Worth watching if you are the type that watches auto racing for the crashes.
The head coach is an aggregator, a snake oil salesman, but far from a molder of men. A huckster, a hipster, with little in the way of the traits that you like to see developed in your own kids. Zero humility, tries to pass for wisdom what is his unique version of, in his own mind, street smarts. Profane, ill-mannered, uncouth. Makes for good TV, but not for a good life.
Talk about college players having zero leverage. You end up at a football bordello like Independence because you have nowhere else to go. You are desperate to get to the FCS or FBS, you had character or academic lapses or both, and you as a poor kid make your deal with one of many devils -- the dictators/predators who run these banana republic fiefdoms for their own personal glory. The head coaches anesthetize themselves by keeping kids eligible so that they can go on to play at four-year schools. Whether the kids belong in college is open to debate; the "system," as it were is at best paternalistic and at worst exploitative and racist -- using the kids without compensating them meaningfully. These kids can be like cans that get kicked down the road -- all with a view of providing players to the big-time schools. What would be more interesting is to see what happens to them within five years. Do they get their degrees? Are their degrees helping them make a good living? Or does the system chew them up and spit them out.
The head coach tries to come across as the hero, albeit someone who runs his program on his own terms. The junior college president at best is naïve and at worst has prostituted his mission in order to gain some fame for his school that has eluded his other programs. The question is why and at what cost?
It is interesting watching. I feel for each and every one of these kids. They are young, some are desperate, some spoiled, some frustrated, some in need for honest-to-God therapy for what they have gone through in life. But they are kids, mostly poor kids.
They deserve better than this wacky system provides them.
Friday, August 31, 2018
The Early Part of FBS College Football Season is Stupid (for the Most Part)
Silly.
Insulting.
Who cares?
Yeah, Texas A&M beat up on FCS Northwestern State last night in Aggieville. Sure, the alums got to have a few pops and tailgate, the Aggies got to kiss their dates, the home team got a win. But what does the game mean?
Absolutely nothing.
Zilch.
Why? Because no one who counts will give the game any credence when it comes to determining whether premium-paid head coach Jimbo Fisher's team is worthy of a playoff bid. The opponent was an FCS team; the Aggies were supposed to block them all the way into the cheap seats. And poor Northwestern State's players. What good comes out of a game like this? What character is built or revealed when your school gets paid an appearance fee to help its coffers so that you can be a tune-up game for an FBS team?
None.
Zilch.
The game is dangerous enough. The stakes are high enough. It makes no sense to schedule cupcake games. Player fewer games if they have to in order to look out for the physical welfare of the players, who are in a plantation-like system with zero leverage and zero post-playing benefits should they suffer injuries that could be debilitating for them. But playing games like these? There is no purpose.
Period.
Insulting.
Who cares?
Yeah, Texas A&M beat up on FCS Northwestern State last night in Aggieville. Sure, the alums got to have a few pops and tailgate, the Aggies got to kiss their dates, the home team got a win. But what does the game mean?
Absolutely nothing.
Zilch.
Why? Because no one who counts will give the game any credence when it comes to determining whether premium-paid head coach Jimbo Fisher's team is worthy of a playoff bid. The opponent was an FCS team; the Aggies were supposed to block them all the way into the cheap seats. And poor Northwestern State's players. What good comes out of a game like this? What character is built or revealed when your school gets paid an appearance fee to help its coffers so that you can be a tune-up game for an FBS team?
None.
Zilch.
The game is dangerous enough. The stakes are high enough. It makes no sense to schedule cupcake games. Player fewer games if they have to in order to look out for the physical welfare of the players, who are in a plantation-like system with zero leverage and zero post-playing benefits should they suffer injuries that could be debilitating for them. But playing games like these? There is no purpose.
Period.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
On Urban Meyer
What's the standard? What do we want our legacy to be? What do we want others to say about us? How will this conduct -- or absence of action -- look if it makes the newspapers? How would we feel if Courtney Smith were our mother, sister, daughter, friend? How do we deal with colleagues who have significant problems? Is having a criminal record or doing something criminal but uncharged or unpleaded or unproven enough to lose one's job? What is the standard? Is it that there was no cause under a contract to terminate a highly paid professional without paying him $40 million? Was it that key players said they would sit out the season and transfer if the head coach were fired? Was the school worried about losing an edge in recruiting were the coach to be terminated? What does "deliberately lied" mean? Isn't lying bad enough without having to qualify it with an adjective? What is the significance of the cognitive impairment as to the employee's memory? Does it mean that he gets a pass on this situation? Or wouldn't the university be worried that this impairment negatively effects the employee's ability to perform the required roles of his job? What about accountability? Who, precisely, is accountable for what? What about the employee's conduct? Can he talk with his players with a straight face about their accountability? What about his contrition? How can he expect more from his players when he looked like someone who was forced to read something he didn't believe in, as if he were a hostage in a far away land? What if the employee hadn't had the record of success that this employee has had? What if the sport were tennis, one that few pay attention to and one that generates no revenue? Then what?
These questions swirl and swirl and will continue to swirl. There is an idolatry about college football and the men who coach it in certain bastions around the country -- Tuscaloosa, Alabama, State College, Pennsylvania, Columbus, Ohio, among others. What is the brand that the trustees of Ohio State are trying to build, enhance and protect? What is the message that they are trying to send? Did Urban Meyer do enough? And even if he didn't do enough, should he be fired for not doing enough? Is he the first boss who kept a favorite on his team, a favorite with significant character issues? Did those character issues affect that coach's performance? To what degree does what one does outside the workplace read onto the workplace? Are we holding Urban Meyer to a standard that many cannot meet? Does it make a difference that what happened is in a college setting? Does it make a difference that parents put their children into the stewardship of Urban Meyer and his coaching staff -- an autocratic, unforgiving environment in the best of times?
Shouldn't it matter that Zach Smith repeatedly committed character violations? Should it matter that he had problems dating back as far as nine years and that Urban Meyer gave him chance after chance after chance? Did Meyer do it out of blind loyalty to Smith's grandfather, former Ohio State coach Earle Bruce? Or did Meyer keep him aboard because Smith was a good coach and wanted to keep an eye on him and hope to influence Smith to be a better person, to get help, and to supervise him? Didn't Meyer realize that lives were at stake and that one bad character can tarnish the reputation of the entire football program? In two different locations?
Most importantly, what about Courtney Smith and all victims of spousal abuse? Doesn't she matter? Aren't there bigger issues at stake -- such as the safety of the entire university community? And isn't that much more important than the brand of the football team and who is coaching it? And wasn't the safety of Courtney Smith and her children more important than anything else the trustees of Ohio State can think of?
The questions are swirling. And they will continue to swirl. This is not the easiest of situations, but after last night it seems that everyone lost. Ohio State lost, the Ohio State football program lost, Coach Meyer and his coaching staff lost. And, sure, no one wins in a situation with facts as ugly as the ones presented. But last night you had an administration suspend a coach for three non-league games, suspend the athletic director (who seemingly has less power than his key employee, Urban Meyer) for six weeks. They avoid a contractual dispute with Meyer to the tune of $40 million, they avoid players transferring and recruits avoiding contact with Ohio State coaches and going to play for rivals. They will continue to fill the stadium. The idolators will continue to wrap their identifies around the Buckeyes, the Horseshoe, their idiosyncratic rationales why the head coach remains on the job and their unchallengeable belief in the institution that is Ohio State football.
And then there is Coach Meyer. He won, didn't he? He keeps his job, gets to pass go and collect his $40 million dollars. He gets to keep one of the top head coaching jobs in the country, gets a chance to build on his number of national championships. He gets to continue to do what he loves. But at what price? Many will not look at him the same way again. Many will believe that Ohio State checked all the boxes on its investigation but that the trustees premeditated that it would come out this way. Many will believe that he relied on a peculiar excuse to get a pass in a very serious situation. And many will have linger doubts every time Meyer talks whether his memory is accurately or what he is saying comes from his mouth deliberately or in some other way.
Urban Meyer thinks he did nothing wrong. He fought for what he believed in -- which is himself, his legacy, his longevity, his contract, the $40 million dollars. He can continue to believe and think what he wants.
But so can everyone else.
Ohio State did not conclude anything here. It just started a raging debate over the absolute control head coaches and football programs have over some boards of trustees and college presidents and what is or is not appropriate conduct by a head football coach.
And does it have to be about laws, charges, what is proven or not proven, convictions, plea bargains?
Or can it just be about culture? A culture of being forthcoming, a culture of accountability, a culture of doing the right thing regardless of whether law enforcement is involved.
Urban Meyer and his supporters won last night.
The question now is -- what did they win and who did they beat?
These questions swirl and swirl and will continue to swirl. There is an idolatry about college football and the men who coach it in certain bastions around the country -- Tuscaloosa, Alabama, State College, Pennsylvania, Columbus, Ohio, among others. What is the brand that the trustees of Ohio State are trying to build, enhance and protect? What is the message that they are trying to send? Did Urban Meyer do enough? And even if he didn't do enough, should he be fired for not doing enough? Is he the first boss who kept a favorite on his team, a favorite with significant character issues? Did those character issues affect that coach's performance? To what degree does what one does outside the workplace read onto the workplace? Are we holding Urban Meyer to a standard that many cannot meet? Does it make a difference that what happened is in a college setting? Does it make a difference that parents put their children into the stewardship of Urban Meyer and his coaching staff -- an autocratic, unforgiving environment in the best of times?
Shouldn't it matter that Zach Smith repeatedly committed character violations? Should it matter that he had problems dating back as far as nine years and that Urban Meyer gave him chance after chance after chance? Did Meyer do it out of blind loyalty to Smith's grandfather, former Ohio State coach Earle Bruce? Or did Meyer keep him aboard because Smith was a good coach and wanted to keep an eye on him and hope to influence Smith to be a better person, to get help, and to supervise him? Didn't Meyer realize that lives were at stake and that one bad character can tarnish the reputation of the entire football program? In two different locations?
Most importantly, what about Courtney Smith and all victims of spousal abuse? Doesn't she matter? Aren't there bigger issues at stake -- such as the safety of the entire university community? And isn't that much more important than the brand of the football team and who is coaching it? And wasn't the safety of Courtney Smith and her children more important than anything else the trustees of Ohio State can think of?
The questions are swirling. And they will continue to swirl. This is not the easiest of situations, but after last night it seems that everyone lost. Ohio State lost, the Ohio State football program lost, Coach Meyer and his coaching staff lost. And, sure, no one wins in a situation with facts as ugly as the ones presented. But last night you had an administration suspend a coach for three non-league games, suspend the athletic director (who seemingly has less power than his key employee, Urban Meyer) for six weeks. They avoid a contractual dispute with Meyer to the tune of $40 million, they avoid players transferring and recruits avoiding contact with Ohio State coaches and going to play for rivals. They will continue to fill the stadium. The idolators will continue to wrap their identifies around the Buckeyes, the Horseshoe, their idiosyncratic rationales why the head coach remains on the job and their unchallengeable belief in the institution that is Ohio State football.
And then there is Coach Meyer. He won, didn't he? He keeps his job, gets to pass go and collect his $40 million dollars. He gets to keep one of the top head coaching jobs in the country, gets a chance to build on his number of national championships. He gets to continue to do what he loves. But at what price? Many will not look at him the same way again. Many will believe that Ohio State checked all the boxes on its investigation but that the trustees premeditated that it would come out this way. Many will believe that he relied on a peculiar excuse to get a pass in a very serious situation. And many will have linger doubts every time Meyer talks whether his memory is accurately or what he is saying comes from his mouth deliberately or in some other way.
Urban Meyer thinks he did nothing wrong. He fought for what he believed in -- which is himself, his legacy, his longevity, his contract, the $40 million dollars. He can continue to believe and think what he wants.
But so can everyone else.
Ohio State did not conclude anything here. It just started a raging debate over the absolute control head coaches and football programs have over some boards of trustees and college presidents and what is or is not appropriate conduct by a head football coach.
And does it have to be about laws, charges, what is proven or not proven, convictions, plea bargains?
Or can it just be about culture? A culture of being forthcoming, a culture of accountability, a culture of doing the right thing regardless of whether law enforcement is involved.
Urban Meyer and his supporters won last night.
The question now is -- what did they win and who did they beat?
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Guilt Watching Football
They say in certain parts of the United States that there are two sports -- football and spring football. Football means big dollars for those universities who play it well and has some, if difficult to define, value at schools whose players play before sparse crowds and have little if any chance to play professionally. But football programs are not moneymakers at most schools; the stats suggest that at FBS schools only one in five make money. And if you look at the costs involved in running a football program at the collegiate level, well, they are high. At some colleges you might see more personnel attending to the football program -- which services say 100 kids -- than there are deans to administer to a student body that can number in the thousands if not more.
The NFL, of course, is a big business.
At colleges and in the pros, fans can turn out to tailgate, bond, have fun, eat, drink, cheer, what have you. They devote entire weekends at times to doing just this. People also bet on games, because the theory is that football is the easiest game to bet on -- there is a point spread. In every other professional sport you get a set of numbers -- you have to bet $2200 on Manchester City to win $100 in a match versus Huddersfield, or $170 to win a $100 if you have the Phillies at home over the Marlins.
Football players suffer horrific injuries. Some end seasons; others can end careers. Players play with injuries that might have a civilian walk with a limp or on medication for a month. The long-term effects are stunning. Pick up a magazine, a newspaper, a twitter feed, and almost every day you read a story about the long-term effects of the game. From Ricky Dixon to George Andrie to Antwaan Randle-El to Kevin Turner to Andre Waters, the list goes on and on. And atop that, the horrors that have persisted for former players and their families to collect funds from the class-action lawsuit settlement fund, whether it be callous, uniformed rejections of claims to unscrupulous lawyers trying to get a slice of the settlements.
