Andrew Luck and Buddy Teevens

You have heard of Andrew Luck.  You probably not have heard of Buddy Teevens.  Both now are former quarterbacks.  One is figuring out what to do next; the other is an innovative FCS football coach.  So you might be asking the question -- who cares?  Or, if you are the least bit curious, you might ask, why am I linking the two men?

Luck's story is well-known.  He is the son of a star college QB (a Rhodes Scholarship semi-finalist, if I recall correctly -- the dad, that is) and a former star at Stanford (the son, that is), the QB who was set to become a generational quarterback and pick up the mantle where Colts' all-timer Peyton Manning left off and perhaps win a few Super Bowls.  That was how the script was supposed to have gone down.  Instead, Luck got pretty banged up, missed a lot of games, and, a week ago, decided to hang up his cleats.  He just couldn't get healthy, and the toll on his mental health was rough.  Outside of some criticism about the timing (those who felt he left his team in a bind and could have retired before the draft and someone who suggested that he conspired with the Colts' owner to retire after season ticket holders' commitments were locked in and, yes, some who suggested he just was not tough enough), his decision to retire was met with support and empathy.  Luck wanted to walk away while he could still walk and have feeling in all of his extremities and lower back.  And he has skills to do other things.

Teevens was a quarterback for Dartmouth in the late 1970's, and a pretty good one at that.  He then coached in various places and stepped up to what is now FBS at Tulane a while back, although he was not successful.  He then returned to Dartmouth and has been the most successful coach over the past decade or so, which is an outstanding accomplishment when you have the recent tradition of Penn, the longstanding excellence of Tim Murphy at Harvard and the recent juggernauts that Bob Surace has built at Princeton.  What makes Teevens successful now is that he is an innovator.  While the Ivies have eliminated almost all hitting in practices, Teevens has eliminated all of it and has employed robotic tackling dummies and virtual reality as substitutes for preparation. His motivation?  "If we don't change the way we coach, we will not have a game to coach," he told a reporter from ESPN the Magazine. 

Now, before you anoint Teevens as the innovator on the topic of hitting in practice, he wasn't.  That title belongs to the all-time winningest football coach in Division III history, the late John Gagliardi of St. John's College in Minnesota, who won several national titles and over 400 games.  I could not find a link to a Sports Illustrated article from decades ago touting the magic of Coach Gagliardi, but I do recall a quote from him on hitting.  His teams did not hit in practice.  Ever.  His thought -- "Our players have mothers.  Who wants to see their kids get hit more than they have to?"  Teevens, ergo, is an extension of Gagliardi, and now he is taking Gagliardi's thinking in this area to another level.  As is former Princeton linebacker Glenn Tilley, the CEO of Defend Your Head, which is working on new technology to protect football players for when they do have to hit and get hit.

So what is the link between Luck and Teevens?  Perhaps it is a tenuous one at best.  There's an adage that innovation does not always start with the biggest companies because they are just so big and it is hard to innovate at the biggest places and that they are risk averse to very conservative and that the smaller companies can take bigger risks because the risk of getting fired is smaller or the magnitude of an error with the innovation is a lot smaller.  In other words, try a big innovation at IBM and fail and earnings tank, people get laid off and the company is a mess; try an innovation at MBI in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, with 25 employees, and well, you might be onto something that all of the big companies will want.  Why?  Because you've tested it in a smaller environment and proved the commercial concept.  At least it's a thought.  Teevens has more room to innovate; there is less pressure to win in the Ivies than the SEC.

So Teevens has innovated a lot about hitting and preserving players' health and sanity.  Perhaps that thinking moves from the hallowed halls of the Ivies to FBS schools, places where the elite players get their training for the pro ranks.  And then perhaps it moves to the NFL.  And then perhaps careers last longer and injuries -- physical and emotional -- are less devastating.  And perhaps a guy like Andrew Luck does not get as beat up and can play for longer, as well as hundreds of others who plays with awful injuries for fear of losing their place on their team and their livelihoods, especially when careers are so short and when for some of the players, well, their best earning days could be right now.

Teevens is onto something big.  The big boys should take notice -- both at the FBS level and the NFL.  Teevens' words are foretelling and could be haunting if not heeded -- "If we do not change the way we coach, we will not have a game to coach."

He could help save football as we know it.

For the players.

For the fans.

And from itself.

U.S. Women's Soccer and Equal Pay

Mediation is not binding arbitration.  Remember that.

There was nothing generous or magnanimous about the members of the U.S. Women's Soccer team's agreeing to mediation in its lawsuit against U.S. Soccer to obtain equal pay.  Most courts require mediation, and while judges are supposed to be disinterested parties litigants can tick them off if they do not agree to sit down with a mediator to try to work out there differences.  Secondly, it was a good public relations move.  Most people don't want to be involved in litigation let alone understand it.  By agreeing to mediation before the World Cup took place, the USWNT was sending a message that it was willing to. . . well, what exactly?  Compromise?  Perhaps.  All that we can read into this is that the USWNT was willing to sit down and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of its case with a mediator, who has the job of going back and for the between the parties and trying to hammer out a deal.  Sometimes that works, sometimes it does not.  If mediation does not work, litigation proceeds.

It always has struck me that there is nothing really to mediate and that if the USWNT does not get everything it wants -- and "equal pay" is a broad statement that thus far the USWNT has not defined with precision -- it will litigate its case.  It has every right to do that.  Given the UWNT's success and popularity, it just might win.

But what is "equal pay," exactly?  That is the question that a court will determine, if the parties do not reach an agreement through mediation.  U.S. Soccer added fuel to the fire yesterday by releasing a statement that it is its contention -- if not a fact in their minds, at least -- that it paid the members of the USWNT more than the members of the USMNT over the past years because it paid the women both salaries and bonuses and the men just bonuses.  On paper, the statement looks reasonable.  But, as the USWNT members point out, the contention of U.S. Soccer mixes apples and oranges and thus is contaminated.  U.S. Soccer wants credit for backing the women's league in the U.S. and paying the salaries of the women's club teams; the plaintiffs will argue, vigorously, that the salaries should not be part of the equation because the subject in dispute in court is a narrower one -- the pay they receive as members of the USWNT.

Here are some facts that are good background:

1.  Men's club teams have been around for roughly a century longer than women's teams.

2.  Men's club teams enjoy far greater commercial success than women's club teams.

3.  The revenues of men's club teams far exceed those of women's club teams around the world.

4.  The competition among nations to qualify their men's teams for the men's World Cup is much more difficult right now than the competition among the women's teams, in large part because of a historical emphasis on funding men's national programs and teams over women's national teams (the latter which are much more recent in formation).

5.  The U.S. culturally is ahead of most other countries in women's club and international competition.  Some other countries are catching up fast.

6.  The U.S. culturally is behind in men's club (heck, the MLS's season does not even coincide with that of the major leagues in Europe) and international competition -- and, as to the latter, might never catch up so long as the top athletes in the U.S. are not playing the sport, the "pay-to-play" culture persists and the top U.S. professional players (by the hundreds) are not playing for the top club teams around the world.

7.  The U.S. women's national team has a strong brand in the U.S., so much so that it enjoyed better TV ratings this summer in the U.S. than the men's World Cup did in the U.S. a year ago.  Of course, the U.S. men's team did not qualify for the men's World Cup (which explains to some degree, if not in large degree, why the TV ratings for the men's World Cup were lower).

8.  The U.S. women's national team is a perennial annual force.  The U.S. men's national team blundered and stumbled through its World Cup qualifying in 2019, losing at Trinidad & Tobago in its ultimate qualifying match and thus failing to qualify for the World Cup (U.S. men were in good company -- Italy and Netherlands failed to qualify, too).

9.  The U.S. women's professional league in the U.S. does not enjoy the financial support that MLS does and might founder without the financial support of U.S. Soccer (which includes payment of salaries for players in the league).

All of this will come up in the litigation.  U.S. Soccer has played its hand -- its support for the U.S. women's league should count in the equation that computes the pay of the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs will counter that only their pay -- as U.S. women's national team members -- should figure into the discussion.

This is where the difference seems to lie.  A mediator will do her/his best to try to find common ground between the parties and a solution to the problem.  But don't bet that this will happen unless the members of the USWNT get everything they ask for.  They have been public about this, and they have been very vocal, putting themselves in a position that to take anything less will be a defeat.

But do the plaintiffs, the members of the USWNT, have to be careful that they can win the battle but lose the war?  Is there more to yesterday's statement of U.S. Soccer than meets the eye?  Is the statement a foretelling of U.S. soccer's arguments in court or a threat?  What is the threat -- that we are supporting a league that has failed to get commercial support and our well is only so deep, so, members of the USWNT, take this to court if you wish and you might win and get your bonuses as USWNT players increased, but we could take away our financial support for your domestic league, either because it has been a bad business proposition or because if we need to pay higher compensation for USWNT appearances we will not have the money to support your professional league in the U.S.  Is that where U.S. Soccer is going?  Would that be a good strategy, or is that a "scorched earth" policy that will set back soccer and women's soccer for years if not decades in the U.S.?

There are two sides to the argument, and both sides clearly are frustrated.  U.S. Soccer should remember an old adage -- you don't always win by being right all the time.  Put differently, if you have too good a deal, the other side will figure it out and get really annoyed.  That time is now.  Good dealmakers understand that a good deal is not getting everything you want and leaving little or nothing on the table for the other side.  And they have a chance, with the right focus and marketing, to propel women's soccer in the U.S. and globally to heights that no women's team sport has ever experienced.  Likewise, they have the opportunity to set it back years, too.

