Row row row your boat...

Should the coach stay or go

2006-12-06T15:25:00.000-07:00

The end of any football is ripe with rumors and controversy (this is a non-BCS post).
Already begun is the speculation regarding which coach will move to or be fired from.

Today the rumors have started swirling that Mike Stoops is being considered for the Head Coach assignment at 'Bama and Miami.

I'm all for getting your dues when you feel you've earned them. Not saying that Stoops hasn't, but he still hasn't gotten to a bowl game yet as a head coach. Sorry, that's the bitterness talking.

I also appreciate someone who takes a position with the intent to take a job, and move the program to the highest level of success. Not use it as a stepping stone to other venues.

Lute Olsen in my opinion is the epitomy of this example. Having taken the team from subpar to a perrenial title contender. A legacy like that speaks volumes. Otherwise you're just a Phil Jackson who takes the job with the best possibilities to win without actually having to coach.

BCS/BS Merry-Go-Round

2006-12-06T10:46:00.000-07:00

How can anyone say the system is “flawed” when the intent isn’t clear?

What is the intent of any exiting playoff system? It certainly isn’t to match up the two best teams and determine THE best team overall… case in point: St Louis winning the 2006 MLB… George Mason in the 2006 Final Four…

Just because a team wins a tournament, doesn’t necessarily “crown them” the best (a la Dennis Green).

In this year’s debate, pretend a playoff pits Michigan against Ohio State in a rematch. If Michigan wins, the headlines the next day would read… “Who’s #1?” since Ohio State won the first match and both teams only have one loss.

Conversely, without a playoff system, if Ohio State wins a rematch with Michigan, the “could have been” contenders cry foul that they weren’t given a chance to win once when Michigan would have been given two chances at a title.

What was the purpose of bowl games prior to 1998? I don’t know the answer… I’m asking.

In the end... any newly implemented playoff system would still be dependant upon a ranking system as it exists today (“flawed”?). Which means instead of the #3 & #4 teams complaining about their end state, the #5 and #6 teams would whine. I use a little creative license in limiting a playoff to only four teams because someone would be hard pressed to make a case that a #8 team should have a chance to play… and nobody else should try to make that case since no one is making a case for Boise State to be in the championship game today. To through more heat on the fire, if you limit to four, then in this years debacle, USC cries fowl as they are the team with the hardest schedule BY FAR.

Additional cons to a playoff system:

- Who would get the higher seed?

- Do you limit BCS playoff to only Conference Champions? If you let Michigan in this year, then a conference tournament/championship means nothing unless you miss out on a playoff otherwise. The regular season would probably lose much of its importance.

- For those that cry foul about the current system benefiting the colleges monetarily, who do you think benefits more with a playoff system? And who SHOULD benefit most? Your answer should be, the colleges, and not the media/networks which would be the result of a playoff system.

- Who would travel to the remaining (leftover) bowl games?

- Team travel/hotel logistics (see State Fans Nation blog here)

“Can 50K people afford to travel 3 different times in a month to exotic locales?”

- It would be more advantageous for BCS schools to schedule cupcakes than they are now

- If you’re not a fan of a football powerhouse, be ready to be excluded - you won’t be invited.

Again, Just say NO to pre rankings.

-----------------------------------------------

The above statements are designed to insite discussion and not violence. I only take pleasure in playing the role of the Devil's Advocate

To Tax or Not to Tax

2006-11-15T17:11:00.000-07:00

The NBA will now be in charge of seeking a public/private funding deal for a new stadium in Sacramento.

“The billionaire Maloofs have been roundly criticized by local taxpayers' groups for seeking public funding for a proposed multi-use arena in downtown Sacramento or north of town near Arco Arena, the Kings' aging current home.

…they have requested that we take a leadership role in helping them achieve that goal," Stern said.

I give Stern and all professional sport organizations are resounding Phfffbt!

Granted, professions sport owners, for the majority are not in the business of owning stadiums. I understand that. I understand that the concerts and monster truck pulls that are held in those arenas are not what a professional sport owner wants to have to deal with.

What those same owners lack in perspective, is that they need to prove to the public that if the public puts money up for a stadium, at least an equal or greater portion of the money the owners are looking to increase into their wallets also makes it into the public economy.

