Thank You, Birds!

The buildup to the Super Bowl was excruciating.  Time moved so slowly in the Philadelphia for the two weeks leading up to the big game.  There were stories atop stories about each player's pathway to the game, the Philadelphia-area connections of Patriots' players, the Pats' mystique, whether Tom Brady would lead yet another comeback, the underdog status of the home team, the pundits' selections (75% of them picked New England).  Would Eagles' back-up QB continue with his hot hand or wilt under the pressure of the Super Bowl?  Could the Pats' offensive line protect Brady?  Questions upon questions, theories upon theories.


I think that most Philadelphia fans went into the contest with the belief that the Eagles could win the game.  I am not sure that most subscribe to any "team of destiny" theory, but the facts were that the team had suffered some staggering losses to its roster and healed them.  Losing  starting CB Ronald Darby on the first series of downs in the first game for more than half the season began a cascade of increasingly devastating losses.  Okay, so you might not thinking losing your kicker (Caleb Sturgis) or special teams captain (Chris Maragos) was a big deal, but then in the same game the Birds lost future Hall of Fame left tackle Jason Peters and starting middle linebacker Jordan Hicks, another star contributor.  And then, of course, the team lost starting QB Carson Wentz, who was on his way to an MVP season.  All of those losses aggregated; losing Wentz suggested that perhaps the Eagles' had run their course for the season, that despite some great play all of the injuries would be too much to overcome.


Coaches will tell you that if you give a team an excuse to lose, they'll take it.  Part of the brilliance of head coach Doug Pederson and the teams leaders (among them Malcolm Jenkins and Chris Long) was a refusal to offer or take excuses.  Pederson led a culture that was all about accountability and continuous improvement, topped off with a relentless ability and desire to adapt to changing circumstances.  This Eagles team did this time and time again.  They generated a vibe that said that they could run and hit with anybody, but that their true measure was not what they did when things were going well, but what they did when things were not.  And when things were not going well, they dusted themselves off, picked themselves off the canvas, and turned the disappointment into opportunity.


Naturally, all Eagles' fans were hoping for a win.  Desperately.  Deep down, all fans have their doubts.  Sometimes, teams just don't play well on a given day, or they do, only to lose their focus, take their foot off the gas pedal and lose a big lead.  Very much, all Eagles' fans were hoping for a valiant showing from their team, that if they were going to lose, it would be not because of falling asleep at the wheel, but with guns a-blazing.  The reasons for this have to do with much more than football.


The country treats Philadelphia like a poor, developmentally challenged stepchild at times.  Condescending, patronizing, scolding, demeaning, use whatever verb you want.  New Yorkers disdain Philadelphia because, well, it isn't New York, it isn't open 24-7 and it doesn't have all that New York has to offer.  Philadelphia once was home to the government and the financial world, but that was so far back in the day that the legislators used to have summer homes in what is now the Grays' Ferry part of the city, about a 15-minute ride from Independence Mall.  A series of maneuvers and compromises took the financial center to Manhattan and the government to swamp land south of Maryland that became the District of Columbia.  The city has been the butt of jokes, starting with the comedian W.C. Fields, who wanted emblazoned on his tombstone "On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia." 


The city didn't do itself any favors, either.  Fans did boo Santa Claus (that the version of Santa in question was drunk and slovenly and an embarrassment to the trade gets no mention), throw snowballs at the Dallas Cowboys (led by a future mayor of the city, no less) and get put in a makeshift jail at the old Veterans Stadium (the showboat judge who established the court later got elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, only to later resign in disgrace because of a scandal involving the sharing of pornographic e-mails).  We had a tough-guy mayor show up to a riot with a night stick in the cumberbund of his tuxedo, and another mayor who infamously permitted the police department to drop a bomb on a row house to roust a violent disobedient movement from the confines, only to end up torching several blocks of the city.  Industry moved away, first down south and then overseas.  Take a train into Philadelphia from outside the city or from the suburbs and you might think that you are passing a former war zone, the empty, scavenged, dilapidated and graffiti-laden buildings testimony to a time when the city made a lot of things.  A famous writer, it might have been Veblen, once wrote, "Philadelphia, corrupt and contented." 


Put differently, I've never felt that the city and its residents felt as good about itself as they should.  Instead, they sometimes act like they don't belong or that someone else is judging them and that, as a result, they don't measure up.  It also didn't help that the records of the sports teams pale in comparison to the Yankees to the north and to all Boston teams and even to the Baltimore Orioles in comparison to the hometown Phillies.  And there have been some famous blown leads, notably by the Phillies in the 1977 National League Championship Series and the 76ers from the late 1960's through the late 1970's.  And then there were the Eagles, 1-5 in NFC championship games under Andy Reid and 0-2 in Super Bowls. 


Losers, chokers, poor drafters, soulless stadium (the Vet), hockey team with an antiquated way of doing things, basketball team that holds the NBA record for the worst record in a season, baseball team that was the first franchise to lose 10,000 games (we didn't know anyone was counting).  How many times have we heard it?  How many times have we had our faces rubbed in it? 


This game meant a lot more than just a Super Bowl.  It had to do with the overall identity of our home town.  Now, many of us aren't extreme idolators and realize what a good thing we have -- good houses and schools and communities without the taxes and prices of New England, New York and New Jersey.  We get that.  It's not that we don't think that we have a good thing -- locally.  But it's the national image that irks us.  Sure, we can fight with each other and have internal rivalries.  But pick on us, and we'll get our backs up and defend each other hard.  And fight back with you.  Even with that, though, there was this thing -- that we haven't always done our best on the national stage, and people look down on us -- and our city -- because of it.


The Eagles' victory over the Patriots changed all that.  The Birds played aggressively throughout, charged hard at the defending champs, the dynasty with the best QB ever and the best head coach over and outplayed them.  They even ran a trick play that people will be talking about forever, one that they ran on fourth down and one at the opponents' goal line right before the first half ended that increased the team's lead.  And they kept on coming and coming.  They did so without their starting QB, without their future HOF left tackle, without their starting middle linebacker.  They did so not because one person stepped up above all others, but because they all stepped up, did their jobs, helped each other and took the game away from the Patriots. 


They made a statement.  To be the best you have to beat the best, and they did. 


And, in so doing, they hit the re-set button for an entire region.  Yeah, you can pick on us and make fun of us and talk about how our area stinks.  Most of you who do that have never been here and don't understand what makes the place special in so many ways.  We have heard it all; there's not much more you can say that we haven't already heard, and what there is will not hurt us.  Why?  Because we've been slammed with it for years, and each and every time we shake it off, carry on, move on and stand up strong.  But what the Eagles' did -- overcoming the adversity that they did, staying together and holding true to a common belief that they could achieve what no Eagles' team had done in the prior 52 years -- makes a statement that blankets and elevates an entire region and entire group of people.


We can win the big one in the biggest sport on the biggest stage. 


We are winners.


We always thought we could do anything we set our minds to.


But now we have shown everyone we can.


And made believers out of them.


Thank you, Eagles, for this most special of victories. 


In flying proudly, you have elevated all of us to fly with you. 


And it feels really good.

The Questions that the Michigan State Affair (and Others) Raise

Penn State.



Baylor.



Michigan State.



The Sandusky affair, the blatant disregard for sexual assault and the blatant disregard for sexual molestation and assault are stunning, troubling and horrifying.  Imagine, also, if your kids were the victims.  How would you feel?  And, if they're not, how do you feel?  Why should this type of behavior be enabled, tolerated and covered up at these schools?



But there are two other compelling questions that must be raised.  Are we naïve enough to believe that these are the only institution with these problems?  Are we now cynical enough to believe that every institution has this type of problem and that there are two types of colleges -- those that have been caught and those who have not?  Which school is next?  And what will the Michigan State do to amateur athletics, college athletics, high school athletics and college administrations in general?  Is the Michigan State affair just the tip of a huge iceberg that is about to surface and ram itself into each and every college?



The second question, equally compelling, is why these patterns of behavior seem to go on an not get hit head on with a sledgehammer and stopped?  Why don't people want to stand up and take on the odd behavior of a Jerry Sandusky, the sexual assault culture at Baylor, the molestation/assault culture at Michigan State?  People saw the behavior, they saw the signs, they knw things were going on and yet, they did nothing.  Or not enough.



Why?



I have given this some thought and posit that it takes a lot of courage to stand up because of a few factors.  First, you don't know if you will be believed.  Second, you don't know if you will be retaliated against (look into what happened to Mike McQueary at Penn State) or whether you will be committing career suicide, because who wants to hire a whistleblower?  Third, you don't want to risk losing all the trappings of your job -- the 401(k) or 403(b) match for your retirement funds, the defined contribution that a university makes to your retirement account, the tuition support for your kids' tuition, your tenure and rank at the institution.  Or you think that taking a stand is above your pay grade -- it is for someone else to do.  Or you think that others must know and are looking into it.  Finally, most people hate conflict, like going home to their comfortable chair, big-screen television and ice cream at night.  They like being comfortable, and raising an issue this serious is very uncomfortable.  And for some, there is no safety net, no safe landing space. 



