If criticizing and complaining were Olympic events, there's no doubt what country would win the gold medal. Hands down. It wouldn't even be close. The U.S. would probably take the silver and bronze, too.
Through the first four days of these Olympics, I've heard more whining about NBC's use of tape delay in primetime than I have about the actual events. The fact that a vast majority of the daytime coverage is live hasn't been mentioned once. (They came on the air at 5 a.m. on Saturday to show the men's road race in cycling.) Nor has the fact that virtually all of the cable coverage is live, too. (NBC Sports Network's coverage starts at 4 a.m. everyday.) Or the variety of sports that have been shown on the various NBC networks. On Saturday, live events were being shown on five different networks at the same time. And the prime time thing isn't exactly NBC's fault. I'm not sure what it is people would like them to do. London is five hours ahead of New York. Prime time on the East Coast is the middle of the night in London! In order to show any competition in prime time, it has to be on tape. (By the way, it's going to be worse two years from now in Sochi.)
The only reason people even care about the tape delay is because the swimming finals take place in the middle of the afternoon here, but aren't being shown until prime time. During the swimming finals, NBC is showing other live events. TV networks can't show two things at the same time. How dare they think that people would rather watch swimming than a preliminary round men's water polo match when they're actually home watching TV!
And here's the thing, NBC's not preventing anybody from watching events live. In fact, they're encouraging it. They're streaming every event live at NBCOlympics.com. This isn't Sydney, where they showed everything on tape and pretended it was live. They're expecting you to already know what happened when/if you watch the prime time broadcast. If you want to wait to see it on TV, that's your option. But you can't blame NBC for not being able to see things live because it's simply not true.
A vast majority of the griping is coming from the West Coast, which is three hours further behind. As a result, the stuff that's live on the East Coast is on a three-hour delay, and the delay on the other events is even longer. I can imagine this is incredibly frustrating, and it's something I've never experienced. But guess what, it's not NBC's fault you live in California! They can't produce a separate West Coast broadcast while they're in the middle of the East Coast show.
Predictibly, people have gone on Twitter to voice their displeasure. Chalk this up as another reason why I hate Twitter. I think a majority of people who are going on Twitter to complain about Olympic coverage are doing it only because they can. Guarantee a majority of them don't actually care. They're probably the same people who answer "I don't watch the Olympics" on those poll questions. If that's the case, what difference does it make to you if the coverage is live or not? Some people have also gone public with their various methods of avoiding NBC's coverage and watching the Olympics by other means. Great. Good for you. Who cares? If you hate NBC so much, go ahead and find a way to watch illegally. (My other favorite criticism is that they focus too much on the American athletes. The American network focuses on the American athletes. How dare they!)
Now, I'm not saying NBC should be completely immune from criticism for its coverage of the Olympics so far. There was no reason to cut out that section of the Opening Ceremony to show Ryan Seacrest's interview with Michael Phelps, which seemed oddly placed in the middle of the broadcast. They ran a spolier for the Today Show that gave away the fact Missy Franklin won a gold medal in a race they hadn't shown yet. There's no reason to make Kerri and Misty play the 11 p.m. local time match if you're tape-delaying them for prime time anyway. And the live streaming has certainly had its share of problems (which led to one Tweet that I actually found pretty funny: "NBC introduces a new Olympic event...buffering.")
The only complaints that I find valid, though, are the ones about the live streaming. The buffering is definitely a problem. You also need to have a valid cable package that includes all of the NBC cable channels in order to access the webstream, so anybody who doesn't have cable can't watch the Olympics online even if they want to, which is unfortunate. I'm also not sure how I feel about waiting to archive the live broadcast of the stuff they're going to show on the broadcast network until after it airs. I get it. I'm just not sure how I feel about it.
My "favorite" criticism that I've read so far, though came from Bob Raissman in today's New York Daily News. He basically said that NBC needs to figure something out for 2016 because people "won't stand for it anymore." Where are the 2016 Olympics again? Oh, that's right. Brazil. What's the time difference between New York and Brazil? One hour. They're not going to have this same problem in Rio.
So, you want live swimming in prime time. Fine. You'll get it in Rio. Although, I'm sure people will find a way to complain about that, too.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Olympic Bonanza
That Opening Ceremony last night was certainly spectacular. The highlight had to be the Queen and James Bond, but I also loved that unique way of lighting the cauldron. After all that back-and-forth about who would be the final torchbearer, the answer ended up being "None of the above." The slogan of the London Games is Inspire a Generation. No better way to do that than having seven young athletes do the honors. It was also cool that they turned those 204 bowl-things into the Olympic Cauldron, although I'm kind of confused as to how it'll be displayed prominently for all to see throughout the Games. In Vancouver, they had a second caludron located at a different place in the city. No indication of something like that in London, but they have to do something.
Then today the Games got underway with wall-to-wall action. Literally. NBC is offering every event live online for the first time, but with the amount of coverage that was on the air today, I'm not really sure how much that's needed. On the various NBC TV networks, I've watched swimming, cycling, basketball, volleyball, beach volleyball, archery, fencing, soccer, tennis, rowing, handball, badminton and table tennis today alone, with gymnastics and weightlifting both on tap later. I did take advantage of the opportunity to watch the swimming finals live online, though.
I don't know if it's just me or if they've been having problems all day, but watching online wasn't easy. I continually had buffering and freezing problems and had to reboot several times. That could be a major issue for NBC if I'm not the only person that happened to. Regardless, when I was able to watch it, I thought the online coverage was very good. All they're doing is picking up the world feed, but they have a picture-in-picture type thing and everything was archived right away.
As for the competition on Day One, NBC got going early, coming on the air at 5 a.m. for live coverage of the men's road race. Now, the men's road race is traditionally one of the first events of the Olympics, but am I the only person who thinks it was unfair to make these guys compete on the first day? A good number of them were in the Tour de France, a three-week race that ended on Sunday. The Olympic road race is basically a stage of the Tour de France, except slightly longer. With the end of the Tour and the start of the Olympics so close to each other, I would've given the athletes a little more time off.
For all the stink that was made in the British media about the new rule that women's beach volleyball players are no longer required to wear bikinis, it all seems to be (in the words of Shakespeare) much ado about nothing. There were six women's matches today, and 10 of the teams wore bikinis. The only ones that didn't were Kerri and Misty (who wore bikini bottoms and long-sleeved tops) and the Australian team that they played against. At NBC's request, that match started at 11 p.m. local time. When it was probably in like the mid-60s. Be careful what you wish for, NBC. And since the Walsh/May match is being shown on tape in primetime anyway, what difference did it make what time it started?
Wimbledon looks weird. They said that the grounds would look different for the Olympics, and they weren't lying. Instead of the traditional green, the walls are pink. Instead of white, the players are wearing all different colors. The scoreboards even look different. I know it's not Wimbledon, but I still had to do a double-take. I'm impressed with the way the courts look, though. All of the grass on the outer courts looks like it does at the start of Wimbledon, and the grass on the baseline at Centre Court is only slightly chewed up (it's in the same condition as Wednesday at Wimbledon).
Regardless of Wimbledon's makeover, these Games promise to be memorable if for no other reason than all the historic venues. The road race began and ended at Buckingham Palace. Beach volleyball is being played at Horse Guards Parade, which is where the Queen's Jubilee celebration was held. Indoor volleyball at Earls Court, a venue in which every British rock artist/group has performed. Archery's in the centuries-old Lord's Cricket Ground. Oh yeah, and rowing's at Eton Dorney, which is located at Eton College, where Princes William and Harry went to school. And that's just some of them!
In all the team sports that started today (basketball, volleyball and handball), it was the women in action. As a result, the men's finals in those three sports will be on the last day of the Games. Why not stagger it a little bit? Have at least one of the men's team sports play on the first day. (In an unrelated thought, I was watching a handball game, and it was Norway vs. France. The U.S. hasn't qualified in either men's or women's handball since they both automatically qualified as hosts in 1996. I want to know why this is. Hasn't every kid in America had to play team handball in gym class at least once in their life?)
Finally, SPOILER ALERT! Ryan Lochte won the first American gold medal in the men's 400 IM. That probably doesn't seem like news. That's because it's not. This part's the news: Michael Phelps finished fourth. It's the first time Phelps didn't medal in an Olympic race since he finished fifth in the 200 butterfly in Sydney. He barely got into the final and had to swim in lane 8 as a result. Phelps didn't look good in the morning, and he looked worse at night. He never challenged Lochte and barely kept pace with the guys who won the silver and bronze. I knew with 25 meters left that he wasn't going to medal. Hopefully this isn't an indication of what's to come for Phelps in London, but round one goes to Lochte.
Then today the Games got underway with wall-to-wall action. Literally. NBC is offering every event live online for the first time, but with the amount of coverage that was on the air today, I'm not really sure how much that's needed. On the various NBC TV networks, I've watched swimming, cycling, basketball, volleyball, beach volleyball, archery, fencing, soccer, tennis, rowing, handball, badminton and table tennis today alone, with gymnastics and weightlifting both on tap later. I did take advantage of the opportunity to watch the swimming finals live online, though.
I don't know if it's just me or if they've been having problems all day, but watching online wasn't easy. I continually had buffering and freezing problems and had to reboot several times. That could be a major issue for NBC if I'm not the only person that happened to. Regardless, when I was able to watch it, I thought the online coverage was very good. All they're doing is picking up the world feed, but they have a picture-in-picture type thing and everything was archived right away.
As for the competition on Day One, NBC got going early, coming on the air at 5 a.m. for live coverage of the men's road race. Now, the men's road race is traditionally one of the first events of the Olympics, but am I the only person who thinks it was unfair to make these guys compete on the first day? A good number of them were in the Tour de France, a three-week race that ended on Sunday. The Olympic road race is basically a stage of the Tour de France, except slightly longer. With the end of the Tour and the start of the Olympics so close to each other, I would've given the athletes a little more time off.
For all the stink that was made in the British media about the new rule that women's beach volleyball players are no longer required to wear bikinis, it all seems to be (in the words of Shakespeare) much ado about nothing. There were six women's matches today, and 10 of the teams wore bikinis. The only ones that didn't were Kerri and Misty (who wore bikini bottoms and long-sleeved tops) and the Australian team that they played against. At NBC's request, that match started at 11 p.m. local time. When it was probably in like the mid-60s. Be careful what you wish for, NBC. And since the Walsh/May match is being shown on tape in primetime anyway, what difference did it make what time it started?
Wimbledon looks weird. They said that the grounds would look different for the Olympics, and they weren't lying. Instead of the traditional green, the walls are pink. Instead of white, the players are wearing all different colors. The scoreboards even look different. I know it's not Wimbledon, but I still had to do a double-take. I'm impressed with the way the courts look, though. All of the grass on the outer courts looks like it does at the start of Wimbledon, and the grass on the baseline at Centre Court is only slightly chewed up (it's in the same condition as Wednesday at Wimbledon).
Regardless of Wimbledon's makeover, these Games promise to be memorable if for no other reason than all the historic venues. The road race began and ended at Buckingham Palace. Beach volleyball is being played at Horse Guards Parade, which is where the Queen's Jubilee celebration was held. Indoor volleyball at Earls Court, a venue in which every British rock artist/group has performed. Archery's in the centuries-old Lord's Cricket Ground. Oh yeah, and rowing's at Eton Dorney, which is located at Eton College, where Princes William and Harry went to school. And that's just some of them!
In all the team sports that started today (basketball, volleyball and handball), it was the women in action. As a result, the men's finals in those three sports will be on the last day of the Games. Why not stagger it a little bit? Have at least one of the men's team sports play on the first day. (In an unrelated thought, I was watching a handball game, and it was Norway vs. France. The U.S. hasn't qualified in either men's or women's handball since they both automatically qualified as hosts in 1996. I want to know why this is. Hasn't every kid in America had to play team handball in gym class at least once in their life?)
