We all know who's to blame for the dysfunctional Knicks. There's only one person responsible for that franchise being such a joke. His first name rhymes with "Tim" and his last name rhymes with "Nolan." And unfortunately, he's the owner. So, I hate to break it to you, Knicks fans, but it doesn't look like they're going to stop being the butt of the joke anytime soon. Not as long as he's running things.
For the better part of the last 20 years, the Knicks have made more headlines for off-the-court issues than anything they've done on the basketball court. Since making it to the Eastern Conference Finals in 2000, they've made the playoffs just five times (one of which was the following year) and won a grand total of one! playoff series (they went 11 years without winning a playoff game). During that same span, they've finished among the three bottom teams in the Eastern Conference six times. They've lost at least 50 games more times (7, with two 49-loss seasons) than they've finished .500 (3). Oh, and did I mention the longest a head coach has lasted is three seasons.
All this for the most valuable franchise in the NBA. According to Forbes, the Knicks are worth $3 billion. And they play in the largest city in America in a historic arena. You would think they'd be one of the marquee teams in the league. That free agents would be lining up to play for them. Yet the exact opposite is true. What free agent in his right mind would want to sign there? Signing with the Knicks is where careers go to die.
Consider the names that have come to the Knicks in recent years and what's happened to them. Carmelo Anthony, who they got in a trade, is one of the best players in the league. But his only chance of ever winning anything is when he plays for Team USA in the Olympics. With the Knicks, though, every other person who's been put around him has been a colossal failure.
This offseason was supposed to be different. Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah and others were supposed to help lead a turnaround. They finally had a coach who would embrace Phil Jackson's beloved triangle offense that won him nine NBA Championships. When Phil Jackson, a member of the Knicks' two championship teams who went on to that incredible Hall of Fame coaching career with the Bulls and Lakers, was hired to run the franchise, it looked like they'd finally gotten it and turned the decision-making over to a brilliant, championship-winning basketball mind. Now, according to most observers, Jackson is trying to get himself fired. And who could blame him?
I don't think it's a coincidence that the Knicks' downfall started when Jim Dolan took over the day-to-day management of the franchise in 1999. To put it bluntly, he's a terrible owner. He doesn't know what he's doing, and the level to which he's tone-deaf about everything really is pretty remarkable.
In one of his many missteps, Dolan hired Isiah Thomas as general manager in 2003. Despite the fact that the team sucked, he made Thomas the head coach, too, in 2005. Then Thomas was found guilty of sexual harassment in 2007, costing the Knicks $11 million ($3 million of which Dolan had to pay himself). Did he fire him then? Of course not! Then, in another move that shows just how completely clueless he is, Dolan hired Thomas as President of the New York Liberty in 2015. (Isiah Thomas has to have some sort of incriminating photos of Jim Dolan or something.)
That situation is a microcosm of Dolan's ownership. Then there's the incident with Charles Oakley a few weeks ago. I only know what I've read, so I'm by no means an expert on what happened, but it's probably safe to say it only escalated to the level it did because of Dolan. Charles Oakley is one of the most beloved players in franchise history. He's a link to that great era in the mid-90s where the only two things that came between the Knicks and a title were Michael Jordan and Hakeem Olajuwon. Yet Dolan has him thrown out of a game, arrested and banned from the arena because he's criticizing him? How old is he?
The Oakley situation once again threw Dolan into the spotlight. And not in a good way. He's already alienated the fans enough. Now he's going after the players that made the franchise great. In the aftermath of the Oakley incident, the various articles pointing out his mistreatment of Knicks alumni includes the greatest player in franchise history. Patrick Ewing is one of the best assistant coaches in the NBA. The Knicks hire a new head coach every other year. Yet Ewing can't even get an interview. That shouldn't be.
Fellow New Yorkers, does all of this sound familiar? It should. Because a lot of people blamed George Steinbrenner's over-involvement for the Yankees' lack of success in the 1980s. And when Steinbrenner was suspended by Commissioner Fay Vincent, it gave Gene Michael the freedom to build the team that would become the late 90s dynasty.
It's even happened with another Dolan-owned team before. He also owns the Rangers, although you'd never know it. Because he doesn't seem to care about the Rangers at all. Which is a good thing. He used to. Dolan used to be as involved with the Rangers as he is with the Knicks, and the results were about the same. Then, starting about 10 years ago after the first lockout, he started letting the people who actually know how to run a hockey team do their jobs, and look what's happened since.
Knicks fans can only hope the same thing will happen with Dolan's other team. Or, maybe he's smarter than the rest of us. After all, when Donald Sterling owned the Clippers, he found a way to make money despite making no attempt to be competitive. Maybe that's what Dolan's doing with the Knicks.
And if that's the case, the best hope Knicks fans might have would be for what happened with the Clippers to happen to them. Because ever since the NBA made Sterling sell the team to Steve Ballmer, the Clippers have been one of the best teams in the league. For Knicks fans, that can't happen soon enough. They deserve so much more than Jim Dolan. They deserve to root for a winner.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
The NHL and Korea
We're less than a year away from the start of the PyeongChang Olympics and we still don't know whether or not the NHL will be sending its players to Korea. Now, for the Sochi Games, an agreement wasn't reached until the summer, so it's not entirely unusual that they don't have a deal yet. Except in Sochi, everyone pretty much knew the NHL was going to be there. It was really just a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. This time, we're not so sure.
To be clear, the players want to go. The IOC wants them to go. The IIHF wants them to go. The fans want them to go. The only people who don't want NHL players to participate in the 2018 Olympics are the owners. And, unfortunately, it's the owners that have all the power in this situation.
Now, to be fair, it's not all of the owners that have put us in this situation. Alex Ovechkin has made it clear that he wants to play whether the NHL shuts the season down or not, and Capitals owner Ted Leonisis has given his best player his blessing. And if Leonisis is going to let one of the biggest stars in the sport go to PyeongChang, how bad will the other owners look if they don't do the same? I'm sure they'd prefer to have their best players suiting up for their teams in meaningful games rather than their countries, but you know once an Ovechkin or a Crosby or a Kane goes, others will follow, whether their owners like it or not. (In Sochi, in fact, the Bruins let Zdeno Chara miss two games so he could be Slovakia's flag bearer.)