The public shouldn’t be expected to be in the practice supporting owners making more money while the public gets stuck with increased taxes and a big thank you for increased ticket prices, parking, hotels, etc.

I can tell from experience, that as an AZ resident, I feel like walking around with a sign which says “Sucker” as it relates to the great deal we just gave the Cardinals. We just gave the Cardinals a brand new stadium, gave them the naming rights, the parking revenue, a sold out season, and a whole lot more… in return:

…A 1-8 team (as of Nov 15^th) which is $10 million UNDER the salary cap BEFORE all the great revenue the team should make this year.

Maybe an amendment should be made to the Fans Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Professional franchise owners should beware that they don’t push their main revenue stream away. While the real money is in the TV contracts, what would that broadcast look like if there were no fans in the room?

Prove It -- Part 2

2006-11-13T12:55:00.000-07:00

Listening to the knee-jerk comments from all sides of the isle of last weeks elections, there are plenty more tidbits to call out.
I found it funny listening to comments from both winners and losers from the races.

"We ran a good race" -- said:

-- the challenger for the Republican Wisconsin congressional seat of Paul R. Nelson throughing morality accusations
-- the new Democratic House Representative Chris Carney after running ads slamming the "family values" of Rep. Don Sherwood

What planet were these people on during the campaign? Didn't those guys "approve" of those messages? This was a disgusting campaign year.

As soon as the election is won, everyone likes to pretend they took the high road from the beginning and will continue on that road by saying:

"We need to come together and unite" -- said the DNC chairman (Dean) who also said "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for"

Prove It!

Adding to the mix is the free press. Free press is great and one of the greatest gifts any nation has to offer. Though it can be abused. If nobody else is going to call out the media for being The Media, it will have to happen here. Calling the media suckers for a good smear campaign to lead the next day with seems appropriate enough. But the following quote would be more "PC".

"When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative," said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. "And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes."

Prove it

2006-11-10T11:57:00.000-07:00

The 2006 campaign season was full of the same promise... change will bring improvement. While no one bothered to mention WHAT changes will bring improvement or HOW things will be improved... none of that matters now because things have changed. Democrats now have the control desired. The promises were said, they are documented nowhere, but every tax paying American is watching, waiting, and saying "prove it."

Will it be too much to hope that U.S. Congress will be able to put aside differences and work together for the common good of the country rather than the exclusive benefit of partisanship?

Democrats have been able to pull a proverbial “fast one” over the Republicans in taking control over both houses. Without any experience in the Senate, I wonder just how much impact a one person majority has outside realigning committee leadership.

I’m leery of the “tit-for-tat” virus which seems to have infected Congress over the last 3 decades.

You said this about me… well you did this to him… well he blocked our vote on… well he didn’t really win the election… and on and on.

As for one lowly tax payer, I’d like to see the score set to zero, and everyone start to play nice.

I would love to through my support around someone who publicly sticks it to the lobbyists and doesn’t play puppet, who doesn’t vote except for what his constituents want.

I’m a tax payer, and I approve this message. I think I just threw up a little bit.

Just Say No to Pre-Rankings

2006-10-30T13:25:00.000-07:00

This isn’t intended to make a case for or against the current system, rather to highlight the flaws of both.

The conference and non-conference schedules are not level playing fields. Many argue the East coast bias against West coast teams. While it’s relevant, it’s also overplayed. The SEC will continue to whine that its conference is and always will be the ‘bride’s maid, never a bride.” OK, I admit the reference to the SEC as a dress wearing conference may have gone a bit too far, but it was fun.
The point is that under the current regular season system, non-conference schedules should be made by the NCAA so that teams are not falsely inflating their records by electing to play D-2AA schools if they want to be considered championship contenders. If you want to play on New Year’s Day, your non-conference schedule should include wins against teams that show you would put on a good show on New Year’s Day against another contender.

Additionally, even if a playoff system were put in place today, the teams put into the playoff would still be based on the current BCS ranking system which already gets enough heat for being imperfect as it is. Right now, the #3 & #4 team are the squeaky wheels, if you implement a playoff, the #9 & #10 teams become the squeaky wheel (in an 8 team playoff). And before someone jumps the gun to say; well, those are just the bottom of the barrel team... you might even say ‘wildcard’ teams… the Cardinals would not have been in the playoffs had they been in any other division (rename that conference when referring back to NCAA football).