This could be what business people call a "high class" problem.  The key will be to craft a solution that enables both sides to get what they want and maintain their dignity in the process.  That type of solution benefits everyone, especially at a high water mark for the sport.  Nasty litigation battles do not tend to do that.

In the end, it is very understandable that the plaintiffs are doing what they are doing and fighting hard for their compensation.  After all, how can we expect them to battle hard for every ball in the air, every loose ball and every ball in front of the goal if they don't battle hard for themselves and their livelihoods?

Stay tuned.

Nick Francona

He is the oldest of Terry Francona's four children, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, a former military sniper and employee of MLB teams.  Sadly, he did not find traction in his career with MLB teams.  I do not know what he is doing now, but I highly recommend that you read his Tweets if nothing else.

Francona is candid, so much so that he probably will not work in MLB again.  He certainly speaks like someone who does not care whether any team will hire him.  Unlike most writers who cover baseball, he is very critical of the game and its future.  He is bright, and he is insightful.

My guess is that those inside MLB are trying to tow the line between abjectly disliking Francona and telling people to stay away from him and tolerating him at a distance because he is the son of a future Hall of Famer.  A national network or publication would be wise to hire him and give him a platform.  Now, more than ever, baseball needs very tough critics who challenges every aspect of the game.  The game has some significant flaws which, unaddressed, could contribute to making it a shadow of what it once was.  So long as the game currently is lucrative for the owners and they enjoy a favorable collective bargaining agreement, the owners will be content to sit tight and only offer slight tweaks. 

And that would be a shame. 

So, if you have a Twitter account, follow Nick Francona.  As Hemingway once wrote, write not because you want to say something, but because you have something to say. 

Nick Francona has something -- actually many things -- to say.

Baseball -- The Balls are Not Juiced

I know.  I know.

What I am about to write is heresy.  The easiest explanation for all the home runs in baseball is that the balls are wound tighter, are juiced, jacked, however you want to describe them.  What else explains the wacky number of home runs that future Hall of Famer Justin Verlander has yielded?  What else explains that the Phillies are on pace to shatter the record for home runs yielded in a season?  What else explains, well, all of the home runs?

Except that there are some holes in this argument, and that I think that there might be a better explanation.  I am not a math guy and do not have access to the databases and underlying results that could help prove my case.  So take this post as an outline of an argument -- for a sportswriter to pursue and test to see if it is correct.

First, if you look up all of baseball's numbers, there are other numbers that are compelling, such as how awful bullpens are doing this year.  Second, it isn't as though offense has taken off to the point that the average league OPS or batting averages are way up.  I haven't been able to locate a free site that gives me these numbers, but you would think that if batting numbers overall were way up that topic would be the subject of many broadcasts.  If you go back to the late 1960's, hitting numbers were way down, so much so that MLB lowered the pitcher's mound to take away the pitcher's advantage.  Seemingly, that change worked.  And, yes, now there is talk -- primarily among pitchers and their parents -- about un-juicing the baseballs to reduce the number of home runs to "normal" levels (even though fans like the long ball).  But MLB denies that they are juiced.

So what is going on?

Here is an alternative theory.  The balls are not juiced.  They are the same as they ever were.  It is the deployment of analytics and the changes in batters' behavior that are creating the extra home runs.  

Let's talk about the changes to hitters' tactics.  First, there is significant talk about exit velocity and launch angle.  Take those two approaches together, along with the fact that hitters keep on striking out in record proportion, and you get a partial explanation as to why home runs are way up.  The hitters simply are trying to hit more home runs.  And lots of them.  The numbers guys will tell you that they would prefer strikeouts to balls in play that could end up in double plays.  So, hitters now try to hit the ball up and out as opposed to down and through.  Look at games today; balls are in play an average of about every four minutes.  Players are not trying as much as they used to for singles and doubles; they are trying to hit the long ball.  And they are succeeding.  Presumably, if you place an almost singular emphasis on trying to hit home runs, you will hit more of them, and at the expense of other hits.  To put it differently, if the balls truly were juiced, more of them would be getting through the infield and creating higher batting averages for players.  But that isn't happening.  True, players are trying to hit the ball harder (exit velocity) and further (launch angle), but presumably they would be more successful if you added the juicing of the balls to their approach.  Except the numbers do not seem to bear that out.

Secondly, the pitching.  Pitchers and pitching have not evolved as much as hitting has.  The recent approach to pitching is to have pitchers throw as hard as they can, especially relievers.  That's all well and good, but the analytics are so good that the hitters have been catching up to the overwhelming power of pitchers (who have had an upper hand).  There are a few dynamics going on.  First, starting pitchers are having increasing trouble getting through lineups the second time around and even more so the third time around.  Why?  Because the hitters are getting more and better information and because they get time to adjust to the approach of the pitcher that night.  Second, relievers have very few pitches, making it easier for the hitter to guess what's coming.  Typically, a reliever has a setup pitch and his "out" pitch.  Each is thrown at one speed, hence only two different varieties for the most part.  The analytics guys can help hitters figure out what is coming much more easily than say even five years ago.  Okay, so you'll argue then that averages should be way up, and you'd have a point.  Except one fact remains true -- it is very hard for a human being to hit a baseball.

So what's the solution for pitchers?

Change speeds.  Much more frequently than they currently are doing.  Right now a starting pitcher throws three or four pitches, and some are better than others.  Typically, he throws each of these pitches at one speed.  That means he is throwing only three or four varieties.  That number of pitches makes it easier for the analytics folks to guess the tendencies of the pitchers and teach the hitters what to expect.  The variables are not all that many.  But what if a starting pitcher threw his two- and four-seam fastballs at three different speeds, his change-up at two and his breaking balls at three different speeds, true old-time pitching.  It would be hard for the hitter to know what was coming.  Atop that, this approach could save wear and tear on arms.  Gibson, Koufax, Carlton, Spahn, you name it, all used this approach.  And each could rear back and throw and amazing fastball with a few men on in the seventh to kill a rally.  Increase the number of variables the hitter has to deal with, keep the hitter guessing more than ever.  It just might work.

The same holds true for relievers.  It's easier to tattoo a relief pitcher who throws one out pitch with confidence and a mediocre fastball.  Sure, it was still impossible to hit Mariano Rivera's cutter, but he was an outlier.  Most guys do not have that talent, grit or innate confidence.  The reliever who masters a few pitches and changes speeds just might have more success.

Right now, though, the combination of hitters' focusing on launch angle and exit velocity and an increasing predictability of a pitcher's tendencies because of analytics combine to form the foundation for the additional home run numbers in Major League Baseball.  That is the counterargument to the notion that the balls are juiced.

It's just that contending that the balls are juiced is the easier argument, the one that draws headlines.

Except that it just well could be wrong.

Paul Holmgren's Departure from the Flyers

Mike Sielski is absolutely correct.  His column in today's Philadelphia Inquirer nails it.

The Flyers' organization has a problem, a big one at that.  It continues to permit the vastly overrated legacy of Ed Snider to rule the roost.  While the legatee in power -- Paul Holmgren -- departs, two of his Hall of Famers -- Bobby Clarke and Bill Barber -- still have significant influence within the organization.  This influence suggests that the organization is stuck in a doom loop of wishing that the past could recur, that these guys -- no matter how well intentioned -- seem intent on reprising the glory days in the same mold that they created them.

And that just has not happened, does not happen and will not happen.  Looking back turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.  Focusing on the past has prevented this organization from winning a Stanley Cup in 44 seasons.  Oh, there were some trips to the Cup finals, but no Cup.  And in between?  Train wrecks or mediocrity.

The past -- when it happened -- was vigorous and exciting.  But then the Canadiens interrupted the Broad Street Bullies with a combination of skills (of which the Bullies did not have nearly as much) and toughness that enabled them to dethrone the champions and hold onto the cup for years, and then the Islanders skated around everyone for years more.  And then came a guy named Gretzky in Edmonton.

This organization has failed in so many ways.  It has failed to adapt.  It has failed to overcome the idolatry about Snider.  It has failed to overcome the idolatry over Clark, Barber and the Bullies.  Yes, there is a core group of fans -- some would suggest that the only fans the team has are those who go to the games and then, of course, those who support the team when they go on a winning streak.  Those fans for the most part keep on coming back.  Perhaps they are old, nostalgic, still yearn for fighting, old-time hockey, "putting on the foil."  Perhaps they just love hockey.  But the game has changed, times have changed, and yet the Flyers still keep on disappointing.

Mike Sielski has right.  Holmgren has departed, but nothing really has changed.  The team is what it's record say that it is.

Which is not very good.

The Phillies Could Have Themselves a Huge Dramatic Moment

The Phillies need pitching.

Desperately.

The Cubs need to make some decisions about whether to go for it or to trade some assets.

Cole Hamels might be available.

The Phillies traded him several years ago, at the end of the Ruben Amaro era, for a handful of prospects, none of whom has turned into a good player, at least just yet.  What they have to show for that trade, in part, is all-star catcher J.T. Realmuto, whom they received in a trade for several prospects, among them catcher Jorge Alfaro, who was one of the players received in the Hamels trade to the Texas Rangers.  Hamels didn't excel in Texas; he found some new life in Chicago.