That's why I do think we will see the NHL send its players to PyeongChang for the Olympic tournament. Because this is more than a simple case of the players wanting something and the owners wanting something else. It's a matter of PR. The NHL will look far worse if they don't go. Beyond that, NBC and CBC, the league's two major TV partners, will not be happy if they don't go. NBC and CBC are both Olympic rights holders. They would very much prefer to not have to squeeze NHL games into an Olympic schedule they're likely already planning.
Frankly, who's going to watch an NHL game during those two weeks anyway? The NHL is the lowest-rated of the four major sports anyway, and you want to compete with your only national TV partner for an already limited audience? Hockey Night In Canada would likely be preempted for Olympic coverage, and all of NBC's promotion will go towards PyeongChang. But if they do play, it gives them two weeks of commercial time (perhaps to promote a Stadium Series game in Las Vegas?). Plus, the added fun of announcing Team USA at the end of the Winter Classic, like they did in 2010 and 2014.
Whatever logistics the NHL has to work out with the IIHF and IOC shouldn't be significant enough to be deal-breakers. How do you know the owners (however reluctantly) are willing to let the players go? Because they've already offered it once. They said that if the players agreed to a three-year CBA extension, they'd sign off on Olympic participation. As expected, the players declined that. They didn't want to be unable to negotiate changes to the CBA for three more years. The owners knew the players would decline it. But this way, they made it look like it was the players who didn't want to go, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The fact of the matter is the owners don't want to go because it's Korea. That's the only reason. They don't see an ability to grow the game there like they do in 2022, when China will be hosting. And a trip to Korea, of course, also involves long flights and early start times (games are at noon, 4:30 and 9:00 Korea time, which translates to 10:00 the night before, 2:30 am and 7 am on the East Coast). They don't see any benefit in all that travel for games that will take place when most Americans and Canadians are sleeping.
But here's the problem with that logic: they still want to go to Beijing in 2022. I forget what player said it, but he put it best. You can't pick and choose. We either have NHL Olympic participation or we don't. And after five straight Olympics where the NHL did shut down its season to take part, that's what everyone has come to expect.
Furthermore, all of the major professional leagues in Europe have already announced that they're going to take an Olympic break. If the KHL shuts down and the NHL doesn't, it'll obviously shift the competitive balance in the tournament. Russia becomes the favorites (assuming they're allowed to compete.) Canada goes from the heavy favorites to a medal contender (there are still plenty of Canadians to choose from in the KHL that they'll have a pretty good team). The U.S. might as well not even send a team if the NHL guys don't go (although, it's not exactly like the NHLers were world beaters in the World Cup).
I digress for a second to bring up another potential problem that has nothing to do with the NHL. The hockey fields are set and the groups have already been made. Russia's in both tournaments. So what happens if the IOC decides to ban the entire Russian Olympic team because of the doping scandal? Do they reseed the tournament? Who gets the 12th spot? When will that decision be made?
Anyway, the Russia thing I'm sure will settle itself out. Just like I'm sure the NHL thing will. We'll see NHL players in the 2018 Olympic hockey tournament. I have no doubt. The owners can't be that stupid. Can they?
To be clear, the players want to go. The IOC wants them to go. The IIHF wants them to go. The fans want them to go. The only people who don't want NHL players to participate in the 2018 Olympics are the owners. And, unfortunately, it's the owners that have all the power in this situation.
Now, to be fair, it's not all of the owners that have put us in this situation. Alex Ovechkin has made it clear that he wants to play whether the NHL shuts the season down or not, and Capitals owner Ted Leonisis has given his best player his blessing. And if Leonisis is going to let one of the biggest stars in the sport go to PyeongChang, how bad will the other owners look if they don't do the same? I'm sure they'd prefer to have their best players suiting up for their teams in meaningful games rather than their countries, but you know once an Ovechkin or a Crosby or a Kane goes, others will follow, whether their owners like it or not. (In Sochi, in fact, the Bruins let Zdeno Chara miss two games so he could be Slovakia's flag bearer.)
That's why I do think we will see the NHL send its players to PyeongChang for the Olympic tournament. Because this is more than a simple case of the players wanting something and the owners wanting something else. It's a matter of PR. The NHL will look far worse if they don't go. Beyond that, NBC and CBC, the league's two major TV partners, will not be happy if they don't go. NBC and CBC are both Olympic rights holders. They would very much prefer to not have to squeeze NHL games into an Olympic schedule they're likely already planning.
Frankly, who's going to watch an NHL game during those two weeks anyway? The NHL is the lowest-rated of the four major sports anyway, and you want to compete with your only national TV partner for an already limited audience? Hockey Night In Canada would likely be preempted for Olympic coverage, and all of NBC's promotion will go towards PyeongChang. But if they do play, it gives them two weeks of commercial time (perhaps to promote a Stadium Series game in Las Vegas?). Plus, the added fun of announcing Team USA at the end of the Winter Classic, like they did in 2010 and 2014.
Whatever logistics the NHL has to work out with the IIHF and IOC shouldn't be significant enough to be deal-breakers. How do you know the owners (however reluctantly) are willing to let the players go? Because they've already offered it once. They said that if the players agreed to a three-year CBA extension, they'd sign off on Olympic participation. As expected, the players declined that. They didn't want to be unable to negotiate changes to the CBA for three more years. The owners knew the players would decline it. But this way, they made it look like it was the players who didn't want to go, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The fact of the matter is the owners don't want to go because it's Korea. That's the only reason. They don't see an ability to grow the game there like they do in 2022, when China will be hosting. And a trip to Korea, of course, also involves long flights and early start times (games are at noon, 4:30 and 9:00 Korea time, which translates to 10:00 the night before, 2:30 am and 7 am on the East Coast). They don't see any benefit in all that travel for games that will take place when most Americans and Canadians are sleeping.
But here's the problem with that logic: they still want to go to Beijing in 2022. I forget what player said it, but he put it best. You can't pick and choose. We either have NHL Olympic participation or we don't. And after five straight Olympics where the NHL did shut down its season to take part, that's what everyone has come to expect.