Yet, we still root. We go to parades when our teams win, and we adjust our weekends to make sure we will be available to watch our team on Sundays or in the playoffs. Is this a Christians versus Lions thing? A gladiator thing? What urges or needs are we satisfying if we feel compelled to watch young men -- most of whom are carrying way too much weight according to various healthy weight standards -- bash at each other week after week so that one team can get this oddly shaped ball across a goal line to rack up points? Would we, ourselves, want to take the risks that for short-term glory and big bucks (and, yes, the average pro career is about 3 seasons and many players end up broke, depressed or divorced after their careers end) in exchange for long-term damage to our mental and physical well-being? Would we want our friends or loved ones to do this?
I am by no means an expert on how people make decisions, but how they make decisions fascinate me. Some go by reason, some go by feel, others go by experience, and yet others go by impulse or emotion. My sense is that people lie to themselves that their favorite players will be okay or that their fandom is justified because the players know and assume the risks and therefore if they get maimed or cognitively impaired, well, that comes with the territory and it's not their -- the fans' -- problem. Or they just don't think about it, period. But the evidence is there -- young men are getting hurt and impaired for the long-term. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
The pageantry, logos, uniforms, choreography and physical talent attract, tantalize and enchant the fans. But I, for one, watch with great ambivalence and great reserve. Sure, I like my hometown team, and I want them to beat the teams from other cities, especially those whose fans disrespect the area where I grew up (and there are many, as that is Philadelphia). But I didn't feel the rush when the Eagles won that I felt in 2008 when the Phillies won the World Series or 1983 when the 76ers won the NBA title. Perhaps it's because I like those teams and sports better; I went to those teams' games with my father, who died young. Or perhaps it's because I don't like the fact that impressionable young men are being sacrificed for the glory of wealthy institutions who, in the end, treat them like commodities, especially at the college level, where the Lord-like coaches get paid huge sums while the players are subject to all sorts of ridiculous rules that virtually indenture them to a school with little compensation or recourse.
The facts are there. Young men are getting hurt, and far worse, impaired. This game is hazardous to their health. If football were a cigarette, it would come with a "black box" warning that exclaims that participating in it is hazardous to a player's health and could kill him. Does football at all levels have a better lobbying group than the tobacco industry did? Or does the general population just like football more?
We all should think about how we will feel about our society fifty years from now when more data emerges, data that suggests even more long-term danger for participants. And, given the size and speed of the players, football fifty years from now, if it exists, will resemble a combination of Greco-Roman wrestling (only using the upper body), flag football and rugby -- with almost no hitting allowed.
And, believe it or not, American civilization will survive and might even like the newly configured game.
Because right now, it is hurting former players' quality of live, cutting lives short, and, yes, killing people.
The NFL, of course, is a big business.
At colleges and in the pros, fans can turn out to tailgate, bond, have fun, eat, drink, cheer, what have you. They devote entire weekends at times to doing just this. People also bet on games, because the theory is that football is the easiest game to bet on -- there is a point spread. In every other professional sport you get a set of numbers -- you have to bet $2200 on Manchester City to win $100 in a match versus Huddersfield, or $170 to win a $100 if you have the Phillies at home over the Marlins.
Football players suffer horrific injuries. Some end seasons; others can end careers. Players play with injuries that might have a civilian walk with a limp or on medication for a month. The long-term effects are stunning. Pick up a magazine, a newspaper, a twitter feed, and almost every day you read a story about the long-term effects of the game. From Ricky Dixon to George Andrie to Antwaan Randle-El to Kevin Turner to Andre Waters, the list goes on and on. And atop that, the horrors that have persisted for former players and their families to collect funds from the class-action lawsuit settlement fund, whether it be callous, uniformed rejections of claims to unscrupulous lawyers trying to get a slice of the settlements.
Yet, we still root. We go to parades when our teams win, and we adjust our weekends to make sure we will be available to watch our team on Sundays or in the playoffs. Is this a Christians versus Lions thing? A gladiator thing? What urges or needs are we satisfying if we feel compelled to watch young men -- most of whom are carrying way too much weight according to various healthy weight standards -- bash at each other week after week so that one team can get this oddly shaped ball across a goal line to rack up points? Would we, ourselves, want to take the risks that for short-term glory and big bucks (and, yes, the average pro career is about 3 seasons and many players end up broke, depressed or divorced after their careers end) in exchange for long-term damage to our mental and physical well-being? Would we want our friends or loved ones to do this?
I am by no means an expert on how people make decisions, but how they make decisions fascinate me. Some go by reason, some go by feel, others go by experience, and yet others go by impulse or emotion. My sense is that people lie to themselves that their favorite players will be okay or that their fandom is justified because the players know and assume the risks and therefore if they get maimed or cognitively impaired, well, that comes with the territory and it's not their -- the fans' -- problem. Or they just don't think about it, period. But the evidence is there -- young men are getting hurt and impaired for the long-term. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
The pageantry, logos, uniforms, choreography and physical talent attract, tantalize and enchant the fans. But I, for one, watch with great ambivalence and great reserve. Sure, I like my hometown team, and I want them to beat the teams from other cities, especially those whose fans disrespect the area where I grew up (and there are many, as that is Philadelphia). But I didn't feel the rush when the Eagles won that I felt in 2008 when the Phillies won the World Series or 1983 when the 76ers won the NBA title. Perhaps it's because I like those teams and sports better; I went to those teams' games with my father, who died young. Or perhaps it's because I don't like the fact that impressionable young men are being sacrificed for the glory of wealthy institutions who, in the end, treat them like commodities, especially at the college level, where the Lord-like coaches get paid huge sums while the players are subject to all sorts of ridiculous rules that virtually indenture them to a school with little compensation or recourse.
The facts are there. Young men are getting hurt, and far worse, impaired. This game is hazardous to their health. If football were a cigarette, it would come with a "black box" warning that exclaims that participating in it is hazardous to a player's health and could kill him. Does football at all levels have a better lobbying group than the tobacco industry did? Or does the general population just like football more?
We all should think about how we will feel about our society fifty years from now when more data emerges, data that suggests even more long-term danger for participants. And, given the size and speed of the players, football fifty years from now, if it exists, will resemble a combination of Greco-Roman wrestling (only using the upper body), flag football and rugby -- with almost no hitting allowed.
And, believe it or not, American civilization will survive and might even like the newly configured game.
Because right now, it is hurting former players' quality of live, cutting lives short, and, yes, killing people.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Suggestions for Improving Baseball and Making it More Attractive for a Younger Fan Base
I exchanged texts this morning with a friend who recently retired from a distinguished career in broadcast journalism. We were reminiscing over the days when we went to baseball games that ended in less than two hours. My favorite was when the Phillies beat the Padres at Veterans Stadium 4-2 in less than 1:30 featuring a match-up of Hall of Famer Steve Carlton and ace Randy Jones, who put together several great seasons in the mid-1970's. His featured a match-up in San Diego featuring Jim Kaat, who had a long and distinguished career in the big leagues.
Today, the average age of a fan is 55. The average game takes well over 3 hours to play. The ball is in play less and less thanks to theories involving taking pitches, striking out, launch angles, the value of home runs and the like. Tickets are expensive despite the fierce competition for the average fan's entertainment dollar. Climate change also can make it more unbearable to sit outside for a lengthy period of time.
The most significant changes that baseball made over the past 50 years involved lowering the height of the pitcher's mound in response to dwindling batting averages in the late 1960's and early 1970's, adding the designated hitter in the American League and enforcing the strike zone rule (and holding umpires accountable if they did not do so). The latter meant that effectively umpires had no leeway in calling the lower 18 inches of the zone a strike, and many were reluctant to do so. Again, effectively, that meant that pitchers had a much larger strike zone to play with and developed pitches to take advantage of the more strict enforcement (read: sinkers, splitters). That change took place about 10 years ago.
There are several changes that baseball should consider in order to add more offense to the game and to quicken games, as follows:
1. Enforce time limits in between pitches, in between at bats and in between innings. How many fans have been to minor league games that end in 2:15 or less -- without any sacrificing of the quality of the product?
2. Create the following rule -- every pitcher inserted into a game must pitch to a minimum of three batters in an inning or until the end of the inning (so that a team can pinch-hit for him if it's his turn in the lineup after getting two outs in the prior half inning) and no more than one pitching change per inning (unless a pitcher gets hurt). This will eliminate the specialization of relievers.
3. Consider, for fun, letting a team have a third catcher available in the stands, a la the "emergency goalie" in the NHL that creates good will among the fans. In this fashion, the team can have an "emergency" catcher should the back-up get used as a pinch-hitter or himself have to enter the game because of injury.
4. Study lowering the pitching mound. . . again. . . and what the effect of doing so might have on offenses.
5. Eliminate shifts. Every position must have a fielder in its designated area.
6. Add the DH to the National League. Who wants to see a pitcher hit? You wouldn't want your plumber to try to tear up and re-do your path if he is not a mason, so why have pitchers hit if they hardly practice hitting?
7. Sponsor "The Great American Home Run Hitting Contest" in regions around the country and put up a big prize. You can run regionals at minor-league parks and then culminate the challenge at a fan fest before Game 1 of the World Series. This might spike interest in the game, too.
8. Stop being greedy about the times when you feature post-season games. Do all of them have to start at 8:30 at night? By the time a game might get interesting (that is, after the starting pitcher goes through the lineup once or twice), kids have to go to sleep and get ready for school. Try having games start at 6 p.m. or have an afternoon game every now and then. Even adults who have to get up and go to work might not watch the Series unless their team is involved.
9. Figure out a way to have the average fan not feel stupid and relate to the game. It's great that the teams rely on stats -- they were ignorant for decades, but even fans with advanced degrees cannot make heads or tails of "Baseball Prospectus" or the metrics that teams deploy. In "Men at Work," the late Hall-of-Fame outfielder Tony Gwynn described is approach to being a great hitter thusly -- "See the ball, hit the ball." Today you need a masters in higher math to understand how teams are evaluating players and getting their hitters and pitchers to change their approaches. What's the fun in that?
10. Consider shortening games to 7 innings. The average human attention span once was 22 minutes; now some argue it's under 10 seconds. Sure, there are a lot of details here -- from how much to pay players to how this might have an effect on pitchers and rosters, but if the practical effect were to ensure that a game would take only two hours to play, I think that more fans might be attracted to the product.
11. Finally, baseball needs to get out of this rut of strikeouts, walks and home runs, needs to create more situations where there can be two-out rallies and balls hit off the wall. Perhaps some of the changes I outline above might help accomplish this goal. But let's face it, no one wants to go watch a game that ends 3-1 that takes 3:30, that featured 10 pitchers, 23 strikeouts, 8 walks and 4 solo home runs. Sure, a win's a win, but paying $50 a ticket for a family of four plus parking and concessions is a lot to task for that type of product. Especially when there are so many alternatives on which to spend one's disposable income.
Food for thought. Your thoughts?
Today, the average age of a fan is 55. The average game takes well over 3 hours to play. The ball is in play less and less thanks to theories involving taking pitches, striking out, launch angles, the value of home runs and the like. Tickets are expensive despite the fierce competition for the average fan's entertainment dollar. Climate change also can make it more unbearable to sit outside for a lengthy period of time.
The most significant changes that baseball made over the past 50 years involved lowering the height of the pitcher's mound in response to dwindling batting averages in the late 1960's and early 1970's, adding the designated hitter in the American League and enforcing the strike zone rule (and holding umpires accountable if they did not do so). The latter meant that effectively umpires had no leeway in calling the lower 18 inches of the zone a strike, and many were reluctant to do so. Again, effectively, that meant that pitchers had a much larger strike zone to play with and developed pitches to take advantage of the more strict enforcement (read: sinkers, splitters). That change took place about 10 years ago.
There are several changes that baseball should consider in order to add more offense to the game and to quicken games, as follows:
1. Enforce time limits in between pitches, in between at bats and in between innings. How many fans have been to minor league games that end in 2:15 or less -- without any sacrificing of the quality of the product?
2. Create the following rule -- every pitcher inserted into a game must pitch to a minimum of three batters in an inning or until the end of the inning (so that a team can pinch-hit for him if it's his turn in the lineup after getting two outs in the prior half inning) and no more than one pitching change per inning (unless a pitcher gets hurt). This will eliminate the specialization of relievers.
3. Consider, for fun, letting a team have a third catcher available in the stands, a la the "emergency goalie" in the NHL that creates good will among the fans. In this fashion, the team can have an "emergency" catcher should the back-up get used as a pinch-hitter or himself have to enter the game because of injury.
4. Study lowering the pitching mound. . . again. . . and what the effect of doing so might have on offenses.
5. Eliminate shifts. Every position must have a fielder in its designated area.
6. Add the DH to the National League. Who wants to see a pitcher hit? You wouldn't want your plumber to try to tear up and re-do your path if he is not a mason, so why have pitchers hit if they hardly practice hitting?
7. Sponsor "The Great American Home Run Hitting Contest" in regions around the country and put up a big prize. You can run regionals at minor-league parks and then culminate the challenge at a fan fest before Game 1 of the World Series. This might spike interest in the game, too.
8. Stop being greedy about the times when you feature post-season games. Do all of them have to start at 8:30 at night? By the time a game might get interesting (that is, after the starting pitcher goes through the lineup once or twice), kids have to go to sleep and get ready for school. Try having games start at 6 p.m. or have an afternoon game every now and then. Even adults who have to get up and go to work might not watch the Series unless their team is involved.
