When I was a young boy, the ghosts of 1964 haunted the Phillies wherever I went. Little League dads talked about the micromanaging of Gene Mauch, heralded as a baseball savant who probably overmanaged his teams, how during the stretch he relied too heavily on Jim Bunning and Chris Short and how Chico Ruiz's steal of home in the bottom of the 15th inning of a road game in Cincinnati was the beginning of the end. The team was up 6 1/2 games with 12 to go and managed to finish third. That collapse stained the memories of Phillies' fans. The teams were mostly terrible for the longest periods of time, save 1950 when the "Whiz Kids" caught fire, held off the Dodgers only to lose #2 starter Curt Simmons to an Army call-up and get swept by the Yankees. After a thirteen year drought, they had something, only to see it keep jumping beyond their grasp to the point where antiquities scholars at Penn thought that Sisyphus or Tantalus had made a return to earth -- to 21st and Lehigh Avenues in North Philadelphia to be exact.
The team resurged in the mid-1970's, first thanks to the enthusiasm of an overflow second baseman from the Pirates named Dave Cash, who kept on saying "Yes We Can," to spur the team on. By the late 1970's, the team had a core of players that featured two future Hall of Famers in Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton and some other all-star caliber talent among the likes of Garry Maddox, Larry Bowa, Manny Trillo and Bob Boone. Finally, after some disappointments in the late 1970's, including a collapse in the 1977 NLCS against the Dodgers that summoned the ghosts of the '64 team to Veterans Stadium, they won the World Series in 1980. They appeared, by some stroke of fate, again in 1983, but the Orioles overmatched them. Then Schmidt and Carlton got old and some heralded pitching prospects -- now nameless, but at one time big names -- all fizzled, including one that went 5-0 in September of 1983 to help propel the team to the Series. Position player prospects also didn't pan out -- OF Jeff Stone was a meteor, and 2B Juan Samuel, who had Hall of Fame written all over him, neither could lay off or hit the outside breaking ball. By the late 1980's, the ownership group, led by President Bill Giles, was fielding a mediocre team in a rapidly declining multi-purpose stadium that seemingly always smelled like a combination hot dog stand/public restroom/subway and once called the club a "small market" team. In fact, it was its management that was small-minded; the market remained in the top five in the country in terms of population.
Somehow, a team of goofballs, bullies, cast-offs and role players came together in 1993 to upset the Braves in the NLCS and to battle a great Blue Jays team hard in the World Series. The team was exciting, true, but you would have liked them better if they formed your defensive unit for your NFL team rather than your baseball team. There was something unlikeable about them -- they didn't have the grace and craftsmanship of the 1980 team. They were smug, they were rough, and they just didn't care what people thought. Their manager, Jim Fregosi, wore a jacket no matter how hot the weather and he also used closer Mitch Williams in the ninth no matter how well the hurler was throwing. Catcher Darren Daulton was the spiritual leader, center fielder Lenny Dykstra the heart, with first baseman John Kruk the sergeant at arms. Curt Schilling, then a young pitcher, emerged as a big-game pitcher and uber-talent, but he talked too much for the rest of the gang and was pretty much an outcast. The part of the locker room where the leaders sat was called "Macho Row," and that's pretty much all you needed to know about them. John McGraw, Wilbert Robinson and the Baltimore Orioles of the 1890's would have loved 'em. Many Phillies' fans say they did, but that's only because they won and the city traditionally hasn't had many winners to cheer.
The team then staggered again until it realized in the late 1990's that the Vet was getting uglier by the year and the fans weren't coming to watch bad teams. They targeted building a new stadium to launch in 2004 and realized before then that in order to draw fans, they needed to get some players. Their farm system never has been that good, but they figured out ways to get the likes of Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. Ironically, the oft-maligned Ed Wade found these guys, the same guy who was run out of town in the mid-2000's because apparently he did not do enough. Sadly for Wade, he was not media savvy. On the radio and before the media, he looked more like someone who was about to have a colonoscopy (perhaps without anesthesia) than he was someone who was one of the lucky ones to be able to do what he does for a living every day. Put differently, Wade resembled the accountant who was about to give you some bad news.
At any rate, the team showed signs of improvement, brought in Pat Gillick, the architect of those wonderful Blue Jays teams, and made room for Rollins, Utley and Howard to lead the team. Fast forward to 2007, and Rollins was the MVP. The next year, the team won the World Series. Make no mistake, Rollins was the leader -- the first person the press talked to, the guy who took pressure off more reticent teammates, like Chase Utley, by talking to the press. He was small in size but not in heart -- he was a great defensive player and made himself into a very good offensive force as well. Many shortstops of his era were good fielders with light bats; Rollins spoke confidently and carried a big stick. He put up numbers, both offensive and defensive, rallied the fellows and played the most important position in the field. He did all well for a long period of time and should be remembered, forever, as one of the top Phillies of all-time. From the 1915 team there was Alexander, there was Klein in the 30's, Ashburn and Roberts in the 50's, Bunning in the 60's, Carlton and Schmidt and, well, then Rollins and probably Utley, too, when all is said and done.
Jimmy Rollins was a maestro, had a strong arm, ran the bases well, hit, hit with power, walked the dugout and talked with everyone. Among my fondest memories were periodic shots of his talking hitting and strategy with Manager Charlie Manuel, a noted hitting guru, in the dugout and his pre-game handshake behind second base with his double-play partner, Utley. Together, they formed the longest-running double play combination in National League history.
Yes, he had his faults and his lapses, a few times where he didn't run out a grounder or pop up the way he should have, but he played for 15 years in a tough city and played well for much of it. How many of us can say that we had so few "bad" moments on our jobs, moments where we failed to hustle or have a very good day? But fans tend to hold others -- especially players who make enormous sums -- to higher standards than they themselves can possibly meet, but players are people too. People who have issues with teammates, girlfriends, wives, family members, worrying about something. We all have been there, and we all get distracted. I probably have spent too much time on this, but if I have, it's only to defend Rollins and to refuse to permit those headlines from eclipsing what so far is a "borderline" Hall of Fame career. (You can go to an earlier post about my musings on both Rollins's and Utley's being borderline Hall of Famers -- both need a few excellent seasons to elevate them into a serious Hall conversation).
I'll remember Jimmy Rollins for his leadoff home runs, for his great defensive plays deep in the hole, for his throws, his stolen bases that fired up the team, his confidence that he intended to convey to his teammates with the hope that they pick up on it, grab it, and follow him to victories. He was not only a great player, he was a leader, the one that people rallied around, the one that refused to let vacuums exist and who seemingly was the one everyone looked to first and last.
Thanks, Jimmy Rollins, for the great play and for helping create some great memories for Phillies' fans. We will miss you, and we wish you much success as you finish your career in your home state of California.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Who Really Cares About Most College Bowl Games?
The answer is almost no one.
They are not scarce any more.
Home televisions are so good that man caves offer better shots of the game in a better climate and with more conveniences than the stadiums themselves.
And they are cheaper.
Note that I said "most," because there will be great interest in the "Final Four" concept that the NCAA conjured up to crown a national champion. Those games could be compelling, although you could bet that Baylor and TCU fans might summon the mother of Tottenham Hotspur striker Emmanuel Adebayor to put a spell on the whole setup (apparently the player attributed his drought of goals to his witch doctor mother's having cast a spell on him).
So those who care are coaches and athletic directors who can tell recruits and their superiors "hey, we qualified for a bowl game." The people in the program get to take a trip, as do their parents and relatives (although pity the siblings who get stuffed into airplanes and hotel rooms and get dragged along to functions when they'd rather be watching Netflix, playing on the PlayStation 2 or hanging out with their own friends). The parents get to go to work and talk about the bowl, the trip, the program, their recruited athlete and perhaps not about the downside -- the broken promises from self-aggrandizing coaching staffs, the push to play while injured and perhaps the less-than-optimal class schedules that don't always provide a young man with an opportunity for a meaningful career, especially if the kid plays at a school that gives academic credit for playing the sport (and, some apparently do).
Sorry to be a post-holiday Grinch, so to speak, but the channels are littered with games that don't mean anything and that aren't interesting, precisely because there are way too many of them. The FBS system rewards teams for play the way youth athletic programs reward eight year-olds -- everyone seemingly gets the same trophy, whether you are a difference maker or not.
And few, outside those connected with the programs in a significant way, care about almost every bowl game save a precious handful. That should tell the NCAA and its member school something. The irony is that these academic institutions don't learn too good, I mean well, because most football programs -- about 80% of them -- lose money. So why should the NCAA care if these bowl games, an opiate for some small masses, break even or not -- it's the sponsors who pay, not the schools. But really? What team should want to go to a bowl game if they have finished 6-6?
Then again, with all of the complicated rules, the loopholes, the apparent bending of them and the inconsistent enforcement of them, perhaps if you finish 6-6 you should be celebrated because you tried to do it the right way -- running an amateur program where most kids graduate and with degrees other than in something like resort maintenance.
I haven't watched a bowl outside of those with implications for decades now, and I do not think that habit will change. Not with the English Premiership taking root (where each game seems to mean something), not with the entertainment value of basketball (you actually can see the players and the ball).
This bowl system is a dinosaur.
Then again, with the increasing prevalence of concussions and life-long injuries. . . so might be football. It's on top now, but sometimes that's when an institution is at its most vulnerable.
Bowl games, though, should reward some form of excellence.
Right now, they do not.
They are not scarce any more.
Home televisions are so good that man caves offer better shots of the game in a better climate and with more conveniences than the stadiums themselves.
And they are cheaper.
Note that I said "most," because there will be great interest in the "Final Four" concept that the NCAA conjured up to crown a national champion. Those games could be compelling, although you could bet that Baylor and TCU fans might summon the mother of Tottenham Hotspur striker Emmanuel Adebayor to put a spell on the whole setup (apparently the player attributed his drought of goals to his witch doctor mother's having cast a spell on him).
So those who care are coaches and athletic directors who can tell recruits and their superiors "hey, we qualified for a bowl game." The people in the program get to take a trip, as do their parents and relatives (although pity the siblings who get stuffed into airplanes and hotel rooms and get dragged along to functions when they'd rather be watching Netflix, playing on the PlayStation 2 or hanging out with their own friends). The parents get to go to work and talk about the bowl, the trip, the program, their recruited athlete and perhaps not about the downside -- the broken promises from self-aggrandizing coaching staffs, the push to play while injured and perhaps the less-than-optimal class schedules that don't always provide a young man with an opportunity for a meaningful career, especially if the kid plays at a school that gives academic credit for playing the sport (and, some apparently do).
Sorry to be a post-holiday Grinch, so to speak, but the channels are littered with games that don't mean anything and that aren't interesting, precisely because there are way too many of them. The FBS system rewards teams for play the way youth athletic programs reward eight year-olds -- everyone seemingly gets the same trophy, whether you are a difference maker or not.
And few, outside those connected with the programs in a significant way, care about almost every bowl game save a precious handful. That should tell the NCAA and its member school something. The irony is that these academic institutions don't learn too good, I mean well, because most football programs -- about 80% of them -- lose money. So why should the NCAA care if these bowl games, an opiate for some small masses, break even or not -- it's the sponsors who pay, not the schools. But really? What team should want to go to a bowl game if they have finished 6-6?
Then again, with all of the complicated rules, the loopholes, the apparent bending of them and the inconsistent enforcement of them, perhaps if you finish 6-6 you should be celebrated because you tried to do it the right way -- running an amateur program where most kids graduate and with degrees other than in something like resort maintenance.
I haven't watched a bowl outside of those with implications for decades now, and I do not think that habit will change. Not with the English Premiership taking root (where each game seems to mean something), not with the entertainment value of basketball (you actually can see the players and the ball).
This bowl system is a dinosaur.
Then again, with the increasing prevalence of concussions and life-long injuries. . . so might be football. It's on top now, but sometimes that's when an institution is at its most vulnerable.
Bowl games, though, should reward some form of excellence.
Right now, they do not.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Can Chip Kelly Win the Big One?
That question is starting to permeate in Philadelphia.
As well as how good a drafter he is, given that at Oregon he could build better facilities with the help of Phil Knight and out-recruit competitors. In Philadelphia, he stretched to take Marcus Smith, an alleged edge rusher from Louisville whom most had in the late second or third rounds, in the first round. So far, Smith has been a bust, What makes that worse is that the Eagles' defense at times has been iffy.
Chip is an innovator and he has won, and some would argue that he has done so without his optimal roster. The secondary is not good, the linebackers inconsistent, and the back-up quarterback not good. Bright spots have included the defensive line (one of the best in the league), the now-healthy offensive line (ditto) and certain skills position players (but not all of them). The special teams have excelled. There are many bright spots, but perhaps the Eagles need another draft and a key signing or two to fine-tune the roster, upgrade the secondary, get a few difference makers on defense and then step up.
Kelly's tenure has been good but not great, and if there is disappointment, it's because the fans fail to realize that even with bright innovators, change takes time to take root.
He has won big games before and will win them again. Sadly for Eagles' fans, Kelly did not win the big one last Sunday, and that could prove fatal to the Eagles' chances for the post-season. And that would put a huge damper on the overall progress Kelly has made since he came to Philadelphia two years ago.
As well as how good a drafter he is, given that at Oregon he could build better facilities with the help of Phil Knight and out-recruit competitors. In Philadelphia, he stretched to take Marcus Smith, an alleged edge rusher from Louisville whom most had in the late second or third rounds, in the first round. So far, Smith has been a bust, What makes that worse is that the Eagles' defense at times has been iffy.
Chip is an innovator and he has won, and some would argue that he has done so without his optimal roster. The secondary is not good, the linebackers inconsistent, and the back-up quarterback not good. Bright spots have included the defensive line (one of the best in the league), the now-healthy offensive line (ditto) and certain skills position players (but not all of them). The special teams have excelled. There are many bright spots, but perhaps the Eagles need another draft and a key signing or two to fine-tune the roster, upgrade the secondary, get a few difference makers on defense and then step up.
Kelly's tenure has been good but not great, and if there is disappointment, it's because the fans fail to realize that even with bright innovators, change takes time to take root.
He has won big games before and will win them again. Sadly for Eagles' fans, Kelly did not win the big one last Sunday, and that could prove fatal to the Eagles' chances for the post-season. And that would put a huge damper on the overall progress Kelly has made since he came to Philadelphia two years ago.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Are the Stat Guys and Outcomes Predictors Ruining the Fun or Just Changing the Conversation?
I appreciate math people, I really do, but I confess that I am not all that good at math (even though friends of mine and I in the 70's figured out MoneyBall way back when via Strat-o-Matic cards, thinking that OBP for hitters and OBP and Total Bases Yielded for pitchers meant something). Today, there is so much math around baseball in particular that you can settle arguments about who is better than the next guy via some type of calculation. I suppose that empirical evidence should trump observations and opinions, but the latter are just so much fun. When people used to talk about hot-stove or inside baseball they used to debate whether Mays was better than Mantle and historically how DiMaggio and Speaker matched up. Today, they'll pull out a bunch of algorithms to prove one's superiority over the other.
It's analytical, mathematical and clinical at one level, but does that type of stuff remove the intangibles, and, yes, the fun? Or, does it spark a whole new level of discussion about which numbers really matter and why some calculations are fuzzy math while others bring home the goods. In the days before the Society of Baseball Research guys (and pretty much they were guys) and the internet, one could wonder about the relative merits of say Lefty Grove versus Whitey Ford. Today, there are a whole host of people who can break down the careers of both in so many ways that the discussion ends with the math; the words are rendered almost pointless.
Many who like baseball like it because of the math, even though today's metrics arguably replace out-dated ones that might not mean a whole lot, such as runs batted in, ERA for a relief pitcher and wins for a pitcher (I still maintain that had Frank Tanana pitched for anyone but the Angels, he'd be in the Hall). That said, what's replaced them to a degree are numbers that are hard to explain and, therefore, hard to capture the average fan. And while fans in San Francisco and Kansas City might have had a gripping World Series, the rest of the country yawned. The numbers are better conceived, but harder to grasp. The numbers that get grasped are that games take 3:30 and that the ball is in play for about 15 minutes. Those numbers repel kids; baseball increasingly is becoming the game their grandfathers took their fathers to, or, alternatively, a side show to sports bar-like stadiums that permit the 21-35 crowd mingle on pavilions while showing only a slight interest in the game. That doesn't seem to be a sustainable strategy.
Yes, there are all sorts of statistics in other sports, but in soccer the main ones are goals and assists, as in ice hockey. In basketball, it's points, rebounds and assists, and in football, well, it's just whether your team wins enough to make the playoffs. With baseball, it's harder to tell.
The analytics can be fun.
If only the average fan can understand them.
It's analytical, mathematical and clinical at one level, but does that type of stuff remove the intangibles, and, yes, the fun? Or, does it spark a whole new level of discussion about which numbers really matter and why some calculations are fuzzy math while others bring home the goods. In the days before the Society of Baseball Research guys (and pretty much they were guys) and the internet, one could wonder about the relative merits of say Lefty Grove versus Whitey Ford. Today, there are a whole host of people who can break down the careers of both in so many ways that the discussion ends with the math; the words are rendered almost pointless.
