything else in the world.
I could never turn my back on the NBA. But the passion and zeal that hockey players have for their sport makes me reconsider how I prioritize my sports interests. Watching two teams engage in a life-or-death mental and physical struggle for the ultimate prize piques even my uneducated hockey mind. Lord Stanley may just have another follower.
Heat Face a Challenge in Dallas
The Dallas Mavericks will win game three. I don't normally like to make declarative statements like that, but my intuition tells me that the Miami Heat are in some trouble in Dallas. Sure, the Heat will seek to silence the critics again after blowing the lead late in the fourth quarter in game two. And they have certainly proven capable of ignoring the national media and simply playing their game.
But there are some critics that the Miami Heat will not be able to escape from in game three: the Dallas crowd. The fans at the American Airlines Center will heckle, harass, and abuse the Miami Heat. Ever since Rick Carlisle admitted that he wished the Dallas fans would cheer more loudly in the Portland series, they shouldered the weight of that comment and have been one of the most raucous stadiums in the playoffs.
While the big three of the Heat won't show any signs of concern because of the crowd, the Heat role players may not play as confidently. Mike Miller, Udonis Haslem, Mario Chalmers, all of these guys have been in the playoffs before, but following the mental collapse in game two, they may deal with fragile psyches. These players are not notorious for their ability to rise in momentous occasions.
On the Dallas side, they field a plethora of players who feed of the crowd energy. JJ Barea, Jason Terry, Tyson Chandler and Deshawn Stevenson improve their play significantly in front of the home crowd. Dirk will get his points, especially at home where the refs give him free throws for anything more a dirty look. Miami can win if Dirk scores thirty and the rest of the Mavericks do not show up. But if even two of those players perform well in front of their home crowd, then the Heat will have their hands full.
Miami needs to take the crowd out of the game immediately. Their best hope is to push the pace from the opening tip, leaking out in transition where they have proved themselves unstoppable. This means that LeBron and Wade must instill a confidence in the role players. No excessive celebrations, no dancing, nothing. The Heat have to prove they are all business if they want to beat Dallas at home.
While the Heat will appear more composed and mature, avoiding the same egocentric actions that cost them game two, Dallas plays too well in front of their home crowd to lose game three.
But there are some critics that the Miami Heat will not be able to escape from in game three: the Dallas crowd. The fans at the American Airlines Center will heckle, harass, and abuse the Miami Heat. Ever since Rick Carlisle admitted that he wished the Dallas fans would cheer more loudly in the Portland series, they shouldered the weight of that comment and have been one of the most raucous stadiums in the playoffs.
While the big three of the Heat won't show any signs of concern because of the crowd, the Heat role players may not play as confidently. Mike Miller, Udonis Haslem, Mario Chalmers, all of these guys have been in the playoffs before, but following the mental collapse in game two, they may deal with fragile psyches. These players are not notorious for their ability to rise in momentous occasions.
On the Dallas side, they field a plethora of players who feed of the crowd energy. JJ Barea, Jason Terry, Tyson Chandler and Deshawn Stevenson improve their play significantly in front of the home crowd. Dirk will get his points, especially at home where the refs give him free throws for anything more a dirty look. Miami can win if Dirk scores thirty and the rest of the Mavericks do not show up. But if even two of those players perform well in front of their home crowd, then the Heat will have their hands full.
Miami needs to take the crowd out of the game immediately. Their best hope is to push the pace from the opening tip, leaking out in transition where they have proved themselves unstoppable. This means that LeBron and Wade must instill a confidence in the role players. No excessive celebrations, no dancing, nothing. The Heat have to prove they are all business if they want to beat Dallas at home.
While the Heat will appear more composed and mature, avoiding the same egocentric actions that cost them game two, Dallas plays too well in front of their home crowd to lose game three.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
The Same Song and Dance
After all of the hype behind Novak Djokovic's incredible run, his gluten-free diet and the way that he was steamrolling opponents into the French Open, tennis fans see the same two men in the French Open finals that usually appear there.