Finally, SPOILER ALERT! Ryan Lochte won the first American gold medal in the men's 400 IM. That probably doesn't seem like news. That's because it's not. This part's the news: Michael Phelps finished fourth. It's the first time Phelps didn't medal in an Olympic race since he finished fifth in the 200 butterfly in Sydney. He barely got into the final and had to swim in lane 8 as a result. Phelps didn't look good in the morning, and he looked worse at night. He never challenged Lochte and barely kept pace with the guys who won the silver and bronze. I knew with 25 meters left that he wasn't going to medal. Hopefully this isn't an indication of what's to come for Phelps in London, but round one goes to Lochte.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Olympic Medal Predictions
She wasn't on my list of candidates, but I think Mariel Zagunis is a fantastic choice as the U.S. flag bearer. With Zagunis being selected, one of the things everybody has begun pointing out is that there are eight more women on the American team than men. While this is significant, the fact that it's only eight seems kind of low to me. Especially considering the fact that the U.S. women qualified and the men didn't in two of the team sports: soccer and field hockey. That's a significant swing right there alone.
Regardless, the selection of Zagunis is more than appropriate. She's a two-time defending gold medalist, and favored to win a third. This year is also the 40th anniversary of Title IX. Combining all of those factors, it wouldn't have made sense to have a male flag bearer.
Now on to the matter at hand: my medal predictions. The media has been making a big deal about the fact that China won more gold medals than the U.S. in Beijing (while seemingly ignoring the fact that the Americans topped the overall medal tally), and some have begun to wonder if the Chinese will overtake the Americans atop the medal standings. Some even think Russia might challenge the U.S. and China for overall supremacy.
There's this guy in Italy who makes medal projections prior to every Olympics, and he's usually pretty close. But this time he's way off. He has the U.S. finishing in the 70s! Seeing as the U.S. medal haul has been in the 90s or 100s at every Olympics since 1960 (when it was 71), except for the boycotted 1980 Games, I would figure that's a more realistic number.
Everyone also seems to be ignoring that China was the benificiary of tremendous home field advantage four years ago. That's one of the primary reasons why they won 51 gold medals. I'm not saying China isn't a budding Olympic powerhouse. You'd have to be a fool to think otherwise. But you'd also have to be a fool to think the Chinese will match their record haul from Beijing without the crazy support of the home crowd. Half of their medals in Beijing were gold for crying out loud! So, do I think China will surpass the U.S. atop both the gold and overall medal table? It'll be close, but no and no. I think China will end up closer to Russia than the U.S.
Great Britain's goal for its home Olympics is to finish fourth overall. This is a very realistic aspiration, and one that's certainly achievable. In fact, I'd be surprised if Great Britain didn't end up fourth (just like they did in 2008). They're always among the top nations anyway, and the home field advantage should be good for a few more golds and a few more medals overall. The British are strong in a number of sports, and I think 60 or more medals is doable. They haven't put a number on the total they're looking for, but they jumped from 30 in Athens to 47 in Beijing. Another jump like that would be 64. At the very least, they'll end up in the 50s, which should be enough to finish ahead of Germany and Australia.
As for the rest of the top 10, it should be the usual suspects. Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Italy and South Korea. Where Brazil finishes will be interesting, though. Can the Brazilians crack the Top 10? When it's their turn to host coming up four years from now, Brazil is going to be a player. I'm curious to see what they'll do here. I don't see Brazil finishing in the Top 10 (which should be the goal for the home team in Rio), but I'll definitely keep an eye on that medal count. I'm thinking low 20s, which would probably put Brazil in 11th place overall.
Before I unveil my Top 10, just a few housekeeping items to get out of the way. I have 83 countries winning medals, 49 of them winning at least one gold. I've got Cyprus (gold), Jordan (gold), Albania (silver, bronze), Botswana (silver), Grenada (silver), Gabon (bronze) and Malta (bronze) all winning Olympic medals for the first time.
Now, for my Top 10 (the numbers are gold, silver, bronze, total):
Regardless, the selection of Zagunis is more than appropriate. She's a two-time defending gold medalist, and favored to win a third. This year is also the 40th anniversary of Title IX. Combining all of those factors, it wouldn't have made sense to have a male flag bearer.
Now on to the matter at hand: my medal predictions. The media has been making a big deal about the fact that China won more gold medals than the U.S. in Beijing (while seemingly ignoring the fact that the Americans topped the overall medal tally), and some have begun to wonder if the Chinese will overtake the Americans atop the medal standings. Some even think Russia might challenge the U.S. and China for overall supremacy.
There's this guy in Italy who makes medal projections prior to every Olympics, and he's usually pretty close. But this time he's way off. He has the U.S. finishing in the 70s! Seeing as the U.S. medal haul has been in the 90s or 100s at every Olympics since 1960 (when it was 71), except for the boycotted 1980 Games, I would figure that's a more realistic number.
Everyone also seems to be ignoring that China was the benificiary of tremendous home field advantage four years ago. That's one of the primary reasons why they won 51 gold medals. I'm not saying China isn't a budding Olympic powerhouse. You'd have to be a fool to think otherwise. But you'd also have to be a fool to think the Chinese will match their record haul from Beijing without the crazy support of the home crowd. Half of their medals in Beijing were gold for crying out loud! So, do I think China will surpass the U.S. atop both the gold and overall medal table? It'll be close, but no and no. I think China will end up closer to Russia than the U.S.
Great Britain's goal for its home Olympics is to finish fourth overall. This is a very realistic aspiration, and one that's certainly achievable. In fact, I'd be surprised if Great Britain didn't end up fourth (just like they did in 2008). They're always among the top nations anyway, and the home field advantage should be good for a few more golds and a few more medals overall. The British are strong in a number of sports, and I think 60 or more medals is doable. They haven't put a number on the total they're looking for, but they jumped from 30 in Athens to 47 in Beijing. Another jump like that would be 64. At the very least, they'll end up in the 50s, which should be enough to finish ahead of Germany and Australia.
As for the rest of the top 10, it should be the usual suspects. Germany, Japan, Australia, France, Italy and South Korea. Where Brazil finishes will be interesting, though. Can the Brazilians crack the Top 10? When it's their turn to host coming up four years from now, Brazil is going to be a player. I'm curious to see what they'll do here. I don't see Brazil finishing in the Top 10 (which should be the goal for the home team in Rio), but I'll definitely keep an eye on that medal count. I'm thinking low 20s, which would probably put Brazil in 11th place overall.
Before I unveil my Top 10, just a few housekeeping items to get out of the way. I have 83 countries winning medals, 49 of them winning at least one gold. I've got Cyprus (gold), Jordan (gold), Albania (silver, bronze), Botswana (silver), Grenada (silver), Gabon (bronze) and Malta (bronze) all winning Olympic medals for the first time.
Now, for my Top 10 (the numbers are gold, silver, bronze, total):
- United States 43-29-26 (98)
- China 35-27-24 (86)
- Russia 25-22-36 (83)
- Great Britain 21-14-25 (60)
- Japan 10-18-18 (46)
- Germany 17-15-13 (45)
- Australia 15-15-11 (41)
- France 11-9-13 (33)
- Italy 10-9-18 (27)
- South Korea 9-7-9 (25)
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Olympic Odds & Ends
We're just three days away from the start of the London Games! (Although, technically the Olympics start tomorrow with the U.S. women's soccer team playing France.) As you've probably guessed, I've had full-blown Olympic Fever for a while now. I'm beyond ready to go. Friday night can't come fast enough.
Anyway, I'll have my official medal predictions tomorrow, as well as a few other thoughts, but first here are some tidbits from the days leading up to the Games that I found interesting:
Anyway, I'll have my official medal predictions tomorrow, as well as a few other thoughts, but first here are some tidbits from the days leading up to the Games that I found interesting:
- They've made the decision on the final torchbearer, although, of course, that person won't be revealed until the end of the Opening Ceremony. Most think it's down to the great rower Steve Redgrave or decathlete Daley Thompson. My choice would still be Roger Bannister, but if it is between those two, I hope it's Redgrave. Thompson has turned this into a war of words, saying that Redgrave wasn't as great an athlete as he was because Thompson did the decathlon and Redgrave was "just a rower." (I invite Daley Thompson to try rowing and tell me how easy it is.) That's completely uncalled for. That's not what it's about. Just being in the discussion to light the Olympic Cauldron is an honor.
- Speaking of the Opening Ceremony, the IOC made the unprecedented decision of allowing marathoner Guor Marial to compete in London under the Olympic flag. Marial is from South Sudan, which just became a nation a few months ago and doesn't have a National Olympic Committee yet. He lives in the U.S., but doesn't have American citizenship. Sudan invited him to run for them, but seeing as South Sudan just broke away from Sudan, he declined. But instead of making the "Man Without a Country" sit out the Games because of politics, the IOC did the right thing. He won't win a medal, but could finish in the top 20.
- Unfortunately, politics always come into play when the Opening Ceremony is involved. IOC President Jacques Rogge deined Israel's request to have a moment of silence for the victims of the 1972 terrorist attack during the Opening Ceremony. They had a ceremony at the Olympic Village on Monday instead. I can kind of see the thought process that the Opening Ceremony is a celebration, but you still have to think there could be a place to work in a moment of silence. Bob Costas has called the decision "baffling" and "insensitive," and he plans on saying as much when the Israeli team is marching into the stadium.
- For some reason, they made it a point to mention on NBCOlympics.com that the U.S. women's soccer team won't be marching in the Opening Ceremony. I'm not sure why this qualifies as "news," since for me it falls into the "Duh!" category. The France game is in Glasgow, Scotland, and they have another game in Glasgow on Saturday against Colombia. So, yeah, flying to London for the Opening Ceremony on Friday night, then going back to Glasgow really wouldn't have been the smartest of ideas.
- The U.S. coaches won't be attending the Opening Ceremony, either. In an attempt to get the entire thing done in less than three hours, they're limiting the team processions to just athletes. I have no problem with this. The athletes are the ones people want to see, and they're the ones who deserve this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. What isn't clear, however, is if the "no coaches" thing only applies to the large delegations. If it does, that isn't right. Either no coaches are allowed to march or all of them should be.
- Details of the Opening Ceremony have been leaking all over the place, and they announced last week that at least a half hour of the cultural portion had to be cut entirely. The ceremony doesn't start until 9:00 local time and the Tube stops at 12:30. Since they're anticipating a majority of the fans using public transportation, it has to be over early enough for them to be able to get home. (Why don't they just keep the Tube running a little later?) And they're evidently going to use some sort of "counter" during the Parade of Nations to make sure the athletes don't delay the Ceremony by walking too slow.
- There are some transportation problems. Two separate buses taking athletes from Heathrow to the Olympic Village got lost last week. My favorite reaction to this hiccup was British Prime Minster David Cameron saying that the Australian team "got a better tour of London than you could pay for." London's cabbies are also upset that they can't take the designated "Olympic lanes" on major roadways. Their flimsy reasoning is that "London is a working city and people need to get around." The cabbies have known this was going to be a "problem" ever since London got the Games seven years ago. They've had plenty of time to come up with some sort of alternative plans, so my advice is, "Get over it!"
- The security firm that they hired didn't train enough people. As a result, they're short on security personnel. Cops have had to be reassigned, and they've even called in the good old American TSA to help out.
- From what I can tell, the live streaming on NBCOlympics.com doesn't include a simulcast of the broadcast network, but it does for all of NBC's cable channels. And it doesn't look like you can watch the Opening Ceremony, which starts at 4:00 New York time, online. We've got to wait for the TV coverage at 7:30.
- Since he's a pansy, Rafael Nadal has withdrawn from the tennis tournament. The defending gold medalist, he was supposed to be Spain's flag bearer. But Nadal feels "he won't be competitive." I'm capable of reading between the lines. He'd rather be a punk and not even show up than lose to somebody he's supposed to beat. And you wonder why I hate Nadal...
