I rewarded my 9 year-old for a good report card by letting him stay up to 11 to watch the broadcast of the Shooting Stars, the three-point shooting contest, the skills competition and the slam-dunk competition. While my son enjoyed the broadcast generally (I actually think he was more excited that we let him stay up that late), he and I agreed that the broadcast overall was rather lame.
First, there was too much broadcasting. Kevin Harlan was out of place, as it's hard to do play-by-play of these events. There was way too much commentary -- Kenny Smith was downright obnoxious (who appointed him a guardian of the game of basketball?), Reggie Miller was bland and his sister, Cheryl, bombed. She tried to generate enthusiasm from a relatively comatose Phoenix crowd, and she was awkward in dealing with the participants. Overall grade: C.
Second, the shooting stars was an okay competition, if for no other reason than Detroit's Big Three (Katie Smith, Bill Laimbeer and Aaron Afflalo) upset defending champs San Antonio and broadcasters' favorites Phoenix to win the title. You had a combination of stars trying to make six shots from all over the floor as fast as possible. This was a good blend of the old and the new, men and women, but I'd question why anyone would include David Robinson (who played pretty close to the basket, but, who, in fairness, helped his team to a win last year) and Michael Cooper (mainly known for his defense) in a shooting competition. There was some drama, in that the Phoenix team scorched in the final round, looking like sure victors, but they couldn't make a shot from halfcourt to seal the win. Grade: A-.
Third, the three-point shooting competition was a dud. No one got particularly hot, the participants are relative unknowns, and, yes, Dequan Cook of the Heat won it. It was a bland affair, the commentary was worse, and when you had Cheryl Miller interview a monosyllabic Cook, you had the low point of the night. Grade: F.
Fourth, the guards' skills competitions had bigger names, but the demands were rather low and the requirements for the guards crowded the court and didn't let them show their stuff all that much. Plus, at least in the first round, few went all out. Yes, Derrick Rose was part of the competition, as was Tony Parker, but this event failed to generate much excitement, and the players weren't tested that much. Grade: C-.
Fifth, the crowning event, the Slam Dunk competition. First, what was Rudy Fernandez of the Trail Blazers doing in the contest? Second, Kenny Smith's dissing of Spain was downright stupid, even if Fernandez didn't belong in the contest and Pau Gasol failed to throw a good pass to Fernandez to get him going on one of his dunks. Third, J.R. Smith didn't add any flavor, which led you to both Dwight Howard and Nate Robinson, who won the event. Howard should have sat out this year, because there was no way he could have topped last year's performance (and he didn't). Robinson put on a show, both because of the color of his sneakers and his final leap over Howard, which sealed his victory. Robinson deserved to win and gets an A for his performance, but the broadcasters were over the top in their goofy comments, the crowd didn't get that into the competition and Howard disappointed. Grade: C.
Overall grade: C- (and I'm in a generous mood this morning).
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Great article on Princeton Basketball
Credit where credit is due: The Princeton Basketball News blog.
Click here and read the whole thing.
The article appears in the Newark Star Ledger and focuses on the change in command from Joe Scott to Sydney Johnson. As Jon Solomon wrote in the PBN blog, the quotes from Coach Scott are compelling reading.
No, they are not sensationalistic, and, no, they are not controversial. They are thoughtful and introspective and worth a good read.
"Thoughtful and introspective" also describe Coach Johnson, who is quoted in the article as well. The quotes from him demonstrate why he's the right man in the right place at the right time for the Princeton Tigers.
The Tigers have a big weekend this weekend, playing at Yale and at Brown. How they fare tonight and tomorrow night will give us more of an indication whether they got off to a hot start in the league or are a serious contender for the top spot.
Click here and read the whole thing.
The article appears in the Newark Star Ledger and focuses on the change in command from Joe Scott to Sydney Johnson. As Jon Solomon wrote in the PBN blog, the quotes from Coach Scott are compelling reading.
No, they are not sensationalistic, and, no, they are not controversial. They are thoughtful and introspective and worth a good read.
"Thoughtful and introspective" also describe Coach Johnson, who is quoted in the article as well. The quotes from him demonstrate why he's the right man in the right place at the right time for the Princeton Tigers.
The Tigers have a big weekend this weekend, playing at Yale and at Brown. How they fare tonight and tomorrow night will give us more of an indication whether they got off to a hot start in the league or are a serious contender for the top spot.
Economics and the Phillies
After Ruly Carpenter sold the Phillies, Bill Giles headed up the team. Giles was a career baseball man, well-liked in his upper class Main Line community, but a man prone to major public-relations gaffes. For the longest time he referred to the Phillies as a "small market" team, trying to justify the team's failure to spend significant dollars to field a winner. Giles either forgot or didn't know that Philadelphia is one of the five or six largest media markets in the country, and, as a result, became the object of disappointment, scorn or derision, depending on one's fervence as a fan or a writer. The Phillies weren't a small-market team, they were just being small-minded.
As the team grew closer to building Citizens Bank Park, they grasped what many of us knew -- Philadelphia fans will go to a cow pasture to see a winner, but they won't go to a palace to see a loser (case in point: when Veterans Stadium opened, attendance wasn't overwhelming because the team was terrible). So, as the opening of CBP approached, the team signed a big-name free agent, Jim Thome, both to signify its committment to upgrading the team and to put people in the seats.
Fast forward to today, and I find the following irony: the team has increased its payroll by about 30% over last year's, with the payroll coming it at about $130 million. So, the team that refused to spend money during boom times all of a sudden opens its pocketbook during the deepest recession in at least a quarter of a century. That's impressive, and the Phillies have done a good job of signing its stars to reasonable contracts (okay, most of them are reasonable; Ryan Howard's is stratospheric).
I heard on ESPN radio today that Phillies' president Dave Montgomery indicated that the fans are part of the reason for the team's ability to spend more. Even in this economy, the team has sold 3,500 more season tickets since last year. So, if you do some math and multiply 3,500 by 81 (the number of home games) by say $27.50 (the average price per ticket -- and that's a guestimate), the Phillies' ticket revenues will be up by $8,000,000 over last year's. Suppose, further, that each person sitting in those seats spends $15 at the park on food and other concessions, and that's an extra $4,250,00 (again, a guestimate). And, then, suppose that fans bought an extra $5,000,000 of merchandise because of the World Series win (another guess) Finally, suppose that the team will make an extra $5,000,000 on advertising revenue, even in this economy (precisely because advertisers will focus spending their money in the places most likely to get the best -- and happiest -- audiences). Lo and behold, you have an extra $22,250,000 to spend.
And, you don't have the exposure to the Bernie Madoff scandal, like the Mets' ownership does.
Next year, the Phillies won't have the following obligations:
1. $3 million on Jim Thome's contract (which they're paying this year).
2. $6.375 million to Geoff Jenkins;
3. $9 million to Adam Eaton;
4. $3.75 million to Pedro Feliz.
5. Whatever they're paying to Matt Stairs.
They will have some more money to spend; however, Brett Myers' contract expires after this season, and Jimmy Rollins' contract expires after the 2010 season. Plus, if they were to let Jenkins and Stairs go, they'd need a lefty bat off the bench, and if they were to let Feliz go, they'd need a third baseman. Finally, Shane Victorino will be eligible for arbitration once again after next season, as will Joe Blanton.
Put differently, it would appear that the Phillies' payroll, now at about $130 million, will be at least that much next season as well.
All typos are mine.
As the team grew closer to building Citizens Bank Park, they grasped what many of us knew -- Philadelphia fans will go to a cow pasture to see a winner, but they won't go to a palace to see a loser (case in point: when Veterans Stadium opened, attendance wasn't overwhelming because the team was terrible). So, as the opening of CBP approached, the team signed a big-name free agent, Jim Thome, both to signify its committment to upgrading the team and to put people in the seats.
Fast forward to today, and I find the following irony: the team has increased its payroll by about 30% over last year's, with the payroll coming it at about $130 million. So, the team that refused to spend money during boom times all of a sudden opens its pocketbook during the deepest recession in at least a quarter of a century. That's impressive, and the Phillies have done a good job of signing its stars to reasonable contracts (okay, most of them are reasonable; Ryan Howard's is stratospheric).
I heard on ESPN radio today that Phillies' president Dave Montgomery indicated that the fans are part of the reason for the team's ability to spend more. Even in this economy, the team has sold 3,500 more season tickets since last year. So, if you do some math and multiply 3,500 by 81 (the number of home games) by say $27.50 (the average price per ticket -- and that's a guestimate), the Phillies' ticket revenues will be up by $8,000,000 over last year's. Suppose, further, that each person sitting in those seats spends $15 at the park on food and other concessions, and that's an extra $4,250,00 (again, a guestimate). And, then, suppose that fans bought an extra $5,000,000 of merchandise because of the World Series win (another guess) Finally, suppose that the team will make an extra $5,000,000 on advertising revenue, even in this economy (precisely because advertisers will focus spending their money in the places most likely to get the best -- and happiest -- audiences). Lo and behold, you have an extra $22,250,000 to spend.
And, you don't have the exposure to the Bernie Madoff scandal, like the Mets' ownership does.
Next year, the Phillies won't have the following obligations:
1. $3 million on Jim Thome's contract (which they're paying this year).
2. $6.375 million to Geoff Jenkins;
3. $9 million to Adam Eaton;
4. $3.75 million to Pedro Feliz.
5. Whatever they're paying to Matt Stairs.
They will have some more money to spend; however, Brett Myers' contract expires after this season, and Jimmy Rollins' contract expires after the 2010 season. Plus, if they were to let Jenkins and Stairs go, they'd need a lefty bat off the bench, and if they were to let Feliz go, they'd need a third baseman. Finally, Shane Victorino will be eligible for arbitration once again after next season, as will Joe Blanton.
Put differently, it would appear that the Phillies' payroll, now at about $130 million, will be at least that much next season as well.
All typos are mine.
Hey, Bud: It Happened on Your Watch
Bud Selig has said that Alex Rodriguez has shamed baseball.
Bud Selig should know, because despite the $18 million or so he made this past season alone the steroids affair happened on his watch. And he and the owners for whom he fronts laughed all the way to the bank, what with cartoonish home run figures posted by many guys who were once stick figures (as were most baseball players about 25 years ago). They needed something to jump start the game after the horror that was the strike of 1994 that resulted in the cancellation of the World Series. Funny, that the players grew substantially larger and that home run numbers inflated and that there were whispers of illegal drug usage all didn't make Bud's radar screen. So shameful was this miss that the family crest of the MLB home office should contain an ostrich with its head buried deep into the sand.
Where's that shame -- the shame of the owners who missed it, the commissioner who missed it and even the writers, who were so caught up in being glorified fans that they missed it?
Odd, isn't it, that in an era of inflated home run statistics the entire baseball community whiffed.
Sorry, Bud, but the shame is widespread, just like the manure most of the cognoscenti have spread around in lieu of heartfelt apologies.
Bud Selig should know, because despite the $18 million or so he made this past season alone the steroids affair happened on his watch. And he and the owners for whom he fronts laughed all the way to the bank, what with cartoonish home run figures posted by many guys who were once stick figures (as were most baseball players about 25 years ago). They needed something to jump start the game after the horror that was the strike of 1994 that resulted in the cancellation of the World Series. Funny, that the players grew substantially larger and that home run numbers inflated and that there were whispers of illegal drug usage all didn't make Bud's radar screen. So shameful was this miss that the family crest of the MLB home office should contain an ostrich with its head buried deep into the sand.
Where's that shame -- the shame of the owners who missed it, the commissioner who missed it and even the writers, who were so caught up in being glorified fans that they missed it?
Odd, isn't it, that in an era of inflated home run statistics the entire baseball community whiffed.
Sorry, Bud, but the shame is widespread, just like the manure most of the cognoscenti have spread around in lieu of heartfelt apologies.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Phillies' Latest Hot Prospect
is Jason Donald, who played great at shortstop for AA Reading last year, played outstanding ball on the Olympic team and drew rave reviews in the Arizona Fall League.
Phillies' personnel also have been working Donald out at second and third, for two disparate reasons. While Donald will be a non-roster invitee to spring training, he'd be among the possibilities if Chase Utley isn't ready when the season begins. The article doesn't say, but my guess is that the team is working him out at third because Pedro Feliz will be a free agent after this season and while he's a good defensive player, he's streaky on offensive and has among the worst on-base percentages in baseball for a starting player. Translated: Donald might be an upgrade.
Before you can say "Ryne Sandberg" (who played SS in the minors, was blocked by Larry Bowa and then was traded to the Cubs because the Phils' brass didn't think he could play second base), it seems like the Phillies will be reluctant to peddle this top prospect. After all, top position player prospects don't come around all that often. And, before you can say "the next Chase Utley or Jimmy Rollins", remember that not all can't miss prospects make it. When the Phillies were golden from 1976 through 1983, many fans got very happy when they saw the next generation of position players, named CF Jeff Stone and 2B Juan Samuel. Stone had a great half-season after being called up but then faded badly. Samuel looked like a Hall of Famer in his first three seasons before falling prey to his weakness of being unable to lay off breaking balls out of the strike zone. He enjoyed a long career, most of it as a utility player.
The article also says that scouts describe Donald as an overachiever. The last overachiever I saw in person in the minors was a AA second baseman for the Trenton Thunder over 10 years ago, a short, blonde kid who had a Shane Victorino-like engine, hit about .340 with 50 steals and yet somehow didn't make his club's list of top 10 prospects in Baseball America. The player came in at #13, which was a mystery because I saw some of those listed ahead of him (most of whom didn't make the majors) and wasn't impressed. A few of those guys were recruited for football by big-time programs, and this guy, well, was short.
He turned out to be David Eckstein, who has won World Series rings with the Angels and Cardinals. Put simply, David Eckstein usually puts you in a position to win a baseball game.
Jason Donald is different from David Eckstein in that he can hit for much more power. The fact that he has a great engine and his teammates love him bodes well, as do the numbers he's put up so far. Phillies' fans, though, should exercise caution in their giddiness, because not everyone who fares well in the minors excels in the majors. (Just ask Dodgers' fans, who for years saw prospects put up huge numbers at AAA Albuquerque, only to have them fail in the majors, or Brewers' fans, who for years saw players put up huge numbers at AA El Paso, only to have them fizzle; thankfully, Donald hasn't grown up in similar launching pads).
Now that I have asked fans to show caution, Jason Donald's development (and Lou Marson's) is an exciting story for the Phillies. Let's see how Donald fares in spring training and where he lands once the season starts.
Phillies' personnel also have been working Donald out at second and third, for two disparate reasons. While Donald will be a non-roster invitee to spring training, he'd be among the possibilities if Chase Utley isn't ready when the season begins. The article doesn't say, but my guess is that the team is working him out at third because Pedro Feliz will be a free agent after this season and while he's a good defensive player, he's streaky on offensive and has among the worst on-base percentages in baseball for a starting player. Translated: Donald might be an upgrade.
Before you can say "Ryne Sandberg" (who played SS in the minors, was blocked by Larry Bowa and then was traded to the Cubs because the Phils' brass didn't think he could play second base), it seems like the Phillies will be reluctant to peddle this top prospect. After all, top position player prospects don't come around all that often. And, before you can say "the next Chase Utley or Jimmy Rollins", remember that not all can't miss prospects make it. When the Phillies were golden from 1976 through 1983, many fans got very happy when they saw the next generation of position players, named CF Jeff Stone and 2B Juan Samuel. Stone had a great half-season after being called up but then faded badly. Samuel looked like a Hall of Famer in his first three seasons before falling prey to his weakness of being unable to lay off breaking balls out of the strike zone. He enjoyed a long career, most of it as a utility player.
The article also says that scouts describe Donald as an overachiever. The last overachiever I saw in person in the minors was a AA second baseman for the Trenton Thunder over 10 years ago, a short, blonde kid who had a Shane Victorino-like engine, hit about .340 with 50 steals and yet somehow didn't make his club's list of top 10 prospects in Baseball America. The player came in at #13, which was a mystery because I saw some of those listed ahead of him (most of whom didn't make the majors) and wasn't impressed. A few of those guys were recruited for football by big-time programs, and this guy, well, was short.
He turned out to be David Eckstein, who has won World Series rings with the Angels and Cardinals. Put simply, David Eckstein usually puts you in a position to win a baseball game.
Jason Donald is different from David Eckstein in that he can hit for much more power. The fact that he has a great engine and his teammates love him bodes well, as do the numbers he's put up so far. Phillies' fans, though, should exercise caution in their giddiness, because not everyone who fares well in the minors excels in the majors. (Just ask Dodgers' fans, who for years saw prospects put up huge numbers at AAA Albuquerque, only to have them fail in the majors, or Brewers' fans, who for years saw players put up huge numbers at AA El Paso, only to have them fizzle; thankfully, Donald hasn't grown up in similar launching pads).
Now that I have asked fans to show caution, Jason Donald's development (and Lou Marson's) is an exciting story for the Phillies. Let's see how Donald fares in spring training and where he lands once the season starts.
Monday, February 09, 2009
All-Staroids: Who's Next?
Alex Rodriguez admitted today that he took steroids from 2001 through 2003. A-Rod gave a public confession and apology after a report leaked that he was one of over a hundred players who tested positive during MLB's random testing of players many years ago (and before there were penalties for steroid usage).
So, where does baseball go with this?
Many thought that MLB had put the steroid era to bed with the issuance of the Mitchell Report. They thought wrong.
Because now debates will rage again. Will A-Rod, more toward the pariah end of baseball players than, say, the Chase Utley end of the continuum, get further vilified in the press and by fans for his bad deeds? Or, will he get credit for coming clean and admitting his mistakes?
Given the treatment transgressors have received, it's tough to predict what treatment A-Rod will get. True, he's not a denier the way Rafael Palmeiro or Barry Bonds were, or an avoider the way Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were. And he's not temperamental the way Roger Clemens is. There's a big difference: A-Rod admitted it.