The Cardinals being crowned the best team but not actually BEING the best team should carry more weight than it has. Just the marathon of being in a place to contend for a title should remove even the possibility of any discussions/comments that the winner “doesn’t deserve the trophy.” Rarely is the subject more apparent than now that most playoff systems are NOT setup to crown someone as The Champion: (NCAA Basketball single elimination, NBA first round seven game series, NFL regular season only serves to identify those teams that should be college teams)

The real tragedy is the 2006 MLB Championship puts to rest the sports catch phrase, “In a seven game series, the best team always wins.”

I just have to respond

2006-10-12T12:17:00.000-07:00

Yes it's a tired subject, but some still dont' get it. This is in response to the Sports Law Blog at Why is Steroid Use Considered Cheating?.

This being the "Sports Law Blog" I find it interesting that especially in this article, you neglected (willingly) to mention any references to "precedence".

First and foremost, beyond any sport rule book, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW! IT IS NOT LEGAL! (Doctors notes excluded)

The 'fallback arguement' is less about those from the past (as they too could have used them) as much as it's about those who choose to obey the law and play as the spirit of the sport intends, which is, bring all the you (and only yourself has to bring) - I'll bring mine, and the best man will win. When steroids are introduced, the man cheating brings a bench player while the other meets the challenge head on. The terms coward/Peter Pan syndrome come to mind.

As far as eye-surgery's go... it's not any other improvement that the guy already had wearing glasses in the first place. And Greg DID wear glasses but mostly wore contacts. Get the facts straight.

HGH, Andro, etc are in the same bucket.. the "meaningful difference" isn't justified, rather the (knowingly) strong Baseball Players Union was able to keep that off the negotiating table. You should be asking, "why hasn't the union OFFERED these things to the banned substance list?" -- Simple, the union knows that there are too many guys using this right now which would put them out of the game, not by violation, but because those things keep them from the minors.

Back to precedence, the spirit of sport and competition is about fair play (hence rules). Rules are there for those who don't have the integrity within themselves to play for the competition, the betterment, etc. To those who excuse onfield behavior by coining the phrase "If you're not cheating, you're not trying"... you know who you are, you should be ashamed to think you belong being mentioned in the same breath as Montana, Mayes, West, Robinson...

Open Season

2006-10-06T14:20:00.000-07:00

Since when did gun season begin with the start of NBA mini camps. http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/9709161

I mean REALLY!

Steven Jackson of the Indianapolis Pacers (yes, the same who was suspended two years ago for the brawl in Detroit) fired 5 shots into the air after being punched in the mouth and hit by a car “early” Friday morning after exiting a gentlemen’s club. (Flash back to my mom lecturing “nothing good happens after midnight” when asking if I can stay out late)

Not only that, but the remainder (five others) of his entourage were also possessing (while licensed) guns in their cars during this incident. I’m not bashing against someone’s right to bear arms… but questioning, what percent of athletes today carry guns in their car (‘scuuuze me, SUV)?

Now I admit I have a bias against Commissioner David Stern, it’s not a personal one, it’s purely based on his performance as Commissioner of the NBA. Yes, he has done an excellent job of making the NBA and its owners an INSANE amount of money. But he has done a poor job of curbing the thuggery that has infested the sport.

I wonder what Coach Auerbach, “Pistol” Pete Maravich, Jerry West and other Hall of Famer’s think of the way the current generation of players has established the NBA as the Nuthin’ But Attitude league. Today’s ball’er is awarded $30 million dollar contracts without having proved themselves through a single NBA game.

Joe Dumars had it right when he said…"Coming from my background, you had to prove it, You don't get any free passes. You have the mind set where you have to prove it every day." Not so much anymore huh Joe?

The NBA Hall of Fame website: http://www.hoophall.com is supposedly marketing themselves by showcasing “MVP’s of Character”. How many of the current list of active players will be able to participate in this program in 10/20 years?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an NBA hatter. I love the NBA. I think I’m their target demographic. But I refuse to put money in their pockets if it is going to condone the type of players that are in the league. And I’m not singling out the NBA either, I think the NFL has the same problem. Spoiled brats who were pampered through high school and college in order to get high dollar salaries so they can play “guns”.