9. Figure out a way to have the average fan not feel stupid and relate to the game. It's great that the teams rely on stats -- they were ignorant for decades, but even fans with advanced degrees cannot make heads or tails of "Baseball Prospectus" or the metrics that teams deploy. In "Men at Work," the late Hall-of-Fame outfielder Tony Gwynn described is approach to being a great hitter thusly -- "See the ball, hit the ball." Today you need a masters in higher math to understand how teams are evaluating players and getting their hitters and pitchers to change their approaches. What's the fun in that?
10. Consider shortening games to 7 innings. The average human attention span once was 22 minutes; now some argue it's under 10 seconds. Sure, there are a lot of details here -- from how much to pay players to how this might have an effect on pitchers and rosters, but if the practical effect were to ensure that a game would take only two hours to play, I think that more fans might be attracted to the product.
11. Finally, baseball needs to get out of this rut of strikeouts, walks and home runs, needs to create more situations where there can be two-out rallies and balls hit off the wall. Perhaps some of the changes I outline above might help accomplish this goal. But let's face it, no one wants to go watch a game that ends 3-1 that takes 3:30, that featured 10 pitchers, 23 strikeouts, 8 walks and 4 solo home runs. Sure, a win's a win, but paying $50 a ticket for a family of four plus parking and concessions is a lot to task for that type of product. Especially when there are so many alternatives on which to spend one's disposable income.
Food for thought. Your thoughts?
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Signs of the Times -- More Soccer, More Problems for Other Sports in U.S.?
Times change. Demographics change. Preferences change.
There was a report yesterday that not only is ESPN all in for Serie A, the top league in Italy, but it also inked a deal to televise the FA Cup, England's broad in-season tournament that affords opportunities for teams at the lowest club ranks to challenge the heavyweights. And one key aspect of all this is that ESPN was in serious talks with Serie A before Juventus acquired Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid. All these rights are US only.
Fox already televises Germany's Bundesliga in the US, and Bein televises La Liga in Spain in the US. I'm sure at some point someone will purchase the rights to televise France's La Ligue, which basically means the rights to Neymar and the Gang at PSG, Lyon (a fertile ground for developing players) and a few other decent teams (most of the teams in La Ligue just are not all that good, but La Ligue is still the fifth or sixth best league in the world).
More proof that there is pressure on the entertainment dollar in the United States. That pressure extends to how we receive our entertainment, as the investment community focuses on declining enrollment with the major cable companies. Consumer Reports even has gone so far as to advise its readers to move away from cable, get a good internet connection, and then purchase various packages from internet providers -- YouTube TV, Hulu, Netflix and the like, as well as packages from various leagues. Technology increases the pace of change, it increases our options, and it increases the demands on our discretionary spending. All of this means that selective viewers will find ways to avoid the compulsory offerings that come through cable subscriptions and elect to purchase what they really want to watch. That could mean that fewer viewers will watch games that are featured on cable in which they are not interested. My sense is that Major League Baseball could suffer further, as could, among others, college football and college basketball. Ice hockey probably will lead that group.
Oh, I know that football is easy to bet on and will have its watchers, if only because people will seek to recoup from west coast match-ups what they lost earlier in the day. I get that. But imagine a world where you can target what you want to watch and pay for it. Say you live in Boston -- you want a Boston package plus your favorite teams in the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A. My guess is that at some point you'll be able to zero in on those and only those teams. Somehow, the providers will figure out a way to give you only what you want.
The pace of change. . . it will accelerate. Meanwhile, Major League baseball keeps having longer games at a time when attention spans are shortening, keeps on charging more for concessions stands when innovators like Arthur Blank in Atlanta actually cut prices for football and soccer. $100 for parking in Dallas? $10 for a beer in places? $5 for a bottle of water?
The leagues and teams that figure out how to optimize the delivery of their product for those not in attendance will be the ones that thrive in the future. The ones that do not will be left scratching their heads wondering why.
There was a report yesterday that not only is ESPN all in for Serie A, the top league in Italy, but it also inked a deal to televise the FA Cup, England's broad in-season tournament that affords opportunities for teams at the lowest club ranks to challenge the heavyweights. And one key aspect of all this is that ESPN was in serious talks with Serie A before Juventus acquired Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid. All these rights are US only.
Fox already televises Germany's Bundesliga in the US, and Bein televises La Liga in Spain in the US. I'm sure at some point someone will purchase the rights to televise France's La Ligue, which basically means the rights to Neymar and the Gang at PSG, Lyon (a fertile ground for developing players) and a few other decent teams (most of the teams in La Ligue just are not all that good, but La Ligue is still the fifth or sixth best league in the world).
More proof that there is pressure on the entertainment dollar in the United States. That pressure extends to how we receive our entertainment, as the investment community focuses on declining enrollment with the major cable companies. Consumer Reports even has gone so far as to advise its readers to move away from cable, get a good internet connection, and then purchase various packages from internet providers -- YouTube TV, Hulu, Netflix and the like, as well as packages from various leagues. Technology increases the pace of change, it increases our options, and it increases the demands on our discretionary spending. All of this means that selective viewers will find ways to avoid the compulsory offerings that come through cable subscriptions and elect to purchase what they really want to watch. That could mean that fewer viewers will watch games that are featured on cable in which they are not interested. My sense is that Major League Baseball could suffer further, as could, among others, college football and college basketball. Ice hockey probably will lead that group.
Oh, I know that football is easy to bet on and will have its watchers, if only because people will seek to recoup from west coast match-ups what they lost earlier in the day. I get that. But imagine a world where you can target what you want to watch and pay for it. Say you live in Boston -- you want a Boston package plus your favorite teams in the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A. My guess is that at some point you'll be able to zero in on those and only those teams. Somehow, the providers will figure out a way to give you only what you want.
The pace of change. . . it will accelerate. Meanwhile, Major League baseball keeps having longer games at a time when attention spans are shortening, keeps on charging more for concessions stands when innovators like Arthur Blank in Atlanta actually cut prices for football and soccer. $100 for parking in Dallas? $10 for a beer in places? $5 for a bottle of water?
The leagues and teams that figure out how to optimize the delivery of their product for those not in attendance will be the ones that thrive in the future. The ones that do not will be left scratching their heads wondering why.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Atlanta as a Microcosm of Baseball's Big Problem
- The average age of a fan of a Major League Baseball team is 55 years old.
- The Atlanta Braves have won 17 out of 20 games and now lead the NL East by 2 games.
- Ronald Acuna, Jr. is one of the Braves' leading hitters. He is an exciting player, is only 20 years old and has hit more home runs at this point in his career and for his age than all but 3 players in Major League history.
- The other night the Braves drew about 6,000 for a home game during this magnificent run and with all this young hitting.
- Major League Soccer's Atlanta United team averages 51,000 per home game.
- Major League Baseball is by far the best professional baseball league in the world.
- Major League Soccer is perhaps the 10th best professional soccer league in the world.
We all know the problems that Major League Baseball faces -- the games are too long, pitchers and hitters dawdle after each pitch, there are too many pitching changes, the ball is not in play all that much, the hitters strike out way too much, the stats make it hard to understand the game, the strike zone, as enforced, has given pitchers too much of an edge, and all of that. The game is a moneymaker now. I went to the games with my father, and some of my memories of those games are among the best I have. One of my kids likes going to an occasional game; the other is a huge soccer and basketball fan and thinks its too much of a time commitment for too little action. Almost all of his friends think the same way.
Sports tickets are expensive. So are cell phones and smart TVs. There is much competition for the entertainment dollar -- restaurants, streaming services, concerts, other sports teams. The next generations will choose wisely; it is expensive to live in this country.
Around 1970 the most popular sports in the United States were baseball, football, basketball, boxing and horse racing. The latter was particularly popular because the track was the only place you could make a legal bet. Boxing fell apart after Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas "Hitman" Hearns and Marvin Hagler aged out of contention (the golden age of heavyweights was gone by the time they emerged). MMA has eclipsed boxing, and horse racing barely hangs on. Baseball has an action issue, football a long-term health issue (although I am concerned that soccer might have similar issues to American football, if not as pervasive, pronounced or publicized). Basketball is going strong and seemingly getting stronger.
MLB has some serious issues that won't go away and won't get better with age. Soccer is here, and it is gaining momentum. Could it be at some point that the U.S. develops a fully blown hierarchy of soccer teams the way they exist in European countries, and could it be before too long that MLS aligns its schedule with that of the rest of the world's leagues -- competing for talent with the likes of teams in Western Europe. And, if that's the case, could it be that MLS takes football and baseball head on -- and wins?
Even if that were not to happen, the problems still remain for MLB. The big question -- what can it do to make its product better and to lower the average age of its fan base?
They need good and creative minds on this -- now.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Watch Mike Trout at a Stadium Near You
We have more choices than we used to.
Baseball might be the national pastime in name only.
It's hotter outside, the games take too long, the ball is hardly in play, there are too many strikeouts, not enough rallies, too much specialization among pitchers, the mound is too high, it is too far back, the shifts ought to be outlawed, the players make too much money, it's the game you used to go to with your dad but your kid doesn't want to go to with you because he likes something else.
We've heard it all. We also hear how stats can ruin the game because unless you have a math degree from MIT you cannot begin to comprehend the wealth of data that teams have at their disposal.
All interesting points. And yet, amidst all of this noise is Mike Trout.
The Angels' centerfielder, even with some recent slumps, is on target to have the second-best single season for an offensive player ever.
Ever.
Babe Ruth once put up numbers that yielded a 14.1 WAR stat; Trout is on pace for a 13.7 number.
That is ever. Ty Cobb never did that. Ditto Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Henry Aaron, Jackie Robinson, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Morgan, Tris Speaker, Ted Williams. Name all hitters of all time and none of them -- not Gehrig, not Lazzeri, not Cepeda, Banks, Billy Williams, Frank Robinson, the list goes on -- ever put up a season like the one Trout is putting up.
I read somewhere that were Trout to have retired before last season, he would have rated as one of the six best offensive players of all time. That was before last season, where he missed six weeks but still had a top finish in AL MVP voting.
There is an absolutely awesome, special player out there.
Watch him as much as you can.
Baseball might be the national pastime in name only.
It's hotter outside, the games take too long, the ball is hardly in play, there are too many strikeouts, not enough rallies, too much specialization among pitchers, the mound is too high, it is too far back, the shifts ought to be outlawed, the players make too much money, it's the game you used to go to with your dad but your kid doesn't want to go to with you because he likes something else.
We've heard it all. We also hear how stats can ruin the game because unless you have a math degree from MIT you cannot begin to comprehend the wealth of data that teams have at their disposal.
All interesting points. And yet, amidst all of this noise is Mike Trout.
The Angels' centerfielder, even with some recent slumps, is on target to have the second-best single season for an offensive player ever.
Ever.
Babe Ruth once put up numbers that yielded a 14.1 WAR stat; Trout is on pace for a 13.7 number.
That is ever. Ty Cobb never did that. Ditto Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Henry Aaron, Jackie Robinson, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Morgan, Tris Speaker, Ted Williams. Name all hitters of all time and none of them -- not Gehrig, not Lazzeri, not Cepeda, Banks, Billy Williams, Frank Robinson, the list goes on -- ever put up a season like the one Trout is putting up.
I read somewhere that were Trout to have retired before last season, he would have rated as one of the six best offensive players of all time. That was before last season, where he missed six weeks but still had a top finish in AL MVP voting.
There is an absolutely awesome, special player out there.
Watch him as much as you can.
World Cup
The World Cup is upon us and save for some Americans and international golf fanatics (who will be focusing on the US Open through Sunday), the sporting world will be locked in on the World Cup. The Russians are hosting the tournament this year. 32 teams are in, among them Iceland (with a population of 335,000 people), Iran, Morocco, Panama, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uruguay (with a population of roughly 3 million people). Among the notably absent -- Chile (with Alexis Sanchez and Arturo Vidal), Italy, Netherlands, United States, Wales (the latter, with Gareth Bale and Aaron Ramsey, enjoyed a top-20 ranking for most of the year).
So what to expect? Perhaps the unexpected. Spain, with its rich recent history, on-the-field leadership and star-studded roster figures to be in the hunt, but just incurred a self-inflicted wound by firing their manager two days before the tournament is to start because he elected to become Real Madrid's manager after the World Cup. That decision cannot help the Spaniards. Germany and Brazil are co-favorites in the minds of the oddsmakers, but, and these are big buts, the Germans would have to be the first team in decades to repeat and the Brazilians, while always wildly talented, might not have the cohesiveness or leadership necessary to win the tournament. The Brazilians might be scarred from the thrashing they took in their home country at the feet of Germany in the 2014 World Cup (the Germans slashed and burned them, 7-1, in an unforgettable performance). Then again, this squad's makeup is different, and that game could serve as a motivator to propel Brazil to the top again.
France might have the most talent of anyone, but question marks arise as to their maturity and their leadership. Les Bleus will need some on-the-pitch leaders to emerge if they are to win the tournament. They certainly have the talent to win it, with a midfielder like Paul Pogba and front-line players such as Mbappe and Griezmann. They have a veteran goalie in Hugo Lloris, and two talent center backs in Raphael Varane and Samuel Umtiti. This team could make a deep run.
It's hard to discuss the World Cup and the contenders without mentioning the teams that are home to the two best players in the world -- Argentina, a finalist four years ago, with Lionel Messi, and Portugal, with Cristiano Ronaldo. Both could win the cup, but for Argentina, they need to show that they have a balanced team and a strong enough defense to emerge with the title. Up front, they have as much supply as anyone, with Messi, Sergio Kun Aguero, Paolo Dybala and Gonzalo Higuaín. For any team to have one of those players would be an accomplishment; to have four is an embarrassment of riches. This team will score. The question is, will they be able to keep their opposition from scoring? Then there are the Portuguese, who won the European Cup a couple of years ago and have Ronaldo and a core of exciting young players. They probably do not have enough to get past the quarterfinals, but with Ronaldo, anything is possible.