Hamels made one of the all-time last starts in a team's uniform when he no-hit the Cubs in Wrigley.  That is not easy to do, and it was a great punctuation mark on an outstanding career in Philadelphia.  Remember this, since World War II, the Phillies have developed only five #1 starting pitchers -- Robin Roberts, Ferguson Jenkins (who was traded to the Cubs so early in the career that it is a stretch to take credit for him), Curt Schilling (okay, he bounced around, but he blossomed in Philadelphia), Hamels and now Aaron Nola.  That's it.  For what it's worth, the Phillies weren't so good at developing #1 starters before WWII, either.

So imagine that GM Matt Klentak gets on the phone with the Cubs' brass and talks a trade for Hamels, a hard worker, a cerebral pitcher, a clutch pitcher.  Imagine that it won't cost too much for a 35 year-old starter with a recent history of injuries.  That needs to be the case because the Phillies' farm system isn't the strongest these days.  Yes, they have some promising position players, but they are untouchable.  Pitching prospects seem the most likely to be dealt, and lesser ones than that because of Hamels' age.  Translated -- the team traded Sixto Sanchez to Miami in the Realmuto deal, so it's unlikely they'll trade one of their top three pitching prospects for Hamels.  But, seemingly, there is always a way to make a deal like this work.

And, if it were to work, imagine the turnout at Citizens Bank Park for Hamels' first start.  Ticket sales would rocket, and unless the temperature will traverse 95 degrees or the game will be played in a downpour, there will be a sellout.  Good feeling will abound, and the fans will leap to their feet the moment #35 walks out to the mound to take his first warm-up pitches.  The ovation will reverberate.  

Because that is how much Cole Hamels means to them.

He can come home.  

Now it's up to the Phillies' management to make it happen.

The U.S. Women's National Team -- Reflections

The first word that comes to mind when I think of this team is "juggernaut."  Another thought is a rap that the Oakland Raiders sang when they were the biggest, baddest team on the planet -- "we never retreat, we always attack."  This is the team that you hate to play but love them if they are the team from your town, reflecting the toughest and most relentless elements of the Raiders, "We are Family" Pittsburgh Pirates, the Splash Brothers, Steel Curtain, Green Bay Packers, New York Yankees and name any other dynasty for that matter.  This team does change up its roster every four years -- only a handful of starters from '15 started in '19 -- and it keeps on rolling.

And it seems that with its popularity, a strong pipeline of talent and competition down in the ranks that helps ensure that the best players surface, this team will keep on rolling forward.  In Rose Lavelle, they had a star and have their centerpiece for 2023.  Of this squad, Megan Rapinoe will be 38, Tobin Heath 36 and Alex Morgan 34 during the next go-round, so it figures that new players will rise up and have center stage.  Some will play a role, but if the powers that be hold true to form four years from now (and, no doubt, with advanced analytics will evolve their thinking even more), these folks will play diminished roles.  Rose Lavelle, Mallory Pugh and Tierna Davidson seem primed for greater ones.  The pipeline, to borrow a phrase from those studying whether to invest in pharmaceutical stocks, is loaded.  Bet against them at your own risk.

Those who formed the foundation of this effort, and those who continue the excellence, should be lauded for all their accomplishments.  They are huge, they are many, and they are inspiring.

While I'm at it, let's not avoid the quest for these women to get paid for their national club service at the same rate as the men.  We are not talking about whether a player for the Portland Thorns should make as much as a player for teams with much more revenue, enterprise value, endorsements and exposure, and neither are the members of the women's national team.  That is not the point of the lawsuit, whether, for example, someone for a professional women's team in the US league should make what her equivalent is making for Liverpool or Real Madrid.  What we are talking about is whether the players of the USWNT should make what the players on the USMNT should for their national team service.

The answer is a resounding yes, for many reasons.  First, they have earned it.  The women have put soccer on the US map more so than the men have.  I would argue that if soccer is more popular among young boys, it is because of the influence of the international stars and league more so than MLS and because finally many parents are waking up that kicking a ball is a healthier way for junior to spend his fall afternoons than banging heads on a gridiron.  Put differently, you can argue and win that the "brand equity" in the women's team is much greater than that of the men's team in the U.S.

How?  How many members of the U.S.men's team can the average fan name?  Christian Pulisic is the one that comes to mind.  True, he is very good, perhaps even the best player in U.S. history -- and he is only 20.  But his career has a long way to go and he needs to develop to become an international star.  Anyone who thinks he can replace Eden Hazard at Chelsea is mistaken right now -- Hazard is one of the top five players in the world.  He is very good.  But he is not at the elite level of his sport the way [fill in the blank -- Megan Rapinoe, Alex Morgan, Julie Ertz, Rose Lavelle] is in hers.  Many Americans can name more than a handful of the U.S. women's stars.  After Pulisic, most Americans will come up empty.

Second, the numbers have to add up, despite FIFA's emphasis on the men's game and the huge disparity of the dollars FIFA puts into the men's game versus the women's.  The TV ratings for the US women's team were great, and the results were terrific.  Contrast those ratings and the results of the U.S.men's team in the CONCACAF Gold Cup, a concoction of the regional soccer authority to create a tournament and opportunity for TV money for teams in various parts of the world during a year when there is not a World Cup or continental championship.  The ratings were not great, the stadiums were half empty and the US men's team once again fell short and lost to Mexico.  Not only that, but they lost to Mexico in the U.S.and in a stadium where Mexican national team jerseys far outnumbered (according to people who were there) U.S. men's national team jerseys.

Third, forgetting the economic arguments, it is the right thing to do, sends the right message and will not cost the US Soccer Federation all that much money (we're talking probably less than $3.5 million) to get the U.S. women on par with the U.S.  men.  US Soccer does not want to litigate this before a jury, especially right after a World Cup where the U.S. women made quite a statement.  The members of the US women's team agreed to mediation to take the temperature down and try to settle this matter reasonably, but remember that mediation is not arbitration.  If the parties cannot work out a deal in mediation, then litigation will continue.  And that will be bad for US Soccer and its governing body.  Even if it is right on some of the numbers -- numbers that are skewed because of FIFA's historic emphasis on the men's game and the money that FIFA can command from sponsors of the men's game -- US Soccer will not win.  Not providing equal pay to this juggernaut will stain US Soccer for a long time.  And let's face it, the women need this money to remain elite.  They do not command the sums that their male counterparts make in MLS (a second-tier league) or in Europe (for the few ambitious, aggressive, tough, and good enough to make a leap into top-tier leagues).  The gap in club team play -- and that is not at issue in the litigation -- is not even close.  If US Soccer wants the women's team to continue to excel, it needs to level the playing field when it comes to compensating members of the national team.

The time is right to do the right thing.

* * * * *

That the men's team trails the women's team in international success is no surprise.  There are several reasons for this.  First, soccer has not been a priority among boys in the United States since, well, forever.  In contrast, it has been the primary obsession in many other countries in the world -- for decades.  In short, the men's team started way behind and continues to be way behind, despite all the effort put into elevating the men's team to a level where it can be competitive with the top countries in the world.  Second, the team still is a game of the suburbs and the well off, for the most part, areas that do not always give rise to the hungriest, best or most talented athletes.  Look at stars in the NFL and NBA -- I am sure that almost none of them gave any thought to playing soccer.  But imagine if they did -- Allen Iverson as a center attacking midfielder, Calvin Johnson as a goalie, LeBron James as a striker, Dwayne Wade as holding midfielder.  The possibilities are endless.

The U.S. -- for men -- has many other sports that are key parts of its culture and have been for over a century.  It is difficult for soccer to compete with that.  Third, there is a culture of going to college -- at 18 -- and playing four years there.  In contrast, kids in Europe enter academies at very young ages and start playing for their clubs' youth teams thereafter.  By the time a kid is 18 in Europe he is expected to draw the notice of the manager of the top team within the club -- the one that competes in the likes of the English Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, etc.  By the time a kid is 18 in the U.S. he might be a freshman at Indiana, playing against other collegians.  The contrast is striking, although it is changing (recent case in point -- the Philadelphia Union last season traded all of its draft picks as a concession that it is getting its best players from its academy, the way clubs do in Europe).  Almost no elite men's players come out of college -- they are just too far behind.

As former U.S.men's team player and current English Premier League player Geoff Cameron observed, unless and until the top players -- dozens of them -- play in the elite leagues in Europe and make the sacrifices that he did (moving to a small city, where it rains a lot, living in a small apartment, not knowing the culture) to play against the world's best, the U.S. will have difficulty competing against the world's best.  And before you start to argue that many of the USMNT players play in MLS, let me ask you this -- who would you pick to win a series -- the Miami Marlins, with all their flaws, or a team from AAA baseball, from Scranton or Lehigh Valley, Tidewater or wherever?  People make the show, the big club, for a reason.  They are that good, even if the Marlins in their current format are struggling.  In other words, the current model is not sustainable.

I went to the CONCACAF Gold Cup quarterfinals a week ago in Philadelphia and texted my son afterwards that the four players who distinguished themselves were Pulisic, Weston McKennie, Tim Ream and Zack Steffen.  His response -- well, sure, because they are the four guys who play in Europe.  The rest of the guys lacked the zing and oomph that you see in an average Premier League match, even between teams at the bottom of the standings.