Mostly. One of the problems with the confession is that it came after years of denials that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs. A-Rod went so far as to say that he was such a good performer he didn't need any of that stuff. So, when he had a chance to come clean, he didn't. Why? Because no one had to come clean, baseball's players' union flakked for the players something fierce, and there was no benefit to confessing. Because that was the case, there was no compelling reason for A-Rod to confess -- in his mind and from a business standpoint. I mean, why put a scarlet letter on your jersey when no one else was doing so and after many had done the same thing you did but were denying? Why single yourself out?
It's understandable what A-Rod did, really, the same way it's understandable that Barry Bonds started taking steroids after Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, who, to Bonds, were obviously juiced, started stealing his thunder when he (Bonds) had been accorded the status of the best player in the game. Ever competitive, and without any possible consequences, Bonds took the juice. A-Rod might not have felt that others were usurping his credit, but he did say that he needed to keep his competitive edge. Which he obviously did.
But that doesn't make what A-Rod did right. He, like the others, was wrong, and, yes, despite some nasty comments from some of you about "what's the big deal" or "get over it", it's pretty dangerous to take medicine without a doctor's prescription and without having clinical trials on the drugs targeted to the purpose you were using it for. Moreover, this type of usage is illegal. It doesn't matter that many others was doing it -- that just makes the problem worse and creates a target-rich environment for critics and prosecutors.
So what happens now? A-Rod should get some credit for admitting that he used steroids and that it was wrong to do so. He should fare better than the others for coming out and admitting it. But, then again, he's been called the best player in the game and, well, he's A-Rod (which is not quite as bad as "Manny being Manny"), so he'll have to endure a large compliment of body blows from the pundits. The larger question is how fans will view him as a gate attraction, especially when he approaches Barry Bonds' home run records (and, remember, Bonds' ascent to this records went over like a lead balloon). If he approaches the home run record and perhaps Pete Rose's record for hits in a career, will draw attention the way Hank Aaron did, the way Pete Rose did?
Moreover, the press and the fans now have a taste for more news on who took steroids. They'll want to turn over every rock, and they'll want access to the union's records, which were supposed to be confidential (it isn't clear whether they were turned over in the BALCO case and whether the results leaked because of the discovery in that case). They'll want to reopen the story as to who used what when, because that's the way the American public is.
Once again, the mess re-surfaces. Once again, MLB looks bad on this point. Once again, A-Rod is at the center of a controversy. Only a month ago people we wondering whether it was fair for Joe Torre to write that A-Rod's teammates called him A-Fraud. Today we're wondering not whether it's fair to call A-Rod A-Roid, but for how long.
So, where does baseball go with this?
Many thought that MLB had put the steroid era to bed with the issuance of the Mitchell Report. They thought wrong.
Because now debates will rage again. Will A-Rod, more toward the pariah end of baseball players than, say, the Chase Utley end of the continuum, get further vilified in the press and by fans for his bad deeds? Or, will he get credit for coming clean and admitting his mistakes?
Given the treatment transgressors have received, it's tough to predict what treatment A-Rod will get. True, he's not a denier the way Rafael Palmeiro or Barry Bonds were, or an avoider the way Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were. And he's not temperamental the way Roger Clemens is. There's a big difference: A-Rod admitted it.
Mostly. One of the problems with the confession is that it came after years of denials that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs. A-Rod went so far as to say that he was such a good performer he didn't need any of that stuff. So, when he had a chance to come clean, he didn't. Why? Because no one had to come clean, baseball's players' union flakked for the players something fierce, and there was no benefit to confessing. Because that was the case, there was no compelling reason for A-Rod to confess -- in his mind and from a business standpoint. I mean, why put a scarlet letter on your jersey when no one else was doing so and after many had done the same thing you did but were denying? Why single yourself out?
It's understandable what A-Rod did, really, the same way it's understandable that Barry Bonds started taking steroids after Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, who, to Bonds, were obviously juiced, started stealing his thunder when he (Bonds) had been accorded the status of the best player in the game. Ever competitive, and without any possible consequences, Bonds took the juice. A-Rod might not have felt that others were usurping his credit, but he did say that he needed to keep his competitive edge. Which he obviously did.
But that doesn't make what A-Rod did right. He, like the others, was wrong, and, yes, despite some nasty comments from some of you about "what's the big deal" or "get over it", it's pretty dangerous to take medicine without a doctor's prescription and without having clinical trials on the drugs targeted to the purpose you were using it for. Moreover, this type of usage is illegal. It doesn't matter that many others was doing it -- that just makes the problem worse and creates a target-rich environment for critics and prosecutors.
So what happens now? A-Rod should get some credit for admitting that he used steroids and that it was wrong to do so. He should fare better than the others for coming out and admitting it. But, then again, he's been called the best player in the game and, well, he's A-Rod (which is not quite as bad as "Manny being Manny"), so he'll have to endure a large compliment of body blows from the pundits. The larger question is how fans will view him as a gate attraction, especially when he approaches Barry Bonds' home run records (and, remember, Bonds' ascent to this records went over like a lead balloon). If he approaches the home run record and perhaps Pete Rose's record for hits in a career, will draw attention the way Hank Aaron did, the way Pete Rose did?
Moreover, the press and the fans now have a taste for more news on who took steroids. They'll want to turn over every rock, and they'll want access to the union's records, which were supposed to be confidential (it isn't clear whether they were turned over in the BALCO case and whether the results leaked because of the discovery in that case). They'll want to reopen the story as to who used what when, because that's the way the American public is.
Once again, the mess re-surfaces. Once again, MLB looks bad on this point. Once again, A-Rod is at the center of a controversy. Only a month ago people we wondering whether it was fair for Joe Torre to write that A-Rod's teammates called him A-Fraud. Today we're wondering not whether it's fair to call A-Rod A-Roid, but for how long.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Princeton Basketball, 4-0 in the Ivies!
It shouldn't be news to you that the Tigers swept league favorite Cornell and Columbia this weekend at home. You can read the headlines and the accounts on-line (the Princeton Basketball News Blog remains an excellent source). What's more startling is that the Tigers dismantled Cornell, 61-41 and held off a Cornell comeback in the second half, and, also, that the Tigers soundly beat Columbia, 63-35. These scores resemble the scores from the Kit Mueller era and then the Steve Goodrich era at Princeton.
Few expected this team to do much in the Ivies this year (among others, Blue Ribbon picked the Tigers to finish last in the Ivies). As a diehard Tiger fan, I was hoping for Coach Sydney Johnson's team to turn the program slightly around from last year's 6-23 finish and would have considered the year a major success (and still would) if the Tigers were to finish in the first division of the Ivies, a solid fourth.
Believe me, the Ivy season, as with any conference's season, is a grueling one. Not only do you play teams that are familiar with your style and your personnel, you play teams on back to back nights with the same goal as you and other mid- and low-major teams -- to secure what in all likelihood will be your conference's only bid to the NCAA tournament. Try playing six straight weeks of Friday and Saturday night games with two against your travel partner -- in this case, the storied University of Pennsylvania program -- mixed in. It's not easy.
After last weekend's games (road victories at Dartmouth and Harvard), Tiger fans had cause for some optimism, especially given a) last year's finish and b) all of the publicity surrounding Coach Tommy Amaker and the Harvard program (such as, "best recruiting year in the Ivies in a long time"). The Tigers took care of business on the road, but I'm sure that most fans would have settled for a 1-1 split this past weekend, with the lone victory over Columbia on Saturday night (especially after the way Cornell trashed Brown and Yale last weekend). After this weekend's victories, the Tigers' fans still will remain cautiously optimistic. The Tigers go on the road to play Yale and Brown, and follow that game with a Tuesday night contest against Penn.
The possibilities are exciting, but the truth is that no Ivy opponent will take Princeton lightly after this past weekend. Yale and Brown are tough in their small gyms, and Penn is Penn. Yes, the Quakers are 1-3 in the Ivies and, yes, to many Coach Miller is struggling with his lineups, but the Quakers get up for Princeton like few others. Besides, the Quakers are desperate -- they cannot afford any more losses in league play.
So am I excited about the Tigers' possibilities? Most certainly. Do I think that they have a good shot at winning the Ivies? Well, we're way too far away from that to even get started. I'm only focused on Brown and Yale, and then ask me on March 10 (the last game of the season, against Penn in the Palestra) whether I think they can win the Ivies. The Tigers have been a very pleasant surprise so far, and, as I've blogged before, Coach Johnson is definitely onto something in Tigertown. Regardless of whether you think that the 4-0 start is a trend, a fluke, or a harbinger for a championship, you have to admit that things are looking up for Princeton men's basketball.
Few expected this team to do much in the Ivies this year (among others, Blue Ribbon picked the Tigers to finish last in the Ivies). As a diehard Tiger fan, I was hoping for Coach Sydney Johnson's team to turn the program slightly around from last year's 6-23 finish and would have considered the year a major success (and still would) if the Tigers were to finish in the first division of the Ivies, a solid fourth.
Believe me, the Ivy season, as with any conference's season, is a grueling one. Not only do you play teams that are familiar with your style and your personnel, you play teams on back to back nights with the same goal as you and other mid- and low-major teams -- to secure what in all likelihood will be your conference's only bid to the NCAA tournament. Try playing six straight weeks of Friday and Saturday night games with two against your travel partner -- in this case, the storied University of Pennsylvania program -- mixed in. It's not easy.
After last weekend's games (road victories at Dartmouth and Harvard), Tiger fans had cause for some optimism, especially given a) last year's finish and b) all of the publicity surrounding Coach Tommy Amaker and the Harvard program (such as, "best recruiting year in the Ivies in a long time"). The Tigers took care of business on the road, but I'm sure that most fans would have settled for a 1-1 split this past weekend, with the lone victory over Columbia on Saturday night (especially after the way Cornell trashed Brown and Yale last weekend). After this weekend's victories, the Tigers' fans still will remain cautiously optimistic. The Tigers go on the road to play Yale and Brown, and follow that game with a Tuesday night contest against Penn.
The possibilities are exciting, but the truth is that no Ivy opponent will take Princeton lightly after this past weekend. Yale and Brown are tough in their small gyms, and Penn is Penn. Yes, the Quakers are 1-3 in the Ivies and, yes, to many Coach Miller is struggling with his lineups, but the Quakers get up for Princeton like few others. Besides, the Quakers are desperate -- they cannot afford any more losses in league play.
So am I excited about the Tigers' possibilities? Most certainly. Do I think that they have a good shot at winning the Ivies? Well, we're way too far away from that to even get started. I'm only focused on Brown and Yale, and then ask me on March 10 (the last game of the season, against Penn in the Palestra) whether I think they can win the Ivies. The Tigers have been a very pleasant surprise so far, and, as I've blogged before, Coach Johnson is definitely onto something in Tigertown. Regardless of whether you think that the 4-0 start is a trend, a fluke, or a harbinger for a championship, you have to admit that things are looking up for Princeton men's basketball.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
The Mets and Citi -- Sign of the Times
Why should this be on the table? Why would Citi, which had announced it was cutting 50,000 jobs, still going to ante up $400 million for the naming rights of the Mets' home field. The only logical explanation is that it's a rock-solid contractual commitment with strict penalties if terminated. Absent that, what on earth is Citi thinking?
Sure, they want to support the team of many of their customers, but what about their employees and the taxpayers? Banks have been grossly mismanaged, loaned money poorly and are now sopping up our tax dollars to fortify their balance sheets. In exchange, we expect that they do their best to honor the taxpayers who are bailing them out (not to mention their employees and their shareholders). So, what's with ponying $400 million to put your name on the field? (Then again, if Bernie Madoff made off with a big bolus of the Wilpons' money, perhaps the Mets really need the Citi infusion to bolster the franchise).
At any rate, the whole sponsorship looks silly. AIG ended its sponsorship of Manchester United, so now its name won't appear on the jerseys of the most famous soccer team in the world. Citi should strongly consider doing the same.
It's a sign of the times that the sign on the ball field should say something else.
Sure, they want to support the team of many of their customers, but what about their employees and the taxpayers? Banks have been grossly mismanaged, loaned money poorly and are now sopping up our tax dollars to fortify their balance sheets. In exchange, we expect that they do their best to honor the taxpayers who are bailing them out (not to mention their employees and their shareholders). So, what's with ponying $400 million to put your name on the field? (Then again, if Bernie Madoff made off with a big bolus of the Wilpons' money, perhaps the Mets really need the Citi infusion to bolster the franchise).
At any rate, the whole sponsorship looks silly. AIG ended its sponsorship of Manchester United, so now its name won't appear on the jerseys of the most famous soccer team in the world. Citi should strongly consider doing the same.
It's a sign of the times that the sign on the ball field should say something else.
Is Manny Ramirez a Flirt?
My dad once remarked that "you can be the prettiest girl on the block, but you can only go to the dance with one guy." I came to think of that remark when thinking about Manny Ramirez, who just turned down a 1-year, $25 million offer from the Dodgers. (ESPN's Jayson Stark reports that Ramirez and his agent, Scott Boras, are still looking for a 4-year, $100 million package).
Manny is a great hitter, one of the best ever. Yet, the Mets and Angels, among many others, have said they won't pursue him. The Giants don't look like they'll be able to afford him, so who is out there who will offer him a better deal?
Yes, the market for free agents is bad because the economy is bad. Teams are looking hard at their payrolls, and with the exception of the free-spending Yankees most teams have tried to be prudent in handing out long-term deals. Manny's a risk for a long-term deal because of the stunts he pulled in Boston, including some ignominious ones during his final days there. Boras has been very successful as an agent, but is Manny listening to his advice? Is there a potential taker out there for the deal they hope to achieve, and, if so, who?
Because if Manny Ramirez isn't signed by the start of spring training, he'll end up like the prettiest girl on the block who was always looking for a better suitor.
Only to find that the dance started and finished without her.
Manny is a great hitter, one of the best ever. Yet, the Mets and Angels, among many others, have said they won't pursue him. The Giants don't look like they'll be able to afford him, so who is out there who will offer him a better deal?
Yes, the market for free agents is bad because the economy is bad. Teams are looking hard at their payrolls, and with the exception of the free-spending Yankees most teams have tried to be prudent in handing out long-term deals. Manny's a risk for a long-term deal because of the stunts he pulled in Boston, including some ignominious ones during his final days there. Boras has been very successful as an agent, but is Manny listening to his advice? Is there a potential taker out there for the deal they hope to achieve, and, if so, who?
Because if Manny Ramirez isn't signed by the start of spring training, he'll end up like the prettiest girl on the block who was always looking for a better suitor.
Only to find that the dance started and finished without her.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Princeton Basketball, 2-0 in the Ivies!
I've been to two games this season, and from each I sensed a turnaround in Princeton's men's basketball program. I've blogged about the team earlier this season, and, no, I'm not now predicting that this team will win the Ivies and get the league's automatic berth in the NCAA tournament (Cornell obliterated its opponents this weekend and remains the favorite, and Penn, Harvard and Columbia, among others, remain most formidable). With that background out of the way, the Tigers are 2-0 in the Ivies, picking up impressive road wins at Dartmouth and Harvard on consecutive nights.
There are plenty of recaps to link to, including the Princeton Basketball News blog, which is the first place you should go for all talk about Princeton Tiger basketball.
Coach Sydney Johnson is onto something in Tigertown, and the Tiger faithful have some cause to hope that this is the beginning of a turnaround of the program and a restoration of the brand that Butch van Breda Kolff, Pete Carril, Bill Carmody and John Thompson III helped carefully construct over the past half century.
Or, as Dick Vitale would say, "Stock up, Princeton Tigers, baby. That Sydney Johnson, what an outstanding young coach, what a job he is doing in central New Jersey. My old friend Petey Carril captured the nation's imagination with a great style of play, and Coach Johnson is getting Tiger basketball back to its rightful perch. Watch out for those Tigers!" Of course, Vitale has said nothing of the sort (yet), and I can't properly account for Dickie V's inflection in a blog post. And, let's not get too giddy, two games are just that, two games, and the season is grueling. Every home team gets up for you, every home gym is a snake pit, and you have 12 league games left to play. A lot can happen between now and then.
True, and for the first time in a few years, Tiger faithful are thinking that a lot of good can happen, too.
There are plenty of recaps to link to, including the Princeton Basketball News blog, which is the first place you should go for all talk about Princeton Tiger basketball.
Coach Sydney Johnson is onto something in Tigertown, and the Tiger faithful have some cause to hope that this is the beginning of a turnaround of the program and a restoration of the brand that Butch van Breda Kolff, Pete Carril, Bill Carmody and John Thompson III helped carefully construct over the past half century.
Or, as Dick Vitale would say, "Stock up, Princeton Tigers, baby. That Sydney Johnson, what an outstanding young coach, what a job he is doing in central New Jersey. My old friend Petey Carril captured the nation's imagination with a great style of play, and Coach Johnson is getting Tiger basketball back to its rightful perch. Watch out for those Tigers!" Of course, Vitale has said nothing of the sort (yet), and I can't properly account for Dickie V's inflection in a blog post. And, let's not get too giddy, two games are just that, two games, and the season is grueling. Every home team gets up for you, every home gym is a snake pit, and you have 12 league games left to play. A lot can happen between now and then.
True, and for the first time in a few years, Tiger faithful are thinking that a lot of good can happen, too.
The Sidd Finch of World Soccer
Some pranksters put one over on the entire soccer world, including the Times of London. Talk had spread on the internet that there was a Moldovan soccer prodigy named Masal Bugduv, in whom, among others, Arsenal was interested. The hype got so pronounced that the Times had listed the Moldovan prodigy as one of the top prospects in the world. Read here for a recap as to how the hoax unfolded.
So, the world's still the same, isn't it? People fall for Ponzi schemes, schemes deriving from the days after Sir Francis Drake passed away (you might get an occasional e-mail from places like Ghana or Nigeria telling a tale of woe and, if only you would help front some money to help get access to a bigger pot of money, you'll share in extraordinary riches), for investment markets built on foundations of Silly Putty and quicksand, and, yes, for the next "new" prospect who's guaranteed to be a savior in some league, somewhere. Many are looking to discover the next transcendant talent or, worse, get a piece of him.
Delightful.
Whatever happened to enjoying the everyday, to watching your high school team beat a rival through good execution, to watching your youth team actually pass the ball to one another instead of act like an amorphous swarm of kids who hadn't seen recess for three weeks? Whatever happened to taking satisfaction in enjoying the here and now?