Many who like baseball like it because of the math, even though today's metrics arguably replace out-dated ones that might not mean a whole lot, such as runs batted in, ERA for a relief pitcher and wins for a pitcher (I still maintain that had Frank Tanana pitched for anyone but the Angels, he'd be in the Hall). That said, what's replaced them to a degree are numbers that are hard to explain and, therefore, hard to capture the average fan. And while fans in San Francisco and Kansas City might have had a gripping World Series, the rest of the country yawned. The numbers are better conceived, but harder to grasp. The numbers that get grasped are that games take 3:30 and that the ball is in play for about 15 minutes. Those numbers repel kids; baseball increasingly is becoming the game their grandfathers took their fathers to, or, alternatively, a side show to sports bar-like stadiums that permit the 21-35 crowd mingle on pavilions while showing only a slight interest in the game. That doesn't seem to be a sustainable strategy.
Yes, there are all sorts of statistics in other sports, but in soccer the main ones are goals and assists, as in ice hockey. In basketball, it's points, rebounds and assists, and in football, well, it's just whether your team wins enough to make the playoffs. With baseball, it's harder to tell.
The analytics can be fun.
If only the average fan can understand them.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Why are 76ers' fans so patient?
The team is one and forever, having beaten the also hapless Timberwolves the other night, which must have gotten former 76er Thad Young to thinking that he is living in one of Dante's circles of hell because the 76ers traded him precisely to get worse, and then they beat the team that he's on, which also has Andrew Wiggins, who apparently was the object of the 76ers' desires when they adopted their strategy of losing last season, only to get another big man with a bad wheel, this time Joel Embiid.
Philadelphia fans can get a bad rap. Sure, they aren't patient and yes, they can be profane, but that's what many fans are about today. Perhaps they did throw snowballs at or boo Santa Claus in the early 70's, but reports from the game indicated that this happened because the man impersonating St. Nick was drunk and behaving badly. At any rate, despite the fact that many are diehards, they are giving the 76ers a huge pass for losing badly, fielding a terrible team (even though it tries gives it the old college try, which makes you wonder whether a college team like Kentucky could give them a run) and not caring whether they win. The front office has taken the love of drafting prospects to an extreme (where it's more fun to take someone with potential than someone with a proven track record, so seniors in the draft are doomed) and dangles the promise of a front line of guys named Noel, Embiid (who admittedly looked like the best college big on film since guys named Olajuwon and O'Neal) and Saric.
It's hard to know whether the diehards know that these three can be special, whether they have put their fanaticism in abeyance because of the rise of the Philadelphia Eagles or that they have stopped caring to the point that they are not even complaining. The latter would worry the front office the most, for while they have enough money to float the team, so to speak and carry it forward until the glory days return, most fans don't have the type of money to invest in season tickets and watch a team which, if it were in the English Premier League, would definitely be relegated to the next league down and be playing in smaller arenas in the 33rd through 64th largest cities in the United States. Instead, they still demand NBA price and, as a bonus, fans get to see the visiting teams and their stars.
It's not as though the 76ers have offered discounts to fans for watching such an awful team or even lower prices now in exchange for higher prices a few years down the road. The fans who do come like the arena, like the vibe, love the game and like the visiting teams. Many who come are smart enough not to purchase season tickets (and whoever talks about fan loyalty to me is a bit silly given that management really isn't serving the fans all that well with the product they are putting out on the floor) from the team but to purchase individual tickets at cut-rate prices on StubHub. Perhaps they are curious, perhaps they are buying the propaganda that management is putting out about how good the team can be in the future.
But here's a question: don't most great teams have veteran leadership, and don't they have a mix of players, some of whom are veterans, some are younger and some are rookies? It's hard to conceive that a bunch of young players the same age will be able to beat veteran teams consistently and become an elite team. They will need veterans, and while it's understandable that they traded Thad Young, ultimately they will need leaders. And that begs the biggest question of them all: once Saric comes over from Turkey and Noel and Embiid are healthy, what veterans will they sign? And who will come to the team? Fans can assume that veterans might come to play with the young nucleus the 76ers are putting together, but if they do so they will demand a premium. Why? Because they are veterans, and they are the least patient of them all to win and win now, because they know how short careers can be and how few chances the average veteran has to play on a special team. And I'd be skeptical of those who really want to come to Philadelphia initially unless they are proven winners, because it could be that they want the payday more than the rings. And if they have won a title before, will they still have the hunger to win again?
Look, I know I am parsing this finely, but the 76ers have adopted a risky strategy that, while unique, has its risks -- that all players will be healthy, that all will be good, and that some veterans will come over as free agents to help form an eight- or nine-player rotation that can quickly climb into the top four teams in the Eastern Conference. Right now, the fans are buying it because they did grow tired of rooting for a team whose upside was that maybe they would win 45 games and lose in the first round. They grew tired of Comcast's ownership, of Ed Snider's mismanagement of the club and of Comcast's treating the team as the poor stepchild to the Flyers.
All that's fine, and the new ownership has said the right things and brought more zing and oomph to the franchise. But after a while, the fans will yell "call," and they will want to see a big-league team. I don't know how long the fans will wait, but it won't be much more than beyond this season.
Philadelphia fans can get a bad rap. Sure, they aren't patient and yes, they can be profane, but that's what many fans are about today. Perhaps they did throw snowballs at or boo Santa Claus in the early 70's, but reports from the game indicated that this happened because the man impersonating St. Nick was drunk and behaving badly. At any rate, despite the fact that many are diehards, they are giving the 76ers a huge pass for losing badly, fielding a terrible team (even though it tries gives it the old college try, which makes you wonder whether a college team like Kentucky could give them a run) and not caring whether they win. The front office has taken the love of drafting prospects to an extreme (where it's more fun to take someone with potential than someone with a proven track record, so seniors in the draft are doomed) and dangles the promise of a front line of guys named Noel, Embiid (who admittedly looked like the best college big on film since guys named Olajuwon and O'Neal) and Saric.
It's hard to know whether the diehards know that these three can be special, whether they have put their fanaticism in abeyance because of the rise of the Philadelphia Eagles or that they have stopped caring to the point that they are not even complaining. The latter would worry the front office the most, for while they have enough money to float the team, so to speak and carry it forward until the glory days return, most fans don't have the type of money to invest in season tickets and watch a team which, if it were in the English Premier League, would definitely be relegated to the next league down and be playing in smaller arenas in the 33rd through 64th largest cities in the United States. Instead, they still demand NBA price and, as a bonus, fans get to see the visiting teams and their stars.
It's not as though the 76ers have offered discounts to fans for watching such an awful team or even lower prices now in exchange for higher prices a few years down the road. The fans who do come like the arena, like the vibe, love the game and like the visiting teams. Many who come are smart enough not to purchase season tickets (and whoever talks about fan loyalty to me is a bit silly given that management really isn't serving the fans all that well with the product they are putting out on the floor) from the team but to purchase individual tickets at cut-rate prices on StubHub. Perhaps they are curious, perhaps they are buying the propaganda that management is putting out about how good the team can be in the future.
But here's a question: don't most great teams have veteran leadership, and don't they have a mix of players, some of whom are veterans, some are younger and some are rookies? It's hard to conceive that a bunch of young players the same age will be able to beat veteran teams consistently and become an elite team. They will need veterans, and while it's understandable that they traded Thad Young, ultimately they will need leaders. And that begs the biggest question of them all: once Saric comes over from Turkey and Noel and Embiid are healthy, what veterans will they sign? And who will come to the team? Fans can assume that veterans might come to play with the young nucleus the 76ers are putting together, but if they do so they will demand a premium. Why? Because they are veterans, and they are the least patient of them all to win and win now, because they know how short careers can be and how few chances the average veteran has to play on a special team. And I'd be skeptical of those who really want to come to Philadelphia initially unless they are proven winners, because it could be that they want the payday more than the rings. And if they have won a title before, will they still have the hunger to win again?
Look, I know I am parsing this finely, but the 76ers have adopted a risky strategy that, while unique, has its risks -- that all players will be healthy, that all will be good, and that some veterans will come over as free agents to help form an eight- or nine-player rotation that can quickly climb into the top four teams in the Eastern Conference. Right now, the fans are buying it because they did grow tired of rooting for a team whose upside was that maybe they would win 45 games and lose in the first round. They grew tired of Comcast's ownership, of Ed Snider's mismanagement of the club and of Comcast's treating the team as the poor stepchild to the Flyers.
All that's fine, and the new ownership has said the right things and brought more zing and oomph to the franchise. But after a while, the fans will yell "call," and they will want to see a big-league team. I don't know how long the fans will wait, but it won't be much more than beyond this season.
Friday, November 07, 2014
Rushes to Judgment
There are a few headlines this week that are potentially giving perspective to serious situations that turned into feeding frenzies, as follows:
1. Did the NCAA rush to judgment in punishing Penn State's football program? The report is that the NCAA bluffed because it didn't really know if it had the right to do what it did. I thought at the time and still believe now that a) the NCAA didn't have the right to do what it did because while what Jerry Sandusky did was awful the football program didn't commit the violations of the type that are within the NCAA's purview, b) because it wasn't on solid footing (if any at all) it was setting a bad precedent for the future and c) there is so much hypocrisy, anyway, that what would it do when investigative reporters turn up dirt on probably mostly every SEC school? And, for what it's worth, what is it going to do to North Carolina?
2. Did Penn State rush to judgment in firing Joe Paterno? Penn State was in a difficult spot, and while Governor Tom Corbett expressed his regrets today, there were many other factors at work that made the Paterno situation difficult. First, Paterno let himself be turned into a demi-god, and Penn State let Paterno become bigger than the institution. Second, Paterno had no succession plan and wasn't gracious enough to help the university figure out one (guaranteeing martyrdom). Third, it seemed that despite Penn State's excellent reputation generally, there were problems with the culture surrounding the football program, or at least with respect to its general accountability within the university (and there were some odd facts regarding the Sandusky affair). I do think that Joe Paterno should have retired long before he was fired, but all of the facts combined for the result that occurred -- a very unhappy ending. Most observers could have seen that problem (more than two) miles away.
3. If the issue is whether Ray Rice told the truth about hitting his now-wife in his June meeting with the NFL, then who missed what, and will Rice be reinstated to the league? Ray Rice (who has done some very good charitable things around the country, including in his hometown of New Rochelle, New York, but also with pediatric patients in Baltimore) did a terrible thing. The Ravens erred in not disciplining him; the NFL exacerbated it by not disciplining him hard enough. (And I am not clear what the collective bargaining agreement between the players' union and the league provides on this subject). I think all can agree upon that. It also seems clear that the NFL decided to ban Rice indefinitely after the famous video came out of Rice's slugging his wife in the elevator. What is not clear at all is whether that was the first time anyone in the NFL had access to or saw that video or whether Rice had admitted decking his wife in the June meeting. If the answer to the first part is yes they had access and yes they saw it and the answer to the second part is yes, he came clean, then the issue becomes solely whether the NFL goofed in the severity of the punishment. While the fact remains that Rice did a terrible thing, the overall story changes a bit because what comes into question is not whether Rice told the truth, but why the NFL did what it did. It seems like the NFL has taken steps to address domestic violence, but unless there is a means under the collective bargaining agreement to get Rice's ban lifted because the NFL violated procedure in its inquiry, Rice's suspension probably will continue. All that said, the continuation of this sad saga in the press is bad for the Ravens, the league and Commissioner Goodell.
And all of this speaks to rushes to judgment. The public rushed to judgment during the Boston Massacre and then in the Duke lacrosse fiasco. In the former, the British soldiers weren't guilty, and in the latter the Duke players weren't guilty, either. It was the case that the colonials didn't want the British soldiers in their midst, and it might have been the case that certain members of the Duke team had behavioral issues (not major) for which they always weren't held accountable. But by no means did that make them guilty of the very serious charges that faced them. With regard to the sanctions handed out to the Penn State football program, the NCAA probably rushed to judgment because of the nature of Sandusky's crimes, although what happened at Penn State was unclear and Paterno's almost dictatorial control over the athletic department was a problem. In the case of firing Paterno, while Penn State loyalists to this day will back their coach, the situation was rather complicated. I don't think it would have been possible to give Joe a gracious exit -- he didn't want to leave at all, let alone gracefully. As for Rice, the facts are bad, but when they're almost radioactive, we have to be careful to develop the facts carefully before rendering judgment. Everyone is entitled to a defense, and if we forget that we have much bigger problems than whether our beloved football team plays on Saturdays.
All of this underscores the point that all of the facts have to be developed before conclusions can be drawn. And while "justice delayed is justice denied," justice rushed could be injustice absent a good process and a thorough review.
Just ask the kids on that Duke lacrosse team, who would much rather be known as college lacrosse players who played on a good team than having been in the spotlight for a feeding frenzy that transpired because others rushed to judgment.
1. Did the NCAA rush to judgment in punishing Penn State's football program? The report is that the NCAA bluffed because it didn't really know if it had the right to do what it did. I thought at the time and still believe now that a) the NCAA didn't have the right to do what it did because while what Jerry Sandusky did was awful the football program didn't commit the violations of the type that are within the NCAA's purview, b) because it wasn't on solid footing (if any at all) it was setting a bad precedent for the future and c) there is so much hypocrisy, anyway, that what would it do when investigative reporters turn up dirt on probably mostly every SEC school? And, for what it's worth, what is it going to do to North Carolina?
2. Did Penn State rush to judgment in firing Joe Paterno? Penn State was in a difficult spot, and while Governor Tom Corbett expressed his regrets today, there were many other factors at work that made the Paterno situation difficult. First, Paterno let himself be turned into a demi-god, and Penn State let Paterno become bigger than the institution. Second, Paterno had no succession plan and wasn't gracious enough to help the university figure out one (guaranteeing martyrdom). Third, it seemed that despite Penn State's excellent reputation generally, there were problems with the culture surrounding the football program, or at least with respect to its general accountability within the university (and there were some odd facts regarding the Sandusky affair). I do think that Joe Paterno should have retired long before he was fired, but all of the facts combined for the result that occurred -- a very unhappy ending. Most observers could have seen that problem (more than two) miles away.
3. If the issue is whether Ray Rice told the truth about hitting his now-wife in his June meeting with the NFL, then who missed what, and will Rice be reinstated to the league? Ray Rice (who has done some very good charitable things around the country, including in his hometown of New Rochelle, New York, but also with pediatric patients in Baltimore) did a terrible thing. The Ravens erred in not disciplining him; the NFL exacerbated it by not disciplining him hard enough. (And I am not clear what the collective bargaining agreement between the players' union and the league provides on this subject). I think all can agree upon that. It also seems clear that the NFL decided to ban Rice indefinitely after the famous video came out of Rice's slugging his wife in the elevator. What is not clear at all is whether that was the first time anyone in the NFL had access to or saw that video or whether Rice had admitted decking his wife in the June meeting. If the answer to the first part is yes they had access and yes they saw it and the answer to the second part is yes, he came clean, then the issue becomes solely whether the NFL goofed in the severity of the punishment. While the fact remains that Rice did a terrible thing, the overall story changes a bit because what comes into question is not whether Rice told the truth, but why the NFL did what it did. It seems like the NFL has taken steps to address domestic violence, but unless there is a means under the collective bargaining agreement to get Rice's ban lifted because the NFL violated procedure in its inquiry, Rice's suspension probably will continue. All that said, the continuation of this sad saga in the press is bad for the Ravens, the league and Commissioner Goodell.
And all of this speaks to rushes to judgment. The public rushed to judgment during the Boston Massacre and then in the Duke lacrosse fiasco. In the former, the British soldiers weren't guilty, and in the latter the Duke players weren't guilty, either. It was the case that the colonials didn't want the British soldiers in their midst, and it might have been the case that certain members of the Duke team had behavioral issues (not major) for which they always weren't held accountable. But by no means did that make them guilty of the very serious charges that faced them. With regard to the sanctions handed out to the Penn State football program, the NCAA probably rushed to judgment because of the nature of Sandusky's crimes, although what happened at Penn State was unclear and Paterno's almost dictatorial control over the athletic department was a problem. In the case of firing Paterno, while Penn State loyalists to this day will back their coach, the situation was rather complicated. I don't think it would have been possible to give Joe a gracious exit -- he didn't want to leave at all, let alone gracefully. As for Rice, the facts are bad, but when they're almost radioactive, we have to be careful to develop the facts carefully before rendering judgment. Everyone is entitled to a defense, and if we forget that we have much bigger problems than whether our beloved football team plays on Saturdays.
All of this underscores the point that all of the facts have to be developed before conclusions can be drawn. And while "justice delayed is justice denied," justice rushed could be injustice absent a good process and a thorough review.
Just ask the kids on that Duke lacrosse team, who would much rather be known as college lacrosse players who played on a good team than having been in the spotlight for a feeding frenzy that transpired because others rushed to judgment.
Observation about Postings on Social Media
Consider the following statement: "The more people you know post on social media, the [less] or [more] you will find them appealing."