All of these factors are plausible.  Many institutions try to build in mechanisms for people to raise complaints.  Hotlines can be very useful if people feel uncomfortable to raise questions in real time and in person.  But hotlines have some baggage -- the reporter at times only wants to go so far and many times does not want to meet with the investigators.  As a result, incidents reported on hotlines can be unsubstantiated, especially if they occur in isolation.  That said, were Michigan State to have gotten numerous reports about Larry Nassar, the odds would have increased dramatically that Michigan State had a Larry Nassar problem and that Larry Nassar had big problems.  Have one person make a claim that investigators cannot substantiate, and, well, it's an unsubstantiated claim.  Have ten people make claims in a concentrated period of time, and most likely there are enough dots to connect and dominos to fall that the likes of Nassar get outed, fired and prosecuted.


There are many great minds in higher education and law enforcement, and they need to partner to figure out solutions so that these affairs do not happen again.  There will be occasional bad incidents -- it is hard to avoid them -- but the goal would be to knock out patterns of behavior before they come patterns and tsunamis of crime to occur before they even become a two-incident trend.  Cultures must change; the money must not corrupt an institution and institutions need to realize that they need to hit incidents head on to protect their reputations as opposed to avoiding them because no one wants to deal with a scandal.  Deal with an incident head on and dispatch with it, and you'll get a reputation for an accountable institution that does things the right way.  Let things go because you don't want to do the right thing or bring embarrassment to the university, well, look at Michigan State right now.  Their brand is damaged, their proverbial ship is listing mightily.  And why?  Because despite many opportunities, no one in authority did anything.  And no one -- not Tom Izzo, not Mark Dantonio, not Larry Nassar -- should be bigger than the institution.  And in this case, MSU let Nassar and his "global" reputation become bigger than the institution to the point where no one would believe that such a legendary figure could be such a predator.  Everyone is accountable; the bigger the name, the higher the standards they should be held to and hold themselves to.  Why?  It's called leadership.  It's called accountability.


So how much of this remains out there?  The examples are not limited to pedophilia and sexual harassment, either.  For example, before privacy laws came into effect in the U.S. regarding healthcare, employers had free rein to examine which employees were biggest users of their healthcare plans, who had AIDS, and who suffered from mental health issues.  My guess is that the landscape is littered with busted careers because those who ran companies -- through their human resources departments -- scanned these records.  After all, who wanted someone making $40,000 a year in a clerical job using up $200,000 a year in AIDS medicine or who wanted a nut case working for them because the company knew that the rising star went to see a psychiatrist and might have gotten a prescription for a sedative?  I wrote the previous lines pejoratively, because, needless to say, that type of managerial behavior was deplorable.  Lord knows the billions in damages people suffered -- not to mention the damage to their reputations -- because of the speculation that must have swirled about them because of the peek into the healthcare records.  The privacy laws ended those "look ins" but the damage was done.    The AIDS patient was not evil, and neither was the person who was aware enough to get some help for his mental health issues.  Oddly, the evil was in the acts of the management, who wanted to sanitize anything and not give one rat's rear end about others' lives or a sense of community.  Compassion?  That obviously was for someone else. 


My guess is that Penn State, Michigan State and Baylor cannot be the only ones.  North Carolina and Louisville had scandals regarding phony classes and strippers/payments to players, respectively.  The laws that require the reporting of sexual assaults on campus can make any parent worry; it stands to reason that more reports of systematic neglect and aggressiveness against victims will surface, big-name coaches will be involved, and whole administrations might continue to fall.  Put different, the odds are that similar scandals are brewing at between 15-20% of the schools in the Power 5 conferences.  Which means, then, that there might be half a dozen more schools that have serious issues. 


I used to comment on these pages that I didn't want my kids to go to a college where any coach makes more than the university president.  My reason for saying this is that I want the schools to have their priorities in order -- not the bread and circus that can mollify the masses of students that go to the big places -- but an emphasis on learning, community and skills needed to graduate with confidence and become a productive member of society.  While I like sports, I could care less whether the schools' teams win the majority of their games or whether the school has to expel a star because despite what he means to the team he committed an act of violence.  Yes, as the Duke lacrosse debacle taught us, everyone is entitled to a defense, and I don't want to paint athletic administrations, coaches and players with a broad brush, but schools need to deal with acts of aggression or molestation -- against any student, not just an athlete -- with compassion and dispatch.  The accused must be afforded their rights too -- we cannot go overboard with trials by media or angry student groups because an incident happened the night before and tensions are running high.


Lastly, the NCAA is not the organization to deal with this issue.  Oh, it will jump in the way it did against Penn State because there was a huge public hue and cry and because the powers that be -- including the now-questioned Mark Emmert -- figured that they had to do something.  I am not sure that the NCAA has jurisdiction or that it should step in.  Law enforcement seems to be all over the case, as it should be.  That said, I think that the powers that be in the State of Michigan should realize the huge culture problem they have in East Lansing and take decisive measure to change the culture and make sure that they have their priorities in order. 


Something went really, terribly, horribly wrong.  My heart aches for all the victims and their families.  This is a huge crisis, and Michigan State must turn it into an opportunity, so that no person who walks on the campus walks in fear or walks concerned that if she has any concerns about her well being, that she will not be able to raise them and get a good, fast response.  That should not be too much to ask, but, apparently, on many college campuses, it is right now.

The Philadelphia Eagles

Team trades for shutdown corner and loses him for 9 games after first series in first game.


Team loses very versatile, veteran, savvy do-it-all running back/return man early in the season, along with its kicker.


Team loses top special teams player not that long thereafter.


Team loses future Hall of Famer/left tackle and very good starting middle linebacker in the ninth game.


Not long after that, phenom QB, en route to an MVP season, tears ligaments in his knee, done for the season.


Team finishes 13-3 and is going to the Super Bowl.


Got all that?


Many pundits predicted that the Philadelphia Eagles would go 8-8, perhaps 9-7 at best with this year's team.  Among the question marks going into the season were depth at running back, the ability of a new receiving corps to out-produce last year's group, whether center Jason Kelce could recover from a bad season, and whether the oft-criticized defensive backfield could at least become average.  Atop that, there were worries about the age of starting left tackle Jason Peters (35) and the natural concerns -- nothing elevated, of course -- that Carson Wentz would continue to progress because despite all of the hype, the last half of the 2016 season didn't go all that well for the ream.  The concerns were marked going into the season and became magnified with the personnel losses that occurred during it.


What no fan could have predicted was the quality of work done in the front office (where once-maligned head of football operations Howie Roseman made few mistakes and should be everyone's executive of the year and head coach Doug Pederson, who, quite frankly, few were excited about when Roseman hired him, adjusted well with the personnel he has and coached the team most ably, weathering the losses).  What resulted by the season's end were the following -- a very much "plus" receiving corps, a vastly improved back-up TE in Trey Burton, a defensive backfield that became a big asset with depth, a starting QB who looks like the next great one, a back-up who looks like he might be in demand for a trade and several good running backs.


Teams need a lot of things to go right to get to the Super Bowl.  First and foremost, it goes without saying that they need to play well.  But more than that, they need to adjust their plans for the personnel they have and need to have sufficient depth, because it's a given that key players will get hurt for periods of time.  The Eagles have played well, and they have adjusted for changes to their roster.  The last result underscored the strength of the depth and the team's ability to insert new players and new schemes and take care of the opposition.  It has been impressive to say the least.


The City of Philadelphia remains giddy after the team's convincing win over the Vikings.  That same giddy group probably was in despair after the Vikings scored the game's first touchdown, but now they are starting to focus on the fact that the Eagles have never won the Super Bowl and must defeat a dynasty to hoist the Lombardi Trophy. 


This is a very solid team, replete with good leadership, an esprit de corps that screams "attack" when you see them walk into a stadium, lines that are good at pushing the opposition off the ball and a variety of skill players who can find the end zone.  The Patriots, deservedly so, are the favorites.   Until someone takes the crown from them, they have the right to wear it.  They can continue to burnish the reputation of an already-established dynasty and add luster to their far-reaching shine. 


And the Eagles can finally get to the top of the hill. 


Were they to do so, the City of Philadelphia will party perhaps like no championship has ever partied before.  Yes, the Phillies drew great crowds in 2008.  Fun time.  But if the Eagles were to win the Super Bowl, the parade and parties that will ensue will make the Phillies' celebration look like a toddler's birthday party at Chuck 'E Cheese's. 


As a lifelong fan, it would be fun to watch that explosion.


Fly, Eagles, fly!

Jalen Hurts: A Lesson in Character

It has been said that sports don't develop character -- they reveal it. 


Last night, Alabama trailed Georgia at the half.  While the entire team didn't execute well, the focal point of that execution became the Crimson Tide's quarterback, Jalen Hurts.  It just wasn't Hurts who wasn't playing well on offense for the Tide -- his blockers had their mistakes and his receivers had trouble gaining separation.  But Hurts didn't do as well as he normally did, and the Georgia defense did a good job of frustrating Alabama and its running game. 


So, if your running game isn't working, you have to pass the ball.  Well, Hurts isn't known as the best passer in the world, and the Alabama coaches had a decision to make -- stay with the guy who is a team leader and had gotten you this far, or call a huge audible and replace him with a freshman who hadn't played a down of consequence in his career.  That freshman, though, is better at throwing the ball, and the Alabama coaches thought that the change was justified.  We all know what happened afterwards -- the change further cements Nick Saban as a coaching legend, and the freshman substitute had a fairy-tale like game that climaxed with a flawless TD pass on fourth and long at the end of the second overtime to give Alabama its sixth national championship in nine years.  All of that has been written about a lot and many stories will continue to focus on this exciting game and the coaching of Nick Saban.