Even with all of the U.S.'s resources, even with a country that is the fifth-most populated country in the world, even with all of the thinking involved, the U.S. remains an also-ran for men's soccer in the world.  Soccer has made gains, but you can argue that the popularity of the best teams from the elite leagues in the world comprise part of the new-found popularity.  Witness the crowds at bars to cheer on teams in the Champions League final or during the home stretch of the unprecedented dog fight in the Premier League between Man City and Liverpool.  But that still does not mean that the kid who is the outstanding option quarterback in Tyler, Texas (but undersized for FBS football) or the kid who is the 5'6" point guard in Indianapolis putting up 28 points a game) are even considering soccer as an option.  And I'm not talking about every kid considering soccer over football, basketball and baseball first.  I'm just talking about 20% of them, with equal access (translated, let's have academies where professional teams pay for the kids as opposed to access determined because parents can pay for all the fees that go into travel sports).  The culture that the U.S. has helps ensure that the men's team will be climbing a steep hill without much of a chance to win more than one game in the knockout round for the World Cup for decades to come.

Assuming, of course, it can get out of its own qualifying region.

The women, in contrast, have made the most of their opportunities.  Let's face it, field hockey and lacrosse are easy to compete with, and not every kid plays basketball.  The advent of Title IX created massive opportunities for women in sports in the U.S., and soccer eagerly and happily filled the vacuum (hoops did too).  You can argue that the best athletes among girls who were not going into basketball were going into soccer; there were no equivalents for football and even baseball (although softball has made great strides).  And the rest of the world had showed the chauvinism that the U.S. did by not putting money into its girls' and women's programs that it did for the men.  To make a long story short, the U.S. women did not have to overcome two things that the men's team has had to overcome and failed -- the ingrained culture of other major men's sports in the U.S. and decades' long lead that other nations had over it with respect to soccer.  The U.S. women, in short, could start say thirty years ago mostly on a level playing field; it was not playing from way behind.

And those in charge of the U.S. women's game applied mythical and historical U.S. ingenuity to the women's game, and fast.  Great athletes flocked to the sport (although not from economically disadvantaged areas -- not everyone can be perfect, at least not yet), and the numbers were there to foster intense competition that helped the best players -- the Michelle Akers, the Mia Hamms -- to rise to the top.  And stay there.  The U.S. women's team has created a great culture of excellence to help ensure continued success; the men's team has not.  Yes, the obstacles for the men have been tougher, but those obstacles have existed for half a century at least -- without that much improvement in terms of the team's overall record.  The women's team has established a high standard; the men's team has yet to crack the code.

I cheer hard for both teams.  I admire the women for their grit, determination and skill.  I root for the men with more optimism, knowing, though, that until the top 100 U.S. men's players play for club teams in Europe, until the top athletes in the U.S. pick soccer, until there is better access for kids from the cities to play soccer, and until the U.S. men's team establish a deep culture of the academy system that exists in Europe, not much will change for them.

It is a tale of two teams, a tale of contrasts, a tale of relativity, a tale of rapid ascension, a tale of utter frustration, a tale of two cultures, a tale unique to the United States.  Let's make sure to honor the excellent -- the women's team is what its record says it is -- outstanding!  And let's hope that U.S. soccer can give us a men's team that is worthy of mention in the same breath as the women's.

Until then, the women's team deserves more praise and more attention.

And equal pay.

The US Men's National Team -- CONCACAF Gold Cup Quaterfinals

I went to the match at Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia.

A few observations:

1.  The US Men's team still is not a draw.  Don't blame Philadelphia.  26,000 people did come out -- they would have filled a US soccer-sized stadium.

2.  The US has roughly 320 million people.  Curacao has 161,000.  So, the U.S. something like 2,000 times the size of Curacao.

3.  The US got off to a hot start, and you thought that they would go on to score four goals.  At least.  But something crazy happened after 15 minutes.  The US slowed down its attack, dramatically, and the mighty Curacao team did not flinch when under pressure.  They were patient with the ball, and they picked spots when they used their speed.

4.  Zack Steffen, who made two great saves, was the man of the match.  Had he not made either, Curacao would have won.  He plays overseas.

5.  The US's only goal was a Chelsea-Schalke combination, with Christian Pulisic making a great cross to Weston McKennie.

6.  Only Tim Ream was playing really solidly on the back line.  He, too, plays overseas.

7.  No one else distinguished himself, and Michael Bradley at holding midfielder looked well past his prime.

If this is the best lineup the US can field, it has a million kilometers to travel before it can challenge and defeat the world's powers. The team lacked talent, creativity, zing and oomph.  It played half asleep through most of the match, failing to show energy at critical times.  This lackluster effort should suggest to coach Berhalter that he experiment with his lineups and put in some players with better motors than the guys he had in there.  And, oh, sure, Jozy Altidore was not available, but his absence was not the sole or even primary source of the team's woes.

There just was not enough there there.  The U.S. needs to do better, be crisper, be quicker, and show more decisiveness in order to improve.  Pulisic has it.  The question is, how many of the other outfield players do?

The Philadelphia 76ers -- The Emperor is Naked

People tell themselves lies to get through the day.

People tell people what they want to hear so that they continue to have access to them, to feed at their trough and to remain relevant and important.

People look at things through the lenses they have and know, but perhaps not through the lenses they should expend the effort to deploy.

All of these observations apply to the Philadelphia 76ers and the moves that they just made.

The actions of ownership in the post-Sam Hinkie era continue to fail to impress me and continue to fail.  Ownership let the league foist Jerry Colangelo (who had a hidden agenda) and his son Bryan (who was less than competent) on the team, disrupting an innovative theory that Sam Hinkie had put into place.  Post-Colangelo, the team hired Elton Brand to be their General Manager.  Brand had a long career and had a reputation as a good teammate, but his experience as GM prior to last season was one season as a GM -- of the team's G-League team.  The last time I checked, the job responsibilities did not include massaging the egos of stars, dealing with the agents of good NBA players, dealing with a salary cap or the league's labyrinthine rules about salaries.   Brand was a guppy in a league full of sharks.

So what happened yesterday?  The 76ers let Jimmy Butler walk, figuring that at age 29 he was not worthy of a five-year max deal because instead of focusing on winning soon they were worried that they would be saddled with his contract at age 34.  Translated -- they let the guy walk who was one of the two adults in the room during the playoffs, where a much different type of basketball is played.  They let the guy walk who you wanted to have the ball in crunch time.  The only guy on the roster who you wanted to have the ball during crunch time.  And they did not replace him with anyone who you want to have the ball during crunch time.  And they also did not replace him with anyone who can run a half court offense the way he did, even if he was out of position, so bad was the 76ers' situation at guard.

They also let JJ Redick walk.  Apparently, they tried to play hardball with a guy who enjoyed the city and the team, and who was one of Joel Embiid's two favorite players on the team not named Joel Embiid, the other being Butler.  Redick is a perpetual motion machine, in great shape, and a guy who can shoot the three consistently.  Not only has the team lost a leader, it also has lost one of its best shooters.  What compounds this problem is that the team's other young star (allegedly) is Ben Simmons, who does not shoot and probably right now cannot shoot.  Take way an outside threat like Redick and teams will pack in defenses and double- and perhaps triple-team one of the league's best players in Embiid.

Management was active and is taking a victory lap over its moves.  The spin is that they will have the best starting lineup in the league, one of the best defensive teams in the league and one of the tallest starting lineups in league history.  But remember that some reporters usually spin things positively because if they get too critical or too negative their sources will dry up.  Access at times for the media is more cherished than accuracy, if only because the competition to break a story is so keen.  Translated, don't believe all of the positives you read.

The 76ers gave a max deal to Tobias Harris, for whom they paid a steep price mid-season last season.  To Harris's credit, he endured during the 76ers' season if only because chances to practice and mesh with his teammates were very limited, and few plays were designed for him.  That said, as celebrated a talent evaluator as Jerry West traded Harris precisely because he did not think Harris to be worthy of a max deal, saw him as a nice guy without a killer instinct who is a third option on a good team.  Now, the 76ers are paying him money usually reserved for a superstar and asking him to be the second top force on offense next to Embiid.  That's a lot of money and it could be a big ask.  The team was more willing of give Harris a max deal because a) he is three years younger than Butler and b) in all likelihood easier to manage.  That said, how many teams' true mega-stars are not at times combustible hot-blooded competitors who want to win so badly?  Put differently, Harris has a lot to prove.  Butler had much less to prove.  And Harris has to show he can take over a game in crunch time.

The 76ers signed Butler and traded him to the Heat for Josh Richardson, a decent defender whose shooting tailed off miserably at the end of last season.  Many are touting this as a brilliant move, but Richardson is not an elite player the way Butler is and has to shoot very well to replace not only Butler but also Redick.  That's a big ask, and it's an even bigger ask to say that yes, it will be Josh Richardson who can take over a game in crunch time in the playoffs.  Butler could.

The team also signed thirty-three year-old Al Horford to a four-year deal that could be worth $109 million, when they could have had Julius Randle for a lot less, Julius Randle the true four.  Okay, Randle might have a few unpolished spots, and Horford is a respected veteran, but he has played the five his entire career and is 33 years old.  He will be 37 when his contract expires.  So the logic about Butler doesn't make sense if Butler would have been 34 at the end of his contract while Horford will be 37 at the end of his sizable deal.  Sure, he gave the 76ers fits by compelling Embiid to come outside the arc to guard him, but how can he complement Embiid?  This transaction is a puzzler.