Then there is the EPL All-Star team, err, the Belgian National Squad, coached by Roberto Martinez, who is assisted by Thierry Henry. It is an amazing assembly of talent, especially for a country with only 15 million people. Need a striker? How about Manchester United's Romelu Lukaku? Need a winger? How about Chelsea's Eden Hazard? Need a central attacking midfielder? How about Manchester City's Kevin DeBruyne? Need good center backs? How about Tottenham's Jan Vertonghen and Toby Alderweireld and Manchester City's Vincent Kompany? Need one of the world's best keepers? You have Chelsea's Thibault Courtois. Oh, and you also have midfielder Dries Mertens, among other non-EPL players, who almost led Napoli to dethrone Juventus in Italy's Serie A. The Belgians are the dark horse in the tournament. If they can play together, they can win it all. Seriously.
There are many others who warrant discussion. England has a young-ish team, led by one of the best strikers in the world in Tottenham's Harry Kane. But overall the English lack the talent of the continent's best teams and also Brazil, and they haven't developed a style or flair that the other countries have. Senegal is a popular pick to get to the knockout stage. The Nigerians have the best uniforms and some good players, including Arsenal's Alex Iwobi. Croatia has an amazing midfield, Colombia could surprise some folks, as could Morocco. Few give, among others, Panama, Australia, Iran and Saudi Arabia much of a chance.
And that leads me to Germany. You probably were wondering why had I not mentioned them, and the truth is that I was going back and forth on my favorites to win the tournament. I had the Spaniards up until this morning, when they sacked their manager, Juan Lopetegui, because he had the temerity to accept the Read Madrid job in a way not to the liking of his nation's soccer federation. Which means that while the new manager is well known to the squad, he is new to the position of leader. And that chance could be the self-inflicted wound that knocks Spain out of the favorites role. Read a list of the top 25 players in the world, and with the exception of England's Kane, Messi and Ronaldo, almost all are from Germany, Spain and France, with a handful of Belgians sprinked in for good measure. I don't think France has the maturity yet, and Belgium has disappointed so much (think the hare in the "Tortoise and the Hare") that my predictions lead to Germany. They won a title last summer with their back-up players populating the squad. They are steady, explosive and they don't beat themselves. In Timo Werner, they might have a breakout striker. They have Manuel Neuer, when the healthy, the world's best keeper, back in goal; and if he is not ready they have Barcelona's ter Stegen to play the role. Strong back line, solid at the midfield, strong in the attack. They will be formidable, and they will wear you down. I look for them to repeat as champions.
Unless. . .
1. Spain shakes off its managerial distraction;
2. France's talent meshes into the juggernaut we all know it can become.
3. Harry Kane dons Superman's cape and has the tournament of a lifetime.
4. The Belgians show up and play more like Man U under Ferguson than Everton in its final months under Martinez.
5. Argentina figures out a way to defend enough.
Should be a great tournament, and I will be there for some of it.
The soccer world comes together once every four years. It should be quite the exciting time.
So what to expect? Perhaps the unexpected. Spain, with its rich recent history, on-the-field leadership and star-studded roster figures to be in the hunt, but just incurred a self-inflicted wound by firing their manager two days before the tournament is to start because he elected to become Real Madrid's manager after the World Cup. That decision cannot help the Spaniards. Germany and Brazil are co-favorites in the minds of the oddsmakers, but, and these are big buts, the Germans would have to be the first team in decades to repeat and the Brazilians, while always wildly talented, might not have the cohesiveness or leadership necessary to win the tournament. The Brazilians might be scarred from the thrashing they took in their home country at the feet of Germany in the 2014 World Cup (the Germans slashed and burned them, 7-1, in an unforgettable performance). Then again, this squad's makeup is different, and that game could serve as a motivator to propel Brazil to the top again.
France might have the most talent of anyone, but question marks arise as to their maturity and their leadership. Les Bleus will need some on-the-pitch leaders to emerge if they are to win the tournament. They certainly have the talent to win it, with a midfielder like Paul Pogba and front-line players such as Mbappe and Griezmann. They have a veteran goalie in Hugo Lloris, and two talent center backs in Raphael Varane and Samuel Umtiti. This team could make a deep run.
It's hard to discuss the World Cup and the contenders without mentioning the teams that are home to the two best players in the world -- Argentina, a finalist four years ago, with Lionel Messi, and Portugal, with Cristiano Ronaldo. Both could win the cup, but for Argentina, they need to show that they have a balanced team and a strong enough defense to emerge with the title. Up front, they have as much supply as anyone, with Messi, Sergio Kun Aguero, Paolo Dybala and Gonzalo Higuaín. For any team to have one of those players would be an accomplishment; to have four is an embarrassment of riches. This team will score. The question is, will they be able to keep their opposition from scoring? Then there are the Portuguese, who won the European Cup a couple of years ago and have Ronaldo and a core of exciting young players. They probably do not have enough to get past the quarterfinals, but with Ronaldo, anything is possible.
Then there is the EPL All-Star team, err, the Belgian National Squad, coached by Roberto Martinez, who is assisted by Thierry Henry. It is an amazing assembly of talent, especially for a country with only 15 million people. Need a striker? How about Manchester United's Romelu Lukaku? Need a winger? How about Chelsea's Eden Hazard? Need a central attacking midfielder? How about Manchester City's Kevin DeBruyne? Need good center backs? How about Tottenham's Jan Vertonghen and Toby Alderweireld and Manchester City's Vincent Kompany? Need one of the world's best keepers? You have Chelsea's Thibault Courtois. Oh, and you also have midfielder Dries Mertens, among other non-EPL players, who almost led Napoli to dethrone Juventus in Italy's Serie A. The Belgians are the dark horse in the tournament. If they can play together, they can win it all. Seriously.
There are many others who warrant discussion. England has a young-ish team, led by one of the best strikers in the world in Tottenham's Harry Kane. But overall the English lack the talent of the continent's best teams and also Brazil, and they haven't developed a style or flair that the other countries have. Senegal is a popular pick to get to the knockout stage. The Nigerians have the best uniforms and some good players, including Arsenal's Alex Iwobi. Croatia has an amazing midfield, Colombia could surprise some folks, as could Morocco. Few give, among others, Panama, Australia, Iran and Saudi Arabia much of a chance.
And that leads me to Germany. You probably were wondering why had I not mentioned them, and the truth is that I was going back and forth on my favorites to win the tournament. I had the Spaniards up until this morning, when they sacked their manager, Juan Lopetegui, because he had the temerity to accept the Read Madrid job in a way not to the liking of his nation's soccer federation. Which means that while the new manager is well known to the squad, he is new to the position of leader. And that chance could be the self-inflicted wound that knocks Spain out of the favorites role. Read a list of the top 25 players in the world, and with the exception of England's Kane, Messi and Ronaldo, almost all are from Germany, Spain and France, with a handful of Belgians sprinked in for good measure. I don't think France has the maturity yet, and Belgium has disappointed so much (think the hare in the "Tortoise and the Hare") that my predictions lead to Germany. They won a title last summer with their back-up players populating the squad. They are steady, explosive and they don't beat themselves. In Timo Werner, they might have a breakout striker. They have Manuel Neuer, when the healthy, the world's best keeper, back in goal; and if he is not ready they have Barcelona's ter Stegen to play the role. Strong back line, solid at the midfield, strong in the attack. They will be formidable, and they will wear you down. I look for them to repeat as champions.
Unless. . .
1. Spain shakes off its managerial distraction;
2. France's talent meshes into the juggernaut we all know it can become.
3. Harry Kane dons Superman's cape and has the tournament of a lifetime.
4. The Belgians show up and play more like Man U under Ferguson than Everton in its final months under Martinez.
5. Argentina figures out a way to defend enough.
Should be a great tournament, and I will be there for some of it.
The soccer world comes together once every four years. It should be quite the exciting time.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
The Bryan Colangelo Mess and 76ers' Potential Train Wreck
The good news -- that the team won 50 games this season. The other news -- that they did so with an odd assortment of flawed parts and beat up on the weaker portion of the league in the second half to get there. Sure, you play who you play, but it is not as though the team plowed through the guts of the West to get to 50 games.
The bad news -- where to start, so here goes:
1. Boston out-toughed the 76ers, had a better strategy and had more complete players in the NBA semi-finals. Atop that, they beat the 76ers in 5 without their two best players. And the 76ers' head coach, a likeable fellow, was outcoached by the next "superstar" coach in the league, Brad Stevens. By the way, this author grew up loathing the Celtics and still roots hard against them, but let's give credit where credit is due. And Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens merit a lot of credit.
2. The 76ers have a bunch of on-the-court issues to sort out, and, it seems, no player is immune. So, in no particular order, the following:
a. Ben Simmons did not show up in the NBA semis. He is reluctant to shoot, has an odd shot and a bad shot at that. Of course, if he had a good shot, he might be the next uber-star, but right now he is an enigma who good coaches can figure out how to defend. Most great players can shoot the rock; Simmons cannot. Atop that, his coach offered that the team would only make minor tweaks to his shot. No less an authority on good, clutch shooting -- Kobe Bryant -- offered his opinion that the team needs to reconstruct Simmons' shot, period.
b. Joel Embiid presents a high-class problem if he gets healthier, can practice with the team, and gets into much better shape. He is an amazing talent, a very complete basketball player, and compelling because he is so tall and so skilled. That said, he needs to turn the ball over less while the team needs to use him better. Running the offense through him at the high post seems to be misguided. And no one can guard him down low, and, if someone could, that person wouldn't be quick enough to stay with him outside.
c. Markell Fultz right now looks to be a bust. Sure, he's young, and I am empathetic, but he is what his record says he is. He's a talent, he's fast, he's strong, he had a triple double, but he cannot shoot. Period. There are many guards out there who have that talent profile -- most are playing overseas or in the G League. Adding insult to injury, the 76ers traded up to of all teams Boston to grab him, and Boston took Jayson Tatum in the draft, the player that they would have taken had they had the first pick. Put differently, the Fultz situation looks like a bunch of dominos that are knocking each other over, and someone needs to pick up the pieces, rebuild his shot and have him play a lot this summer to test it out.
d. Robert Covington made the first-team all defensive team but lost his way on offense on many occasions. He just had surgery on one of the fingers on his shooting hand, so hopefully the finger was the root cause of the woes. If that's the case, he should improve.
e. The team's bench scared no one defensively. Yes, one had to guard Ersan Ilyasova and Marco Bellinelli and T.J. O'Connell, but they are not lock-down defenders and Bellinelli is a flat-out defensive liability. And J.J. Redick is no defensive stopper, either. It's hard to believe a team can carry Bellinelli and Reddick unless they cannot find a more athletic alternative to Bellinelli.
And then there is the off-the-court stuff, as follows:
1. The Bryan Colangelo affair. No need to repeat what has been blasted all over the sports world yesterday through today. Suffice it to say that if it's true, the ownership will have no alternative but to fire the general manager.
2. The dispute between Colangelo and Brown over whether the team should sign a high-profile free agent. Brown has said yes, Colangelo has been demure. As for the latter, if that's his thinking, it's one thing, but if he's channeling the ownership, sheesh. The fans want a high-profile free agent; they want to contend now.
3. The fact that Simmons has bought two very expensive cars in two years and dropped a girlfriend because she was acting too much like a Kardashian only to start dating Kendall Jenner, who is a Kardashian. Note to Ben: how many of the Kardashians' relationships are private, lack drama and go well?
4. That Fultz might not want to play summer league ball. Say what? There is only so much riding of a stationery bike that one can do to say in shape.
5. That Embiid is playing playground ball in South Philadelphia. I like the grass roots appeal, but Joel, don't step into a pothole when you land after posterizing an off-duty Philadelphia parks and rec official.
What free agent would want to join this team, especially with Colangelo's credibility and integrity on the line? What season ticket holder will be happy if management closes ranks behind Colangelo, risks losing the team in the process? What season ticket holder will be happy if LeBron James or Paul George or Kawhi Leonard does not join the team?
The team should be on the upswing after a 50-win season. Instead, it is doing damage control, big-time damage control, hoping to improve some talented if flawed parts and get ready to take on the juggernaut -- mentally and physically -- that is the Boston Celtics.
This is the most important off-season for the 76ers in recent memory. It's off to a terrible start.
The bad news -- where to start, so here goes:
1. Boston out-toughed the 76ers, had a better strategy and had more complete players in the NBA semi-finals. Atop that, they beat the 76ers in 5 without their two best players. And the 76ers' head coach, a likeable fellow, was outcoached by the next "superstar" coach in the league, Brad Stevens. By the way, this author grew up loathing the Celtics and still roots hard against them, but let's give credit where credit is due. And Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens merit a lot of credit.
