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."

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.