Today's non-waiver trade deadline came and went without much major movement. There were a few deals here and there, but, for the most part, it was a very quiet day. I think the reason for that is obvious. With the second wild card team in each league now, more teams think they're contenders, so there aren't as many sellers. That, of course, isn't actually the case. But with eight weeks left in the season, you can't blame teams for thinking that.
Of course, reality is going to set in very soon for teams like the Royals and Padres and Phillies, and maybe even the Yankees. They're not going to make the playoffs, and even if they do, they're not good enough to win the World Series. Given a couple more weeks, these teams will know that.
That's why I propose moving the trade deadline to August 15. Why is it on July 31 anyway? Nobody seems to know. That's just the day it's always been, so they never changed it. But with 10 teams making the playoffs every season, the number of clubs that know they're out of it with two full months to go is simply way too small. You have 20 teams that want to be buyers with only five or six guaranteed sellers. And some potential sellers who won't do anything for any number of reasons, be it they don't have anybody a contender would want or, if they do, don't want to give him up, or they think the team they have can contend the following season.
Regardless, I think the August 15 date is much more sensible. This year's deadline moves were dictated by uncertainty with the pending Biogenesis suspensions and injuries. I'm not saying all of that will be figured out in two weeks, but the picture will most likely be at least a little bit clearer. Point is, your needs at the end of July and your needs in mid-August might be completely different. And what you're able to get in mid-August isn't always the cream of the crop.
The other problem with acquiring a player in August is that it's a gamble. Since they have to clear waivers, any team can make a claim on any player, with the claimant that has the worst record getting the right to work out a deal for that player. The original team then has the choice of keeping the player by revoking the waivers, trading him to the other team, or letting them have him outright. That's what the Blue Jays did a couple years ago when the White Sox made a claim on Alex Rios, at which point they said, "Go ahead. Take him."
You also get the waiver moves that backfire, though. In the mid-90s, the Padres made a claim on lefty reliever Randy Myers because they thought the Braves were going to, and they didn't want Atlanta to get him. Myers ended up helping San Diego, and he was a key part of their 1998 World Series team. Except, the Braves didn't want him. Atlanta never even put in a claim. If the Padres had known that, they might not have put in a claim either.
But the fact that waiver claims even have to come into play is somewhat ridiculous. That's the only difference between trying to trade a guy on July 31 and trying to trade the same player on August 10. At least on July 31, you can negotiate with anybody. Limiting negotiations to just those two teams also greatly reduces the market for that player. Whose to say they wouldn't be able to get a better package for him from somebody else? More importantly, why don't they get that chance? And the team that gets him doesn't care. For their purposes, it makes no difference when they got him as long as he's eligible in October.
My biggest reason for thinking they should move the trade deadline is the sheer fact that they're still allowed to make trades throughout the month of August. Just take the waiver element out of it. The bottom line is, as long as a player is on a team's active roster or DL by August 31, he's eligible for the postseason. Because of that, it makes much more sense to give teams throughout the month of August to figure out what they want to do for the stretch run.
As an added bonus, if you move the date, teams might know whether or not they have a prayer at October before deciding whether or not they want to dump prospects and go for it. After all, no matter how many trades are made, only one team's hoisting the Commissioner's Trophy at the end of October.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Sunday Night Hangover
I've said this before and I'll say it again and again...I hate Sunday night games! I'm not talking about Sunday night football games. There's a reason why Sunday Night Football is the highest rated show on television. I'm talking about Sunday night baseball games. I'm not against them on principle, and I like the fact that its the only exclusive nationally-televised game each week. But that doesn't change my general opinion about Sunday Night Baseball.
My biggest problem with Sunday night games is the travel aspect. Two weeks ago, the Yankees and Red Sox played a Sunday night game in Fenway that went 11 innings and lasted past 1:00 in the morning. The Yankees then flew to Texas, landed at 7 a.m., and played the Rangers that night. It goes without saying that they were completely flat and lost the game. The Red Sox were staying home to start a series with the Rays, who were in Boston and checked into their hotel by the middle of the game. Last night's game was Braves vs. Cardinals in Atlanta. After the game, the Cardinals got on a plane for Pittsburgh to start a series with the Pirates, who put up a four-spot in the first and won 9-2 tonight. Again, no real surprise here.
It would be fine if every team had to do this once or twice a season, but, much like Sunday Night Football, the network (in this case ESPN) gets a lot of control when it comes to the Sunday Night Baseball schedule. That's why every time the Yankees play the Red Sox in Fenway or the Cubs play the Cardinals at Wrigley, the series is inevitably on the weekend. Why? So that FOX can have the Saturday game and ESPN can have the Sunday game. The marquee teams almost always play the maximum of Sunday night games you can during a season. Meanwhile, teams like the Marlins and Blue Jays are never selected to play on Sunday night. In a way, a handful teams are penalized for being good/popular by having to play on Sunday night.