But suppose you're the quarterback who won 25 games in two years, including a national title as a freshman, played in the national title game last season and then gets benched.  Ironically, his name is Hurts, and there is nothing more than can hurt the psyche of a young man then to be yanked from a game -- the national championship game -- before a live audience of millions of people and with family and friends in attendance.  Yes, that has to hurt.  Young men could get angry, feel frustrated, humiliated, disappointed, upset that they were not getting a chance to redeem themselves, could question themselves, their coach's loyalty to them, the fairness of it all and whatever other emotions could boil over at such a critical juncture in their lives.


Jalen Hurts didn't.  He remained engaged on the sideline.  He remained supportive of this team and very much encouraged his back-up and gave pointers about different coverages.  Jalen Hurts did not play the role of the wounded turtle and retreat to his shell.  He stood tall, summoned the strength and emotional fortitude to know that he is part of a team and something bigger than himself, that a starting position is not an entitlement, and a whole bunch of other thoughts and emotions that went into the algorithm in his head that instructed him, "you are a leader, you have been a leader on this team, your team needs you to continue to lead, especially when the team is behind.  Stand tall, be supportive and continue to lead.  You might not be the quarterback on the field right now, but you are still a leader."


Alabama could have wilted after the half or after it found itself down 20-7 with six minutes and change left to go in the third quarter.  But the Crimson Tide had one more high tide left in them and kept finding the energy and determination to overcome disappointments within the game (an interception tossed by the back-up, a missed field goal at the end of regulation that would have won the game for them) to win the game. 


Jalen Hurts, the quarterback, was not on the field for almost all of that time, save one play where he ran the ball to set up the field goal attempt at the end of regulation.  Jalen Hurts, the leader, was all over that field in spirit, helping his team win in any way he could.  Sure, Jalen Hurts did not throw the game-winning touchdown pass, but he emerged a winner in multiple ways last night -- as a person of tremendous character, and with his second national championship ring.  Okay, so he didn't play at his best level last night, but it would be hard to imagine that he ever has led any better or revealed aspects of his character any better than he did last night.


Alabama wins for a reason.  Sure, the Tide can recruit with the best of them.  Other schools recruit well too.  But it's the culture of maturity and accountability that distinguishes the Crimson Tide from any other program out there.  The Tide have about eight players who will leave early and get selected in the early rounds of the NFL draft.  Jalen Hurts will not be one of them, and it's unclear right now what his future in football will be -- as a quarterback at Alabama, as a quarterback somewhere else or playing another position at Alabama.  And most people will not remember how he took his disappointment on Monday night; they will remember how his back-up -- a freshman from Hawaii -- took over in the second half and helped lead the team to victory.  But deep down, the person to whom Jalen Hurts has to answer -- himself -- should know that how he acted last night was extraordinary.


It's fun to watch exciting games with theatrics, lead changes and dramatic endings.  It's even more rewarding to watch them when you see young men dig deep and reveal a part of themselves that is truly amazing.  Jalen Hurts did that last night, and the Alabama nation should be thankful for it.

Rick Carlisle is Just Plain Wrong

If Rick Carlisle had his way, any network that pays the NBA big bucks to support the private jets, the high salaries, the nice locker rooms and the amazing practice facilities has zero right to provide any content that might stir up a controversy for a team or, heaven forbid, one of his fellow coaches.  That, in essence, is what Carlisle offered in a pugnacious, dismissive style yesterday at a press conference.  Put bluntly, he was trying to intimidate the sports media from doing its job.


The cause of Carlisle's anger is the NBA's current court jester, LaVar Ball, who can provide some compelling flavor in a professional sports world that is too full of sanitized quotes and teams who prevent access to star players.  Should Ball be the story?  In many cases, not really, because he is an attention hound.  That said, he also is the father of the second pick in last year's NBA draft, and that player is a member of one of the league's highest profile franchises, the Los Angeles Lakers.  On most days, Ball is a side show, and the media has come around to treating him as such, someone who is famous, like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, for being famous.


But that doesn't mean that LaVar Ball cannot provide compelling news.  His quote the other day that the Lakers' players were unhappy and that head coach Luke Walton has lost the locker room is, whether Carlisle likes it or not, news.  That quote compels beat reporters to dig in and discern whether this is LaVar Ball's opinion, whether LaVar Ball is relaying his son's opinion, or whether LaVar Ball is relaying his son's report that other players have come to the same conclusion.  Yes, a lot of the above is hearsay, but that is why beat reporters dig in, cover the story and report. 


Many have criticized the media over this story, and Carlisle is not the only one.  There are those who offer that the media should not be listening to LaVar Ball or giving him an audience.  There are those who want to disqualify Ball automatically because his acts like a court jester and seems to say something almost daily that will draw him a headline.  And then there is Carlisle, who offered that ESPN should do whatever it can to make the league look good. 


Carlisle is a good coach and a bright guy; he didn't get a degree from the prestigious University of Virginia for nothing.  His point also has some logic to it, namely, that if ESPN plays big money for the rights to the NBA and wants to offer an outstanding product to viewers, it should endeavor to make the league look as good and robust as possible, presumably, even though Carlisle didn't say it, to make the league look more attractive to fans, who will tune in more, which, in turn, will make the product more compelling to advertisers, who will drive up rates, which will help ESPN's revenues, enable it to pay more for rights in the future, which will enable the teams to make more money and, accordingly, pay the Rick Carlisles of the world more, all the while giving them fewer headaches in the form of the self-appointed and by far best quote in the NBA this year.  Got it?


Good, because the logic is as good as far is it goes.  Look, I think that ESPN is not pure journalism, and it's original name, the "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network" suggests that it is more entertainment and less journalism.  But the journalism is there -- in E60, Thirty for Thirty, "Outside the Lines" and other stories that they cover.  And so long as it is there, they have the right, and perhaps even if in their at times conflicted role (whose Achille's heel Carlisle's comments tweak) to cover a story for which the main source is none other than LaVar Ball.  


That said, ESPN has put itself in this awkward position -- paying big bucks for the rights but also positing itself as the premier provider in the U.S. of sports news  along with content.  It has tenacious reporters who love to be the first source for a story, including Seth Wickersham, Adrian Wojnaroski and many others.  So, it stands to reason that if something is rotten in the Lakers' locker room, ESPN should be covering it.  And U.S. coaches and managers have it relative easy compared to soccer coaches/managers around the world, where the journalistic competition is fierce to break the hot story about what currently is making or breaking a football squad.  You might need to have a thick skin in the U.S.; in Europe, you need cast-iron underwear.


Reporting is a critical aspect of our society, and the better and more thorough the reporting the better off we all are.  Tremendous, withering criticism has been sent the media's way because of the way it has covered certain events (or not covered them) over time.  Emotions are high; allegations of "fake" news abound, even when the news is real and the accuser wants to deflect attention away from himself or the issues that are bedeviling him.  The press isn't perfect, and neither are the sources.  But it stands to reason that a credible person can be wrong on occasion and someone viewed as an abject nut case can be right.  And that is the journalist's job to figure out -- is LaVar right, or is he spouting off again, the NBA's version of "Old Faithful."

Riflery and the Process

When I was a kid, I was a pretty good shot.  My day camp had riflery, and I shot .22's, pretty well, too.  I remember the range master and how he ran the range.  You were given a rifle, and the first round was for practice.  Correcting for bad sighting was easy if, for example, your first five shots ended up in the upper right hand quadrant of the target.  He'd tell you to adjust your sight two clicks to the left and two clicks down.  Then, when you shot your next round, presumably you would place your bullets in the area of the bulls eye (which actually happened much more often than not).

Contrast that with the shooter who misses the target or places shots in each quadrant.  That shooter is so inconsistent he probably is not controlling his breathing, is jerking the trigger and has no idea whether he will hit the target or not.  The problem is so bad if so fundamental that it is hard to correct.  You need to tell the shooter to control his breathing, but not to stop it, and not to jerk the trigger, etc., etc., etc.  The point being that it is much harder to correct this problem because the problems are manifested all over the place.

And that leads me to the Philadelphia 76ers.  The good news, if you can call it that, is that the team's problems are consistent, analogously in the same quadrant.  They are the following:  1) Ben Simmons right now is either unable or unwilling to shoot the ball enough and well enough to take over a game, for all of the hype behind him; 2) the team has a penchant for blowing big leads in the second half; 3) the team turns the ball over too much; 4) the team has too many one-dimensional guards and cannot guard another team's star guard; and 5) it still does not know whether for all the money they are paying him they can have a healthy and in-shape Joel Embiid on the floor for 75 games a season.

