For weeks now, we've heard how bad the global economy is, especially in the good ol' United State of America. We've heard that even those immune to past recessions (read: the richest of the rich) are taking a bath. Bulgari. Ebay. Boeing. Each dawn drags a new name into the muddy financial murk.
Some members of the national sports media have even been pushing the idea in baseball.
We've been told that Major League Baseball's version of the luxury brands - the New York Yankees, NY Mets, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Angels, and LA Dodgers - won't be up to their typical free-wheeling and dealing ways.
Uh huh.
The Yankees just caught the biggest free-agent fish, CC Sabathia, in a seven-year net worth $161 million.
The Original Evil Empire is also rumored to be trying to trade for Mike Cameron and his $10 million a year price tag.
Oh, and it's the front-runner to land AJ Burnett for five years and $85 million.
For good measure, Brian Cashman is going to (re-)sign either Andy Pettitte, Derek Lowe, or Ben Sheets by all accounts.
Meanwhile, the Evil Empire II is supposedly about to land free-agency's other white whale - Mark Teixeira - for somewhere between six and 10 years at $20 million per.
Then there's the Mid-Evil Empire, the National League's version. The Mets have signed Francisco Rodriguez for three years and $37 million.
They just traded for JJ Putz, who will get $5 million in 2009 to set up for K-Rod. Plus, the Seattle Mariners threw in Jeremy Reed (who I remember as being a top prospect and is entering his prime) as change.
Further whispers indicate that Juan Pierre ($10 million/year) may be in a Mets' uni before the dust settles.
Finally, the Bums have apparently been the first to fall prey to Scott Boras' predatory tactics. They seem to be in the process of offering Manny Ramirez a third year's worth of opportunities to become a giant headache.
Even if those rumors don't pan out, you can bet others of equally bloated value will replace them. These teams are going to be adding tens of millions of dollars to their annual payrolls before the new season starts. In an economic recession.
That's one edge of the sword. The other can be found looking again at those names.
Sabathia defected from the Milwaukee Brewers. Sheets figures to do the same. Seattle sent Putz packing and Milwaukee might do the same with Cameron. Burnett seems destined for a double-whammy - being signed from the jaws of the Atlanta Braves by deeper pockets while defecting from the Toronto Blue Jays.
K-Rod, Tex, Pierre, and Lowe would all be leaving bigguns yet still managing to transfer wealth (at least on paper) in the wrong direction.
Oh, and this particular sword has a third edge. Again, return to the names.
These men are all getting significant pay increases of millions and millions of dollars. Already the aristocracy of MLB's Millionaires' Club, they are getting raises while the rest of the country loses jobs by the hundreds.
And nobody should have expected anything different.
You don't have to look long or hard through the pages of history to find stories of substantial fortunes growing to transgenerational empires in the space of a recession. Or a plague. Or a cataclysmic war.
I'm not saying this is wrong; it's usually a legitimate reward for foresight and diligence.
But that doesn't mean I have to like it. Especially in baseball.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
C.C.-See Ya Later: Sabathia Signs With the Yankees
"Twisted and perverse are the ways of the human mind." - Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead
In the last week, I've literally done a 360 on the subject of the San Francisco Giants' pursuit of C.C. Sabathia. That's not a typo; I don't mean a 180. I started off thinking such a signing would be a huge step backwards for SF, and then got talked into thinking it might actually be worth the risk.
Now that C.C. has reportedly inked a seven-year contract worth $161 million with the New York Yankees in an economic recession, I've returned to my original stance.
The Giants dodged a significant bullet with Sabathia in the slimming pinstripes.
Hey, I've always said that SF Giants baseball is the one sports subject where accusations of bias, delusion, etc. can be lobbed at me with justification.
I've gotta say that the deal stinks.
Sabathia might be worth it and he might have been reasonable in going after top dollar. It might have been kosher to rope in the Los Angeles Dodgers (a team for which I have zero sympathy) at the last minute. It might have been cool to explicitly tell the general manager that he wanted to play for the Bums.
It might have been standard operating procedure to imply he wanted to play in the National League because he loves to hit, that money wouldn't be the deciding principle, that he might stay with the Milwaukee Brewers because he liked the guys so much, that he really wanted to play near his hometown so a discount might be in order, and that these were some of the hundreds of reasons a six-year deal worth $140 million sat rotting on the table.
It might have been appropriate for C.C. to linger at every table in the free agent buffet line, to flirt with every suitor enough to elicit a marriage proposal.
That's the way the game is played these days.
But, for a guy who seemed pretty sincere about not being greedy, it all smacks of a calculated decision to drive up the price on a team he planned to sign with all along. To drive the price up from six years, $140 million.
Wow.
Even more so, it stinks because that's the bar now. Congratulations Mr. Sabathia and Mr. Brian Cashman. I put the obscenely outrageous deals sure to be demanded by that parasite, Scott Boras, on you two fabulous individuals.
Manny Ramirez and Mark Teixeira, start your engines. Not to mention Derek Lowe and any other lure that sleaze has in his tackle box.
But back to the Giants.
No more Sabathia means San Fran will likely keep its full compliment of young flamethrowers. That makes me very happy. I won't argue that either Matt Cain or Jonathan Sanchez is Sabathia's equal (yet). But those guys are homegrown and I've grown attached to them.
I'm looking forward to the studs I think both will become. And it's always more satisfying to watch a guy develop internally rather than to buy him once he's established.
Cain might already be there with a functional offense behind him and Sanchez has shown flashes of brilliance. Additionally, I've already mentioned that being a deceptively hard-throwing southpaw makes Jonathan all the more promising.
Sure, C.C. would have been an immediate upgrade over either. But at that price? No freakin' thanks. I'll take the potential of the two youngsters and their price tags any day.
Furthermore, the Giants didn't need him. Sabathia might have made the Gents competitive in the NL West next year, but they would have been hopeless outside it without some offense. And, to be honest, SF might already be competitive if all the young hurlers continue to progress.
Regardless, San Francisco is at least a year away from contending for some serious hardware and signing Sabathia may have pushed that horizon back significantly. The Giants already have the pitching in place to make a run, they need offense.
And they need a lot of it.
Which is funny. Because $23 million a year can buy just that.
In the last week, I've literally done a 360 on the subject of the San Francisco Giants' pursuit of C.C. Sabathia. That's not a typo; I don't mean a 180. I started off thinking such a signing would be a huge step backwards for SF, and then got talked into thinking it might actually be worth the risk.
Now that C.C. has reportedly inked a seven-year contract worth $161 million with the New York Yankees in an economic recession, I've returned to my original stance.
The Giants dodged a significant bullet with Sabathia in the slimming pinstripes.
Hey, I've always said that SF Giants baseball is the one sports subject where accusations of bias, delusion, etc. can be lobbed at me with justification.
I've gotta say that the deal stinks.
Sabathia might be worth it and he might have been reasonable in going after top dollar. It might have been kosher to rope in the Los Angeles Dodgers (a team for which I have zero sympathy) at the last minute. It might have been cool to explicitly tell the general manager that he wanted to play for the Bums.