Hint: neither is named Djokovic.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will square off tomorrow in the finals at Roland Garros. The King of Clay Nadal is the favorite having won five of the last six Coupe des Mosquetaires. The only other man to win a title in that time: Roger Federer.
Nadal is the undisputed best in the world when it comes to clay. And while he has struggled with his game a little recently, he always finds his best games the the French Open. Nadal's strength, athleticism, and speed create a clay monster that eats up every ball that is hit his way. The crowds at Roland Garros love him, as he demonstrates pure class while dominating each opponent that dares stand in his way.
But do not sell Federer short. I suppose it seems almost blasphemous to dismiss a man who has won 16 Grand Slams, including a French Open over Rafael Nadal, but that is just how overpowering Nadal is on clay. Federer, however, does have a wave of momentum to ride that came from his victory of Djokovic. There were whispers in the tennis world about whether Federer's gears were beginning to slow down. He has not won a Grand Slam since 2010, when he captured the Australian open. And this is his first finals in a Grand Slam since that same tournament.
Federer put a halt to the whispers when he knocked off #1 ranked Djokovic in four sets, including a spirited break of Djokovic in the tenth game of the fourth set. From there, Federer held his serve and eventually won the tiebreaker, finishing off the Serb and his incredible run. Federer proved that he still has life in his legs to compete at the Grand Slam level.
Here we go again: Federer vs. Nadal in a Grand Slam final. The rivalry that put tennis back on the map will treat fans to what will surely be another classic match. Nadal has the advantage on the court physically, but Federer has the emotion and momentum. Expect Nadal to take home another French Open, but if Federer plays strong early in the match, do not be surprised if he can knock of Nadal.
Hint: neither is named Djokovic.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal will square off tomorrow in the finals at Roland Garros. The King of Clay Nadal is the favorite having won five of the last six Coupe des Mosquetaires. The only other man to win a title in that time: Roger Federer.
Nadal is the undisputed best in the world when it comes to clay. And while he has struggled with his game a little recently, he always finds his best games the the French Open. Nadal's strength, athleticism, and speed create a clay monster that eats up every ball that is hit his way. The crowds at Roland Garros love him, as he demonstrates pure class while dominating each opponent that dares stand in his way.
But do not sell Federer short. I suppose it seems almost blasphemous to dismiss a man who has won 16 Grand Slams, including a French Open over Rafael Nadal, but that is just how overpowering Nadal is on clay. Federer, however, does have a wave of momentum to ride that came from his victory of Djokovic. There were whispers in the tennis world about whether Federer's gears were beginning to slow down. He has not won a Grand Slam since 2010, when he captured the Australian open. And this is his first finals in a Grand Slam since that same tournament.
Federer put a halt to the whispers when he knocked off #1 ranked Djokovic in four sets, including a spirited break of Djokovic in the tenth game of the fourth set. From there, Federer held his serve and eventually won the tiebreaker, finishing off the Serb and his incredible run. Federer proved that he still has life in his legs to compete at the Grand Slam level.
Here we go again: Federer vs. Nadal in a Grand Slam final. The rivalry that put tennis back on the map will treat fans to what will surely be another classic match. Nadal has the advantage on the court physically, but Federer has the emotion and momentum. Expect Nadal to take home another French Open, but if Federer plays strong early in the match, do not be surprised if he can knock of Nadal.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
I am frequently wrong. This is one of those times.
When it comes to sports, I hate being wrong. And when it comes to basketball, any challenge of my knowledge is the equivalent of disagreeing with Papal Infallibility. Okay, so maybe that is a hyperbole, but I do pride myself on my love and knowledge of basketball. So when I make two predictions that aren't even close to the results, I feel the need to admit how much I love eating crow.
I picked Miami in seven. They won in five and it wasn't a close series. I picked Chicago in seven after game one. I actually couldn't have been more wrong with that prediction as Miami won the next four games in a row. I can safely say that I won't make the same mistake again as I am picking Miami in six. I know that I just preached how I want Dirk to win a ring more than any player in the NBA, but that ignores the objectivity of the series.