The bad news, if we go back to the rifle range analogy, is that the range master could be dealing with a shooter with an out-of-date gun or bad eyes, as the problems the team is dealing with, while fixable, are pronounced, especially for a team that is in year 5 or so of "The Process."  Problem #6, if there is one, is that there have been a lot of misses in the draft, for all of Sam Hinkie's stockpiling of draft picks (and, to his credit, Hinkie warned that not every move would work).  Michael Carter-Williams was a miss, as were Nerlens Noel and Jahlil Okafor, the latter somewhat glaring because the league has almost totally morphed away from needing the type of player Okafor is, which is a throwback to the days where you couldn't win without a center who could dominate in the low post.  And it is hard to say right now what the team has in Simmons, who admittedly missed a season in his formative years and has shown signs of brilliance, and this year's first overall pick, Markell Fultz, whose grade must be an incomplete.

So, how to fix things?  As for #1, Simmons needs to spend the summer working on his jump shot.   His 103 or so touches a game, which the last time I looked were 20 more than the next guy, seem excessive when you consider his overall production.  Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, and Russell Westbrook he is not.  To me, the more touches a player has, the easier it can be to defend his team.  So, patience has to be the watch word.  As for #2, part of that is personnel, part of that is leadership and part of that is coaching.  Robert Covington and Embiid are defensive stoppers; the team has no such stopper at guard and seems to present an opportunity for an opposing guard -- the other night it was Shabazz Napier because the Trail Blazers were without Damian Lilliard -- to show his stuff.  But given that this is a persistent problem, coach Brett Brown, for all of his positivity, has to be held accountable too, as does the front office.   If for no other reason, get a guard who can come off the bench and given  you 15-20 minutes a night of the type of pain-in-the-neck defense that helps define a winning team.  That could help the team prevent some awful skids in the second half.

As for #3,  that's a hard one, but it seems like there are certain players for whom this problem persists -- Embiid, perhaps because he is not in optimal shape or because he has yet to fully realize that backing in and putting the ball on the floor can be problematic and shooting guard J.J. Redick, who the team signed to a one-year, $23 million deal to shoot better than he has, turn the ball over less and defend better than he has.  Again, this has to be a matter of concentration and having the players become more familiar with one another more than anything else.  Coaching figures into this too -- there just are too many mistakes for a team that should make the playoffs but right now does not look like it is going to.

#4 seems like one of the biggest problems.  The guard corps simply does not defend well.  That's why the team drafted Fultz, a comprehensive guard whom they hope can bring the mojo the way the elite guards in the league do.  Teams salivated over him, and it seemed clear from mid-season last season that he was the consensus #1 pick.  But he has missed a lot of time, and other guards in the draft (think Donovan Mitchell) have distinguished themselves, as has Celtics' forward Jayson Tatum, who can flat-out shoot the lights out.  So, the pressure mounts, and given some of the things that manifested themselves when the team shelved Fultz only a few games into the season, you have to wonder what is ailing him.  This ownership group is notoriously non-transparent about player issues, so is it just Fultz's shoulder or did his machinations in trying to play in pain create a hitch in his shot that the team has struggled to correct?  Many questions are out there, but presumably if the team were to get the Fultz that they thought they drafted, they would have an outstanding piece who could help cure some of their core woes -- well-rounded back court play.

As for #6, the team cannot afford the magnitude of mistakes it has made with its top draft picks.  As they go forward, they need to find the right pieces to fit in with some potential superstars.  The future still has a bright tint to it, but now that the misses seem to be consistent and falling into a pattern, they should be easier to correct.  Each and every one of them presents a unique problem.  Fixable?  Sure, but the fixes for some require some depth and consideration in approach and do not suggest that they can be quick.  Are they possibly quick enough to turn around this downturn and enable the team to make the playoffs?  Perhaps yes, perhaps not.

The Process has hit a bump in the road.  The team is not as good as people thought it could be at the season's outset or when the team when on a good run in the early fall.  That said, it is not as bad as its recent play has suggested and the schedule seems to get easier in the second half.  Optimists suggest that the process still has a way to go and that fans should be patient.  Right now, that is all that they can be; they have no choice.

Should the team go on a run, Simmons assert himself more, Fultz become healthy, Embiid stay healthy and the team go on a roll, all will be rosy, the team will make the playoffs and things will be looking up.  And the team might have another key draft pick and will have the most money to spend on free agents, who, presumably, will be willing to come to Philadelphia and help forge a squad that can make a deep run in the playoffs.

Should Embiid's back continue to balk and he miss games, Fultz look more like Carter-Williams and less like a potential Harden or Westbrook or Irving, the team continue to blow leads and the team spiral into a sub-.500 season, perhaps significantly so, then the picture will be different.  Will the fans -- who clearly bought into the hype -- return to the level they upped for season-ticket packages this year?  Will Simmons and Fultz project out to be more than starters, even if pretty good ones?  (The team needs stars, absolute stars -- to contend for at title).  And will Embiid end up on the list of big men who could have been something and could have contributed heavily to a contender but for persistent maladies?  That is the nightmare scenario.

The stakes are higher.  The pressure is greater.  The shine is off.  Potential means, as Michigan State football coach Duffy Daugherty once said, "that you ain't done it yet."  The clock keeps on ticking; other teams do not stand still.  With each game, the scrutiny intensifies, the patience diminishes.  The Process once was cool, funky, mysterious, intriguing, in vogue.  Right now, it is a bit like yesterday's fashion hit, the car of the year a couple of years back.  Still cool, but neither the latest nor the greatest.

The fans are waiting for it to break out, to yield the harvest that was predicted for it, even if those doing the predicting were those doing the hyping in order to create some magic beyond the fellows who do amazing things with drums during timeout at the Wells Fargo Center.  The place is festive, and there are moments of brilliance.  But that's all they are -- moments.  Not win streaks, not seasons, not eras.  Moments.  The fans like the moments, to be sure.  But they are waiting for what was promised -- the momentous and, ultimately, monuments to those who win championships.

Moments help sell tickets for a season.

The momentous lasts forever.

The Big Ten and Bowl Games

No knocking the results.  That said. . .

The SEC has two teams in the playoff.  The Big Ten has none.

Which means one of many things:

1.  The Big Ten from top to bottom is the better conference.
2.  The SEC is top heavy (see #1).
3.  The SEC is overrated.
4.  The Big Ten is underrated.
5.  The entire system needs a reboot.
6.  The playoff should have eight teams in it.
7.  Those who run the playoff should not whine that the playoff takes the kids away from classes and that adding another round would add to that distraction when there usually is a gap of a month between the end of the (regular) season and the bowl games anyway.
8.  There is so much money involved that the players are getting exploited and that a scholarship is not enough compensation for the (unilateral) commitment they make in that a) scholarships are not for four years but renewable on an annual basis; b) kids have to sit out a year if they transfer to a BCS school, c) kids in the current program can get penalized for the sins of a past program in that they might not be able to go to a bowl game or have an inferior team because their team is not able to award the same scholarships as an unpenalized team and d) coaches can leave at any time for anywhere and not have to sit out a year, but players cannot leave without penalty if a coach does.
9.  Americans are unique people who fixate on this sort of thing when the rest of the world is focused on its professional soccer leagues and the World Cup, which is set for June and July in Moscow.
10.  Saquon Barkley is an amazing football player.
11.  Urban Meyer's lustre might be fading.
12.  Paul Chryst knows a few choice words.
13.  It's hard to win consistently at Vanderbilt.
14.  Wisconsin does not get a lot of respect.
15.  If Alabama's football program were a country, its revenue would put it in the top 50 in the world.
16.  If Alabama's football program were a country, the United Nations would try to sanction it for unspeakable crimes against humanity.
17.  Nick Saban is the [name the dictator] of college football.
18.  People still do not know who Kirby Smart is.
19.  People in the Northeast still think "Securities and Exchange Commission" when they first hear the term SEC mentioned.
20.  How many people care about bowl games except those who sponsor them and those whose schools participate in them, if only because there are so many.  Back in the day, when there were only 7 TV channels in a major city and entertainment options were scarce, as a sports fan you cared and you watched.  But when options abound -- for example such DI stalwarts as Cornell and Harvard were on TV last night on the road (on ESPN, no less) playing basketball at SEC schools, well, if you could tune into that why watch Wisconsin take on Miami, for example, for forego watching a Harry Potter marathon on your cable channel?

Happy New Year!

The Marlins' Fire Sale

Why should you go to a game if you are a Miami Marlins' fan?  Your team just traded its stars, and I would have said bankable stars but new CEO Derek Jeter recently spoke of netting a gain of $265 million by shedding the long-term contract of uber-slugger Giancarlo Stanton.  His premise is that the Marlins will not win with Stanton because they are lacking too many other pieces, so why shell out that money for him?  In other words, fans need to trust the process with business decisions like that so that the Marlins can re-tool the team the new-fashioned way -- through draft picks, the signing of foreign players and analytics.


The Marlins are an obvious choice to pick on, but so are perennial also-rans in many other leagues with the exception of the National Football League, where parity is such that many of last year's good teams have fallen off, only to be replaced this year by teams who were not all that good last year.  That's great for the NFL, which has some serious issues to deal with, first and foremost of which is the long-term health of its players.  But in Major League Baseball, it has to be hard to root for the Marlins now or the San Diego Padres almost ever.  In the English Premier League, it has to be hard to root for a team not named City, United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham and Arsenal, although admittedly it can be tough to be a fan of those teams too.  That said, with the exception of Leicester's catching lightning in a bottle a few years ago, why would anyone spend a lot of emotional energy to root for anyone else.  True, money does not buy you a title, but it is necessary to spend a lot to get your team into the top six.  And with the NBA, well, it has to be hard to be, among other things, a fan of the Brooklyn Nets or the Phoenix Suns. 