Furthermore, all of the major professional leagues in Europe have already announced that they're going to take an Olympic break. If the KHL shuts down and the NHL doesn't, it'll obviously shift the competitive balance in the tournament. Russia becomes the favorites (assuming they're allowed to compete.) Canada goes from the heavy favorites to a medal contender (there are still plenty of Canadians to choose from in the KHL that they'll have a pretty good team). The U.S. might as well not even send a team if the NHL guys don't go (although, it's not exactly like the NHLers were world beaters in the World Cup).
I digress for a second to bring up another potential problem that has nothing to do with the NHL. The hockey fields are set and the groups have already been made. Russia's in both tournaments. So what happens if the IOC decides to ban the entire Russian Olympic team because of the doping scandal? Do they reseed the tournament? Who gets the 12th spot? When will that decision be made?
Anyway, the Russia thing I'm sure will settle itself out. Just like I'm sure the NHL thing will. We'll see NHL players in the 2018 Olympic hockey tournament. I have no doubt. The owners can't be that stupid. Can they?
Monday, February 27, 2017
Sports' Own Oscar Gaffes
Did La La Land or Moonlight win Best Picture last night? I'm still not sure. Either way, that was bad. There's really no other way to say it. It wasn't only THE MOST IMPORTANT AWARD or anything!
Anyway, while I'm sure some PriceWaterhouseCoopers accountants will be looking for new jobs at some point soon, the Oscars aren't alone in their awkward, embarrassing screw-ups ("Dewey Defeats Truman" anyone?). There have been plenty in the world of sports, too. Some were bigger than others, some cost people championships, and still others were so glaring that they led to major changes being made. Some were human error, while the rest were just mental lapses. So who makes it into my Top 10?
10. Jim Marshall: It's often considered the biggest blooper in NFL history. In a game against the 49ers in 1970, Marshall picked up a fumble and ran untouched into the end zone. Except there was one small problem. It was the wrong end zone. He scored a safety, not a touchdown. I'm still convinced that this play is the reason he's not in the Hall of Fame.
9. Lindsey Jacobellis: In Torino, Jacobellis had the first-ever Olympic gold medal in women's slopestyle snowboarding in her pocket, and she knew it. So she decided to celebrate and do a little trick. That's when it all went terribly wrong. She fell, another racer passed her, and she "won" the silver.
7. Thierry Henry: This wasn't that big a deal. It only cost Ireland a place in the World Cup. The officials missed an obvious hand ball by Henry on France's tying goal against Ireland in the European playoffs for a spot in the 2010 World Cup. The French went on to win in overtime and go to South Africa. UEFA and FIFA admitted they screwed up, but that didn't make the Irish feel any better.
6. Diego Maradona: Of course, if you want an obvious hand ball worse than that one, look no further than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God." This is perhaps the most famous goal in World Cup history. Argentina vs. England in the 1986 semifinals, Maradona literally punches the ball into the net for the first goal in a 2-1 victory, (His second goal a few minutes later, was an absolute masterpiece.)
5. Charlie Jones: NBC's track & field commentator at the 1988 Olympics, Jones committed the one of the biggest blunders in Olympic broadcasting history. During the final of the men's 800 meters, he misidentified the gold medalist. There were two Kenyans in the race. He said the wrong name as the runners turned for home, and didn't realize his error until the results popped up on the screen and he saw that it was the other Kenyan who had won. (At least he admitted that they had completely blown it as soon as the mistake was discovered.)
4. Don Denkinger: The most famous blown call in World Series history. In the bottom of the ninth in Game 6, Umpire Don Denkinger called the Royals' Jorge Orta safe at first even though he was clearly out by a step. That led to a two-run Kansas City rally that forced a Game 7, which Kansas City won 11-0.
3. Chris Webber: Michigan was playing North Carolina in the 1993 NCAA Championship Game. It was 73-71 North Carolina when Webber called timeout late in the game. Michigan didn't have any timeouts, though, so instead he got charged with a technical foul. North Carolina made the free throws and, as a result of the technical, got the ball back, essentially icing the National title.
2. Jim Joyce: Jim Joyce screwed up. He was the first one to admit it. The Tigers were playing the Indians and Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game. It looked like he got it with a grounder to first. Everyone in the stadium thought he had it. Except Joyce inexplicably called the runner safe. Once he saw the video, he knew, and no one felt worse about it than he did. The silver lining here (other than the incredible sportsmanship shown by Joyce and Galarraga) is that this game was the last straw that brought Baseball into the replay age.
1. Heidi Game: There could only be one No. 1 on this list. And it had to be the Heidi Game. NBC's coverage of a Jets-Raiders game was running long, so they cut away with the Jets winning 32-29 so that they could start "Heidi" on time. What America missed was two Raiders touchdowns (nine seconds apart) in the final minute of the game that gave them a shocking 43-32 victory. Viewers were understandably outraged, and it's been stipulated in the NFL's broadcast contract ever since that the network can never cut away from a game early again.
Anyway, while I'm sure some PriceWaterhouseCoopers accountants will be looking for new jobs at some point soon, the Oscars aren't alone in their awkward, embarrassing screw-ups ("Dewey Defeats Truman" anyone?). There have been plenty in the world of sports, too. Some were bigger than others, some cost people championships, and still others were so glaring that they led to major changes being made. Some were human error, while the rest were just mental lapses. So who makes it into my Top 10?
10. Jim Marshall: It's often considered the biggest blooper in NFL history. In a game against the 49ers in 1970, Marshall picked up a fumble and ran untouched into the end zone. Except there was one small problem. It was the wrong end zone. He scored a safety, not a touchdown. I'm still convinced that this play is the reason he's not in the Hall of Fame.
9. Lindsey Jacobellis: In Torino, Jacobellis had the first-ever Olympic gold medal in women's slopestyle snowboarding in her pocket, and she knew it. So she decided to celebrate and do a little trick. That's when it all went terribly wrong. She fell, another racer passed her, and she "won" the silver.
6. Diego Maradona: Of course, if you want an obvious hand ball worse than that one, look no further than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God." This is perhaps the most famous goal in World Cup history. Argentina vs. England in the 1986 semifinals, Maradona literally punches the ball into the net for the first goal in a 2-1 victory, (His second goal a few minutes later, was an absolute masterpiece.)