- Lastly, just in time for the Olympics, the IAAF has modified track & field's controversial false start rule. The current rule is that any athlete who false starts is immediately disqualified. They've modified it slightly to say that a twitch or slight movement while the runners are still in the blocks isn't necessarily a false start unless their hand crosses the line or their foot comes off the blocks. This is 100 percent a reaction to last year's World Championships, when Usain Bolt was DQed in the 100-meter final (which was a legimitate false start). They don't want a repeat in London. Usain Bolt is the biggest star in track & field. They can't run the risk of him getting disqualified because of a false start.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
The Penn State Saga
With today's announcements by the Penn State Board of Trustees and the NCAA, it appears like we'll finally be allowed to move on from the disgusting scandal that's taken place in Happy Valley over the past year. Penn State won't be getting the NCAA's "death penalty." Which it shouldn't. Joe Paterno's name is staying on the library. Which it should. The statue in front of Beaver Stadium has been taken down. Which was necessary.
First, the "death penalty." The NCAA will announce what will likely be heavy sanctions against the program tomorrow, but I was never one who thought Penn State deserved to lose football entirely for a year. I know that's not the most popular of positions, but let me explain why. For starters, the NCAA is very hesitant to hand out the death penalty. They've only done it once. 25 years ago. When SMU's blatant cheating, and not even trying to cover it up, even after repeatedly being told to stop had gotten so out of control they had no other choice.
It took SMU two decades to even be competitive again. That's the reason the NCAA hasn't issued another death penalty since, and probably never will again. The closest they've come since was when Baylor's men's basketball team wasn't allowed to play any non-conference games in 2005-06 after the murder of Patrick Dennehy.
Furthermore, at SMU, it was win at all costs, the rules be damned. They were cheating for the sole purpose of trying to win football games. What Jerry Sandusky was allowed to do for so long at Penn State was heinous in every sense of the word. He'll be spending the rest of his life where he belongs. But Penn State's decision to cover up his criminal actions (and give him a means to continue them) for so long, while certainly wrong, immoral, unethical, and, yes, even illegal, is nowhere near the same as what SMU did. Penn State was more concerned about the reputation of Joe Paterno and its football program than anything else, which led to tragic consequences.
I'm not saying Penn State shouldn't be punished for turning a blind eye to a monster for so long. But the death penalty would've been too harsh. Everything Penn State's football team did on the field was above board. That's the difference. SMU was intentionally breaking the rules for the sole purpose of winning. The death penalty was the only way to stop that kind of behavior. What went on at Penn State, while horrifying, isn't an example of an out-of-control program. It's a culture of higher-ups who were more concerned with bad publicity than doing the right thing.
The main culprits in this scandal are already gone. Joe Paterno's dead. Jerry Sandusky's in jail. Graham Spainer and Tim Curley are likely to join him there soon. Several members of the Board are probably going to resign, too. The remaining 98 percent of the Penn State community knew nothing of these despicable acts until November. They're the ones who live and breathe Nittany Lions football. Football is this community's identity. Right or wrong, it's what they need to move forward and begin to heal.
Likewise, I personally didn't think the Joe Paterno statue needed to come down. But I understand that, my personal opinion aside, it had to come down. That statue was erected to celebrate Paterno breaking the all-time wins record, and was meant as a tribute to the many, many, many wonderful things he accomplished during four decades at the university. But its mere presence was too polarizing. Enough people wanted it down and weren't going to change their minds. Those angry masses weren't going to stop their protests until it came down.
I can see both sides of the statue debate, though. For Paterno's supporters, the statue stood for all the good he did. It became a rallying place, and it was the site of a vigil the night the coach died. However, Bobby Bowden's right. Since it was located at the entrance to the stadium, the first thing people would think of when they went to a Penn State football game wouldn't have been the great things Joe Paterno did. It would've inevitably been Jerry Sandusky. For a school and a community trying to move on from a horrible scandal that shocked the sports world, the only way to do that was to remove the statue.
There's currently a debate going on as to whether they move the statue to another location or leave it in storage. One of the options that seems to make the most sense is to move it to the library, which will rightfully keep the Paterno name. In explaining why they're leaving Paterno's name on the library, Penn State's Board rightfully reasoned that his legacy does still have to be honored in some way. That's true, but my reason for why Joe Paterno's name should stay on the library has nothing to do with his legacy. That library never would've been built without the millions of dollars that the Paterno family donated. Unless they're planning on giving all of that money back to the Paterno estate, he should be recognized as the library's donor.
Perhaps that's the best compromise. Joe Paterno's legacy will forever be clouded by one horrible mistake. But it's impossible to ignore the 40 years of good that he did for Penn State University. He did so much for the university, it would be disrespectful to simply erase his name and act as if he never existed. Healing will come with time. When all Penn State fans are ready to once again celebrate Joe Paterno's accomplishments, they'll be able to. In the library that bears his name.
First, the "death penalty." The NCAA will announce what will likely be heavy sanctions against the program tomorrow, but I was never one who thought Penn State deserved to lose football entirely for a year. I know that's not the most popular of positions, but let me explain why. For starters, the NCAA is very hesitant to hand out the death penalty. They've only done it once. 25 years ago. When SMU's blatant cheating, and not even trying to cover it up, even after repeatedly being told to stop had gotten so out of control they had no other choice.
It took SMU two decades to even be competitive again. That's the reason the NCAA hasn't issued another death penalty since, and probably never will again. The closest they've come since was when Baylor's men's basketball team wasn't allowed to play any non-conference games in 2005-06 after the murder of Patrick Dennehy.
Furthermore, at SMU, it was win at all costs, the rules be damned. They were cheating for the sole purpose of trying to win football games. What Jerry Sandusky was allowed to do for so long at Penn State was heinous in every sense of the word. He'll be spending the rest of his life where he belongs. But Penn State's decision to cover up his criminal actions (and give him a means to continue them) for so long, while certainly wrong, immoral, unethical, and, yes, even illegal, is nowhere near the same as what SMU did. Penn State was more concerned about the reputation of Joe Paterno and its football program than anything else, which led to tragic consequences.
I'm not saying Penn State shouldn't be punished for turning a blind eye to a monster for so long. But the death penalty would've been too harsh. Everything Penn State's football team did on the field was above board. That's the difference. SMU was intentionally breaking the rules for the sole purpose of winning. The death penalty was the only way to stop that kind of behavior. What went on at Penn State, while horrifying, isn't an example of an out-of-control program. It's a culture of higher-ups who were more concerned with bad publicity than doing the right thing.
The main culprits in this scandal are already gone. Joe Paterno's dead. Jerry Sandusky's in jail. Graham Spainer and Tim Curley are likely to join him there soon. Several members of the Board are probably going to resign, too. The remaining 98 percent of the Penn State community knew nothing of these despicable acts until November. They're the ones who live and breathe Nittany Lions football. Football is this community's identity. Right or wrong, it's what they need to move forward and begin to heal.
Likewise, I personally didn't think the Joe Paterno statue needed to come down. But I understand that, my personal opinion aside, it had to come down. That statue was erected to celebrate Paterno breaking the all-time wins record, and was meant as a tribute to the many, many, many wonderful things he accomplished during four decades at the university. But its mere presence was too polarizing. Enough people wanted it down and weren't going to change their minds. Those angry masses weren't going to stop their protests until it came down.
I can see both sides of the statue debate, though. For Paterno's supporters, the statue stood for all the good he did. It became a rallying place, and it was the site of a vigil the night the coach died. However, Bobby Bowden's right. Since it was located at the entrance to the stadium, the first thing people would think of when they went to a Penn State football game wouldn't have been the great things Joe Paterno did. It would've inevitably been Jerry Sandusky. For a school and a community trying to move on from a horrible scandal that shocked the sports world, the only way to do that was to remove the statue.
There's currently a debate going on as to whether they move the statue to another location or leave it in storage. One of the options that seems to make the most sense is to move it to the library, which will rightfully keep the Paterno name. In explaining why they're leaving Paterno's name on the library, Penn State's Board rightfully reasoned that his legacy does still have to be honored in some way. That's true, but my reason for why Joe Paterno's name should stay on the library has nothing to do with his legacy. That library never would've been built without the millions of dollars that the Paterno family donated. Unless they're planning on giving all of that money back to the Paterno estate, he should be recognized as the library's donor.
Perhaps that's the best compromise. Joe Paterno's legacy will forever be clouded by one horrible mistake. But it's impossible to ignore the 40 years of good that he did for Penn State University. He did so much for the university, it would be disrespectful to simply erase his name and act as if he never existed. Healing will come with time. When all Penn State fans are ready to once again celebrate Joe Paterno's accomplishments, they'll be able to. In the library that bears his name.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Are We In Europe?
If it seems like I'm contradicting myself by blogging about the NBA, you can thank David Stern. Some of the guy's statements/decisions are so stupid that I can't help myself. Take today for example. The NBA is going to allow advertisements on jerseys starting next year. Seriously? When did we move to Europe?
Advertisements on jerseys, of course, are nothing new. Every European soccer team has its jersey sponsor, which is the team's main source of revenue. That has extended to other sports and even national teams around the world. Not in North America, though. The North American major sports leagues have resisted the urge to make a little extra money in this way. (Stadium naming rights, for the most part, take care of the revenue stream that jersey sponsors in Europe cover.) That's one of the quaint little traditions of professional sports in the U.S. that is most endearing. You're not going to see any cheesy company name where the team's name and logo should be.
MLS opened up this whole can of worms when it started allowing jersey sponsors a few years ago. This didn't ruffle any feathers, though, mainly because it's soccer and that's what everybody's used to. Frankly, soccer jerseys look kind of weird without some sort of ad on the front. Then the WNBA got in on the act and nobody seemed to notice. Or care. Or both.
For both MLS and the WNBA, allowing jersey sponsors made sense. The franchises in those two leagues, the WNBA especially, don't generate anywhere near as much revenue from tickets, TV, etc., as the Big Four. They're wisely tapping into a vast source of potential revenue. You've even got some teams (like the Connecticut Sun) that are named after their primary sponsor. One of the reasons Stern gave for allowing jersey ads in the NBA next season is that it could generate as much as $100 million in additional revenue. When the NBA start needing to find ways to make extra money?
Bud Selig immediately came out and said that you're not going to see corporate logos on Major League Baseball uniforms anytime soon. His argument was the historical importance of baseball uniforms. Iconic uniforms like those of the Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox have been the same for generations. Mickey Mantle and Derek Jeter wore the same uniform. That's not insignificant to Yankees fans. If some corporation's logo was suddenly on the sleeve, more than a few people would be upset. (For the record, every Major League team except for the Yankees has a little Majestic logo on the left sleeve, as well as the MLB logo on the back.)
There's really no place for the NFL to put corporate logos, so we're probably safe there, too. (In the CFL, they put logos literally everywhere on the field. The next time you watch a CFL game, count how many advertisements are between the 50s. They put advertisements on the jerseys, too, but they only have room for small ones.) The NFL couldn't use the revenue thing as an excuse, either. They had a lockout to fight over $8 billion last year. Nobody's going to believe that NFL teams are short on cash.
The NHL's the one I'm worried about following suit, though. Junior leagues and professional leagues elsewhere have advertisements going all the way up and down both sleeves on the jerseys. Since the NHL is No. 4 among the Big Four, I don't think it's much of a leap to see them considering this. Perhaps the only saving grace is that hockey fans are the same as baseball fans when it comes to tradition. If the "C-h" logo of the Montreal Canadiens was suddenly replaced by a corporate logo, more than a few fans would have something to say about it. The NHL also has the ability to offer a sponsor putting its logo on a prominent place on the ice.
Not only do I think David Stern made a bad decision by allowing corporate sponsors to put their logos on NBA jerseys, I think he made a narrow-minded one. All he sees is the money that can be made. The potential sponsors are obviously going to eat it up, too. They'll love the exposure of being associated with an NBA team. But is it necessary? I highly doubt it.