The team still has little in the way of a bench.  It still has no one who can guard a speedy, scoring guard for an opponent.  How many times did an opponent's guard torch the 76ers last season?  Joel Embiid has yet to prove he can get into shape and stay on the floor.  And, most of all, Ben Simmons still cannot shoot.  The latter's lack of a shot is the biggest gating item for the team's elevation to the elite level in the league.  If Ben can hit outside shots consistently, you can make a good argument that he becomes the best player in the league.  If Ben can hit outside shots consistently, then he can take over in crunch time.  If Ben can hit outside shots consistently, then opponents cannot double team other 76ers.  If Ben can hit outside shots consistently, the team can win 65 games and get to the league finals.

What seems more likely is that it will take 12 games to get the chemistry right, maximize the strengths and expose the holes.  The team needs shooters to take the pressure off Embiid.  It needs defenders who can neutralize the Irvings, the Walkers, the Lillards and even those at the next few levels down who have tormented the team.

The 76ers' moves yesterday are nothing to do cartwheels over or get excited about.  It is unclear whether the team got any better.  The team's great spin machine will tell you that this is part of the process and that this is the best lineup since the team with Doc, Moses Malone, Andrew Toney and Mo Cheeks.  They will tell you that they will stifle opponents and run by them.  They will tell you a lot of things.

The problem is, they already have over the past five years.

And how has that worked out -- for them and for you?

Are the Baseballs Wound More Tightly?

That seems to be what everyone is saying.  That the baseballs are wound more tightly, that the balls are jumping out of parks at record rates, that among others the Phillies are on pace to set the record for home runs yielded in a season (one pitcher, Jared Eickhoff, has yielded 18 dingers in his last 28 innings -- that is not a typo).  Many commentators are saying that unlike the last home run surge, when the players were juiced, this time the balls are.  Are they onto something?

Well, until a professor in materials science from Purdue tells us that they are (presumably by comparing this year's balls to balls used in prior seasons), consider this -- could the analytics that help hitters be further head of those that help pitchers?  That might be the better explanation.  Perhaps there is technology that can predict pitch sequences and gives the hitter a better chance of knowing what's coming.  Or, perhaps there is tracking technology that examines opposing pitchers' motions to the very small detail, looking for a "tell" that he is going to throw a certain pitch.  Oh, I'm not talking about something so obvious that half the stadium can tell that a pitcher is tipping his pitches, but something done through tracking software normally reserved for military applications that can discern a nuance so slight but detectable that a hitter then can predict with more certainty what is coming?

Is it plausible?  Yes, it is, but then again, the counterargument is compelling, too.  That if such technology were in place and deployed, ERAs would be even higher than they are (and they are still higher than last season) and batting averages would be even higher.  Fair enough.  But the fact that ERAs are higher and HR numbers are up suggests that there is something going on that is giving an advantage to hitters.  For years we have endured endless changes in pitchers to enable a manager to get the right matchup and then pitchers' throwing as hard as they can to get someone out.  Specialization, then, hit the craft of pitching to a degree not seen before.  And many of these pitchers, with narrowly defined roles, excelled.  Then again, there are many who did not -- it is a highly competitive business.

But something is going on, that is for sure.  The easiest explanation is that the balls are juiced because most teams have subpar bullpens and are struggling to get people out and hold leads.  Because to argue that each team is sophisticated enough analytically to have cracked the code of dominant pitching is to suggest that each team is well run and spends funds on stuff like this to the same degree.  Another possible explanation is that the focus on launch angle and exit velocity is such that those prone to hit home runs have mastered the adjustments to the modern game so much that we are hitting a high water mark for home runs (and possibly for strikeouts).  What might well happen is that teams will adjust again, figure out a new strategy, and then the home run numbers will drop again.  Baseball is, after all, a game of adjustments.

Is it fun, now, to watch baseball?  Lots of home runs, lots of strikeouts, a game that is much different from the game we watched 40 years ago.  The game takes longer, climate change has made the weather less predictable, and the ball is in play every four minutes.  Attendance is down.

But somewhere, some owners are smiling.  The ball is flying out of the park, right?  That fact brought people back to baseball in droves after the strike of 1994 that ended up causing the cancellation of the World Series soured people on the game for a time.  This time, the cause for concern is how long games take and how little the ball is in play.  Will this home run furor bring people back?

Don't bet on it.

Attention spans are shorter, there are many more alternatives for entertainment, and soccer, like it or not (and I like it) is zooming in popularity.  The NBA has a hot hand; basketball is cool.  Football remains predominant, even though those who play it are maiming themselves for life, most college football programs lose money and fewer kids are playing it.  Baseball has a chance to change its course.  So far, though, the Lords of Baseball have been resistant to change, and a huge labor war is brewing because analytics have all but nullified the goals of the players in the last collective bargaining agreement -- to enable free agency by or at 30 to enable a big pay day.  The problem is that the analytics have demonstrated that most players are on the decline by then -- and the free agent paydays are not forthcoming.  The owners have a good deal right now, but as someone once told me, too good of a deal is a bad one, because once the other side figures it out there will be hell to pay.  That day is coming.

So, are the baseballs wound more tightly?  Perhaps.  One thing is for sure -- because the balls are jumping out of the park, managers and pitchers definitely are . . . wound more tightly.

A Year for Hoopsters from, Well, Obscure Schools.

Tony Bennett played college basketball at University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.  He coached UVA to the national title this year.

Nick Nurse played his college basketball at the University of Northern Iowa.  He coached the Toronto Raptors to the NBA title this year.

Gary Woodland started his college athletic career by playing basketball at Washburn University.  He won the U.S. Open golf tournament at Pebble Beach yesterday.

Who's next?

Everyone Was a Warrior Last Night

The NBA could not have asked for better material for its marketing efforts than Game 6 of last night's Championship Finals.  What a grand game it was.  It showed that to dethrone a veteran, defending champion, you have to give it everything you have, you have to take the crown.  Even depleted with injuries, the Golden State Warriors ceded no ground to the Toronto Raptors.  If you are old enough, conjure up in your memory photographs of an Ali-Frazier fight, in black-and-white, with smoke rising to the rafters of Madison Square Garden.  Steph hits a three!  Fred Van Vleet hits one!  Draymond grabs another rebound!  Kyle Lowry made the court his own person playground at the games outset!  Kawhi, well, he was just being his awesome Kawhi self!  And Andre Iguodala, what can you say about his effort other than it increases and improves as the games get tougher!

Everyone who participated last night was a warrior.  In the end, the Raptors just had too much for the defending champions, but in falling so valiantly, demonstrated to all that despite the abundant talent in their starting lineup, they are a dynasty, champions so worthy of the name, valiant, gritty, determined, skilled.  It was just that Toronto, a team that the pundits thought might not make it to the NBA Finals, was too versatile, too resilient, too flexible, too tough.  But not by a whole lot.

Sadly, two great Warriors and top NBA players suffered awful injuries -- Kevin Durant in the beginning of Game 5 and then Klay Thompson in Game 6.  Both look to be out for all of next season.  Their injuries will make an already compelling off-season (and no one sets up drama for the off-season the way the NBA does) even more compelling, what with so many teams having sufficient cap space to sign a free agent to a max deal.  Will Durant opt out?  Where will Klay go?  Does the interest on the other free agents increase because of these injuries?  What will the Warriors do?  Will Kawhi stay in Toronto?  Will Kyrie go to Brooklyn and not Manhattan?  Will the Raptors' president stay in Toronto or take the purportedly huge deal the Wizards will offer him?  Where will T.J. McConnell go?  Okay, that last question might interest diehard 76ers' fans only, as they appreciated the hard work of the back-up PG during his seasons in the City of Brotherly Love.

It was a great night, a happy night, a sad night, a poignant night, a night to celebrate the best of basketball.  Both teams performed nobly, valiantly.  The refs also did a great job (save perhaps a late blocking call on Kyle Lowry that really was a charge on Boogie Cousins), and the three guys in the booth made salient comments without being obnoxious or tripping on one another.

What a great game!  Cannot wait for next season!

The Champions League Final

I realize it's a little late for fully blown commentary.  Overall, the game was a dud, and the better team won.  The soccer gods did justice to the soccer universe; Liverpool warranted a trophy after its amazing season in the English Premier League.  I mean, how many teams earn 97 points in a 38-game season and come in second place?  I wonder if any teams fared that well and finished second.  Spurs also had an excellent season, considering that they played most of their home games at a neutral site and had a smaller-than-optimal roster because of the funds they expended on their spectacular new stadium.  That lack of cash flow prevented them from making any moves in the off-season.  And as EPL fans learned within the past five years from a season in which City did the same thing -- stand pat -- and failed to repeat, standing pat and not tweaking your roster in a very competitive Premiership is a tough thing to do.

Both squads have excellent managers -- Juergen Klopp is en route to having a statue of him built outside Anfield and Mauricio Pochettino has done wonders in North London.  Liverpool has the world's best center back in Virgil van Dyk, an amazing attack, a top-five goalie and an underrated midfield, full of good leaders.  Spurs distinguished themselves through their gritty, hard-nosed play.  They too have stars -- among them, one of the world's best strikers in Harry Kane.  Yet, it was the decision to play Kane, or not to play Lucas Moura instead of one of Kane, Delle Alli or Son Heung-min that could haunt Spurs, Spurs' fans and Poch for a while.