Circling back to the Marlins, they just jettisoned the key players.  Yet, they're asking season ticket holders to renew and new people to subscribe to season tickets.  I'll put it to you another way.  Give me the Astros and the worst sales force in the world or the Marlins and the best one, and I'll bet on the Astros' sales force to sell more tickets than the Marlins' sales force any day of the week.  I only can imagine the sales pitch being made to Marlins' fans.  Among the possibilities are "come see the other team" and "invest in the future of professional baseball in Florida."  As to the former, years ago the Nats and Pirates advertised in the Philadelphia market to draw Phillies' fans to their teams road series in Washington and Pittsburgh.  Could the Marlins do the same?  As to "trusting a process," well, you need some future stars to watch now in order to make that pitch compelling.  The 76ers had amazingly talented Joel Embiid available last year.  By comparison, who do the Marlins have?


After the 2008 season, the Phillies had waiting lists for their full- and partial-season ticket plans.  Because they were not forward-thinking after 2008, the team consistently regressed to the point where they are today, where the team is trying to sell hope to the fans, whose experience is that the team more often than not has not been that good.  Today, you can buy single-game tickets in any section of the ball park, including the section right behind home plate.  I suppose that the business owners and plaintiffs lawyers stop subscribing if the team does not provide a compelling product on the field.  And Philadelphia has been a baseball town.  Sure, it's an Eagles' town, but it also has plenty of baseball fans.  Even then, the team's average attendance has been way down.  The once electric atmosphere at Citizens Bank Park now reflects the current of a third-world island whose power remains constant for about one-third of a day and sputters the rest of the time.


Loneliness is a killer.  Remember "That Natural?"  The New York team that Robert Redford played for and Wilfred Brimley managed played to an empty stadium, where you could hear foul balls clatter off empty bleachers in the midst of a hot summer's day.  The Marlins' broadcasters will be able to hear individual conversations from the stands and distinguish the call of the lonely hot dog or beer vender in the seats near their perch.  Fans will go, some out of habit and some because their dads took them and they feel obligated to take their kids.  But people will not come close to turning out in big numbers, perhaps for a long time.  It doesn't help that the new owner has all of the personality of someone who just underwent a colonoscopy without anesthesia.  Even Derek Jeter does not seem to believe in the product he will be putting on the field come March.  The stadium will be empty; the experience at the ball park worse than loneliness, because encroaching upon a fan's solitude will be awful play juxtaposed against not-so-distant memories of the champions of 1997 and 2003.


The omnipresence of the media offers numerous entertainment alternatives.  It seems like Marlins' fans will save money and at the same time find more joy in something other than baseball, for this season and years to come.  Derek Jeter, if he has not already, will realize quickly that the magic he brought to the playing field does not have any sway in a town where, if anything, its fans footed for him to fail.  Now they need him to succeed -- and in a hurry.

Kareem is Right

Basketball is the sport of the future. 


In the 1970's, the five most popular spectator sports were in no particular order baseball, football, basketball, horse racing and boxing (and I could be wrong, as auto racing might have been better attended than basketball despite a mostly regional appeal because the salary wars between the NBA and ABA were diluting the quality of play and bankrupting teams).  Horse racing at the time was the only place you could place a legal bet; fast forward to today and you have lotteries, casinos and places to make legal bets all over the place.  Boxing had its day, and there were some awesome fighters back then, so much so that when you watched the summer Olympics, you cared most about the US men's basketball team, the US track teams, the swimmers and the boxers, and, again, not in that order.  I would submit that in '76 we cared as much about the fate of Sugar Ray Leonard as anyone on the US Olympic team.  But too many shady deals, bad decisions and the brutality of it all have caused boxing to drop way down on the list (although MMA is up). 


Fast forward to today.  I don't know what the top five are, but it stands to reason that football, baseball and basketball are among the top five, and I would suggest that on a global basis so is soccer (and soccer might be #1 because of how widespread it is played).  Hockey fans will scream, kick and shout, and while I appreciate their passion I still doubt how widespread the appeal is.  Football has major issues, and it stands to reason that the game that is played 10 years from now will be dramatically different from the one that is played today, much more like flag football, lacrosse or Greco-Roman wrestling.  The hitting will be all but gone, and the sport will be different.  And, if it were to become like flag football, will it be watchable.  I would submit, and have to incur many howlers, that lacrosse in its present state is not all that watchable.  The reasons are specialization, that you cannot see the players faces, and that there is an exaggerated importance on the faceoff.  A lot of the plays that end up in goals just look the same.  The average age of a baseball fan is 55, and the MLB game is not moving any faster.  I went to minor league games over the past couple of seasons that took a couple of hours to play; sadly, MLB games take over three hours to play, with too much time between at-bats, pitches, innings, you name it.


That leaves professional basketball.  The purists will argue with some merit that it is more entertainment than high art, and they will try to wax eloquent about the joys of the college game.  The problem right now with the college game is that teams with the most talent (which include players who will leave after a single season) aren't seasoned enough normally to win a national title.  Plus, there are timeouts every four minutes, as it the key strategy sessions held during the timeouts will fundamentally change the way the game is played.  As Charles Barkley said yesterday, everyone on a pro team is a very good player.  The talent is amazing, you can see the players faces, and the scoring opportunities -- while not as varied and dramatic as in soccer -- are still compelling.  The game appeals to fans of all ages and races; by far the most diverse crowds attend professional basketball games.  Put simply, basketball is fun to watch, it moves, there is a lot of scoring, and there numerous stars.  Quod erat demonstratum. 


Unless, of course, you were to look globally.  Soccer is king and should continue to be so for a while.  Basketball is popular, no doubt, and could gain in popularity should it attempt to go more global (the NBA that is; there are many leagues in many countries other than the United States).  People play pick-up soccer anywhere, and it seems that each town in every European country has a team in some sort of league.  I just don't think that basketball will overtake soccer in terms of popularity, although basketball's popularity might grow at a rate faster than soccer's.  Creating a champions-league concept like they have in soccer might help the NBA's international appeal.  That would be quite compelling. 


All that said, Kareem is onto something.  And if people are angry with what he said, it's because they are in denial and do not want to admit that it has a good chance of happening.

Thoughts on 76ers-Lakers Last Night

In no particular order:


1.  The 76ers are in a bit of a rut.  Losing to Phoenix on Monday and the Lakers last night, the above-.500 76ers lost to two teams who are collectively playing around .333 basketball. 


2.  The sign of a young, inexperienced team is that it can be absolutely brilliant and absolutely frustrating -- in the same game.  Name the game, name the frustration.  The team blew a 24-point lead against the Warriors and a big lead at home against the John Wall-less Wizards, only to have that gave devolve into a hack-a-Ben-athon that caused the last five minutes to take 40 to play.  Last night, the Lakers got out to a ten point lead -- but the game was not that close, only to see the purple and gold push the lead out to 16 in the second half, and then have the 76ers storm back to tie it up, only then to turn the ball over twice in the last ninety seconds (Embiid once, Reddick the other) and then to have a chance to tie again but to fail to make the shot.  If you're a fan, all you can say is "aargh!"


3.  The team is exposed defensively at guard.  At one point, the 76ers had Reddick, T.J. McConnell and Jarrod Bayless on the floor at once.  That defensive combo scares absolutely no one, and the Lakers took advantage of it.  That's not to say that Lonzo Ball was a shooting threat -- he isn't -- but Jordon Clarkson had a tidy 16 off the bench in not that many minutes and others (Kentavius Caldwell-Pope comes to mind) shot well enough to help give the Lakers the win.  The 76ers need the advertised Markell Fultz to return in a hurry. 


4.  The team missed Dario Saric last night.  I joked that the team was in a fog because of the news that they traded Jahlil Okafor and Nick Stauskas to the Nets earlier in the day.  And while those guys had good friends on the team, the team did miss the grit of Saric, who was out with what was reported as an eye laceration.  Saric does the dirty work, battles for the offensive boards, and does everything pretty well.  That's not to say that the team would have won with him in there -- the game admittedly would have been different, but the rebounding differential that existed for a lot of the game would not have been there.  As it was, back-up center turned power forward at least for the night Richaun Holmes had what might have been a career game for him, coming up with many clutch buckets as the team stormed back to tie it up.


5.  Joel Embiid is a beast.  No one can guard him, and it's hard to figure out how to run any inside offense when he's in there.  He's foul-prone now, but that's bound to change as he gets more experience.


6.  Ben Simmons had another interesting/potentially awesome stat line with some great plays, yet. . ..  12 points, 13 boards and 15 assists is pretty terrific, but he had some defensive lapses and needs to assert himself more.  He is good, but does he know how much better he can be or how good he is?  Until he gets more assertive, teams won't have to commit the resources on defense that they have to commit to, among others, James Harden and LeBron James.  While he might never shoot as well as those guys, he still can do things most players cannot. 


7.  Lonzo Ball showed everyone something last night.  He played within himself, he rebounded well, defended well enough, made some great passes and scored in the double figures.  He is very composed out there.  His shooting -- if possible -- is worse than that of Simmons, but he made a strong contribution last night.