Put different, how could a hoax get so much traction and fool the venerable Times, which, to my recollection, used to have some standards when it came to fact-checking and reporting? Masal Bugduv? Pretty hilarous, when you think about it, because given the instant access to facts the internet provides, we're all quick to assume that if someone's from a place the internet doesn't report on as much, such as Moldova (or Tajikistan), something like this seems plausible and gets a pass precisely because you're not going to send anyone to the blessed place to report on a phenom. It's just not cost-effective, and you let your standards down because, well, you don't want to come across like a socioeconomically and perhaps racially insensitive lout by suggesting that without further proof, the guy doesn't exist. Why? Because perhaps you don't want to be accused of thinking that Moldova of all places could source the next soccer wunderkind.
And that's where reporters and readers get trapped. And, of course, investors, too.
Thankfully, those who got the Bugduv bug only suffered minor ignominy in that pranksters fooled them. But that same susceptibility could hurt those believers in other areas, so they should reactivate their skepticism and ask legitimate questions about the Masal Bugduvs of the world. And the experts, well, they should be held to the minimal standard of just doing their standard homework.
Which, clearly, they did not do in this case.
So, the world's still the same, isn't it? People fall for Ponzi schemes, schemes deriving from the days after Sir Francis Drake passed away (you might get an occasional e-mail from places like Ghana or Nigeria telling a tale of woe and, if only you would help front some money to help get access to a bigger pot of money, you'll share in extraordinary riches), for investment markets built on foundations of Silly Putty and quicksand, and, yes, for the next "new" prospect who's guaranteed to be a savior in some league, somewhere. Many are looking to discover the next transcendant talent or, worse, get a piece of him.
Delightful.
Whatever happened to enjoying the everyday, to watching your high school team beat a rival through good execution, to watching your youth team actually pass the ball to one another instead of act like an amorphous swarm of kids who hadn't seen recess for three weeks? Whatever happened to taking satisfaction in enjoying the here and now?
Put different, how could a hoax get so much traction and fool the venerable Times, which, to my recollection, used to have some standards when it came to fact-checking and reporting? Masal Bugduv? Pretty hilarous, when you think about it, because given the instant access to facts the internet provides, we're all quick to assume that if someone's from a place the internet doesn't report on as much, such as Moldova (or Tajikistan), something like this seems plausible and gets a pass precisely because you're not going to send anyone to the blessed place to report on a phenom. It's just not cost-effective, and you let your standards down because, well, you don't want to come across like a socioeconomically and perhaps racially insensitive lout by suggesting that without further proof, the guy doesn't exist. Why? Because perhaps you don't want to be accused of thinking that Moldova of all places could source the next soccer wunderkind.
And that's where reporters and readers get trapped. And, of course, investors, too.
Thankfully, those who got the Bugduv bug only suffered minor ignominy in that pranksters fooled them. But that same susceptibility could hurt those believers in other areas, so they should reactivate their skepticism and ask legitimate questions about the Masal Bugduvs of the world. And the experts, well, they should be held to the minimal standard of just doing their standard homework.
Which, clearly, they did not do in this case.
Friday, January 30, 2009
You Must Watch "Friday Night Lights"
Yes, I'm hooked.
I saw some episodes when the show first came out, lost track of it, and now have bought the first two seasons DVDs (good deal on Amazon) and am in the process of both watching the first full season and the new season, which has been running on NBC at 9 p.m. on Friday night EST.
This is a great show. Click here to get a sense of what it's all about. The acting is just awesome, and I'd give special kudos to Kyle Chandler, who plays head coach Eric Taylor, Connie Britton, who plays Taylor's wife, Tammy (who is now the high school's principal) and Zach Gilford, who plays QB Matt Saracen. The others whose names are in the credits are outstanding, too, as is the cinematography, the supporting acting (the actress who plays the star running back's mother gives all-time performances), and the music is terrific. This is a great series about a community in Texas, its high school football team, and the lives of many who surround it.
Give yourself a treat -- take the time to watch this show.
I saw some episodes when the show first came out, lost track of it, and now have bought the first two seasons DVDs (good deal on Amazon) and am in the process of both watching the first full season and the new season, which has been running on NBC at 9 p.m. on Friday night EST.
This is a great show. Click here to get a sense of what it's all about. The acting is just awesome, and I'd give special kudos to Kyle Chandler, who plays head coach Eric Taylor, Connie Britton, who plays Taylor's wife, Tammy (who is now the high school's principal) and Zach Gilford, who plays QB Matt Saracen. The others whose names are in the credits are outstanding, too, as is the cinematography, the supporting acting (the actress who plays the star running back's mother gives all-time performances), and the music is terrific. This is a great series about a community in Texas, its high school football team, and the lives of many who surround it.
Give yourself a treat -- take the time to watch this show.
Say it ain't so, Joe!
By collaborating with Sports Illustrated's Tom Verducci on a book about his tenure with the Yankees, Joe Torre apparently proves what is self-evident but, which deep down, we did not want to believe -- that he's as human and every bit as flawed as the next guy.
He's certainly no Saint Joseph, and he probably never thought he was or pretended to be. Still, his image was one of the cool, collected fied general, a leader who kept his emotions in check, managed in a measured fashion, and was above the pettiness that characterizes many elite athletes. That's what I thought -- great manager, good leader, good guy.
And he probably still is all of those things. Writing the book doesn't make Torre a bad guy, but writing what he did might mean that he did a wrong thing.
Because Joe Torre talked out of school, threw people on his team and in his organization under the bus, and, really, for what purpose?
Most of us know that Hank Steinbrenner and the Yankee brain trust treated Torre poorly when the Bombers offered Torre a one-year deal. Most of us know that Randy Johnson seems to be a jerk, that Carl Pavano was a big disappointment, that David Wells had to be high maintenance, and we could have guessed that Torre didn't always see eye to eye with Brian Cashman, the team's general manager, because there are usually points of conflict between the manager and front office over player personnel decisions. So, why write the book?
Mike Francesa of WFAN in New York asked the same question on his show yesterday. Torre has made a bundle through contracts and promotions, so why do this? Why speak out of school? Why be so publicly critical? Why tarnish your image, Joe, because many fans are viewing this book not (only) as a reflection on the people you criticized, but also of you. And that doesn't make you look good -- because it appears that you come off much less lofty that your prior image would have suggested.
I look forward to reading the book (when I get it on an overrun or at a used book sale), because Verducci writes well and Torre is a figure of interest. But I still don't get it, at all.
Because in writing the book it appears you proved you're not much different from everyone else.
And it hurts because your fans thought you were above all that.
He's certainly no Saint Joseph, and he probably never thought he was or pretended to be. Still, his image was one of the cool, collected fied general, a leader who kept his emotions in check, managed in a measured fashion, and was above the pettiness that characterizes many elite athletes. That's what I thought -- great manager, good leader, good guy.
And he probably still is all of those things. Writing the book doesn't make Torre a bad guy, but writing what he did might mean that he did a wrong thing.
Because Joe Torre talked out of school, threw people on his team and in his organization under the bus, and, really, for what purpose?
Most of us know that Hank Steinbrenner and the Yankee brain trust treated Torre poorly when the Bombers offered Torre a one-year deal. Most of us know that Randy Johnson seems to be a jerk, that Carl Pavano was a big disappointment, that David Wells had to be high maintenance, and we could have guessed that Torre didn't always see eye to eye with Brian Cashman, the team's general manager, because there are usually points of conflict between the manager and front office over player personnel decisions. So, why write the book?
Mike Francesa of WFAN in New York asked the same question on his show yesterday. Torre has made a bundle through contracts and promotions, so why do this? Why speak out of school? Why be so publicly critical? Why tarnish your image, Joe, because many fans are viewing this book not (only) as a reflection on the people you criticized, but also of you. And that doesn't make you look good -- because it appears that you come off much less lofty that your prior image would have suggested.
I look forward to reading the book (when I get it on an overrun or at a used book sale), because Verducci writes well and Torre is a figure of interest. But I still don't get it, at all.
Because in writing the book it appears you proved you're not much different from everyone else.
And it hurts because your fans thought you were above all that.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The City of Philadelphia Should Give Up Its Luxury Boxes
Reports out of Philadelphia are that the city is facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. The city also has a significant underfunded pension liability. So, the city has been considering all sorts of budget cuts, including closing libraries.
But, so far, the city's luxury boxes at Citizen Bank Park, Lincoln Financial Field and the Wachovia Center remain untouched. Apparently, at a cost of $500,000 per year, they're just doing too much good to give up.
Huh?
Daniel Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer suggests that the city does just that -- gives them up.
He's right, of course. How can you argue with that line item when the city is considering cutting basic services, including a reduction in the frequency of trash collection? Would you want to close a library at the expense of keeping luxury boxes? How do the luxury boxes replace a library that for some kids is the only quiet, totally safe place in their neighborhoods?
Now, I'm sure that the city puts some of the tickets to good use and gives them to people as rewards for achievement in the schools, as tributes to families of fallen police officers and the like. I think that the teams, themselves, could be relied upon for some sort of largesse that would fill that void. The city, itself, should cut the expense. That's 1/2 of 1% of what they're trying to save on costs, but it's a start.
The time for indulgences like this evaporated when the banking system had its heart attack in the fall of 2008. We're now immersed in a different reality, where everyone, and not just the millionaires next door, must live beneath his means.
Including a city known for making more than its share of mistakes with its spending habits.
But, so far, the city's luxury boxes at Citizen Bank Park, Lincoln Financial Field and the Wachovia Center remain untouched. Apparently, at a cost of $500,000 per year, they're just doing too much good to give up.
Huh?
Daniel Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer suggests that the city does just that -- gives them up.
He's right, of course. How can you argue with that line item when the city is considering cutting basic services, including a reduction in the frequency of trash collection? Would you want to close a library at the expense of keeping luxury boxes? How do the luxury boxes replace a library that for some kids is the only quiet, totally safe place in their neighborhoods?
Now, I'm sure that the city puts some of the tickets to good use and gives them to people as rewards for achievement in the schools, as tributes to families of fallen police officers and the like. I think that the teams, themselves, could be relied upon for some sort of largesse that would fill that void. The city, itself, should cut the expense. That's 1/2 of 1% of what they're trying to save on costs, but it's a start.
The time for indulgences like this evaporated when the banking system had its heart attack in the fall of 2008. We're now immersed in a different reality, where everyone, and not just the millionaires next door, must live beneath his means.
Including a city known for making more than its share of mistakes with its spending habits.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Pennsbury Basketball: Calling out the Bucks County Courier Times
One of the best high school basketball programs (boys') in the Philadelphia area belongs to the Pennsbury Falcons. Alums of Pennsbury include Bucknell guard Jason Vegotsky and Temple center Lavoy Allen. Senior swingman Dalton Pepper is headed to West Virginia. The Falcons' come close to selling out their home games. Coach Frank Sciolla is a renaissance man -- a well-read English teacher who already has won 250 games (he's not even 40 yet).
Sciolla also gives back to the community. He and his players run clinics for young players in local recreational leagues on Saturday mornings. Well over 100 kids attend each Saturday during the season. Moreover, Sciolla encourages these kids to come up to him during the junior varsity games that precede the varsity's contests. If a young kid looks Coach Sciolla in the eye, says hello and tells him what book he's reading, that kid gets to go into the locker room for the pre-game talk and at half-time for the half-time talk. That's a pretty nice reward, isn't it?
And where are the Falcons? In the top 10 in southeastern Pennsylvania. It's an outstanding program.
The team plays most of its games on Tuesday and Friday nights. The team has won most of its games. And yet, it gets almost no (and sometimes no) coverage in the Saturday morning edition of the Bucks County Courier Times, the local paper for communities in what's called Lower Bucks County. How can this be? Now, the Saturday edition is almost a non-edition, a sparse tabloid that testifies to the financial position of the Caulkins Newspaper group more than anything else. Still, it should be covering the best team in the area, shouldn't it?
Why type of grudge is the paper bringing to bear here? Why aren't the Falcons getting top billing on the back-page of the paper? They have a great coach, good kids in the program and a wonderful program.
And they deserve a whole lot better from this paper.
Sciolla also gives back to the community. He and his players run clinics for young players in local recreational leagues on Saturday mornings. Well over 100 kids attend each Saturday during the season. Moreover, Sciolla encourages these kids to come up to him during the junior varsity games that precede the varsity's contests. If a young kid looks Coach Sciolla in the eye, says hello and tells him what book he's reading, that kid gets to go into the locker room for the pre-game talk and at half-time for the half-time talk. That's a pretty nice reward, isn't it?
And where are the Falcons? In the top 10 in southeastern Pennsylvania. It's an outstanding program.
The team plays most of its games on Tuesday and Friday nights. The team has won most of its games. And yet, it gets almost no (and sometimes no) coverage in the Saturday morning edition of the Bucks County Courier Times, the local paper for communities in what's called Lower Bucks County. How can this be? Now, the Saturday edition is almost a non-edition, a sparse tabloid that testifies to the financial position of the Caulkins Newspaper group more than anything else. Still, it should be covering the best team in the area, shouldn't it?
Why type of grudge is the paper bringing to bear here? Why aren't the Falcons getting top billing on the back-page of the paper? They have a great coach, good kids in the program and a wonderful program.
And they deserve a whole lot better from this paper.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
More on Coaching 3rd and 4th Grade Basketball
We're about halfway through our season. Our league randomly assigns players to teams. There's no evaluation period, no selection of players, and no room on the sign-up forms to tell you how tall a player is, how long he's been playing, etc. As a result, you don't know the type of team that you'll get. So, you tailor what you teach and coach to the talent that presents itself.
This year, we were given for the most part a team of speedy players with a good amount of stamina. Each player has a good concept of the game, at least about as good as you could expect from a contemporary third or fourth grader (in contrast, our team in the second-grade league last year had kids who didn't know that you aren't permitted to travel or dribble with two hands). These kids are far more scheduled than I was as a kid, so they don't play as much pick-up ball and they don't watch many games on TV. That becomes an issue because they don't know the vocabulary as well. Terms like "watch the pick", "follow your shot", "switch" have to be taught with much more precision today. They are athletic, but collectively they don't know the nuances of the game the way my friends and I did when we were kids.
With that as background, here are some observations:
1. Larry Brown (and others) are right when they say teaching is coaching. Many successful coaches have been quoted as saying that they enjoy practices more than games because practice is where they can teach. That's so true. We don't do much teaching during games. Yes, we might remind the kids of a few key pointers before the game and in between periods, but we get our teaching in during practice. Sure, the kids learn by experience from their games, but they pick up the fundamentals and some basic offensive and defensive concepts during practice. For this reason, practices are a lot of fun.
2. You have to be creative when you get only 55 minutes for practice each week and practice on only a half court. We break our practices down into three 17-minute segments, with two intervals for water breaks. We plan each minute (I write our drills down on 3 x 5 cards the day of practice, and we stick to the plan strictly).
Segment 1
Review of what we're trying to do (2 minutes)
Defensive slides (2 minutes -- these get the blood going)
Layups (2 minutes -- and sometimes we'll challenge the dribbler to make him put up a soft enough shot, because seldom does a player get an open layup)
"Fingers" dribbling drill (2 minutes; they kids face a coach, who holds up fingers, and the kids have to shout out the number of fingers the coach is holding up. This teaches the kids to look up when they dribble).
"Go at it" dribbling drill (2 minutes; we pair two kids up, and each dribbles the ball while trying to take away the other kid's ball. This causes the kids to protect the ball).
"Length of floor" dribbling drill (3 minutes) The kids dribble quickly with their heads up, switching hands.
2-on-1 drill (4 minutes). This teaches the kids when to go to the hoop, when to throw the right type of pass.
BREAK
Segment 2
Breakaway layup drill with trailer (4 minutes). We do this drill to get the kids under control and put up a soft shot when they have a breakaway. This drill has 3 lines. The dribbler, a defender, who releases a few steps behind the dribbler but who chases the dribbler, and another offensive player, who is supposed to follow the shot and put in a miss.
Catch and shoot drill (4 minutes). The goal here is for a kid to float through the lane with hands held high, catch a high pass and put it right up (and not let the ball touch the floor).
Pick and roll drills (while also teaching switching on defense) (6 minutes). Two of our players have picked this up more quickly, and they've set some really good picks to free up dribblers. Several are good at identifying picks and switching. We've taught this each week, and the kids are picking up the principles more and more.
Rebounding drill (3 minutes). The kids work on blocking out and then protecting the ball in a "triple threat" position once they secure it.
BREAK
Segment 3
A 3 on 2 drill (7 minutes). Our kids defend very well, and sometimes 3 on 3 scrimmages produce nothing more than steals or turnovers. We want to stress passing here, and we'll leave one man uncovered. The goal will be to find him. Screens are encouraged.
3 on 3 scrimmages (7 minutes). The kids love this activity, and we'll restrict defending to the foul-line and back so as to let the offense operate on the perimeter. Otherwise, nothing gets accomplished.
Foul shooting (2 minutes).
Wrap-up (1 minute).
As you can see, we cram a lot into our allotted time.
3. You should tailor your coaching to your team. We have a very athletic, fast team. We also have one player whose hustle and work ethic are so strong that the others follow suit. The result is a relentless defense (whose weakness is that the fastest players tend to gamble for steals) and fast-paced offense that sometimes is undisciplined but that can score points. We have two units of five, and the older, more experienced players can run by just about anybody. The younger, lesser experienced group shows more teamwork, and several of those players are outstanding defenders who steal the ball and block shots. If you don't have speed, slow it down, work on defending aggressively, and then stress more screening and passing. Put simply, figure out what works for the kids you have and go with it.