All Moura did was singlehandedly will Spurs into the finals with a hat trick on the road in the Netherlands against an Ajax side that beat Spurs in North London 1-0 in the first match of the tie and then took a 2-0 lead.  That meant that Spurs needed to score 3 against Ajax on the road to propel themselves into Champions League final in Madrid on June 1.  And Moura scored all 3, including a goal on what had to be the final offensive opportunity in stoppage time.  How can you bench a player coming off a performance like that?  Moura was in top form, and he was a force to be reckoned with (and proved it again with the energy that he provided when he did come on in the final).  Poch deserves all the respect in the world, but he gambled starting both Kane (coming off an injury) and the bright young midfielder Harry Winks (also returning from an injury).  The gamble did not work; both were non-factors, Kane so much so that Spurs failed to take advantage of a 62-38% advantage in possession.

The future is very bright for both teams.  It seems as though Liverpool will be favored to win the Premiership next year, even with all of the might of Manchester City and City's having added Portuguese attacking midfielder Bruno Fernandes.  Liverpool undoubtedly will tweak its roster too.   Spurs, meanwhile, have a big decision to make on Christian Eriksen, their outstanding attacking midfielder.  Losing Eriksen would be a big setback for a team that has worked so hard to outpace its North London rival Arsenal and qualify for Champions League football.  Spurs' back-line has showed some age, and goalie Hugo Lloris has not been the stone wall that he once was.  But make no mistake -- Poch's teams are disciplined, organized and play within themselves.  Come to think of it, losing Poch to a team like Juventus would be a big blow too.

The game underwhelmed, but in the end the better team won.  And while, yes, I am an Arsenal fan, I have great respect for Spurs and what they have achieved.  They just did not have enough for Liverpool.

Then again, most teams don't.

Kawhi Leonard

The 2014 Spurs inspired me.  Actually, their wizardry on offense -- their crisp passing, the vision of three All-Stars (James, Wade and Bosh) running themselves ragged chasing the ball -- will be forever etched in my minds.  It brought tears to my eyes.  Why?

Hall of Fame coach Pete Carril once said that "a pass is not a pass if it is a last resort."  Hall of Fame lacrosse coach Bill Tierney, who won 6 national championships at Princeton and one at Denver is noted for saying "if the ball gets stuck in your stick, you will be sitting on the bench."  What do these legendary coaches mean -- that a player should be thinking about what he is going to do with the ball before he gets it.  The Spurs worked this theory to perfection that year -- and an outstanding coach in Erik Spoelstra and a core group of all-stars had no answer for what Greg Popovich and the Spurs did to them.  It was textbook basketball.  San Antonio put on a clinic.  So much so that I bought my son a championship t-shirt.  The reason?  To cherish excellence.

One of the Spurs, then a very young player in Kawhi Leonard, epitomized the basketball IQ that Coach Pop insisted upon from his players.  He knew where to be, he knew where his teammates would be and he knew both when it was time to be unselfish and when it was his turn to be the guy.   He put on an amazing performance in those finals, one that vaulted him to win the MVP award for that series.  He was just marvelous.

It is hard to argue with how good the following players are:  LeBron James, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, James Harden, Giannis Antetokounmpo.  All are excellent.

But are any of them better right now than Kawhi Leonard?

Pulling the Goalie

Last night, when the Blues went down 2-0 to the Bruins, I posited to a group of friends on a group text that Craig Berube, the Blues' interim head coach, should consider pulling his goalie with about 12 minutes to go in the third period if the Blues were down by two and say with 6 minutes to go if the Blues were down by one.  The reason, a brilliant article in the Wall Street Journal that did the math that suggested that NHL coaches are too conservative and don't give themselves the best chance to win if they only pull their goalies with about 90 seconds to go.  In other words, the conventional wisdom that has evolved over the years is dead wrong.  And one of my friends, a bright guy, posited the same thing -- that it was too risky.

After the Blues went down 2-0 I decided to go to bed, if for no other reason that I thought that the Blues were just unlucky last night, that Tuuka Rask translated from Finnish into mid-American English means "Iron Door on Hockey Goal" and that Berube would do nothing out of the box to try to cut the deficit.  As it turned out, the game turned into a route, and now the Blues are returning to Boston with the series tied at 3 for Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals.

This by no means is an indictment of the Blues or Berube.  The Blues were hockey's worst team on January 2, and Berube has performed nothing short of a miracle in St. Louis. That said, doing things because, well, "that's always the way things have been done" might help avoid a coach from getting fired for making wild bets with his strategy, but at the same time might prevent him from being a transcending innovator.  Food for thought for hockey -- this is an exciting series.

Oh, and I did not post a hyperlink to the article because there is a paywall.  But look for the article or a scholarly paper or two on the topic -- you will find it compelling.

FOGO -- WTF?

I have more than a passing interest in lacrosse.  I know people who played it, my son played it in high school for a while, I have been to travel team tournaments and a few NCAA Division I Final Fours.  At times, it can be a most compelling game.  That said, in this advanced age of specialization, there is something that is killing it -- the advent of the FOGO, which stands for "face off, get off."  The FOGO can be one of the most important players on the team -- all for a player who in all likelihood will not take a shot on goal, not get many assists and will not be on the field for important defensive series -- and who might be on the field for less than 10 minutes of a 60-minute game.

The FOGO arrived on the scene when the Lords of Lax decided that there should be a faceoff after every goal is scored.  Before that happened, it was "make it take it" -- according to a friend who played DI lax back in the day -- before the advanced age of specialization.  That is, you scored a goal, you got the ball.  At some point, the rule changed, and smart coaches -- and there were many of them -- figured out that they needed kids to specialize in the skill of bending low, with the back of one's stick to his opponent's, and exhibit feats of strength known to edge rushers, Greco-Roman wrestlers and perhaps Frank Costanza on Festivus in order to win the ball and get a team's offense going.  Have a good FOGO, one who can win many more than half of his face-off attempts, and your team will have more than a good chance of winning games, for the basic reason that you will have the ball -- and thus many chances to score -- much more than your opponents will.  Have a great FOGO and you can get to the Final Four.

I am not criticizing parents who encourage their kids to become FOGOs or players who become FOGOs.  Trevor Baptiste, seemingly a wonderful young man, was a four-time all-American at the University of Denver -- as a FOGO.  Baptiste was all set to go from his private school in northern New Jersey to Franklin & Marshall, a DIII school in Lancaster, Pennsylvania when Denver's Hall-of-Fame coach Bill Tierney saw him play.  Lax coaches are known for not poaching recruits who have committed to other schools; Tierney spoke with the F&M coach, got his approval to talk with Baptiste and low and behold what Tierney saw in the 5'9", 220-pound or so midfielder bore out -- Baptiste was amazing.  As is Yale's TD Ierlan, a FOGO who almost singlehandedly demoralized #1 Penn State yesterdaly in the first half with his ability to win almost every faceoff against the Nittany Lions.  The Lions are known for their scintillating offense, but they could not get it into gear until the second quarter because Ierlan kept winning faceoffs.  By that time Penn State was down 10-1, and while they staged a noble comeback, the difference in the game was the work of Ierlan.  He dominated the conversation of the announcers on ESPN.

The importance --and I would say exaggerated importance -- of the FOGO begs the question -- is this really good lacrosse, is this really necessary and does this specialization make the game better?  There was a time in basketball where they had a jump ball at mid-court after each basket, until some guys with names like Wilt Chamberlain made a mockery of it, won almost jump ball, and now the game has evolved today where they have a jump ball to start the game and on a rare occasion when the rule compel a jump ball as opposed to the possession arrow's dictating which team gets the ball next after the players tie up the ball.  Basketball is much better for it.

So why can't lacrosse either go back to "make it take it" or giving the ball to the scored upon team after a goal is scored?  The games will go faster -- there were times in yesterday's Penn State-Yale contest where the standoff between faceoff men lasted at least 20 seconds if not more, so determined and stubborn were the gallant FOGO's not to yield any edge to their opponents.  More importantly, guys who are not on the field for much of the time will not have an overexaggerated impact on the game.  Sure, women's softball pitchers can have a huge impact on the game -- but they are out there as focal points the entire time.  The FOGOs -- they are hardly on the field.  That just does not make any sense.  Let the players who are on the field the most have the biggest impact on the game.

That is the main point -- that the players who play most of the minutes have most of the impact.  Sure, you can argue that no one has ever won the Tewaarton Award -- given to the best DI lax player -- being a FOGO.  That's because the FOGO's do not rack up goals and assists.  But the FOGO's determine in great part which team will have the greater amount of possession -- and thus the opportunity for more goals and assists.  And somehow, that just doesn't seem right.

I am sure that my lax friends will tell me that I am wrong, that the game is great, that I am the one exaggerating the importance of the FOGO and not the Lords of Lax, but I would like to understand why they say that.  I do not think that there is a phenomenon like the FOGO in any other sport -- and to me, that is a good thing.

End the FOGO.  Make the game better.

The 76ers' future

The Philadelphia 76ers' spin machine will work overtime to pat the franchise on the back for its heroic effort in its playoff series against the Toronto Raptors and losing Game 7 on a last-second shot to one of the best players in the game.  If spin were the measurement for success of an NBA franchise, the 76ers would be champions.  The reality is something far more stark -- especially since the team lost badly twice in this series.

First, the team reinvented itself twice during the regular season.  How could it have expected to get to the conference finals with a group that had hardly gotten to mesh together?   Especially when it was hard to find practice time for the whole squad together, since star center Joel Embiid was dealing with an iffy knee and other health problems.  The expectation was unrealistic.  And it shows how far the team is from being an elite one.