It might have been standard operating procedure to imply he wanted to play in the National League because he loves to hit, that money wouldn't be the deciding principle, that he might stay with the Milwaukee Brewers because he liked the guys so much, that he really wanted to play near his hometown so a discount might be in order, and that these were some of the hundreds of reasons a six-year deal worth $140 million sat rotting on the table.
It might have been appropriate for C.C. to linger at every table in the free agent buffet line, to flirt with every suitor enough to elicit a marriage proposal.
That's the way the game is played these days.
But, for a guy who seemed pretty sincere about not being greedy, it all smacks of a calculated decision to drive up the price on a team he planned to sign with all along. To drive the price up from six years, $140 million.
Wow.
Even more so, it stinks because that's the bar now. Congratulations Mr. Sabathia and Mr. Brian Cashman. I put the obscenely outrageous deals sure to be demanded by that parasite, Scott Boras, on you two fabulous individuals.
Manny Ramirez and Mark Teixeira, start your engines. Not to mention Derek Lowe and any other lure that sleaze has in his tackle box.
But back to the Giants.
No more Sabathia means San Fran will likely keep its full compliment of young flamethrowers. That makes me very happy. I won't argue that either Matt Cain or Jonathan Sanchez is Sabathia's equal (yet). But those guys are homegrown and I've grown attached to them.
I'm looking forward to the studs I think both will become. And it's always more satisfying to watch a guy develop internally rather than to buy him once he's established.
Cain might already be there with a functional offense behind him and Sanchez has shown flashes of brilliance. Additionally, I've already mentioned that being a deceptively hard-throwing southpaw makes Jonathan all the more promising.
Sure, C.C. would have been an immediate upgrade over either. But at that price? No freakin' thanks. I'll take the potential of the two youngsters and their price tags any day.
Furthermore, the Giants didn't need him. Sabathia might have made the Gents competitive in the NL West next year, but they would have been hopeless outside it without some offense. And, to be honest, SF might already be competitive if all the young hurlers continue to progress.
Regardless, San Francisco is at least a year away from contending for some serious hardware and signing Sabathia may have pushed that horizon back significantly. The Giants already have the pitching in place to make a run, they need offense.
And they need a lot of it.
Which is funny. Because $23 million a year can buy just that.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Verdict Is In, Burress Is Too Dumb to Breed
Everyone once in a while, perfect comedic situations coalesce from the ether as if designed for our amusement. As a country, the United States has been on quite a stupendous run of such singularities. There was a rabidly conservative and borderline racist gasbag getting pinched for an addiction to synthetic heroin; a staunchly anti-homosexual and sitting Senator getting busted in a men's restroom for soliciting gay sex; and a barely literate hockey mom whom I wouldn't trust with a credit card getting tabbed as a Vice Presidential candidate, then given an open mic and thrust into the national spotlight.
Now, we've got Plaxico Burress.
An egotistical, petulant malcontent who gets paid millions of dollars to run and catch, but literally shoots himself in the leg. Of course, it doesn't stop there. He shoots himself while at a Manhattan night club on a weekend during which he's on the shelf with a hurt hamstring.
Anything else?
Oh yeah, it was a .40 caliber Glock that was unlicensed, illegal in the City of New York (his town), and stuck down the FRONT of his pants. That should about do it.
Except it doesn't.
The gun was not only loaded and chambered, it was cocked and ready to fire! And the safety wasn't on! Jesus, you can't be any dumber.
Unless you're Plaxico.
So you've got a loaded, chambered, ready-to-fire hand-cannon stuffed down the front of your pants without the safety on. You fumble the drink you're holding and, instead of letting the totally harmless glass fall, you grab for it. Of course, the semi-automatic (I'm pretty sure Glock doesn't make revolvers and, if it does, I promise OG Burress wasn't holding one) squirts down your leg.
You, of course, grab for the gun.
If it hits hammer first, it might go off, right?
Wrong. Every Glock that I've seen has an internal hammer fall, meaning it's not exposed. Furthermore, Glocks are like the Timex of guns - they're designed for use and to be abused without risk to the owner. You could throw that damn thing against a wall and it wouldn't go off. Pretty much the only way to fire one is by pulling the trigger.
And that's exactly what Einstein did when he grabbed for his gun. He accidentally pulled the trigger and shot himself in the thigh.
I wrote about this right after the incident was announced, but these are all things you simply do not do if you have oxygen flowing to your cerebral cortex. Plaxico made about a billion cardinal sins that any dimwit gun-owner would never make.
Seriously, you simply cannot understand how utterly terrifying a .40 caliber gun is until you shoot one. And he had a loaded, chambered, cocked, and unsaftied .40 cal down the front of his pants.
It will be a while before I get over that.
Obviously, a person cannot be any dumber. There is just no possible way, it would take negative brain cells.
Oh, but Plaxico is not mere mortal. And he has a formidable ally in foolishness: Drew Rosenhaus. One would have to assume they gave the go-ahead to the National Football League Player Association's grievance that was just filed.
That's right folks, the man shoots himself in the mother of all metaphors and decides he wants some of his scrilla back. See, it's not fair that he was suspended and fined.
This is a man who would be in jail if he weren't a New York Giant. This is a man's whose monumental mental retardation just cost his team an important divisional game as they come down the stretch. This is a man who was out partying when he was allegedly injured.
And he conspires with his slimeball, sleazebag agent to decide it's the appropriate time and course of action to file a grievance. To get some of that hard-earned money back before it's taken.
They're gonna file another if further payments are withheld.
On second thought, this isn't a man at all. As Grey Ghost so eloquently put it, this is a child in a man's body. And a stupid, spoiled child at that.
Yep, Plaxico Burress is definitely too dumb to breed. Had he been a little less fortunate, he would have proven it himself.
Now, we've got Plaxico Burress.
An egotistical, petulant malcontent who gets paid millions of dollars to run and catch, but literally shoots himself in the leg. Of course, it doesn't stop there. He shoots himself while at a Manhattan night club on a weekend during which he's on the shelf with a hurt hamstring.
Anything else?
Oh yeah, it was a .40 caliber Glock that was unlicensed, illegal in the City of New York (his town), and stuck down the FRONT of his pants. That should about do it.
Except it doesn't.
The gun was not only loaded and chambered, it was cocked and ready to fire! And the safety wasn't on! Jesus, you can't be any dumber.
Unless you're Plaxico.
So you've got a loaded, chambered, ready-to-fire hand-cannon stuffed down the front of your pants without the safety on. You fumble the drink you're holding and, instead of letting the totally harmless glass fall, you grab for it. Of course, the semi-automatic (I'm pretty sure Glock doesn't make revolvers and, if it does, I promise OG Burress wasn't holding one) squirts down your leg.
You, of course, grab for the gun.
If it hits hammer first, it might go off, right?