Yes, Miami doesn't have anyone that can effectively guard Dirk (or so we think), but this team is the best defensive team in the league. They finished second behind Chicago in defensive efficiency, but have shown marked improvement throughout the playoffs. Just as Derrick Rose bought into Thibodeau's system, LeBron and Dwyane have committed themselves to defense and it shows. Miami rotates faster, switches more effectively, and rebounds the ball despite giving up a big size advantage. The Heat have transformed in to a defensive juggernaut.
The only thing scarier than their defense is the fourth quarter performance that Wade and James put on two nights ago. Teams have a hard time scoring on the Heat, but if the two of them dominate the offensive side of the court like that, the series could be shorter than six games. The media has never knocked Wade for his performances in the fourth quarter of big games, but LeBron has had the reputation of shrinking in these moments.
Two nights ago, LeBron channeled his inner-2007 Eastern Conference Finals against the Pistons, and ripped the heart out of the Bulls and city of Chicago. Drilling a three to cut the game to two, stealing the subsequent Rose pass and hitting a step-back jumper just before the shot clock expired, James put the game in the hands of the Heat. He capped off his memorable performance by blocking Rose's final attempt to tie the game, erasing the early season doubts and criticisms in three short minutes.
Miami has grown faster than I could've expected. Their stars bonded and have come to trust each other and their coach, Spoelstra. Dallas has a shot, but a small one at best. I won't make the same mistake I made the past two times and underestimate the Heat. And if NBA fans don't want Miami to win many more championships beyond this first, then they better hope that the collective bargaining agreement makes some serious changes. If it doesn't, Larry O'Brian trophy better take its home to South Beach.
I picked Miami in seven. They won in five and it wasn't a close series. I picked Chicago in seven after game one. I actually couldn't have been more wrong with that prediction as Miami won the next four games in a row. I can safely say that I won't make the same mistake again as I am picking Miami in six. I know that I just preached how I want Dirk to win a ring more than any player in the NBA, but that ignores the objectivity of the series.
Yes, Miami doesn't have anyone that can effectively guard Dirk (or so we think), but this team is the best defensive team in the league. They finished second behind Chicago in defensive efficiency, but have shown marked improvement throughout the playoffs. Just as Derrick Rose bought into Thibodeau's system, LeBron and Dwyane have committed themselves to defense and it shows. Miami rotates faster, switches more effectively, and rebounds the ball despite giving up a big size advantage. The Heat have transformed in to a defensive juggernaut.
The only thing scarier than their defense is the fourth quarter performance that Wade and James put on two nights ago. Teams have a hard time scoring on the Heat, but if the two of them dominate the offensive side of the court like that, the series could be shorter than six games. The media has never knocked Wade for his performances in the fourth quarter of big games, but LeBron has had the reputation of shrinking in these moments.
Two nights ago, LeBron channeled his inner-2007 Eastern Conference Finals against the Pistons, and ripped the heart out of the Bulls and city of Chicago. Drilling a three to cut the game to two, stealing the subsequent Rose pass and hitting a step-back jumper just before the shot clock expired, James put the game in the hands of the Heat. He capped off his memorable performance by blocking Rose's final attempt to tie the game, erasing the early season doubts and criticisms in three short minutes.
Miami has grown faster than I could've expected. Their stars bonded and have come to trust each other and their coach, Spoelstra. Dallas has a shot, but a small one at best. I won't make the same mistake I made the past two times and underestimate the Heat. And if NBA fans don't want Miami to win many more championships beyond this first, then they better hope that the collective bargaining agreement makes some serious changes. If it doesn't, Larry O'Brian trophy better take its home to South Beach.
Friday, 27 May 2011
FIFA President Received Bribes?
In a (not-so) surprising turn of events, FIFA President Sepp Blatter will be brought forth an ethics committee to determine whether or not he received bribes pertaining to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
For those of you who don't remember, those World Cups will be held in Russia and Qatar, respectively, raising eyebrows across the world as major powerhouses such as England, France, and a host of others. Russia and Qatar are not known for their soccer prowess, nor are they the most hospitable countries for a competition that draws hundreds of thousands of people.
Certainly these accusations make Blatter look like a sleazeball if they are true. And it isn't a coincidence that FIFA summons him before an ethics committee one week before elections for FIFA presidency, where Blatter will seek his fourth consecutive term.