Second, the team only has four players signed for next season -- Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons, Zhaire Smith and Jonah Bolden.  It needs to find 11 more players.  Even if say 3-5 of the current squad come back, the remainder of the roster will take some time to come together with the current squad.  That there are 13 teams with cap room to sign a player to a max deal (and a few might have room to sign two players to max deals) exacerbates the team's problems.  There are not 13 or more players worthy of a max deal, which means that there are owners out there who will overpay for players.  And that means the competition will be fierce for Jimmy Butler, who is worthy of one, and Tobias Harris, who is not.  The Clippers traded Harris for what they could get because they did not think him worthy of a max deal, and, as it turns out, they fleeced the "win now" 76ers for Landry Shamet and three first-round picks, killing whatever might have been left of Sam Hinkie's thoughtful "process."  Don't expect the roster to be a cornucopia of high-ceiling players; at least three will have significant holes in their games and be satisfied being part of the "happy to be here" club.  Flying on private jets and staying in five-star hotels are great perks.

Third, Ben Simmons' lack of a jump shot kills the current makeup of the team.  Absolutely kills it.  NBA basketball people know it; the press seems to ignore it, look at the positives, defend Simmons for being "only 22," point to his highlights and his stat lines.  The latter, though, are only part of the story.  Simmons touches the ball more than any other player in the league, and is happy to dribble the ball hard down the court, take off near the foul line, turn his back to the basket and try to find an open man.  That's a strategy?  Because Simmons cannot shoot, Coach Brett Brown, about whom an open question remains whether the players still listen to him, locates Simmons on the low blocks.  Why?  Because put Simmons up high and the defenders will lay off him -- he cannot and will not shoot.  As it turns out, putting Simmons on the low blocks is worse.  He clogs that area, takes it away from the league's most devastating low blocks player, Embiid, and enables his man to double Embiid, who publicly is magnanimous in his comments but privately must be livid.  Simmons might thrive in a run-and-gun scenario; he is doom to a half-court offense.  That he did not work on a jumper last summer is a reflection on his desire and character.  If he does not develop one this summer, the 76ers will have a huge problem, perhaps insurmountable.  

Fourth, Embiid needs to get into better shape.  Part of this is on him -- he has to lay off the milk shakes and try to get in the pool when his knee is bothering him.  It seems like he knows this, has accepted this and will accept this challenge.  Part of this is on the team -- NBA teams range widely in their attention to nutrition and fitness, and would be well-advised to take pages out of the books of European soccer teams to condition their players better.  An in-shape Embiid, one who can play 75 regular-season games, is a top-5 player.

Fifth, the front office seems to be dysfunctional.  The owners are New York private equity guys with little connection to the city and to the fans.  They hired a general manager with precious little experience (even if he is by all accounts a good guy), perhaps because Elton Brand was the only person willing to take the job. They are sharks about promotion and maximizing ticket value, but after the hype you have a team that is an odd aggregation of parts, not all of whom function in harmony most of the time.  Brand is outmatched as a GM, and it seems as though Jerry West and the Clippers took him to the cleaners on the Harris deal.  Odd that the league forced the team's hand to oust Hinkie and bring in the younger Colangelo because of the older Colangelo's thinly veiled interest in what was best for the league (and that Adam Silver failed to see a hidden agenda) but failed to step in to thwart this version of highway robbery.  This trade was a disaster.  Harris seemed to melt a little every time the lights got brighter.

Sixth, speculation will run rampant about free-agent signings and who goes where.  Butler and Embiid do not seem compatible with Simmons, and Brown's coaching seemed to favor Simmons over Embiid and Butler.  Butler only will return if a) Philly offers him the most money (and it can offer more to him than others) and b) if Philly offers him the best opportunity at a championship ring (much more doubtful).  The bet here is that he goes elsewhere, and to play for and with a coach who is more aligned to his style of play.  The bet here is that the team will sign Harris -- to a max deal -- and hype it to the max.  Then they will pursue various free agents, but it seems unclear as to who might be a good fit.  

Seventh, as for free agents, some speculate that the team will sign a point guard -- such as Kemba Walker or D'Angelo Russell.  Fine, but then what of a Ben Simmons without a jump shot?  That point guard will not want to co-exist with a Simmons who has to run the offense.  So, can you turn a Simmons without a jumper into a power forward?  Yes?  No?  Is that what  you drafted him for?  Or does he just morph into a much better hyped form of a Michael Kidd-Gilchrist?  Simmons cannot co-exist with a true point guard, and the team does need some guards who can guard other teams' guards; it failed mightily in that regard this past season.

Eight, and this goes along with the prior points, can you trade Ben Simmons?  Opinions vary as to his worth.  My view is that he is not now viewed as someone who was worth the top pick in the NBA draft.  My view also is that there are a few front offices who still might view him that way and might want to build their franchise around him.  Which begs the question -- who are those desperate owners and general managers and who might they offer for Simmons?  One logical franchise is Sacramento, which just missed the playoffs, which has a bevy of pedigreed young players and a head of basketball who has been known to make bad decisions in the past.  Can you get Vlade Divac to give you De'aaron Fox and Marvin Bagley, Jr. or Willie Cauley-Stein for Simmons?  If you can, make the deal, and make it fast.  

Nine, the team needs to sign bench players.  Mike Scott and James Innis are worthy of a return; Greg Monroe and Boban Marjanovic should go.  JJ Redick is worthy of a return, but at compensation far less than the $23 million the team gave him last year.  That makes seven players when you include the four signed up for next year.  The team needs eight more, so if you add the first-round pick the team has it will need seven more players.  That is a tall order for any team, let alone one that is touting itself as building for even better years.  The status of the roster suggests a desperate ownership group that cashed in many chips for an obviously flawed "win now" strategy.  It also suggests that it is a funny way to build a contender for the future.

This off-season is crucial for the 76ers.  Get it right, and they get to the conference finals.  Get it wrong, and a downward spiral might begin.

And then the process was just that -- interrupted, flawed, failed.  With nothing to show for it except a sizzle machine that is worthy of Hall of Fame mention.

And plenty of empty seats.

Again.

Jan Vertonghen

Yesterday's Champions League semi-final match between quick, upstart Ajax and a battered Spurs squad was marred by the aftermath of a collision between Spurs' two center backs -- Belgian national team teammates Toby Alderweireld and Jan Vertonghen, who comprise one of the best center back tandems in the world.  What resulted was both players lying on the ground, Vertonghen bleeding profusely from the nose and holding his head.  The referee stopped play; the Spurs' physios ran onto the field and did what they could to stop the bleeding and do what physios normally do -- patch players up and keep them in the match.  Especially one as important as a Champions League semifinal at home.

But what Vertonghen suffered was not a kick to the shin or a bump on the back of his leg.  His head collided with that of a teammate.  Hard.  It seemed to be an awful blow.  The physios stopped the bleeding and then took Vertonghen off the field -- this is permissible without substitution, as the Spurs played with ten men on the pitch -- to change his jersey (there was blood on it) and to attempt to stop the bleeding a bit better.  Having thought they achieved that, Vertonghen -- to the delight of the Spurs' faithful, too -- was sent back onto the pitch.  Mission accomplished!

Or so someone thought, but not everyone.  Vertonghen was not right and quickly signaled so, looked woozy and almost collapsed when the referee once again stopped play to enable Sissoko to come in for him.  When the play stopped, Vertonghen, looking wobbly, needed assistance to be helped off the field.  It was a sad moment -- for football, for the Champions League, for Spurs and for Vertonghen, who clearly deserved better.  He was hurt.

It is easy, of course, to say that the Spurs' physios (for you Americans, that's trainers, which, in UK English, means sneakers) and medical staff failed Vertonghen.  I read in one account that Vertonghen passed the initial concussion protocol tests that FIFA/UEFA/EPL whomever -- have in place.  What is problematic is that there is no intermediate solution for a player -- either he gets substituted off or he remains in the game.  And in football, if a player gets substituted off, he is done for the contest.  There is no opportunity for him to go off, be evaluated, and come back in -- unless his team is willing to play a man down for a long period of time (as you might estimate it might take 20-30 minutes for a proper evaluation to occur -- and not the 2-3 minutes that Vertonghen apparently got).  So, perhaps FIFA/UEFA et al. should consider a new rule that permits a team to take a player off the field and provide a perhaps temporary substitute while that player is getting a fuller and better evaluation for a concussion.  If that rule existed, then the stark circumstances that exist now -- substitute or keep the player in the game -- go away.  But if a new rule should not come about, then the choice need not be stark, as Vertonghen has a full life to live -- take the player out of the match.  Period.

Yesterday's match deserved more discussion of Ajax's continued sparkling run, its young captain, its fearless center midfielder and its enterprising keeper.  It also warranted a discussion of Neres's hitting the post in the second half and the ramifications of that near miss, Spurs' tactics and the effect of all of Spurs' injuries and Son's suspension on the match.  All are good topics for discussion.  Instead, the mishandling of Vertonghen's injury draws a billing right after the announcement of the surprising final score.

I am not a Spurs' fan; as an Arsenal fan, it is almost constitutional that I cannot be.  Yet, I respect their organization tremendously -- from top to bottom -- and what they have accomplished.   I also like an underdog -- hence my admiration for Ajax.  What happened to Vertonghen and Spurs could have happened to any team anywhere.  Let's hope that the football powers combine their best thinking to make sure that something like this does not recur.  And here is to a speedy recover to Vertonghen, and for that matter, all other injured Spurs.