Wrong. Every Glock that I've seen has an internal hammer fall, meaning it's not exposed. Furthermore, Glocks are like the Timex of guns - they're designed for use and to be abused without risk to the owner. You could throw that damn thing against a wall and it wouldn't go off. Pretty much the only way to fire one is by pulling the trigger.
And that's exactly what Einstein did when he grabbed for his gun. He accidentally pulled the trigger and shot himself in the thigh.
I wrote about this right after the incident was announced, but these are all things you simply do not do if you have oxygen flowing to your cerebral cortex. Plaxico made about a billion cardinal sins that any dimwit gun-owner would never make.
Seriously, you simply cannot understand how utterly terrifying a .40 caliber gun is until you shoot one. And he had a loaded, chambered, cocked, and unsaftied .40 cal down the front of his pants.
It will be a while before I get over that.
Obviously, a person cannot be any dumber. There is just no possible way, it would take negative brain cells.
Oh, but Plaxico is not mere mortal. And he has a formidable ally in foolishness: Drew Rosenhaus. One would have to assume they gave the go-ahead to the National Football League Player Association's grievance that was just filed.
That's right folks, the man shoots himself in the mother of all metaphors and decides he wants some of his scrilla back. See, it's not fair that he was suspended and fined.
This is a man who would be in jail if he weren't a New York Giant. This is a man's whose monumental mental retardation just cost his team an important divisional game as they come down the stretch. This is a man who was out partying when he was allegedly injured.
And he conspires with his slimeball, sleazebag agent to decide it's the appropriate time and course of action to file a grievance. To get some of that hard-earned money back before it's taken.
They're gonna file another if further payments are withheld.
On second thought, this isn't a man at all. As Grey Ghost so eloquently put it, this is a child in a man's body. And a stupid, spoiled child at that.
Yep, Plaxico Burress is definitely too dumb to breed. Had he been a little less fortunate, he would have proven it himself.
The BCS Worked Perfectly, Which Proves We Need a Playoff
I sincerely love Bleacher Report for many reasons. The primary reason is that, although some of our members get carried away with their passion at times, you almost never have to question motives. Either the person is a peach or he/she is biased towards a certain team/school to a fault.
The latter bothers me very much and I am brutally hard on such fans. But in truth, I respect that source of delusion above all others.
For instance, when Ray Bogusz pens his excellent defense of the Bowl Championship Series system, I don't have to worry about such sinister influences as corporate bias, television revenues, ad dollars, etc. To be perfectly accurate, such is possible just highly unlikely. The only legitimate gripe might be that the BCS favors a school for which Ray roots.
I despise that reasoning, but I'll read it since it's consistent with the spirit of competition.
Let me be clear, the preceding was a hypothetical.
The article in question is under no such influence in my humble opinion. I'd say Ray is absolutely correct to defend the BCS; it functioned exactly as designed in the situation is was created to handle. As far as I'm concerned, the results are perfect.
Arguably the two best teams (Florida Gators and Oklahoma Sooners) and absolutely the two hottest teams are squaring off for the BCS' portion of the crown.
The other bowl match-ups are far from ideal in terms of competition, but that's not what they're designed for. Nobody really cares about third or fourth (or even second for that matter). Those bowls are about one thing: dolla, dolla bill y'all.
Which is why I still disagree with Ray (another thing I love about B/R - usually you can disagree as if you're debating with a close friend i.e. without personal insults).
Dr. Bogusz dispatches with the 16-school playoff format quite effectively. I can neither muster nor imagine a sufficient counterargument. I'd be interested to hear one, but anyone who makes such an attempt should know going in that he/she needs to bring a lunch.
My stance on the BCS is public knowledge (whether or not anyone read it is a different matter). Also part of the public domain is my eight-team playoff proposal. There's no need to regurgitate either.
I'll just hit the high points while playing Devil's advocate and attacking the only vulnerable part of the good Doctor's defense - his dismissal of the eight-school format.
1. A playoff must include all conference champions to end the griping.
A 16-school format may stifle all of the marginally justifiable complaints and it is certainly true than an eight-school format would not. However, I don't think putting a stop to all such complaints is necessary.
Using the NCAA basketball tournament as an example (as Ray did) is perfect.
That tournament (as the smaller football version would be) is about crowning a National Champion on the playing surface. This gets obscured a little since the mystique of the overall tourney has grown such that a mere trip is a considerable reward.
There are 34 chances to make the tournament and yet, bitter moaning at the onset of every March is as sure as taxes the following month.
The truth, though, is that there's absolutely no reason to complain. First and foremost, the primary reason for the tournament is to crown a winner. If you haven't clearly distinguished yourself as one of the 34 teams worthy of an at-large berth, you simply cannot make a reasonable argument that you deserve a shot to play for that ultimate prize. Not via probability of success and not by merit.
Furthermore, the difference between challengers gets smaller and the ability to distinguish between them gets more difficult the more removed you get from the top competitors in any sport.
Some other squad might get in that's less-deserving, but the margin is negligible.
Against this backdrop, consider the smaller version we'd have in college football. Even more so, this tournament would be about crowning a National Champion. Realistically, there are only eight to 10 schools who have a shot at this title on a given year.
Again, I'd argue this year is an abnormally-open field and there are really only 10 schools you could seriously argue for - the top 10 in the BCS (more evidence that the BCS did it's job).
But, even in this outlying year, I'd say there are three squads you could omit without losing sleep - the Ohio State Buckeyes, the Texas Tech Red Raiders, and the Boise State Broncos. In that order. All three would have good reason to complain, and complain they would.
Still, does anyone really think those three would win out? I'd include Boise State since it beat everyone on its schedule and the last team in the tourney should be more about merit than probability of success.
Most importantly, I see no great tragedy in leaving any of the three for a bowl game.
2. Selection would require a committee, which is vulnerable to the same complaints.
My rebuttal to this would look very much like the above. The statement is true, but I just think that those complaints aren't too problematic.
Using the final BCS poll as a guide, the decision is an easier one. The schools left at home (even in the worst-case scenario) just wouldn't find too many willing allies in their opposition since their omission would not detract from the playoff's ultimate results.
3. Smaller schools would still get the shaft, even after going undefeated.
Continuing with the pattern, this is true to a degree. Had Ball State managed to remain lossless, the Cardinals would have been on the outside looking in.
And again, tough.
The eight-school format would have included two Davids (Utah Utes/Broncos) and, most other years, Ball State would be doing the football version of the Dance.
Ultimately, my response would be that there will never be a system that ends all complaints. The 64-school field of the basketball tournament proves this. Dividing up the money will always be another such source as will travel, exposure, etc.
But I think there are only two serious and unforgivable problems with the BCS: it precludes small conference teams from playing for CFB's highest honor and it does not sufficiently settle the matter between the sidelines.
This year, Utah went undefeated while playing a legitimate schedule. It was more difficult than those played by some of the big boys. And the Utes never had a real shot at playing for the Crystal Football.