Interestingly, one of Blatter's biggest competitors for the position is the Qatari head of the Asian Football Confederation, Mohammed bin Hammam, who has also been implicated in the accusations. He allegedly payed off FIFA executive Jack Warner to back the Qatari bid. Bin Hammam is now throwing Blatter under the bus, denying any of his wrongdoing and supporting the accusations against Blatter, with hopes of winning the election, showing the lowest of class if bribery did occur to earn Qatar the 2022 World Cup. Bin Hammam will now remove the knife from the back of Blatter.
I guess people shouldn't really be surprised by this. Cheating, bribery, and scandals are rampant in international soccer. Corruption must start somewhere and the most logical place is from the top. Let's hope that they revoke the 2022 Qatar award and re-vote in a clean election.
For those of you who don't remember, those World Cups will be held in Russia and Qatar, respectively, raising eyebrows across the world as major powerhouses such as England, France, and a host of others. Russia and Qatar are not known for their soccer prowess, nor are they the most hospitable countries for a competition that draws hundreds of thousands of people.
Certainly these accusations make Blatter look like a sleazeball if they are true. And it isn't a coincidence that FIFA summons him before an ethics committee one week before elections for FIFA presidency, where Blatter will seek his fourth consecutive term.
Interestingly, one of Blatter's biggest competitors for the position is the Qatari head of the Asian Football Confederation, Mohammed bin Hammam, who has also been implicated in the accusations. He allegedly payed off FIFA executive Jack Warner to back the Qatari bid. Bin Hammam is now throwing Blatter under the bus, denying any of his wrongdoing and supporting the accusations against Blatter, with hopes of winning the election, showing the lowest of class if bribery did occur to earn Qatar the 2022 World Cup. Bin Hammam will now remove the knife from the back of Blatter.
I guess people shouldn't really be surprised by this. Cheating, bribery, and scandals are rampant in international soccer. Corruption must start somewhere and the most logical place is from the top. Let's hope that they revoke the 2022 Qatar award and re-vote in a clean election.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Dirk's Paid His Dues, Give Him a Ring
I've always fought against him. The long hair, the fall-away one-footed jumper, the scowl. Dirk Nowitzki has never given me a reason to like him. Despite the fact that he has been dominant in the league since he stepped on the court, has never run into any trouble off the court, and never had any issues with the Blazers, I grew up loving to root against Dirk.
He was the anti-clutch. He couldn't carry a team out of the 2nd round of the playoffs. When he finally did and the Mavericks made it to the NBA 2006 Finals, I cheered as a young Dwyane Wade was gift wrapped the finals by David Stern and Stu Jackson. Then the following year, with a chip on his shoulder, Dirk led the Mavericks to the best record in the NBA, capturing the overall number one seed as he was named the league MVP. The Mavericks subsequently became the first #1 seed to lose to a #8 seed in a seven game series. Dirk further confirmed his inability to show up in momentous games.
2008: first round exit.
2009: second round exit.
2010: first round exit as #2 seed.
Dirk's championship window appeared to be closing. A veteran point guard, Jason Kidd, and an athletic, scoring wing, Caron Butler, were his last hopes for a title run. Butler went down early in the season to an ACL tear and the Mavs were hot and cold as they clinched the number three seed despite a hot start. Most analysts put their chances at 50-50 to make it out of the first round against the Blazers.
But somewhere in the back of Dirk's mind, a switch clicked. Tired of the doubters, the critics, and the non-believers, he began destroying every defender he encountered. The Blazers attempted to put a smaller Gerald Wallace and Nicolas Batum on him, he simply took them to the low post and brutalized them. When a bigger and longer Marcus Camby and Lamarcus Aldridge took their turn on him, Dirk drew them out, took to hard dribbles, pumped faked and drilled jumper after jumper.
This trend continued through the second round as the Mavericks steamrolled the defending champion Lakers. The series was never even close as Dirk led the Mavs to a level they hadn't seen since 2006. But after that there were questions lingering. How would Dirk shake off the cobwebs from their long rest? Could he handle a long and strong defender like Ibaka? What about when the Thunder gave Ibaka a rest and put a serviceable Nick Collison on him?