I suppose that it depends on what they post. For example, during the recent election I read several posts on my spouse's Facebook wall about the election and the "arrogant smiles of Republicans." Naturally, these were Democrats from blue states who were making these posts. And that got me to thinking about the nature of their smiles both in 2008 and 2012. Were they humble? Sometimes we and others we know have no idea how we seem or what we're doing when we're doing it.
There's also the humble bragging, the rants (both about politics and about the quality of service providers) and the posts of good times that (inadvertently, perhaps) tell others that they were not included. Perhaps, also, there are posts to people far away, because for some it is easier to relate by social media than in person in the present. The latter can be awkward and require more of an effort than hitting strokes on a keyboard.
In business we talk frequently about realizing that you should consider what you write in the context of its being quoted verbatim in the newspaper or blown up on an exhibit in a court room. Translated, be professional to the point of being antiseptic. In our private lives (which are not as private as they once were), we would like to reveal more of ourselves and be less filtered. That's fine, but we also should consider how we would like to be perceived and the legacy that we want to leave behind. If you post frequent criticisms, are the things that you are criticizing always that bad or are you just unhappy? If you post frequently about what you buy, where you go and what your kids do, are you arrogant? If you always tell people how much you admire them, what they do and their and their children's accomplishments, are you a sycophant (especially when you do so for people you do not know that well). And if you have many friends but do not post much, are you a bystander or voyeur?
I don't think that we should apply Teddy Roosevelt's "In the Arena" standard to ourselves when it comes to posting on social media. So, if someone who gets criticized for a fit of pique were to say, "well, at least I post and I share my thinking. I have the courage to do that. They don't," I don't think that someone who is an infrequent poster should question his or her own courage. Perhaps, instead, they should reflect upon their own restraint and a transcendent display of maturity, honoring the adage, "she who holds the word back is its master, and she who deploys it is it's slave." Or, as the British at times were wont to say, "the less said, the easier mended."
I do not have a Facebook page yet but might get one, if only because so many friends have one and keep in touch better that way. On the one hand, I value my privacy very much. On the other hand, I do not want to be isolated. Yet, I realize that because I have various friends but not a group of friends, having a Facebook page might reinforce some isolation because others might get together more frequently than my schedule, commitments and location might allow. At the end of the day, though, I try to operate under the adage that if these are my friends, I am happy for their happiness. The world is a big place, and we need a lot of people to be successful and happy to have a great society. So, if I'm not included on a jaunt to a baseball game in another city, so be it. Making my own fun, in the end, is up to me, and I can as easily gather others as be gathered. Sometimes we all have to remember that.
But going back to my initial premise, what I have found out in infrequent views of my spouse's Facebook page is that she has more liberal friends than conservatives, that some of the liberals cannot begin to understand anyone else's point of view, that one guy seemingly writes only of icons of our youth who have passed way. A few tout causes, whether they are illnesses or veterans, and a few just pop in to post and say hello. Some vent, some boast about their kids' report cards, some post too much information. In a way, it's all about living life.
Don't know when I'll find time to start my Facebook page, and will try not to get addicted to it if I do so. After all, I'd rather be out there doing things that are worthy of posting and not have the time to post about them then spending time on Facebook, not having done things, and then wondering what I'll post about.
I suppose that it depends on what they post. For example, during the recent election I read several posts on my spouse's Facebook wall about the election and the "arrogant smiles of Republicans." Naturally, these were Democrats from blue states who were making these posts. And that got me to thinking about the nature of their smiles both in 2008 and 2012. Were they humble? Sometimes we and others we know have no idea how we seem or what we're doing when we're doing it.
There's also the humble bragging, the rants (both about politics and about the quality of service providers) and the posts of good times that (inadvertently, perhaps) tell others that they were not included. Perhaps, also, there are posts to people far away, because for some it is easier to relate by social media than in person in the present. The latter can be awkward and require more of an effort than hitting strokes on a keyboard.
In business we talk frequently about realizing that you should consider what you write in the context of its being quoted verbatim in the newspaper or blown up on an exhibit in a court room. Translated, be professional to the point of being antiseptic. In our private lives (which are not as private as they once were), we would like to reveal more of ourselves and be less filtered. That's fine, but we also should consider how we would like to be perceived and the legacy that we want to leave behind. If you post frequent criticisms, are the things that you are criticizing always that bad or are you just unhappy? If you post frequently about what you buy, where you go and what your kids do, are you arrogant? If you always tell people how much you admire them, what they do and their and their children's accomplishments, are you a sycophant (especially when you do so for people you do not know that well). And if you have many friends but do not post much, are you a bystander or voyeur?
I don't think that we should apply Teddy Roosevelt's "In the Arena" standard to ourselves when it comes to posting on social media. So, if someone who gets criticized for a fit of pique were to say, "well, at least I post and I share my thinking. I have the courage to do that. They don't," I don't think that someone who is an infrequent poster should question his or her own courage. Perhaps, instead, they should reflect upon their own restraint and a transcendent display of maturity, honoring the adage, "she who holds the word back is its master, and she who deploys it is it's slave." Or, as the British at times were wont to say, "the less said, the easier mended."
I do not have a Facebook page yet but might get one, if only because so many friends have one and keep in touch better that way. On the one hand, I value my privacy very much. On the other hand, I do not want to be isolated. Yet, I realize that because I have various friends but not a group of friends, having a Facebook page might reinforce some isolation because others might get together more frequently than my schedule, commitments and location might allow. At the end of the day, though, I try to operate under the adage that if these are my friends, I am happy for their happiness. The world is a big place, and we need a lot of people to be successful and happy to have a great society. So, if I'm not included on a jaunt to a baseball game in another city, so be it. Making my own fun, in the end, is up to me, and I can as easily gather others as be gathered. Sometimes we all have to remember that.
But going back to my initial premise, what I have found out in infrequent views of my spouse's Facebook page is that she has more liberal friends than conservatives, that some of the liberals cannot begin to understand anyone else's point of view, that one guy seemingly writes only of icons of our youth who have passed way. A few tout causes, whether they are illnesses or veterans, and a few just pop in to post and say hello. Some vent, some boast about their kids' report cards, some post too much information. In a way, it's all about living life.
Don't know when I'll find time to start my Facebook page, and will try not to get addicted to it if I do so. After all, I'd rather be out there doing things that are worthy of posting and not have the time to post about them then spending time on Facebook, not having done things, and then wondering what I'll post about.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
Jason Kidd and Mikhail Prokhorov
One was a great college basketball point guard, a very good professional point guard who became a head coach right after his career ended.
The other is a young, successful Russian businessman (read: oligarch) who owns the team that the other guy played for and then coached for.
The first guy dissed the second guy and bolted to coach in Milwaukee. The first guy loves to win. The second guy loves to win but also likes to get his way and hates to lose.
There is bad blood between the two men. There is a public war of words.
Memo to Jason Kidd: Probably not a good idea to get into a fight with an oligarch.
Just saying.
The other is a young, successful Russian businessman (read: oligarch) who owns the team that the other guy played for and then coached for.
The first guy dissed the second guy and bolted to coach in Milwaukee. The first guy loves to win. The second guy loves to win but also likes to get his way and hates to lose.
There is bad blood between the two men. There is a public war of words.
Memo to Jason Kidd: Probably not a good idea to get into a fight with an oligarch.
Just saying.
Monday, November 03, 2014
The Stupidity and Corruption of FIFA's Decision to Host the World Cup in Qatar
Before you dismiss me as a first-world, American, economic imperialist. . .
1. It is hot in the summers in Qatar, so much so that today FIFA announced that it might move the 2022 World Cup to winter time. Read here for more details.
2. There is the issue of corruption and what officials from Qatar might have done to convince the FIFA board to choose Qatar in the first place. Read the linked article for more on that, too. Why that might be okay mystifies -- is it because that's the way things get done over there or because understated bigots hold those in Qatar to much lower standards than say to those that those in the West are held? (And why would that be okay?)
3. Russia 2018 ought to be interesting given Putin's issues in Ukraine and Russia's overall world image. Brazil gave some hope to FIFA in that despite major political unrest during the Confederations Cups and some economic issues, it pulled it off and did it well.
Still . . .
Heat.
Payoffs.
What's the third thing?
Because there usually is a third thing.
Here's to hoping that the corruption didn't happen and the event gets moved to the winter, that the stadiums get built and that people can travel there safely and enjoy themselves. A lot can happen between now and 2022 -- oil prices can continue to drop, reducing the income of the Qataris, and the political climate of the Middle East can change dramatically.
Then again, things could stay the same, too, and Qatar can pull off another soccer surprise, this after somehow getting the jersey sponsorship for one of the world's most beloved teams, Barcelona. Perhaps after the World Cup the government will try to turn the Qatari Super League (or its equivalent) into a new English Premier League.
After all, if they have the money to host the World Cup and to sponsor Barcelona, the government and the country's wealthiest citizens probably have the funds to start a formidable league.
But for right now, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense.
1. It is hot in the summers in Qatar, so much so that today FIFA announced that it might move the 2022 World Cup to winter time. Read here for more details.
2. There is the issue of corruption and what officials from Qatar might have done to convince the FIFA board to choose Qatar in the first place. Read the linked article for more on that, too. Why that might be okay mystifies -- is it because that's the way things get done over there or because understated bigots hold those in Qatar to much lower standards than say to those that those in the West are held? (And why would that be okay?)
3. Russia 2018 ought to be interesting given Putin's issues in Ukraine and Russia's overall world image. Brazil gave some hope to FIFA in that despite major political unrest during the Confederations Cups and some economic issues, it pulled it off and did it well.
Still . . .
Heat.
Payoffs.
What's the third thing?
Because there usually is a third thing.
Here's to hoping that the corruption didn't happen and the event gets moved to the winter, that the stadiums get built and that people can travel there safely and enjoy themselves. A lot can happen between now and 2022 -- oil prices can continue to drop, reducing the income of the Qataris, and the political climate of the Middle East can change dramatically.
Then again, things could stay the same, too, and Qatar can pull off another soccer surprise, this after somehow getting the jersey sponsorship for one of the world's most beloved teams, Barcelona. Perhaps after the World Cup the government will try to turn the Qatari Super League (or its equivalent) into a new English Premier League.
After all, if they have the money to host the World Cup and to sponsor Barcelona, the government and the country's wealthiest citizens probably have the funds to start a formidable league.
But for right now, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense.
Saturday, November 01, 2014
Thoughts on the English Premier League
1. Chelsea
2. Southampton
3. Manchester City
4. Arsenal
5. West Ham.
Which has you wondering where Liverpool, Man United and Tottenham are, too.
Thoughts:
1. Chelsea is the prohibitive favorite. Give Jose Mourhino credit -- he fortified an already formidable defensive squad by getting keeps Thibault Courtois back from Athletico (where he was on loan), acquired Diego Costa and Cesc Fabregas. Some of his young midfielders are a year more experienced. Atop that, they probably have more players out on loan than the next two clubs combined, and, if one were to think deeply, I am not convinced that their roster of players out on loan couldn't win the Championship League if not avoid relegation in the EPL.
2. Southampton must have people who know what they are doing. Their manager bolted for Tottenham, where he, like his three predecessors, is struggling. They let Lallana, Lovren and Lambert go to Liverpool and Shaw to United, and have not suffered at all. Lallana is in a pressure cooker, Lambert is closer to the tail end of his career and Shaw showed up at Old Trafford looking, well, doughy. I don't know if the Saints will remain in the top four, but wins before Christmas count as much as wins in April.
3. City. They got a year older, period. Did the World Cup tire out Yaya Toure? Aguero has to be one of the best five players in the world, but there seems to be something missing early on. Yet, last year they played solidly and patiently, stalked Liverpool and overtook them after those Reds had their slight collapse at season's end. They remain dangerous, that's for sure, with great talent. Look for them to be the biggest threat to Chelsea.
4. Arsenal. The good news is that Arsene Wenger is resourceful and can manage through injuries. The two pieces of bad news is that they seem to suffer more injuries than anyone else. In addition, Wenger didn't populate the roster the way he might have had he been more aggressive. The team needs a defensive mid and a few extra center backs. It's hard to determine whether Danny Welbeck is the answer at striker, although Alexis Sanchez looks to be a great addition at wing. Getting Theo Walcott back will help, and they need everyone else -- particularly Aaron Ramsey -- to stay healthy. That said, they need a few highly rated players to join Mesut Ozil and Sanchez. Look for them to return to Champions League competition for the umpteenth year in a row.
5. Liverpool. They aren't the same without Luis Suarez. Who would be? Their defense also is not that good, and perhaps deficient enough to cause them to fail to qualify for champions.
6. United. They'll get it right at some point, but they don't have it right now, and even some dynastic teams in sports have had their down periods. They are in one now and are still figuring it out. They have some talent, but it's not the case that United can just toss a lineup out there and the competition will roll over.
7. Spurs. I thought that with all the moves they made last year they finished okay because they had a bunch of players who had to adjust to the manager and each other. But it seems like they have regressed this year. They have some pieces, not enough to win the EPL, but I thought enough to contend for a space in Champions. That doesn't look to be the case now.
8. West Ham. Figured I"d make a plug for Sam Allardyce. I thought that the Hammers made some good moves before Transfer Deadline Day, and right now they are paying off.
Based on what I've seen today, I'm thinking that this is how the EPL will finish:
1. Chelsea. Not invincible, but close.
2. City. Too much talent.
3. Arsenal. Arsene Wenger strikes again (this also is a reflection that I think that there is Chelsea and then City and then many other teams).
4. Southampton. Hard to see why the magic will not continue.
5. Liverpool. They'll recover, somehow, to get here.
Dark horse: United, because few have higher expectations, and West Ham, because they are playing with a bounce in their step.
2. Southampton
3. Manchester City
4. Arsenal
5. West Ham.
Which has you wondering where Liverpool, Man United and Tottenham are, too.
Thoughts:
1. Chelsea is the prohibitive favorite. Give Jose Mourhino credit -- he fortified an already formidable defensive squad by getting keeps Thibault Courtois back from Athletico (where he was on loan), acquired Diego Costa and Cesc Fabregas. Some of his young midfielders are a year more experienced. Atop that, they probably have more players out on loan than the next two clubs combined, and, if one were to think deeply, I am not convinced that their roster of players out on loan couldn't win the Championship League if not avoid relegation in the EPL.
2. Southampton must have people who know what they are doing. Their manager bolted for Tottenham, where he, like his three predecessors, is struggling. They let Lallana, Lovren and Lambert go to Liverpool and Shaw to United, and have not suffered at all. Lallana is in a pressure cooker, Lambert is closer to the tail end of his career and Shaw showed up at Old Trafford looking, well, doughy. I don't know if the Saints will remain in the top four, but wins before Christmas count as much as wins in April.
3. City. They got a year older, period. Did the World Cup tire out Yaya Toure? Aguero has to be one of the best five players in the world, but there seems to be something missing early on. Yet, last year they played solidly and patiently, stalked Liverpool and overtook them after those Reds had their slight collapse at season's end. They remain dangerous, that's for sure, with great talent. Look for them to be the biggest threat to Chelsea.
4. Arsenal. The good news is that Arsene Wenger is resourceful and can manage through injuries. The two pieces of bad news is that they seem to suffer more injuries than anyone else. In addition, Wenger didn't populate the roster the way he might have had he been more aggressive. The team needs a defensive mid and a few extra center backs. It's hard to determine whether Danny Welbeck is the answer at striker, although Alexis Sanchez looks to be a great addition at wing. Getting Theo Walcott back will help, and they need everyone else -- particularly Aaron Ramsey -- to stay healthy. That said, they need a few highly rated players to join Mesut Ozil and Sanchez. Look for them to return to Champions League competition for the umpteenth year in a row.
5. Liverpool. They aren't the same without Luis Suarez. Who would be? Their defense also is not that good, and perhaps deficient enough to cause them to fail to qualify for champions.
6. United. They'll get it right at some point, but they don't have it right now, and even some dynastic teams in sports have had their down periods. They are in one now and are still figuring it out. They have some talent, but it's not the case that United can just toss a lineup out there and the competition will roll over.
7. Spurs. I thought that with all the moves they made last year they finished okay because they had a bunch of players who had to adjust to the manager and each other. But it seems like they have regressed this year. They have some pieces, not enough to win the EPL, but I thought enough to contend for a space in Champions. That doesn't look to be the case now.
8. West Ham. Figured I"d make a plug for Sam Allardyce. I thought that the Hammers made some good moves before Transfer Deadline Day, and right now they are paying off.
Based on what I've seen today, I'm thinking that this is how the EPL will finish:
1. Chelsea. Not invincible, but close.
2. City. Too much talent.
3. Arsenal. Arsene Wenger strikes again (this also is a reflection that I think that there is Chelsea and then City and then many other teams).
4. Southampton. Hard to see why the magic will not continue.
5. Liverpool. They'll recover, somehow, to get here.
Dark horse: United, because few have higher expectations, and West Ham, because they are playing with a bounce in their step.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Philadelphia 76ers: "Are You Kidding Me?"