Not only that, but this is the second time in five years the Utes have gone undefeated under the BCS regime. Having already achieved the feat in 2004, what else must they do to get a shot at CFB's brass ring?
As for settling the matter, Florida and Oklahoma should be playing for the National Championship. They have proved that on the field. But the Texas Longhorns, Alabama Crimson Tide, USC Trojans, and Penn State Nittany Lions can all cry foul into considerably receptive ears.
And the system worked perfectly.
The eight-team format wouldn't be perfect, it wouldn't silence all the gripes, and it would have its critics.
But it undeniably solves the two biggest problems and, in my opinion, the only two unforgivable problems the sport could possible have.
Ironically, they were the two biggest problems with the preceding system as well.
With all due respect to my man, Ray, that they persist is further proof it's time for a change.
The latter bothers me very much and I am brutally hard on such fans. But in truth, I respect that source of delusion above all others.
For instance, when Ray Bogusz pens his excellent defense of the Bowl Championship Series system, I don't have to worry about such sinister influences as corporate bias, television revenues, ad dollars, etc. To be perfectly accurate, such is possible just highly unlikely. The only legitimate gripe might be that the BCS favors a school for which Ray roots.
I despise that reasoning, but I'll read it since it's consistent with the spirit of competition.
Let me be clear, the preceding was a hypothetical.
The article in question is under no such influence in my humble opinion. I'd say Ray is absolutely correct to defend the BCS; it functioned exactly as designed in the situation is was created to handle. As far as I'm concerned, the results are perfect.
Arguably the two best teams (Florida Gators and Oklahoma Sooners) and absolutely the two hottest teams are squaring off for the BCS' portion of the crown.
The other bowl match-ups are far from ideal in terms of competition, but that's not what they're designed for. Nobody really cares about third or fourth (or even second for that matter). Those bowls are about one thing: dolla, dolla bill y'all.
Which is why I still disagree with Ray (another thing I love about B/R - usually you can disagree as if you're debating with a close friend i.e. without personal insults).
Dr. Bogusz dispatches with the 16-school playoff format quite effectively. I can neither muster nor imagine a sufficient counterargument. I'd be interested to hear one, but anyone who makes such an attempt should know going in that he/she needs to bring a lunch.
My stance on the BCS is public knowledge (whether or not anyone read it is a different matter). Also part of the public domain is my eight-team playoff proposal. There's no need to regurgitate either.
I'll just hit the high points while playing Devil's advocate and attacking the only vulnerable part of the good Doctor's defense - his dismissal of the eight-school format.
1. A playoff must include all conference champions to end the griping.
A 16-school format may stifle all of the marginally justifiable complaints and it is certainly true than an eight-school format would not. However, I don't think putting a stop to all such complaints is necessary.
Using the NCAA basketball tournament as an example (as Ray did) is perfect.
That tournament (as the smaller football version would be) is about crowning a National Champion on the playing surface. This gets obscured a little since the mystique of the overall tourney has grown such that a mere trip is a considerable reward.
There are 34 chances to make the tournament and yet, bitter moaning at the onset of every March is as sure as taxes the following month.
The truth, though, is that there's absolutely no reason to complain. First and foremost, the primary reason for the tournament is to crown a winner. If you haven't clearly distinguished yourself as one of the 34 teams worthy of an at-large berth, you simply cannot make a reasonable argument that you deserve a shot to play for that ultimate prize. Not via probability of success and not by merit.
Furthermore, the difference between challengers gets smaller and the ability to distinguish between them gets more difficult the more removed you get from the top competitors in any sport.
Some other squad might get in that's less-deserving, but the margin is negligible.
Against this backdrop, consider the smaller version we'd have in college football. Even more so, this tournament would be about crowning a National Champion. Realistically, there are only eight to 10 schools who have a shot at this title on a given year.
Again, I'd argue this year is an abnormally-open field and there are really only 10 schools you could seriously argue for - the top 10 in the BCS (more evidence that the BCS did it's job).
But, even in this outlying year, I'd say there are three squads you could omit without losing sleep - the Ohio State Buckeyes, the Texas Tech Red Raiders, and the Boise State Broncos. In that order. All three would have good reason to complain, and complain they would.
Still, does anyone really think those three would win out? I'd include Boise State since it beat everyone on its schedule and the last team in the tourney should be more about merit than probability of success.
Most importantly, I see no great tragedy in leaving any of the three for a bowl game.
2. Selection would require a committee, which is vulnerable to the same complaints.
My rebuttal to this would look very much like the above. The statement is true, but I just think that those complaints aren't too problematic.
Using the final BCS poll as a guide, the decision is an easier one. The schools left at home (even in the worst-case scenario) just wouldn't find too many willing allies in their opposition since their omission would not detract from the playoff's ultimate results.
3. Smaller schools would still get the shaft, even after going undefeated.
Continuing with the pattern, this is true to a degree. Had Ball State managed to remain lossless, the Cardinals would have been on the outside looking in.
And again, tough.
The eight-school format would have included two Davids (Utah Utes/Broncos) and, most other years, Ball State would be doing the football version of the Dance.
Ultimately, my response would be that there will never be a system that ends all complaints. The 64-school field of the basketball tournament proves this. Dividing up the money will always be another such source as will travel, exposure, etc.
But I think there are only two serious and unforgivable problems with the BCS: it precludes small conference teams from playing for CFB's highest honor and it does not sufficiently settle the matter between the sidelines.
This year, Utah went undefeated while playing a legitimate schedule. It was more difficult than those played by some of the big boys. And the Utes never had a real shot at playing for the Crystal Football.
Not only that, but this is the second time in five years the Utes have gone undefeated under the BCS regime. Having already achieved the feat in 2004, what else must they do to get a shot at CFB's brass ring?
As for settling the matter, Florida and Oklahoma should be playing for the National Championship. They have proved that on the field. But the Texas Longhorns, Alabama Crimson Tide, USC Trojans, and Penn State Nittany Lions can all cry foul into considerably receptive ears.
And the system worked perfectly.
The eight-team format wouldn't be perfect, it wouldn't silence all the gripes, and it would have its critics.
But it undeniably solves the two biggest problems and, in my opinion, the only two unforgivable problems the sport could possible have.
Ironically, they were the two biggest problems with the preceding system as well.
With all due respect to my man, Ray, that they persist is further proof it's time for a change.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Does Cantu-for-Sanchez Mean Orange and Black Is in Sabathia's Future?
The Winter Meetings in baseball are upon us and that gives me a perfect excuse to write about my favorite subject, the San Francisco Giants. Throw in Danny Penza's excellent article about the Jonathan Sanchez-for-Jorge Cantu rumors and I've got an excuse plus a topic. That trade would leave an opening in the rotation and bring in a proven bat.
And it would presumably push the pedal to the floor in the Giants' rumored pursuit of C.C. Sabathia.
For those of you unfamiliar with Cantu, he's a ex-second baseman who's been moved to third. However, he's a sub-par defender at the position and often spends the later innings at first base. He's also a potent bat - hitting 29 homeruns last year with an on-base percentage of .327 while driving in almost 100 runs (95). Furthermore, last year's success wasn't unprecedented.