So Stern, and the new NFL Commish – you’re going to have to do better to get my money.

Go Suns!

-- see blog subtitle --

2006-10-06T14:15:00.000-07:00

Tragedies such as the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado have become moments of national (disgrace, heartache, unbelief), in large part because of satellite and TV technology, but those same media conglomerates could be capturing how the Amish have emerged as a shining lighthouse to the world in their response to their tragedy this week.

Unfortunately, media (of all types) continue the shameful moniker that “if it bleeds, it leads.” It’s shameful that more haven’t used their [the medias] influential power to improve the world by exemplifying how the Amish have reacted to this invasion of their [the Amish], if not respectful then at least peaceful, lifestyle.

This isn’t a rant/rave against the media per se, rather a request for all to take this opportunity to recognize how their [the Amish’s] response has been received [by us]. And just as important that it IS POSSIBLE to remain an ambassador of peace even in the face death itself. I have yet to see anyone question the response of the Amish. While everyone would empathize with a feelings of revenge or hatred… but the Amish have risen above to show us/me that there are other ways to react.

I’m not calling on everyone to adopt the Amish way to shun the modern world and both its ills and conveniences, I myself won’t give up my dune trips and off-road adventures… rather I’m asking that we all recognize the life lesson on their behalf and learn to respond appropriately to those trespasses in our lives.

To those of Nickel Mines, in Lancaster County, I won’t forget your bravery and example and I wish you and your families well.

Peace be with you.

Simple Dichotomy or Time Bomb

2006-10-05T11:39:00.000-07:00

9/11 brought either awoke the sleeping giant, or the world finally saw the elephant standing in the middle in the room. Depends on your perspective.

Islamists/Muslims (pardon the naivety at being un-uninformed) around the world have been being characterized into two group of either Islamic fascist or self characterized as “misunderstood lovers of piece”.

The previous generalization whether true or proclaimed as truth persists, THE truth will not be validated while the question continues to be asked, “How can anyone claim an organization as peaceful when so much violence is spoken, delivered, preached and condoned?”

I wonder how much of the killing could be stopped if those delivering those actions could realize that it doesn’t take violence to make a point. While violence is usually the first thought considered when exploring ways to make a statement, violence only resolves to draw a hard line between those who you would want to hear your message. The message is then ignored rather to respond to the action and the words are lost in translation.

Peaceful means to draw attention to yourself and your message are exponentially effective when a perception of concern for humanity is center stage.

-- Robert Redeker is only the latest in a lengthening list of Europeans who have been subjected to death threats from Muslims outraged by criticism of their faith and prophet. British writer Salman Rushdie survived the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa only by adopting a quasi-clandestine existence. Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was gunned down on the street two years ago in Amsterdam for insulting Islam. His co-filmmaker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, frustrated at living under constant police protection, resigned earlier this year from the Dutch parliament and moved to the United States – TIME Online (James Graff)

My $.02 is that Muslims are new to the idea of freedom of speech and don’t know how to handle it. From my admittedly small understanding of their history and culture, violence is part of the law/culture in Middle Eastern Regions. Do they still chop off hands for stealing, do they still execute by beheading with a sword, do they stone for immoral acts? Is it a fundamental issue with the men there to release/relinquish their stronghold over women that violence continues to remain the ONLY perceived solution?

I see it in similar light as the struggle (understated) in the U.S. to recognize the rights of African Americans in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and still today. As some didn’t know how to handle (accept) the rights/freedoms of African Americans, some Muslims don’t know how to handle the rights of others (freedom of speech/press/religion and freedoms in general).

What I will suggest (for free) is, just for shock value… try something new. Try NOT sawing off someones head on live TV. Try NOT remotely detonating roadside bomb and killing civilian journalists. Try NOT targeting people you perceive to be against you because of a different religion.

Show me the peace. Help me to not be confused (resistant, guarded, etc) about your religious believes. If you are “misunderstood” the best way to have me on your side is to show me it’s going to be worth that chance. I can’t give you a chance when the only fruits of your labors are violence and hatred.

Shoe me the peace. Regardless of who started the fight first… be the first to end it.