More importantly, tradition should count for something. Unfortunately, David Stern and the NBA owners are more concerned about the almighty dollar.
Advertisements on jerseys, of course, are nothing new. Every European soccer team has its jersey sponsor, which is the team's main source of revenue. That has extended to other sports and even national teams around the world. Not in North America, though. The North American major sports leagues have resisted the urge to make a little extra money in this way. (Stadium naming rights, for the most part, take care of the revenue stream that jersey sponsors in Europe cover.) That's one of the quaint little traditions of professional sports in the U.S. that is most endearing. You're not going to see any cheesy company name where the team's name and logo should be.
MLS opened up this whole can of worms when it started allowing jersey sponsors a few years ago. This didn't ruffle any feathers, though, mainly because it's soccer and that's what everybody's used to. Frankly, soccer jerseys look kind of weird without some sort of ad on the front. Then the WNBA got in on the act and nobody seemed to notice. Or care. Or both.
For both MLS and the WNBA, allowing jersey sponsors made sense. The franchises in those two leagues, the WNBA especially, don't generate anywhere near as much revenue from tickets, TV, etc., as the Big Four. They're wisely tapping into a vast source of potential revenue. You've even got some teams (like the Connecticut Sun) that are named after their primary sponsor. One of the reasons Stern gave for allowing jersey ads in the NBA next season is that it could generate as much as $100 million in additional revenue. When the NBA start needing to find ways to make extra money?
Bud Selig immediately came out and said that you're not going to see corporate logos on Major League Baseball uniforms anytime soon. His argument was the historical importance of baseball uniforms. Iconic uniforms like those of the Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox have been the same for generations. Mickey Mantle and Derek Jeter wore the same uniform. That's not insignificant to Yankees fans. If some corporation's logo was suddenly on the sleeve, more than a few people would be upset. (For the record, every Major League team except for the Yankees has a little Majestic logo on the left sleeve, as well as the MLB logo on the back.)
There's really no place for the NFL to put corporate logos, so we're probably safe there, too. (In the CFL, they put logos literally everywhere on the field. The next time you watch a CFL game, count how many advertisements are between the 50s. They put advertisements on the jerseys, too, but they only have room for small ones.) The NFL couldn't use the revenue thing as an excuse, either. They had a lockout to fight over $8 billion last year. Nobody's going to believe that NFL teams are short on cash.
The NHL's the one I'm worried about following suit, though. Junior leagues and professional leagues elsewhere have advertisements going all the way up and down both sleeves on the jerseys. Since the NHL is No. 4 among the Big Four, I don't think it's much of a leap to see them considering this. Perhaps the only saving grace is that hockey fans are the same as baseball fans when it comes to tradition. If the "C-h" logo of the Montreal Canadiens was suddenly replaced by a corporate logo, more than a few fans would have something to say about it. The NHL also has the ability to offer a sponsor putting its logo on a prominent place on the ice.
Not only do I think David Stern made a bad decision by allowing corporate sponsors to put their logos on NBA jerseys, I think he made a narrow-minded one. All he sees is the money that can be made. The potential sponsors are obviously going to eat it up, too. They'll love the exposure of being associated with an NBA team. But is it necessary? I highly doubt it.
More importantly, tradition should count for something. Unfortunately, David Stern and the NBA owners are more concerned about the almighty dollar.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Unsung Yankees Heroes
Surprise! It's not an Olympic blog today. We're just a week away, so my attention will be completely London-focused soon enough. Instead, today's blog is going to be about my other favorite team--the New York Yankees.
It's kind of weird to think that the Yankees currently have the best record in baseball. For those of us who've watched the Yankees all season, it still seems like they haven't played their best baseball yet. Yet it also seems like all they do is win. Consider: they're a ridiculous 36-13 since May 21 (when they were 21-21) and they haven't scored fewer than three runs in a game since they were shut out in Anaheim on May 29. I think part of the reason it seems like they're struggling when they actually aren't is because the "stars" haven't been the ones producing.
Robinson Cano is having an MVP-like season, but I don't even think he's the Most Valuable Yankee this year. I've narrowed the field for that award to four guys, none of whom were expected to be big contributors this season. This quartet of unsung heroes--Rafael Soriano, Andruw Jones, Raul Ibanez and Eric Chavez--are the reason why the Yankees are in first place.
Nobody's ever going to debate the greatness of Mariano Rivera. Without question, he's the best closer in history. When he went down for the season in early May, it would've been easy to think the Yankees' chances were lost with him. But that hasn't been the case at all. One of the reasons they signed Rafael Soriano as a free agent prior to last season was as an insurance policy in case anything ever happened to Rivera. It's proven to be one of the smartest investments they've ever made. Because they haven't slipped a beat. Soriano hasn't made us forget about Rivera by any means (it would be impossible for someone to even try to do that), but he's certainly done more than an admirable job filling in for him. Mariano wants to come back this year, and thinks he can (a sentiment shared by pretty much nobody else). Regardless, thanks to Soriano, the Yankees can win this year even if he doesn't make it back. That's something I never thought I'd say when this season began.
My next two candidates for Yankee MVP are the left field tag team of Andruw Jones and Raul Ibanez. After Jesus Montero was traded to Seattle, the Yankees signed Ibanez to be the starting DH. They picked him over guys like former Yankees Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui because they wanted somebody who would also be able to play left field a couple times a week. Andruw Jones was supposed to have exactly the same role he had last year, extra outfielder and right-handed pinch hitter/DH.
Then Brett Gardner got hurt. As a result, either Ibanez or Jones has been in left field pretty much everyday, with the other usually in the lineup as the DH. And they're both hitting like they're still in their primes! Jones will never be a Gold Glove outfielder again, but offensively, he once again looks like the slugger who was bashing 40 home runs in the middle of the Atlanta lineup every year during the 90s-00s. Meanwhile, all Ibanez seems to do is hit two- or three-run bombs in clutch situations. An honorable mention could even go to Dwayne Wise, who normally only comes in as a defensive replacement for these two, but seems to have two hits every time he does start.
Finally, we've got Eric Chavez. I always loved watching Eric Chavez play when he was in Oakland, then his career was completely derailed by injury after injury. In his two years with the Yankees, Chavez hasn't had to be an everyday player, which has kept him healthy and productive. Chavez's greatest attribute is that he's an excellent defensive third baseman. Girardi can put him in the lineup at third and lose nothing defensively. Putting Chavez at third and DHing A-Rod has helped A-Rod, too. He's been able to stay healthier by not having to play the field everyday and, strangely, his numbers are better as a DH.
The biggest difference between this year's team and last year's is that the bench is significantly better. As I've pointed out here, I completely agree. That bench also includes Wise, Jayson Nix (who's been solid as the utility infielder) and Chris Stewart. As sad as it was to see Francisco Cervelli get sent down on literally the last day of Spring Training, it turns out bringing Stewart in was the right decision. It's important to give Russell Martin a break once in a while, especially since Martin hasn't been hitting at all.
Believe it or not, I think the Yankees are better now than they were at the start of the season. There's no rush for Brett Gardner to come back (they'll likely have to send Wise down when/if he does). This team looks like one that can win the World Series right now. That's because of a quartet of guys playing much larger roles this season than anybody thought they ever would.
It's kind of weird to think that the Yankees currently have the best record in baseball. For those of us who've watched the Yankees all season, it still seems like they haven't played their best baseball yet. Yet it also seems like all they do is win. Consider: they're a ridiculous 36-13 since May 21 (when they were 21-21) and they haven't scored fewer than three runs in a game since they were shut out in Anaheim on May 29. I think part of the reason it seems like they're struggling when they actually aren't is because the "stars" haven't been the ones producing.
Robinson Cano is having an MVP-like season, but I don't even think he's the Most Valuable Yankee this year. I've narrowed the field for that award to four guys, none of whom were expected to be big contributors this season. This quartet of unsung heroes--Rafael Soriano, Andruw Jones, Raul Ibanez and Eric Chavez--are the reason why the Yankees are in first place.
Nobody's ever going to debate the greatness of Mariano Rivera. Without question, he's the best closer in history. When he went down for the season in early May, it would've been easy to think the Yankees' chances were lost with him. But that hasn't been the case at all. One of the reasons they signed Rafael Soriano as a free agent prior to last season was as an insurance policy in case anything ever happened to Rivera. It's proven to be one of the smartest investments they've ever made. Because they haven't slipped a beat. Soriano hasn't made us forget about Rivera by any means (it would be impossible for someone to even try to do that), but he's certainly done more than an admirable job filling in for him. Mariano wants to come back this year, and thinks he can (a sentiment shared by pretty much nobody else). Regardless, thanks to Soriano, the Yankees can win this year even if he doesn't make it back. That's something I never thought I'd say when this season began.
My next two candidates for Yankee MVP are the left field tag team of Andruw Jones and Raul Ibanez. After Jesus Montero was traded to Seattle, the Yankees signed Ibanez to be the starting DH. They picked him over guys like former Yankees Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui because they wanted somebody who would also be able to play left field a couple times a week. Andruw Jones was supposed to have exactly the same role he had last year, extra outfielder and right-handed pinch hitter/DH.
Then Brett Gardner got hurt. As a result, either Ibanez or Jones has been in left field pretty much everyday, with the other usually in the lineup as the DH. And they're both hitting like they're still in their primes! Jones will never be a Gold Glove outfielder again, but offensively, he once again looks like the slugger who was bashing 40 home runs in the middle of the Atlanta lineup every year during the 90s-00s. Meanwhile, all Ibanez seems to do is hit two- or three-run bombs in clutch situations. An honorable mention could even go to Dwayne Wise, who normally only comes in as a defensive replacement for these two, but seems to have two hits every time he does start.
Finally, we've got Eric Chavez. I always loved watching Eric Chavez play when he was in Oakland, then his career was completely derailed by injury after injury. In his two years with the Yankees, Chavez hasn't had to be an everyday player, which has kept him healthy and productive. Chavez's greatest attribute is that he's an excellent defensive third baseman. Girardi can put him in the lineup at third and lose nothing defensively. Putting Chavez at third and DHing A-Rod has helped A-Rod, too. He's been able to stay healthier by not having to play the field everyday and, strangely, his numbers are better as a DH.
The biggest difference between this year's team and last year's is that the bench is significantly better. As I've pointed out here, I completely agree. That bench also includes Wise, Jayson Nix (who's been solid as the utility infielder) and Chris Stewart. As sad as it was to see Francisco Cervelli get sent down on literally the last day of Spring Training, it turns out bringing Stewart in was the right decision. It's important to give Russell Martin a break once in a while, especially since Martin hasn't been hitting at all.
Believe it or not, I think the Yankees are better now than they were at the start of the season. There's no rush for Brett Gardner to come back (they'll likely have to send Wise down when/if he does). This team looks like one that can win the World Series right now. That's because of a quartet of guys playing much larger roles this season than anybody thought they ever would.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Flagbearer Candidates
Now that the uniform controversy has been resolved, we move on to some Opening Ceremony-related pieces of business that actually matter. Who's going to receive the honor of carrying the American flag into Olympic Stadium?
A number of countries have already announced their flagbearers, many of whom are exactly who you would expect. Novak Djokovic (Serbia), Roger Federer (Switzerland) and Maria Sharapova (Russia), without a doubt the most well-known international sports figures in their respective nations were no-brainer selections. Canada's going with Simon Whitfield, the winner of the first Olympic triathlon in 2000 and the bronze medalist in Beijing.
The American process, of course, is a little more diplomatic. The way it usually works is that once the entire team arrives in London, the captains from each sport will have a meeting. Each captain will nominate one of their teammates, and the flagbearer is selected out of those choices. It's not always the most recognizable name. In 2008, the U.S. flagbearer was Lopez Lomong, who escaped life as a child soldier in Sudan before emigrating to the United States, becoming a citizen, and making the Olympic team. In 2004 it was veteran women's basketball player Dawn Staley.