I was driving home last night, listening to Philadelphia-area sports talk. After listening to the host -- who has a pronounced Philadelphia/Upper Dublin/Huntingdon Valley accent -- wax not-so-eloquent about the Eagles, I heard a 76ers' advertisement.
The 76ers were playing their opener at Indiana, and this announcement, of course, was to sell tickets. It featured, among other things, excited play-by-play calls of Tom McGinnis, the 76ers' radio announcer. The ad features, among other things, a McGinnis reaction to a 76ers' play -- "Are you kidding me?" All in the trademarked McGinnis semi-raspy, metal-on-metal voice.
And that got me to thinking -- "Are the 76ers kidding me?" Sure, coach Brett Brown wants to win. Sure, the players are trying hard -- Brown gets them to play that way. But this team is terrible. As Casey Stengel once said, "there are baseball players, and there are ribbon clerks." He tried to avoid the ribbon clerks at all costs -- he was able to do so with the Yankees, whom he managed to multiple World Series victories, but not with the 1962 Mets, whose roster was populated with ribbon clerks. Fast forward to today, and most of the 76ers are ribbon clerks.
The 76ers should have thought about the subliminal message in that ad. Sure, we know who Michael Carter-Williams (currently injured), Joel Embiid (out for the season) and Nerlens Noel (he missed last season) are. And Tony Wroten shows some promise. But the rest of the team? Anonymous and probably destined to remain that way during their careers. In fact, the 76ers are kidding me in the sense that they cannot win and should not be trying to sell tickets on that basis. They will win fewer than the 19 games they won last season. And they are hoping that a bunch of young players can come together in the next 2-3 years and build a force to be reckoned with. They make no apologies for this and are up front about it.
But they should be more careful with the texts and sub-texts of their ads. People will go to a barn to watch a winner; they won't go to a palace to watch a loser. Especially if the team really doesn't care now about winning.
Not at those prices, anyway.
The 76ers were playing their opener at Indiana, and this announcement, of course, was to sell tickets. It featured, among other things, excited play-by-play calls of Tom McGinnis, the 76ers' radio announcer. The ad features, among other things, a McGinnis reaction to a 76ers' play -- "Are you kidding me?" All in the trademarked McGinnis semi-raspy, metal-on-metal voice.
And that got me to thinking -- "Are the 76ers kidding me?" Sure, coach Brett Brown wants to win. Sure, the players are trying hard -- Brown gets them to play that way. But this team is terrible. As Casey Stengel once said, "there are baseball players, and there are ribbon clerks." He tried to avoid the ribbon clerks at all costs -- he was able to do so with the Yankees, whom he managed to multiple World Series victories, but not with the 1962 Mets, whose roster was populated with ribbon clerks. Fast forward to today, and most of the 76ers are ribbon clerks.
The 76ers should have thought about the subliminal message in that ad. Sure, we know who Michael Carter-Williams (currently injured), Joel Embiid (out for the season) and Nerlens Noel (he missed last season) are. And Tony Wroten shows some promise. But the rest of the team? Anonymous and probably destined to remain that way during their careers. In fact, the 76ers are kidding me in the sense that they cannot win and should not be trying to sell tickets on that basis. They will win fewer than the 19 games they won last season. And they are hoping that a bunch of young players can come together in the next 2-3 years and build a force to be reckoned with. They make no apologies for this and are up front about it.
But they should be more careful with the texts and sub-texts of their ads. People will go to a barn to watch a winner; they won't go to a palace to watch a loser. Especially if the team really doesn't care now about winning.
Not at those prices, anyway.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Sugar Ray and the Hitman in the Showdown
I don't remember the circumstances of the welterweight unification belt in September of 1981, only that the two biggest names in boxing, Olympic gold medalist Sugar Ray Leonard and challenger Thomas "Hitman" Hearns (also known as the Motor City Cobra) were going to fight to unify the WBC and WBA titles. It was the biggest fight in a while, and, well, in 1981, wherever the heck it was, there was absolutely no way to monitor the progress of the right unless you were there or perhaps bought a ticket for "closed circuit" television in an arena.
There was no internet.
No cable.
No Twitter.
No way of finding out how the right was going.
But I was curious. Curious because I was a Leonard fan, and curious because I did not want to wait until the following morning. I wanted to figure out a way to get information in real time, but the case was hopeless.
Until I remembered that the campus radio station, for which I did an occasional sports report and broadcast games, had a UPI ticker tape machine in the basement. Those don't exist today, but then they (and AP ticker tapes) were the main source of news for many a news rooms (along with feeds from the ABC national network that we were able to copy on 8-track tapes). The ticker tape machine was this big thing, about four feet high, basically a typewriter on legs that was wired into a phone line that provided the feed. I hope that perhaps UPI had the right to provide round-by-round updates, so on that night -- and I don't remember what night it was, but it was probably a Saturday, when most of my friends were drinking beer and doing what college seniors do.
No one was in the station -- situated in a damp basement in an old dormitory -- except for the disc jockey, with whom I had a casual acquaintance and to whom I waved. And then I made my way to the back, where the news room, such as it was, was situated (in truth, it was a sparsely furnished, dimly lit place) and stood near the ticker tape. And I was in luck! UPI was covering the fight, and a reporter at ringside was providing the feed.
There were limitations, of course, such as feeds from various baseball games around the country and the occasional news story, that came on the wire in between rounds. But the progress of the right was compelling, and every five minutes or so about fifty words came through describing what happened and giving the reporter's view of how the round went. I was pulling for Leonard, and it was just exciting, the sporting equivalent of a candidate's waiting for election returns in a close race.
What I proceeded to witness via ticker tape was one of the greatest fights of all time. At the twelfth round, five bells sounded -- UPI's means of getting the news room's attention that something significant happened. The five bells this time meant that Hearns was hitting Leonard hard and that Leonard was in trouble -- perhaps a turning point in a fight where Hearns was leading on points (I honestly thought that five bells were reserved for things like the end of World War II or the election of a president). My shoulders shrank -- the likable, invincible Sugar Ray was about to lose. Hearns was an excellent fighter, so that ending was plausible.
But about as quickly as those five bells sounded, five more bells sounded. And that, I figured, was it. But those five bells sounded perhaps four minutes later, and a remarkable change of events took place. Leonard woke up and started taking it to Hearns -- and ended the fight with a flurry of punches that caused the referee to stop it. TKO, Sugar Ray Leonard.
I had so much fun that I tore off most of the ticker tape and decided to save it. That ticker tape printout survived seven moves and 33 years, when I found it this weekend, still in pretty good shape. The reason I started looking for it was that my son was invited to a sports memorabilia event where Sugar Ray was scheduled to be in attendance. So, I put it in a plastic folder and gave it to him, hoping, perhaps, that he could get Sugar Ray to autograph it.
And he did better than that, because Thomas Hearns was at this particular show, too. So right where the last five bells went off, there are two signatures -- one of Sugar Ray, the other of the Motor City Cobra. Thirty-three years later, capping a fond memory of a great fight and perhaps a clever solution as to how to get a virtual ringside seat.
That got me to thinking of boxing, which was probably better in smoke-filled arenas and in black and white, and perhaps slow motion. Perhaps that's why boxing isn't popular today -- there's too much access, too much internet and texting and tweeting, and none of the mysticism and romance that existed when entertainment choices were fewer and the world seemed to move more slowly. Boxing was made for the ticker-tape, men watching it in suits, stogies in hand, newspaper reporters with hats with their press passes tucked into the band.
And I have my souvenir for that era, before boxing lost its mojo, before Sugar Ray and the Hitman got old, before Marvelous Marvin lost his magic and Duran said "no mas."
Answering the bell. Saved by the bell. And the outcome, announced with five bells. I never saw that fight, but UPI made it feel like I was there.
Thanks, Sugar Ray and Hitman, for a great era and a great memory.
There was no internet.
No cable.
No Twitter.
No way of finding out how the right was going.
But I was curious. Curious because I was a Leonard fan, and curious because I did not want to wait until the following morning. I wanted to figure out a way to get information in real time, but the case was hopeless.
Until I remembered that the campus radio station, for which I did an occasional sports report and broadcast games, had a UPI ticker tape machine in the basement. Those don't exist today, but then they (and AP ticker tapes) were the main source of news for many a news rooms (along with feeds from the ABC national network that we were able to copy on 8-track tapes). The ticker tape machine was this big thing, about four feet high, basically a typewriter on legs that was wired into a phone line that provided the feed. I hope that perhaps UPI had the right to provide round-by-round updates, so on that night -- and I don't remember what night it was, but it was probably a Saturday, when most of my friends were drinking beer and doing what college seniors do.
No one was in the station -- situated in a damp basement in an old dormitory -- except for the disc jockey, with whom I had a casual acquaintance and to whom I waved. And then I made my way to the back, where the news room, such as it was, was situated (in truth, it was a sparsely furnished, dimly lit place) and stood near the ticker tape. And I was in luck! UPI was covering the fight, and a reporter at ringside was providing the feed.
There were limitations, of course, such as feeds from various baseball games around the country and the occasional news story, that came on the wire in between rounds. But the progress of the right was compelling, and every five minutes or so about fifty words came through describing what happened and giving the reporter's view of how the round went. I was pulling for Leonard, and it was just exciting, the sporting equivalent of a candidate's waiting for election returns in a close race.
What I proceeded to witness via ticker tape was one of the greatest fights of all time. At the twelfth round, five bells sounded -- UPI's means of getting the news room's attention that something significant happened. The five bells this time meant that Hearns was hitting Leonard hard and that Leonard was in trouble -- perhaps a turning point in a fight where Hearns was leading on points (I honestly thought that five bells were reserved for things like the end of World War II or the election of a president). My shoulders shrank -- the likable, invincible Sugar Ray was about to lose. Hearns was an excellent fighter, so that ending was plausible.
But about as quickly as those five bells sounded, five more bells sounded. And that, I figured, was it. But those five bells sounded perhaps four minutes later, and a remarkable change of events took place. Leonard woke up and started taking it to Hearns -- and ended the fight with a flurry of punches that caused the referee to stop it. TKO, Sugar Ray Leonard.
I had so much fun that I tore off most of the ticker tape and decided to save it. That ticker tape printout survived seven moves and 33 years, when I found it this weekend, still in pretty good shape. The reason I started looking for it was that my son was invited to a sports memorabilia event where Sugar Ray was scheduled to be in attendance. So, I put it in a plastic folder and gave it to him, hoping, perhaps, that he could get Sugar Ray to autograph it.
And he did better than that, because Thomas Hearns was at this particular show, too. So right where the last five bells went off, there are two signatures -- one of Sugar Ray, the other of the Motor City Cobra. Thirty-three years later, capping a fond memory of a great fight and perhaps a clever solution as to how to get a virtual ringside seat.
That got me to thinking of boxing, which was probably better in smoke-filled arenas and in black and white, and perhaps slow motion. Perhaps that's why boxing isn't popular today -- there's too much access, too much internet and texting and tweeting, and none of the mysticism and romance that existed when entertainment choices were fewer and the world seemed to move more slowly. Boxing was made for the ticker-tape, men watching it in suits, stogies in hand, newspaper reporters with hats with their press passes tucked into the band.
And I have my souvenir for that era, before boxing lost its mojo, before Sugar Ray and the Hitman got old, before Marvelous Marvin lost his magic and Duran said "no mas."
Answering the bell. Saved by the bell. And the outcome, announced with five bells. I never saw that fight, but UPI made it feel like I was there.
Thanks, Sugar Ray and Hitman, for a great era and a great memory.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Eagles-Washington
A few thoughts:
1. The Eagles' offensive line is totally depleted. Best tweet of the day came from 97.5 the Fanatic, which said something to the effect "Hey fat guys in the area, get your cleats and get to the Linc as soon as you can. You just might suit up."
2. Nick Foles was a battleship out there today. When the dust cleared, he stood tall, firing on target.
3. Kirk Cousins had an outstanding game, but he seemed to channel his inner Tony Romo near the end and mis-threw, leading to one pick and several failed third down conversations.
4. Chris Baker's hit on Foles was a cheap shot. Baker tried to explain it to the media, but it seemed clear that Washington's media advisors coached him on what to say.
5. Maclin and Matthews were outstanding at wide receiver today.
6. Did anyone else notice that you didn't hear OLB Connor Barwin's name called today.
7. Where was the Eagles' defense in the first half? They did adjust in the second half, but the first half was a disaster. And, yet, the Birds were up at the half.
8. Chris Polk's pick-up return gave the Eagles a huge lift after Cousins channeled his inner Peyton Manning on Washington's first couple of drives.
9. For all of the doubters, Malcolm Jenkins has come up with a few big plays in back-to-back games.
10. Does Casey Matthews scare anyone at middle linebacker?
1. The Eagles' offensive line is totally depleted. Best tweet of the day came from 97.5 the Fanatic, which said something to the effect "Hey fat guys in the area, get your cleats and get to the Linc as soon as you can. You just might suit up."
2. Nick Foles was a battleship out there today. When the dust cleared, he stood tall, firing on target.
3. Kirk Cousins had an outstanding game, but he seemed to channel his inner Tony Romo near the end and mis-threw, leading to one pick and several failed third down conversations.
4. Chris Baker's hit on Foles was a cheap shot. Baker tried to explain it to the media, but it seemed clear that Washington's media advisors coached him on what to say.
5. Maclin and Matthews were outstanding at wide receiver today.
6. Did anyone else notice that you didn't hear OLB Connor Barwin's name called today.
7. Where was the Eagles' defense in the first half? They did adjust in the second half, but the first half was a disaster. And, yet, the Birds were up at the half.
8. Chris Polk's pick-up return gave the Eagles a huge lift after Cousins channeled his inner Peyton Manning on Washington's first couple of drives.
9. For all of the doubters, Malcolm Jenkins has come up with a few big plays in back-to-back games.
10. Does Casey Matthews scare anyone at middle linebacker?
Arsenal at Aston Villa
Just a few observations:
1. Gunners played with pace.
2. Ozil played his best game of the year.
3. So did Welbeck. His athleticism will help Arsenal.
4. Sissoko's own goal was interesting in that if he had let the ball go, Oxlade-Chamberlain would have rammed it home.
5. Arsenal is very thin on defense and needs someone to step up as a leader.
6. Szczesny stood tall at a few intervals (and I realize I probably misspelled his name).
7. And they blasted Villa without Alexis Sanchez.
8. Good to see Ozil playing central attacking midfielders. That's where he belongs.
1. Gunners played with pace.
2. Ozil played his best game of the year.
3. So did Welbeck. His athleticism will help Arsenal.
4. Sissoko's own goal was interesting in that if he had let the ball go, Oxlade-Chamberlain would have rammed it home.
5. Arsenal is very thin on defense and needs someone to step up as a leader.
6. Szczesny stood tall at a few intervals (and I realize I probably misspelled his name).
7. And they blasted Villa without Alexis Sanchez.
8. Good to see Ozil playing central attacking midfielders. That's where he belongs.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Where Does the NFL Draw the Line Now?
- Performance Enhancing Drugs.
- Abuse of Animals.
- Domestic Abuse.
- Locker room bullying.
- Saying Racist Things.
- DUIs.
- Child Abuse.
- Bounty Gate.
- Illegal Hits.
- (Alleged) gang alliances.
Baseball has had to deal with the following:
- Gambling by a player/manager.
- Steroids.
- Amphetamines.
- HGH.
- Adderall.
- Spouse abuse (remember Brett Myers).
- DUIs.
- Bean balls
What is the standard for whether someone plays, gets suspended or gets banned?
How do we balance forgiveness and forgetting?
Is the professional sports on-the-field workplace different from the off-the-field one? If you can help the team win the Super Bowl, will they cover for you? But if you're in the front office as a data clerk, will they fire you immediately? Should there be a difference?
Perhaps rosters and practice squads will expand, not only to address injuries, but also matters of character.
Right now, the NFL has quite a mess on its hands.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
On the Ray Rice Situation: Is Something Just Wrong with Our Culture?
Here are a few basic premises and/or facts:
1. Ray Rice hit his then girlfriend now wife in February (they subsequently married amidst this scandal)..
2. Ray Rice hit his wife very hard.
3. Ray Rice hit his wife very hard and initially we saw a video of Rice dragging his wife out of an elevator at the Revel Casino in Atlantic City.
4. Ray Rice was arrested, pleaded guilty, and went into a first offenders' program.
5. Upon its initial review, the NFL (i.e., Commissioner Roger Goodell) suspended Rice for two games.
6. After a public hue and cry (which Goodell's remarks at the NFL Hall of Fame exacerbated), the NFL adopted a policy that would require a six-game suspension for first-time offenders of its domestic abuse policy (this at around the same time that the players' union and the league were negotiating testing for HGH).
7. Video footage comes out of Rice's punch of his now wife surfaces -- it's pretty graphic. Questions abound whether the NFL saw the video during its investigation and before levying punishment of Rice. Almost every pundit is wondering aloud whether Roger Goodell lied about seeing the video or whether he should resign because the video came out and apparently the NFL didn't get it from the Revel or the NFL got it but either it wasn't brought to Goodell's attention or someone described it to Goodell, who opted not to see it. What is unclear is how Rice characterized what happened in the elevator during the time before he dragged his wife out of it.