8.  Brandon Ingram really improved in the off-season.  Last year, he looked like the overmatched skinny guy without the strength of Durant or skills more than that of a stationery shooter.  This year, he looks stronger, like he put on some good weight, and he really worked on his ability to create shots.  He had a very nice night last night.


9.  Obligatory word about the officials.  Admittedly, officiating basketball might be the hardest game to officiate, although diehard fans of other sports will argue to the contrary.  The one thing I noticed is that while hand-checking per se is called, what the officials increasingly do not call are the following -- 1) when a defender puts a forearm on the back of a player who has his back to the basket and 2) when a dribbler wards off a defender with a forearm, pushing him away.  Both teams did the former last night, and Ingram's signature move is to push off with his left forearm.  That's not to say he's the only one or that the lack of calls on him (or anyone else for that matter) cost the 76ers the game or gave it to the Lakers.  The Lakers played better, and the 76ers did not do enough to win.  It's just that it's hard to figure out where the consistency is among officials in making calls.

Thoughts on Arsenal-Manchester United on Saturday

Arsenal was on a roll.  It took it to visiting Tottenham a few weeks ago at Emirates Stadium, going up 2-0 by halftime and then was in control the rest of the way.  The Gunners went up 1-0 mid-week on Huddersfield, and then pushed the throttles hard in the second half, winning 5-0.  Those two results should have given Arsenal a ton of confidence going into its home match versus visiting United and its coach, Jose Mourinho. 


But a funny thing happened on the way to the rout.  Mourinho coached a "rope-a-dope" game, which would have been noted for its brilliance but for the fact that Arsenal dominated all but the first 11 minutes.  Mourinho sensed individual cracks in the Gunners' back line, and its forwards caused otherwise steady defenders Koscielny, Mustafi and Monreal (who was woefully out of position on United's first score) to make mistakes early.  The result -- United was up two nil after eleven minutes. 


After that, it was all Arsenal.  The Gunners ended up scoring right after half and took 33 shots in the game, with 15 of them on goal.  It was as if there were a garage door covering the net, at least in the form of United keeper David DeGea, who played an outstanding match, so much so that his coach told him after the game that he is the best keeper in the world (he is certainly atop the conversation; experts will argue and win that Bayern Munich keeper Manuel Neuer is the best keeper in the world, with DeGea and Juve's Gianluigi Buffon right behind).  DeGea was here, there and everywhere, making save after save and in the process tying a modern Premiership record for saves in a contest.  You would expect that a besieged keeper on a team staving off relegation would hold that record, not someone from the elite 6 teams in the league. 


Was this Mourinho's strategy?  To pressure Arsenal early, get his scores and the park the bus?  If so, it was brilliant, but it's hard to say whether that was the strategy or not.  True, Mourinho gets accused of parking the bus after getting a lead, but if United parked the bus this time, it was not near the croquet club and its senior citizen's tea but in a lot on the wrong side of town where people have the ability to break in and steal the bus.  Because that's precisely what happened.  Arsenal clawed and kicked and stomped near the goal, with DeGea's signature save being sticking out a foot to thwart a follow-on shot by Alexis Sanchez that would have tied the match at two and surely put the momentum squarely in Arsenal's favor.  That foot told Arsenal simply, "not today."  Yet the Gunners kept on coming, but it was shortly after that amazing save that United went on a counterattack and went up 3-1. 


You would have figured the game was over then, around the 77th minute or so, but then United start center midfielder Paul Pogba got sent off on a straight red and the Gunners' continued to threated.  The real disappointment for Arsenal, other than failing to score, was a missed call of a penalty inside the United box at the 85th minute.  Referee Andre Mariner didn't see the play as a penalty; all the commentators did.  Had Mariner called the infraction and Sanchez converted the free kick, the game would have been tied at 2-2 with a compelling five minutes to go and an added five minutes of stoppage time.  As it was, Arsenal kept pouring it on, but to no avail.


The commentators offered that it was the game of the season in the EPL, and there is no debating that here.  It's a shame for Arsenal, who was on enough of a roll that a win versus United might have suggested there is more to this team than winning a few only to lose a big one that reminds its fans of the talent gap between it and the elite teams.  And now it looks as though they might lose Alexis Sanchez, the engine of the team, either mid-season or on a free transfer after it, and that would be a devastating loss.  They also might lose center attacking midfielder Mesut Ozil, who is unparalleled when his game is on but who disappears too often to be considered among the top ten at his position in the world and command a commensurate salary.  Ozil might need a chance of scenery, but the Gunners need Sanchez to stay for a while.  If both were to leave, Arsenal is in a rebuilding mode.


But not to detract from the match -- it was compelling, it was fervent, it was action-packed, and if you told Arsenal fans before it that their team would have 15 shots on goal and control possession 75% of the time, they would have signed up for those stats.  They weren't, however, enough for their team to win the match. 


Odd, delightful, compelling match it was, with DeGea's performance one that will help define his career and delight Spanish fans as to their possibilities in the World Cup.

Thanks, Mike and Mike!

Back in the day, when Bill Clinton was at the end of his eight-year run as President, I had a relatively long commute.  39.5 miles each way, to be exact, most of it on a major highway, only 6 traffic lights, but before EZ Pass.  There were no cell phones, just car phones (which got cloned with some regularity at major interchanges), and there was no satellite radio.  The offerings in the morning were slim -- music with endless commercials or local sports talk. 


The problem with the latter was that it switched from being informative to very opinionated.  Some of the hosts were better than others.  Some were kind and funny, others were downright insulting to the listeners.  My major issue was that I wanted to relax on the way to work and to learn something.  By the end of my very long drive, I found that something -- it was Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio.


When the show started, it didn't enjoy the commercial success that it has today.  Neither Mike Greenberg nor Mike Golic were household names.  There were many fewer commercials, and while I enjoyed the opinions of both hosts -- who are bright but also considerate -- their opinions did not dominate the show.  The reason for that was, really, who cared at that moment in time what they thought.  After all, they had no natural audience the way a former sportswriter in a big city might have on the radio.  And it was a national audience, so people did not want opinions on the latest controversy in any of the major cities.  Or, at least at great length. 


Enter Mike & Mike.  They had an easy chemistry, understood the nuances of developing a national audience, where they could lose people if they focused on too much of one thing over another.  They had the right type of egos -- that they could do a good job on their stage, as opposed to the self-absorbed who believe and act like they are better than everyone else.  They had great guests, and they did a good job of interviewing them.  Knowledge was shared, as was wisdom, with frequent guests such as former NFL player and college coach Bill Curry and former NFL player and coach Herman Edwards, among many others.  They also did not take themselves too seriously; they had fun.


I remember after listening for a few weeks that I talked with my wife at the dinner table about this new show.  I offered that I liked the format, that the hosts were smart and funny and opined that they would become household names over time.  I am not sure that they thought they would be when they started, but it goes to show you that if you sit down and try to do a good job without acting high and mighty good things can happen.  And boy did they!  Mike & Mike took off to the point where they are well known across the U.S. 


And now it comes to an end this Friday.  I'll remember the Bob Picozzi "Did you Knows-ees?," the singing of the "Good Morning Song," the various bets that were made over games, such as the results of football match-ups between Notre Dame (Golic's alma mater) and Northwestern (Greenie's alma mater).  I'll remember the great conversations with Bill Curry, the strong interactions with, among others, Buster Olney, Jayson Stark, Jon Gruden, Mark Schlereth, and the easy rapport that they had with almost every guest who joined the show.  Listeners (and viewers on the simulcast) never knew what new thing they would learn on a given day or what good laugh they might get because of the stories that one of the guests would tell.  Mike & Mike got into high gear early and, even more impressively, sustained their excellence for 18 years.


Sadly, words of their breakup leaked and it strikes me that there was some friction between the two men as discussions of Mike Greenberg's future as an AM show host on ESPN TV became public.  Both men acted professionally with one another on air during the summer, and it was impossible to tell that there were any hard feelings.  It's sad, if true, that this uneasiness and the hard feelings had to take place.  Both men deserved better than that.  They should take some comfort that they are going out on top of their game after 18, yes 18 years!  Most people don't know when to call it a career and have to be told.  In this case, both men are going onto other attractive ventures. 


To give the 18 years some form of context, I was a younger father with a newborn at the time the show began to air.  Today that newborn is almost 6'2" tall, is a high school senior, and wants to go into the media, most likely sports journalism.  That's how long 18 years is.  Mike & Mike, in essence, accompanied me while my wife and I were raising a young sports fan.


I will listen to Golic & Wingo when it begins to air and profoundly hope that Wingo will continue to be Wingo and not try to be Greenie.  I don't know if I will have the chance to watch Mike Greenberg on TV right away, but for about ten years I was a bit surprised that no major network had recruited him to lead their "good morning" show or even ultimately become an anchor on the evening news.  He is a good study, quick with facts, and has a good way of getting along with people on the air. 


Mike Golic is a great combination of a former defensive tackle/battler on the field with a kind manner, light touch and very good sense of humor.  He offers a great perspective and, like Mike Greenberg, interacts well with everyone.  While I appreciated very much the interactions with Golic and Greenberg, their "shtick" as it were -- Golic as the macho man and Greenberg as the wimpy metrosexual -- could be suffocating at times.  Golic & Wingo won't be tagged with that act, and the show will be better off for it. 