5. Charlie Jones: NBC's track & field commentator at the 1988 Olympics, Jones committed the one of the biggest blunders in Olympic broadcasting history. During the final of the men's 800 meters, he misidentified the gold medalist. There were two Kenyans in the race. He said the wrong name as the runners turned for home, and didn't realize his error until the results popped up on the screen and he saw that it was the other Kenyan who had won. (At least he admitted that they had completely blown it as soon as the mistake was discovered.)
4. Don Denkinger: The most famous blown call in World Series history. In the bottom of the ninth in Game 6, Umpire Don Denkinger called the Royals' Jorge Orta safe at first even though he was clearly out by a step. That led to a two-run Kansas City rally that forced a Game 7, which Kansas City won 11-0.
3. Chris Webber: Michigan was playing North Carolina in the 1993 NCAA Championship Game. It was 73-71 North Carolina when Webber called timeout late in the game. Michigan didn't have any timeouts, though, so instead he got charged with a technical foul. North Carolina made the free throws and, as a result of the technical, got the ball back, essentially icing the National title.
2. Jim Joyce: Jim Joyce screwed up. He was the first one to admit it. The Tigers were playing the Indians and Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game. It looked like he got it with a grounder to first. Everyone in the stadium thought he had it. Except Joyce inexplicably called the runner safe. Once he saw the video, he knew, and no one felt worse about it than he did. The silver lining here (other than the incredible sportsmanship shown by Joyce and Galarraga) is that this game was the last straw that brought Baseball into the replay age.
1. Heidi Game: There could only be one No. 1 on this list. And it had to be the Heidi Game. NBC's coverage of a Jets-Raiders game was running long, so they cut away with the Jets winning 32-29 so that they could start "Heidi" on time. What America missed was two Raiders touchdowns (nine seconds apart) in the final minute of the game that gave them a shocking 43-32 victory. Viewers were understandably outraged, and it's been stipulated in the NFL's broadcast contract ever since that the network can never cut away from a game early again.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
The New NASCAR
NASCAR has a new title sponsor, so it only makes sense that they've decided to make a bunch of changes that they think will make things simpler and easier to follow, but in reality are much more complicated than they intended. I don't know if I'm for or against the changes (or if I'll be invested enough to care), but I definitely like the increased emphasis on winning and the idea of bonus points heading into the Chase (is it still called that?).
The biggest change is that races are now broken down into three "stages," with bonus points being awarded to the top 10 at the end of each stage. Sorry, but that just sounds confusing. The only other thing I can think of where you get points in the middle of the race is track cycling...and does anyone understand the points race in cycling? And the Tour de France has a separate points leader jersey that's different than the yellow jersey. But when and how they collect these points is beyond me.
I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only person who's going to be confused by this whole "segment" thing. I guess the idea behind it is to create an end-of-race like excitement at multiple points throughout the race. Except I highly doubt guys will go all-out on lap 40 of a 200-lap race just for a couple bonus points (maybe later in the season if a playoff berth depends on it, but that's about it).
My guess is that the theory behind the "segments," other than "creating more excitement" is to reward drivers for doing well during the race. I can somewhat understand the rationale there. In the past, if someone led 130 laps, but ended up finishing 30th because of a blown out tire or an accident, he'd only get the 15 or so points for 30th place. There was no reward for dominating the race until something out of their control happened. Now there is. But, if you ask me, I'd bet drivers would still prefer finishing in the Top 10 at the end of the race than winning the first segment and calling it a day.
Now that I'm thinking of it, they probably got that idea from themselves. Because that's pretty much the exact format of the All-Star Race every year. But even in the All-Star Race, being in first at the end of a segment doesn't really get you anything (I don't even think there's any money involved). It's only the winner at the end of the race that gets the $1 million. And in the All-Star Race, they have mandatory pit stops at the end of each segment (they even reset the field before the final one), so it really is like three separate races. What's unclear about doing it in the regular season races is if they cross the start/finish line and just keep going as if they're in the middle of a race (which they are).
One of the benefits of this new system is that all bonus points, from both segments and finishes, carry over into the next round. Likewise, when they reset the points at the start of the Chase, they're actually going to give them bonus points based on their position in the standings. I never quite understood why they didn't do that in the past. Yes, I get the whole "everybody starts fresh" thing, but if you lead by 200-something points at the end of the regular season, you deserve to have a lead of more than three at the start of the playoffs.
Have you ever noticed, too, that these format changes always seem to happen after Jimmie Johnson wins the NASCAR Cup (I do prefer that to Monster Energy Cup)? Seriously, the dude is like the Patriots. The format doesn't really seem to matter. He manages to win anyway. I'm sure he'll figure it out in this way, too. I'm not a fan of Jimmie Johnson (I find is constant winning incredibly annoying), but what he's done sure is impressive. He's got seven titles, the same as NASCAR legends Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt, but has done it how many different way?
Speaking of the great Dale Earnhardt, his son, Dale Earnhardt Jr. makes his long-awaited return to Cup Series racing this weekend at the Daytona 500. He missed roughly the last half of the season last year because of a concussion, and it's very admirable that he decided to wait until he was totally symptom-free to return. Most drivers (and their sponsors) would be itching to get back in the car and probably come back too early, which is dangerous on many levels.
Earnhardt started a very necessary discussion in a sport where the risk of injury (and even death) is much higher than it is in any other. That's one of the reasons Carl Edwards gave for his sudden retirement, and Danica Patrick has said that she'd seriously consider it if she got another concussion.
Dale Jr. has an impeccable sense of timing, too. Because he comes back just as some of NASCAR's other more popular drivers call it a career. Jeff Gordon retired a year ago (although he ran a couple race in Dale Jr.'s place last year), and this year Tony Stewart and Carl Edwards join him in retirement. Sure, Johnson's still there, and there are still plenty of transcendent NASCAR drivers like Kevin Harvick and the Busch Brothers (among others). So, in a way, this Daytona 500 is a changing of the guard. There are a lot of unfamiliar names in the field, meaning NASCAR's new generation has arrived.