He had essentially the same year for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2005 so it's reasonable to conclude 2008 was no fluke.
Finally, Jorge will be only 27 at the start of the 2009 season so he should be entering his prime and both Florida clubs play in parks that skew towards the pitcher so Pac Bell (I know, I know AT&T Park) shouldn't pose a huge adjustment.
There's a lot to like there. Of course, I really like Jonathan Sanchez.
He's a deceptively hard thrower from the left side. That's always nice. He's about 10 months younger than Cantu and still developing. Also very nice. And he's shown flashes of brilliance. Plus, it's always risky to trade young, talented pitching - doubly so when it's a southpaw. Unfortunately, San Francisco's stable includes several ponies I like better so I wouldn't be terribly sad to see him go.
But back to Sabathia. He's already a horse.
And the Giants might just be preparing for a serious run at him. Let's imagine the Cantu-Sanchez trade happens. Look at the sales pitch to Sabathia, who's looking for a long-term deal:
1. He grew up in Vallejo so the Giants are the closest thing he has to a hometown team in the National League.
2. SF's in the NL so he'd get to hit.
3. SF's got a wealth of young talent, including hitters for a change, that should be ready for the Show in the next several years.
4. The Giants have gotten better offensively while filling needs at both shortstop and third base/first base.
5. Edgar Renteria is a veteran presence with postseason experience and Jorge Cantu is a legitimate power threat.
6. Both moves show that SF is serious about contending - immediately and for the long haul.
7. While both Renteria and Cantu bring questionable defense, Sabathia succeeded in front of worse defense last year.
8. A staff of Sabathia, Lincecum, Cain, Zito, and me would be the best in baseball plus SF could lock up both the young guns (Lincecum/Cain) until they're 30 via the route Boston took with Dustin Pedroia.
9. With a staff like that, there would be more than enough offense (except for the days my turn came up in the rotation) and more possibly on the way.
10. SF is under new principal control and could see an increase in payroll despite the hard economic times because of Pac Bell so his contract wouldn't necessarily preclude chasing some of the offense available via free agency after 2009.
That right there is a pretty effective sales pitch. I don't know if can compete with the $140 million worth of persuasion the New York Yankees have thrown at him. But that offer's been on the table for a while.
Nor do I know if it could rival the one the Los Angeles Dodgers are sure to be putting together as I type. Apparently, C.C. told Ned Colletti that he was interested in playing for the Bums.
That changes things. Manny Ramirez doesn't scare me. I hope he re-signs with L.A.
But C.C. Sabathia, Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, and Hideki Kuroda as a fourth starter? That idea scares me. If the boys aren't gonna be competitive outside the NL West, I at least want them to beat the Bums. I'm not sure they do it too often facing that staff with such an anemic offense.
The Franchise and the Kid don't need many runs, but they need at least one.
I used to think the signing of C.C. would be a serious misstep by the Giants' front office. Now, I'm not so sure.
It would be risky to be sure. But what's that old saying?
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
That risk might be worth it if the gain is a shiny new World Series trophy.
And it would presumably push the pedal to the floor in the Giants' rumored pursuit of C.C. Sabathia.
For those of you unfamiliar with Cantu, he's a ex-second baseman who's been moved to third. However, he's a sub-par defender at the position and often spends the later innings at first base. He's also a potent bat - hitting 29 homeruns last year with an on-base percentage of .327 while driving in almost 100 runs (95). Furthermore, last year's success wasn't unprecedented.
He had essentially the same year for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2005 so it's reasonable to conclude 2008 was no fluke.
Finally, Jorge will be only 27 at the start of the 2009 season so he should be entering his prime and both Florida clubs play in parks that skew towards the pitcher so Pac Bell (I know, I know AT&T Park) shouldn't pose a huge adjustment.
There's a lot to like there. Of course, I really like Jonathan Sanchez.
He's a deceptively hard thrower from the left side. That's always nice. He's about 10 months younger than Cantu and still developing. Also very nice. And he's shown flashes of brilliance. Plus, it's always risky to trade young, talented pitching - doubly so when it's a southpaw. Unfortunately, San Francisco's stable includes several ponies I like better so I wouldn't be terribly sad to see him go.
But back to Sabathia. He's already a horse.
And the Giants might just be preparing for a serious run at him. Let's imagine the Cantu-Sanchez trade happens. Look at the sales pitch to Sabathia, who's looking for a long-term deal:
1. He grew up in Vallejo so the Giants are the closest thing he has to a hometown team in the National League.
2. SF's in the NL so he'd get to hit.
3. SF's got a wealth of young talent, including hitters for a change, that should be ready for the Show in the next several years.
4. The Giants have gotten better offensively while filling needs at both shortstop and third base/first base.
5. Edgar Renteria is a veteran presence with postseason experience and Jorge Cantu is a legitimate power threat.
6. Both moves show that SF is serious about contending - immediately and for the long haul.
7. While both Renteria and Cantu bring questionable defense, Sabathia succeeded in front of worse defense last year.
8. A staff of Sabathia, Lincecum, Cain, Zito, and me would be the best in baseball plus SF could lock up both the young guns (Lincecum/Cain) until they're 30 via the route Boston took with Dustin Pedroia.
9. With a staff like that, there would be more than enough offense (except for the days my turn came up in the rotation) and more possibly on the way.
10. SF is under new principal control and could see an increase in payroll despite the hard economic times because of Pac Bell so his contract wouldn't necessarily preclude chasing some of the offense available via free agency after 2009.
That right there is a pretty effective sales pitch. I don't know if can compete with the $140 million worth of persuasion the New York Yankees have thrown at him. But that offer's been on the table for a while.
Nor do I know if it could rival the one the Los Angeles Dodgers are sure to be putting together as I type. Apparently, C.C. told Ned Colletti that he was interested in playing for the Bums.
That changes things. Manny Ramirez doesn't scare me. I hope he re-signs with L.A.
But C.C. Sabathia, Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, and Hideki Kuroda as a fourth starter? That idea scares me. If the boys aren't gonna be competitive outside the NL West, I at least want them to beat the Bums. I'm not sure they do it too often facing that staff with such an anemic offense.
The Franchise and the Kid don't need many runs, but they need at least one.
I used to think the signing of C.C. would be a serious misstep by the Giants' front office. Now, I'm not so sure.
It would be risky to be sure. But what's that old saying?
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
That risk might be worth it if the gain is a shiny new World Series trophy.
The Dallas Cowboys Have No Reason to Panic
"Everyone's lost but me." - River Phoenix, "Indian Jones and the Last Crusade"
It's funny. When you're a sane person awash in a sea of insanity, everyone thinks you're the crazy one. For example, if I talk to a radical right-winger, he/she comes away thinking I'm a pinko-liberal. If I talk to a pinko-liberal, he/she comes away thinking I'm a radical right-winger. The truth is I'm a moderate and make up my mind based on individual issues, not party ideology.