People are frustrated and angry and upset, and for a whole host of reasons. But isn't this just the tip of the iceberg of an over-glorified culture where kids who have talent are catered to from a young age and, as a result, can have a skewed sense of right and wrong. Major colleges prostitute themselves to get them to sign a letter of intent, and sometimes provide girls to help them make their decision. Schools do all sorts of things to keep players' eligible and sometimes pass them along in majors that are guaranteed only to keep them eligible as opposed to give them life skills. They encourage kids to play hurt or have created a culture whereby if a kid were to take himself out of a game, he might lose his spot and perhaps, ultimately, his scholarship. Schools have had boosters pay high school coaches a bounty if a key player chooses one school over another. Players have used PEDs. Players have used marijuana, have substance abuse problems and possibly all sorts of problems. 75% of NFL players end up broke, divorced or depressed within a short number of years after they are done playing. They (barely) pay scantily clad women to dance suggestively at midfield and on the sidelines. There are very few women executives, scouts, coaches or broadcasters, and the broadcasters tend to be model-like, well spoken women who report from the sidelines. Do I need to add any more?
So, if you're outraged at Ray Rice and don't think he should play again, then let's ask a few other questions about culture:
1. Do you still watch baseball, even though a) so many players were juicing they looked like linebackers, b) the records were totally skewed and c) baseball turned a blind eye while it all was going on (retrospectively, the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa quest to break Roger Maris's home run record was a joke)?
2. Do you think that Penn State a) should be playing football now and b) should have had their sanctions lifted? Let's not forget what Jerry Sandusky did or how badly Penn State handled its football culture, including letting Joe Paterno becoming bigger than the school (and institutions of higher learning should have a higher calling than adopting idolatry as one of their central reasons for existing)?
3. Does it trouble you that when polled, more players would have wanted Richie Incognito on their team than Jonathan Martin? Did it bother you that when that problem was investigated, it seemed like NFL locker rooms had a "prison yard" mentality (according to a great column by ESPN's Jason Whitlock) where you really needed someone to "have your back." Did it bother you that Martin was picked on because he came from a very well-educated, accomplished family?
4. Do you watch Floyd Mayweather fight (given his history of abusing women)?
5. Many professional athletes have many children by different women (it is not a majority, but sadly the examples are egregious). Do you root for their teams?
6. If you were a Packers' fan, do you have any qualms now about having rooted for Darren Sharper given all of the allegations against him regarding sexual misconduct?
7. How do you feel about how many former players -- at any level -- are suffering in later life from all sorts of awful brain, spine and orthopedic injuries, to the point that there have been class-action lawsuits and awful tales about suicides and early deaths? Is this something that we can accept out of what's now our national pastime? And, if so, why? The President has said that if he had boys he wouldn't want them to play football, and Ed Reed was quoted as saying that he told his kids that he played so that they wouldn't have to, something that boxers were wont to say fifty years ago. And, most recently, John Madden offered a similar view to that of the President.
8. Would you want your daughter to date a scholarship athlete at a major college, given how entitled they are, how much they are catered to, and how many people are there to help get them through and, at times, avoid accountability anywhere but the football field?
9. Do you think that there is something wrong with our culture if you hope that a brush with the law or major personal transgression will not interfere with an athlete on your favorite team's ability to play in the upcoming game?
I have written many times that everyone is entitled to a defense and that we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I'm very open to all sides of an argument and enjoy the discussion very much. As for the Ray Rice situation, the young man needs help. So does his now-wife, who needs more and probably should get away from him, far away. So does his father-in-law, to whom Rice looked as a mentor. He should look out more for his daughter's well being than Rice's, as the next punch his daughter takes could be her last. Otherwise, it would same that Janay Palmer is destined for a similar fate to that of Nicole Brown.
The Ravens' culture needs some re-assessing, too. They so mishandled this situation that they should hire outside human resources and employment law experts to put in a Code of Conduct that makes sense. Had it been someone on the accounting team who had belted his wife, been arrested and gotten publicity, my guess is that they would have fired him or put him on administrative leave. Why should the on-field talent be treated any different? They also should think very hard about how they addressed this situation from a public relations standpoint, such as having Janay Palmer go out there and apologize for provoking the incident, not having the owner out there and sending John Harbaugh out there after the video of Rice's striking Palmer became public. Theirs is a "how not to film" as to how to handle this type of situation.
The NFL's culture needs some re-assessing, too, from how they treat all sorts of problematic situations, to who investigates to how they handle the media to giving the commissioner some help in the form of a structured panel of owners/advisors to help deal with these issues. Much of this already might exist, but given that football has become the national pastime (for better or for worse), they fumbled this situation fairly badly. Both the Ravens and the NFL could have turned it into an opportunity -- about character, about conduct and about honor.
The radio pundits also should be more measured in how they approach problems like these. First, the likes of Ron Jaworski should refrain from saying, in essence, that they would have taken matters into their own hands if someone hit one of his daughters. That's a rash, emotional reaction but not one that one would expect from someone as measured and affable as Jaworski. I hope that he had the same sense of outrage regarding other abuse scandals of recent memory (such as Penn State and the Roman Catholic Church, among others, as well as the Michael Vick situation, whether he served his time in Leavenworth or not). Second, Jaworski should refrain from speculating that money changed hands in this situation. Unless he has any proof, that's probably not a good place to go. By the way, I think that Jaworski is one of the best guys out there.
So what bothers us about the NFL's handling of the Ray Rice situation beyond that it was sloppy and not straightforward? Is it just that -- or a realization that many people's favorite game has so many warts that the league airbrushes -- warts that are not benign and in all likelihood could be toxic? And if that's the case, then are we bothered because many of us will keep on coming back and are addicted to it, warts and all, toxic or not? Put differently, how much are we willing to isolate and overlook to keep coming back to our pastimes and hobbies? If your favorite team has a racist, a few bigots, one or two who abuse animals, a few deadbeat dads, a tax cheat or two, guys who don't pay their bills, guys who attend strip clubs, bad tippers -- do you like them because they are bad boys and rascals or do you walk away? Would you want your daughter to date those guys? Would you want your son to become like them?
Some former players have talked about Goodell's obligation to "protect the shield," the NFL logo. But isn't that the obligation of everyone who works for the NFL or a team? My experience has taught me that everyone has to own their own integrity and their own compliance -- and that if you wait for the commissioners of the world to come in, it's too late, and your culture is at best in disarray and at worst, rotten.
This is a bad situation. If high-minded people are to turn it into an opportunity, then they have to look hard in the mirror and try to solve for quote from one of the league's all-time coaches, Bill Parcells, who once said, "You are what your record says you are."
And on many character issues, at many different levels -- from high school to college to the NFL -- that record of what we accept and what we tolerate is just not every good.
1. Ray Rice hit his then girlfriend now wife in February (they subsequently married amidst this scandal)..
2. Ray Rice hit his wife very hard.
3. Ray Rice hit his wife very hard and initially we saw a video of Rice dragging his wife out of an elevator at the Revel Casino in Atlantic City.
4. Ray Rice was arrested, pleaded guilty, and went into a first offenders' program.
5. Upon its initial review, the NFL (i.e., Commissioner Roger Goodell) suspended Rice for two games.
6. After a public hue and cry (which Goodell's remarks at the NFL Hall of Fame exacerbated), the NFL adopted a policy that would require a six-game suspension for first-time offenders of its domestic abuse policy (this at around the same time that the players' union and the league were negotiating testing for HGH).
7. Video footage comes out of Rice's punch of his now wife surfaces -- it's pretty graphic. Questions abound whether the NFL saw the video during its investigation and before levying punishment of Rice. Almost every pundit is wondering aloud whether Roger Goodell lied about seeing the video or whether he should resign because the video came out and apparently the NFL didn't get it from the Revel or the NFL got it but either it wasn't brought to Goodell's attention or someone described it to Goodell, who opted not to see it. What is unclear is how Rice characterized what happened in the elevator during the time before he dragged his wife out of it.
People are frustrated and angry and upset, and for a whole host of reasons. But isn't this just the tip of the iceberg of an over-glorified culture where kids who have talent are catered to from a young age and, as a result, can have a skewed sense of right and wrong. Major colleges prostitute themselves to get them to sign a letter of intent, and sometimes provide girls to help them make their decision. Schools do all sorts of things to keep players' eligible and sometimes pass them along in majors that are guaranteed only to keep them eligible as opposed to give them life skills. They encourage kids to play hurt or have created a culture whereby if a kid were to take himself out of a game, he might lose his spot and perhaps, ultimately, his scholarship. Schools have had boosters pay high school coaches a bounty if a key player chooses one school over another. Players have used PEDs. Players have used marijuana, have substance abuse problems and possibly all sorts of problems. 75% of NFL players end up broke, divorced or depressed within a short number of years after they are done playing. They (barely) pay scantily clad women to dance suggestively at midfield and on the sidelines. There are very few women executives, scouts, coaches or broadcasters, and the broadcasters tend to be model-like, well spoken women who report from the sidelines. Do I need to add any more?
So, if you're outraged at Ray Rice and don't think he should play again, then let's ask a few other questions about culture:
1. Do you still watch baseball, even though a) so many players were juicing they looked like linebackers, b) the records were totally skewed and c) baseball turned a blind eye while it all was going on (retrospectively, the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa quest to break Roger Maris's home run record was a joke)?
2. Do you think that Penn State a) should be playing football now and b) should have had their sanctions lifted? Let's not forget what Jerry Sandusky did or how badly Penn State handled its football culture, including letting Joe Paterno becoming bigger than the school (and institutions of higher learning should have a higher calling than adopting idolatry as one of their central reasons for existing)?
3. Does it trouble you that when polled, more players would have wanted Richie Incognito on their team than Jonathan Martin? Did it bother you that when that problem was investigated, it seemed like NFL locker rooms had a "prison yard" mentality (according to a great column by ESPN's Jason Whitlock) where you really needed someone to "have your back." Did it bother you that Martin was picked on because he came from a very well-educated, accomplished family?
4. Do you watch Floyd Mayweather fight (given his history of abusing women)?
5. Many professional athletes have many children by different women (it is not a majority, but sadly the examples are egregious). Do you root for their teams?
6. If you were a Packers' fan, do you have any qualms now about having rooted for Darren Sharper given all of the allegations against him regarding sexual misconduct?
7. How do you feel about how many former players -- at any level -- are suffering in later life from all sorts of awful brain, spine and orthopedic injuries, to the point that there have been class-action lawsuits and awful tales about suicides and early deaths? Is this something that we can accept out of what's now our national pastime? And, if so, why? The President has said that if he had boys he wouldn't want them to play football, and Ed Reed was quoted as saying that he told his kids that he played so that they wouldn't have to, something that boxers were wont to say fifty years ago. And, most recently, John Madden offered a similar view to that of the President.
8. Would you want your daughter to date a scholarship athlete at a major college, given how entitled they are, how much they are catered to, and how many people are there to help get them through and, at times, avoid accountability anywhere but the football field?
9. Do you think that there is something wrong with our culture if you hope that a brush with the law or major personal transgression will not interfere with an athlete on your favorite team's ability to play in the upcoming game?
I have written many times that everyone is entitled to a defense and that we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I'm very open to all sides of an argument and enjoy the discussion very much. As for the Ray Rice situation, the young man needs help. So does his now-wife, who needs more and probably should get away from him, far away. So does his father-in-law, to whom Rice looked as a mentor. He should look out more for his daughter's well being than Rice's, as the next punch his daughter takes could be her last. Otherwise, it would same that Janay Palmer is destined for a similar fate to that of Nicole Brown.
The Ravens' culture needs some re-assessing, too. They so mishandled this situation that they should hire outside human resources and employment law experts to put in a Code of Conduct that makes sense. Had it been someone on the accounting team who had belted his wife, been arrested and gotten publicity, my guess is that they would have fired him or put him on administrative leave. Why should the on-field talent be treated any different? They also should think very hard about how they addressed this situation from a public relations standpoint, such as having Janay Palmer go out there and apologize for provoking the incident, not having the owner out there and sending John Harbaugh out there after the video of Rice's striking Palmer became public. Theirs is a "how not to film" as to how to handle this type of situation.
The NFL's culture needs some re-assessing, too, from how they treat all sorts of problematic situations, to who investigates to how they handle the media to giving the commissioner some help in the form of a structured panel of owners/advisors to help deal with these issues. Much of this already might exist, but given that football has become the national pastime (for better or for worse), they fumbled this situation fairly badly. Both the Ravens and the NFL could have turned it into an opportunity -- about character, about conduct and about honor.
The radio pundits also should be more measured in how they approach problems like these. First, the likes of Ron Jaworski should refrain from saying, in essence, that they would have taken matters into their own hands if someone hit one of his daughters. That's a rash, emotional reaction but not one that one would expect from someone as measured and affable as Jaworski. I hope that he had the same sense of outrage regarding other abuse scandals of recent memory (such as Penn State and the Roman Catholic Church, among others, as well as the Michael Vick situation, whether he served his time in Leavenworth or not). Second, Jaworski should refrain from speculating that money changed hands in this situation. Unless he has any proof, that's probably not a good place to go. By the way, I think that Jaworski is one of the best guys out there.
So what bothers us about the NFL's handling of the Ray Rice situation beyond that it was sloppy and not straightforward? Is it just that -- or a realization that many people's favorite game has so many warts that the league airbrushes -- warts that are not benign and in all likelihood could be toxic? And if that's the case, then are we bothered because many of us will keep on coming back and are addicted to it, warts and all, toxic or not? Put differently, how much are we willing to isolate and overlook to keep coming back to our pastimes and hobbies? If your favorite team has a racist, a few bigots, one or two who abuse animals, a few deadbeat dads, a tax cheat or two, guys who don't pay their bills, guys who attend strip clubs, bad tippers -- do you like them because they are bad boys and rascals or do you walk away? Would you want your daughter to date those guys? Would you want your son to become like them?
Some former players have talked about Goodell's obligation to "protect the shield," the NFL logo. But isn't that the obligation of everyone who works for the NFL or a team? My experience has taught me that everyone has to own their own integrity and their own compliance -- and that if you wait for the commissioners of the world to come in, it's too late, and your culture is at best in disarray and at worst, rotten.
This is a bad situation. If high-minded people are to turn it into an opportunity, then they have to look hard in the mirror and try to solve for quote from one of the league's all-time coaches, Bill Parcells, who once said, "You are what your record says you are."
And on many character issues, at many different levels -- from high school to college to the NFL -- that record of what we accept and what we tolerate is just not every good.
Sunday, September 07, 2014
Support Your Local Bicycle Shop
Before it's too late.
We hear the same story constantly. Your neighbor boasts of scoring a great bargain by either scouring the Internet for the best price or by using an iPhone app to scan a barcode at a local store and either find a better price at a rival store or on the internet (where mass retailers do not have the overhead costs that small chains or sole proprietorships do). You might like browsing at the local store and you've known the proprietor for years (and think him to be knowledgeable and helpful), but somehow you end up using his store as a show room for other vendors and buy from them. The result is that many stores are closing because they just aren't selling enough stuff. People browse, but they do not buy.
I like my nearby small town and its bike store. The guys who run it are nice, accommodating, and they know their stuff. They carry different lines, offer you ideas about what you should buy and what might not be right for you, and are there for you to fix problems, small and large. They have a nice sign, a neat store layout, and they put about a dozen bikes on the sidewalk every day during the good weather for potential buyers to see. More than that, they add flavor and color to a town and helps the town say "this is a neat, warm, welcoming place." (Okay, so the major landowner might not feel that way and a local tax policy might not be so friendly, but these guys stand tall, offer good products and add considerably to the town).
On weekends, when I drive by, I just smile, as I do on summer nights when I come home from work and they're still open, the bikes outside, the sunset framing them and at times casting a glow on them. That glow exclaims, "this is why we live here," or "come inside the store, it gets even better."
I've purchased three bikes from them within the past five years, a tire or two, some bicycling wear and had another bike refurbished. A friend offered that he shopped around a bit more and negotiated with a store owner a few miles away; another offered that they were just too expensive and went on the internet to buy bicycles for his family. Both would admit that the store adds color and flavor to the town and its landscape and that it would be a shame if anything would happen to the business. Yet, they don't support it.
I have little doubt that I could have gotten a better price from another vendor on the internet. None. But there are times where you need to support your community, appreciate what these men's good cheer does for the neighborhood, and, at the core, how cool it is to have a bicycle shop in your town. When you want to have a community, there are times where you need to leave a little money on the table to do so. Sure, you can drive twenty miles to get the bargain or spend hours on the internet looking, and for certain things that's fine. But if we want communities and think about what makes them special, we need to support our local businesses.
I know that you cannot get this store's bikes from Target and Wal-Mart, but my guess is that there is a mega-store fifty miles away that offers a better price or someone on the internet who can sell it to you for cheaper. But if too many of us do that, Main Street will have yet another vacancy. And others will follow. Our reasons for walking the town will diminish, as will our reasons for having a town in the first place. Our houses will become technological marvels that will enable us to get everything through a screen, while our loneliness will increase and potentially our civility.