Last year, we saw rookie Alexander Rossi win the Indy 500. It's a lot tougher for rookies in NASCAR, especially at Daytona, so I still expect to see one of the usual suspects end up in the Winner's Circle after NASCAR's Super Bowl. But to see one (or more) of the rookies win a race and perhaps make the Chase, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
The biggest change is that races are now broken down into three "stages," with bonus points being awarded to the top 10 at the end of each stage. Sorry, but that just sounds confusing. The only other thing I can think of where you get points in the middle of the race is track cycling...and does anyone understand the points race in cycling? And the Tour de France has a separate points leader jersey that's different than the yellow jersey. But when and how they collect these points is beyond me.
I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only person who's going to be confused by this whole "segment" thing. I guess the idea behind it is to create an end-of-race like excitement at multiple points throughout the race. Except I highly doubt guys will go all-out on lap 40 of a 200-lap race just for a couple bonus points (maybe later in the season if a playoff berth depends on it, but that's about it).
My guess is that the theory behind the "segments," other than "creating more excitement" is to reward drivers for doing well during the race. I can somewhat understand the rationale there. In the past, if someone led 130 laps, but ended up finishing 30th because of a blown out tire or an accident, he'd only get the 15 or so points for 30th place. There was no reward for dominating the race until something out of their control happened. Now there is. But, if you ask me, I'd bet drivers would still prefer finishing in the Top 10 at the end of the race than winning the first segment and calling it a day.
Now that I'm thinking of it, they probably got that idea from themselves. Because that's pretty much the exact format of the All-Star Race every year. But even in the All-Star Race, being in first at the end of a segment doesn't really get you anything (I don't even think there's any money involved). It's only the winner at the end of the race that gets the $1 million. And in the All-Star Race, they have mandatory pit stops at the end of each segment (they even reset the field before the final one), so it really is like three separate races. What's unclear about doing it in the regular season races is if they cross the start/finish line and just keep going as if they're in the middle of a race (which they are).
One of the benefits of this new system is that all bonus points, from both segments and finishes, carry over into the next round. Likewise, when they reset the points at the start of the Chase, they're actually going to give them bonus points based on their position in the standings. I never quite understood why they didn't do that in the past. Yes, I get the whole "everybody starts fresh" thing, but if you lead by 200-something points at the end of the regular season, you deserve to have a lead of more than three at the start of the playoffs.
Have you ever noticed, too, that these format changes always seem to happen after Jimmie Johnson wins the NASCAR Cup (I do prefer that to Monster Energy Cup)? Seriously, the dude is like the Patriots. The format doesn't really seem to matter. He manages to win anyway. I'm sure he'll figure it out in this way, too. I'm not a fan of Jimmie Johnson (I find is constant winning incredibly annoying), but what he's done sure is impressive. He's got seven titles, the same as NASCAR legends Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt, but has done it how many different way?
Speaking of the great Dale Earnhardt, his son, Dale Earnhardt Jr. makes his long-awaited return to Cup Series racing this weekend at the Daytona 500. He missed roughly the last half of the season last year because of a concussion, and it's very admirable that he decided to wait until he was totally symptom-free to return. Most drivers (and their sponsors) would be itching to get back in the car and probably come back too early, which is dangerous on many levels.
Earnhardt started a very necessary discussion in a sport where the risk of injury (and even death) is much higher than it is in any other. That's one of the reasons Carl Edwards gave for his sudden retirement, and Danica Patrick has said that she'd seriously consider it if she got another concussion.
Dale Jr. has an impeccable sense of timing, too. Because he comes back just as some of NASCAR's other more popular drivers call it a career. Jeff Gordon retired a year ago (although he ran a couple race in Dale Jr.'s place last year), and this year Tony Stewart and Carl Edwards join him in retirement. Sure, Johnson's still there, and there are still plenty of transcendent NASCAR drivers like Kevin Harvick and the Busch Brothers (among others). So, in a way, this Daytona 500 is a changing of the guard. There are a lot of unfamiliar names in the field, meaning NASCAR's new generation has arrived.
Last year, we saw rookie Alexander Rossi win the Indy 500. It's a lot tougher for rookies in NASCAR, especially at Daytona, so I still expect to see one of the usual suspects end up in the Winner's Circle after NASCAR's Super Bowl. But to see one (or more) of the rookies win a race and perhaps make the Chase, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Then There Were Two
Citing calls for a referendum, Budapest has withdrawn its bid for the 2024 Olympics. Budapest was always viewed as the outsider in the race anyway, and their withdrawal announcement read as sort of an acceptance of that fact more than anything else. The way I interpreted it, Budapest basically said "We're not gonna win, so we're gonna just give up."
That leaves the IOC with just two choices for the 2024 Games--Los Angeles and Paris. This after there were just two choices for 2022, and three for both 2018 and 2020. More cities have dropped out of Olympic bid races than actually allowed themselves to be part of the vote in the last two cycles. It's an alarming trend, but it's not the first time that this has happened, either.
After the terrorist attacks in Munich and the cost overruns in Montreal, hosting the Olympics was not a very attractive option for many cities in the late 70s/early 80s. Moscow and Los Angeles were the only candidates for the 1980 Games, LA ran essentially unopposed four years later, and the 1988 Olympics came down to just Seoul and Nagoya, Japan. Then LA 84 happened, cities and countries figured out how to make money on the Olympics, and suddenly cities were lining up to host.
Now the Olympic movement is stuck with a similar problem. Beijing and Sochi spent so much money, Tokyo's budget grows by the day, and Rio and Athens spent money that they didn't have, that people are questioning whether hosting the Olympics is worth it. Nobody looks to London, which did everything right and held a tremendous Games (with full stadiums) that came in on budget while also establishing a lasting legacy, as the example of what to do. They just look at those massive price tags and say "Thanks, but no thanks." Especially in Western democracies, where governments need approval to spend public money and opposition groups, no matter the size, are enough to prevent a bid from even gettting off the ground.