4. Don't favor players, including your own kids. My co-coach reported that he was at another sports' activity that got snowed out within the past few weeks. The parents then said that they would take their kids to their basketball games. Some of the parents lamented the coaching in our league, saying that their kids played on teams where the coaches ran plays for their own kids. Another parent there (the parent of one of our kids) said without prompting that we don't do that, that we try to spread the ball around, that everyone gets a chance and that the team responds to our style. And that's true. Our kids make great contributions, but basketball is a real meritocracy, and if you do favor your own kids and don't let the talent rise to the top (or, if your kids are among the best but you don't have them share the ball), your team won't perform and kids won't try hard in practice or think they can make a difference in games. Each kid plays half the game, so it isn't like they're vying for playing time. Some kids get the ball more than others because they rebound it or steal it and start a fast break, but within reason they try to find an open player and share the ball. Yes, we remind them constantly to play unselfishly, but you need kids to be at least temporarily selfish to want to put the ball into the basket. There's plenty of playing time for everyone, and there seemingly are enough touches for most players.
5. Always remember the goal: to give the kids a good learning experience, to help them improve, to let them have fun, and to have them want to play the following year. There's not much to add here. We can see that the kids are enjoying themselves, we talk to the parents about how their kids are faring, we send e-mail updates after games to talk about how the team did (we do not single out individuals in communications, because we are stressing the team's performance and the players' interactions with one another), and we see the kids improve. Occasionally we do e-mail a kid's parents separately to compliment their child's play, and occasionally we single out a kid's play during a game or practice to show the right way to do something. Most importantly, we have fun. We'd like to think that we create a positive atmosphere where the kids come willing to work hard and extend themselves -- they give us a great effort. It's fun to watch.
At any rate, we run different drills in different practices and emphasize different themes before different games. During the games we shout out reminders about keeping hands up, switching on defense if a player gets screened and taking their time when they don't have an opportunity in transition. Most of all, the coaches enjoy watching the progress the kids have made and watching them put into play the elements of the game that we stress in practice.
How about you? Do you have any coaching techniques to share? I'd be most interested.
This year, we were given for the most part a team of speedy players with a good amount of stamina. Each player has a good concept of the game, at least about as good as you could expect from a contemporary third or fourth grader (in contrast, our team in the second-grade league last year had kids who didn't know that you aren't permitted to travel or dribble with two hands). These kids are far more scheduled than I was as a kid, so they don't play as much pick-up ball and they don't watch many games on TV. That becomes an issue because they don't know the vocabulary as well. Terms like "watch the pick", "follow your shot", "switch" have to be taught with much more precision today. They are athletic, but collectively they don't know the nuances of the game the way my friends and I did when we were kids.
With that as background, here are some observations:
1. Larry Brown (and others) are right when they say teaching is coaching. Many successful coaches have been quoted as saying that they enjoy practices more than games because practice is where they can teach. That's so true. We don't do much teaching during games. Yes, we might remind the kids of a few key pointers before the game and in between periods, but we get our teaching in during practice. Sure, the kids learn by experience from their games, but they pick up the fundamentals and some basic offensive and defensive concepts during practice. For this reason, practices are a lot of fun.
2. You have to be creative when you get only 55 minutes for practice each week and practice on only a half court. We break our practices down into three 17-minute segments, with two intervals for water breaks. We plan each minute (I write our drills down on 3 x 5 cards the day of practice, and we stick to the plan strictly).
Segment 1
Review of what we're trying to do (2 minutes)
Defensive slides (2 minutes -- these get the blood going)
Layups (2 minutes -- and sometimes we'll challenge the dribbler to make him put up a soft enough shot, because seldom does a player get an open layup)
"Fingers" dribbling drill (2 minutes; they kids face a coach, who holds up fingers, and the kids have to shout out the number of fingers the coach is holding up. This teaches the kids to look up when they dribble).
"Go at it" dribbling drill (2 minutes; we pair two kids up, and each dribbles the ball while trying to take away the other kid's ball. This causes the kids to protect the ball).
"Length of floor" dribbling drill (3 minutes) The kids dribble quickly with their heads up, switching hands.
2-on-1 drill (4 minutes). This teaches the kids when to go to the hoop, when to throw the right type of pass.
BREAK
Segment 2
Breakaway layup drill with trailer (4 minutes). We do this drill to get the kids under control and put up a soft shot when they have a breakaway. This drill has 3 lines. The dribbler, a defender, who releases a few steps behind the dribbler but who chases the dribbler, and another offensive player, who is supposed to follow the shot and put in a miss.
Catch and shoot drill (4 minutes). The goal here is for a kid to float through the lane with hands held high, catch a high pass and put it right up (and not let the ball touch the floor).
Pick and roll drills (while also teaching switching on defense) (6 minutes). Two of our players have picked this up more quickly, and they've set some really good picks to free up dribblers. Several are good at identifying picks and switching. We've taught this each week, and the kids are picking up the principles more and more.
Rebounding drill (3 minutes). The kids work on blocking out and then protecting the ball in a "triple threat" position once they secure it.
BREAK
Segment 3
A 3 on 2 drill (7 minutes). Our kids defend very well, and sometimes 3 on 3 scrimmages produce nothing more than steals or turnovers. We want to stress passing here, and we'll leave one man uncovered. The goal will be to find him. Screens are encouraged.
3 on 3 scrimmages (7 minutes). The kids love this activity, and we'll restrict defending to the foul-line and back so as to let the offense operate on the perimeter. Otherwise, nothing gets accomplished.
Foul shooting (2 minutes).
Wrap-up (1 minute).
As you can see, we cram a lot into our allotted time.
3. You should tailor your coaching to your team. We have a very athletic, fast team. We also have one player whose hustle and work ethic are so strong that the others follow suit. The result is a relentless defense (whose weakness is that the fastest players tend to gamble for steals) and fast-paced offense that sometimes is undisciplined but that can score points. We have two units of five, and the older, more experienced players can run by just about anybody. The younger, lesser experienced group shows more teamwork, and several of those players are outstanding defenders who steal the ball and block shots. If you don't have speed, slow it down, work on defending aggressively, and then stress more screening and passing. Put simply, figure out what works for the kids you have and go with it.
4. Don't favor players, including your own kids. My co-coach reported that he was at another sports' activity that got snowed out within the past few weeks. The parents then said that they would take their kids to their basketball games. Some of the parents lamented the coaching in our league, saying that their kids played on teams where the coaches ran plays for their own kids. Another parent there (the parent of one of our kids) said without prompting that we don't do that, that we try to spread the ball around, that everyone gets a chance and that the team responds to our style. And that's true. Our kids make great contributions, but basketball is a real meritocracy, and if you do favor your own kids and don't let the talent rise to the top (or, if your kids are among the best but you don't have them share the ball), your team won't perform and kids won't try hard in practice or think they can make a difference in games. Each kid plays half the game, so it isn't like they're vying for playing time. Some kids get the ball more than others because they rebound it or steal it and start a fast break, but within reason they try to find an open player and share the ball. Yes, we remind them constantly to play unselfishly, but you need kids to be at least temporarily selfish to want to put the ball into the basket. There's plenty of playing time for everyone, and there seemingly are enough touches for most players.
5. Always remember the goal: to give the kids a good learning experience, to help them improve, to let them have fun, and to have them want to play the following year. There's not much to add here. We can see that the kids are enjoying themselves, we talk to the parents about how their kids are faring, we send e-mail updates after games to talk about how the team did (we do not single out individuals in communications, because we are stressing the team's performance and the players' interactions with one another), and we see the kids improve. Occasionally we do e-mail a kid's parents separately to compliment their child's play, and occasionally we single out a kid's play during a game or practice to show the right way to do something. Most importantly, we have fun. We'd like to think that we create a positive atmosphere where the kids come willing to work hard and extend themselves -- they give us a great effort. It's fun to watch.
At any rate, we run different drills in different practices and emphasize different themes before different games. During the games we shout out reminders about keeping hands up, switching on defense if a player gets screened and taking their time when they don't have an opportunity in transition. Most of all, the coaches enjoy watching the progress the kids have made and watching them put into play the elements of the game that we stress in practice.
How about you? Do you have any coaching techniques to share? I'd be most interested.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Phillies' Payroll Doesn't Show Signs of a Recession
Read this from today's Philadelphia Daily News and see what I mean.
The economy is faring poorly, but you wouldn't know it by glimpsing at the linked article. Ryan Howard, going into arbitration for a second consecutive year, is guaranteed a 40% raise and could get an 80% raise if the arbitrator picks his $18 million figure over the Phillies' offer of $14 million.
Cole Hamels, Shane Victorino, Chad Durbin, Ryan Madson, Joe Blanton and Jayson Werth also got big raises, paydays you'd expect for having good years and having won a World Series.
The ups and downs of the economy just don't touch those whose abilities are in demand and very unique.
The economy is faring poorly, but you wouldn't know it by glimpsing at the linked article. Ryan Howard, going into arbitration for a second consecutive year, is guaranteed a 40% raise and could get an 80% raise if the arbitrator picks his $18 million figure over the Phillies' offer of $14 million.
Cole Hamels, Shane Victorino, Chad Durbin, Ryan Madson, Joe Blanton and Jayson Werth also got big raises, paydays you'd expect for having good years and having won a World Series.
The ups and downs of the economy just don't touch those whose abilities are in demand and very unique.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Philadelphia Eagles: Modern Sisyphus
Sisyphus was the guy in Greek mythology who kept pushing the rock up the hill, never to get to the top. The Philadelphia Eagles' are football's contemporary equivalent, reaching the NFC title game 5 times in the past 8 years, being favored in 4 of them, and winning only one of them. For some reason, they just can't get to the top.
And they keep breaking their fans' hearts.
Make no mistake, yesterday's game was a disaster, a microcosm of the Andy Reid era. Despite what the Eagle defenders, shills and apologists might say (and I count some of the Comcast SportsNet crew and WIP afternoon talker Howard Eskin among them), the game was a disappointment. The defense laid an egg, Donovan McNabb renewed all doubts about his ability to win the big game, and Andy Reid left us wondering why he can't coach completely. He's a fine coach, and McNabb's a fine quarterback, but together they are flawed enough to come short of winning the big one.
Yesterday the defense failed for most of the game and then failed near the end to stop the Cardinals. Heralded defensive coordinator Jim Johnson must have lost his magic wand after the Giants' game and designed a defense was about as good as the one the Polish Army put up at the outset of World War II against the blitzkrieg. The upstart Eagles' linebackers seemed to be a few steps behind, and the secondary appeared to be in step -- with the linebackers. The offense? They haven't had a running game for years, and McNabb wasn't nearly as sure-armed as he was against the Giants in the second half the week before. Even normally steady kicker David Akers faltered -- missing two kicks and sending a kickoff out of bounds. All of those factors -- combined with great play from the Cardinals -- proved to be a toxic elixir for the Eagles yesterday.
Oh, sure, Eagles' fans are supposed to think it was a great season -- they made the NFC Championship Game after many pundits predicted them to finish last in their division. They made the NFC Championship Game after going into the last game of the season needing a miracle to make the playoffs. Given that background, we're supposed to be grateful for the great season the team had.
Hogwash. The problem with this franchise is just that -- we're supposed to be grateful for above-average to good records while coming tantalizingly close to the Super Bowl. Don't get me wrong -- it's better than being a perennial doormat of the type that all-time doofus owner Bill Bidwell customarily fielded in St. Louis and Arizona. But year in and year out, this team is about as frustrating as they come. They have a good coach, a good quarterback and good personnel -- but they're Sisyphus, and the partnership of Reid and McNabb might never get this team to the top of the hill.
Sorry, Eagles organization, but you need closers. Sorry, Eagles' fans who think this was a successful season, but I'd suggest that you re-think your conclusion and wonder aloud whether you'll be stuck in a 10-6, 1 win in the playoffs stasis at best until the partnership of the coach and quarterback dissolves.
I remain an Eagles' fan, but it's hard to expend a significant amount of emotional fan energy when they've broken our hearts the way they have over the past 10 years. All that said, I'll always root for the team to get to the pinnacle, even if I don't think that they will.
And they keep breaking their fans' hearts.
Make no mistake, yesterday's game was a disaster, a microcosm of the Andy Reid era. Despite what the Eagle defenders, shills and apologists might say (and I count some of the Comcast SportsNet crew and WIP afternoon talker Howard Eskin among them), the game was a disappointment. The defense laid an egg, Donovan McNabb renewed all doubts about his ability to win the big game, and Andy Reid left us wondering why he can't coach completely. He's a fine coach, and McNabb's a fine quarterback, but together they are flawed enough to come short of winning the big one.
Yesterday the defense failed for most of the game and then failed near the end to stop the Cardinals. Heralded defensive coordinator Jim Johnson must have lost his magic wand after the Giants' game and designed a defense was about as good as the one the Polish Army put up at the outset of World War II against the blitzkrieg. The upstart Eagles' linebackers seemed to be a few steps behind, and the secondary appeared to be in step -- with the linebackers. The offense? They haven't had a running game for years, and McNabb wasn't nearly as sure-armed as he was against the Giants in the second half the week before. Even normally steady kicker David Akers faltered -- missing two kicks and sending a kickoff out of bounds. All of those factors -- combined with great play from the Cardinals -- proved to be a toxic elixir for the Eagles yesterday.
Oh, sure, Eagles' fans are supposed to think it was a great season -- they made the NFC Championship Game after many pundits predicted them to finish last in their division. They made the NFC Championship Game after going into the last game of the season needing a miracle to make the playoffs. Given that background, we're supposed to be grateful for the great season the team had.
Hogwash. The problem with this franchise is just that -- we're supposed to be grateful for above-average to good records while coming tantalizingly close to the Super Bowl. Don't get me wrong -- it's better than being a perennial doormat of the type that all-time doofus owner Bill Bidwell customarily fielded in St. Louis and Arizona. But year in and year out, this team is about as frustrating as they come. They have a good coach, a good quarterback and good personnel -- but they're Sisyphus, and the partnership of Reid and McNabb might never get this team to the top of the hill.
Sorry, Eagles organization, but you need closers. Sorry, Eagles' fans who think this was a successful season, but I'd suggest that you re-think your conclusion and wonder aloud whether you'll be stuck in a 10-6, 1 win in the playoffs stasis at best until the partnership of the coach and quarterback dissolves.
I remain an Eagles' fan, but it's hard to expend a significant amount of emotional fan energy when they've broken our hearts the way they have over the past 10 years. All that said, I'll always root for the team to get to the pinnacle, even if I don't think that they will.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The SportsProf Family Appears in the Phillies 2008 Highlight Film!
Yes, call us the Leonard Zeligs of the Phillies' set.
My wife and I were watching Comcast SportsNet last night, and they featured the Phillies' 2008 highlight film, narrated by Brad Lidge. It's an entertaining DVD and one that I would recommend to Phillies' fans to commemorate the past season (I've bought the highlight films for the previous two seasons, and both were very good).
At any rate, the film moves to the post-season and, particularly, to Game 2 of the NLDS. That was the game where CC Sabathia was supposed to even the series, only to have two odd things happen to him. First, in two different at-bats, he threw about 20 pitches to Brett Myers, whose batting average made Mario Mendoza look like Ichiro. Second, Sabathia yielded a game-breaking grand slam to Shane Victorino.
So, we're watching Victorino's shot leave the park, and we see that the camera was focusing on fans celebrating in left field. My wife says, "Oh my, I just saw you." At the same time, I said, "Hey, there you are." It was, as on-camera features go, an evanescent moment. Andy Warhol talked about people getting their 15 minutes of fame. My family got about 2 seconds of fun from this particular camera shot.
And it's pretty cool, too.
The Phillies' terrific 2008 season remains the gift that keeps on giving. We went to Clearwater for spring training games, were at the game on September 26 when they clinched the NL East, saw Victorino's slam, and were at Game 3 of the World Series, the one that got started at 10 p.m. And now we're in the highlight film, forever.
That's a nice way to start the New Year.
My wife and I were watching Comcast SportsNet last night, and they featured the Phillies' 2008 highlight film, narrated by Brad Lidge. It's an entertaining DVD and one that I would recommend to Phillies' fans to commemorate the past season (I've bought the highlight films for the previous two seasons, and both were very good).
At any rate, the film moves to the post-season and, particularly, to Game 2 of the NLDS. That was the game where CC Sabathia was supposed to even the series, only to have two odd things happen to him. First, in two different at-bats, he threw about 20 pitches to Brett Myers, whose batting average made Mario Mendoza look like Ichiro. Second, Sabathia yielded a game-breaking grand slam to Shane Victorino.
So, we're watching Victorino's shot leave the park, and we see that the camera was focusing on fans celebrating in left field. My wife says, "Oh my, I just saw you." At the same time, I said, "Hey, there you are." It was, as on-camera features go, an evanescent moment. Andy Warhol talked about people getting their 15 minutes of fame. My family got about 2 seconds of fun from this particular camera shot.
And it's pretty cool, too.
The Phillies' terrific 2008 season remains the gift that keeps on giving. We went to Clearwater for spring training games, were at the game on September 26 when they clinched the NL East, saw Victorino's slam, and were at Game 3 of the World Series, the one that got started at 10 p.m. And now we're in the highlight film, forever.
That's a nice way to start the New Year.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Racial Bias in College Football Hiring?
So says Charlie Strong, the defensive coordinator at Florida, an African-American whose wife is white. Strong indicated that he'd been told that he wasn't considered for head coaching jobs for this reason. This ESPN article also reports that two SEC schools declined to take an interest in Turner Gill for the same reason.
Wow. It's 2009, we're about to inaugurate the country's first African-American president, born to an African father and a white mother. To say the least, it's sad that the country is ready for Barack Obama but certain schools aren't ready for Charlie Strong or Turner Gill.
Read the linked article and see what you think.
Wow. It's 2009, we're about to inaugurate the country's first African-American president, born to an African father and a white mother. To say the least, it's sad that the country is ready for Barack Obama but certain schools aren't ready for Charlie Strong or Turner Gill.
Read the linked article and see what you think.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Sports Predictions for 2009
I don't profess to being Nostradamus or, for that matter, having half the access to information that the average Las Vegas bookmaking shop does. 2009 posits to be an interesting (in every sense of the Chinese's philosophical use of the word) year. So, hear goes:
1. President Obama will introduce legislation mandating a playoff system for Division I-A College Football. His popularity strong, he'll take the greatest interest in college football since Teddy Roosevelt did about 100 years ago (even if, way back then, Roosevelt had a more serious issue to deal with -- the safety of the average player, as college men were dying on the field at an alarming rate). Heck, he might even tack this bill onto the stimulus package and get this business taken care of in his first 100 days. If you think that the audience for the NCAA men's Division I basketball final is big, wait until you see the audience for the national championship Division I-A football game (where the two finalists emerge from a playoff system and not some super-computer).