So, when you think about your next bike purchase or anything else for that matter, think about the type of town you want to have and the type of society. Look, there is a time and a place for bargains, and, also, for good shopping. And there's a time and a place for warmth, walking, good conversation and community. Remember that too.
Before it's too late.
We hear the same story constantly. Your neighbor boasts of scoring a great bargain by either scouring the Internet for the best price or by using an iPhone app to scan a barcode at a local store and either find a better price at a rival store or on the internet (where mass retailers do not have the overhead costs that small chains or sole proprietorships do). You might like browsing at the local store and you've known the proprietor for years (and think him to be knowledgeable and helpful), but somehow you end up using his store as a show room for other vendors and buy from them. The result is that many stores are closing because they just aren't selling enough stuff. People browse, but they do not buy.
I like my nearby small town and its bike store. The guys who run it are nice, accommodating, and they know their stuff. They carry different lines, offer you ideas about what you should buy and what might not be right for you, and are there for you to fix problems, small and large. They have a nice sign, a neat store layout, and they put about a dozen bikes on the sidewalk every day during the good weather for potential buyers to see. More than that, they add flavor and color to a town and helps the town say "this is a neat, warm, welcoming place." (Okay, so the major landowner might not feel that way and a local tax policy might not be so friendly, but these guys stand tall, offer good products and add considerably to the town).
On weekends, when I drive by, I just smile, as I do on summer nights when I come home from work and they're still open, the bikes outside, the sunset framing them and at times casting a glow on them. That glow exclaims, "this is why we live here," or "come inside the store, it gets even better."
I've purchased three bikes from them within the past five years, a tire or two, some bicycling wear and had another bike refurbished. A friend offered that he shopped around a bit more and negotiated with a store owner a few miles away; another offered that they were just too expensive and went on the internet to buy bicycles for his family. Both would admit that the store adds color and flavor to the town and its landscape and that it would be a shame if anything would happen to the business. Yet, they don't support it.
I have little doubt that I could have gotten a better price from another vendor on the internet. None. But there are times where you need to support your community, appreciate what these men's good cheer does for the neighborhood, and, at the core, how cool it is to have a bicycle shop in your town. When you want to have a community, there are times where you need to leave a little money on the table to do so. Sure, you can drive twenty miles to get the bargain or spend hours on the internet looking, and for certain things that's fine. But if we want communities and think about what makes them special, we need to support our local businesses.
I know that you cannot get this store's bikes from Target and Wal-Mart, but my guess is that there is a mega-store fifty miles away that offers a better price or someone on the internet who can sell it to you for cheaper. But if too many of us do that, Main Street will have yet another vacancy. And others will follow. Our reasons for walking the town will diminish, as will our reasons for having a town in the first place. Our houses will become technological marvels that will enable us to get everything through a screen, while our loneliness will increase and potentially our civility.
So, when you think about your next bike purchase or anything else for that matter, think about the type of town you want to have and the type of society. Look, there is a time and a place for bargains, and, also, for good shopping. And there's a time and a place for warmth, walking, good conversation and community. Remember that too.
Before it's too late.
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
The Phillies Combined No-Hitter - Why Weren't the Pitchers Excited After the Game?
You would think that this was something to celebrate. You have a team that has had another bad year, continuing a decline that began after the World Series victory in 2008. They are playing sub-.500 baseball and are struggling for an identity. They have a few good starting pitchers and a bullpen that could be starting to scare people. They lack sufficient hitting muscle to scare anyone with their lineup.
Yesterday, in Atlanta, ace Cole Hamels went six plus before yielding his bullpen. The trio of Kenny Giles, Jake Diekman and Jonathan Papelbon helped him seal up a no-hitter. All were excellent.
That said, in the post-game interviews, you would have thought that the foursome was relieved to have survived a collective hemorrhoidectomy. Hamels smiled slightly but reverted to standard, trite post-game speech. Giles had the bill of his cap so far down that you couldn't see his eyes, and he said he was happy even if his body language told you the last place he wanted to be was on camera. Diekman was more relaxed and even mustered a smile, but his reaction was muted. And then there was Papelbon, who was arrogant with the good-natured post-game reporter and simply said it was all in a day's work. There was no joy in the man.
Attendance is down. People still remember that spark that existed through the 2011 season, which now seems like a distant memory. They realize that Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard aren't the players they were five years ago. They like Hamels and adore Cliff Lee. But they need something to keep them coming back and something to cheer about.
While the no-hitter most certainly is a season highlight, the pitchers' reaction seemed to indicate that it was not the biggest deal in the world and that there wasn't a lot of joy in it. Okay, so they're competitors and wish the team were doing better, fine. But at least have some fun in the moment and be happy, long season or not, hot day or not. Jimmy Rollins looked excited, and the game to a degree is about entertainment.
Teams win when they have a bounce in their step. Fans latch onto teams that they can relate to, that give off positive energy and that play to the last out. The Phillies were that team through 2011, playing at times with three bench players because of injuries, and then they got key contributions from the likes of Cody Ransom, Chris Coste, Juan Castro, Wilson Valdez and Dane Sardinha. They had that special, extra something. True, they were younger and better, but they also made it seem that there was nothing else they would rather be doing and that they loved performing in front of their fans. When you energize the fans, they energize you right back. And while yesterday's game was on TV, there wasn't a whole lot of energizing going on.
I recall about eight years ago when the Phillies traded Bobby Abreu, their star, to the Yankees for four players who didn't pan out. Then-GM Pat Gillick remarked that he had nothing against Abreu, but that it was time to let other leaders emerge on the team and that he didn't believe they could do so until Abreu left. It wasn't anything that Abreu did per se, but it was that the energetic trio of Rollins, Utley and Howard was deferring to Abreu, who was more laid back. That addition by subtraction, as it were, helped set a great team in motion. Chemistry is key, even in a sport where players don't have to interact with each other all that much for a team to win the way they do in basketball or football. Put differently, it's hard to believe that Jonathan Papelbon adds a whole lot to the mix in the locker room.
The Phillies, of course, have other problems. Historically, their farm system hasn't been that good, and history even compels a conclusion that it wasn't all that good when it had the ability to trade prospect after prospect for the likes of Lee, Roy Oswalt and Hunter Pence. That's because none of those prospects became a star and almost none became a regular. Fast forward to today, and the cupboard down on the farm is rather bare. A big payroll and few prospects doesn't augur well for a while.
Neither does a culture that has lost its mojo.
Yesterday, in Atlanta, ace Cole Hamels went six plus before yielding his bullpen. The trio of Kenny Giles, Jake Diekman and Jonathan Papelbon helped him seal up a no-hitter. All were excellent.
That said, in the post-game interviews, you would have thought that the foursome was relieved to have survived a collective hemorrhoidectomy. Hamels smiled slightly but reverted to standard, trite post-game speech. Giles had the bill of his cap so far down that you couldn't see his eyes, and he said he was happy even if his body language told you the last place he wanted to be was on camera. Diekman was more relaxed and even mustered a smile, but his reaction was muted. And then there was Papelbon, who was arrogant with the good-natured post-game reporter and simply said it was all in a day's work. There was no joy in the man.
Attendance is down. People still remember that spark that existed through the 2011 season, which now seems like a distant memory. They realize that Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Ryan Howard aren't the players they were five years ago. They like Hamels and adore Cliff Lee. But they need something to keep them coming back and something to cheer about.
While the no-hitter most certainly is a season highlight, the pitchers' reaction seemed to indicate that it was not the biggest deal in the world and that there wasn't a lot of joy in it. Okay, so they're competitors and wish the team were doing better, fine. But at least have some fun in the moment and be happy, long season or not, hot day or not. Jimmy Rollins looked excited, and the game to a degree is about entertainment.
Teams win when they have a bounce in their step. Fans latch onto teams that they can relate to, that give off positive energy and that play to the last out. The Phillies were that team through 2011, playing at times with three bench players because of injuries, and then they got key contributions from the likes of Cody Ransom, Chris Coste, Juan Castro, Wilson Valdez and Dane Sardinha. They had that special, extra something. True, they were younger and better, but they also made it seem that there was nothing else they would rather be doing and that they loved performing in front of their fans. When you energize the fans, they energize you right back. And while yesterday's game was on TV, there wasn't a whole lot of energizing going on.
I recall about eight years ago when the Phillies traded Bobby Abreu, their star, to the Yankees for four players who didn't pan out. Then-GM Pat Gillick remarked that he had nothing against Abreu, but that it was time to let other leaders emerge on the team and that he didn't believe they could do so until Abreu left. It wasn't anything that Abreu did per se, but it was that the energetic trio of Rollins, Utley and Howard was deferring to Abreu, who was more laid back. That addition by subtraction, as it were, helped set a great team in motion. Chemistry is key, even in a sport where players don't have to interact with each other all that much for a team to win the way they do in basketball or football. Put differently, it's hard to believe that Jonathan Papelbon adds a whole lot to the mix in the locker room.
The Phillies, of course, have other problems. Historically, their farm system hasn't been that good, and history even compels a conclusion that it wasn't all that good when it had the ability to trade prospect after prospect for the likes of Lee, Roy Oswalt and Hunter Pence. That's because none of those prospects became a star and almost none became a regular. Fast forward to today, and the cupboard down on the farm is rather bare. A big payroll and few prospects doesn't augur well for a while.
Neither does a culture that has lost its mojo.
Monday, September 01, 2014
Arsenal: Were Robbie Earl and Robbie Mustoe Right?
Sadly, I think that they are.
Yesterday, on NBC's coverage, they both offered that what distinguished Jose Mourinho and Arsene Wenger was decisiveness in addressing and filling needs. Last season, after having spent buckets of money, Chelsea struggled both at midfield and upfront, owing their third-place finish in large part to a stingy defense. So what did Mourinho do? He went out and got a creative midfielder in Cesc Fabregas and striker Diego Costa. The result? Chelsea have been scoring goals the way Liverpool and Manchester City were last season.
In contrast, coming into the season Arsenal knew that it abounded in wingers, defenders and offensive-minded midfielders, but not defensive midfielders or strikers. So what did Wenger do? He went out and paid more for a winger (Alexis Sanchez) than Mourinho did for Costa, but with several hours to go on transfer deadline day -- and with key injuries at defensive midfield and striker -- he still has not acquired one of either. Atop that, Arsenal also needs an additional defender after the departure of Thomas Vermaelen to Bacelona. And despite prolific rumors on the internet, Wenger hasn't acquired Marco Reus, Edinson Cavani or Radamel Falcao, nor William Carvalho nor Sokraitis. Which means hi team remain small in size, desperately thin at striker and without anything new at defensive midfield. What looked like a season where the Gunners could finish in the top three now looks like they'll battle United for fourth, coming in behind Chelsea, City and perhaps Liverpool.
Last season, Wenger tortured the faithful until inking center mid Mesult Ozil on transfer deadline day, so there remains hope that he can improve his striker situation significantly. For, if he does not, it is hard to see the Gunners advancing meaningfully in the Champions League or winning key match ups in the Premiership. The Gunners have talent, that is true, but will they have enough offensive versatility to make opponents fear them and enable them to pour on the goal scoring. After seeing Yaya Sanogo struggle at Leicester on Sunday, it seems clear that the Gunners need help up front.
Yesterday, on NBC's coverage, they both offered that what distinguished Jose Mourinho and Arsene Wenger was decisiveness in addressing and filling needs. Last season, after having spent buckets of money, Chelsea struggled both at midfield and upfront, owing their third-place finish in large part to a stingy defense. So what did Mourinho do? He went out and got a creative midfielder in Cesc Fabregas and striker Diego Costa. The result? Chelsea have been scoring goals the way Liverpool and Manchester City were last season.
In contrast, coming into the season Arsenal knew that it abounded in wingers, defenders and offensive-minded midfielders, but not defensive midfielders or strikers. So what did Wenger do? He went out and paid more for a winger (Alexis Sanchez) than Mourinho did for Costa, but with several hours to go on transfer deadline day -- and with key injuries at defensive midfield and striker -- he still has not acquired one of either. Atop that, Arsenal also needs an additional defender after the departure of Thomas Vermaelen to Bacelona. And despite prolific rumors on the internet, Wenger hasn't acquired Marco Reus, Edinson Cavani or Radamel Falcao, nor William Carvalho nor Sokraitis. Which means hi team remain small in size, desperately thin at striker and without anything new at defensive midfield. What looked like a season where the Gunners could finish in the top three now looks like they'll battle United for fourth, coming in behind Chelsea, City and perhaps Liverpool.
Last season, Wenger tortured the faithful until inking center mid Mesult Ozil on transfer deadline day, so there remains hope that he can improve his striker situation significantly. For, if he does not, it is hard to see the Gunners advancing meaningfully in the Champions League or winning key match ups in the Premiership. The Gunners have talent, that is true, but will they have enough offensive versatility to make opponents fear them and enable them to pour on the goal scoring. After seeing Yaya Sanogo struggle at Leicester on Sunday, it seems clear that the Gunners need help up front.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
On the Premiership's Opening Day
We gathered in our Arsenal gear yesterday to watch much of the Premiership's opening day. It's hard to conclude much from one game's worth of play, but here are a few thoughts:
1. Manchester United Needs a Midfield and Experience in the Back. First home opener loss in 42 years? Yikes. Was it that hard for ManU to sign players because they are not playing Champions League football this season? Or was the turmoil too much? It's hard to reason that United are a top-4 team this season.
2. Arsenal. Predictably, it was Palace who scored first, this after their manager quit the day before. That's the guy who rallied them from a woeful start to an 11th place finish and became manager of the year. It stands to reason that Tony Pulis will be among the top candidates to step in for a Premier League squad when a team or two sacks its manager mid-season. But the Gunners rallied, first with a good header from Laurent Koscielny in stoppage time right before the end of the first half and then from a relative tap-in from usually in the right place at the right time Aaron Ramsey, who, when healthy, is one of the world's best midfielders. That said, Arsenal looked a bit tentative out there, in contrast to the pace that they had set int he Community Shield game against City. Jack Wilshere disappointed, and it's hard to see them winning the league with either Olivier Giroud or Yaya Sanogo being the two main options at striker. Of course, the squad was without defensive stalwart Per Mertesacker and playmaker Mesut Ozil, so it's hard to read too much into one game.
While it would be great for the Gunners to add three more players before the transfer window shuts, it's doubtful that a) they have the money to do so or b) they could mesh all of those players with the team now. But it seems that they might need another option at center back, a central defensive midfielder who can push people around (Patrick Viera, where are you when we need you) and a striker. The names Manolas, Carvalho, Cavani and Reus keep popping up, and it would appear that Liverpool might try to outdo whatever Arsenal does. That said, if you were in your mid-twenties with lots of cash, would you prefer to live in Liverpool or London?
3. Tottenham. Will they play much better this year because they had so many roster changes last season that it was difficult for two managers to get them to mesh? While they might not draw pre-season raves or predictions that put them in the top four, they are formidable and not to be overlooked. Then again, when you play in the league with Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Liverpool and United, among others, it's easy to get overlooked when the pundits pick the top group. Spurs' late goal once again demonstrated that any fan who forgets them does so at his peril.
4. Liverpool. I was surprised that they also didn't go for Victor Wanyama and Morgan Schneiderlin while they were signing Rickie Lambert, Dejan Lovren and Adam Lallana away from Southampton and how they could have let Luke Shaw get to United from the Saints. One thing is for certain, though, and that is when you read articles and posts from veteran writers and observers about talent pipelines, Liverpool is at the top of the heap. They will miss Luis Suarez greatly -- how could a team not miss him -- but in Daniel Sturridge and Raheem Sterling, they have a lot of firepower up front.
5. A Potentially Humorous Interlude. I have been thinking that certain Premiership players fit the bill of the "All Prison Gang" looking team. Right now, among the nominees are Martin Skrtel (who could be the skipper), his out-of-favor backfield mate Daniel Agger, Jonjo Shelvey, Raul Meireles, among others. Do you have any nominees? That's a tough-looking crew, and nominees are welcome. Shaved heads, stark hair, lots of tattoos are prerequisites for membership on this not-so-elite club.
6. Chelsea and City. Sure, I should have written about them first because they are the favorites. One of the principal differences seems to be that the ownership of the former is much less patient than the ownership of the latter. The pressure is on Chelsea to win the league for the first time since, well, Cesc Fabregas left North London for Barcelona, and should Jose Mourinho for all his talk fail to deliver, he could get sacked too. Lots of good players at Stamford Bridge, but with the mixing and matching of newcomers with veterans, the squad might take a little while to gel. That said, they open with Burnley, a promoted team that already is among many pundits' list to get relegated this season. As for City, they have to be relaxing, because much of the off-season talk has focused on Chelsea and then on Liverpool's and Arsenal's quests to add players and win the league. City stayed with the leaders last year and then pounced after Liverpool met a tragic ending to its season by playing their way out of the title. Can they repeat? It's hard to argue that they will not.