So, it's safe to say that it probably won't necessarily be who you'd expect. It definitely won't be Michael Phelps or any of the other swimmers. For the most part, the swimmers, with a few exceptions, don't attend the Opening Ceremony because they have early-morning competition the next day. (That's true of athletes in some other sports, as well, but the swimmers are by far the most well-known athletes that will skip.) The same can be said for the soccer players. The preliminary games of the soccer tournament are being played throughout Great Britain.
With all that being said (and my strong feeling that it'll be an Olympic veteran), here are some candidates I think could be in the running to carry the U.S. flag into the stadium in London:
A number of countries have already announced their flagbearers, many of whom are exactly who you would expect. Novak Djokovic (Serbia), Roger Federer (Switzerland) and Maria Sharapova (Russia), without a doubt the most well-known international sports figures in their respective nations were no-brainer selections. Canada's going with Simon Whitfield, the winner of the first Olympic triathlon in 2000 and the bronze medalist in Beijing.
The American process, of course, is a little more diplomatic. The way it usually works is that once the entire team arrives in London, the captains from each sport will have a meeting. Each captain will nominate one of their teammates, and the flagbearer is selected out of those choices. It's not always the most recognizable name. In 2008, the U.S. flagbearer was Lopez Lomong, who escaped life as a child soldier in Sudan before emigrating to the United States, becoming a citizen, and making the Olympic team. In 2004 it was veteran women's basketball player Dawn Staley.
So, it's safe to say that it probably won't necessarily be who you'd expect. It definitely won't be Michael Phelps or any of the other swimmers. For the most part, the swimmers, with a few exceptions, don't attend the Opening Ceremony because they have early-morning competition the next day. (That's true of athletes in some other sports, as well, but the swimmers are by far the most well-known athletes that will skip.) The same can be said for the soccer players. The preliminary games of the soccer tournament are being played throughout Great Britain.
With all that being said (and my strong feeling that it'll be an Olympic veteran), here are some candidates I think could be in the running to carry the U.S. flag into the stadium in London:
- Troy Dumais, Diving-Dumais is on his fourth Olympic team, but has never medaled. The best he's done was fifth place on the springboard in Athens. Also in Athens, Dumais was second in the synchronized competition with his brother Justin when they failed their final dive and finished last. This is probably his last Olympics, and he'll be competing in both the individual and synchronized springboard events.
- Karen O'Connor, Equestrian-The oldest member of the entire 530-athlete strong U.S. Olympic team, Karen O'Connor is now a five-time Olympian. Like Dumais, she's never won Olympic gold (her husband, David, a fellow equestrian, does, however). She has a silver and a bronze from Sydney.
- Anna Tunnicliffe, Sailing-The defending Olympic champion in the laser radial class and last year's ISAF World Sailor of the Year, Tunnicliffe was born in England. Her family moved to Ohio when she was 12.
- Kim Rhode, Shooting-A great Olympic champion in a little-known sport, it would be so great to see Kim Rhode get the honor of carrying the flag at her fifth Olympics. The youngest member of the entire U.S. team in Atlanta, she won the gold in the double trap. After winning the bronze in Sydney, she took gold in the double trap again in Athens. They dropped that event from the Olympic program in Beijing, so she switched to the skeet. And won the silver. Yet, still, nobody's ever heard of her.
- Matt Emmons, Shooting-Yes, that's two athletes from shooting, but Matt Emmons would be just as deserving of the honor as Kim Rhode. Emmons is perhaps best known as the guy who's cost himself a gold medal twice. In Athens, after he'd already won the gold in the 50 meter rifle prone, Emmons was leading the three-positions competition with one round to go when he accidentally shot at the wrong target. The misfire dropped him to eighth. Then in Beijing, in the same event (and after taking silver in the prone), he was leading going into the last shot when he hit a target he'd already hit and ended up fourth.
- Steven Lopez, Taekwondo-Steven Lopez is arguably the greatest athlete in taekwondo history. A five-time world champion, he's won a medal in all three Olympics in which taekwondo has been contested. Lopez won gold in the 68 kg class in Sydney, then moved up to the 80 kg class in Athens and won again. He then took bronze in Beijing. My guess is this is Lopez's Olympic swan song, so it would be nice to see him get the honor.
- Serena Williams, Tennis-I don't think this one is likely, but if the U.S. wants to follow the lead of some other countries and go with a tennis player, Serena would have to be the choice. She just won her fifth Wimbledon crown and will be back at the All-England Club looking for her first Olympic gold in singles. She and Venus also won the Wimbledon doubles title, and they're the defending gold medalists (they also won Olympic gold in 2000). Oh, and they've added mixed doubles to the Olympic tennis program. She'll be playing with one of the Bryan brothers (I think Mike), so she has a chance at three gold medals in London.
- Bryshon Nellum, Track & Field-Sometimes the flag bearer is an Olympian who has an incredible story of overcoming adversity. I think Bryson Nellum would qualify under this criterion. Nellum was a wide receiver/sprinter at USC when he was shot in the leg by two gang members, forcing him to redshirt in 2009. He was told by doctors that he'd never again reach world-class speed, but Nellum proved them wrong. He won the Pac-12 and NCAA titles before securing a place on the Olympic team with a third-place finish at Trials.
Friday, July 13, 2012
The Uniform Controversy
Am I the only person who thinks Congress should worry about more important things (like actually running the country) than what country our Olympic team's Opening Ceremony uniforms were made in? They were made in China. So what? Why is this suddenly some massive national controversy?
Some senators tossed around words like "ashamed," "embarrassing," "dumb," "self-defeating" and "appalling." John Boehner went so far as to say, "They should know better." One of the reasons given for this criticism is that the uniforms were outsourced at a time when "so many Americans are unemployed." How is that Ralph Lauren's problem? Ralph Lauren, an American company mind you (it's not like they were designed by Li Ning, which happens to be based in China), has a contract with the USOC to produce the team's Opening Ceremonies uniforms. Ralph Lauren does much of its production in China. Now, I agree that the uniforms should've been made in America, but I'm not getting all bent out of shape about it.
And something that I think is being conveninetly forgotten here is that, unlike virtually every other National Olympic Committee, the USOC doesn't receive any government funding. None. The USOC gets its funding from the IOC, donations from private citizens, and, most importantly, corporate sponsors. Ralph Lauren is one of those corporate sponsors. As a part of the agreement, Ralph Lauren provides the U.S. Olympic team with its Ceremonies uniforms, as well as casual clothes to wear around the Olympic Village. Without this relationship, the USOC would spend into the millions trying to outfit more than 500 athletes, as well as all the coaches, officials and other members of the delegation.
Six senators went so far as to introduce a bill requiring the USOC (which, again, is basically a private entity and doesn't fall under the federal government's umbrella in any way) to have all future Ceremonies uniforms produced in America. While the bill is designed to take effect with the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, some are even calling on the USOC to "do the right thing" and scrap this year's uniforms entirely in favor of something made in America. (Senate majority leader Harry Reid wants to burn them and replace them with t-shirts that say "USA" across the front. Classy, Harry.) It evidently is irrelevant to them that, with the Olympics two weeks away, it would be completely impossible to do that at this point.
The USOC is under no obligation to use any specific manufacturer for anything. In fact, the USOC has so many agreements out there it's hard to keep track (Ralph Lauren designed the Ceremonies uniforms, but Nike designed a lot of the competition uniforms, as well as the outfits to be worn at medals ceremonies). That includes equipment. Would Congress rather the U.S. team have the best equipment available, regardless of where it's produced, or the cheap stuff that's Made in America?
To Ralph Lauren's credit, they didn't just ignore Congress' "concerns." The company, which is under contract with the USOC until 2020, has said that the 2014 uniforms will be American-made. Maybe that will calm down this ridiculous controversy that only became one because Congress decided to make a big deal about it.
In my opinion, if Congress wants to criticize anything about these uniforms, it shouldn't be the fact that they're made in China. It should be those stupid hats! Or the giant Ralph Lauren logo on the left breast. Or the giant gold buttons on the blazer. Or that the entire team will look like preppy snobs having tea at their yacht club. (This might be hard to believe, but, outside of the berets, I actually do kind of like them.)
As for where they're made, who cares? We'll still know what team they represent, and that's the most important thing. The "USA" on the front. Not the "USA" on the tag.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Hold Off Until 2026
Now that the USOC-IOC revenue sharing dispute is over, the U.S. is free and clear to once again bid for the Olympics. The 2020 Games will be awarded to either Istanbul, Madrid or Tokyo next year, meaning the 2022 Winter Olympics are the next one that the U.S. can bid for. However, the USOC has said it's going to wait until the 2024 Summer Games to submit its next Olympic bid.
There are obviously a number of cities that have announced they'd be interested in bidding for 2024. Included among them are the last two American cities to bid--New York and Chicago. New York, of course, was a finalist for this month's London Games back in 2005, while Chicago was considered the favorite to land the 2016 Games before its embarrassing first-round elimination in the final round of that vote in 2009. After that, the USOC decided not to bid again until the revenue sharing dispute was over. With that situation now settled, a 2024 bid seems likely.
New York and Chicago would both still be considered strong candidates. A New York bid would obviously have to be significantly different than the one that was proposed seven years ago (for starters, there are five new major league venues in the city, yet the lack of an Olympic Stadium remains a big problem). Chicago, meanwhile, doesn't need to change its bid much at all. Philadelphia and Los Angeles have also been mentioned, but Dallas is considered the early favorite among potential American bidders. I'm not really sure why. Dallas, obviously, is a major city that's more than capable of hosting an Olympics, but July/August in Texas? Does anybody think that would be a good idea? The heat issue is the biggest thing working against Doha in its attempts to host the Olympics. (For the record, I think the ideal Olympic host among American cities would be San Francisco.)
Whichever city ends up bidding will face some stiff competition, though. With the 2016 Games scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Africa remains the only continent to have never hosted the Olympics. The IOC would like that to change. South Africa is going to bid for 2024 (probably Durban). South Africa is likely to win.
But there's another potential 2024 bid city that the USOC needs to keep an eye on: Toronto. Toronto is an Olympic city in waiting and is hosting the 2015 Pan American Games. If those go well (I plan on being there for at least some of those Toronto Pan Am Games), and it would be shocking if they don't, Toronto will bid for 2024. Toronto will host the Olympics eventually. However, the IOC likes to spread the Olympics around, which means the U.S. would probably have to wait at least 16 years to host after Toronto. So, if Toronto's bid is successful for either 2024 or 2028, the earliest the U.S. could host an Olympics would likely be 2040. (The opposite is also true.)
All of that brings me to my point: the USOC would be smart to wait until the 2026 Winter Games to submit an Olympic bid. Salt Lake City and Denver have expressed the most interest in hosting those Games, which would be 24 years after Salt Lake City hosted the highly successful 2002 Games (which were the most recent Olympics held in the United States).
For several reasons, I think a 2026 bid has a much greater chance of success. The number of countries (or more importantly, continents) capable of hosting the Winter Olympics is extremely limited. With the 2018 Games in Asia and the 2022 Games likely headed to Europe, it would seem North America's next in line for 2026. Salt Lake City also has the track record, which helps. Denver is notorious as the only city in history to win an Olympics (1976), but give them back. However, enough time has passed that Denver won't have that held against a potential 2026 bid. And when you think winter sports in this country, you think of Colorado.
Most importantly, anybody capable of doing math knows that 2026 is a very significant year in U.S. history (that's one of the reasons Denver was originally awarded the 1976 Winter Games). Hopefully the IOC also grasps that significance. It would be cool (and appropriate) to begin the country's Sestercentennial with the Winter Olympics returning to U.S. soil.