It's true in politics and it's true in sports.
That's why many fans probably think I'm bipolar or a couple players short of an infield. I've spent most of the year being sharply critical of the Dallas Cowboys, culminating in a piece a couple days ago about the team and Tony Romo not being ready for the New York Giants. The next day, I wrote that the 'pokes would make the playoffs.
But it's not really as ridiculous as it looks in print.
I usually write in reaction to the hysteria created by some members of the national media. One minute, Dallas is destined for Super Bowl glory because they scorched the San Francisco 49ers (a win that's actually looking better recently, but still didn't mean much at the time) and the Seattle Seahawks. The next minute, the 'boys are in trouble because they lost an excruciating game on the road to the Pittsburgh Steelers, a team on top of the American Football Conference North.
So who's crazy?
Look, I'm the first guy to point out Tony Romo's faults. But having an atrocious game (that's what it was) on the road in an insanely hostile stadium and terrible weather against the National Football League's most fearsome defense? Lots of very good quarterbacks have such "smears" on their resumes.
And let's be clear about this: it wasn't a must win game.
Dallas lost and moved into the playoff picture. That means there's no guarantee that even the most elite QBs (Tom Brady, Peyton/Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, etc.) would have survived with a W. Those guys are sure to bring their A-game when the chips are down and the chips weren't down in the Steel City yesterday.
It was an important game, they all are from here on out.
But, as I pointed out in my last article, the National Football Conference South isn't as strong as it looks and I think the Atlanta Falcons stumble down the stretch. They already lost one of the problem games on their schedule (in New Orleans) and they still have the division-leading Tampa Bay Buccaneers coming to town and a roadie against the division-leading Minnesota Vikings. I say they lose at least one of those games, possibly both.
Let's also be clear about something else: there is definitely reason for some concern.
However, it's got less to do with Dallas and more to do with its opposition. That's because the Giants lost in Philadelphia to the Eagles. That loss means two things. It means the Giants will be extra focused coming into Dallas and it means they have something to play for all of a sudden. Another loss means a losing streak and puts homefield advantage in jeopardy. New York will want to avoid both scenarios as well as to keep Dallas out of the postseason.
But it's minor concern.
I still think the Cowboys' desperation to make the second season and homefield advantage will win out. I'm just not so sure anymore. Even so, Atlanta will almost certainly lose at least one more game. As will all of the teams who presently sit one game behind Dallas for that final playoff spot. The one team that should legitimately scare Dallas, the Eagles, sits on the 'pokes schedule.
Sure, that's a road game against a stiff defense and it looks like it will be hugely significant. These elements usually conspire against Romo with a high degree of success.
But it's also a divisional rivalry so it should be close. As good as Philly looked yesterday, I don't think they win if Plaxico Burress doesn't submarine his team (his replacement dropped a sure touchdown early, ran the wrong routes, and Antonio Pierce played like a chump). Dallas has two receivers who can impersonate Plaxico and its defense will be better prepared/equipped to handle Brian Westbrook out of the backfield.
As for Romo and the egg he laid yesterday in yet another big game under adverse conditions.
There is no denying Dallas lost in disturbing fashion, disturbing because they had the game won and lost it in a way that's becoming an ugly pattern. However, if the Cowboys had simply lost that game, no one would really be heralding gloom and doom. It's not like many reasonable observers expected Dallas to win that game.
We thought they had a chance, but it was a slim chance considering how good the Steelers are, the games was in Pittsburgh, and Marion Barber wasn't playing.
The only reason some members of the media are freaking out is because Dallas defied those odds for three quarters and then imploded in spectacular fashion.
But the truth remains, had Romo played well and finished out that game, it would have been a HUGE step forward. The growth process for NFL QBs usually happens in smaller increments. Say an increment that looks more like a big win under adverse circumstances, but with the support of a home crowd.
Then, we can more reasonably expect him to go get the same on the road because it's the next logical step.
With Dallas, the national media seems to fabricate miracles in minor accomplishments and, consequently, demand them on a routine basis. It's absurd.
I'll say it again, a 3-1 finish probably gets the Dallas Cowboys into the playoffs.
And since even an obscene loss only counts for one, there's no reason to panic in Big D.
It's funny. When you're a sane person awash in a sea of insanity, everyone thinks you're the crazy one. For example, if I talk to a radical right-winger, he/she comes away thinking I'm a pinko-liberal. If I talk to a pinko-liberal, he/she comes away thinking I'm a radical right-winger. The truth is I'm a moderate and make up my mind based on individual issues, not party ideology.
It's true in politics and it's true in sports.
That's why many fans probably think I'm bipolar or a couple players short of an infield. I've spent most of the year being sharply critical of the Dallas Cowboys, culminating in a piece a couple days ago about the team and Tony Romo not being ready for the New York Giants. The next day, I wrote that the 'pokes would make the playoffs.
But it's not really as ridiculous as it looks in print.
I usually write in reaction to the hysteria created by some members of the national media. One minute, Dallas is destined for Super Bowl glory because they scorched the San Francisco 49ers (a win that's actually looking better recently, but still didn't mean much at the time) and the Seattle Seahawks. The next minute, the 'boys are in trouble because they lost an excruciating game on the road to the Pittsburgh Steelers, a team on top of the American Football Conference North.
So who's crazy?
Look, I'm the first guy to point out Tony Romo's faults. But having an atrocious game (that's what it was) on the road in an insanely hostile stadium and terrible weather against the National Football League's most fearsome defense? Lots of very good quarterbacks have such "smears" on their resumes.
And let's be clear about this: it wasn't a must win game.
Dallas lost and moved into the playoff picture. That means there's no guarantee that even the most elite QBs (Tom Brady, Peyton/Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, etc.) would have survived with a W. Those guys are sure to bring their A-game when the chips are down and the chips weren't down in the Steel City yesterday.
It was an important game, they all are from here on out.
But, as I pointed out in my last article, the National Football Conference South isn't as strong as it looks and I think the Atlanta Falcons stumble down the stretch. They already lost one of the problem games on their schedule (in New Orleans) and they still have the division-leading Tampa Bay Buccaneers coming to town and a roadie against the division-leading Minnesota Vikings. I say they lose at least one of those games, possibly both.
Let's also be clear about something else: there is definitely reason for some concern.
However, it's got less to do with Dallas and more to do with its opposition. That's because the Giants lost in Philadelphia to the Eagles. That loss means two things. It means the Giants will be extra focused coming into Dallas and it means they have something to play for all of a sudden. Another loss means a losing streak and puts homefield advantage in jeopardy. New York will want to avoid both scenarios as well as to keep Dallas out of the postseason.
But it's minor concern.
I still think the Cowboys' desperation to make the second season and homefield advantage will win out. I'm just not so sure anymore. Even so, Atlanta will almost certainly lose at least one more game. As will all of the teams who presently sit one game behind Dallas for that final playoff spot. The one team that should legitimately scare Dallas, the Eagles, sits on the 'pokes schedule.