2. The 76ers have a bunch of on-the-court issues to sort out, and, it seems, no player is immune. So, in no particular order, the following:
a. Ben Simmons did not show up in the NBA semis. He is reluctant to shoot, has an odd shot and a bad shot at that. Of course, if he had a good shot, he might be the next uber-star, but right now he is an enigma who good coaches can figure out how to defend. Most great players can shoot the rock; Simmons cannot. Atop that, his coach offered that the team would only make minor tweaks to his shot. No less an authority on good, clutch shooting -- Kobe Bryant -- offered his opinion that the team needs to reconstruct Simmons' shot, period.
b. Joel Embiid presents a high-class problem if he gets healthier, can practice with the team, and gets into much better shape. He is an amazing talent, a very complete basketball player, and compelling because he is so tall and so skilled. That said, he needs to turn the ball over less while the team needs to use him better. Running the offense through him at the high post seems to be misguided. And no one can guard him down low, and, if someone could, that person wouldn't be quick enough to stay with him outside.
c. Markell Fultz right now looks to be a bust. Sure, he's young, and I am empathetic, but he is what his record says he is. He's a talent, he's fast, he's strong, he had a triple double, but he cannot shoot. Period. There are many guards out there who have that talent profile -- most are playing overseas or in the G League. Adding insult to injury, the 76ers traded up to of all teams Boston to grab him, and Boston took Jayson Tatum in the draft, the player that they would have taken had they had the first pick. Put differently, the Fultz situation looks like a bunch of dominos that are knocking each other over, and someone needs to pick up the pieces, rebuild his shot and have him play a lot this summer to test it out.
d. Robert Covington made the first-team all defensive team but lost his way on offense on many occasions. He just had surgery on one of the fingers on his shooting hand, so hopefully the finger was the root cause of the woes. If that's the case, he should improve.
e. The team's bench scared no one defensively. Yes, one had to guard Ersan Ilyasova and Marco Bellinelli and T.J. O'Connell, but they are not lock-down defenders and Bellinelli is a flat-out defensive liability. And J.J. Redick is no defensive stopper, either. It's hard to believe a team can carry Bellinelli and Reddick unless they cannot find a more athletic alternative to Bellinelli.
And then there is the off-the-court stuff, as follows:
1. The Bryan Colangelo affair. No need to repeat what has been blasted all over the sports world yesterday through today. Suffice it to say that if it's true, the ownership will have no alternative but to fire the general manager.
2. The dispute between Colangelo and Brown over whether the team should sign a high-profile free agent. Brown has said yes, Colangelo has been demure. As for the latter, if that's his thinking, it's one thing, but if he's channeling the ownership, sheesh. The fans want a high-profile free agent; they want to contend now.
3. The fact that Simmons has bought two very expensive cars in two years and dropped a girlfriend because she was acting too much like a Kardashian only to start dating Kendall Jenner, who is a Kardashian. Note to Ben: how many of the Kardashians' relationships are private, lack drama and go well?
4. That Fultz might not want to play summer league ball. Say what? There is only so much riding of a stationery bike that one can do to say in shape.
5. That Embiid is playing playground ball in South Philadelphia. I like the grass roots appeal, but Joel, don't step into a pothole when you land after posterizing an off-duty Philadelphia parks and rec official.
What free agent would want to join this team, especially with Colangelo's credibility and integrity on the line? What season ticket holder will be happy if management closes ranks behind Colangelo, risks losing the team in the process? What season ticket holder will be happy if LeBron James or Paul George or Kawhi Leonard does not join the team?
The team should be on the upswing after a 50-win season. Instead, it is doing damage control, big-time damage control, hoping to improve some talented if flawed parts and get ready to take on the juggernaut -- mentally and physically -- that is the Boston Celtics.
This is the most important off-season for the 76ers in recent memory. It's off to a terrible start.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Observations at Health Clubs
I belong to a pretty large health club, both in terms of membership and offerings. Here are some general observations, from the bad to the indifferent to the good.
1. Don't Engage Me in Long Conversations. I am there to work out, and I am focused on a three-part workout -- some aerobics, some weights, and some flexibility. You want to say hello? Fine. You are a long-lost buddy I haven't seen in a while, we'll talk. But if you want to vector your political views onto me and vent about something, find someone else and somewhere else to do so. My time is precious, even more so as I get older. Let's say hello, a kind word, perhaps something at least mildly amusing, and then get on with our workouts.
2. Don't Talk on Your Cell Phone Loudly While on an Exercise Machine. I mean, really, aren't we supposed to go to the gym to get away from all sorts of media save the songs that you can listen to on your phone while you are working out? I really don't need to hear you counsel your parents, counsel your kids, catch up with a friend who seems to be very needy. There is a time and a place for that, but, most certainly, not right next to me while I'm trying to work my intervals on an elliptical.
3. Don't Hog Machines. Look, I get it, we all have routines and want to do certain machines in a certain order. But you must not commandeer two machines at once, by leaving a towel and your phone on one of them and then a workout bag or sweatshirt on another. Dedicated gym devotees tend to respect people's time and space, so there is little chance that someone else will prevent you from doing what you need to do on a machine.
4. Work Out Properly. Now, this one is up to the person, of course, but the Larry the Lolly-gaggers just slay me. You know the type, they get on an elliptical and stay there for an hour at a very low speed. I haven't the foggiest what they think they are getting out of this workout other than anesthetizing themselves that they are at the gym and, as a result, doing something to improve their health. This workout looks like an elliptical workout in slow motion. Didn't anyone ever tell these people that interval workouts are the way to go, to get one's heart going?
5. Work Out Properly, Parts 2 through Infinity. To anyone who concentrates in one area, how do you really feel? Do those who only lift feel flexible and enjoy good cardio health? To those who only do yoga have good bone density, have good cardio health and strength? Do those who only do cardio have good bone density, strength and flexibility? All three seem to be key to good health. You don't have to spend a half day at the gym, and there are a bunch of things that you can do at home. But staying fit requires that you focus on more than one area even if you love that area and don't like the rest. Listen, you have the gym membership, so you might as well take advantage of everything your gym has to offer.
6. Don't Insult Me. I made conversation with a guy who was wearing a college sports t-shirt; I went to a rival school. I asked if he went there; he said no, but that his son "played ball" there, as if I knew what ball meant and then he explained football. Now that school is viewed as one of the most snotty in its conference. I offered that I went to a rival for graduate school. Tough-guy dad then assesses me and says, "What, are you a Bernie Sanders supporter?" Now, I have not discussed politics on this blog and try to avoid the subject at all costs, and I will not reveal my thoughts on the Senator from Vermont. What was clear was that this fellow did not mean the question as a compliment, but the way he asked it -- aggressive -- was uncalled for. It then occurred to me that it wasn't just by chance why his two college-football-playing sons opted to live 3,000 miles away from dear old dad.
All in all, this bill of particulars is not all that terrible, as the good far outweigh the bad and there are so many offerings that I can get a good workout in a variety of ways. I often say that if the average American halved his/her sugar intake, stretched 15 minutes a day and walked 30 minutes a day 5 days a week the healthcare system and our fellow citizens would be in far better shape. There is a message in all of this -- instead of griping about the decline of the U.S. healthcare system, do what you can to control avoiding your own decline, as follows:
1. Eat right.
2. Don't drink too much.
3. Get a good night's sleep.
4. Try to stay mellow and get away from social media. People aren't trying to offend you personally or excluded you when they share their thoughts or gatherings. And if they are, make your world bigger so that it doesn't matter.
5. Exercise -- weights, flexibility and cardio. 5 days a week.
6. Don't be lonely, circulate. A lot. While smoking and overeating can kill you, so can loneliness. You might have a nice house with the 60-inch screen, a reclining chair and access to the best of Ben & Jerry's, but get out there and talk with people. You will be glad that you did.
7. Try to enjoy life's good things on occasion and celebrate when it is time.
8. Help others, reach out to those in need.
There are many other adages, of course, and there are many elements to one's physical and mental health. For sure, you aren't going to look like a CrossFitter or swimsuit model, but who does? And you aren't going to change your habits in a week or lose ten pounds in a month. But you have to start somewhere, and there is no time like the present.
Get going!
1. Don't Engage Me in Long Conversations. I am there to work out, and I am focused on a three-part workout -- some aerobics, some weights, and some flexibility. You want to say hello? Fine. You are a long-lost buddy I haven't seen in a while, we'll talk. But if you want to vector your political views onto me and vent about something, find someone else and somewhere else to do so. My time is precious, even more so as I get older. Let's say hello, a kind word, perhaps something at least mildly amusing, and then get on with our workouts.
2. Don't Talk on Your Cell Phone Loudly While on an Exercise Machine. I mean, really, aren't we supposed to go to the gym to get away from all sorts of media save the songs that you can listen to on your phone while you are working out? I really don't need to hear you counsel your parents, counsel your kids, catch up with a friend who seems to be very needy. There is a time and a place for that, but, most certainly, not right next to me while I'm trying to work my intervals on an elliptical.
3. Don't Hog Machines. Look, I get it, we all have routines and want to do certain machines in a certain order. But you must not commandeer two machines at once, by leaving a towel and your phone on one of them and then a workout bag or sweatshirt on another. Dedicated gym devotees tend to respect people's time and space, so there is little chance that someone else will prevent you from doing what you need to do on a machine.
4. Work Out Properly. Now, this one is up to the person, of course, but the Larry the Lolly-gaggers just slay me. You know the type, they get on an elliptical and stay there for an hour at a very low speed. I haven't the foggiest what they think they are getting out of this workout other than anesthetizing themselves that they are at the gym and, as a result, doing something to improve their health. This workout looks like an elliptical workout in slow motion. Didn't anyone ever tell these people that interval workouts are the way to go, to get one's heart going?
5. Work Out Properly, Parts 2 through Infinity. To anyone who concentrates in one area, how do you really feel? Do those who only lift feel flexible and enjoy good cardio health? To those who only do yoga have good bone density, have good cardio health and strength? Do those who only do cardio have good bone density, strength and flexibility? All three seem to be key to good health. You don't have to spend a half day at the gym, and there are a bunch of things that you can do at home. But staying fit requires that you focus on more than one area even if you love that area and don't like the rest. Listen, you have the gym membership, so you might as well take advantage of everything your gym has to offer.
6. Don't Insult Me. I made conversation with a guy who was wearing a college sports t-shirt; I went to a rival school. I asked if he went there; he said no, but that his son "played ball" there, as if I knew what ball meant and then he explained football. Now that school is viewed as one of the most snotty in its conference. I offered that I went to a rival for graduate school. Tough-guy dad then assesses me and says, "What, are you a Bernie Sanders supporter?" Now, I have not discussed politics on this blog and try to avoid the subject at all costs, and I will not reveal my thoughts on the Senator from Vermont. What was clear was that this fellow did not mean the question as a compliment, but the way he asked it -- aggressive -- was uncalled for. It then occurred to me that it wasn't just by chance why his two college-football-playing sons opted to live 3,000 miles away from dear old dad.
All in all, this bill of particulars is not all that terrible, as the good far outweigh the bad and there are so many offerings that I can get a good workout in a variety of ways. I often say that if the average American halved his/her sugar intake, stretched 15 minutes a day and walked 30 minutes a day 5 days a week the healthcare system and our fellow citizens would be in far better shape. There is a message in all of this -- instead of griping about the decline of the U.S. healthcare system, do what you can to control avoiding your own decline, as follows:
1. Eat right.
2. Don't drink too much.
3. Get a good night's sleep.
4. Try to stay mellow and get away from social media. People aren't trying to offend you personally or excluded you when they share their thoughts or gatherings. And if they are, make your world bigger so that it doesn't matter.
5. Exercise -- weights, flexibility and cardio. 5 days a week.
6. Don't be lonely, circulate. A lot. While smoking and overeating can kill you, so can loneliness. You might have a nice house with the 60-inch screen, a reclining chair and access to the best of Ben & Jerry's, but get out there and talk with people. You will be glad that you did.
7. Try to enjoy life's good things on occasion and celebrate when it is time.
8. Help others, reach out to those in need.
There are many other adages, of course, and there are many elements to one's physical and mental health. For sure, you aren't going to look like a CrossFitter or swimsuit model, but who does? And you aren't going to change your habits in a week or lose ten pounds in a month. But you have to start somewhere, and there is no time like the present.
Get going!
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
Reflections on the 76ers
You might like them because they are bold, they have swagger, their ownership knows how to market with "Trust the Process" and "Welcome to the Moment." For us oldtimers, these are echos of either "We Owe You One" or "Come Buy the Seat You'll Never Sit In," with the latter accompanied by images of great plays by the likes of Dr. J that would have you jumping out of your seat.
But swagger, sizzle, whatever you call it, only gets you so far. The teams in the late 70's and early 80's were more mature, more formed, more ready for the big time. This amalgamation of all sorts of parts has been compelling to watch -- at times -- and frustrating at others. The bottom line is that if you had told an average 76ers' fan that the team would win 50 games and get to the second round of the playoffs, he would have taken it -- at the season's outset.
But the publicity machine, the hype machine, the huckster machine, could not leave well enough alone, could not be humble, got too big for its britches. The Boston Celtics have been around for a while, they have an apparently transcending coach and a philosophy for attracting talent that says everyone must be able to handle the rock and shoot it -- inside and outside. Brad Stevens is the new Greg Popovich, the Celtics the new Spurs -- perhaps. Suffice it to say that the 76ers are not as good as some thought they were during the 16-game winning streak or as bad as some are saying now.
It would have been nice to see some humility from the organization, more respect for the league and the Celtics and even for the intelligence of the fans. The owners -- led by Josh Harris -- owe the fans a debt of gratitude for staying with the team during a miserable process and for signing up for tickets when, qujte frankly, there was much more hope involved than a track record of excellence. Series expose flaws, especially in young teams, and the gap between a 3 seed and a 2 seed seems great. Pick positive adjectives and then the opposite and assign them to the Celtics and 76ers respectively, and you'll sum up the series, the 76ers' solid game last night notwithstanding.
This is a key off-season for the following people: GM Bryan Colangelo, head coach Brett Brown, point-something Ben Simmons, swingman Robert Covington, center Joel Embiid and guard Markell Fultz. Colangelo needs to make the right decisions on the trade and free-agent market, Brown needs to find his coaching voice, align it with those who select the talent, and adapt. Simmons needs to build a reliable shot. Covington needs to find the tonic for his disappearing acts. Embiid needs to get in better shape. Fultz needs to find his shot as well.
Those are a lot of variables for a team on the rise, a team that some have hyped should be a repeat visitor to the NBA finals.
They also should tone down the hype machine, manage expectations, add a dose of humility to their cocktail and work their tails off to become more consistent and develop a consistent ability to finish off opponents and to step up and tangle with and defeat the best teams.