2. "Fringe" sports leagues will fail. We've seen the Arena League postpone its 2009 season, but you have to wonder about the indoor soccer leagues, women's softball leagues, WNBA, lacrosse leagues and the like, especially when they're renting big venues and have large carrying costs. People will spend for their favorite sports, but not the extra add-ons. The recession also raises concerns about the viability of minor hockey and basketball leagues and will trouble some minor-league baseball teams (as well as Major League ones). While I'm at it, certain major college athletic programs will run into economic problems arising from poorly performing endowments, lower alumni donations, reduced participation from sponsors and the like. Look for schools to shed athletic teams as a result of this recession.
3. The NHL and NBA are in more trouble than people think. These leagues don't post their financial statements anywhere, but the product is diluted, there are too many teams and too many games. Baseball and football (and NASCAR, which is having problems arising from both the recession and the added difficulties of the Big Three automakers and the companies who supply them) are more popular. Yes, their are diehard fans for both leagues, but given the NHL's strike of a few years ago (designed to reduce the league's overall labor costs, which ownership thought were destroying the game) and the empty boxes, empty seats and "buy one get two free" like promotions that teams are advertising, it will be interesting to see what these leagues look like when the 2009-2010 season begins. I have read in a few places that pro sports are recession-proof. We'll see. I don't have a prediction for the NHL, but I'll predict that the Boston Celtics will repeat as NBA champions.
4. The Indianapolis Colts will win the Super Bowl. There's no reason that they should, but while I like the New York Giants an awful lot, something tells me that the absence of Plaxico Burress makes their receiving game average, no matter how good their running game is. Still, the favorites can and usually do stumble, and I'm not that sold on Tennessee or Pittsburgh, although both are excellent teams. My Philadelphia Eagles will defeat the Vikings on Sunday, only to lose a close one against the (rested and better) Giants the following weekend.
5. The North Carolina Tar Heels will win the NCAA men's hoops title. They came close last year, and Tyler Hansbrough will go out in style and become a better pro than people think (he won't slip to the second round the way Carlos Boozer did years ago, but he's projected to go in the mid-to-late first round, falling past younger players with better "upside"). All I know is that this guy busts his backside so he can kick everyone else's, and that's better than having "upside."
6. Bill Cowher will not return to the NFL this year, and Bill Parcells will not return to the sidelines. The latter will run someone's front office, while the former will probably wait one year. The reason for Cowher's waiting has to do with the economy -- not many owners will want to pay the bucks that Cowher commands in this type of economy. For the same reason, Denver's owners will replace Mike Shanahan with a lower-cost alternative (even if that alternative is one very good football coach).
7. NFL teams won't be eager to hire Bill Belichick's assistants as head coaches any time soon. Unfortunately, the dismissals of Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini and the flailing ways of Charlie Weis at Notre Dame recommend against making such a move and suggest that Belichick's personality is so dominant that his (former) assistant might not be capable of making the best command decisions without Belichick's standing beside them or looking over their shoulder.
8. The New York Yankees will not make the playoffs; the New York Mets will. The baseball gods like prudent moves, which the Mets have made, and don't always like broad brush stroke-like moves, which are the hallmark of the Yankees. The BoSox and Rays will edge out the Yankees, and Hank Steinbrenner will become entrenched as the Jerry Jones of MLB.
9. The Philadelphia Phillies will not repeat as World Series champions, if only because recent history (within the past 8 or so years) suggests that a repeat won't happen. Then again, if the team hits during the summer and they have a fully healthy Chase Utley for most of the season, they very much could.
10. Through the very public example of President Obama, Americans will play more pick-up basketball and get into better shape. It's not that President Bush didn't exercise (he does, and he's in great shape), it's just that Obama's current popularity and youthful vigor will inspire us all to decline the Twinkies on occasion, walk instead of ride, run instead of walk, and generally take better care of ourselves. That better emphasis on physical fitness will pay long-term healthcare benefits for all of us, in terms of better health and lesser demands on our healthcare system. Congress won't legislate against fats and sweets, but the President's example will have coattails.
There are, of course, many more predictions that one could make, from who will become NCAA champions to who will succeed Bud Selig as Commissioner of Baseball to whether either the Orioles or Pirates will have a winning season after so many consecutive losing seasons. I might delve into those areas in the near future, but for now I'll leave you with these ten predictions and ask for your predictions in the comments section.
Happy New Year!
1. President Obama will introduce legislation mandating a playoff system for Division I-A College Football. His popularity strong, he'll take the greatest interest in college football since Teddy Roosevelt did about 100 years ago (even if, way back then, Roosevelt had a more serious issue to deal with -- the safety of the average player, as college men were dying on the field at an alarming rate). Heck, he might even tack this bill onto the stimulus package and get this business taken care of in his first 100 days. If you think that the audience for the NCAA men's Division I basketball final is big, wait until you see the audience for the national championship Division I-A football game (where the two finalists emerge from a playoff system and not some super-computer).
2. "Fringe" sports leagues will fail. We've seen the Arena League postpone its 2009 season, but you have to wonder about the indoor soccer leagues, women's softball leagues, WNBA, lacrosse leagues and the like, especially when they're renting big venues and have large carrying costs. People will spend for their favorite sports, but not the extra add-ons. The recession also raises concerns about the viability of minor hockey and basketball leagues and will trouble some minor-league baseball teams (as well as Major League ones). While I'm at it, certain major college athletic programs will run into economic problems arising from poorly performing endowments, lower alumni donations, reduced participation from sponsors and the like. Look for schools to shed athletic teams as a result of this recession.
3. The NHL and NBA are in more trouble than people think. These leagues don't post their financial statements anywhere, but the product is diluted, there are too many teams and too many games. Baseball and football (and NASCAR, which is having problems arising from both the recession and the added difficulties of the Big Three automakers and the companies who supply them) are more popular. Yes, their are diehard fans for both leagues, but given the NHL's strike of a few years ago (designed to reduce the league's overall labor costs, which ownership thought were destroying the game) and the empty boxes, empty seats and "buy one get two free" like promotions that teams are advertising, it will be interesting to see what these leagues look like when the 2009-2010 season begins. I have read in a few places that pro sports are recession-proof. We'll see. I don't have a prediction for the NHL, but I'll predict that the Boston Celtics will repeat as NBA champions.
4. The Indianapolis Colts will win the Super Bowl. There's no reason that they should, but while I like the New York Giants an awful lot, something tells me that the absence of Plaxico Burress makes their receiving game average, no matter how good their running game is. Still, the favorites can and usually do stumble, and I'm not that sold on Tennessee or Pittsburgh, although both are excellent teams. My Philadelphia Eagles will defeat the Vikings on Sunday, only to lose a close one against the (rested and better) Giants the following weekend.
5. The North Carolina Tar Heels will win the NCAA men's hoops title. They came close last year, and Tyler Hansbrough will go out in style and become a better pro than people think (he won't slip to the second round the way Carlos Boozer did years ago, but he's projected to go in the mid-to-late first round, falling past younger players with better "upside"). All I know is that this guy busts his backside so he can kick everyone else's, and that's better than having "upside."
6. Bill Cowher will not return to the NFL this year, and Bill Parcells will not return to the sidelines. The latter will run someone's front office, while the former will probably wait one year. The reason for Cowher's waiting has to do with the economy -- not many owners will want to pay the bucks that Cowher commands in this type of economy. For the same reason, Denver's owners will replace Mike Shanahan with a lower-cost alternative (even if that alternative is one very good football coach).
7. NFL teams won't be eager to hire Bill Belichick's assistants as head coaches any time soon. Unfortunately, the dismissals of Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini and the flailing ways of Charlie Weis at Notre Dame recommend against making such a move and suggest that Belichick's personality is so dominant that his (former) assistant might not be capable of making the best command decisions without Belichick's standing beside them or looking over their shoulder.
8. The New York Yankees will not make the playoffs; the New York Mets will. The baseball gods like prudent moves, which the Mets have made, and don't always like broad brush stroke-like moves, which are the hallmark of the Yankees. The BoSox and Rays will edge out the Yankees, and Hank Steinbrenner will become entrenched as the Jerry Jones of MLB.
9. The Philadelphia Phillies will not repeat as World Series champions, if only because recent history (within the past 8 or so years) suggests that a repeat won't happen. Then again, if the team hits during the summer and they have a fully healthy Chase Utley for most of the season, they very much could.
10. Through the very public example of President Obama, Americans will play more pick-up basketball and get into better shape. It's not that President Bush didn't exercise (he does, and he's in great shape), it's just that Obama's current popularity and youthful vigor will inspire us all to decline the Twinkies on occasion, walk instead of ride, run instead of walk, and generally take better care of ourselves. That better emphasis on physical fitness will pay long-term healthcare benefits for all of us, in terms of better health and lesser demands on our healthcare system. Congress won't legislate against fats and sweets, but the President's example will have coattails.
There are, of course, many more predictions that one could make, from who will become NCAA champions to who will succeed Bud Selig as Commissioner of Baseball to whether either the Orioles or Pirates will have a winning season after so many consecutive losing seasons. I might delve into those areas in the near future, but for now I'll leave you with these ten predictions and ask for your predictions in the comments section.
Happy New Year!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
A Bizarre End to the Philadelphia Eagles' Regular Season
Most Philadelphia Eagles' fans would have asked you what kind of crack you were smoking if going into today's games you believed they had a good chance to make the playoffs.
Two reasons would have dominated their thinking. First, the Birds would have had to beat Dallas and then hope for two other results: losses by either Minnesota or Chicago and an Oakland victory at Tampa Bay. Second, the Birds played inconsistently in their first fifteen games and terribly in their loss to the Redskins last week. Taken together, few Eagles' fans were feeling good about the Eagles' chances today. Moreover, I'm sure that some were hoping for a shellacking at the hands of Dallas, if only to force ownership's hand regarding head coach and GM Andy Reid and the quarterback, Donovan McNabb (I am not among the disbelievers, however, when it comes to McNabb, whom I believe is good enough to win a Super Bowl).
And then a funny thing happened on the way to missing the playoffs for the third time in the past four seasons. When we turned on the television mid-afternoon, my son and I learned that the Vikings were in a dogfight with the Giants (who only let starting QB Eli Manning play the first half; the Vikings prevailed on a game-ending 50-yard field goal by Ryan Longwell), the Bears were in a tight game with the Texans, and Oakland was hanging in there against the Bucs. Then, the tides turned again, and the Bucs pulled ahead of the Raiders, thanks to a great interception return by safety Sabby Piscitelli.
But, by the time the Eagles-Cowboys game started, the stars had aligned for the hometown Birds. The Texans beat the Bears, the Raiders upset the Bucs, and the stage was set for the winner to go to the playoffs. That's right, the Eagles once again could control their own fate.
Against Dallas, of all teams, the team that Philadelphia fans seem to want to beat the most. Rewind to the season's outset, and many pundits predicted that the Cowboys were one of the favorites to win the Super Bowl. The Giants? Written off. Too many (for the worse) personnel changes. The Redskins? Ah, improving. The Eagles? Well, good, but aging, and probably falling short in what at the time was regarded as the toughest division in the NFL.
So what happened? The Eagles' shattered the myth of America's team once again. They showed that Cowboys' QB Tony Romo does not belong on the NFL's version of Mount Olympus, that they could force turnovers, and in the end, in the most unlikely of scenarios, the Eagles trounced the one-time Super Bowl favorites, 44-6. And now it's onward to Minnesota against the formidable but beatable NFC North champions.
The Cowboys get to play golf, think about a disappointing season and wonder which of their employee roster will help ring in the new stadium that awaits them. Not only did they not make the playoffs, they failed spectacularly in a must-win game.
As for the Eagles, they answered some questions today. Andy Reid will be back as head coach and, in all likelihood, general manager. You don't replace someone with his track record unless the replacement is superior, and most candidates to replace him would represent a significant amount of risk. Likewise, Donovan McNabb will return as the starting quarterback for the same reasons. Kevin Kolb represents too much of a risk right now.
There are other questions. The offensive line is iffy. The tackles are old and unrestricted free agents, and their best lineman (Shawn Andrews) is coming off back surgery. Their center is average. L.J. Smith, the underacheiving tight end, won't return (he's a free agent). The wide receiver corps is improved, but undistinguished. They could use an upgrade at fullback, some more depth on the defensive line and at linebacker. Most importantly, they need to get out of the 6-10 through 10-6 zone. You can't stay there forever, and they need to take a step forward again. The big question is will they?
Many local pundits hoped that something like this wouldn't happen. They fear that owner Jeffrey Lurie and president Joe Banner will tout this season as a triumph, as something to build upon. They hope that the front office will examine thoroughly whether Reid should continue, period, and, if so, continue to be both GM and head coach. They also hope that Reid will evaluate his coaching strategy and his quarterback and determine if changes need to be made. They fear that the front office and Reid won't do any of this.
Right now, it's much better to be in the playoffs than to lament what might have been. Eagles' fans are perhaps more giddy about crushing Dallas than about the prospect of the playoffs, although the gap between the two will evaporate by tomorrow morning.
The day's results were unlikely and unexpected.
Fly, Eagles, fly.
Indeed.
Two reasons would have dominated their thinking. First, the Birds would have had to beat Dallas and then hope for two other results: losses by either Minnesota or Chicago and an Oakland victory at Tampa Bay. Second, the Birds played inconsistently in their first fifteen games and terribly in their loss to the Redskins last week. Taken together, few Eagles' fans were feeling good about the Eagles' chances today. Moreover, I'm sure that some were hoping for a shellacking at the hands of Dallas, if only to force ownership's hand regarding head coach and GM Andy Reid and the quarterback, Donovan McNabb (I am not among the disbelievers, however, when it comes to McNabb, whom I believe is good enough to win a Super Bowl).
And then a funny thing happened on the way to missing the playoffs for the third time in the past four seasons. When we turned on the television mid-afternoon, my son and I learned that the Vikings were in a dogfight with the Giants (who only let starting QB Eli Manning play the first half; the Vikings prevailed on a game-ending 50-yard field goal by Ryan Longwell), the Bears were in a tight game with the Texans, and Oakland was hanging in there against the Bucs. Then, the tides turned again, and the Bucs pulled ahead of the Raiders, thanks to a great interception return by safety Sabby Piscitelli.
But, by the time the Eagles-Cowboys game started, the stars had aligned for the hometown Birds. The Texans beat the Bears, the Raiders upset the Bucs, and the stage was set for the winner to go to the playoffs. That's right, the Eagles once again could control their own fate.
Against Dallas, of all teams, the team that Philadelphia fans seem to want to beat the most. Rewind to the season's outset, and many pundits predicted that the Cowboys were one of the favorites to win the Super Bowl. The Giants? Written off. Too many (for the worse) personnel changes. The Redskins? Ah, improving. The Eagles? Well, good, but aging, and probably falling short in what at the time was regarded as the toughest division in the NFL.
So what happened? The Eagles' shattered the myth of America's team once again. They showed that Cowboys' QB Tony Romo does not belong on the NFL's version of Mount Olympus, that they could force turnovers, and in the end, in the most unlikely of scenarios, the Eagles trounced the one-time Super Bowl favorites, 44-6. And now it's onward to Minnesota against the formidable but beatable NFC North champions.
The Cowboys get to play golf, think about a disappointing season and wonder which of their employee roster will help ring in the new stadium that awaits them. Not only did they not make the playoffs, they failed spectacularly in a must-win game.
As for the Eagles, they answered some questions today. Andy Reid will be back as head coach and, in all likelihood, general manager. You don't replace someone with his track record unless the replacement is superior, and most candidates to replace him would represent a significant amount of risk. Likewise, Donovan McNabb will return as the starting quarterback for the same reasons. Kevin Kolb represents too much of a risk right now.
There are other questions. The offensive line is iffy. The tackles are old and unrestricted free agents, and their best lineman (Shawn Andrews) is coming off back surgery. Their center is average. L.J. Smith, the underacheiving tight end, won't return (he's a free agent). The wide receiver corps is improved, but undistinguished. They could use an upgrade at fullback, some more depth on the defensive line and at linebacker. Most importantly, they need to get out of the 6-10 through 10-6 zone. You can't stay there forever, and they need to take a step forward again. The big question is will they?
Many local pundits hoped that something like this wouldn't happen. They fear that owner Jeffrey Lurie and president Joe Banner will tout this season as a triumph, as something to build upon. They hope that the front office will examine thoroughly whether Reid should continue, period, and, if so, continue to be both GM and head coach. They also hope that Reid will evaluate his coaching strategy and his quarterback and determine if changes need to be made. They fear that the front office and Reid won't do any of this.
Right now, it's much better to be in the playoffs than to lament what might have been. Eagles' fans are perhaps more giddy about crushing Dallas than about the prospect of the playoffs, although the gap between the two will evaporate by tomorrow morning.
The day's results were unlikely and unexpected.
Fly, Eagles, fly.
Indeed.
Yankee Hubris
The Yankees have invested over $400 million in C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira.
Outside the Mets, the Yankees are the only team to open up their pocketbooks in a big way (signing Francisco Rodriguez; the Phillies signed Raul Ibanez and the Dodgers Rafael Furcal, but not at overly huge numbers compared to what K-Rod and the Yankee trio commanded). Either they know something that the rest of us don't, or else they've committed some big-time folly.
Yes, the Yankees generate more revenue than other teams (from the YES Network, among others). But we're in a recession, New York is probably in a bigger recession than the rest of the country because of the throes of Wall Street, and, well, Hank Steinbrenner so far has proven only that he emulates his father's bluster, not his business savvy. And as we've learned so many times, business savvy can skip generations and frequently does.