The big difference between Sunday Night Football and Sunday Night Baseball is that football is a once-a-week sport. It doesn't matter that the Sunday night game ends near midnight because the players don't have another game until the following week. In baseball, more often than not, they're playing the next day. Maybe they'll get lucky and have Monday off, but they're still going to play on Tuesday. Travel in baseball is hard enough. Sunday night games only make it that much harder.
And Sunday night games, obviously, are worse for the visiting team. The home team may also be traveling to start its next series. But there's also a chance they're in the middle of a homestand and not going anywhere after the game other than their own beds. The visiting team, though, they're traveling regardless. Even if they're headed back home, they're still getting on a plane somewhere and landing very early Monday morning.
Don't get me wrong, if the Cubs play the Cardinals in Wrigley on a Sunday night, then the Cubs go to Milwaukee and the Cardinals go home, that isn't exactly back-breaking travel. More often than not, though, you've got teams playing Sunday night games before long travel. The Angels played a Sunday night game against the White Sox in Chicago on May 12, flew home, and lost 11-4 to the Royals the next night.
I understand there's no perfect solution to the Sunday night game problem, but I have some ideas that I think might work to at least make the travel burden a little easier. The most obvious is to give teams that play on Sunday night off on Monday. Since they don't make the post-All-Star break Sunday night schedule until the season has already started, it would be incredibly difficult, if not downright impossible to do that. But in April, May and June, they could easily do it. And if it complicates the logistics to guarantee both teams an off day on Monday, the home team can still play a Monday game if that game is at home, too.
Another plan for the end of the season might work, though. FOX has three or four games every week. These are, obviously, the most marquee matchups of the weekend, and the Sunday night game is most likely going to be picked from one of these same series. They could pick the Sunday night game out of this pool and give all of those teams off on Monday. Or, again, you can still play back-to-back home games on Sunday night and Monday.
Point is baseball travel is hard enough. The schedule-maker doesn't need to make it any harder by making teams fly two time zones in the middle of the night to start another series on Monday after playing on Sunday night. It's great to be on national TV. But not when it puts you at a disadvantage in your following game. That's when Sunday night goes from a privilege to a punishment.
My biggest problem with Sunday night games is the travel aspect. Two weeks ago, the Yankees and Red Sox played a Sunday night game in Fenway that went 11 innings and lasted past 1:00 in the morning. The Yankees then flew to Texas, landed at 7 a.m., and played the Rangers that night. It goes without saying that they were completely flat and lost the game. The Red Sox were staying home to start a series with the Rays, who were in Boston and checked into their hotel by the middle of the game. Last night's game was Braves vs. Cardinals in Atlanta. After the game, the Cardinals got on a plane for Pittsburgh to start a series with the Pirates, who put up a four-spot in the first and won 9-2 tonight. Again, no real surprise here.
It would be fine if every team had to do this once or twice a season, but, much like Sunday Night Football, the network (in this case ESPN) gets a lot of control when it comes to the Sunday Night Baseball schedule. That's why every time the Yankees play the Red Sox in Fenway or the Cubs play the Cardinals at Wrigley, the series is inevitably on the weekend. Why? So that FOX can have the Saturday game and ESPN can have the Sunday game. The marquee teams almost always play the maximum of Sunday night games you can during a season. Meanwhile, teams like the Marlins and Blue Jays are never selected to play on Sunday night. In a way, a handful teams are penalized for being good/popular by having to play on Sunday night.
The big difference between Sunday Night Football and Sunday Night Baseball is that football is a once-a-week sport. It doesn't matter that the Sunday night game ends near midnight because the players don't have another game until the following week. In baseball, more often than not, they're playing the next day. Maybe they'll get lucky and have Monday off, but they're still going to play on Tuesday. Travel in baseball is hard enough. Sunday night games only make it that much harder.
And Sunday night games, obviously, are worse for the visiting team. The home team may also be traveling to start its next series. But there's also a chance they're in the middle of a homestand and not going anywhere after the game other than their own beds. The visiting team, though, they're traveling regardless. Even if they're headed back home, they're still getting on a plane somewhere and landing very early Monday morning.
Don't get me wrong, if the Cubs play the Cardinals in Wrigley on a Sunday night, then the Cubs go to Milwaukee and the Cardinals go home, that isn't exactly back-breaking travel. More often than not, though, you've got teams playing Sunday night games before long travel. The Angels played a Sunday night game against the White Sox in Chicago on May 12, flew home, and lost 11-4 to the Royals the next night.