This past season was a good start.
But to get to the elite level, there remains a significant amount of work to do.
But swagger, sizzle, whatever you call it, only gets you so far. The teams in the late 70's and early 80's were more mature, more formed, more ready for the big time. This amalgamation of all sorts of parts has been compelling to watch -- at times -- and frustrating at others. The bottom line is that if you had told an average 76ers' fan that the team would win 50 games and get to the second round of the playoffs, he would have taken it -- at the season's outset.
But the publicity machine, the hype machine, the huckster machine, could not leave well enough alone, could not be humble, got too big for its britches. The Boston Celtics have been around for a while, they have an apparently transcending coach and a philosophy for attracting talent that says everyone must be able to handle the rock and shoot it -- inside and outside. Brad Stevens is the new Greg Popovich, the Celtics the new Spurs -- perhaps. Suffice it to say that the 76ers are not as good as some thought they were during the 16-game winning streak or as bad as some are saying now.
It would have been nice to see some humility from the organization, more respect for the league and the Celtics and even for the intelligence of the fans. The owners -- led by Josh Harris -- owe the fans a debt of gratitude for staying with the team during a miserable process and for signing up for tickets when, qujte frankly, there was much more hope involved than a track record of excellence. Series expose flaws, especially in young teams, and the gap between a 3 seed and a 2 seed seems great. Pick positive adjectives and then the opposite and assign them to the Celtics and 76ers respectively, and you'll sum up the series, the 76ers' solid game last night notwithstanding.
This is a key off-season for the following people: GM Bryan Colangelo, head coach Brett Brown, point-something Ben Simmons, swingman Robert Covington, center Joel Embiid and guard Markell Fultz. Colangelo needs to make the right decisions on the trade and free-agent market, Brown needs to find his coaching voice, align it with those who select the talent, and adapt. Simmons needs to build a reliable shot. Covington needs to find the tonic for his disappearing acts. Embiid needs to get in better shape. Fultz needs to find his shot as well.
Those are a lot of variables for a team on the rise, a team that some have hyped should be a repeat visitor to the NBA finals.
They also should tone down the hype machine, manage expectations, add a dose of humility to their cocktail and work their tails off to become more consistent and develop a consistent ability to finish off opponents and to step up and tangle with and defeat the best teams.
This past season was a good start.
But to get to the elite level, there remains a significant amount of work to do.
Tuesday, May 01, 2018
Farewell, Arsene Wenger
Most of us cannot choose when we go out. Do we leave when they love us? Do we leave too early, as if we know that if we stayed too long we might get exposed? Or do we leave too early and be missed, only to go to the next place and figure out that we might be exposed? Or do we stay too late, failing to see the signs, keeping to the old methods, talking about the old days and not enough about the future? Or, are we just fine, and, well, sometimes those in charge don't see eye to eye with us or we with them? Departures, then, are a mixed bag. There are always stories and facts, errors, omissions, the truth of the victors, the complaints of the vanquished, a sense that life is flawed, unfair, decisive, skewed, accelerated, too forgiving, not understanding enough, right, overdue, just plain wrong, or a combination of some or all of the above.
At the end of the day, Arsene Wenger is leaving Arsenal. Leaving as a legend after arriving as a relative unknown asked to replace a legend in George Graham. A manager who made a quick mark on a hallowed club, got them to a high water mark with the Invincibles in 2004, only not to win another Premiership thereafter, not to win a Champions League, a Sisyphian struggle for the Gunners and their fans, still managing to finish in the top four and qualify for the Champions League for 20 straight years, always able to spot and develop young talent, and noteworthy for his steering the club through waffling ownership (the Kroenkes historically have owned their trophies but not done nearly enough to make them win) and finances taxing enough to compel him to sell contracts before he wanted to part with players. A proud legacy, a successful one, but one that leaves an odd taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
Could it have gone more smoothly? Could it have happened earlier? Why did this exist have to be so public and so prolonged? What are the Kroenkes up to?
The latter question is the most compelling. There is a striking parallel to their ownership of American football's Los Angeles Rams, where they were loyal to a head coach (Jeff Fisher) who will be mostly remembered for three things -- his inability to coach offense, his ability to coach defense, and his inability to develop quarterbacks. Fisher languished in mediocrity so long that he gave rise to the following joke, told in mid-summer. "Hey, today is Jeff Fisher Day." "Why's that?" The punchline: "It's July 9. 7-9, get it?" For those across the pond reading this, we Americans list the month first and then the day of it, not vice versa as many of you do. Fisher's tendency for sub.-500, 7-win seasons drew a lot of notice, none of it favorable.
The Kroenkes were very loyal to Fisher, declaring their public support for him in the 2016 season and even giving him a contract extension. Then the season ended badly, and the Kroenkes and Los Angeles Rams let him go. The speculation was that the Rams would recycle a former head coach, the same way many English Premier League teams hire a Sam Allerdyce, Tony Pulis, David Moyes, Mark Hughes for one of their vacancies. But instead, the Rams made an inspired choice. They hired the 31 year-old offensive coordinator from the Washington Redskins (far from a good team right now) named Sean McVay.
All McVay did was turn the Rams into one of the NFL's most dangerous teams, earning him coach-of-the-year honors. He took a quarterback (Jared Goff) who was a disappointment under Fisher and whom some were already calling a bust into a formidable threat. His team stood toe to toe with the best of the league and had a great year.
So now let's bring the spotlight back to Arsenal. There are "dream jobs" in college football and college basketball in the United States, the heralded franchises with great traditions. The same holds true in international football. Who wouldn't want to coach at United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Juventus, Barcelona, Real Madrid, as well as the hugely financed squads at Chelsea, City, PSG?
What will the brain trust at Arsenal do? Hire the young up-and-comer, or the tried and true veteran. The speculation abounds. That said, the pressure on this manager will differ from the pressure that was placed on David Moyes, who was named to replace United's legend, Sir Alex Ferguson, several years ago. Moyes was expected to win right away. The new Arsenal manager will be given some time. The Gunners don't have the talent to compete with the top four teams in the league, but that can change quickly, the same way it did at Liverpool when Juergen Klopp took over. The comparisons to Wenger will not be nearly as tough as they were for Moyes to Ferguson, as Wenger's teams have struggled under the brightest of lights in recent years. Those facts, in and of themselves, present Arsenal as even more of an attractive opportunity.
Arsene Wenger deserves many accolades, left a huge mark on the game, the game is better for it, and he will go down in history as an all-time great. Now it's time for Arsenal to start writing a new chapter, one that evolves its approach and game and makes the first team better able to compete for the top spot in the EPL.
At the end of the day, Arsene Wenger is leaving Arsenal. Leaving as a legend after arriving as a relative unknown asked to replace a legend in George Graham. A manager who made a quick mark on a hallowed club, got them to a high water mark with the Invincibles in 2004, only not to win another Premiership thereafter, not to win a Champions League, a Sisyphian struggle for the Gunners and their fans, still managing to finish in the top four and qualify for the Champions League for 20 straight years, always able to spot and develop young talent, and noteworthy for his steering the club through waffling ownership (the Kroenkes historically have owned their trophies but not done nearly enough to make them win) and finances taxing enough to compel him to sell contracts before he wanted to part with players. A proud legacy, a successful one, but one that leaves an odd taste in the mouths of everyone involved.
Could it have gone more smoothly? Could it have happened earlier? Why did this exist have to be so public and so prolonged? What are the Kroenkes up to?
The latter question is the most compelling. There is a striking parallel to their ownership of American football's Los Angeles Rams, where they were loyal to a head coach (Jeff Fisher) who will be mostly remembered for three things -- his inability to coach offense, his ability to coach defense, and his inability to develop quarterbacks. Fisher languished in mediocrity so long that he gave rise to the following joke, told in mid-summer. "Hey, today is Jeff Fisher Day." "Why's that?" The punchline: "It's July 9. 7-9, get it?" For those across the pond reading this, we Americans list the month first and then the day of it, not vice versa as many of you do. Fisher's tendency for sub.-500, 7-win seasons drew a lot of notice, none of it favorable.
The Kroenkes were very loyal to Fisher, declaring their public support for him in the 2016 season and even giving him a contract extension. Then the season ended badly, and the Kroenkes and Los Angeles Rams let him go. The speculation was that the Rams would recycle a former head coach, the same way many English Premier League teams hire a Sam Allerdyce, Tony Pulis, David Moyes, Mark Hughes for one of their vacancies. But instead, the Rams made an inspired choice. They hired the 31 year-old offensive coordinator from the Washington Redskins (far from a good team right now) named Sean McVay.
All McVay did was turn the Rams into one of the NFL's most dangerous teams, earning him coach-of-the-year honors. He took a quarterback (Jared Goff) who was a disappointment under Fisher and whom some were already calling a bust into a formidable threat. His team stood toe to toe with the best of the league and had a great year.
So now let's bring the spotlight back to Arsenal. There are "dream jobs" in college football and college basketball in the United States, the heralded franchises with great traditions. The same holds true in international football. Who wouldn't want to coach at United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Juventus, Barcelona, Real Madrid, as well as the hugely financed squads at Chelsea, City, PSG?
What will the brain trust at Arsenal do? Hire the young up-and-comer, or the tried and true veteran. The speculation abounds. That said, the pressure on this manager will differ from the pressure that was placed on David Moyes, who was named to replace United's legend, Sir Alex Ferguson, several years ago. Moyes was expected to win right away. The new Arsenal manager will be given some time. The Gunners don't have the talent to compete with the top four teams in the league, but that can change quickly, the same way it did at Liverpool when Juergen Klopp took over. The comparisons to Wenger will not be nearly as tough as they were for Moyes to Ferguson, as Wenger's teams have struggled under the brightest of lights in recent years. Those facts, in and of themselves, present Arsenal as even more of an attractive opportunity.
Arsene Wenger deserves many accolades, left a huge mark on the game, the game is better for it, and he will go down in history as an all-time great. Now it's time for Arsenal to start writing a new chapter, one that evolves its approach and game and makes the first team better able to compete for the top spot in the EPL.
Friday, March 30, 2018
Maurice Cheeks and the Hall of Fame
He was ice. He could penetrate when he had to, hit the jumper when left open, find the open man -- always. And he had some greats to pass the ball to -- Malone, Toney, and, of course, Dr. J.
And now he is going to basketball's Hall of Fame. Very much deservedly so.
But what makes Maurice Cheeks so extra special was what he did as a coach. Oh, he won't be remembered for a whole lot about his coaching, especially when compared to his playing, but on the night when he was coaching his first playoff game, he did something magical.
He did not draw up a great play, give an inspired pre-game speech, even suit up to help his team. No, he did this. That's right, in the midst of getting lost in his thoughts about how his first playoff game as a coach would go, a young teenaged girl forgot the words to the Star Spangled Banner. She knew that she was in trouble with the song, clutched herself, looked sideways, well, to see perhaps if there was divine intervention. Most of us would have wanted to drop through the floor, cover ourselves and not come out.
But this young woman was lucky enough to have Maurice Cheeks. Cheeks walked over to her, looked at her reassuringly, coached her on the words and guided this young person with a very nice voice to complete the national anthem. It was a Hall of Fame moment, one that will bring tears to your eyes.
Why? Because in a moment when he had every right to be selfish, to get lost in his own thoughts, to figure out about how he would work match-ups and substitutions and timeouts, Maurice Cheeks thought of someone else -- a young person in dire need. And he walked over to her and in a most calming and avuncular fashion, guided her through an awful time.
That's what captains of the ship do. That's what leaders do. That's what people of great character do.
And that's what Hall of Famers do!
Congratulations, Maurice Cheeks -- we are honored to have you in our lives.
And now he is going to basketball's Hall of Fame. Very much deservedly so.
But what makes Maurice Cheeks so extra special was what he did as a coach. Oh, he won't be remembered for a whole lot about his coaching, especially when compared to his playing, but on the night when he was coaching his first playoff game, he did something magical.
He did not draw up a great play, give an inspired pre-game speech, even suit up to help his team. No, he did this. That's right, in the midst of getting lost in his thoughts about how his first playoff game as a coach would go, a young teenaged girl forgot the words to the Star Spangled Banner. She knew that she was in trouble with the song, clutched herself, looked sideways, well, to see perhaps if there was divine intervention. Most of us would have wanted to drop through the floor, cover ourselves and not come out.
But this young woman was lucky enough to have Maurice Cheeks. Cheeks walked over to her, looked at her reassuringly, coached her on the words and guided this young person with a very nice voice to complete the national anthem. It was a Hall of Fame moment, one that will bring tears to your eyes.
Why? Because in a moment when he had every right to be selfish, to get lost in his own thoughts, to figure out about how he would work match-ups and substitutions and timeouts, Maurice Cheeks thought of someone else -- a young person in dire need. And he walked over to her and in a most calming and avuncular fashion, guided her through an awful time.
That's what captains of the ship do. That's what leaders do. That's what people of great character do.
And that's what Hall of Famers do!
Congratulations, Maurice Cheeks -- we are honored to have you in our lives.
Matt Davidson -- 3 HRs on Opening Day for the White Sox; and Dan LeBatard and His Reaction to Ian Happ's home run
I was in this wonderful fantasy baseball league years ago. Great group of guys, and normally we drafted before the season began. That particular year, though, we drafted a few days after opening day (and yes, previous stats would count). One of the hottest commodities that year was a Cubs' outfielder named Karl "Tuffy" Rhodes. The reason was that Rhodes homered three times on opening day, guaranteeing to throw his price in our auction out of proportion because owners draft on hope and potential. He even hit one off Doc Gooden.
He also ended up with only 269 at-bats for the season, hit only eight home runs, hit .224 for his career and ended up in Japan. Every year, though, during our draft, his name would come up, more or less in "buyer beware."