On the positive side, Sabathia is an oustanding pitcher (especially before the post-season) and can help carry a team long distances. Burnett is a great talent who did well in Florida and still has a lot of tread left on the tires and is well-qualified to be a #2 starter. Finally, all reports on Teixeira is what a machine he is -- defensively as well as offensively. If you take the "advocacy" point of view, the Yankees struck gold and Red Sox' and Rays' fans should shudder because the Yankees have reloaded and are overdue.
On the negative side, Sabathia, the thoroughbred, has come up lame in the post-season, and his girth creates concerns about longevity. He carries a lot of weight, figuratively and literally. He's a risk over the course of his entire contract. Burnett, another thoroughbred, had few teams all that interested during last year's playoff run. The stories focused on his makeup and personality, not great things to hear if you're going to pay the guy north of $16 million per season. As for Teixeira, it's hard to find much negative except to question whether he's in the uberstar class of players like Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez. There's not question that he's a prime-time player, but can he withstand the expectations of being the main guy? If you take the "criticism" point of view, the Yankees have definitely improved their team, but they've made some big bets, particularly on pitchers, that could come back to haunt them.
So did the Yankees act wisely? I'd rather have the troika they signed than not to have them. I do wonder whether they overpaid, particularly for Burnett, and whether they gave Sabathia too long a deal. I also wonder how real the suitors were for Teixeira at the price point he finally settled on. Signing players at big numbers is what makes the Yankees the Yankees. Whether these signings prove wise and whether the Yankees can sustain the revenues they enjoyed before the U.S. financial system collapsed in September remains to be seen.
Outside the Mets, the Yankees are the only team to open up their pocketbooks in a big way (signing Francisco Rodriguez; the Phillies signed Raul Ibanez and the Dodgers Rafael Furcal, but not at overly huge numbers compared to what K-Rod and the Yankee trio commanded). Either they know something that the rest of us don't, or else they've committed some big-time folly.
Yes, the Yankees generate more revenue than other teams (from the YES Network, among others). But we're in a recession, New York is probably in a bigger recession than the rest of the country because of the throes of Wall Street, and, well, Hank Steinbrenner so far has proven only that he emulates his father's bluster, not his business savvy. And as we've learned so many times, business savvy can skip generations and frequently does.
On the positive side, Sabathia is an oustanding pitcher (especially before the post-season) and can help carry a team long distances. Burnett is a great talent who did well in Florida and still has a lot of tread left on the tires and is well-qualified to be a #2 starter. Finally, all reports on Teixeira is what a machine he is -- defensively as well as offensively. If you take the "advocacy" point of view, the Yankees struck gold and Red Sox' and Rays' fans should shudder because the Yankees have reloaded and are overdue.
On the negative side, Sabathia, the thoroughbred, has come up lame in the post-season, and his girth creates concerns about longevity. He carries a lot of weight, figuratively and literally. He's a risk over the course of his entire contract. Burnett, another thoroughbred, had few teams all that interested during last year's playoff run. The stories focused on his makeup and personality, not great things to hear if you're going to pay the guy north of $16 million per season. As for Teixeira, it's hard to find much negative except to question whether he's in the uberstar class of players like Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez. There's not question that he's a prime-time player, but can he withstand the expectations of being the main guy? If you take the "criticism" point of view, the Yankees have definitely improved their team, but they've made some big bets, particularly on pitchers, that could come back to haunt them.
So did the Yankees act wisely? I'd rather have the troika they signed than not to have them. I do wonder whether they overpaid, particularly for Burnett, and whether they gave Sabathia too long a deal. I also wonder how real the suitors were for Teixeira at the price point he finally settled on. Signing players at big numbers is what makes the Yankees the Yankees. Whether these signings prove wise and whether the Yankees can sustain the revenues they enjoyed before the U.S. financial system collapsed in September remains to be seen.
Mock NBA Draft
Hoops Hype has posted a mock NBA draft. Carolina's do-it-all Tyler Hansbrough projects as #23 in the first round, based on production, not potential.
If this projection isn't a symbol of the NBA's potential (huge) problems, I don't know what is.
Let's use the economy as a metaphor. Many people were living beyond their means, placing value on things well beyond what they were worth. Take a look at your nearby shopping mall. Huge sales, little traffic, lots of big brands suddenly not worth what they were six months ago.
Take a look at the NBA. Lots of flash and dash, with the product being questionable in most places save the elites. How much longer can the NBA sustain this model? (True, their jerseys are cheaper than NFL jerseys, but perhaps that's because you don't get sleeves with an NBA jersey).
Take a look at the downstairs prices at the average NBA game versus the average Major League Baseball game (save New York, perhaps). Who will continue to buy these tickets at these prices? And for how long?
Here's something to consider. I was at dinner last night with a friend who is a lawyer representing mutual funds. He explained last night that fund companies have serious budgeting issues because they make their money by taking a percentage of the assets they have under management. Well, suppose a fund family had $10 billion under management at the end of 2007. Then suppose that same fund family will have $6 billion under management at December 31 of this year. Finally, that fund family "charges" one percent of all assets under management. So, at the end of 2007, its revenues were $100 million. Now, at the end of 2008, its revenues would be $60 million. Somehow, some way, that fund family has a lot less revenue and, therefore, will need to cut back on its spending.
Well, NBA, most of your customers are in a similar predicament. And, while sports are said to be recession-proof (a statement to which I don't subscribe given how expensive some tickets are these days and how mediocre some teams have remained over the course of decades), the economy is in a bad way and could remain so for some time. In turn, your customers will feel it -- corporations and individuals alike. Unless you're selling to the super-rich exclusively, you're going to have a problem. All of a sudden, your franchises are worth less, and, as a result, your tickets.
I have argued for a while on this blog that the NBA should shed teams, shorten its schedule, improve its product and give the world better basketball. The NBA over the years has ignored such criticism, because in sales the numbers don't lie. My guess is that the NBA office has liked the numbers -- in terms of ticket sales, TV revenue and merchandise sales -- enough to dismiss such criticism as ill-informed. And, to be fair, they have had a point. In the short term.
The NBA now has a unique opportunity to improve its product. It should take it, or else risk plummeting sales and revenues.
Because watching its current brand of basketball -- with too many teams, too many games and too many isolation plays -- is a luxury.
Last time I checked, luxuries don't fare so well in a recession.
If this projection isn't a symbol of the NBA's potential (huge) problems, I don't know what is.
Let's use the economy as a metaphor. Many people were living beyond their means, placing value on things well beyond what they were worth. Take a look at your nearby shopping mall. Huge sales, little traffic, lots of big brands suddenly not worth what they were six months ago.
Take a look at the NBA. Lots of flash and dash, with the product being questionable in most places save the elites. How much longer can the NBA sustain this model? (True, their jerseys are cheaper than NFL jerseys, but perhaps that's because you don't get sleeves with an NBA jersey).
Take a look at the downstairs prices at the average NBA game versus the average Major League Baseball game (save New York, perhaps). Who will continue to buy these tickets at these prices? And for how long?
Here's something to consider. I was at dinner last night with a friend who is a lawyer representing mutual funds. He explained last night that fund companies have serious budgeting issues because they make their money by taking a percentage of the assets they have under management. Well, suppose a fund family had $10 billion under management at the end of 2007. Then suppose that same fund family will have $6 billion under management at December 31 of this year. Finally, that fund family "charges" one percent of all assets under management. So, at the end of 2007, its revenues were $100 million. Now, at the end of 2008, its revenues would be $60 million. Somehow, some way, that fund family has a lot less revenue and, therefore, will need to cut back on its spending.
Well, NBA, most of your customers are in a similar predicament. And, while sports are said to be recession-proof (a statement to which I don't subscribe given how expensive some tickets are these days and how mediocre some teams have remained over the course of decades), the economy is in a bad way and could remain so for some time. In turn, your customers will feel it -- corporations and individuals alike. Unless you're selling to the super-rich exclusively, you're going to have a problem. All of a sudden, your franchises are worth less, and, as a result, your tickets.
I have argued for a while on this blog that the NBA should shed teams, shorten its schedule, improve its product and give the world better basketball. The NBA over the years has ignored such criticism, because in sales the numbers don't lie. My guess is that the NBA office has liked the numbers -- in terms of ticket sales, TV revenue and merchandise sales -- enough to dismiss such criticism as ill-informed. And, to be fair, they have had a point. In the short term.
The NBA now has a unique opportunity to improve its product. It should take it, or else risk plummeting sales and revenues.
Because watching its current brand of basketball -- with too many teams, too many games and too many isolation plays -- is a luxury.
Last time I checked, luxuries don't fare so well in a recession.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Great Observations from Dana Pennett O'Neil on "The Jay Wright Show" Last Night
Working late, driving home in the soup, I happened upon Villanova men's hoops coach Jay Wright's radio show. Among the guests were Minnesota Timberwolf Randy Foye (a Villanova alum) and ESPN.com's Dana Pennett O'Neil, who covers college hoops and who once covered 'Nova for the Philadelphia Daily News.
O'Neil is first-rate at her job, and she offered one great line last night and some chilling observations about men's college basketball recruiting.
O'Neil is a Penn State alum, and she commented on the inking of 82 year-old Penn State coach Joe Paterno to a three-year contract extension. She lamented the fact that the Nittany Lions still don't have a succession plan, and contrasted that fact to the fact that several programs around the country with younger head coaches have them. Then she got to Penn State defensive coordinator Tom Bradley, a good coach who's well-liked in the Penn State community (he's also a Penn State alum). Bradley's name at times has been bandied about as a successor to Paterno. Offered O'Neil: "He's just like Prince Charles."
Touche. The man who might never get to the throne because of the longevity of the person ahead of him.
She then moved to a piece that she recently wrote on ESPN.com regarding college basketball recruiting. This is required reading for anyone who is a college basketball fan and wonders how kids get to certain teams. The rules permit some absolutely slimely behavior, and it appears in cases that "handlers" of kids -- AAU coaches and the like -- pocket fees, indirectly, of course -- for the possibility of delivering players to schools. One example in O'Neil's article is how Kentucky got a recruit by paying his father several thousands of dollars in fees to speak at head coach Billy Gillispie's camps. (That father pocketed monies for speaking at a few other major college coaches camps too). Another example is how kids get to travel all summer and appear at elite camps. Some of this kids have little money of their own, so how do they get there?
The coaches interviewed are all over the place. The most honest of them appears to be St. Joe's Phil Martelli, an outstanding coach who plays by the rules. Others -- and some would surprise you -- have a view that so long as it's not prohibited it's permitted and that you need to maintain your edge by doing what you can within the rules to land players. Lest you think that high-end DI players are students first, you might think again. After all, given the ethics that surround how some kids get to certain schools, what can they possible learn from the recruiting process that's a good life lesson. They'll clearly learn that someone gets greased somewhere all the time.
And that's just delightful. Look, I don't expect the most successful people to be saints. Most people push hard to be successful. But I do expect them to stay well within NCAA rules and common-sense ethical rules. And the latter area is where we get into problems. They say that sausage and democracy both are wonderful things, but that you don't want to see either of them made. Perhaps the same holds true for Division I college basketball. Read the whole thing and make up your own mind.
You shouldn't be shocked by what you read unless you truly believe that every kid takes challenging classes, will be proficient in math, science and a foreign language and ready for a white-collar job upon graduation. That clearly doesn't happen, but O'Neil doesn't get into the student-athlete paradigm. Perhaps she will some day. This article simply focuses on the recruiting process, and, yes, it resembles sausage-making.
Read O'Neil's stuff on ESPN. She writes well and was a solid contributor on Daily News Live on Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia before moving to ESPN. She wrote a thoughtful piece on this topic, and hopefully it will start some serious discussions among basketball coaches and at the NCAA about the next stage of reforms in DI recruiting.
O'Neil is first-rate at her job, and she offered one great line last night and some chilling observations about men's college basketball recruiting.
O'Neil is a Penn State alum, and she commented on the inking of 82 year-old Penn State coach Joe Paterno to a three-year contract extension. She lamented the fact that the Nittany Lions still don't have a succession plan, and contrasted that fact to the fact that several programs around the country with younger head coaches have them. Then she got to Penn State defensive coordinator Tom Bradley, a good coach who's well-liked in the Penn State community (he's also a Penn State alum). Bradley's name at times has been bandied about as a successor to Paterno. Offered O'Neil: "He's just like Prince Charles."
Touche. The man who might never get to the throne because of the longevity of the person ahead of him.
She then moved to a piece that she recently wrote on ESPN.com regarding college basketball recruiting. This is required reading for anyone who is a college basketball fan and wonders how kids get to certain teams. The rules permit some absolutely slimely behavior, and it appears in cases that "handlers" of kids -- AAU coaches and the like -- pocket fees, indirectly, of course -- for the possibility of delivering players to schools. One example in O'Neil's article is how Kentucky got a recruit by paying his father several thousands of dollars in fees to speak at head coach Billy Gillispie's camps. (That father pocketed monies for speaking at a few other major college coaches camps too). Another example is how kids get to travel all summer and appear at elite camps. Some of this kids have little money of their own, so how do they get there?
The coaches interviewed are all over the place. The most honest of them appears to be St. Joe's Phil Martelli, an outstanding coach who plays by the rules. Others -- and some would surprise you -- have a view that so long as it's not prohibited it's permitted and that you need to maintain your edge by doing what you can within the rules to land players. Lest you think that high-end DI players are students first, you might think again. After all, given the ethics that surround how some kids get to certain schools, what can they possible learn from the recruiting process that's a good life lesson. They'll clearly learn that someone gets greased somewhere all the time.
And that's just delightful. Look, I don't expect the most successful people to be saints. Most people push hard to be successful. But I do expect them to stay well within NCAA rules and common-sense ethical rules. And the latter area is where we get into problems. They say that sausage and democracy both are wonderful things, but that you don't want to see either of them made. Perhaps the same holds true for Division I college basketball. Read the whole thing and make up your own mind.
You shouldn't be shocked by what you read unless you truly believe that every kid takes challenging classes, will be proficient in math, science and a foreign language and ready for a white-collar job upon graduation. That clearly doesn't happen, but O'Neil doesn't get into the student-athlete paradigm. Perhaps she will some day. This article simply focuses on the recruiting process, and, yes, it resembles sausage-making.
Read O'Neil's stuff on ESPN. She writes well and was a solid contributor on Daily News Live on Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia before moving to ESPN. She wrote a thoughtful piece on this topic, and hopefully it will start some serious discussions among basketball coaches and at the NCAA about the next stage of reforms in DI recruiting.
Only in America
I was somewhat surprised when I read the blurbs section of my morning paper to learn of a controversy in Northeastern Pennsylvania involving a ShopRite's refusal to inscribe a birthday cake with a child's full name.
The ShopRite, you seek, objected to writing the kid's name. They did offer the parents to inscribe "Happy Birthday" and leave room for the parents to inscribe the rest of the name, but the parents refused and went to a Wal0Mart, which happily obliged them.
Before you jump to conclusions, understand that the name of the child is Adolf Hitler Campbell. He has a sister whose middle name is Aryan Nation and a brother named after Heinrich Himmler.
In a land of forgiveness that treasures freedom of speech and accommodating customers, who's right -- ShopRite or Wal-Mart? You can read more here.
Putting aside the freedom of speech issues, how on earth can anyone in their right mind name their kid after Adolf Hitler? Perhaps the answer lies within the question and the term "right mind." The Campbells think they're correct, and many of us would beg to differ. I pity the child, who, my guess is, will get a bunch of attention because of his name, almost all of it bad.
I believe that in German the authorities have much more control over what you can name a child, and that it would be almost impossible if not illegal to name a child Adolf Hitler. Yet, in America, you can. The question for those who would say that the ShopRite is obviously correct is where you do you draw the line. Suppose a store were to decline Thais because their last names are long or Muslims because they think they're terrorists ? The answer isn't as easy as many would think.
Likewise, the question for the Wal-Marts of the world is how far do you go to accommodate people? And, because of the First Amendment, should you even care at all (unless someone told you they planned to put a bomb in the cake). President Bush's popularity rating is very low -- do you decline putting his name on the cake? Bernard Madoff? Marc Dreier? Michael Vick?
Who decides? Where do you draw the line? Or, do you draw it at all?
So that's the intellectual conundrum for the day. The questions get the hardest when you marry speech you do not like with a law that helps make the country great.
The ShopRite, you seek, objected to writing the kid's name. They did offer the parents to inscribe "Happy Birthday" and leave room for the parents to inscribe the rest of the name, but the parents refused and went to a Wal0Mart, which happily obliged them.
Before you jump to conclusions, understand that the name of the child is Adolf Hitler Campbell. He has a sister whose middle name is Aryan Nation and a brother named after Heinrich Himmler.
In a land of forgiveness that treasures freedom of speech and accommodating customers, who's right -- ShopRite or Wal-Mart? You can read more here.
Putting aside the freedom of speech issues, how on earth can anyone in their right mind name their kid after Adolf Hitler? Perhaps the answer lies within the question and the term "right mind." The Campbells think they're correct, and many of us would beg to differ. I pity the child, who, my guess is, will get a bunch of attention because of his name, almost all of it bad.
I believe that in German the authorities have much more control over what you can name a child, and that it would be almost impossible if not illegal to name a child Adolf Hitler. Yet, in America, you can. The question for those who would say that the ShopRite is obviously correct is where you do you draw the line. Suppose a store were to decline Thais because their last names are long or Muslims because they think they're terrorists ? The answer isn't as easy as many would think.
Likewise, the question for the Wal-Marts of the world is how far do you go to accommodate people? And, because of the First Amendment, should you even care at all (unless someone told you they planned to put a bomb in the cake). President Bush's popularity rating is very low -- do you decline putting his name on the cake? Bernard Madoff? Marc Dreier? Michael Vick?
Who decides? Where do you draw the line? Or, do you draw it at all?
So that's the intellectual conundrum for the day. The questions get the hardest when you marry speech you do not like with a law that helps make the country great.
Reflecting upon Mo Cheeks
Thinking aloud, I can think of no more classier an individual who has graced the Philadelphia sports scene, as a player and as a coach.
Mo Cheeks, we will miss you very much.