But the focus now is on Mike & Mike for the next three mornings before they call it quits for good.  I hope that when the show ends, they can do the equivalent of what Tim Riggins did on Friday Night Lights after he played his last football game.  The enigmatic, brooding, good-looking fullback grabbed his cleats and carried them back into the stadium, where he placed them in the end zone.  Then he walked away and did not look back.


Mike & Mike's closeout, as it were, deserves something as pointed, meaningful and sentimental.  It was a great ride.  Thanks for letting us all be a part of it.

Gym Workouts

I go to this mega-gym.  I mean, it has everything.  All sorts of rooms and machines and programs, a few pools, literally, something for everyone.  The owner is an entrepreneur, and to his great credit he always is innovating.  What started out as a small place is in certain ways a tribute to fitness.


Except there is one problem.  I tend to think that many are working out the wrong way.  There are the muscleheads who lift and look swollen but who do zero cardio and zero flexibility work.  There are the cardioheads who do only cardio, and even then they do not do it right.  I think of a friend with a sizeable gut who goes onto an elliptical with all of the force of a saunter in the park on a nice spring day.  He goes at one slow pace for at least a half an hour, but what does that really do for him?  And then there are the minority of flexibility types, who do things like yoga but only yoga.  No cardio, no resistance training.


I am not an expert on fitness or diet, but my doctors tell me that my heart is in good shape and my numbers are good, that my bone density for someone in his mid-fifties is fine, etc.  So I must be doing something right.  I don't want to preach to you as to what to do, except consult one of the fitness experts at your health club and get on a program that combines all three aspects of fitness.  Do some cardio, but interval work designed to get your heart rate up and staying up for say 20-30 minutes.  Do some resistance training, but make sure to balance upper and lower body and the anterior and posteriors of your body (i.e., front and back, as many just focus on the front).  And do some dynamic stretching, so that you remain flexible (feeling stretched out also is a stress reducer).  And change it up every now and then so that you do not get bored.


You will feel and look better.  You must be patient -- the hardest thing is to start and stay with a routine until it starts to feel good.  But if you are going to work out, try to get some good advice and try to do it right.  I see too many people in the gym who are out of balance and, in the end, could be doing more harm in the long run or, better but still not good, not doing much that really helps them.  Some go for social time, some go to tell themselves that they are doing something, and others really work it.  That means pushing and pulling yourself hard, breaking a sweat, lifting heavy weights, pulling heavy weights, stretching and going hard on an elliptical, treadmill, arc trainer, what have you. 


Don't just show up.  While showing up, of course, is key, have at it.  Make the most of your time at the gym, just don't tell yourself that you are working out and simply feel good about the act of showing up and going through the motions.  Remember, at times the biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves.  The questions you should be asking are -- is this a good workout for me, is this covering the risk areas for someone my age, and am I pushing myself enough to get into good and better shape.  You might not like the answers initially, but keep challenging yourself so that you use your workouts to maximize your health.


You will be glad that you did.

What Really is Hurting the NFL's Ratings?

President Trump taunts the NFL about its ratings.


Pundits surmise many theories as to why ratings are down, from the quality of product to the time it takes to play games to the protests by kneeling, the protests against the kneeling, the lack of scarcity (i.e., the NFL is on TV three days per week), the availability of other entertainment alternatives, the abhorrence of what has happened to former players and an unwillingness to watch a game where its players could get maimed for life, the obsession with fantasy football at the expense of watching the games and the presence of the Red Zone, which enables fans to pick highlights over the games themselves. 


All are good theories.  I subscribe to each of them.  There are those who are protesting because Colin Kaepernick does not have a job.  There are those who are boycotting because they believe that the protests by kneeling are an assault on the flag and the military.  (The contrary view is that the protests are against police brutality or insensitivity and are not in opposition to the flag or the military).  There is a lot of entertainment from which to choose, and college games can be more compelling (if not in conflict) because if the big-time teams lose one game, well, they could be out of the playoff picture.  Put differently, there is a lot of football on television all the time.  The games also take a long time; lots of stoppages, and one recent game I watched took four hours to complete.  Some friends feel guilty because of the "after" stories of people like Kevin Turner, Rickey Dixon, John Mackey and many, many more.  Some seem to care more about winning fantasy points than watching the games.  I tend to watch the Red Zone when my home team is not playing; I don't want to endure the timeouts and stoppages, I just want the action.


There is no single reason.  I am sure that for some who no longer watch there are combinations of factors.  All of these reasons are problematic, plus the fact that the average age of an NFL fan is about 50 years old (baseball fans are even older).  I do not know what the solution is, but an 8% drop has hurt those who cover the games -- they just cannot generate the revenue through commercials that they could if the viewership went up.  Atop that, I am ignorant as to whether companies prefer internet advertising to television advertising.  ESPN's financial troubles are well-chronicled.  Hindsight suggests that they overpaid for TV rights, and since they cannot generate sufficient advertising revenue or subscription revenue they are letting staff go.  And that begs another question . . .


Is viewership down because cable subscriptions are down and, therefore, Millenials are watching through streaming video or pooling resources to watch games or going to bars to do so.  If there is one bill in the house homeowners hate, it is their cable bill.  If isn't that, it's the cell phone bill.  And if something has to give, are people preferring to get what they can through Netflix and Amazon Prime and not wanting to pay for television.  The decline in subscriptions to cable networks suggestions that there is something to this argument.


The NFL is popular, yes, but something strange and potentially transformative is going on.  In 20 years, it will be virtually a flag football league, played more like lacrosse in terms of hitting than what it used to be.  The statistics seem to suggest that, as you just cannot have increasingly bigger and faster players hit each other hard -- even if they only do so in games and not at practices -- and not have that hitting occur at a staggering cost to the participants' well being.  As it is, even putting that problem aside, the game has issues because stars get hurt and then their teams can turn into mush.  Green Bay has struggled without Aaron Rogers, Indianapolis is pathetic without Andrew Luck, and Houston will list and limp without Deshaun Watson. 


I have written before that pro football is on top but that it could drop significantly because of decisions it is and is not making and because of factors beyond its control.  If I were the NFL, I'd spend my money on an Evolution Committee before spending too much time and energy on other matters.  Many factors are trending down, and, if they combine, they could create a storm that, when it happens, the pundits will say the owners should have seen coming.

Thoughts about the US Men's National Soccer Team Debacle

All they needed was a single point.


A draw.


Against Trinidad & Tobago, the worst team in CONCACAF.  (For the uninitiated, this is the relatively easy group that the US finds itself within FIFA and must come in third in the group to qualify for the World Cup.  The toughest competition -- Mexico).


Okay, on the road.


Okay, on a bumpy field.


Okay, before a stadium that was more empty than full.


And they lost 2-1.


Compounding a terrible display was the fact that in order to remain third in the group behind Mexico and Costa Rica, the US needed Mexico to defeat Honduras and Costa Rica to beat Panama.  Neither came through.  Those results meant that Panama is going to the World Cup and Honduras is in a playoff with Australia to try to get there.  This is the first time the US has not qualified for the World Cup since 1986.


Here are some thoughts:


1.  Christian Pulisic is by far the US's best player, the only world-class player on the roster.  (Tim Howard was, but at 37 he is past his prime).  Likewise, while Clint Dempsey had his moments on the international stage, he, too, is past his prime, as is Michael Bradley.  Neither of them, in their primes, was nearly as good as Pulisic, who is only 19. 


2.  The US needs several dozen more Pulisics -- talented youngsters who are playing for elite teams in Europe -- and, get this, actually playing, as in starting.  Until this happens, the US will not fare better than advancing out of the group stage and perhaps winning a single game in the knockout round.  The talent just is not there.  Sure, you can argue that before 2010 Spain had a ton of talent and never won and that the same holds true for the Belgians, who are loaded with world-class players.  But even if some talent-laden teams falter (France in 2010 in South Africa), other talented teams come to the forefront, not the US. 


3.  The US needs its best players to play in Europe; the competition in the top leagues -- England, Spain, France, Germany and Italy -- is better than it is in MLS.  MLS makes life too comfortable and doesn't offer the intense soccer atmosphere that Europe does.  The cultural mindset has to change.


4.  Imagine how bad the US would have been over the years if the US hadn't had armed forces bases in Germany, soldiers who married German women who gave birth to sons who became good players.  What this says is that the culture for developing soccer players in the US needs an overhaul.


5.  The US needs to recruit better athletes into the soccer developmental system.  It also needs to create an academy environment where the best youth players are not trying to get into college but are vying for placement with teams in the top leagues in Europe, even if it means moving far away from home and then going out on loan.  That's just the way the world works in soccer.  The advent of studies showing the danger or playing American football might steer some talented youths into soccer.  Apparently, Odell Beckham, Jr. was an outstanding soccer player.  Imagine if some talented NFL players were soccer players -- imagine Megatron, Calvin Johnson, as a goalie.  He'd still be playing, and the bet here is that he'd be one of the best in the world.  Darren Sproles?  He's be an outstanding two-way midfielder, no question about it.  How about Zach Ertz as a center back?  Beckham Jr., not to be confused with soccer's main Beckham, would be a striker or central attacking midfielder.  The possibilities are endless.  Just prying 5 of the ESPN top 300 football recruits every year into soccer at age 14 could do wonders for the US's developmental program.