7. Everyone Else. It will be interesting to see how Southampton fares after losing so many good players, how Palace does after their wonderful season, if Everton can provide an encore to stunning year last year (and whether Romelu Lukaku emerges even further and makes Chelsea's front office look really bad), whether Hull can recover from its collapse in the FA Cup final, whether Stoke will make some noise and whether West Ham have improved significantly. I do wonder what it must be like to be a Stoke, a Hull, a Burnley, Leicester, Newcastle, Sunderland and any team not named Chelsea, City, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham. Is everyone else just playing for as high a place as 6th? Financial Fair Play rules can help level the spending a bit, but at the end of the day can any of the other 14 teams in any given year make a significant run for the title and take it?
All good fun. As for my Gunners, I hope that they can win the league, but realistically they need at least one if not two more pieces to make a serious run for the top spot. It was good for them to win a trophy last season and get that pressure off them. Now it's time to see if Arsene Wenger can add one more star to his roster and move the team forward even further.
1. Manchester United Needs a Midfield and Experience in the Back. First home opener loss in 42 years? Yikes. Was it that hard for ManU to sign players because they are not playing Champions League football this season? Or was the turmoil too much? It's hard to reason that United are a top-4 team this season.
2. Arsenal. Predictably, it was Palace who scored first, this after their manager quit the day before. That's the guy who rallied them from a woeful start to an 11th place finish and became manager of the year. It stands to reason that Tony Pulis will be among the top candidates to step in for a Premier League squad when a team or two sacks its manager mid-season. But the Gunners rallied, first with a good header from Laurent Koscielny in stoppage time right before the end of the first half and then from a relative tap-in from usually in the right place at the right time Aaron Ramsey, who, when healthy, is one of the world's best midfielders. That said, Arsenal looked a bit tentative out there, in contrast to the pace that they had set int he Community Shield game against City. Jack Wilshere disappointed, and it's hard to see them winning the league with either Olivier Giroud or Yaya Sanogo being the two main options at striker. Of course, the squad was without defensive stalwart Per Mertesacker and playmaker Mesut Ozil, so it's hard to read too much into one game.
While it would be great for the Gunners to add three more players before the transfer window shuts, it's doubtful that a) they have the money to do so or b) they could mesh all of those players with the team now. But it seems that they might need another option at center back, a central defensive midfielder who can push people around (Patrick Viera, where are you when we need you) and a striker. The names Manolas, Carvalho, Cavani and Reus keep popping up, and it would appear that Liverpool might try to outdo whatever Arsenal does. That said, if you were in your mid-twenties with lots of cash, would you prefer to live in Liverpool or London?
3. Tottenham. Will they play much better this year because they had so many roster changes last season that it was difficult for two managers to get them to mesh? While they might not draw pre-season raves or predictions that put them in the top four, they are formidable and not to be overlooked. Then again, when you play in the league with Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Liverpool and United, among others, it's easy to get overlooked when the pundits pick the top group. Spurs' late goal once again demonstrated that any fan who forgets them does so at his peril.
4. Liverpool. I was surprised that they also didn't go for Victor Wanyama and Morgan Schneiderlin while they were signing Rickie Lambert, Dejan Lovren and Adam Lallana away from Southampton and how they could have let Luke Shaw get to United from the Saints. One thing is for certain, though, and that is when you read articles and posts from veteran writers and observers about talent pipelines, Liverpool is at the top of the heap. They will miss Luis Suarez greatly -- how could a team not miss him -- but in Daniel Sturridge and Raheem Sterling, they have a lot of firepower up front.
5. A Potentially Humorous Interlude. I have been thinking that certain Premiership players fit the bill of the "All Prison Gang" looking team. Right now, among the nominees are Martin Skrtel (who could be the skipper), his out-of-favor backfield mate Daniel Agger, Jonjo Shelvey, Raul Meireles, among others. Do you have any nominees? That's a tough-looking crew, and nominees are welcome. Shaved heads, stark hair, lots of tattoos are prerequisites for membership on this not-so-elite club.
6. Chelsea and City. Sure, I should have written about them first because they are the favorites. One of the principal differences seems to be that the ownership of the former is much less patient than the ownership of the latter. The pressure is on Chelsea to win the league for the first time since, well, Cesc Fabregas left North London for Barcelona, and should Jose Mourinho for all his talk fail to deliver, he could get sacked too. Lots of good players at Stamford Bridge, but with the mixing and matching of newcomers with veterans, the squad might take a little while to gel. That said, they open with Burnley, a promoted team that already is among many pundits' list to get relegated this season. As for City, they have to be relaxing, because much of the off-season talk has focused on Chelsea and then on Liverpool's and Arsenal's quests to add players and win the league. City stayed with the leaders last year and then pounced after Liverpool met a tragic ending to its season by playing their way out of the title. Can they repeat? It's hard to argue that they will not.
7. Everyone Else. It will be interesting to see how Southampton fares after losing so many good players, how Palace does after their wonderful season, if Everton can provide an encore to stunning year last year (and whether Romelu Lukaku emerges even further and makes Chelsea's front office look really bad), whether Hull can recover from its collapse in the FA Cup final, whether Stoke will make some noise and whether West Ham have improved significantly. I do wonder what it must be like to be a Stoke, a Hull, a Burnley, Leicester, Newcastle, Sunderland and any team not named Chelsea, City, United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham. Is everyone else just playing for as high a place as 6th? Financial Fair Play rules can help level the spending a bit, but at the end of the day can any of the other 14 teams in any given year make a significant run for the title and take it?
All good fun. As for my Gunners, I hope that they can win the league, but realistically they need at least one if not two more pieces to make a serious run for the top spot. It was good for them to win a trophy last season and get that pressure off them. Now it's time to see if Arsene Wenger can add one more star to his roster and move the team forward even further.
Philadelphia and the Taney Dragons
The Taney Dragons play another game in the Little League World Series today. Mayor Michael Nutter is hosting an event in Center City to celebrate and cheer on the team. While the gathering might draw the crowds that the World Cup did, I would suspect that over 1,000 people will show up to support this wonderful team and participate in a great story.
A girl pitcher. A city team. An integrated team. A girl pitcher who is a great athlete, bright, a media star and who wants the media to talk with her teammates. They might not win it all, but this team and the people behind it are a celebration.
A celebration of humble, earnest parents coming together to give their kids a good experience. A Phil Jackson-like zen master of a manager who puts the kids and their experiences first. By doing that and emphasizing the importance of the process, the rituals and, yes, the journey, this team wins. It's not about lunatic dads roaming the sidelines, intimidating umpires and other coaches and bullying children because they themselves are frustrated with their lives and their jobs. Clearly, there's something more than that, and that's why the team is where it is.
The Taney Dragons might not win the whole thing, but they have won a lot so far and taught people from all over a great deal of good things. Sadly, bad news travels faster and grabs the headlines. And it's summertime to boot, which means that at times people's attention wanders away from the news to vacations and other things. But this is a compelling story worthy of telling and re-telling and sharing and teaching. Amidst much turmoil and disappointment (which the immediacy of news and the overall availability of it constantly helps reinforce), there is a gem from the City of Brotherly Love that bears magnification and warrants celebration.
The Taney Dragons.
You go, girl. . . and boys! You've taken so many so far already.
A girl pitcher. A city team. An integrated team. A girl pitcher who is a great athlete, bright, a media star and who wants the media to talk with her teammates. They might not win it all, but this team and the people behind it are a celebration.
A celebration of humble, earnest parents coming together to give their kids a good experience. A Phil Jackson-like zen master of a manager who puts the kids and their experiences first. By doing that and emphasizing the importance of the process, the rituals and, yes, the journey, this team wins. It's not about lunatic dads roaming the sidelines, intimidating umpires and other coaches and bullying children because they themselves are frustrated with their lives and their jobs. Clearly, there's something more than that, and that's why the team is where it is.
The Taney Dragons might not win the whole thing, but they have won a lot so far and taught people from all over a great deal of good things. Sadly, bad news travels faster and grabs the headlines. And it's summertime to boot, which means that at times people's attention wanders away from the news to vacations and other things. But this is a compelling story worthy of telling and re-telling and sharing and teaching. Amidst much turmoil and disappointment (which the immediacy of news and the overall availability of it constantly helps reinforce), there is a gem from the City of Brotherly Love that bears magnification and warrants celebration.
The Taney Dragons.
You go, girl. . . and boys! You've taken so many so far already.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Arsenal Reunion at Red Bulls Stadium Yesterday
When you try to live in the moment -- and just enjoy something and not worry about everything else that is going on in the world that you don't control and even in the one over which you might have some influence -- it's just a lot of fun. And when you reflect back on that moment -- as I am doing now -- you realize why that moment was so special -- precisely because while you will have good moments in the future, moments like that one might not recur, if only because of the passage of time.
My son is fourteen, at an age where he can tend to grunt answers and not be overly communicative. I joke with him that at times when I'd like to have a conversation I would appreciate answers in words of more than one syllable and sentences of more than one word. Which of course has led to some pretty amusing poly-syllabic two-word sentences. With a smile, because he gets it (or as much as any fourteen year-old can, and I hope he thinks I get it as much as a dad of a fourteen year-old can).
We're big Arsenal fans, having caught the magical bug that is the love of the Premiership about five years ago when we went to Arsenal's home opener in North London, got the scarves that they gave out to fans and watched the Gunners demolish Portsmouth 4-1 (Abu Diaby scored two goals; Aaron Ramsey and Thomas Vermaelen one apiece). We took the London Underground to the stadium (along with about 59,998 others, as no one drives there), sat in a sea of red, sampled the amazing Arsenal store (about the size of eight CVS drug stores), and watched some very precise ball movement and counter-attacking. We had played EA Sports FIFA for a while (I confessed to my son recently that when he was about five I would move my defenders out of the way so he could score), but that trip took our being soccer fans to a whole different level.
Over the years, we've followed the team more over the internet than watching it on television. That said, the coverage on NBC SportsChannel, both on television and streaming video, enabled us to watch almost every game last season. Last summer we got back to London to watch the Emirates Cup, a pre-season round robin that featured Arsenal, Porto, Galatasary and Napoli -- at a much better price point, too, than the home opener. We enjoyed great soccer and great weather and further galvanized our attachment to the Arsenal club.
We were particularly excited when we saw that the Gunners would be making their first appearance in a while in the U.S., in an exhibition at Red Bulls Stadium in Harrison, New Jersey, right outside New York City. Tickets on StubHub averaged about $250, but we were fortunate that we were able to obtain ticket at face value (about $46 apiece) through a friend. The thought of not having to travel all that far and expensively to see Arsenal -- even with back-ups playing a half -- and Thierry Henry -- was just too good to pass up. (A college-age kid told us that he had paid $170 apiece for he and his girlfriend on StubHub -- not sure it was worth that much money, especially given the cost of New Jersey Transit and PATH tickets atop that -- $53 for two people).
The day started in the early afternoon with a drive to Princeton Junction and a one-hour train ride to Newark's Penn Station, where we bought PATH train tickets to take a two-minute train ride to Harrison. For those traveling to crowded events, always remember to purchase round trip tickets for your journey (it avoids standing in a long line on your return trip and the potential to miss your train). From there, it was about a ten-minute walk to Red Bulls Stadium, where we ran a gauntlet of outdoor Red Bulls-oriented activities. The FA Cup, which Arsenal won last year, also was on display for those who wanted to take a photograph with it. The Red Bulls Shop, which is small, featured some Arsenal gear, and I do think that the Red Bulls missed out on a huge opportunity to align with Arsenal and open up a sizable tent store in the parking lot full of a broader and deeper variety of Arsenal gear (they would have sold, in my estimation, between $250,000 and $500,000 of merchandise -- including the new kit shirts -- had they done so).
What transpired once inside was a packed house and a fun day. We say Bergkamp, Nasri, Ozil, Mertesacker, Henry, Bendtner, van Persie, Fabregas, Vermaelen, Cazorla, Arteta, Giroud and many other jerseys -- home and away, new and old. The really current fans had the new kit jerseys, which looked very nice. My son and I had last year's -- he Chamberlain, me Ramsey, and the dry-fit shirts felt very good on a not too hot and not to humid day (but remember, if you sit in the upper deck of the stadium, because it's closed in, which is great to ward off rain, the air doesn't circulate as well as it does downstairs, and heat rises).
It was an exhibition in the purest sense, with fans rooting for good soccer as much as their own teams. Arsenal fans cheered Henry, and Red Bulls fans cheered Arsenal players. While the Red Bulls won 1-0, both sides had plenty of chances, and, among others, Henry and Aaron Ramsey of Arsenal put on some amazing dribbling skills. Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger wore a red shirt and blue pants, not his trademark blue suit with a white shirt and a red tie and, of course, not his famous black puffy coat. He also was roundly cheered.
My son and I talked about the intricate passes, the saves of both goalies, the potential of Arsenal younger Gideon Zelalem (and whether he'll play internationally for the United States), the speed that Henry still has (while people talk of him as an elder, he's only in his mid-thirties and makes the most out of his long stride), the fact that Arsenal great Ian Wright's son is a star for the Red Bulls and scored the only goal yesterday and which players the Gunners might sign in transfer season. It was just the two of us, in the upper deck, sharing a game, talking soccer.
On the way home, my son thanked me for getting the tickets and thanked me for taking him. He's nothing if not polite, nothing if not appreciative for opportunities that my guess is some kids take for granted. I'm most grateful for these opportunities, too, opportunities to share experiences, opportunities to grow together. More than he, I think, I know that these won't be as frequent five years from now as they are today. By then he'll be off at college and be more along into building his own life, emphasizing this own interests that lead to a career and perhaps a location that is not all that close to where his parents live. But I'm not sad about that or even wistful, because good relationships endure and thrive through all sorts of factors. And that's far off, too. No, I choose to celebrate the moment, to create opportunities, to make good memories.
And yesterday, at an exhibition game that required a drive and two trains to get to, we made yet another memory. Of a favorite team making a rare appearance in the United States, of nice weather, of a fun game. While I enjoy being a part of Arsenal nation, I cherish the platform that it provides to bond further with my son.
My son is fourteen, at an age where he can tend to grunt answers and not be overly communicative. I joke with him that at times when I'd like to have a conversation I would appreciate answers in words of more than one syllable and sentences of more than one word. Which of course has led to some pretty amusing poly-syllabic two-word sentences. With a smile, because he gets it (or as much as any fourteen year-old can, and I hope he thinks I get it as much as a dad of a fourteen year-old can).
We're big Arsenal fans, having caught the magical bug that is the love of the Premiership about five years ago when we went to Arsenal's home opener in North London, got the scarves that they gave out to fans and watched the Gunners demolish Portsmouth 4-1 (Abu Diaby scored two goals; Aaron Ramsey and Thomas Vermaelen one apiece). We took the London Underground to the stadium (along with about 59,998 others, as no one drives there), sat in a sea of red, sampled the amazing Arsenal store (about the size of eight CVS drug stores), and watched some very precise ball movement and counter-attacking. We had played EA Sports FIFA for a while (I confessed to my son recently that when he was about five I would move my defenders out of the way so he could score), but that trip took our being soccer fans to a whole different level.
Over the years, we've followed the team more over the internet than watching it on television. That said, the coverage on NBC SportsChannel, both on television and streaming video, enabled us to watch almost every game last season. Last summer we got back to London to watch the Emirates Cup, a pre-season round robin that featured Arsenal, Porto, Galatasary and Napoli -- at a much better price point, too, than the home opener. We enjoyed great soccer and great weather and further galvanized our attachment to the Arsenal club.
We were particularly excited when we saw that the Gunners would be making their first appearance in a while in the U.S., in an exhibition at Red Bulls Stadium in Harrison, New Jersey, right outside New York City. Tickets on StubHub averaged about $250, but we were fortunate that we were able to obtain ticket at face value (about $46 apiece) through a friend. The thought of not having to travel all that far and expensively to see Arsenal -- even with back-ups playing a half -- and Thierry Henry -- was just too good to pass up. (A college-age kid told us that he had paid $170 apiece for he and his girlfriend on StubHub -- not sure it was worth that much money, especially given the cost of New Jersey Transit and PATH tickets atop that -- $53 for two people).
The day started in the early afternoon with a drive to Princeton Junction and a one-hour train ride to Newark's Penn Station, where we bought PATH train tickets to take a two-minute train ride to Harrison. For those traveling to crowded events, always remember to purchase round trip tickets for your journey (it avoids standing in a long line on your return trip and the potential to miss your train). From there, it was about a ten-minute walk to Red Bulls Stadium, where we ran a gauntlet of outdoor Red Bulls-oriented activities. The FA Cup, which Arsenal won last year, also was on display for those who wanted to take a photograph with it. The Red Bulls Shop, which is small, featured some Arsenal gear, and I do think that the Red Bulls missed out on a huge opportunity to align with Arsenal and open up a sizable tent store in the parking lot full of a broader and deeper variety of Arsenal gear (they would have sold, in my estimation, between $250,000 and $500,000 of merchandise -- including the new kit shirts -- had they done so).