Mo Cheeks, we will miss you very much.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
More on Coaching Third and Fourth Grade Boys' Basketball
In my prior post, I described how our first game went. We excellent on offense, were good at rebounding, outscored the other team significantly but didn't pass the ball well, didn't screen and sometimes ran into one another on offense. So. . .
At our practice last week, we emphasized passing, dribbling with the player's head up, screening and moving without the ball. We only get about one hour, we spend a bunch of time on fundamentals, and when we got to the screening, rolling and two on one drills, suffice it to say that practice didn't go great. We didn't have enough time to put in plays, and I'm still not sure that with only one 55-minute practice per week we really can get the kids to remember set plays from week to week (some aren't even 9 yet). Walking out of the gym, I said to my co-coach, "Well, we'll see how they do on Saturday."
Before the game we warmed up with layups and a two-on-one drill (as we find ourselves frequently on fast breaks, with two of our guys against one defender). I took a few of the kids aside and reminded them about screening, showed them where to set screens and to call out screens to the better ballhandlers. I didn't expect much except this -- we have a bunch of talent on our team, and the kids can run.
So what happened? Well, we "won" by an even bigger margin than the week before. With the first game jitters out of the way, our kids played with more focus. As it turned out, despite the uneven practice, what we said about dribbling with heads up, spacing, passing and setting picks started to take root. Two players set screens that enabled dribblers to go in for layups. Some kids showed nice moves when they switched hands while dribbling. On the fast breaks that we had, they filled the lanes nicely and evenly. By games end, we had five kids sprinting down the court. Now we need to work on finishing plays -- we put the ball up too hard on the breaks, and missed more layups than we made.
Our league is non-competitive, so there is no official score, and there is no playoff system. Our goal is simple -- to help the kids play together better, to have each kid improve week to week and to have fun. The kids inspired us by how hard they worked. We don't yell at them (this is a recreational league -- a kids' game that's supposed to be fun), just to them, reminding them about keeping their hands up on defense, about staying with their man, and about looking for screens. We take care to point out to the kids what they did well when we take them aside to coach them on what they can be doing better.
So what's the message in all this? Here are a few:
1. Focus on the fundamentals. Make sure each kid can handle the ball, dribbles with both hands and with his head up. One of our fastest players focused on dribbling with his head up -- he played a much better (and more controlled) game.
2. Emphasize crisp passing all the time. We have a saying: "Make every pass count." That means don't throw the ball at someone's knees or feet, give them the ball chest high so that they can move right away when they get the ball. I took a few of the kids aside before the game and told them that my challenge was for each of them to have at least one assist.
3. On defense, tell the kids to hustle a little bit more. Translated, that means that we teach them to step in front of their opponent's "strong" hand and make them switch hands. Our best defenders picked up on that early, and they created steals when the opponent tried to switch hands or reverse course. It's a good skill to teach, and you can disrupt the rhythm of even the best players on the other team. We also encourage deflections, and we're working with the kids to stay under control. Yes, we have a few kids who bump into their opponents a bit too much.
4. Stay with the kids on screening. Remind those who seem more inclined to do it where to set the screens. Right now, we're focusing on screening the player guarding the ballhandler, to enable the ballhandler to swing around the pick for a layup or short jumper. We're not as advanced as to have off-ball screens, but we'll get there. The kids saw the results of the screens -- they were pretty good.
5. Be patient. Stay with the drills, and the kids will get better at them. Repetition is key.
6. Finally, let the kids be themselves. The talented ones figure out good ways to get to the basket, and the rest crashed the boards. Emphasize team work and hard work, and good things will happen. Be positive, be encouraging, and even the least talented kids will improve. All each kid needs is for someone to be patient with him and guide him. This isn't rocket science -- it's teaching good skills.
Have fun!
At our practice last week, we emphasized passing, dribbling with the player's head up, screening and moving without the ball. We only get about one hour, we spend a bunch of time on fundamentals, and when we got to the screening, rolling and two on one drills, suffice it to say that practice didn't go great. We didn't have enough time to put in plays, and I'm still not sure that with only one 55-minute practice per week we really can get the kids to remember set plays from week to week (some aren't even 9 yet). Walking out of the gym, I said to my co-coach, "Well, we'll see how they do on Saturday."
Before the game we warmed up with layups and a two-on-one drill (as we find ourselves frequently on fast breaks, with two of our guys against one defender). I took a few of the kids aside and reminded them about screening, showed them where to set screens and to call out screens to the better ballhandlers. I didn't expect much except this -- we have a bunch of talent on our team, and the kids can run.
So what happened? Well, we "won" by an even bigger margin than the week before. With the first game jitters out of the way, our kids played with more focus. As it turned out, despite the uneven practice, what we said about dribbling with heads up, spacing, passing and setting picks started to take root. Two players set screens that enabled dribblers to go in for layups. Some kids showed nice moves when they switched hands while dribbling. On the fast breaks that we had, they filled the lanes nicely and evenly. By games end, we had five kids sprinting down the court. Now we need to work on finishing plays -- we put the ball up too hard on the breaks, and missed more layups than we made.
Our league is non-competitive, so there is no official score, and there is no playoff system. Our goal is simple -- to help the kids play together better, to have each kid improve week to week and to have fun. The kids inspired us by how hard they worked. We don't yell at them (this is a recreational league -- a kids' game that's supposed to be fun), just to them, reminding them about keeping their hands up on defense, about staying with their man, and about looking for screens. We take care to point out to the kids what they did well when we take them aside to coach them on what they can be doing better.
So what's the message in all this? Here are a few:
1. Focus on the fundamentals. Make sure each kid can handle the ball, dribbles with both hands and with his head up. One of our fastest players focused on dribbling with his head up -- he played a much better (and more controlled) game.
2. Emphasize crisp passing all the time. We have a saying: "Make every pass count." That means don't throw the ball at someone's knees or feet, give them the ball chest high so that they can move right away when they get the ball. I took a few of the kids aside before the game and told them that my challenge was for each of them to have at least one assist.
3. On defense, tell the kids to hustle a little bit more. Translated, that means that we teach them to step in front of their opponent's "strong" hand and make them switch hands. Our best defenders picked up on that early, and they created steals when the opponent tried to switch hands or reverse course. It's a good skill to teach, and you can disrupt the rhythm of even the best players on the other team. We also encourage deflections, and we're working with the kids to stay under control. Yes, we have a few kids who bump into their opponents a bit too much.
4. Stay with the kids on screening. Remind those who seem more inclined to do it where to set the screens. Right now, we're focusing on screening the player guarding the ballhandler, to enable the ballhandler to swing around the pick for a layup or short jumper. We're not as advanced as to have off-ball screens, but we'll get there. The kids saw the results of the screens -- they were pretty good.
5. Be patient. Stay with the drills, and the kids will get better at them. Repetition is key.
6. Finally, let the kids be themselves. The talented ones figure out good ways to get to the basket, and the rest crashed the boards. Emphasize team work and hard work, and good things will happen. Be positive, be encouraging, and even the least talented kids will improve. All each kid needs is for someone to be patient with him and guide him. This isn't rocket science -- it's teaching good skills.
Have fun!
Pat Burrell as a Mentor, Will be Missed
So says Chase Utley. (Scroll down to the end of the article to read Utley's quote).
Three's a Crowd in the MNF Booth
Mike Tirico is the play-by-play guy, and he's good enough at his job.
Ron Jaworski prepares better than any analyst in the business, is likable, fair and knows what he's talking about.
So Tony Kornheiser, who is better known as a writer, is in the booth because. . .
Can anyone answer the question for me?
Ron Jaworski prepares better than any analyst in the business, is likable, fair and knows what he's talking about.
So Tony Kornheiser, who is better known as a writer, is in the booth because. . .
Can anyone answer the question for me?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Metbeats, err Deadbeats?
Fred Wilpon, the Mets' owner, invested a lot of his money (how much, though, we do not know) with Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi of his generation, the guy who looks like he scammed investors out of as much as $50 billion. The scheme is so broad that it's rocking banks in Spain, France and Japan, and perhaps bankrupting many residents of a $17 million per townhouse community in West Palm Beach. Read The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal for the gory details. As Eddie Murphy said in Trading Places, the way to really get at rich people is to make them poor people.
The papers over the course of the past two days send a mixed message. What I took from them is that yes, Wilpon and his family trust did invest a bunch of money with Madoff. The real questions are how much, and will this problem hurt the Mets?
Look, everyone is poorer as a result of the cataclysm that hit the Dow in the past three months. The Arena Football League won't play in 2009, NASCAR is hurting (the Big 3 automakers' troubles have wounded this organization), and you have to wonder about the WNBA and even the NBA and NHL. Companies just can't pony up for tickets any more, they're slashing their advertising budgets, and, well, the story just isn't pretty. Major League Baseball will get hit too, in some way. Perhaps the sponsorships won't be there, or at least in the amount of dollars the teams might expect. Ads for local TV and radio will be harder to sell. Expensive merchandise won't sell as readily, and people will give up season ticket packages.
What could be worse for the Mets is how well capitalized they'll continue to be and how much money the Wilpons can continue to throw at free-agent signings. Sure, the Mets are in the best media market and, yes, they generate a bunch of revenue. But the team hasn't been shy about spending on free agents, and you have to wonder if the monies deployed to sign these players come from operating revenues or infusions from the Wilpons. If it's the latter, that could spell trouble for the Mets.
Look, I'm a Phillies fan, but I would take no joy out of a financial demise of a great team. The Mets put out a good product, and their compulsion to win brings out the best in the NL East. The division wouldn't be a strong were the Mets to suffer a serious financial wound, and, by the way, I wouldn't wish anyone to be a victm of a Ponzi scheme, especially this type of betrayal, one that took place over decades. The whole Madoff affair is one big mess.
Reports in the following weeks should tell us how well or poorly the Mets will fare because of the Madoff situation.
The papers over the course of the past two days send a mixed message. What I took from them is that yes, Wilpon and his family trust did invest a bunch of money with Madoff. The real questions are how much, and will this problem hurt the Mets?
Look, everyone is poorer as a result of the cataclysm that hit the Dow in the past three months. The Arena Football League won't play in 2009, NASCAR is hurting (the Big 3 automakers' troubles have wounded this organization), and you have to wonder about the WNBA and even the NBA and NHL. Companies just can't pony up for tickets any more, they're slashing their advertising budgets, and, well, the story just isn't pretty. Major League Baseball will get hit too, in some way. Perhaps the sponsorships won't be there, or at least in the amount of dollars the teams might expect. Ads for local TV and radio will be harder to sell. Expensive merchandise won't sell as readily, and people will give up season ticket packages.
What could be worse for the Mets is how well capitalized they'll continue to be and how much money the Wilpons can continue to throw at free-agent signings. Sure, the Mets are in the best media market and, yes, they generate a bunch of revenue. But the team hasn't been shy about spending on free agents, and you have to wonder if the monies deployed to sign these players come from operating revenues or infusions from the Wilpons. If it's the latter, that could spell trouble for the Mets.
Look, I'm a Phillies fan, but I would take no joy out of a financial demise of a great team. The Mets put out a good product, and their compulsion to win brings out the best in the NL East. The division wouldn't be a strong were the Mets to suffer a serious financial wound, and, by the way, I wouldn't wish anyone to be a victm of a Ponzi scheme, especially this type of betrayal, one that took place over decades. The whole Madoff affair is one big mess.
Reports in the following weeks should tell us how well or poorly the Mets will fare because of the Madoff situation.
Wisdom and Silliness from Philadelphia
The wisdom, of course, is the signing of Jamie Moyer to a two-year deal. Yes, it's risky to ink a crafty 46 year-old lefty to more than a 1-year deal, but Moyer rocked last year for the Phillies. He's a hometown guy, he's a team leader, and he still gets people out. Remember, it's been said of lefties that they're like a good wine -- they get better with age.
My guess is that the equity markets affected Mr. Moyer, who has seven children, in such a way that perhaps the corpus of money he saved up isn't what it was, say, before the Phillies figured it out in September and went on their dash to the World Series. As a result, that extra, second guaranteed year became more important. When the Phillies figured out that someone else will sign Derek Lowe for more money than he's worth, the options to replace Moyer became fewer and further between. That's why Moyer got the second guaranteed year -- it's a function of supply and demand (which is also why Pat Burrell right now is lingering on the free agent market -- he could be victim of the economy because streaky, slow 32 year-old below average fielding left fielders aren't as much in demand). At any rate, signing Moyer was the smart move.
The dumb move came this past week from one of Moyer's proteges, wunderkind portsider Cole Hamels, who called the Mets' choke artists when interviewed on WFAN. Cole, who was at his most eloquent during the post-season, took the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- from the NY radio station hosts and created bulletin board material for an entire season. Why did someone like Hamels say something so stupid? Well, he didn't have his mentor, whom he follows around reverently during the season, there to filter his remarks. Moyer offers the wisdom of experience, while Hamels offers, at times, the untamed qualities of youth. Forgive Hamels, he's not even 25, and most of us have said or done things before that age that we wouldn't have done given what we know now. Still, you're asked to grow up faster in the world of sports, and Hamels proved in this instance that he hasn't fully matured as the total person yet. (Then again, such brashness might be the key ingredient to what makes him great).
Moyer and Hamels, bookends on a championship season, back together again for at least two more years.
The ambassador and the prodigy, still going strong.
My guess is that the equity markets affected Mr. Moyer, who has seven children, in such a way that perhaps the corpus of money he saved up isn't what it was, say, before the Phillies figured it out in September and went on their dash to the World Series. As a result, that extra, second guaranteed year became more important. When the Phillies figured out that someone else will sign Derek Lowe for more money than he's worth, the options to replace Moyer became fewer and further between. That's why Moyer got the second guaranteed year -- it's a function of supply and demand (which is also why Pat Burrell right now is lingering on the free agent market -- he could be victim of the economy because streaky, slow 32 year-old below average fielding left fielders aren't as much in demand). At any rate, signing Moyer was the smart move.
The dumb move came this past week from one of Moyer's proteges, wunderkind portsider Cole Hamels, who called the Mets' choke artists when interviewed on WFAN. Cole, who was at his most eloquent during the post-season, took the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- from the NY radio station hosts and created bulletin board material for an entire season. Why did someone like Hamels say something so stupid? Well, he didn't have his mentor, whom he follows around reverently during the season, there to filter his remarks. Moyer offers the wisdom of experience, while Hamels offers, at times, the untamed qualities of youth. Forgive Hamels, he's not even 25, and most of us have said or done things before that age that we wouldn't have done given what we know now. Still, you're asked to grow up faster in the world of sports, and Hamels proved in this instance that he hasn't fully matured as the total person yet. (Then again, such brashness might be the key ingredient to what makes him great).
Moyer and Hamels, bookends on a championship season, back together again for at least two more years.
The ambassador and the prodigy, still going strong.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Philadelphia Thrift?
The world has changed for everyone. People's retirement funds are way down, the reign of the financial institutions as we once knew it is over. Wall Street's glitter no longer reflects the way it once did, and most businesses have fewer dollars to spread around than before.
Baseball is no exception, and the post-financial institution crash era has given a new meaning -- for all of us -- to the term "prudence." That's not to say that teams threw around money extravagantly before (in baseball terms; in the world of most us, baseball players are extremely well paid). But now they must look even more closely as the dollars they'll spend.
Why?
Because despite arguments that sports are recession proof (and I'd submit that there are Philadelphia Eagles' fans who would let their houses get foreclosed upon before they'd give up tickets to their beloved Birds), this recession is an extremely deep one, and we haven't hit the bottom yet. It will affect teams in the following ways:
1. Sponsors will look at their advertising budgets more closely. Not only will local revenue suffer, but the share of national revenue will suffer too. The demand for ad time will drop, and, therefore, the price of media time will drop too.
2. Businesses won't pony up for luxury boxes or season tickets the way they once did. If you're cutting budgets, stuff like this is the first to go. In addition, there will be season-ticket holders who drop their plans. Again, if you're watching your wallet, no better way to save thousands of dollars a year than to pass on a full- or partial-season ticket plan.
3. Merchandising revenues will drop. Somehow I believe that fans everywhere will make their favorite jerseys and t-shirts last longer. I, for one, plan to wear my Phillies' World Series gear as long as possible.
4. Concession revenues might drop too. Again, paying $6.75 for a beer today at Citizens Bank Park, for example, doesn't look as appealing as it might have before our retirement accounts plunged off the cliff.
That means front offices everywhere are looking for bargains, and they're especially not going to let sentiment or fan commentaries get in the way of wise decisions. For example, Phillies GM Ruben Amaro has tried hard to sign Jamie Moyer, a free agent, to a new contract. The Phillies reportedly have offered Moyer 1 year with an option. Moyer, who just turned 46, wants two guaranteed years. Yes, Moyer is a great clubhouse presence, an outstanding member of the community and he had a great year. But he's also pitching on a considerable amount of guile, his best days behind him (or so it appears). I'm a huge Moyer fan, but I would consider a 2-year deal for Derek Lowe (okay, at more money) a better investment. I really would hate to see the hometown team lose Moyer, but it's a business.
I can't say the same for Pat Burrell or understand where all of his newly found fans are coming from. The guy is 32, has very limited range in the field, can't run, and was terrible from August through years end (he did have a few big hits, but he was mostly unproductive during that time). He also did nothing from September 15 through the season's end in 2007 (even after a span from July 1 through September 15 where he had the best on-base percentage in the National League). Burrell would make a fine DH in the AL, and is probably worth a two-year deal with a club option at about $7.5 million per. He made $14 million last year, the fifth in a back-end loaded contract. My guess is that he's looking for at least 3 years at $12 million per, and he's not worth it. I've looked in many places for "hot-stove" stories about interest in Burrell. All that I've been able to find is that he's a second-tier free agent who might suffer because of the recession. Right now, he has no publicized suitors.
And, yet, people are blasting the Phillies for being cheap regarding Burrell. While I have not been the biggest fan of the Phillies' ownership, they have many challenges facing them. For example, Ryan Howard, Ryan Madson, Cole Hamels and Shane Victorino are eligible for arbitration. If the Phillies cannot get any of those players to sign deals (and my guess is that they won't until they move closer to eligibility for free agency), expect them to get big raises in arbitration. Those awards will increase the payroll significantly. Moreover, the Phillies need to tweak the roster here and there. They could use at least one more starting pitcher, another solid reliever and an outfielder to replace Burrell. All will cost money, but it's not likely they can sign Burrell for big numbers if they need to pay more to four players who are more valuable to the team.