Sure, that's a road game against a stiff defense and it looks like it will be hugely significant. These elements usually conspire against Romo with a high degree of success.
But it's also a divisional rivalry so it should be close. As good as Philly looked yesterday, I don't think they win if Plaxico Burress doesn't submarine his team (his replacement dropped a sure touchdown early, ran the wrong routes, and Antonio Pierce played like a chump). Dallas has two receivers who can impersonate Plaxico and its defense will be better prepared/equipped to handle Brian Westbrook out of the backfield.
As for Romo and the egg he laid yesterday in yet another big game under adverse conditions.
There is no denying Dallas lost in disturbing fashion, disturbing because they had the game won and lost it in a way that's becoming an ugly pattern. However, if the Cowboys had simply lost that game, no one would really be heralding gloom and doom. It's not like many reasonable observers expected Dallas to win that game.
We thought they had a chance, but it was a slim chance considering how good the Steelers are, the games was in Pittsburgh, and Marion Barber wasn't playing.
The only reason some members of the media are freaking out is because Dallas defied those odds for three quarters and then imploded in spectacular fashion.
But the truth remains, had Romo played well and finished out that game, it would have been a HUGE step forward. The growth process for NFL QBs usually happens in smaller increments. Say an increment that looks more like a big win under adverse circumstances, but with the support of a home crowd.
Then, we can more reasonably expect him to go get the same on the road because it's the next logical step.
With Dallas, the national media seems to fabricate miracles in minor accomplishments and, consequently, demand them on a routine basis. It's absurd.
I'll say it again, a 3-1 finish probably gets the Dallas Cowboys into the playoffs.
And since even an obscene loss only counts for one, there's no reason to panic in Big D.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Other Side of Sports
"Cocaine is a hell of a drug." - Rick James
The same should be said of money. That astoundingly novel thought occurred to me while I was watching an HBO documentary about the evolution of United States' Women's Soccer. The show got me thinking that the women's side of sports is essentially the yang to the men's side's yin. And it's a damn shame more sports fans don't pay attention to it.
Before I go on, let me be very clear that I am absolutely, 100 percent guilty of everything I'm about to write.
It's true, I've seen far more women's soccer than most men. But that's because my little sister is awesome and what was I gonna do? Not watch her play? We were two years apart in school and went to the same high school. While she played for Berkeley, I was at Stanford so most of her games were an easy drive away.
However, I've literally never watched a women's sport by choice unless one of my sisters (I have an older sister as well who played high school basketball) was playing. Maybe a little World Cup.
I'm not saying this because I'm proud of it or to sound macho, blah, blah, blah. I'm saying it because, if I don't make a point to include myself, the rest is going to sound self-righteous and condescending. Who's gonna voluntarily subject him/herself to that? Plus, it's the truth.
Anyway, back to the better-half's athletic endeavors. It's unfortunate that we don't pay more attention to them for two reasons.
The first is because they continue to foster many of the best ideals that have been lost on the men's side. And I don't mean good as in pleasant and enjoyable. I mean good as in socially- and morally-productive. Also, lost is probably the wrong word to use for what the men's side is doing to the ideals in question, actively destroying them is probably more accurate.
Sportsmanship and respect for the game.
Can you imagine a female athlete carrying on like Chad Ocho Sinko? Or Terrell Owens? How about pulling the bullsh*t Brett Favre did in Green Bay? Or doing something like Bill Romanowski, who spit in J.J. Stokes' face? Ditto Robeto Alomar (not in Stokes' face, but an umpire)? Or what about stampeding into the stands to go after a fan? Or how about blowing off an adoring fan a la Barry Bonds?
Maybe women trash talk on the field/court and just keep it away from the cameras. I doubt it. They seem to have enduring respect for the opponent as well as the fans who pay their admittedly lesser salaries. The same cannot be said for a growing number of their male counterparts.
The concept of a teamwork.
Again, can you imagine a female athlete promoting herself like Deion Sanders or Terrad Owens Sinko while playing a team sport? If you listen to a female athlete who fits that description talk about her sport, you almost totally forget about the individual. You have to specifically ask about HER role to get her to use the word 'I.' And the joy they feel after succeeding as a team is palpable.
This is the average women's team I'm talking about, not some special "Band of Idiots" that everyone can feel good about every once in a while. They celebrate as a team and suffer as a team. Most importantly, they work as a team and almost always acknowledge the team as the primary reason for any individual honor or success.
Last and most importantly, social progress.
I might lose some of the religious crowd with this one, but oh well. If I lose you, we probably weren't going to see eye-to-eye anyway.
Let me throw some famous female athletes from major pro sports at you: Billie Jean King, Lisa Raymond, Martina Navratilova, Sheryl Swoopes, and Karrie Webb. I'm sure most of you see where I'm going, but in case you don't, here's that list's counterpart from the men's side:_.
It doesn't exist because there are no famous homosexual professional male athletes. In fact, there's a good chance there will first be a list of male professional athletes who are famous because they are gay instead a list of famous athletes who happen to be gay.
Look, I'm not a gay-rights activist. I don't happen to be gay myself. And, frankly, I don't really care one way or the other. It's none of my business and I'll thank you not to make it such.
But I don't believe for a second there hasn't been a single, gay male who was elite in either baseball, basketball, football, tennis, golf, or hockey. That means someone had to hide a significant part of his identity, a part over which he had no control.
That ain't right. But it's something that the male side of sports continues to endorse.
The women's side does not. It also, obviously, does a better job of promoting respect for women.
There's not too much need to go into this one. Suffice it to say that healthy, confident female athletes are better examples for my two little nieces than selfish, petulant millionaires who run through groupies like it's part of the job.
And then toss 'em down a flight of stairs afterwards.
Or how about cheerleaders (not that I'm against them)? And it's not coincidence that commercials during sporting events tend to lean towards the sexually-provocative featuring scantily clad women more often than Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom in skivvies).
There are others, but if I don't stop somewhere, this article will be even longer than it's shaping up to be (we're almost there though, don't give up).
The second reason it's unfortunate we don't pay more attention to female sports is that they prove the direction in which male professional sports are headed is not a good one.
Many of the above ideals have been sacrificed on the men's side at the altar of the almighty dollar. I bemoan guys like Ocho Sinko and Owens, but the National Football League loves 'em and some fans defend them because they sell tickets, jerseys, and hats. They are also very good at the game they play. Nobody cares that the individual is becoming bigger than the team or that many pro athletes are blurring the line between the arena of competition and crime because everyone's getting rich and looking good doing it.
That's fine, to a degree. Sports are about entertainment and entertainment is about style as well as substance. And it should be profitable.
But women's sports show what is forgotten when profit is paramount. They show what has already disappeared and what continues to vanish with each new Scott-Boras-driven contract. Each new off-field scandal. Each bump in ticket price and personal seat license. The women's version shows, by ugly comparison, how the men's version is nurturing and emphasizing the very aspects that will surely be its demise (if anything can be) while hiding behind financial justification.