Reflections of 911

2006-08-29T15:07:00.000-07:00

Eight months after his first inauguration, the nation, and the world, changed.
Almost Six years ago, the world admitted to itself less than it does today.
Almost Six years ago, the world understood less than it does today.
Almost Six years ago, the world was prepared less than it is today.
Almost Six years ago the world was united less than it is today.

Eight months after his first inauguration the nation — and the world — was transformed on a bright blue September morning. The terrorists destroyed innocent lives on American soil that sad September day, but not American idealism. We argue about means, not ends. Now as then we remain "confident in principles that unite and lead us onward."

All of the above is still true in general... until an election starts. This was the first happening of it's kind that Americans have experienced. Your opinion matters, but that doesn't mean your idea is the best idea. Everyone has a better idea AFTER someone else does the hard part of making a decision based on the information they are given.

It's not polite to point

2005-09-15T14:30:00.000-07:00

While it is true pointing is not polite, it sure is politically acceptable.
I've found that since the disastrous event of Hurricane Katrina, that everyone is first to point the blame to someone else. While the federal government didn’t perform spectacularly during this time, neither did local or state agencies respond with anything better than sub-par.

In fact, I would suggest that some (not all) recovery time/efforts could have been lessoned had the local and state leaders done their job first. 151 school buses just sitting ready to take anyone anywhere. 40 Amtrak passenger cars ready to take anyone to safer surroundings.

While that would not have saved all, it would have left less to worry about and provide for.

It’s plain to see that the local and state leaders are only pandering to save their careers laying blame where they can and not accepting responsibility like a true leader would.

Have to give kudos to the President for stepping up, and I’m glad he did, now we can work to clean up and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Finger pointers are problem makers, not problem solvers. We need problem solvers. Point your finger back at yourself and ask, what can I do to fix the problem, then get to work. It's sad that the first 10 people to be interviewed, were problem makers. (Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, Mayor Ray Nagin, Jesse Jackson, K West, Senator Susan Collins)

My two cents: I think that amount of oversight needs to be broken up regionally. One federal office can’t predict/plan/prepare for disasters across the country. Give some of those finger-pointing senators some accountability by combining states into regions and let them work to establish disaster plans.

The Fan's Collective Bargaining Agreement

2005-05-25T09:19:00.000-07:00

Professional sports, or at least self-proclaimed as such, should be cognizant of it's looming demise.
Whether it be from within; gambling (A-la Pete Rose), drugs (see Bonds, Williams, Webber, etc.), spousal abuse (Moon, Kidd), guns (guns don't kill people, football players have their posse kill people - thanks Lewis), rape (we all know he did it, he knows he did it), etc; the players can't see beyond their huge piles of money that they are going to put themselves out of business.
To make it worse still, the player unions continue to present themselves as the victim during contract negotiations by claiming to need more money in order to fund their extravagant lifestyle; (12 cars - K Anderson, 12 kids - Malone, drugs - everyone).
In the end, it is expected of me to fork out more money to pay for the above stated behavioral issues; not just for a ticket, but for the concessions, parking, satellite viewing packages, and lame half-time shows or commercials (Janet, Owens).
It's not enough that they get paid a very, very nice paycheck, but they also have to parade around the world thinking they are the cat's meow and behave as if they are above the law. Apperantly that is true in some cases (OJ) so not much I can do there. That I see as a greater issue.

So I've had enough...
The newly established National Fan's Association has been created.

Criteria for membership is simple:

Members will refues to particpate in any viewership or attend a professional sporting event where such league has gone on strike or been locked out for an equal duration for which that league went on strike.
Members will not purchase itmes which contribute to athletes or team profits who have taken fan loyalty for granted.. examples will follow but I think revoking K Bryant's "role model" credentials apply.
Members will also write to corporate sponsers and communicate our refusal to purchase their products if they sponsor, commercialize or employ any athlete or team who abuses fan loyalty.

_______________________________________________________________
List of currenty/historical sanctions:

Mr. Stern; your enterprise continues to fall under NFA scrutiny specifically at comments made by Mr. Van Gundy. Get your officiating in order. Your tactics to silence him, while effective, do not erase or remove such suspicions that you have a marketing strategy to keep your precious "all-stars" protected and or being allowed to play outside the rules.
Mr. Selig, I give you fair warning that unless you do put an asterisk next to any questionable accomplishments noted in the books, you will be subject to sanctions defined by the NFA.