My Friend the Accountant

Great guy.  Self-made, one of  a lot of kids, the last one in the line, father died when he was a young teenager.  Worked his rear end off, smart, serious, engaging, good husband, father, thoughtful, dependable, good neighbor, just a wonderful person.

We went to the Phillies game the other night, had a fun time, as the hometown nine won, this time in convincing fashion.  We enjoyed the game and used it as a vehicle, as many do, to get caught up.  We touched upon a lot of subjects, including the expense of going to a baseball game.  My first reaction was to joke that the expense seemed to pale in comparison to going to a 76ers' game (where there are 41 home games to the Phillies' 81) or an Eagles' game (where there are only eight home games and the Eagles' make sure to get their monies' worth).  But we did some basic math -- parking costs $20 if you want to park close enough not to exhaust your young kids by the time they get to the ball park.  Tickets on the second level can cost roughly $35 apiece, which means that's $140 for a family of four.  Let's say you need four waters -- at $5 apiece and you purchase food for four people.  It's not cheap there, so let's say by the time you buy the French fries, chicken tenders, and perhaps other artery-clogging food and ice cream you spend say $30 on water (two for the adults) and another $70 on food.  (Beers go for about $12 apiece, so let's surmise that the adults will not drink in front of the children -- not the best assumption at the ballpark).  So the interim math is $20 for parking, $140 for tickets, and say $100 on food.  Already that's $260 dollars.  And for good measure perhaps you purchase a souvenir or two, you know, a Phillie Phanatic hat or a team hat or a jersey shirt or something, and let's say you spend another $60.  That's about $320 for a family of four.

For one game.  And let's suppose you want to go to several more during the season.  That could be roughly $1,000 for four games.  That's a lot of money, especially where the average income in the region is less than $60,000.  Is it reasonable to expect someone to pay more than 1% of his/her income for the luxury of going to a baseball game and for an increasingly strange and hard-to-fathom product?  Last year there were more strikeouts than hits in the game -- for the first time ever.  And it took on average four minutes for a ball to go into play.  Even taking into account the odd turns the game has taken, it remains expensive to go to a game.

So, some questions must be asked.  Is it good business to charge $5 for a water as opposed to encouraging people to bring their own reusable water bottles and filling stations so that they can save money?  Is it good business to charge what they do for food, too, and $20 for parking while they are at it?  The principal owner of the team is worth more than $1 billion and vowed in the off-season to spend "stupid money" to sign free agents, and then gave Bryce Harper $330 million over 13 seasons for a guy who is about half as good as the unavailable and area native Mike Trout.  Perhaps John Middleton paid "market" for Bryce Harper, and it stands to reason that he believes he bestowed many good things on his fans with that signing, the signing of Andrew McCutcheon, and the trades for Jean Segura and J.T. Realmuto.  What he and his fellow owners -- all seemingly well-intentioned, good folks -- did not do was improve upon the fan experience in the one way that would help the fans -- making the game more affordable.

Those who defend baseball will argue that the game still draws a lot of fans and that only a few franchise have financial/attendance problems.  And they might be right.  I have gone on and on about the average age of a fan being 58 and how the younger generations are not flocking to the game because climate change has meant it is very hot to sit out there for 3.5-plus hours, because the game is increasingly boring with pitching changes, mound visits and strikeouts and such.  When the average age of a fan is 58, what that means is that you have people who are making more money presumably in their jobs because they are at a point where they are highly paid or they are retired and have save up enough to spend their discretionary money on leisure.

Perhaps.  But there is a big "but" in all of this.  Most people do not have enough to retire on.  The good economy will not last forever; we have not had a recession in 10+ years.  Parking is not all that close to the stadium, and as people age they will not be able to get to the ballpark or do the necessary walking within the stadium to get to their seats.  After all, the average person in the country is not in the best shape.  Discretionary income might not be as discretionary for people as it is now.  At some point people might say "are you crazy, I will not pay $5 for a water or $11 for a beer or $10 for crab fries.  That is insane."  (My family already is saying it).  And with brutal competition for your internet/cable dollars, people might be content to watch at home (and that gets into a whole other set of issues -- loneliness and isolation, which could end up being bigger killers than heart disease and cancer).  Putting all of this together, baseball has a unique opportunity to create a wonderful experience for a community -- where people can gather -- outside -- for a fun event that creates community.  It really can do this.

If it doesn't price people out of the market.  Especially when there are 81 games and the games are not as scarce as football (which has its own set of issues).

So back to our conversation.  His refrain -- "how can the average guy afford this?"

The answer is, increasingly, that he cannot.

Even with a growing population.  Even with a good economy.

Businesses can make decisions when they are on top or perceive that they are that can render themselves extinct.  Boxing and horse racing used to be among the top five spectator sports.  There is nothing to say that other games will not evolve them into more fringe sports.  Minor league baseball is fun, fast and affordable.  But the big-league game is not.

All you have to say is $5 for a water and you lose me at hello.

The Lords of Baseball should think hard about this.

And make some changes.

Kate Smith and the Philadelphia Flyers

The Philadelphia Flyers became the hot ticket in Philadelphia in the early 1970's.  It was not that hockey was all that understood or cool.  Their popularity, in part, resulted from the abysmal performances of the major sports teams in the city at the time.  The 76ers set an NBA record for futility, and the Phillies and Eagles were doormats.  Enter the Flyers, with their swashbuckling, fighting style, and a gritty city was captivated.  I mean, how could you not be, with larger-than-life characters such as Dave "The Hammer" Schultz, Andre "Moose" DuPont, Bob "The Hound" Kelly and Don "Big Bird" Saleski, along with all-star Bobby Clarke, stand-on-your-head goalie Bernie Parent, elegant forwards Rick MacLeish and Reggie Leach, along with leader-of-men defenseman Barry Ashbee?

The team was also superstitious after a bit.  They would play a recording of Kate Smith's "God Bless America" before games, and, as it turned out, had an astounding record of something like 33-0-1 during the 1973-1974 season when they played a recording of this song before games.  The more they won, the more they played Kate.  Her rendition of that song was a motivator -- it inspired players and fans alike.

I was there -- in the fifth row behind the bench -- for the pivotal Game 6 in the 1974 Stanley Cup finals.  The Flyers were up 3 games to 2 on the favored Boston Bruins, yes, the Bruins with all-world Bobby Orr and Hall of Famer Phil Esposito among many others.  A friend of my dad's could not go, and there we were, amidst all the excitement.  The lights dimmed during the pre-game warm-ups, and they rolled out a red carpet.  Out walked Kate Smith, and the place went wild, people were on their feet, cheering, as if she were the star of the team.  And she delivered a great performance -- just electric, in a perfect environment -- a hugely supportive audience at a very big moment.  It was something to behold.  The Flyers won that game, 1-0, in a hard fought game, and pandemonium ensued -- in the Spectrum, and on the streets.  The Broad Street Bullies captured the hearts and minds of the city.  And Kate Smith was their balladeer, signing an American classic before a Canadian game played mostly by Canadians in the city where the United States was born.  Only in America.

Today, the Flyers (and New York Yankees) announced a very public divorce from everything and anything having to do with Kate Smith.  The Flyers are covering a statue of her that is near the Wells Fargo Arena, where the Flyers currently play.  And neither the Flyers nor the Yankees will play her rendition of 'God Bless America" ever again.  The reason -- she sang some songs in the 1930's that had racist lyrics -- and there is no doubt that the lyrics in question were and are racist. 

I take a deep breath when I say that the Flyers have done the right thing.  I am not a person of color but only could imagine how I would feel if I were and the team continued to honor a person who proudly sang the lyrics in the songs in question.  I would like to think that Kate Smith regretted these lyrics at some point in her life, that she disowned them at some point, and that if she were around today she would have gone nowhere near them.  But I do not know that, and she is not here now to speak for herself or defend herself.  And she did many good things for people, including raising money for war bonds during the Second World War at a time when the country really needed the money.  People are complex, people have pasts, people make mistakes, sometimes big ones.  Kate Smith made some big ones. 

I have/had fond memories of that day at the Spectrum, with my dad, watching a team win a championship.  Entwined in that memory are the pre-game festivities, and the surprise appearance of the icon Kate Smith.  It was a huge deal then.  My dad died about 10 years later, too young, and unexpectedly.  My memories of times with him are not abundant, and many have faded.  This was a big one.  We cheered this unusual team in a sport with which we were not familiar (and my father also thought that it became popular in many circles in Philadelphia because the players were white and so were almost all of the fans -- something he disdained as he was a basketball fan at heart).  And now what we have come to learn is that a person who generated part of the buzz and a lot of excitement either was a racist or at a minimum participated in some awful racist songs. 

I will not take the joy from that as I did back then and as had become etched in my memory of that day. I can separate the two -- the game and Kate Smith's performance -- but I am less sure about the players and other fans, as that's how big Kate Smith's presence was during the season.  I still cherish the time with my dad, and I know he would agree with the step that the team is taking.  As do I, for that is what he and my mother taught me -- that all people are created equal and deserve to be treated with fairness and dignity -- deserving of an equal chance.  The continued presence of Kate Smith would not represent those values.  In the end, what my dad taught me is the best memory of all.