And no one is watching.
I'm not saying we should be forcibly carted off to WNBA games or anything of that nature. People are free to choose what entertains them and I tend to agree that the pinnacle of the physical side of sport is found in the men's professional leagues. That's why I don't watch high school sports. That's why I don't watch too much minor league action.
However, ESPN has a billion channels. Fox Sports has its own legion. We've got the NFL Network, MSG, the YES network, TBS, TNT, the Big Ten channel, the Golf channel, etc. You're telling me there isn't enough room for some women's love in there?
Sure, sponsors might not like it and some of the edge might be taken off the revenue stream. You're telling me those deep pockets can't afford it?
Sure, the masses still might ignore it. But a few might get the message.
And if you really love Major League Baseball or the National Basketball Association or the NFL or any other of the heavy-hitting male sports, that would be worth the price.
Because it's an important message and too many of us are ignoring it.
The same should be said of money. That astoundingly novel thought occurred to me while I was watching an HBO documentary about the evolution of United States' Women's Soccer. The show got me thinking that the women's side of sports is essentially the yang to the men's side's yin. And it's a damn shame more sports fans don't pay attention to it.
Before I go on, let me be very clear that I am absolutely, 100 percent guilty of everything I'm about to write.
It's true, I've seen far more women's soccer than most men. But that's because my little sister is awesome and what was I gonna do? Not watch her play? We were two years apart in school and went to the same high school. While she played for Berkeley, I was at Stanford so most of her games were an easy drive away.
However, I've literally never watched a women's sport by choice unless one of my sisters (I have an older sister as well who played high school basketball) was playing. Maybe a little World Cup.
I'm not saying this because I'm proud of it or to sound macho, blah, blah, blah. I'm saying it because, if I don't make a point to include myself, the rest is going to sound self-righteous and condescending. Who's gonna voluntarily subject him/herself to that? Plus, it's the truth.
Anyway, back to the better-half's athletic endeavors. It's unfortunate that we don't pay more attention to them for two reasons.
The first is because they continue to foster many of the best ideals that have been lost on the men's side. And I don't mean good as in pleasant and enjoyable. I mean good as in socially- and morally-productive. Also, lost is probably the wrong word to use for what the men's side is doing to the ideals in question, actively destroying them is probably more accurate.
Sportsmanship and respect for the game.
Can you imagine a female athlete carrying on like Chad Ocho Sinko? Or Terrell Owens? How about pulling the bullsh*t Brett Favre did in Green Bay? Or doing something like Bill Romanowski, who spit in J.J. Stokes' face? Ditto Robeto Alomar (not in Stokes' face, but an umpire)? Or what about stampeding into the stands to go after a fan? Or how about blowing off an adoring fan a la Barry Bonds?
Maybe women trash talk on the field/court and just keep it away from the cameras. I doubt it. They seem to have enduring respect for the opponent as well as the fans who pay their admittedly lesser salaries. The same cannot be said for a growing number of their male counterparts.
The concept of a teamwork.
Again, can you imagine a female athlete promoting herself like Deion Sanders or Terrad Owens Sinko while playing a team sport? If you listen to a female athlete who fits that description talk about her sport, you almost totally forget about the individual. You have to specifically ask about HER role to get her to use the word 'I.' And the joy they feel after succeeding as a team is palpable.
This is the average women's team I'm talking about, not some special "Band of Idiots" that everyone can feel good about every once in a while. They celebrate as a team and suffer as a team. Most importantly, they work as a team and almost always acknowledge the team as the primary reason for any individual honor or success.
Last and most importantly, social progress.
I might lose some of the religious crowd with this one, but oh well. If I lose you, we probably weren't going to see eye-to-eye anyway.
Let me throw some famous female athletes from major pro sports at you: Billie Jean King, Lisa Raymond, Martina Navratilova, Sheryl Swoopes, and Karrie Webb. I'm sure most of you see where I'm going, but in case you don't, here's that list's counterpart from the men's side:_.
It doesn't exist because there are no famous homosexual professional male athletes. In fact, there's a good chance there will first be a list of male professional athletes who are famous because they are gay instead a list of famous athletes who happen to be gay.
Look, I'm not a gay-rights activist. I don't happen to be gay myself. And, frankly, I don't really care one way or the other. It's none of my business and I'll thank you not to make it such.
But I don't believe for a second there hasn't been a single, gay male who was elite in either baseball, basketball, football, tennis, golf, or hockey. That means someone had to hide a significant part of his identity, a part over which he had no control.
That ain't right. But it's something that the male side of sports continues to endorse.
The women's side does not. It also, obviously, does a better job of promoting respect for women.
There's not too much need to go into this one. Suffice it to say that healthy, confident female athletes are better examples for my two little nieces than selfish, petulant millionaires who run through groupies like it's part of the job.
And then toss 'em down a flight of stairs afterwards.
Or how about cheerleaders (not that I'm against them)? And it's not coincidence that commercials during sporting events tend to lean towards the sexually-provocative featuring scantily clad women more often than Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom in skivvies).
There are others, but if I don't stop somewhere, this article will be even longer than it's shaping up to be (we're almost there though, don't give up).
The second reason it's unfortunate we don't pay more attention to female sports is that they prove the direction in which male professional sports are headed is not a good one.
Many of the above ideals have been sacrificed on the men's side at the altar of the almighty dollar. I bemoan guys like Ocho Sinko and Owens, but the National Football League loves 'em and some fans defend them because they sell tickets, jerseys, and hats. They are also very good at the game they play. Nobody cares that the individual is becoming bigger than the team or that many pro athletes are blurring the line between the arena of competition and crime because everyone's getting rich and looking good doing it.
That's fine, to a degree. Sports are about entertainment and entertainment is about style as well as substance. And it should be profitable.
But women's sports show what is forgotten when profit is paramount. They show what has already disappeared and what continues to vanish with each new Scott-Boras-driven contract. Each new off-field scandal. Each bump in ticket price and personal seat license. The women's version shows, by ugly comparison, how the men's version is nurturing and emphasizing the very aspects that will surely be its demise (if anything can be) while hiding behind financial justification.
And no one is watching.
I'm not saying we should be forcibly carted off to WNBA games or anything of that nature. People are free to choose what entertains them and I tend to agree that the pinnacle of the physical side of sport is found in the men's professional leagues. That's why I don't watch high school sports. That's why I don't watch too much minor league action.
However, ESPN has a billion channels. Fox Sports has its own legion. We've got the NFL Network, MSG, the YES network, TBS, TNT, the Big Ten channel, the Golf channel, etc. You're telling me there isn't enough room for some women's love in there?
Sure, sponsors might not like it and some of the edge might be taken off the revenue stream. You're telling me those deep pockets can't afford it?
Sure, the masses still might ignore it. But a few might get the message.
And if you really love Major League Baseball or the National Basketball Association or the NFL or any other of the heavy-hitting male sports, that would be worth the price.
Because it's an important message and too many of us are ignoring it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)