I understand there's no perfect solution to the Sunday night game problem, but I have some ideas that I think might work to at least make the travel burden a little easier. The most obvious is to give teams that play on Sunday night off on Monday. Since they don't make the post-All-Star break Sunday night schedule until the season has already started, it would be incredibly difficult, if not downright impossible to do that. But in April, May and June, they could easily do it. And if it complicates the logistics to guarantee both teams an off day on Monday, the home team can still play a Monday game if that game is at home, too.
Another plan for the end of the season might work, though. FOX has three or four games every week. These are, obviously, the most marquee matchups of the weekend, and the Sunday night game is most likely going to be picked from one of these same series. They could pick the Sunday night game out of this pool and give all of those teams off on Monday. Or, again, you can still play back-to-back home games on Sunday night and Monday.
Point is baseball travel is hard enough. The schedule-maker doesn't need to make it any harder by making teams fly two time zones in the middle of the night to start another series on Monday after playing on Sunday night. It's great to be on national TV. But not when it puts you at a disadvantage in your following game. That's when Sunday night goes from a privilege to a punishment.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
London's Lasting Legacy
Most of the news coming out of Great Britain over the past week has been about Prince George. While the birth of a future king is certainly a significant event, almost lost in the shadows is the anniversary of another significant event in British history. It's almost hard to believe, but this weekend marks one year since the start of the glorious London Olympic Games.
A lot has happened since all eyes were on London, but those two weeks last summer provided an enduring legacy that will last for generations. This weekend is the annual London Diamond League track & field meet. The event has been christened the "Anniversary Games" and is being held at Olympic Stadium with Usain Bolt, Mo Farah and so many of the other stars that electrified the crowd set to compete. In honor of the Anniversary Games, these are my Top 10 moments of the track & field competition at the London Olympics.
10. Ashton Eaton and Trey Hardee sweep the decathlon: Eaton set a world record at the Olympic Trials on his home track in Oregon. Hardee was the 2011 world champion. Most people expected the two Americans to go 1-2, but weren't sure of the order. They dominated alright, Eaton taking gold and Hardee silver.
9. Jamaica sweeps the men's 200: The Jamaica-U.S. sprint rivalry was incredibly one-sided in London. In the 200, not only did Usain Bolt defend his title in dominating fashion, Yohan Blake took second and Warren Weir was third in an impressive sweep.
8. The women's 100 hurdles final: Australia's Sally Pearson was one of the most prohibitive favorites in the entire track & field competition. Pearson did win and set an Olympic record, but it was a lot closer than anybody expected. Defending champion Dawn Harper almost pulled the upset, settling for silver to go with her gold in Beijing.
7. The Bahamas upsets the U.S. in the men's 4x400 relay: Can't go without mentioning the prelims, where Manteo Mitchell ran the final 200 meters on a broken leg to help the U.S. qualify. This is one event the Americans always won, and Angelo Taylor had the lead going into the final 100 meters of the anchor leg, but he was caught from behind and the Bahamas notched a stunning victory.
6. Mo Farah completes the 5000-10,000 double: He was already a national hero after winning the 10,000 on that magical night of August 4. Then came the 5000 a week later, when Farah became a full-fledged Olympic legend, sprinting away from the field over the final 100 meters to complete the distance double.
5. Allyson Felix and Sanya Richards-Ross finally get their Olympic gold: Felix and Richards-Ross were track & field superstars known more for Olympic heartache than anything else. Well, that finally changed. Richards-Ross got it started when she won the 400, then Felix, the silver medalist in Athens and Beijing, got her resume-completing gold medal in the 200.
4. The U.S. women's 4x100 relay team breaks the world record: One of the oldest world records on the books was the one set by East Germany in the women's 4x100 relay in 1985. After a recent history of botched handoffs and DNFs in major international races, the U.S. was perfect on this night. They dominated the race, and Carmelita Jeter's reaction as she crossed the line and saw the time was priceless.
3. Usain Bolt three-peats again: With apologies to Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali, Usain Bolt is the Greatest of All-time. He confirmed that in London. The 100 was the fastest race in history, and his winning time was faster than his then-world record in Beijing. He then defended his 200 title, leading a Jamaican sweep, before anchoring another world record in the 4x100 relay.
2. Great Britain's Golden Night: In a 45-minute span, the hosts won three gold medals. First it was Mo Farah in the 10,000 meters. Then Greg Rutherford finished off an unlikely victory in the long jump. Finally, Jessica Ennis put an exclamation point on the evening by turning the heptathlon 800 into two victory laps.