The IOC knows the importance of bringing the Olympics back to the U.S. sooner rather than later. Personally, I think 2024 would be a mistake, though. It would be smart to wait until 2026.
There are obviously a number of cities that have announced they'd be interested in bidding for 2024. Included among them are the last two American cities to bid--New York and Chicago. New York, of course, was a finalist for this month's London Games back in 2005, while Chicago was considered the favorite to land the 2016 Games before its embarrassing first-round elimination in the final round of that vote in 2009. After that, the USOC decided not to bid again until the revenue sharing dispute was over. With that situation now settled, a 2024 bid seems likely.
New York and Chicago would both still be considered strong candidates. A New York bid would obviously have to be significantly different than the one that was proposed seven years ago (for starters, there are five new major league venues in the city, yet the lack of an Olympic Stadium remains a big problem). Chicago, meanwhile, doesn't need to change its bid much at all. Philadelphia and Los Angeles have also been mentioned, but Dallas is considered the early favorite among potential American bidders. I'm not really sure why. Dallas, obviously, is a major city that's more than capable of hosting an Olympics, but July/August in Texas? Does anybody think that would be a good idea? The heat issue is the biggest thing working against Doha in its attempts to host the Olympics. (For the record, I think the ideal Olympic host among American cities would be San Francisco.)
Whichever city ends up bidding will face some stiff competition, though. With the 2016 Games scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Africa remains the only continent to have never hosted the Olympics. The IOC would like that to change. South Africa is going to bid for 2024 (probably Durban). South Africa is likely to win.
But there's another potential 2024 bid city that the USOC needs to keep an eye on: Toronto. Toronto is an Olympic city in waiting and is hosting the 2015 Pan American Games. If those go well (I plan on being there for at least some of those Toronto Pan Am Games), and it would be shocking if they don't, Toronto will bid for 2024. Toronto will host the Olympics eventually. However, the IOC likes to spread the Olympics around, which means the U.S. would probably have to wait at least 16 years to host after Toronto. So, if Toronto's bid is successful for either 2024 or 2028, the earliest the U.S. could host an Olympics would likely be 2040. (The opposite is also true.)
All of that brings me to my point: the USOC would be smart to wait until the 2026 Winter Games to submit an Olympic bid. Salt Lake City and Denver have expressed the most interest in hosting those Games, which would be 24 years after Salt Lake City hosted the highly successful 2002 Games (which were the most recent Olympics held in the United States).
For several reasons, I think a 2026 bid has a much greater chance of success. The number of countries (or more importantly, continents) capable of hosting the Winter Olympics is extremely limited. With the 2018 Games in Asia and the 2022 Games likely headed to Europe, it would seem North America's next in line for 2026. Salt Lake City also has the track record, which helps. Denver is notorious as the only city in history to win an Olympics (1976), but give them back. However, enough time has passed that Denver won't have that held against a potential 2026 bid. And when you think winter sports in this country, you think of Colorado.
Most importantly, anybody capable of doing math knows that 2026 is a very significant year in U.S. history (that's one of the reasons Denver was originally awarded the 1976 Winter Games). Hopefully the IOC also grasps that significance. It would be cool (and appropriate) to begin the country's Sestercentennial with the Winter Olympics returning to U.S. soil.
The IOC knows the importance of bringing the Olympics back to the U.S. sooner rather than later. Personally, I think 2024 would be a mistake, though. It would be smart to wait until 2026.
Monday, July 9, 2012
2012 Midseason Awards
The All-Star Break is upon us, which means we've reached the unofficial halfway point of the baseball season. (Of course, everybody's more than halfway done, but let's not focus on technicalities.) As usual, we've had some surprises. The Phillies and Red Sox got old in a hurry. The Tigers aren't running away with the AL Central. The Orioles, Pirates and Mets are good. And there have obviously been some standouts. It's time for my annual midseason awards.
AMERICAN LEAGUE
MVP: Josh Hamilton, Rangers-For a while, Adam Jones of the Orioles was giving Hamilton a run for his money, and Robinson Cano has made a late push into the discussion. But Hamilton's body of work has been the best and most consistent in the American League this season. His April was just ridiculous! And Hamilton has carried it on (the guy's got 75 RBIs at the All-Star Break). It also can't be ignored that he's the best player on the Rangers, who were arguably the best team in the American League for most of the first half. If Hamilton can bounce back from his injury and put up the same kind of numbers he had prior to the All-Star Break, he could easily win his second MVP in three years.
Cy Young: Jered Weaver, Angels-This was probably the toughest call of the eight awards. There's no clear frontrunner for AL Cy Young right now. You could easily make an argument for a Chris Sale or a David Price or even last year's winner (and MVP), Justin Verlander. But I'm going with Jered Weaver. He threw the first of the five no-hitters this year, but that really has nothing to do with my selection. The 10-1 record, 1.96 ERA, .188 batting average against and 0.90 WHIP are the reasons why. When the Angels were struggling early in the season, Weaver was the one constant. He was pitching like the true ace he is. Those other guys have also been great, but I think Weaver is just ahead of the pack right now.
Rookie: Mike Trout, Angels-I don't want to give Jered Weaver too much credit for the Angels' jump back into contention, though. The real reason Anaheim got its act together is because Mike Trout got called up from Triple-A in May. He got a cup of coffee in the Majors last year, but now he's in Anaheim to stay. All he's done since getting called up is hit .341, which leads the American League, and steal 26 bases, an Angels' first-half record, while playing a spectacular center field. Oh yeah, Anaheim was 6-14 when he got called up. They're 42-26 since and lead the AL wild card race.
Manager: Robin Ventura, White Sox-With all due respect to Buck Showalter and Joe Girardi, the best managing job in the American League this season has been done by Robin Ventura in Chicago. Ventura has never managed before at any level, yet he's got his team in first place in a division that was supposed to be dominated by the Tigers. Under any other circumstances, I'd say Buck Showalter is the AL Manager of the Year at midseason (if the Orioles were still in first place he might have the edge), but the White Sox' season has been too impressive to ignore what Ventura's done.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
MVP: Joey Votto, Reds-There's certainly an abundance of MVP candidates in the National League, but Cincinnati's smooth-swinging first baseman is my call. Albert and Prince both left for the AL during the offseason, leaving Votto as the best first baseman in the National League. And it's not even close! He leads NL first basemen in every category. But he doesn't just compare well to first basemen. Votto's numbers are up there among the NL leaders in everything. .348, 14 HR, 48 RBIs, 100 hits, 35 doubles, an NL-best .471 on-base percentage, a .617 slugging percentage. And what I think is most impressive, Votto has more walks (65) than strikeouts (64). With all due respect to Matt Kemp, Joey Votto might be the best player in the National League.
Cy Young: R.A. Dickey, Mets-Probably the biggest reason why the Mets are in contention is because of their starting pitching...and the Mets' best starting pitcher has been R.A. Dickey. Dickey's stats are as amazing as his story. Almost out of the Majors a few years ago, he developed a knuckleball, and with Tim Wakefield gone, he's now the only knuckleballer left. The 38-year-old Dickey is 12-1 with a 2.40 ERA and has somehow struck out 123 guys in 120 innings. Opponents are hitting just .203 off him, and Dickey threw back-to-back one-hitters in May. Then there was that scoreless inning streak. The most talked-about pitcher of the first half, a lot of people thought Dickey would start the All-Star Game.
Rookie: Bryce Harper, Nationals-Possibly the only player in the National League that's been talked about more than R.A. Dickey this season is Bryce Harper. The dude's 19. He should be on his summer vacation between his freshman and sophomore years of college. Instead he's the youngest All-Star position player in history. Sixty-three games into his Major League career, Harper has 70 hits, 27 of which were for extra bases, and 43 runs. Yeah, he's slugging .472. As a rookie! Everybody knew that Washington was going to get really good once Harper, Strasburg, et al. were in the Majors for good. Well, that time is now. The Nationals are in first place.
Manager: Clint Hurdle, Pirates-Just like in the American League, there are a number of National League managers who are worthy of Manager of the Year consideration. Davey Johnson. Terry Collins. Don Mattingly. Bruce Bochy. But they all pale in comparison to Clint Hurdle. Ladies and gentlemen, the Pittsburgh Pirates are in first place at the All-Star Break! Sure they've got talent (20 years of high draft picks will do that for you), but they're finally putting it all together at the Major League level. Hurdle took the Rockies to the World Series five years ago. The goals in Pittsburgh are a little more modest. They'll settle for their first winning season since 1993. If the Pirates do that (or more), Hurdle's a lock to win the real Manager of the Year award in November.
AMERICAN LEAGUE
MVP: Josh Hamilton, Rangers-For a while, Adam Jones of the Orioles was giving Hamilton a run for his money, and Robinson Cano has made a late push into the discussion. But Hamilton's body of work has been the best and most consistent in the American League this season. His April was just ridiculous! And Hamilton has carried it on (the guy's got 75 RBIs at the All-Star Break). It also can't be ignored that he's the best player on the Rangers, who were arguably the best team in the American League for most of the first half. If Hamilton can bounce back from his injury and put up the same kind of numbers he had prior to the All-Star Break, he could easily win his second MVP in three years.
Cy Young: Jered Weaver, Angels-This was probably the toughest call of the eight awards. There's no clear frontrunner for AL Cy Young right now. You could easily make an argument for a Chris Sale or a David Price or even last year's winner (and MVP), Justin Verlander. But I'm going with Jered Weaver. He threw the first of the five no-hitters this year, but that really has nothing to do with my selection. The 10-1 record, 1.96 ERA, .188 batting average against and 0.90 WHIP are the reasons why. When the Angels were struggling early in the season, Weaver was the one constant. He was pitching like the true ace he is. Those other guys have also been great, but I think Weaver is just ahead of the pack right now.
Rookie: Mike Trout, Angels-I don't want to give Jered Weaver too much credit for the Angels' jump back into contention, though. The real reason Anaheim got its act together is because Mike Trout got called up from Triple-A in May. He got a cup of coffee in the Majors last year, but now he's in Anaheim to stay. All he's done since getting called up is hit .341, which leads the American League, and steal 26 bases, an Angels' first-half record, while playing a spectacular center field. Oh yeah, Anaheim was 6-14 when he got called up. They're 42-26 since and lead the AL wild card race.
Manager: Robin Ventura, White Sox-With all due respect to Buck Showalter and Joe Girardi, the best managing job in the American League this season has been done by Robin Ventura in Chicago. Ventura has never managed before at any level, yet he's got his team in first place in a division that was supposed to be dominated by the Tigers. Under any other circumstances, I'd say Buck Showalter is the AL Manager of the Year at midseason (if the Orioles were still in first place he might have the edge), but the White Sox' season has been too impressive to ignore what Ventura's done.
NATIONAL LEAGUE
MVP: Joey Votto, Reds-There's certainly an abundance of MVP candidates in the National League, but Cincinnati's smooth-swinging first baseman is my call. Albert and Prince both left for the AL during the offseason, leaving Votto as the best first baseman in the National League. And it's not even close! He leads NL first basemen in every category. But he doesn't just compare well to first basemen. Votto's numbers are up there among the NL leaders in everything. .348, 14 HR, 48 RBIs, 100 hits, 35 doubles, an NL-best .471 on-base percentage, a .617 slugging percentage. And what I think is most impressive, Votto has more walks (65) than strikeouts (64). With all due respect to Matt Kemp, Joey Votto might be the best player in the National League.
Cy Young: R.A. Dickey, Mets-Probably the biggest reason why the Mets are in contention is because of their starting pitching...and the Mets' best starting pitcher has been R.A. Dickey. Dickey's stats are as amazing as his story. Almost out of the Majors a few years ago, he developed a knuckleball, and with Tim Wakefield gone, he's now the only knuckleballer left. The 38-year-old Dickey is 12-1 with a 2.40 ERA and has somehow struck out 123 guys in 120 innings. Opponents are hitting just .203 off him, and Dickey threw back-to-back one-hitters in May. Then there was that scoreless inning streak. The most talked-about pitcher of the first half, a lot of people thought Dickey would start the All-Star Game.