That is not to say that Matt Davidson is not a good player, will not be a good player, and will not have a good season. It's just to say that after one game, it is hard to draw any conclusions at all, unless, of course, you are Dan LeBatard, the ESPN personality and Miami-area sports talk show host. LeBatard's reaction to Ian Happ's season-opening home run off the Marlins -- on the very first pitch of the MLB season -- is priceless.
The odds are that the Marlins will not be as awful at LeBatard suggests (they could be close, though) or that Davidson will hit 486 home runs (to Giancarlo Stanton's 324).
There remains a lot of baseball to be played.
He also ended up with only 269 at-bats for the season, hit only eight home runs, hit .224 for his career and ended up in Japan. Every year, though, during our draft, his name would come up, more or less in "buyer beware."
That is not to say that Matt Davidson is not a good player, will not be a good player, and will not have a good season. It's just to say that after one game, it is hard to draw any conclusions at all, unless, of course, you are Dan LeBatard, the ESPN personality and Miami-area sports talk show host. LeBatard's reaction to Ian Happ's season-opening home run off the Marlins -- on the very first pitch of the MLB season -- is priceless.
The odds are that the Marlins will not be as awful at LeBatard suggests (they could be close, though) or that Davidson will hit 486 home runs (to Giancarlo Stanton's 324).
There remains a lot of baseball to be played.
We All are Scott Foster
The NHL has a bedeviling problem -- goaltenders who wear down and get hurt before and during games. So much so that the league requires teams to have pools of goaltenders in tow with one "back-up" in the arena in case something happens to the other two. The rule derives from an old hockey custom that if the goalie got hurt a team could grab someone out of the stands and have him play goalie. Fast forward until today, and teams have people who played goalie at some level -- preferably college or junior or in the minors -- and who do something else now, ready for just this purpose.
Typically, these goalies don't see action. A few have gotten to suit up and sit on the bench when one of a team's two goalies is unable for the game. One even got to play for the final 7.6 seconds of a game this year.
Last night, though, something different happened. The Blackhawks were down to one "regular" goalie and had a thirty-six year old accountant, Scott Foster, who played some goalie in college, on the bench. With about 15 minutes to go or so, the starting goalie started cramping, and the Blackhawks turned to Foster to finish a 6-2 victory over a play-off bound team. Foster played flawlessly, drawing the admiration from a grateful Hawks' team, the fans, the league and frankly sports fans everywhere.
Great job, Scott Foster. You did what everyone dreams of -- getting called upon, suiting up and helping your team win. Great story!
Typically, these goalies don't see action. A few have gotten to suit up and sit on the bench when one of a team's two goalies is unable for the game. One even got to play for the final 7.6 seconds of a game this year.
Last night, though, something different happened. The Blackhawks were down to one "regular" goalie and had a thirty-six year old accountant, Scott Foster, who played some goalie in college, on the bench. With about 15 minutes to go or so, the starting goalie started cramping, and the Blackhawks turned to Foster to finish a 6-2 victory over a play-off bound team. Foster played flawlessly, drawing the admiration from a grateful Hawks' team, the fans, the league and frankly sports fans everywhere.
Great job, Scott Foster. You did what everyone dreams of -- getting called upon, suiting up and helping your team win. Great story!
Monday, March 05, 2018
The Joys of Spring Training
The chalk base lines.
The crack of a bat.
The pop of a ball into a mitt.
The high numbers of the prospects who are trying to make a name for themselves.
The alumni, gathered near a field, swapping stories of the old days.
The optimism of each team, even if the deepest, most thorough analytics tell a different story.
The discussion of the building of legacies. Can Scherzer win a fourth Cy Young Award? How will Judge and Stanton fare in the same lineup. Will Crawford, Kingery and Hoskins be this decade's version of Rollins, Utley and Howard for the Phillies? Is Mike Trout the best outfielder ever? Who is a lock for the Hall besides Ichiro and Adrian Beltre?
The hot stove yields to the warm weather of Florida and Arizona. Rosters for the most part are in place, usually with only a few spots open. The union and the owners still joust about an issue or too, this year that the game is too slow in the weather that climate change brings. The younger fans, to the extent they remain interested, get bored quickly. Can they speed up the game the way they do in the minors? Joust they have done, and joust they will continue to do. They probably fight about the Oxford comma in contract negotiations, such is the history.
Families go to spring training to get closer to the players, who are more wont to sign autographs before the games count.
It's a wonderful thing, this spring training. A way to slow down time, reminisce about the good times and speculate about the future.
Have a hot dog, smell the popcorn, eat peanuts and toss the shells wherever you like.
Just like they used to do it decades ago.
The crack of a bat.
The pop of a ball into a mitt.
The high numbers of the prospects who are trying to make a name for themselves.
The alumni, gathered near a field, swapping stories of the old days.
The optimism of each team, even if the deepest, most thorough analytics tell a different story.
The discussion of the building of legacies. Can Scherzer win a fourth Cy Young Award? How will Judge and Stanton fare in the same lineup. Will Crawford, Kingery and Hoskins be this decade's version of Rollins, Utley and Howard for the Phillies? Is Mike Trout the best outfielder ever? Who is a lock for the Hall besides Ichiro and Adrian Beltre?
The hot stove yields to the warm weather of Florida and Arizona. Rosters for the most part are in place, usually with only a few spots open. The union and the owners still joust about an issue or too, this year that the game is too slow in the weather that climate change brings. The younger fans, to the extent they remain interested, get bored quickly. Can they speed up the game the way they do in the minors? Joust they have done, and joust they will continue to do. They probably fight about the Oxford comma in contract negotiations, such is the history.
Families go to spring training to get closer to the players, who are more wont to sign autographs before the games count.
It's a wonderful thing, this spring training. A way to slow down time, reminisce about the good times and speculate about the future.
Have a hot dog, smell the popcorn, eat peanuts and toss the shells wherever you like.
Just like they used to do it decades ago.
Friday, March 02, 2018
College Basketball Payola
Anyone and everyone in law enforcement will tell you that just because everyone does it does not make it right. Which means, of course, that the payoff scandal that has enveloped college basketball will have consequences for schools and coaches with both the NCAA and Federal law enforcement officials.
Major college football and basketball programs are a far cry from what they were even thirty years ago. There is a lot of money involved, period. Sure, most DI football programs lose money; those that don't can make a lot of it. College basketball has so exploded in popularity that networks pay billions to televise March Madness.
So, there should be plenty of money to go around. Right?
Wrong. Dead wrong.
The reason that there is not plenty of money to go around is that seemingly everyone gets to wet his beak save the people ultimately responsible for the product -- the players. Yes, they receive scholarships, but they are mostly one-year renewable deals, and in many programs they are shuttled into courses and majors that enable them to stay eligible so that they can play. In certain cases, those courses are not all that rigorous and don't provide meaningful preparation for a life after the sport. And players need that preparation, for only a very small number go on to play for money (legal money as it currently stands) after college.
Colleges make money in many ways off these players, some of whom are poor. Sure, they get the scholarship and a miniscule monthly stipend, but that's it. And if they should get hurt, well, they're gone. All of the caring that was shown to parents and grandparents during the recruiting process vanishes in one of the ultimate "what have you done for me lately" scenarios. This is ugly underbelly to that pageantry that exists before, during and after each game.
Some will argue that the NCAA is paternalistic at best and racist at worst. The reason -- baseball and hockey players -- most of whom are white -- are allowed to have agents while in college and can turn pro right after high school. Somehow, the basketball and football worlds don't like that; college has become a monopoly, a requirement, regardless of the fact whether some of these great players want to go to college or belong in college. The racism/paternalism that exists denies them the right to play for money right after high school and compels them to attend a college program for a year. The silliness of it all is that the colleges have had to go along with it, turning some programs into a peculiarity because, for example, Kentucky this year has no seniors on its team. It gets so many good prospects that to stay for four years would be a failure. But why do many of those kids have to go to college in the first place?
So what's the answer? One the one hand, you have those who argue that the players should get paid. It is hard to determine how much they should get paid and who should get paid? Everyone on the team? Every college football player, or only those at FCS schools? Should there be a union (unadvisable, as the NFL's union has not been all that successful) or should each player be a free agent? Should there be salary caps? The list of issues is long, and colleges also then would need to worry about their tax-exempt status. Would just those sports be taxes, or the entire operation? Some will argue -- eliminate the one-and-done rule and pay the players, and problems will be solved in college basketball.
But why should the colleges have to bear this burden? Then again, why should the colleges be in the for-profit business of sports anyway? Why must players go to college? Why shouldn't they be able to go pro the way they can in hockey, baseball, tennis and soccer? And why can't NFL and NBA teams have academies the way international soccer clubs do? Players sign at an early age, move to near where the club is, get paid, get tutoring so that they can get their education through high school and then focus on honing their craft and just playing? It seems to work in international soccer, so why not for basketball and football?
Sure, many in the paternalistic world of college sports won't like it, as it could be the case that many of the top 50-200 players might opt for an academy instead of going to college. They can focus on their sport and get money for their families, which some desperately need. This also could mean that the SEC football schools and ACC hoops schools, among many others, might not get the top prospects. But this also could mean that the sports could return to being interesting and fun extracurricular activities and then some more than big businesses. I still think that without five-star recruits Nick Saban would be inventive enough to win a national title. The question would be whether the players who do not go into academies should get scholarships and salaries or just scholarships. The formation of academies in the pro leagues does not solve the problem over whether college athletes should get paid.
This is a complicated topic with no easy answer. The current system clearly does not work. And if you have a system where people feel they need to cheat in order to keep up or tread water, you need to reexamine the system to determine how to change it so that no one has to break the rules. It's one think to punish the violators; it's another to change rules and the culture that surrounds the sports. The powers that be need to focus on the problem they are trying to solve -- whether it's to clean up the current mess and keep the rules in place or to clean up the current mess and change the system or the rules so that the integrity of the games, which is on shaky ground -- can be improved and the coach and players inserted into a system that does not provide much temptation to cheat.
The vote here is to end the paternalism, let all kids go pro out of high school, take a lot of the developmental work away from the colleges, have the NBA and NFL teams form academies, leave college for the ones who truly want to be there, share more revenue with those who go to college, and put in harsh penalties for those who violate the new rules.
Major college football and basketball programs are a far cry from what they were even thirty years ago. There is a lot of money involved, period. Sure, most DI football programs lose money; those that don't can make a lot of it. College basketball has so exploded in popularity that networks pay billions to televise March Madness.
So, there should be plenty of money to go around. Right?
Wrong. Dead wrong.
The reason that there is not plenty of money to go around is that seemingly everyone gets to wet his beak save the people ultimately responsible for the product -- the players. Yes, they receive scholarships, but they are mostly one-year renewable deals, and in many programs they are shuttled into courses and majors that enable them to stay eligible so that they can play. In certain cases, those courses are not all that rigorous and don't provide meaningful preparation for a life after the sport. And players need that preparation, for only a very small number go on to play for money (legal money as it currently stands) after college.
Colleges make money in many ways off these players, some of whom are poor. Sure, they get the scholarship and a miniscule monthly stipend, but that's it. And if they should get hurt, well, they're gone. All of the caring that was shown to parents and grandparents during the recruiting process vanishes in one of the ultimate "what have you done for me lately" scenarios. This is ugly underbelly to that pageantry that exists before, during and after each game.
Some will argue that the NCAA is paternalistic at best and racist at worst. The reason -- baseball and hockey players -- most of whom are white -- are allowed to have agents while in college and can turn pro right after high school. Somehow, the basketball and football worlds don't like that; college has become a monopoly, a requirement, regardless of the fact whether some of these great players want to go to college or belong in college. The racism/paternalism that exists denies them the right to play for money right after high school and compels them to attend a college program for a year. The silliness of it all is that the colleges have had to go along with it, turning some programs into a peculiarity because, for example, Kentucky this year has no seniors on its team. It gets so many good prospects that to stay for four years would be a failure. But why do many of those kids have to go to college in the first place?
So what's the answer? One the one hand, you have those who argue that the players should get paid. It is hard to determine how much they should get paid and who should get paid? Everyone on the team? Every college football player, or only those at FCS schools? Should there be a union (unadvisable, as the NFL's union has not been all that successful) or should each player be a free agent? Should there be salary caps? The list of issues is long, and colleges also then would need to worry about their tax-exempt status. Would just those sports be taxes, or the entire operation? Some will argue -- eliminate the one-and-done rule and pay the players, and problems will be solved in college basketball.
But why should the colleges have to bear this burden? Then again, why should the colleges be in the for-profit business of sports anyway? Why must players go to college? Why shouldn't they be able to go pro the way they can in hockey, baseball, tennis and soccer? And why can't NFL and NBA teams have academies the way international soccer clubs do? Players sign at an early age, move to near where the club is, get paid, get tutoring so that they can get their education through high school and then focus on honing their craft and just playing? It seems to work in international soccer, so why not for basketball and football?
Sure, many in the paternalistic world of college sports won't like it, as it could be the case that many of the top 50-200 players might opt for an academy instead of going to college. They can focus on their sport and get money for their families, which some desperately need. This also could mean that the SEC football schools and ACC hoops schools, among many others, might not get the top prospects. But this also could mean that the sports could return to being interesting and fun extracurricular activities and then some more than big businesses. I still think that without five-star recruits Nick Saban would be inventive enough to win a national title. The question would be whether the players who do not go into academies should get scholarships and salaries or just scholarships. The formation of academies in the pro leagues does not solve the problem over whether college athletes should get paid.