Dirk shut the critics up with arguably the greatest offensive performance in playoff history in terms of efficiency. Scoring 48 points on fifteen shots, including a playoff record twenty-four made free throws with no misses, Dirk pushed his game to a level that the NBA had never seen him at. When the Thunder threw double teams at him, he punished them with ball movement. He rebounded the ball with impunity and missed only two free throws the entire series.
Dirk Nowitzki could have rolled over and died. After the NBA heisted the 2006 NBA Finals from him, Dirk suffered through three more difficult seasons with two coaches and a revolving door of players. At age 32, Dirk should have been on his way out of the league. But Dirk's game has continued to evolve, crafting an arsenal of jumpers that boarders on impossible to guard.
I still don't like Dirk, but there is not a single player in the league that deserves a ring more than he does. He's loyal and an incredibly hard worker. The man suffered through years of criticism and proved himself capable of coming out the other side successfully. Now Dirk will have the chance to exact revenge against the team that stole his 2006 title. And while I don't like him, I respect him immensely. And there is no player in the league, not on the Blazers, that I would rather see win a title.
He was the anti-clutch. He couldn't carry a team out of the 2nd round of the playoffs. When he finally did and the Mavericks made it to the NBA 2006 Finals, I cheered as a young Dwyane Wade was gift wrapped the finals by David Stern and Stu Jackson. Then the following year, with a chip on his shoulder, Dirk led the Mavericks to the best record in the NBA, capturing the overall number one seed as he was named the league MVP. The Mavericks subsequently became the first #1 seed to lose to a #8 seed in a seven game series. Dirk further confirmed his inability to show up in momentous games.
2008: first round exit.
2009: second round exit.
2010: first round exit as #2 seed.
Dirk's championship window appeared to be closing. A veteran point guard, Jason Kidd, and an athletic, scoring wing, Caron Butler, were his last hopes for a title run. Butler went down early in the season to an ACL tear and the Mavs were hot and cold as they clinched the number three seed despite a hot start. Most analysts put their chances at 50-50 to make it out of the first round against the Blazers.
But somewhere in the back of Dirk's mind, a switch clicked. Tired of the doubters, the critics, and the non-believers, he began destroying every defender he encountered. The Blazers attempted to put a smaller Gerald Wallace and Nicolas Batum on him, he simply took them to the low post and brutalized them. When a bigger and longer Marcus Camby and Lamarcus Aldridge took their turn on him, Dirk drew them out, took to hard dribbles, pumped faked and drilled jumper after jumper.
This trend continued through the second round as the Mavericks steamrolled the defending champion Lakers. The series was never even close as Dirk led the Mavs to a level they hadn't seen since 2006. But after that there were questions lingering. How would Dirk shake off the cobwebs from their long rest? Could he handle a long and strong defender like Ibaka? What about when the Thunder gave Ibaka a rest and put a serviceable Nick Collison on him?
Dirk shut the critics up with arguably the greatest offensive performance in playoff history in terms of efficiency. Scoring 48 points on fifteen shots, including a playoff record twenty-four made free throws with no misses, Dirk pushed his game to a level that the NBA had never seen him at. When the Thunder threw double teams at him, he punished them with ball movement. He rebounded the ball with impunity and missed only two free throws the entire series.
Dirk Nowitzki could have rolled over and died. After the NBA heisted the 2006 NBA Finals from him, Dirk suffered through three more difficult seasons with two coaches and a revolving door of players. At age 32, Dirk should have been on his way out of the league. But Dirk's game has continued to evolve, crafting an arsenal of jumpers that boarders on impossible to guard.
I still don't like Dirk, but there is not a single player in the league that deserves a ring more than he does. He's loyal and an incredibly hard worker. The man suffered through years of criticism and proved himself capable of coming out the other side successfully. Now Dirk will have the chance to exact revenge against the team that stole his 2006 title. And while I don't like him, I respect him immensely. And there is no player in the league, not on the Blazers, that I would rather see win a title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)