The next Olympic vote after this one, obviously, is for the 2026 Winter Olympics. And it's looking like that one might be a two- or three-horse race, too. Just last week at the Alpine Skiing World Championships, the Swiss city of St. Moritz (which has hosted the Winter Olympics twice) decided not to pursue a bid because of public opposition. Who's to say how many other European cities will come to the same conclusion? It's entirely possible that we could end up with three straight Winter Olympics in the Far East, if only because Sapporo (the 1972 host), which is currently hosting the Asian Winter Games, might end up being the only serious bidder.
It's pure coincidence that Los Angeles is involved again, but that might be just what the Olympic movement needs. Alan Abrahamson, the respected Olympic journalist, wrote an in-depth piece on his website arguing why he thinks LA is really the only choice for 2024. Both LA and Paris have outstanding bids, and they both have such high public support that you know neither one is going anywhere. But only LA is privately-financed. Paris doesn't need to use a lot of public money, but that's still more than LA needs.
Personally, I don't care which one wins, and I know that either city will put on a tremendous Games in 2024. And that just might be the Games that restores public faith in the Olympic process. It's a faith that's shaken, but isn't completely gone. The IOC knows that, too. That's one of the reasons why Thomas Bach is pushing so hard for the joint award to both cities in September.
There was lukewarm perception to Bach's idea when he first proposed it. As late as last week, there were some high-ranking IOC members that were skeptical about it. Many of them didn't want to alienate Budapest by giving each of the other two cities an Olympics while they got nothing. But Budapest themselves has taken that problem off their hands. Does that put the dual award back in play? Both cities have said they're focused on only 2024 and have no interest in 2028. But seeing as only one of the two can host in 2024, does Bach get together with both organizing committees, as well as the U.S. and French Olympic Committees, and come up with some sort of compromise?
Bach thinks the current process has "too many losers" and wants to change that. That's especially true for Paris (which bid for the 1992, 2008 and 2012 Games, and lost all three) and the United States (which would be looking at failed bids from each of its three largest cities if LA loses). It'll piss off a lot of people, but giving 2024 to Paris and 2028 to LA makes a lot of sense. Especially now.
Budapest was never going to win 2024 Olympic vote. But it was going to have a say in which city did. Now Paris and LA have six months to campaign for those Budapest votes, which will likely decide the election. They can't go wrong with either Paris or LA. But they'd better get it right. For the sake of the Olympic movement and its future, they need to.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Who'll Make the Team?
Spring Training is officially in full swing, and the first exhibition games are set for this weekend. And with the start of Spring Training comes the debate over who's going to end up on each team's Opening Day roster. There's obviously a lot of time between now and Opening Day, and injuries, trades and late signings usually end up changing things, but, for the most part, a lot of rosters do seem pretty much set.
Take the Yankees. They head into Spring Training knowing their entire projected starting lineup, as well as 60 percent of their rotation. They also have their closer and eighth-inning guy firmly established (assuming Betances' arbitration situation gets settled out, which it will), and some of the pitchers that are candidates for the rotation are bound to join them in the bullpen. So, the way I see it, there are only about two or three roster spots that are really up for grabs.
Masahiro Tanaka has already been announced as the Opening Day starter. CC Sabathia and Michael Pineda will obviously be in the starting rotation, too. The real question is who the fourth and fifth starters will be. Although, since the Yankees play Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday to start the season, they won't need a fifth starter during the first week, which could mean they go with an extra bullpen guy or extra bench guy on that opening road trip.
Luis Severino, Chad Green, Luis Cessa, Adam Warren and Bryan Mitchell have all been mentioned as starter candidates. I think Severino is all but a lock for one of those two spots. For all of his struggles last season, they've got a lot invested in him, and the Yankees still view Severino as a starter. He'll have a shorter leash, but considering how committed they are to this youth movement and their faith in him moving forward, they need to give Severino the vote of confidence and name him the fourth starter.
The fifth starter is much more interesting. Adam Warren has shown incredible value and versatility with his ability to both start and relieve. But Warren's biggest value is as the seventh-inning guy in front of Betances and Chapman. I'd leave him there. I'd also leave Mitchell in his valuable role as the long man. He'll be available for the spot start, but has been effective in that very difficult role. You might pitch once a week, and when you do, it's because the starter got shelled and you're getting blown out, and you're just going out there to eat innings. It's not for everybody, but Bryan Mitchell does it very well.
So, that leaves Chad Green and Luis Cessa. My preference is Green. It again goes back to what you see his role being in the long run. Green has really only been a starter. Cessa has shown an ability to pitch out of the bullpen. That's why I'm going with Green.
In fact, I don't have Cessa on my projected roster at all. Assuming Warren and Mitchell go to the bullpen, you've already got Aroldis Chapman as the closer, Dellin Betances in the eighth inning and Tyler Clippard as your right-handed set-up guy. That leaves two spots, one of which will go to a lefty--either Tommy Layne or Chasen Shreve. Although, I like having the option between two lefties out of the bullpen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them both.
It's pretty obvious who the two catchers will be. That's one of the reasons why they traded Brian McCann to Houston. Gary Sanchez is the new face of the franchise. He'll start and Austin Romine has proven to be a capable Major League backup catcher.
Likewise, the starting infield looks pretty much set. Greg Bird at first, Starlin Castro at second, Didi Gregorius at short and Chase Headley at third. It's the two additional infielders where things become interesting. I don't quite understand the Chris Carter signing. He's essentially a right-handed DH, which is why they signed Matt Holliday. Carter played first base for the Brewers last year, so that gives them the option of sitting the left-handed Bird against lefties.
I had kinda assumed Tyler Austin was going to be the backup first baseman, but if Carter is going to be on the team, I don't see a place for Austin on the Major League roster to start the season. Because the other backup infielder will be a utility guy, which Austin is not. If Rob Refsnyder can get enough of a grasp on third base during the spring, that utility infield role could be his. If not, Refsnyder starts the season at Scranton and Ronald Torreyes, one of the most unheralded guys on the team, will return as the utility infielder.
All five "outfielders" are set. "Outfielders" is in quotes because Matt Holliday was signed to DH and play a little first base. I don't think he'll play the outfield very much. Brett Gardner and Jacoby Ellsbury, of course, will. Gardner's a Gold Glove left fielder and Ellsbury is the leadoff hitter. Right field is Aaron Judge's job to lose, and Aaron Hicks, who can play all three positions, is really the only "backup" outfielder. I don't see Hicks playing left that much, though. That was always Holliday's position, so if his knees allow it, he'll probably be the one giving Gardner a break in left field. When Hicks starts, it'll probably be primarily in right.