Rookie: Bryce Harper, Nationals-Possibly the only player in the National League that's been talked about more than R.A. Dickey this season is Bryce Harper. The dude's 19. He should be on his summer vacation between his freshman and sophomore years of college. Instead he's the youngest All-Star position player in history. Sixty-three games into his Major League career, Harper has 70 hits, 27 of which were for extra bases, and 43 runs. Yeah, he's slugging .472. As a rookie! Everybody knew that Washington was going to get really good once Harper, Strasburg, et al. were in the Majors for good. Well, that time is now. The Nationals are in first place.
Manager: Clint Hurdle, Pirates-Just like in the American League, there are a number of National League managers who are worthy of Manager of the Year consideration. Davey Johnson. Terry Collins. Don Mattingly. Bruce Bochy. But they all pale in comparison to Clint Hurdle. Ladies and gentlemen, the Pittsburgh Pirates are in first place at the All-Star Break! Sure they've got talent (20 years of high draft picks will do that for you), but they're finally putting it all together at the Major League level. Hurdle took the Rockies to the World Series five years ago. The goals in Pittsburgh are a little more modest. They'll settle for their first winning season since 1993. If the Pirates do that (or more), Hurdle's a lock to win the real Manager of the Year award in November.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Olympic Selection Drama
With the London Games now just three weeks away, nations are beginning to finalize their Olympic teams. In most sports, athletes have known for weeks or even months whether or not they're going to London. That's not the case in track & field, though. With the qualifying period in track & field officially ending on Sunday, a majority of countries have been revealing their teams throughout the week. And those selections have brought about a significant amount of controversy.
Let's start in South Africa and my "favorite" athlete--double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius. The South African Olympic Committee had said all along that Pistorius had to run the Olympic "A" qualifying time of 45.30 seconds twice this year in order to run the 400 meters in London. He didn't do it, but was still eligible to be selected for South Africa's 4x400 meter relay, which he was. Then the South African Olympic Committee (seeing the PR potential) decided that since he was already going to London anyway, he'd be allowed to run in the individual 400 after all, contradicting their own policy.
Now I've made my feelings on Pistorius known in the past. I don't think he should be competing against able-bodied athletes. And his selection to the South African team (and, more significantly, their decision to let him run the open 400) will turn the competition into a sideshow, which isn't fair to the other athetes. The Pistorius "story," which I've heard so many times by now it makes me sick, will completely overshadow everything else, and he's already on the short list of most recognizable names going to London. The guy's an attention whore, nothing more. And he shouldn't be eligible for both the Olympics and Paralympics. (For the record, Pistorius has absolutely no chance of winning a medal in the individual 400.)
Next we'll visit our Olympic hosts from Great Britain. The British have Olympic Trials, but, unlike the U.S., those trials aren't the sole selection criterion. There's also a selection committee. In the women's 800 meters, five British athletes have the Olympic "A" qualifying standard, meaning that three of them could be selected. Included in that group is Jenny Meadows, who won the European Championship a couple weeks ago and won the bronze at the World Championships in 2009. However, the selection committee didn't choose Meadows or any of the other athletes with an "A" standard. Instead, they selected Lynsey Sharp, who only has the lesser "B" standard. (In fairness, Sharp did win the British Olympic Trials 800.) As a result, instead of entering the maximum three athletes in the event, Great Britain will only enter one (Olympic rules allow up to three "A" standards, but only one "B" in any event.) Three of the other athletes with the "A" qualifier have appealed the decision, so we'll see what happens there.
In other news, we'll be deprived of the opportunity to watch Russia's Darya Klishina in the women's long jump. But her omission is much less controversial. Russia is incredibly deep in that event, and Klishina was only fifth at the Russian Trials. She didn't get it done when she needed to. If she had, Klishina would be going to London and the world would be a better place.
Heading North of the Border, the Canadian Trials concluded last weekend. The big controversy there came in the women's 100 meter hurdles, where Priscilla Lopes-Schliep, the silver medalist in Beijing, didn't make the team. The Canadian Trials are like the U.S. Trials in that only the top three make the team. However, the fact that Lopes-Schliep, Canada's only track & field medalist four years ago and perceived best hope for one in London, finished fifth in that race is causing a significant amount of controversy. Some are arguing that, in light of Lopes-Schliep not qualifying for the Olympics, Canada should have a selection committee. (It should be noted here that the 100 meter hurdles is Canada's best event and two "A" qualifiers were being kept home regardless. Canada is sending a complete team in the event.)
With all that being said, I reiterate my stance that the U.S. Olympic Trials is the best system. If you're not in the top three, you don't go to the Olympics. It's straight forward. The U.S. Olympic Trials aren't without controversy (see: women's 100 meters), but the selection method is as fair as it can get (unforseen tiebreakers notwithstanding). If you don't make the team, you don't have anybody to blame but yourself.
Furthermore, a selection committee wouldn't work in the U.S. The American team is so deep in every event (in the 43 individual events, the U.S. has entered 118 athletes, eight shy of the maximum) that a selection committee would create problems, not solve them. You can't aribtrarily award Olympic spots when there are so many deserving athletes who've earned the right to compete for them. If the goal is for a country to send its best possible national team to the Olympics, let the athletes prove they belong. Don't leave it up to a selection committee.
Let's start in South Africa and my "favorite" athlete--double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius. The South African Olympic Committee had said all along that Pistorius had to run the Olympic "A" qualifying time of 45.30 seconds twice this year in order to run the 400 meters in London. He didn't do it, but was still eligible to be selected for South Africa's 4x400 meter relay, which he was. Then the South African Olympic Committee (seeing the PR potential) decided that since he was already going to London anyway, he'd be allowed to run in the individual 400 after all, contradicting their own policy.
Now I've made my feelings on Pistorius known in the past. I don't think he should be competing against able-bodied athletes. And his selection to the South African team (and, more significantly, their decision to let him run the open 400) will turn the competition into a sideshow, which isn't fair to the other athetes. The Pistorius "story," which I've heard so many times by now it makes me sick, will completely overshadow everything else, and he's already on the short list of most recognizable names going to London. The guy's an attention whore, nothing more. And he shouldn't be eligible for both the Olympics and Paralympics. (For the record, Pistorius has absolutely no chance of winning a medal in the individual 400.)
Next we'll visit our Olympic hosts from Great Britain. The British have Olympic Trials, but, unlike the U.S., those trials aren't the sole selection criterion. There's also a selection committee. In the women's 800 meters, five British athletes have the Olympic "A" qualifying standard, meaning that three of them could be selected. Included in that group is Jenny Meadows, who won the European Championship a couple weeks ago and won the bronze at the World Championships in 2009. However, the selection committee didn't choose Meadows or any of the other athletes with an "A" standard. Instead, they selected Lynsey Sharp, who only has the lesser "B" standard. (In fairness, Sharp did win the British Olympic Trials 800.) As a result, instead of entering the maximum three athletes in the event, Great Britain will only enter one (Olympic rules allow up to three "A" standards, but only one "B" in any event.) Three of the other athletes with the "A" qualifier have appealed the decision, so we'll see what happens there.
In other news, we'll be deprived of the opportunity to watch Russia's Darya Klishina in the women's long jump. But her omission is much less controversial. Russia is incredibly deep in that event, and Klishina was only fifth at the Russian Trials. She didn't get it done when she needed to. If she had, Klishina would be going to London and the world would be a better place.
Heading North of the Border, the Canadian Trials concluded last weekend. The big controversy there came in the women's 100 meter hurdles, where Priscilla Lopes-Schliep, the silver medalist in Beijing, didn't make the team. The Canadian Trials are like the U.S. Trials in that only the top three make the team. However, the fact that Lopes-Schliep, Canada's only track & field medalist four years ago and perceived best hope for one in London, finished fifth in that race is causing a significant amount of controversy. Some are arguing that, in light of Lopes-Schliep not qualifying for the Olympics, Canada should have a selection committee. (It should be noted here that the 100 meter hurdles is Canada's best event and two "A" qualifiers were being kept home regardless. Canada is sending a complete team in the event.)
With all that being said, I reiterate my stance that the U.S. Olympic Trials is the best system. If you're not in the top three, you don't go to the Olympics. It's straight forward. The U.S. Olympic Trials aren't without controversy (see: women's 100 meters), but the selection method is as fair as it can get (unforseen tiebreakers notwithstanding). If you don't make the team, you don't have anybody to blame but yourself.
Furthermore, a selection committee wouldn't work in the U.S. The American team is so deep in every event (in the 43 individual events, the U.S. has entered 118 athletes, eight shy of the maximum) that a selection committee would create problems, not solve them. You can't aribtrarily award Olympic spots when there are so many deserving athletes who've earned the right to compete for them. If the goal is for a country to send its best possible national team to the Olympics, let the athletes prove they belong. Don't leave it up to a selection committee.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Top 10 Moments of the Track Trials
As the Network Formerly Known as Versus shows a Fourth of July marathon of the U.S. Olympic Track & Field Trials, I'm going to take this chance to look back on my favorite moments from Eugene. The 100-meter non-runoff between Allyson Felix and Jeneba Tarmoh overshadowed everything else that happened at Trials (read my guest blog about the dead heat at The Gatsby Effect, which my friend Ryan handles). Despite the ridiculous overcoverage after the fact, the women's 100 did make its way into my Top 10. Although, it didn't earn the top spot.
(Two events that didn't make my Top 10 were the women's 800 and women's 1500, mainly because both Maggie Vessey and Anna Pierce didn't make the Olympic team. Congratulations to Emma Coburn, Georganne Moline and Lisa Uhl, who now inherit the role of "Hottest Members of the U.S. Track Team Actually Going to London.")
Now, without further ado, my Top 10 Moments of the U.S. Olympic Team Trials - Track & Field (to see video of the race click on the event name):
10. Men's 400 Hurdles
This is one of the events that the U.S. dominates internationally. All three medalists from Beijing were in the race, but 2008 bronze medalist Bershawn Jackson hit a hurdle late in the race and stumbled home fourth, allowing Kerron Clement (the Beijing silver medalist) to pass him for third place and the final spot on the team.
9. Women's 100 Hurdles
Everyone knows the story. Lolo Jones was the Olympic favorite in Beijing, but hit a hurdle and finished seventh in the final. She wasn't even supposed to make the team this year. Apparently, no one told her that.
8. Men's & Women's Hammer Throw
For probably the first time in the event's history, the hammer throw took center stage. Both the men's and women's event were held the day before the start of the Trials at Niketown. And there was plenty of drama, too, as Amber Campbell won the women's title by two centimeters.
(I couldn't find this video on NBCOlympics.com, otherwise I would've linked to it. Sorry.)
7. Heptathlon
Prior to the Trials, only one American had even qualified for the Olympics. Hyleas Fountain, the 2008 silver medalist, became the second by winning the Trials. In the final event, the 800 meters, Chantae McMillan ran a fast enough time to earn a place on the team, too.
6. Women's 200
Allyson Felix evidently didn't let any of that crap surrounding the 100 effect her in her best event, the 200. The two-time defending Olympic silver medalist, she further stamped herself as the favorite for London by breaking FloJo's meet record, running the best time in the world this year--21.69 seconds.
5. Women's 5000
You've gotta feel for Julia Lucas. She went out and pushed the pace, had nothing left down the stretch, and got passed. Kim Conley just edged her out for third place and, because Lucas pushed the pace, barely got an Olympic qualifying time and ticket to London.
4. Men's Discus
Going into his final throw, Lance Brooks already had the event won. But he didn't have the Olympic standard and wouldn't have been going to London. On that last throw, Brooks threw six inches further than he needed to and secured his place on the team. (It was the same situation with Brittany Borman in the women's javelin.)