Do I want Moyer back -- yes, but at the right price.
Do I want Burrell back? No, not really, but if he were the best option, he definitely must return at the right price.
It strikes me that the market for most players -- except the exceptional ones (and I'd put Sabathia and K-Rod in that category) -- has shrunk. Fans need to be patient with their teams and wait out the off-season. After all, while you might not be thrilled that your team is being thrifty, you don't want the long-term agony of suffering through a rushed, long-term deal for an albatross.
Baseball is no exception, and the post-financial institution crash era has given a new meaning -- for all of us -- to the term "prudence." That's not to say that teams threw around money extravagantly before (in baseball terms; in the world of most us, baseball players are extremely well paid). But now they must look even more closely as the dollars they'll spend.
Why?
Because despite arguments that sports are recession proof (and I'd submit that there are Philadelphia Eagles' fans who would let their houses get foreclosed upon before they'd give up tickets to their beloved Birds), this recession is an extremely deep one, and we haven't hit the bottom yet. It will affect teams in the following ways:
1. Sponsors will look at their advertising budgets more closely. Not only will local revenue suffer, but the share of national revenue will suffer too. The demand for ad time will drop, and, therefore, the price of media time will drop too.
2. Businesses won't pony up for luxury boxes or season tickets the way they once did. If you're cutting budgets, stuff like this is the first to go. In addition, there will be season-ticket holders who drop their plans. Again, if you're watching your wallet, no better way to save thousands of dollars a year than to pass on a full- or partial-season ticket plan.
3. Merchandising revenues will drop. Somehow I believe that fans everywhere will make their favorite jerseys and t-shirts last longer. I, for one, plan to wear my Phillies' World Series gear as long as possible.
4. Concession revenues might drop too. Again, paying $6.75 for a beer today at Citizens Bank Park, for example, doesn't look as appealing as it might have before our retirement accounts plunged off the cliff.
That means front offices everywhere are looking for bargains, and they're especially not going to let sentiment or fan commentaries get in the way of wise decisions. For example, Phillies GM Ruben Amaro has tried hard to sign Jamie Moyer, a free agent, to a new contract. The Phillies reportedly have offered Moyer 1 year with an option. Moyer, who just turned 46, wants two guaranteed years. Yes, Moyer is a great clubhouse presence, an outstanding member of the community and he had a great year. But he's also pitching on a considerable amount of guile, his best days behind him (or so it appears). I'm a huge Moyer fan, but I would consider a 2-year deal for Derek Lowe (okay, at more money) a better investment. I really would hate to see the hometown team lose Moyer, but it's a business.
I can't say the same for Pat Burrell or understand where all of his newly found fans are coming from. The guy is 32, has very limited range in the field, can't run, and was terrible from August through years end (he did have a few big hits, but he was mostly unproductive during that time). He also did nothing from September 15 through the season's end in 2007 (even after a span from July 1 through September 15 where he had the best on-base percentage in the National League). Burrell would make a fine DH in the AL, and is probably worth a two-year deal with a club option at about $7.5 million per. He made $14 million last year, the fifth in a back-end loaded contract. My guess is that he's looking for at least 3 years at $12 million per, and he's not worth it. I've looked in many places for "hot-stove" stories about interest in Burrell. All that I've been able to find is that he's a second-tier free agent who might suffer because of the recession. Right now, he has no publicized suitors.
And, yet, people are blasting the Phillies for being cheap regarding Burrell. While I have not been the biggest fan of the Phillies' ownership, they have many challenges facing them. For example, Ryan Howard, Ryan Madson, Cole Hamels and Shane Victorino are eligible for arbitration. If the Phillies cannot get any of those players to sign deals (and my guess is that they won't until they move closer to eligibility for free agency), expect them to get big raises in arbitration. Those awards will increase the payroll significantly. Moreover, the Phillies need to tweak the roster here and there. They could use at least one more starting pitcher, another solid reliever and an outfielder to replace Burrell. All will cost money, but it's not likely they can sign Burrell for big numbers if they need to pay more to four players who are more valuable to the team.
Do I want Moyer back -- yes, but at the right price.
Do I want Burrell back? No, not really, but if he were the best option, he definitely must return at the right price.
It strikes me that the market for most players -- except the exceptional ones (and I'd put Sabathia and K-Rod in that category) -- has shrunk. Fans need to be patient with their teams and wait out the off-season. After all, while you might not be thrilled that your team is being thrifty, you don't want the long-term agony of suffering through a rushed, long-term deal for an albatross.
New York Money
Okay, so the banking world is in the dumper. Right around the time of the fall of the Houses of Bear and Lehman, the demise of Merrill and the humiliation of Citi, the conventional wisdom was that the recession would hit NYC harder than many areas (save Detroit) because 12.5% of the jobs accounted for about 35% of the tax revenues in NYC. Translated, if the investment banking community takes a broadside and starts listing quickly, the money that customarily cascaded to the restaurants, salons and other service providers would trickle to a halt quickly. Digging deeper, one would wonder what cash many would have left to pony up for the most expensive seats in baseball, big cable bills, and the merchandise that fans started to think was an entitlement.
I even read yesterday (I think it was on Jon Heyman's post on SI.com) that the second-tier free agents in baseball (Pat Burrell comes to mind quickly) might get hurt in the recession, as teams are worried about their revenues. Now, I'm not the biggest Burrell fan, but guys who hit .270 with an OBP of .385, hit 30+ homers and knock in 95 runs a season are few and far between (okay, he looks like a statue at times in the field, but he'd be a good DH in the AL). Moreover, many teams have to be worried about all sorts of revenue, because in this deep of a recession few get spared.
Unless, of course, you're CC Sabathia or K-Rod, who are signing sizable deals with the Yankees and Mets respectively. Which means that the Yankees are fortifying an area of considerable need -- starting pitching, while the Mets are doing the same with their bullpen. Both teams will be much more formidable with these additions, and you can make the argument (once again) that the Mets are the team to beat in the NL East (despite the Phillies' having won the World Series). But, huge signings don't guarantee World Series appearances, and for all their moves (both through elevations of players like David Wright and Jose Reyes and signings of players like Carlos Beltran, Johan Santana and K-Rod), the Mets still have figured out the algorithm that gets them to their first series since 2000. The Yankees have been more successful, of course, but in the past 5 years they've had more than their share of frustrations.
Put differently, just because you open your wallets doesn't mean that you'll win a World Series (see Mets, Yankees, Cubs). Then again, just because you're smart with your money doesn't mean that you'll win one, either (see A's, Twins). To me, the former have a better chance than the latter because after some point you must pony up and pay for excellence. Naturally, that excellence has to stay healthy and hungry and can't simply mail it in after the big bucks have been guaranteed. Still, the bet here is that while these signings excite Yankee and Met fans, respectively (God forbid you to root for both teams in NYC), the lifelong fans will view these signs with a "wait and see" attitude.
Why? Because Mo Vaughn ballooned and faded after becoming a Met, as did Bobby Bonilla. Carl Pavano, fresh off outstanding post-season work, got hurt, as did Billy Wagner, whose closer skills began to fade. Tommy Glavine was really nothing more than an innings eater, and he went out with a big implosion. Beltrain has not become the next Roberto Clemente, Jason Giambi had as many downs as ups, and the last version of Roger Clemens (a very expensive version, too) was not good.
There have been, of course, many successes. A-Rod, for all of the lightning he attracts, is an amazing player. Mike Mussina pitched very well in New York. Johan Santana is one of the three best starting pitchers in the National League. Wagner was very good for two years, and so forth.
But at the end of the day, it's not just about the money. It's about chemistry, it's about putting together a team that picks each other up and has an attitude that it can win at any time. It's not about people who want to brand themselves and garner endless endorsements. It's about the pitcher who goes on three days' rest, it's about the light-hitting catcher who starts to take command of a pitching staff, it's about the middle reliever who finally listens to the pitching coach, works out harder and turns himself into a setup man. It's about a group of 25 highly skilled players pulling together.
Both NY teams have the ability to put together a roster of all-stars that will sell ticket after ticket. Right now, though, both are searching to get into the groove that all World Series champions find at some point, the groove that the Yankees found so well in the mid-1990's.
The bet here is that these two signings will push both teams closer to finding that groove.
I even read yesterday (I think it was on Jon Heyman's post on SI.com) that the second-tier free agents in baseball (Pat Burrell comes to mind quickly) might get hurt in the recession, as teams are worried about their revenues. Now, I'm not the biggest Burrell fan, but guys who hit .270 with an OBP of .385, hit 30+ homers and knock in 95 runs a season are few and far between (okay, he looks like a statue at times in the field, but he'd be a good DH in the AL). Moreover, many teams have to be worried about all sorts of revenue, because in this deep of a recession few get spared.
Unless, of course, you're CC Sabathia or K-Rod, who are signing sizable deals with the Yankees and Mets respectively. Which means that the Yankees are fortifying an area of considerable need -- starting pitching, while the Mets are doing the same with their bullpen. Both teams will be much more formidable with these additions, and you can make the argument (once again) that the Mets are the team to beat in the NL East (despite the Phillies' having won the World Series). But, huge signings don't guarantee World Series appearances, and for all their moves (both through elevations of players like David Wright and Jose Reyes and signings of players like Carlos Beltran, Johan Santana and K-Rod), the Mets still have figured out the algorithm that gets them to their first series since 2000. The Yankees have been more successful, of course, but in the past 5 years they've had more than their share of frustrations.
Put differently, just because you open your wallets doesn't mean that you'll win a World Series (see Mets, Yankees, Cubs). Then again, just because you're smart with your money doesn't mean that you'll win one, either (see A's, Twins). To me, the former have a better chance than the latter because after some point you must pony up and pay for excellence. Naturally, that excellence has to stay healthy and hungry and can't simply mail it in after the big bucks have been guaranteed. Still, the bet here is that while these signings excite Yankee and Met fans, respectively (God forbid you to root for both teams in NYC), the lifelong fans will view these signs with a "wait and see" attitude.
Why? Because Mo Vaughn ballooned and faded after becoming a Met, as did Bobby Bonilla. Carl Pavano, fresh off outstanding post-season work, got hurt, as did Billy Wagner, whose closer skills began to fade. Tommy Glavine was really nothing more than an innings eater, and he went out with a big implosion. Beltrain has not become the next Roberto Clemente, Jason Giambi had as many downs as ups, and the last version of Roger Clemens (a very expensive version, too) was not good.
There have been, of course, many successes. A-Rod, for all of the lightning he attracts, is an amazing player. Mike Mussina pitched very well in New York. Johan Santana is one of the three best starting pitchers in the National League. Wagner was very good for two years, and so forth.
But at the end of the day, it's not just about the money. It's about chemistry, it's about putting together a team that picks each other up and has an attitude that it can win at any time. It's not about people who want to brand themselves and garner endless endorsements. It's about the pitcher who goes on three days' rest, it's about the light-hitting catcher who starts to take command of a pitching staff, it's about the middle reliever who finally listens to the pitching coach, works out harder and turns himself into a setup man. It's about a group of 25 highly skilled players pulling together.
Both NY teams have the ability to put together a roster of all-stars that will sell ticket after ticket. Right now, though, both are searching to get into the groove that all World Series champions find at some point, the groove that the Yankees found so well in the mid-1990's.
The bet here is that these two signings will push both teams closer to finding that groove.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Baking to Impress (Or, Tap Into Your Inner Renaissance Man)
Want to impress, well, anyone? Then try this recipe, thanks to McCormick, the spice company. They placed an ad in Bon Appetit, I followed it, and drew good -- no, check that, rave reviews.
1. Pre-heat your oven to 425 degrees.
2. Take out four 6-ounce custard cups, grease them thoroughly with butter.
3. Melt 8 oz of butter in a microwaveable (and pretty large) bowl, along with 4 oz of semi-sweet baker's chocolate (I used 3 oz of Ghirardelli and 1 oz of 62% Scharfenberger).
4. Whisk those ingredients together in the bowl.
5. Add in 1 tablespoon of Cabernet or other wine (I used a Bordeaux) and 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract. Keep whisking.
5. Add 2 eggs and 1 egg yolk. Whisk together, along with 1 cup of confectioner's sugar.
6. Then add 6 tablespoons of flour, and a quarter teaspoon each of cinammon and ginger.
7. Once everything is all mixed together, pour the mixture into each of the custard cups.
8. Put the custard cups on a baking sheet (this can get a little tricky, because the recipe doesn't tell you how to prevent the cups from sliding off the sheet). Put the cups/sheet into the oven.
9. Take out of oven after 15 minutes (or when the outside edges are firmer and the middle is still soft). Let cool for 1 minute.
10. Use a knife around the outside edge of each custard cup. Then, being careful not to burn yourself, turn the custard cup upside down and put onto a serving plate. Sprinkle with some confectioner's sugar.
The cake is harder on the outside, and inside it resembles chocolate lava.
Following a recipe really isn't that hard, and you'll impress anyone who partakes.
Happy baking!
1. Pre-heat your oven to 425 degrees.
2. Take out four 6-ounce custard cups, grease them thoroughly with butter.
3. Melt 8 oz of butter in a microwaveable (and pretty large) bowl, along with 4 oz of semi-sweet baker's chocolate (I used 3 oz of Ghirardelli and 1 oz of 62% Scharfenberger).
4. Whisk those ingredients together in the bowl.
5. Add in 1 tablespoon of Cabernet or other wine (I used a Bordeaux) and 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract. Keep whisking.
5. Add 2 eggs and 1 egg yolk. Whisk together, along with 1 cup of confectioner's sugar.
6. Then add 6 tablespoons of flour, and a quarter teaspoon each of cinammon and ginger.
7. Once everything is all mixed together, pour the mixture into each of the custard cups.
8. Put the custard cups on a baking sheet (this can get a little tricky, because the recipe doesn't tell you how to prevent the cups from sliding off the sheet). Put the cups/sheet into the oven.
9. Take out of oven after 15 minutes (or when the outside edges are firmer and the middle is still soft). Let cool for 1 minute.
10. Use a knife around the outside edge of each custard cup. Then, being careful not to burn yourself, turn the custard cup upside down and put onto a serving plate. Sprinkle with some confectioner's sugar.
The cake is harder on the outside, and inside it resembles chocolate lava.
Following a recipe really isn't that hard, and you'll impress anyone who partakes.
Happy baking!
Opening Day: 3rd and 4th Grade Basketball League
We were nervous, my co-coach and I. Only two practices, the last one before Thanksgiving. We heard reports that other coaches actually were putting in plays and that they were working. Well, what could we do? We thought we had some talent, and when we got to our game we learned that the kid who hit jumpers in the second-grade league was on the other team. Okay, so we had a challenge.
But it's a non-competitive league, an excellent ref stopped play to explain situations, and it's all about fun and developing skills. The league requires man-to-man defense (the high school coach apparently insists upon it), and the league also now requires that you play your best players in the second quarter (so that they get to go against the best players on the other team). All ten of our kids showed (one had a travel soccer game 25 miles away earlier that morning).
So what happened?
First, the kids played tenacious defense. They deflected, they stole the ball, they disrupted, and they rebounded okay if not great, but they hustled. I don't think the other team's coach had set plays, but if he did, they got no traction. Man-to-man defense can do that to you (it affected us to). Memo to coaches at this level -- don't worry so much about set plays. Teach your players to screen, roll and keep on screening. The outstanding shooter on the other team scored one bucket the entire game.
Second, the offense was uneven. We had a few skilled kids who could go coast to coast after a rebound, and we hit many more shots than the other team. Of our four primary ballhandlers, only one can dribble with his head up, slow down, keep his dribble and pass off it. He threw some outstanding passes. The other three are very athletic, but we kept telling them to slow down. Practice this week will emphasize playing more under control and passing. Still, we were off to a good start.
The best moment of the day came at half-time, when our best player, the ballhandler who passes and rebounds, came up to me and whispered, "I think I am dominating." I smiled and replied, "Tell you what -- hit a few more shots and throw some more good passes, and I might agree with you." He had an excellent game.
All in all, it was a fun day. The kids worked hard, and they're getting to know each other. My co-coach and I have taken mental notes on some of the things we want kids to work on -- catching and shooting for one, dribbling with heads up for all, setting screens for most. It promises to be a fun season.
But it's a non-competitive league, an excellent ref stopped play to explain situations, and it's all about fun and developing skills. The league requires man-to-man defense (the high school coach apparently insists upon it), and the league also now requires that you play your best players in the second quarter (so that they get to go against the best players on the other team). All ten of our kids showed (one had a travel soccer game 25 miles away earlier that morning).
So what happened?
First, the kids played tenacious defense. They deflected, they stole the ball, they disrupted, and they rebounded okay if not great, but they hustled. I don't think the other team's coach had set plays, but if he did, they got no traction. Man-to-man defense can do that to you (it affected us to). Memo to coaches at this level -- don't worry so much about set plays. Teach your players to screen, roll and keep on screening. The outstanding shooter on the other team scored one bucket the entire game.
Second, the offense was uneven. We had a few skilled kids who could go coast to coast after a rebound, and we hit many more shots than the other team. Of our four primary ballhandlers, only one can dribble with his head up, slow down, keep his dribble and pass off it. He threw some outstanding passes. The other three are very athletic, but we kept telling them to slow down. Practice this week will emphasize playing more under control and passing. Still, we were off to a good start.
The best moment of the day came at half-time, when our best player, the ballhandler who passes and rebounds, came up to me and whispered, "I think I am dominating." I smiled and replied, "Tell you what -- hit a few more shots and throw some more good passes, and I might agree with you." He had an excellent game.
All in all, it was a fun day. The kids worked hard, and they're getting to know each other. My co-coach and I have taken mental notes on some of the things we want kids to work on -- catching and shooting for one, dribbling with heads up for all, setting screens for most. It promises to be a fun season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)