As I said, this is all subject to change pending injuries and late trades/signings. Spring Training performance will obviously come into play, too. It's still six weeks until Opening Day, so there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered regarding the roster. As of now, though, that's the team I'm putting on the field against the Rays on Opening Day.
Take the Yankees. They head into Spring Training knowing their entire projected starting lineup, as well as 60 percent of their rotation. They also have their closer and eighth-inning guy firmly established (assuming Betances' arbitration situation gets settled out, which it will), and some of the pitchers that are candidates for the rotation are bound to join them in the bullpen. So, the way I see it, there are only about two or three roster spots that are really up for grabs.
Masahiro Tanaka has already been announced as the Opening Day starter. CC Sabathia and Michael Pineda will obviously be in the starting rotation, too. The real question is who the fourth and fifth starters will be. Although, since the Yankees play Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday to start the season, they won't need a fifth starter during the first week, which could mean they go with an extra bullpen guy or extra bench guy on that opening road trip.
Luis Severino, Chad Green, Luis Cessa, Adam Warren and Bryan Mitchell have all been mentioned as starter candidates. I think Severino is all but a lock for one of those two spots. For all of his struggles last season, they've got a lot invested in him, and the Yankees still view Severino as a starter. He'll have a shorter leash, but considering how committed they are to this youth movement and their faith in him moving forward, they need to give Severino the vote of confidence and name him the fourth starter.
The fifth starter is much more interesting. Adam Warren has shown incredible value and versatility with his ability to both start and relieve. But Warren's biggest value is as the seventh-inning guy in front of Betances and Chapman. I'd leave him there. I'd also leave Mitchell in his valuable role as the long man. He'll be available for the spot start, but has been effective in that very difficult role. You might pitch once a week, and when you do, it's because the starter got shelled and you're getting blown out, and you're just going out there to eat innings. It's not for everybody, but Bryan Mitchell does it very well.
So, that leaves Chad Green and Luis Cessa. My preference is Green. It again goes back to what you see his role being in the long run. Green has really only been a starter. Cessa has shown an ability to pitch out of the bullpen. That's why I'm going with Green.
In fact, I don't have Cessa on my projected roster at all. Assuming Warren and Mitchell go to the bullpen, you've already got Aroldis Chapman as the closer, Dellin Betances in the eighth inning and Tyler Clippard as your right-handed set-up guy. That leaves two spots, one of which will go to a lefty--either Tommy Layne or Chasen Shreve. Although, I like having the option between two lefties out of the bullpen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them both.
It's pretty obvious who the two catchers will be. That's one of the reasons why they traded Brian McCann to Houston. Gary Sanchez is the new face of the franchise. He'll start and Austin Romine has proven to be a capable Major League backup catcher.
Likewise, the starting infield looks pretty much set. Greg Bird at first, Starlin Castro at second, Didi Gregorius at short and Chase Headley at third. It's the two additional infielders where things become interesting. I don't quite understand the Chris Carter signing. He's essentially a right-handed DH, which is why they signed Matt Holliday. Carter played first base for the Brewers last year, so that gives them the option of sitting the left-handed Bird against lefties.
I had kinda assumed Tyler Austin was going to be the backup first baseman, but if Carter is going to be on the team, I don't see a place for Austin on the Major League roster to start the season. Because the other backup infielder will be a utility guy, which Austin is not. If Rob Refsnyder can get enough of a grasp on third base during the spring, that utility infield role could be his. If not, Refsnyder starts the season at Scranton and Ronald Torreyes, one of the most unheralded guys on the team, will return as the utility infielder.
All five "outfielders" are set. "Outfielders" is in quotes because Matt Holliday was signed to DH and play a little first base. I don't think he'll play the outfield very much. Brett Gardner and Jacoby Ellsbury, of course, will. Gardner's a Gold Glove left fielder and Ellsbury is the leadoff hitter. Right field is Aaron Judge's job to lose, and Aaron Hicks, who can play all three positions, is really the only "backup" outfielder. I don't see Hicks playing left that much, though. That was always Holliday's position, so if his knees allow it, he'll probably be the one giving Gardner a break in left field. When Hicks starts, it'll probably be primarily in right.
As I said, this is all subject to change pending injuries and late trades/signings. Spring Training performance will obviously come into play, too. It's still six weeks until Opening Day, so there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered regarding the roster. As of now, though, that's the team I'm putting on the field against the Rays on Opening Day.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Daytime Ceremonies, Would They Work?
The Asian Winter Games opened yesterday in Sapporo, Japan with a daytime Opening Ceremony. A lot of people liked it, including Angela Ruggeiro, the gold medal-winning American hockey player who's now the head of the IOC Athletes' Commission. Ruggeiro, who's also involved in the Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Games, even went so far as to suggest the LA 2024 Opening Ceremony should be during the day.
Ruggeiro's rationale for advocating the daytime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. A lot of athletes that are competing on the first day of the Games have to miss the Opening Ceremony in order to prepare for their event. In Rio, the Opening Ceremony started at 8:00 and was a relatively short three hours, but that still meant athletes were on their feet for that long. The Opening Ceremony is usually much longer than that. Then, if you throw in the travel time back to the Athletes' Village, it's well after midnight when they're finally going to bed. That doesn't exactly lead to optimal performance, so it makes sense that a number of athletes decide to skip the Opening Ceremony (or, in the case of the 2016 U.S. women's volleyball team, leave early).
In Sapporo, however, the Opening Ceremony started at 4:00 local time and was over at 7:00. They also had the parade of nations at the beginning, allowing athletes to march into the stadium and get back to the village with plenty of time to rest.
Although, the Olympic Opening Ceremony being held at night is a relatively recent development (the first one wasn't until 1992), it's since become the norm. The Opening Ceremony hasn't taken place during the day since the last Games in Japan--Nagano 1998. The last Summer Olympics with an afternoon Opening Ceremony was Seoul 1988.