3. Men's 5000
Galen Rupp went to Oregon and lives in Oregon. Bernard Lagat is arguably America's best distance runner. Over the final 100 meters of a three-mile race, Lagat took the lead, then Rupp, with the hometown crowd cheering him on, went by him to win by .15 seconds. In the process, Rupp broke the meet record previously held by another Oregon legend--the great Steve Prefontaine.
2. Women's 100
The women's 100 comes in at No. 2 on my list. Everybody knows what happened. It was the result of an incredible 11 seconds of running. And, of course, it took 10 days to decide that Allyson Felix would get the third spot on the Olympic team.
1. Decathlon
The top spot on my countdown goes to one of the most incredible track & field performances I've ever seen. Ashton Eaton, another Oregon product, entered the final event of the decathlon--the 1500 meters--with a chance at the world record. He needed to run 4:16 and, buoyed by the hometown fans (and paced by the top two 1500-meter runners in the field), ended up running a time of 4:14.48 to finish with 9039 points. What made this performance even more incredible is that the conditions for the two days were horrible. (Ashton Eaton sidebar: his fiancee, Brianne Thiesen, is the NCAA champion in the heptathlon and will represent Canada in London.)
(Two events that didn't make my Top 10 were the women's 800 and women's 1500, mainly because both Maggie Vessey and Anna Pierce didn't make the Olympic team. Congratulations to Emma Coburn, Georganne Moline and Lisa Uhl, who now inherit the role of "Hottest Members of the U.S. Track Team Actually Going to London.")
Now, without further ado, my Top 10 Moments of the U.S. Olympic Team Trials - Track & Field (to see video of the race click on the event name):
10. Men's 400 Hurdles
This is one of the events that the U.S. dominates internationally. All three medalists from Beijing were in the race, but 2008 bronze medalist Bershawn Jackson hit a hurdle late in the race and stumbled home fourth, allowing Kerron Clement (the Beijing silver medalist) to pass him for third place and the final spot on the team.
9. Women's 100 Hurdles
Everyone knows the story. Lolo Jones was the Olympic favorite in Beijing, but hit a hurdle and finished seventh in the final. She wasn't even supposed to make the team this year. Apparently, no one told her that.
8. Men's & Women's Hammer Throw
For probably the first time in the event's history, the hammer throw took center stage. Both the men's and women's event were held the day before the start of the Trials at Niketown. And there was plenty of drama, too, as Amber Campbell won the women's title by two centimeters.
(I couldn't find this video on NBCOlympics.com, otherwise I would've linked to it. Sorry.)
7. Heptathlon
Prior to the Trials, only one American had even qualified for the Olympics. Hyleas Fountain, the 2008 silver medalist, became the second by winning the Trials. In the final event, the 800 meters, Chantae McMillan ran a fast enough time to earn a place on the team, too.
6. Women's 200
Allyson Felix evidently didn't let any of that crap surrounding the 100 effect her in her best event, the 200. The two-time defending Olympic silver medalist, she further stamped herself as the favorite for London by breaking FloJo's meet record, running the best time in the world this year--21.69 seconds.
5. Women's 5000
You've gotta feel for Julia Lucas. She went out and pushed the pace, had nothing left down the stretch, and got passed. Kim Conley just edged her out for third place and, because Lucas pushed the pace, barely got an Olympic qualifying time and ticket to London.
4. Men's Discus
Going into his final throw, Lance Brooks already had the event won. But he didn't have the Olympic standard and wouldn't have been going to London. On that last throw, Brooks threw six inches further than he needed to and secured his place on the team. (It was the same situation with Brittany Borman in the women's javelin.)
3. Men's 5000
Galen Rupp went to Oregon and lives in Oregon. Bernard Lagat is arguably America's best distance runner. Over the final 100 meters of a three-mile race, Lagat took the lead, then Rupp, with the hometown crowd cheering him on, went by him to win by .15 seconds. In the process, Rupp broke the meet record previously held by another Oregon legend--the great Steve Prefontaine.
2. Women's 100
The women's 100 comes in at No. 2 on my list. Everybody knows what happened. It was the result of an incredible 11 seconds of running. And, of course, it took 10 days to decide that Allyson Felix would get the third spot on the Olympic team.
1. Decathlon
The top spot on my countdown goes to one of the most incredible track & field performances I've ever seen. Ashton Eaton, another Oregon product, entered the final event of the decathlon--the 1500 meters--with a chance at the world record. He needed to run 4:16 and, buoyed by the hometown fans (and paced by the top two 1500-meter runners in the field), ended up running a time of 4:14.48 to finish with 9039 points. What made this performance even more incredible is that the conditions for the two days were horrible. (Ashton Eaton sidebar: his fiancee, Brianne Thiesen, is the NCAA champion in the heptathlon and will represent Canada in London.)
Monday, July 2, 2012
The Texas Rangers vs. the National League
As usual, there are people who are upset with the All-Star selections. Go to a message board on MLB.com or ESPN.com, and you'll find fans of various teams complaining that their favorite player wasn't selected or "Why was this guy chosen over him?" But I've never seen anything like what I saw today from the Cincinnati Reds and Milwaukee Brewers. Both teams basically accused NL manager Tony LaRussa of intentionally not picking their guys.
Reds manager Dusty Baker felt that starter Johnny Cueto and second baseman Brandon Phillips both should've been All-Stars, and he accused LaRussa of holding a grudge against those two players because they were at the center of a brawl during a Reds-Cardinals game in 2010. The Brewers, meanwhile, were just as vocal that starter Zack Greinke, a former Royal, was left off the NL roster. LaRussa's argument for not picking Cueto made sense. Cueto's pitching Sunday and would've been replaced on the roster anyway, otherwise he would've been chosen. LaRussa said the same thing about Greinke, unaware of the fact that the Brewers changed their rotation so that he'll pitch on Saturday, thus making him available for the All-Star Game on Tuesday.
I think this public bellyaching, especially the shots taken at LaRussa, is unprofessional and uncalled for. All-Star snubs happen every year. There are simply more deserving players than spots on the roster. And why is it being taken out on LaRussa? The players didn't vote any of these three guys in, either. LaRussa only gets to make eight selections, and half of those are used up to fulfill the one from every team requirement.
Here's a breakdown of the manager selections in the National League:
That leaves us with three: Clayton Kershaw, Ian Desmond and Jay Bruce. Kershaw won the Cy Young last year, is left-handed (a thought for late-game matchup situations), and plays for the team that had the best record in the NL for most of the first half. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me Zack Greinke should be an All-Star over him. Now you've got Ian Desmond and Jay Bruce. LaRussa did pick a Red in Bruce. I would've taken Phillips instead of Bruce, but certainly not both of them. And I love the selection of Ian Desmond. He certainly deserves the trip to Kansas City. Maybe you do Phillips and Bryce Harper to keep it as a Red and a National, but otherwise, you get no argument here with those selections.
What I take an issue with is the fact that the entire Texas Rangers team is going to the All-Star Game, which either nobody else notices or everybody's fine with. Mike Napoli shouldn't be there, but I'm not going to begrudge Rangers fans for voting their guys into the starting lineup, so my issue with him is minimal. My issue with the American League team is the fact that every one of Ron Washington's available manager selections was one of his own guys.
Washington gets two fewer manager selections because of the starting and backup DH, and here are the seven guys he picked:
But outside of those four token team representatives, Washington used his remaining three manager picks on his own guys. Really? Yes, they have the best record in the American League, but are you telling me all three of these guys belong on the All-Star team? I'm even willing to concede that there should be a Rangers starter on the team. But it should be Yu Darvish. But if Washington wants it to be Harrison, the AL leader in wins, instead, so be it. Joe Nathan, however, is this year's winner of the Omar Infante Award as randomest All-Star. He made a nice comeback after missing all of last season. So what? That doesn't make him an All-Star. And don't even get me started on Elvis Andrus. There's no way he's even considered for anything other than the Final Vote if somebody else is the manager.
And not to beat a dead horse, but the pitcher added to the roster as a replacement for the injured CC Sabathia is the Angels' C.J. Wilson, who just happens to be a former Ranger. Although, I'm willing to give Washington a pass on that one, since I think the injury replacements are the next guys in line on the player ballot, which Washington doesn't really have anything to do with.
Reds manager Dusty Baker felt that starter Johnny Cueto and second baseman Brandon Phillips both should've been All-Stars, and he accused LaRussa of holding a grudge against those two players because they were at the center of a brawl during a Reds-Cardinals game in 2010. The Brewers, meanwhile, were just as vocal that starter Zack Greinke, a former Royal, was left off the NL roster. LaRussa's argument for not picking Cueto made sense. Cueto's pitching Sunday and would've been replaced on the roster anyway, otherwise he would've been chosen. LaRussa said the same thing about Greinke, unaware of the fact that the Brewers changed their rotation so that he'll pitch on Saturday, thus making him available for the All-Star Game on Tuesday.
I think this public bellyaching, especially the shots taken at LaRussa, is unprofessional and uncalled for. All-Star snubs happen every year. There are simply more deserving players than spots on the roster. And why is it being taken out on LaRussa? The players didn't vote any of these three guys in, either. LaRussa only gets to make eight selections, and half of those are used up to fulfill the one from every team requirement.
Here's a breakdown of the manager selections in the National League:
- Wade Miley, Diamondbacks
- Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers
- Cole Hamels, Phillies
- Jonathan Papelbon, Phillies
- Huston Street, Padres
- Carlos Ruiz, Phillies
- Ian Desmond, Nationals
- Jay Bruce, Reds
- Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins
That leaves us with three: Clayton Kershaw, Ian Desmond and Jay Bruce. Kershaw won the Cy Young last year, is left-handed (a thought for late-game matchup situations), and plays for the team that had the best record in the NL for most of the first half. Sorry, but you're not going to convince me Zack Greinke should be an All-Star over him. Now you've got Ian Desmond and Jay Bruce. LaRussa did pick a Red in Bruce. I would've taken Phillips instead of Bruce, but certainly not both of them. And I love the selection of Ian Desmond. He certainly deserves the trip to Kansas City. Maybe you do Phillips and Bryce Harper to keep it as a Red and a National, but otherwise, you get no argument here with those selections.
What I take an issue with is the fact that the entire Texas Rangers team is going to the All-Star Game, which either nobody else notices or everybody's fine with. Mike Napoli shouldn't be there, but I'm not going to begrudge Rangers fans for voting their guys into the starting lineup, so my issue with him is minimal. My issue with the American League team is the fact that every one of Ron Washington's available manager selections was one of his own guys.
Washington gets two fewer manager selections because of the starting and backup DH, and here are the seven guys he picked:
- Ryan Cook, Athletics
- Felix Hernandez, Mariners
- Joe Mauer, Twins
- Billy Butler, Royals
- Matt Harrison, Rangers
- Joe Nathan, Rangers
- Elvis Andrus, Rangers
But outside of those four token team representatives, Washington used his remaining three manager picks on his own guys. Really? Yes, they have the best record in the American League, but are you telling me all three of these guys belong on the All-Star team? I'm even willing to concede that there should be a Rangers starter on the team. But it should be Yu Darvish. But if Washington wants it to be Harrison, the AL leader in wins, instead, so be it. Joe Nathan, however, is this year's winner of the Omar Infante Award as randomest All-Star. He made a nice comeback after missing all of last season. So what? That doesn't make him an All-Star. And don't even get me started on Elvis Andrus. There's no way he's even considered for anything other than the Final Vote if somebody else is the manager.
And not to beat a dead horse, but the pitcher added to the roster as a replacement for the injured CC Sabathia is the Angels' C.J. Wilson, who just happens to be a former Ranger. Although, I'm willing to give Washington a pass on that one, since I think the injury replacements are the next guys in line on the player ballot, which Washington doesn't really have anything to do with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)