This is a complicated topic with no easy answer. The current system clearly does not work. And if you have a system where people feel they need to cheat in order to keep up or tread water, you need to reexamine the system to determine how to change it so that no one has to break the rules. It's one think to punish the violators; it's another to change rules and the culture that surrounds the sports. The powers that be need to focus on the problem they are trying to solve -- whether it's to clean up the current mess and keep the rules in place or to clean up the current mess and change the system or the rules so that the integrity of the games, which is on shaky ground -- can be improved and the coach and players inserted into a system that does not provide much temptation to cheat.
The vote here is to end the paternalism, let all kids go pro out of high school, take a lot of the developmental work away from the colleges, have the NBA and NFL teams form academies, leave college for the ones who truly want to be there, share more revenue with those who go to college, and put in harsh penalties for those who violate the new rules.
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
Thank You, Birds!
The buildup to the Super Bowl was excruciating. Time moved so slowly in the Philadelphia for the two weeks leading up to the big game. There were stories atop stories about each player's pathway to the game, the Philadelphia-area connections of Patriots' players, the Pats' mystique, whether Tom Brady would lead yet another comeback, the underdog status of the home team, the pundits' selections (75% of them picked New England). Would Eagles' back-up QB continue with his hot hand or wilt under the pressure of the Super Bowl? Could the Pats' offensive line protect Brady? Questions upon questions, theories upon theories.
I think that most Philadelphia fans went into the contest with the belief that the Eagles could win the game. I am not sure that most subscribe to any "team of destiny" theory, but the facts were that the team had suffered some staggering losses to its roster and healed them. Losing starting CB Ronald Darby on the first series of downs in the first game for more than half the season began a cascade of increasingly devastating losses. Okay, so you might not thinking losing your kicker (Caleb Sturgis) or special teams captain (Chris Maragos) was a big deal, but then in the same game the Birds lost future Hall of Fame left tackle Jason Peters and starting middle linebacker Jordan Hicks, another star contributor. And then, of course, the team lost starting QB Carson Wentz, who was on his way to an MVP season. All of those losses aggregated; losing Wentz suggested that perhaps the Eagles' had run their course for the season, that despite some great play all of the injuries would be too much to overcome.
Coaches will tell you that if you give a team an excuse to lose, they'll take it. Part of the brilliance of head coach Doug Pederson and the teams leaders (among them Malcolm Jenkins and Chris Long) was a refusal to offer or take excuses. Pederson led a culture that was all about accountability and continuous improvement, topped off with a relentless ability and desire to adapt to changing circumstances. This Eagles team did this time and time again. They generated a vibe that said that they could run and hit with anybody, but that their true measure was not what they did when things were going well, but what they did when things were not. And when things were not going well, they dusted themselves off, picked themselves off the canvas, and turned the disappointment into opportunity.
Naturally, all Eagles' fans were hoping for a win. Desperately. Deep down, all fans have their doubts. Sometimes, teams just don't play well on a given day, or they do, only to lose their focus, take their foot off the gas pedal and lose a big lead. Very much, all Eagles' fans were hoping for a valiant showing from their team, that if they were going to lose, it would be not because of falling asleep at the wheel, but with guns a-blazing. The reasons for this have to do with much more than football.
The country treats Philadelphia like a poor, developmentally challenged stepchild at times. Condescending, patronizing, scolding, demeaning, use whatever verb you want. New Yorkers disdain Philadelphia because, well, it isn't New York, it isn't open 24-7 and it doesn't have all that New York has to offer. Philadelphia once was home to the government and the financial world, but that was so far back in the day that the legislators used to have summer homes in what is now the Grays' Ferry part of the city, about a 15-minute ride from Independence Mall. A series of maneuvers and compromises took the financial center to Manhattan and the government to swamp land south of Maryland that became the District of Columbia. The city has been the butt of jokes, starting with the comedian W.C. Fields, who wanted emblazoned on his tombstone "On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
The city didn't do itself any favors, either. Fans did boo Santa Claus (that the version of Santa in question was drunk and slovenly and an embarrassment to the trade gets no mention), throw snowballs at the Dallas Cowboys (led by a future mayor of the city, no less) and get put in a makeshift jail at the old Veterans Stadium (the showboat judge who established the court later got elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, only to later resign in disgrace because of a scandal involving the sharing of pornographic e-mails). We had a tough-guy mayor show up to a riot with a night stick in the cumberbund of his tuxedo, and another mayor who infamously permitted the police department to drop a bomb on a row house to roust a violent disobedient movement from the confines, only to end up torching several blocks of the city. Industry moved away, first down south and then overseas. Take a train into Philadelphia from outside the city or from the suburbs and you might think that you are passing a former war zone, the empty, scavenged, dilapidated and graffiti-laden buildings testimony to a time when the city made a lot of things. A famous writer, it might have been Veblen, once wrote, "Philadelphia, corrupt and contented."
Put differently, I've never felt that the city and its residents felt as good about itself as they should. Instead, they sometimes act like they don't belong or that someone else is judging them and that, as a result, they don't measure up. It also didn't help that the records of the sports teams pale in comparison to the Yankees to the north and to all Boston teams and even to the Baltimore Orioles in comparison to the hometown Phillies. And there have been some famous blown leads, notably by the Phillies in the 1977 National League Championship Series and the 76ers from the late 1960's through the late 1970's. And then there were the Eagles, 1-5 in NFC championship games under Andy Reid and 0-2 in Super Bowls.
Losers, chokers, poor drafters, soulless stadium (the Vet), hockey team with an antiquated way of doing things, basketball team that holds the NBA record for the worst record in a season, baseball team that was the first franchise to lose 10,000 games (we didn't know anyone was counting). How many times have we heard it? How many times have we had our faces rubbed in it?
This game meant a lot more than just a Super Bowl. It had to do with the overall identity of our home town. Now, many of us aren't extreme idolators and realize what a good thing we have -- good houses and schools and communities without the taxes and prices of New England, New York and New Jersey. We get that. It's not that we don't think that we have a good thing -- locally. But it's the national image that irks us. Sure, we can fight with each other and have internal rivalries. But pick on us, and we'll get our backs up and defend each other hard. And fight back with you. Even with that, though, there was this thing -- that we haven't always done our best on the national stage, and people look down on us -- and our city -- because of it.
The Eagles' victory over the Patriots changed all that. The Birds played aggressively throughout, charged hard at the defending champs, the dynasty with the best QB ever and the best head coach over and outplayed them. They even ran a trick play that people will be talking about forever, one that they ran on fourth down and one at the opponents' goal line right before the first half ended that increased the team's lead. And they kept on coming and coming. They did so without their starting QB, without their future HOF left tackle, without their starting middle linebacker. They did so not because one person stepped up above all others, but because they all stepped up, did their jobs, helped each other and took the game away from the Patriots.
They made a statement. To be the best you have to beat the best, and they did.
And, in so doing, they hit the re-set button for an entire region. Yeah, you can pick on us and make fun of us and talk about how our area stinks. Most of you who do that have never been here and don't understand what makes the place special in so many ways. We have heard it all; there's not much more you can say that we haven't already heard, and what there is will not hurt us. Why? Because we've been slammed with it for years, and each and every time we shake it off, carry on, move on and stand up strong. But what the Eagles' did -- overcoming the adversity that they did, staying together and holding true to a common belief that they could achieve what no Eagles' team had done in the prior 52 years -- makes a statement that blankets and elevates an entire region and entire group of people.
We can win the big one in the biggest sport on the biggest stage.
We are winners.
We always thought we could do anything we set our minds to.
But now we have shown everyone we can.
And made believers out of them.
Thank you, Eagles, for this most special of victories.
In flying proudly, you have elevated all of us to fly with you.
And it feels really good.
I think that most Philadelphia fans went into the contest with the belief that the Eagles could win the game. I am not sure that most subscribe to any "team of destiny" theory, but the facts were that the team had suffered some staggering losses to its roster and healed them. Losing starting CB Ronald Darby on the first series of downs in the first game for more than half the season began a cascade of increasingly devastating losses. Okay, so you might not thinking losing your kicker (Caleb Sturgis) or special teams captain (Chris Maragos) was a big deal, but then in the same game the Birds lost future Hall of Fame left tackle Jason Peters and starting middle linebacker Jordan Hicks, another star contributor. And then, of course, the team lost starting QB Carson Wentz, who was on his way to an MVP season. All of those losses aggregated; losing Wentz suggested that perhaps the Eagles' had run their course for the season, that despite some great play all of the injuries would be too much to overcome.
Coaches will tell you that if you give a team an excuse to lose, they'll take it. Part of the brilliance of head coach Doug Pederson and the teams leaders (among them Malcolm Jenkins and Chris Long) was a refusal to offer or take excuses. Pederson led a culture that was all about accountability and continuous improvement, topped off with a relentless ability and desire to adapt to changing circumstances. This Eagles team did this time and time again. They generated a vibe that said that they could run and hit with anybody, but that their true measure was not what they did when things were going well, but what they did when things were not. And when things were not going well, they dusted themselves off, picked themselves off the canvas, and turned the disappointment into opportunity.
Naturally, all Eagles' fans were hoping for a win. Desperately. Deep down, all fans have their doubts. Sometimes, teams just don't play well on a given day, or they do, only to lose their focus, take their foot off the gas pedal and lose a big lead. Very much, all Eagles' fans were hoping for a valiant showing from their team, that if they were going to lose, it would be not because of falling asleep at the wheel, but with guns a-blazing. The reasons for this have to do with much more than football.
The country treats Philadelphia like a poor, developmentally challenged stepchild at times. Condescending, patronizing, scolding, demeaning, use whatever verb you want. New Yorkers disdain Philadelphia because, well, it isn't New York, it isn't open 24-7 and it doesn't have all that New York has to offer. Philadelphia once was home to the government and the financial world, but that was so far back in the day that the legislators used to have summer homes in what is now the Grays' Ferry part of the city, about a 15-minute ride from Independence Mall. A series of maneuvers and compromises took the financial center to Manhattan and the government to swamp land south of Maryland that became the District of Columbia. The city has been the butt of jokes, starting with the comedian W.C. Fields, who wanted emblazoned on his tombstone "On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
The city didn't do itself any favors, either. Fans did boo Santa Claus (that the version of Santa in question was drunk and slovenly and an embarrassment to the trade gets no mention), throw snowballs at the Dallas Cowboys (led by a future mayor of the city, no less) and get put in a makeshift jail at the old Veterans Stadium (the showboat judge who established the court later got elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, only to later resign in disgrace because of a scandal involving the sharing of pornographic e-mails). We had a tough-guy mayor show up to a riot with a night stick in the cumberbund of his tuxedo, and another mayor who infamously permitted the police department to drop a bomb on a row house to roust a violent disobedient movement from the confines, only to end up torching several blocks of the city. Industry moved away, first down south and then overseas. Take a train into Philadelphia from outside the city or from the suburbs and you might think that you are passing a former war zone, the empty, scavenged, dilapidated and graffiti-laden buildings testimony to a time when the city made a lot of things. A famous writer, it might have been Veblen, once wrote, "Philadelphia, corrupt and contented."
Put differently, I've never felt that the city and its residents felt as good about itself as they should. Instead, they sometimes act like they don't belong or that someone else is judging them and that, as a result, they don't measure up. It also didn't help that the records of the sports teams pale in comparison to the Yankees to the north and to all Boston teams and even to the Baltimore Orioles in comparison to the hometown Phillies. And there have been some famous blown leads, notably by the Phillies in the 1977 National League Championship Series and the 76ers from the late 1960's through the late 1970's. And then there were the Eagles, 1-5 in NFC championship games under Andy Reid and 0-2 in Super Bowls.
Losers, chokers, poor drafters, soulless stadium (the Vet), hockey team with an antiquated way of doing things, basketball team that holds the NBA record for the worst record in a season, baseball team that was the first franchise to lose 10,000 games (we didn't know anyone was counting). How many times have we heard it? How many times have we had our faces rubbed in it?
This game meant a lot more than just a Super Bowl. It had to do with the overall identity of our home town. Now, many of us aren't extreme idolators and realize what a good thing we have -- good houses and schools and communities without the taxes and prices of New England, New York and New Jersey. We get that. It's not that we don't think that we have a good thing -- locally. But it's the national image that irks us. Sure, we can fight with each other and have internal rivalries. But pick on us, and we'll get our backs up and defend each other hard. And fight back with you. Even with that, though, there was this thing -- that we haven't always done our best on the national stage, and people look down on us -- and our city -- because of it.
The Eagles' victory over the Patriots changed all that. The Birds played aggressively throughout, charged hard at the defending champs, the dynasty with the best QB ever and the best head coach over and outplayed them. They even ran a trick play that people will be talking about forever, one that they ran on fourth down and one at the opponents' goal line right before the first half ended that increased the team's lead. And they kept on coming and coming. They did so without their starting QB, without their future HOF left tackle, without their starting middle linebacker. They did so not because one person stepped up above all others, but because they all stepped up, did their jobs, helped each other and took the game away from the Patriots.
They made a statement. To be the best you have to beat the best, and they did.
And, in so doing, they hit the re-set button for an entire region. Yeah, you can pick on us and make fun of us and talk about how our area stinks. Most of you who do that have never been here and don't understand what makes the place special in so many ways. We have heard it all; there's not much more you can say that we haven't already heard, and what there is will not hurt us. Why? Because we've been slammed with it for years, and each and every time we shake it off, carry on, move on and stand up strong. But what the Eagles' did -- overcoming the adversity that they did, staying together and holding true to a common belief that they could achieve what no Eagles' team had done in the prior 52 years -- makes a statement that blankets and elevates an entire region and entire group of people.
We can win the big one in the biggest sport on the biggest stage.
We are winners.
We always thought we could do anything we set our minds to.
But now we have shown everyone we can.
And made believers out of them.
Thank you, Eagles, for this most special of victories.
In flying proudly, you have elevated all of us to fly with you.
And it feels really good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)