From a logistical perspective, the nighttime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. For starters, it takes place on a Friday. In a bustling metropolis, the workday commute in the afternoon would make a daytime ceremony a traffic nightmare. Not to mention the obvious fact that the weather is usually cooler after the sun goes down, which is especially important in the summer (I saw another article today that said the daytime temperatures in Tokyo in July of 2020 could be in the high 90s). If you have the ceremony at night, the spectators are more likely to be comfortable.
Then you throw in the fact that a Friday night is going to generate a much larger TV audience for the host broadcaster, nobody in their right minds would schedule such a ratings-generator at any time other than prime time (why do you think all other major sporting events are at night?). You also have the increased drama that comes in with the lighting of the Olympic cauldron, one of the seminal moments of any Opening Ceremony. Would that flaming arrow in Barcelona been anywhere near as powerful if it wasn't against the backdrop of nighttime darkness? Or Cathy Freeman in that flaming waterfall in Sydney?
With all that being said, if LA does host the 2024 Olympics, the Opening Ceremony likely will start in the afternoon or early evening, just like it did in 1984. Although, the reason for that is obvious. And it has nothing to do with the ability of the athletes to march in the Parade of Nations. It's because the East Coast is three hours ahead of LA. So, the Opening Ceremony will start at 5:00 Pacific (or, more likely 5:30 Pacific) because that's 8:00 in New York and 7:00 in Chicago. And you know NBC will have its say and make sure it's early enough to be live in prime time on the East Coast. That's what they did in Vancouver, where the actual Opening Ceremony started at 6:00 (9:00 Eastern).
While the daytime Opening Ceremony in LA would be dictated by other reasons, it is an interesting concept, and I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody give it a try. Especially with the next three Olympics slated for East Asia (after all, with the time difference, a Friday morning Opening Ceremony at Beijing 2022 would be on Thursday night in the U.S.).
It makes more sense to try the daytime Opening Ceremony in the Winter, too. The whole point I made about the heat for the summer applies in reverse here. It's cold either way, but it's warmer in the afternoon and you don't want fans sitting there on a cold winter's night. Likewise, it gets dark earlier in the winter, so you can still light the cauldron with the dramatic background of darkness (or, at least, twilight).
At a time when the Olympic brand doesn't mean much and the idea of hosting the Games is viewed of more as a burden than anything else, it wouldn't hurt to embrace some innovation. And, who knows, a daytime Opening Ceremony just might be the way to do that. It doesn't seem likely and would require a lot of work to figure it out logistically, but it's definitely an idea worth at least considering.
Ruggeiro's rationale for advocating the daytime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. A lot of athletes that are competing on the first day of the Games have to miss the Opening Ceremony in order to prepare for their event. In Rio, the Opening Ceremony started at 8:00 and was a relatively short three hours, but that still meant athletes were on their feet for that long. The Opening Ceremony is usually much longer than that. Then, if you throw in the travel time back to the Athletes' Village, it's well after midnight when they're finally going to bed. That doesn't exactly lead to optimal performance, so it makes sense that a number of athletes decide to skip the Opening Ceremony (or, in the case of the 2016 U.S. women's volleyball team, leave early).
In Sapporo, however, the Opening Ceremony started at 4:00 local time and was over at 7:00. They also had the parade of nations at the beginning, allowing athletes to march into the stadium and get back to the village with plenty of time to rest.
Although, the Olympic Opening Ceremony being held at night is a relatively recent development (the first one wasn't until 1992), it's since become the norm. The Opening Ceremony hasn't taken place during the day since the last Games in Japan--Nagano 1998. The last Summer Olympics with an afternoon Opening Ceremony was Seoul 1988.
From a logistical perspective, the nighttime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. For starters, it takes place on a Friday. In a bustling metropolis, the workday commute in the afternoon would make a daytime ceremony a traffic nightmare. Not to mention the obvious fact that the weather is usually cooler after the sun goes down, which is especially important in the summer (I saw another article today that said the daytime temperatures in Tokyo in July of 2020 could be in the high 90s). If you have the ceremony at night, the spectators are more likely to be comfortable.
Then you throw in the fact that a Friday night is going to generate a much larger TV audience for the host broadcaster, nobody in their right minds would schedule such a ratings-generator at any time other than prime time (why do you think all other major sporting events are at night?). You also have the increased drama that comes in with the lighting of the Olympic cauldron, one of the seminal moments of any Opening Ceremony. Would that flaming arrow in Barcelona been anywhere near as powerful if it wasn't against the backdrop of nighttime darkness? Or Cathy Freeman in that flaming waterfall in Sydney?
With all that being said, if LA does host the 2024 Olympics, the Opening Ceremony likely will start in the afternoon or early evening, just like it did in 1984. Although, the reason for that is obvious. And it has nothing to do with the ability of the athletes to march in the Parade of Nations. It's because the East Coast is three hours ahead of LA. So, the Opening Ceremony will start at 5:00 Pacific (or, more likely 5:30 Pacific) because that's 8:00 in New York and 7:00 in Chicago. And you know NBC will have its say and make sure it's early enough to be live in prime time on the East Coast. That's what they did in Vancouver, where the actual Opening Ceremony started at 6:00 (9:00 Eastern).
While the daytime Opening Ceremony in LA would be dictated by other reasons, it is an interesting concept, and I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody give it a try. Especially with the next three Olympics slated for East Asia (after all, with the time difference, a Friday morning Opening Ceremony at Beijing 2022 would be on Thursday night in the U.S.).
It makes more sense to try the daytime Opening Ceremony in the Winter, too. The whole point I made about the heat for the summer applies in reverse here. It's cold either way, but it's warmer in the afternoon and you don't want fans sitting there on a cold winter's night. Likewise, it gets dark earlier in the winter, so you can still light the cauldron with the dramatic background of darkness (or, at least, twilight).
At a time when the Olympic brand doesn't mean much and the idea of hosting the Games is viewed of more as a burden than anything else, it wouldn't hurt to embrace some innovation. And, who knows, a daytime Opening Ceremony just might be the way to do that. It doesn't seem likely and would require a lot of work to figure it out logistically, but it's definitely an idea worth at least considering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)