6.  The bureaucracy has gotten stale.  I have nothing against either Sunil Gulati or Bruce Arena, except that we need a full-time head of US Soccer and pay her/him accordingly and that we need a coach who is not recycled.  I have heard great things about Tab Ramos, but I wonder if the US should poll the top managers in Europe and recruit and up-and-comer, say an assistant from Manchester City or Juventus or some squad like that -- and put him in charge.  Otherwise, the risk is to recycle people who have had mixed success.  The US could find a real star, and it needs new ideas.


7.  The roster selections should be devoid of politics, and the lineup likewise.  I recall a discussion years ago about the English National Team.  Sure, it was okay to have both Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard on the roster, because both were stars, but it was far from clear that they should be on the pitch at the same time.  There also were players on the roster who got there because of lifetime achievement awards versus being the best for the team at the time.  A case in point is Pulisic -- it seemed like it took both Juergen Klinsmann and Bruce Arena too long to work him into the starting lineup, even when it was clear that he was the best player on the roster and perhaps, even at 19, in US history.  The latter contention is a reach, but within the next three years, barring injury, the fans will be saying that.


8.  Good organizations are strong from the core on down.  Steve Samson, once the U.S. coach, offered that the US was a nation of midfielders.  The reasoning was that kids are treated almost robotically in youth programs and have little opportunity to play pick-up games and freelance the way they do in other parts of the world.  The NYT magazine several years ago had a great article about the Dutch system; while the Dutch system is off-kilter now (Netherlands missed 2016 Euros and will miss the 2018 World Cup), they had a good idea for developing young players and helping fund the soccer federation. 


The loss to Trinidad and Tobago and the corresponding missing out on the World Cup is a huge blow to U.S. men's soccer.  MLS had started to generate momentum, and the advent of the English Premier League on television in the US started to generate more interest.  What remains now is an interesting dichotomy -- a stronger and growing appreciation for the international game, and a decreasing one for the U.S. game.  The next president of U.S. soccer, and the next coach of the men's national team, will have to deal with that. 


Regardless of the politics, who is the next president of the federation and who is the next head coach of the men's team, one major fact remains -- you cannot sustain winning without top talent.  The debacle within CONCACAF demonstrated this markedly.  You can have the best organization in the world, but you cannot win without talent.  Right now, only Pulisic would have a chance to make the World Cup squad of the major contenders in 2018, and he might not make all of them.  He wouldn't start for any of them -- Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, England, Belgium -- and he probably wouldn't make the German or French teams.  Remember this, Belgium is a country about 1/22 the size of the U.S., too, with about 15 million people.  They have a roster that most would envy.  The U.S., with about 315 million people, cannot find 11 players to contend seriously internationally.


Whoever takes the helm of US Soccer needs to figure out how to chance all of this in a hurry.

The College Basketball Mess

Among the defenses that do not work with law enforcement is "everyone does it." 


Among the mantras of law enforcement when it comes to investigations is "you must keep on look under rocks until there are no more rocks to look under." 


Given that there are a lot of rocks, a lot of people who will be willing to point out those rocks in exchange for a deal and the amount of money paid to college coaches to sustain winning and the amount of monies that college athletic departments get for shoe endorsements, you have a cocktail of ingredients that is easily combustible and can shout out "scandal" all by itself.


Using a different analogy, the four indicted assistant coaches are the first four dominoes to fall.  Because the schools where they worked recruited against many other big-time schools, other dominoes sit close enough to them that they can fall, too.  Not just assistant coaches and shoe company reps, but also AAU coaches and, yes, head college coaches. 


College sports used to be an extracurricular activity along the lines of the chorus, the newspaper and the debating club.  Those college sports that derive significant revenue can be important to universities athletic budgets.  I say "can be" because I recently read an article that indicated that more than 80% of Division I football programs lose money (defeating the argument that the football programs at many schools fund the other athletic teams).  Regardless of profitability (which is problematic because the universities themselves are tax-exempt organizations), the football and basketball programs can generate significant revenue for the university.  As a result, those who lead them command significant salaries.  The dollars are so big that it makes you wonder what the purpose of the head coach is -- to mold young men, to make money for the university or to perpetuate himself in his job (regardless of tactics and whether he really molds young men) in order to keep earning staggering sums of money.  The more that money is involved, the greater potential for all sorts of problems.


This scandal should (and I emphasize should) enable university boards and presidents to take full control over the mission of the university and not be held hostage by popular coaches or win-at-all-costs-hungry boosters.  This scandal should end the horrible paternalism of the professional leagues and create avenues for talented teenagers to go professional the way they do in soccer globally.  Right now, the best player in the U.S. is a 19 year-old who stars -- yes, stars -- in Germany.  His name is Christian Pulisic and he is very, very good.  He comes from Hershey, Pennsylvania.  Why can't it be that a top high schooler from Baltimore cannot sign with the 76ers out of high school, play on their G-League team and then have a professional career?  If you do this, you'll take out of the college game kids who really only want to play basketball and stop the charade of making them go to college.  I know I have thrown out many concepts here, but something significant is plaguing college sports. 


Money, the wanting for it by those who either make a lot of it or are on the cusp of doing so or the lack of it for those who need it (the kids whose families don't have it and who play before packed arenas and don't get paid for it).  The recent enforcement of labor law rules regarding internships helps frame the issue.  A kid who is an intern either must get college credit or get paid; he may not work for free.  College athletes in revenue-generating sports (profitable or not) don't get college credit and don't get paid.  Yet, their coaches get paid in the top 0.5% of all earners in the United States.  Something is awry, and it's sad that the universities haven't been able to address this issue themselves.  Now the Federal government will, and in the form of deferred prosecution agreements or corporate integrity agreements or both. 


And that is only after they get done with what promises to be a long and widespread investigation.  I forget who said this, but it rings true -- "No head coach of a major college football or basketball program is resting easily now."


Stay tuned.

Interesting Article the Other Day

about a quarterback competition at an FCS school. 


Three competitors -- one, a freshman, one a transfer from an ACC school and the other a transfer from a Big 12 school. 


The school?


The University of Pennsylvania.


No, I am not bashing the Ivies and Penn in particular in this post (there are many other reasons to take pokes at the Ancient Eight and Penn both seriously and for fun).  What I am pointing out that is if the Ivies use their transfer allotments selectively (that is, most transfers are not transferring because they play sports and are wanted), they can help their cause tremendously.


Enter the Princeton Tigers, who have, in the aggregate, the best overall athletic program in the Ivies (and, if not, one of the top two or three).  The wags will say, well, if you lower your standards and take good kids who, absent the sport, wouldn't have had a chance to get into the school, this is what can happen.  Let's put that argument aside, because I do not believe we ever will achieve full transparency on the delta between the non-athletes' admission profiles and the athletes' admission profiles.  (Again, this is not meant to be a swipe, just a discussion).  Think about this, though -- Princeton has done this without any athletic transfers in the past 25 years (and, no, the circumstances behind the football playing Garrett brothers don't count because they were unique and also more than 25 years ago). 


None. 


I once discussed the topic with a Princeton assistant football coach who lamented that the Tigers did not take transfers (one of the reasons is that the size of the school was the smallest or second smallest in the Ivies, and it's hard to take transfers if a) kids don't drop out or fail out and b) if they don't go abroad to study -- there just isn't surplus room).  I offered that it would be nice if the football team could get four a year, because that could really help.  His answer surprised me.  He said, "we don't need for a year.  Heck, we could use one every three years if it's the right one."  And then he told me the story about how the team was short at a critical position because one player left school and another broke his leg and how if they were allowed to take this one kid from one of the service academies or a place like Northwestern, I think it was, that the results for the team could have been a lot different.  Just one player, too.


Princeton will start taking transfers in the next year or so.  Will they take QBs from BCS schools?  They apparently don't need to, because they just landed a QB recruit who turned down offers from many BCS schools because of the high quality of the education he can receive in Tigertown.  Will they augment a key position if they can?  Absolutely.


But so will the Physics Department, Jazz Ensemble, etc.


And so it goes.

Time Is Mean to the All-Time Greats

Example Number Infinity -- Watching Usain Bolt pull up in the 4x100 meter relay in the World Championships on what was his final anchor leg for Jamaica.  The sports gods just are not kind to all but those who are in or near their prime. 


Jim Brown walked away at the top of his game.  So did Barry Sanders.  Sandy Koufax did too.


Bolt was close to his prime, and he deserved better. 

Chase Utley's Ejection the Other Night

Was a head scratcher, wasn't it?  It appeared that he asked the second base umpire to move out of his line of sight.  Next think you know, the umpire ejected the 38 year-old veteran and one of the most respected players in the game. 


Yes, I really want to see umpires eject one of the all-time greats.  Okay, don't get on me about the fact that Utley is not a Hall of Famer (I would argue that he is a borderline one; sadly, injuries derailed more opportunities for a WAR number that would have put him in).  But to eject anyone for that request?  Was there anything more to it than that?  Or did the umpire have a bet with a friend that he could get on Sports Center if he ejected a famous player on a pretext?  As for the latter, I doubt that came close to happening.  Simplest solution is that the arbiter just had a bad night.