What transpired once inside was a packed house and a fun day. We say Bergkamp, Nasri, Ozil, Mertesacker, Henry, Bendtner, van Persie, Fabregas, Vermaelen, Cazorla, Arteta, Giroud and many other jerseys -- home and away, new and old. The really current fans had the new kit jerseys, which looked very nice. My son and I had last year's -- he Chamberlain, me Ramsey, and the dry-fit shirts felt very good on a not too hot and not to humid day (but remember, if you sit in the upper deck of the stadium, because it's closed in, which is great to ward off rain, the air doesn't circulate as well as it does downstairs, and heat rises).
It was an exhibition in the purest sense, with fans rooting for good soccer as much as their own teams. Arsenal fans cheered Henry, and Red Bulls fans cheered Arsenal players. While the Red Bulls won 1-0, both sides had plenty of chances, and, among others, Henry and Aaron Ramsey of Arsenal put on some amazing dribbling skills. Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger wore a red shirt and blue pants, not his trademark blue suit with a white shirt and a red tie and, of course, not his famous black puffy coat. He also was roundly cheered.
My son and I talked about the intricate passes, the saves of both goalies, the potential of Arsenal younger Gideon Zelalem (and whether he'll play internationally for the United States), the speed that Henry still has (while people talk of him as an elder, he's only in his mid-thirties and makes the most out of his long stride), the fact that Arsenal great Ian Wright's son is a star for the Red Bulls and scored the only goal yesterday and which players the Gunners might sign in transfer season. It was just the two of us, in the upper deck, sharing a game, talking soccer.
On the way home, my son thanked me for getting the tickets and thanked me for taking him. He's nothing if not polite, nothing if not appreciative for opportunities that my guess is some kids take for granted. I'm most grateful for these opportunities, too, opportunities to share experiences, opportunities to grow together. More than he, I think, I know that these won't be as frequent five years from now as they are today. By then he'll be off at college and be more along into building his own life, emphasizing this own interests that lead to a career and perhaps a location that is not all that close to where his parents live. But I'm not sad about that or even wistful, because good relationships endure and thrive through all sorts of factors. And that's far off, too. No, I choose to celebrate the moment, to create opportunities, to make good memories.
And yesterday, at an exhibition game that required a drive and two trains to get to, we made yet another memory. Of a favorite team making a rare appearance in the United States, of nice weather, of a fun game. While I enjoy being a part of Arsenal nation, I cherish the platform that it provides to bond further with my son.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Not 1, Not 2. . . Certainly Not 7 -- What LeBron James Also Implied
The decision -- rather, the announcement of it -- was ill-advised. A hard-working, earnest guy did the wrong thing, alienated an area he loved and went off to a glamorous place for glory that he helped create. No one really argued with the substance of the decision -- competitive people want to go to places where they can succeed. So, it wasn't the what, it was the how.
This time around, the how was great -- a humble article about how the self-described (see his Twitter handle) King James was returning to his hometown, a place with real meaning for him, and a place where most people his age move away from in order to find opportunity instead of moving back there. The reasoning was sound -- he wants to give back to his area, he wants to raise his kids in that area, and he wants to bring a championship back to an area starved for good news. He preached patience, but after 11 seasons of wear-and-tear on his body, it's hard to know how much of his elite tread remains before people might start talking about him the way they are talking about Dwayne Wade and Kobe Bryant now, that they used to be among the greatest but now they cannot strap a team to their backs anymore.
James's seemingly magnanimous decision -- and to a degree it is -- also is a concession that in continuing to build his brand he cannot out-Michael Jordan Michael Jordan and eclipse The Greater Player Ever's six titles in the modern era. He alluded to the possibility of seven titles during a longer Miami tenure than actually will have taken place, but by moving back to Cleveland he's finessed the comparison. Because if he delivers on a single championship in Cleveland, he'll both have played on elite stage elsewhere and won a few titles but also will have brought a title back to an area that hasn't won one in a very long time. That Michael could not do.
But it's also a concession that he won't win seven titles, won't come close, won't come close not only to Bill Russell (who is in a category of his own) but also Jordan and perhaps even Tim Duncan of the Spurs, whose outstanding career gets eclipsed because he's been, well, the best team player since number 6 laced them up for the Celtics decades before the internet and instance media and instant messaging took root. No, that's not the story, it's about good, old American values juxtaposed next to a max contract (note to fans, Duncan's contract for 2014-2015 calls for $10 million in salary, leaving plenty of money left over for teammates whose talents warrant good contracts). It's about King James, but not an autocratic king but a benevolent one, letting his loyal subjects warm to him once more and get closer to the aura of his greatness because after years conquering far away lands he's bringing it all home.
LeBron is one of the greatest players ever. I'm not sure he is the greatest, but when you are that good and in the top of the pantheon what does it really matter? By coming home to Cleveland he's coming full circle, righting a wrong that was more because of how he delivered a message than what he said, by setting an example that you can win at home and help revitalize people's thinking about an area that you hold dear. It's a great public relations story, and it's a "feel good" story as well. LeBron, after all, seems to be a pretty good guy.
But it's also a branding and business decision, one that the LeBron acolytes in the sports media -- who depend on him for access and stories -- aren't necessarily covering because they love being in the aura and they love the "Disney Sports Movie" aspect to this, so much ask that they might be a little weepy. The other story is "LeBron Conceded He is No Michael Jordan."
And that might not be such a bad thing. Michael is perhaps the most competitive person on the planet, and perhaps ever. There are good and bad sides to that. So while James is saying that he's giving up on competing with Michael, he also might be saying that you don't always build your brand by winning all the time. That's something that Michael Jordan would never do or admit. By implying this through his actions, LeBron James is saying that his brand is more than just about basketball and winning. It's about both those things and a community greater than the NBA and the basketball world. It's not clear whether he'll pull that off, but right now, that's his message.
And it's working.
This time around, the how was great -- a humble article about how the self-described (see his Twitter handle) King James was returning to his hometown, a place with real meaning for him, and a place where most people his age move away from in order to find opportunity instead of moving back there. The reasoning was sound -- he wants to give back to his area, he wants to raise his kids in that area, and he wants to bring a championship back to an area starved for good news. He preached patience, but after 11 seasons of wear-and-tear on his body, it's hard to know how much of his elite tread remains before people might start talking about him the way they are talking about Dwayne Wade and Kobe Bryant now, that they used to be among the greatest but now they cannot strap a team to their backs anymore.
James's seemingly magnanimous decision -- and to a degree it is -- also is a concession that in continuing to build his brand he cannot out-Michael Jordan Michael Jordan and eclipse The Greater Player Ever's six titles in the modern era. He alluded to the possibility of seven titles during a longer Miami tenure than actually will have taken place, but by moving back to Cleveland he's finessed the comparison. Because if he delivers on a single championship in Cleveland, he'll both have played on elite stage elsewhere and won a few titles but also will have brought a title back to an area that hasn't won one in a very long time. That Michael could not do.
But it's also a concession that he won't win seven titles, won't come close, won't come close not only to Bill Russell (who is in a category of his own) but also Jordan and perhaps even Tim Duncan of the Spurs, whose outstanding career gets eclipsed because he's been, well, the best team player since number 6 laced them up for the Celtics decades before the internet and instance media and instant messaging took root. No, that's not the story, it's about good, old American values juxtaposed next to a max contract (note to fans, Duncan's contract for 2014-2015 calls for $10 million in salary, leaving plenty of money left over for teammates whose talents warrant good contracts). It's about King James, but not an autocratic king but a benevolent one, letting his loyal subjects warm to him once more and get closer to the aura of his greatness because after years conquering far away lands he's bringing it all home.
LeBron is one of the greatest players ever. I'm not sure he is the greatest, but when you are that good and in the top of the pantheon what does it really matter? By coming home to Cleveland he's coming full circle, righting a wrong that was more because of how he delivered a message than what he said, by setting an example that you can win at home and help revitalize people's thinking about an area that you hold dear. It's a great public relations story, and it's a "feel good" story as well. LeBron, after all, seems to be a pretty good guy.
But it's also a branding and business decision, one that the LeBron acolytes in the sports media -- who depend on him for access and stories -- aren't necessarily covering because they love being in the aura and they love the "Disney Sports Movie" aspect to this, so much ask that they might be a little weepy. The other story is "LeBron Conceded He is No Michael Jordan."
And that might not be such a bad thing. Michael is perhaps the most competitive person on the planet, and perhaps ever. There are good and bad sides to that. So while James is saying that he's giving up on competing with Michael, he also might be saying that you don't always build your brand by winning all the time. That's something that Michael Jordan would never do or admit. By implying this through his actions, LeBron James is saying that his brand is more than just about basketball and winning. It's about both those things and a community greater than the NBA and the basketball world. It's not clear whether he'll pull that off, but right now, that's his message.
And it's working.
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Whither Wimbledon?
The tennis is good.
The setting is historic.
The commentators seem good.
But how many people are watching?
It's amazing how television coverage and sports coverage has progressed almost to the point that you can catch almost any game you want to at any time. That phenomenon seemingly has had two results -- one to dilute the viewership for all but the most compelling events (e.g., the World Cup) and to reduce the appeal of the tennis majors because my so-called scarcity factor has evaporated. As for the latter, when there were seven television channels (and the dreaded UHF channels had trouble staying in focus on perhaps carried only your local baseball team), we watched Wimbledon in part because there wasn't much else covered on TV at the time. True, there were compelling figures, but the network that covered tennis made them all the more compelling because there wasn't nearly as much to watch on TV. Today, with much more choice -- including sports that appeal to bigger groups of people -- tennis has become almost an afterthought.
Is it because there isn't a good crop of Americans outside the Williams' sisters, who are near or at the end of their run? Is it because with the advances in technology there isn't as much drama in the "smash and volley" tennis that there was when the points were longer? Is it because so many players cycle through that it's hard to develop a following for any one particular player? Or is it because the game is as good as it ever was, but other sports have surpassed it? My guess is that it's a combination of the two.
The setting is historic.
The commentators seem good.
But how many people are watching?
It's amazing how television coverage and sports coverage has progressed almost to the point that you can catch almost any game you want to at any time. That phenomenon seemingly has had two results -- one to dilute the viewership for all but the most compelling events (e.g., the World Cup) and to reduce the appeal of the tennis majors because my so-called scarcity factor has evaporated. As for the latter, when there were seven television channels (and the dreaded UHF channels had trouble staying in focus on perhaps carried only your local baseball team), we watched Wimbledon in part because there wasn't much else covered on TV at the time. True, there were compelling figures, but the network that covered tennis made them all the more compelling because there wasn't nearly as much to watch on TV. Today, with much more choice -- including sports that appeal to bigger groups of people -- tennis has become almost an afterthought.
Is it because there isn't a good crop of Americans outside the Williams' sisters, who are near or at the end of their run? Is it because with the advances in technology there isn't as much drama in the "smash and volley" tennis that there was when the points were longer? Is it because so many players cycle through that it's hard to develop a following for any one particular player? Or is it because the game is as good as it ever was, but other sports have surpassed it? My guess is that it's a combination of the two.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Key for USA Soccer: Believe That You Can Play the Full 90 Plus Stoppage Time. . . and You Can Win
I've frequently thought that any team in the same league or tournament can stay with another team for about 75-80 minutes. Between the pressure, the advance talk, the weather, injuries, who's fit, who's in form and the like, underdogs can hang with the favorites for a long time. But what the Round of 16 has demonstrated thus far in the World Cup has been that it's what happens after that that distinguishes who advances from who goes home. And in all instances, it's been the favorite that has advanced.
The U.S. should take note of this fact as it enters its game against favored Belgium, which won its group, tomorrow. The U.S. almost tasted disaster in its game against Portugal by failing to play intensely for the entire game -- the Americans outplayed Portugal for almost the whole game, only to suffer a defensive lapse within thirty seconds of the game's end that caused a game in which they had all but earned a victory and the precious three points that came with it into a tie and some serious doubt about whether they would advance at all. If that game didn't bring home the message to the U.S. that they have to sprint through the finish line, many games in the Round of 16 have.
The Dutch were on the verge of going home going into the late minutes in their game against Mexico. Perhaps the favored Orange had swelled heads. After all, they were overlooked in the Group Stage, only to emerge as the most likely of any Round of 16 grouping of four to advance (thanks to Spain's surprise exit). The Mexicans had a good tournament, but in the 88th minute the Dutch scored to tie it, and then they scored the game-winner in stoppage time (okay that was controversial, but it was what it was). I am sure that many members of the Mexican team wish they had the last two minutes or so of that game to play again.
Fast forward to today, when the heavily favored Germans continued to fail convert excellent changes against Algeria. The game went to Extra Time, and finally the Germans scored and then scored again. Valiant play by the Algerian goalkeeper kept the game close, but the Algerians failed to create many chances. Perhaps it was a case of the better team wearing the underdog down, but the Algerians failed to get it done. That's probably not as good an example as is the Netherlands-Mexico contest, but outside the French, the favorites all had tough games.
I remain convinced that the U.S. should attack the Belgians early and hard. True, the Belgians are playing a confounding (for fans) conservative style that has proved to be the best defense against striker Romelu Lukaku that the promising young striker has seen all year -- his own team's strategy has taken him out of the game. It would be easy for the U.S. to play into this strategy, play possum, and only take what the Belgians give, but that would be a mistake. That would mean that the U.S. would agree to keep the ball stuck at midfield and not attack. If that's the case, count on the Red Devils to awaken in the middle of the second half, push the throttle on their idling engine, and push ahead hard and score a decisive goal. The Belgians have won all three of their games in this fashion
The problem with a "hang with the Belgians" strategy is that the favorites typically have more at the end to win -- better penalty takers, players who are more creative, players with more stamina, and they figure out a way to win. Instead, the U.S. should consider hitting a relatively tentative and uncoordinated Belgian team with an aggressive strategy early. True, they might risk a few long balls over the top of defensive lines that are moved up, but they also might create more chances and bloody the nose of the Red Devils. Score early, and the U.S. will throw a wrench into the Belgian engine from which Belgium might not be able to recover.
All that said, the U.S. needs to ensure that it plays in top form in the last ten minutes of the game, especially if they are ahead or the game is tied. Take the extra run, challenge the extra pass, make the extra play -- each of those things could make a crucial difference in the game's outcome. That's what seemingly is distinguishing the teams that are advancing -- they have more left in the tank at the end, and they can close out the game and win.
The U.S. should take note of this fact as it enters its game against favored Belgium, which won its group, tomorrow. The U.S. almost tasted disaster in its game against Portugal by failing to play intensely for the entire game -- the Americans outplayed Portugal for almost the whole game, only to suffer a defensive lapse within thirty seconds of the game's end that caused a game in which they had all but earned a victory and the precious three points that came with it into a tie and some serious doubt about whether they would advance at all. If that game didn't bring home the message to the U.S. that they have to sprint through the finish line, many games in the Round of 16 have.
The Dutch were on the verge of going home going into the late minutes in their game against Mexico. Perhaps the favored Orange had swelled heads. After all, they were overlooked in the Group Stage, only to emerge as the most likely of any Round of 16 grouping of four to advance (thanks to Spain's surprise exit). The Mexicans had a good tournament, but in the 88th minute the Dutch scored to tie it, and then they scored the game-winner in stoppage time (okay that was controversial, but it was what it was). I am sure that many members of the Mexican team wish they had the last two minutes or so of that game to play again.
Fast forward to today, when the heavily favored Germans continued to fail convert excellent changes against Algeria. The game went to Extra Time, and finally the Germans scored and then scored again. Valiant play by the Algerian goalkeeper kept the game close, but the Algerians failed to create many chances. Perhaps it was a case of the better team wearing the underdog down, but the Algerians failed to get it done. That's probably not as good an example as is the Netherlands-Mexico contest, but outside the French, the favorites all had tough games.
I remain convinced that the U.S. should attack the Belgians early and hard. True, the Belgians are playing a confounding (for fans) conservative style that has proved to be the best defense against striker Romelu Lukaku that the promising young striker has seen all year -- his own team's strategy has taken him out of the game. It would be easy for the U.S. to play into this strategy, play possum, and only take what the Belgians give, but that would be a mistake. That would mean that the U.S. would agree to keep the ball stuck at midfield and not attack. If that's the case, count on the Red Devils to awaken in the middle of the second half, push the throttle on their idling engine, and push ahead hard and score a decisive goal. The Belgians have won all three of their games in this fashion
The problem with a "hang with the Belgians" strategy is that the favorites typically have more at the end to win -- better penalty takers, players who are more creative, players with more stamina, and they figure out a way to win. Instead, the U.S. should consider hitting a relatively tentative and uncoordinated Belgian team with an aggressive strategy early. True, they might risk a few long balls over the top of defensive lines that are moved up, but they also might create more chances and bloody the nose of the Red Devils. Score early, and the U.S. will throw a wrench into the Belgian engine from which Belgium might not be able to recover.
All that said, the U.S. needs to ensure that it plays in top form in the last ten minutes of the game, especially if they are ahead or the game is tied. Take the extra run, challenge the extra pass, make the extra play -- each of those things could make a crucial difference in the game's outcome. That's what seemingly is distinguishing the teams that are advancing -- they have more left in the tank at the end, and they can close out the game and win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)