1. David Rudisha's world record: If it's possible to steal the spotlight from Usain Bolt, David Rudisha did it. He was the prohibitive favorite in the men's 800 and his goal was to break the world record in London. And he did just that, becoming the first person ever to complete two laps faster than 1:41.00.
I could easily compile a list like this for every sport. The London Olympics were arguably the best ever. And they certainly presented memories that will last a lifetime. My guess is people will still be talking about the London Games when George is king. As they should. Because the 2012 Olympics were, as the national anthem says, "Happy and Glorious."
A lot has happened since all eyes were on London, but those two weeks last summer provided an enduring legacy that will last for generations. This weekend is the annual London Diamond League track & field meet. The event has been christened the "Anniversary Games" and is being held at Olympic Stadium with Usain Bolt, Mo Farah and so many of the other stars that electrified the crowd set to compete. In honor of the Anniversary Games, these are my Top 10 moments of the track & field competition at the London Olympics.
10. Ashton Eaton and Trey Hardee sweep the decathlon: Eaton set a world record at the Olympic Trials on his home track in Oregon. Hardee was the 2011 world champion. Most people expected the two Americans to go 1-2, but weren't sure of the order. They dominated alright, Eaton taking gold and Hardee silver.
9. Jamaica sweeps the men's 200: The Jamaica-U.S. sprint rivalry was incredibly one-sided in London. In the 200, not only did Usain Bolt defend his title in dominating fashion, Yohan Blake took second and Warren Weir was third in an impressive sweep.
8. The women's 100 hurdles final: Australia's Sally Pearson was one of the most prohibitive favorites in the entire track & field competition. Pearson did win and set an Olympic record, but it was a lot closer than anybody expected. Defending champion Dawn Harper almost pulled the upset, settling for silver to go with her gold in Beijing.
7. The Bahamas upsets the U.S. in the men's 4x400 relay: Can't go without mentioning the prelims, where Manteo Mitchell ran the final 200 meters on a broken leg to help the U.S. qualify. This is one event the Americans always won, and Angelo Taylor had the lead going into the final 100 meters of the anchor leg, but he was caught from behind and the Bahamas notched a stunning victory.
6. Mo Farah completes the 5000-10,000 double: He was already a national hero after winning the 10,000 on that magical night of August 4. Then came the 5000 a week later, when Farah became a full-fledged Olympic legend, sprinting away from the field over the final 100 meters to complete the distance double.
5. Allyson Felix and Sanya Richards-Ross finally get their Olympic gold: Felix and Richards-Ross were track & field superstars known more for Olympic heartache than anything else. Well, that finally changed. Richards-Ross got it started when she won the 400, then Felix, the silver medalist in Athens and Beijing, got her resume-completing gold medal in the 200.
4. The U.S. women's 4x100 relay team breaks the world record: One of the oldest world records on the books was the one set by East Germany in the women's 4x100 relay in 1985. After a recent history of botched handoffs and DNFs in major international races, the U.S. was perfect on this night. They dominated the race, and Carmelita Jeter's reaction as she crossed the line and saw the time was priceless.
3. Usain Bolt three-peats again: With apologies to Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali, Usain Bolt is the Greatest of All-time. He confirmed that in London. The 100 was the fastest race in history, and his winning time was faster than his then-world record in Beijing. He then defended his 200 title, leading a Jamaican sweep, before anchoring another world record in the 4x100 relay.
2. Great Britain's Golden Night: In a 45-minute span, the hosts won three gold medals. First it was Mo Farah in the 10,000 meters. Then Greg Rutherford finished off an unlikely victory in the long jump. Finally, Jessica Ennis put an exclamation point on the evening by turning the heptathlon 800 into two victory laps.
1. David Rudisha's world record: If it's possible to steal the spotlight from Usain Bolt, David Rudisha did it. He was the prohibitive favorite in the men's 800 and his goal was to break the world record in London. And he did just that, becoming the first person ever to complete two laps faster than 1:41.00.
I could easily compile a list like this for every sport. The London Olympics were arguably the best ever. And they certainly presented memories that will last a lifetime. My guess is people will still be talking about the London Games when George is king. As they should. Because the 2012 Olympics were, as the national anthem says, "Happy and Glorious."
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Division I-AAA
It looks like change is coming to college sports once again. And this isn't the endless cycle of conference realignment kind, either. This could be a much more seismic shift that shakes the NCAA to its core. While not a complete obliteration of the NCAA structure, it would be close. The BCS conferences are discussing creating a separate division consisting of just themselves. College sports is already "haves" and "have-nots." Should this happen, that gap will only become wider.
With the ridiculous amount of money that the TV networks are paying the conferences for college football (which is what's led to the ridiculous conference jumping), something like this seemed inevitable. It's no secret that the BCS schools haven't been happy with the current structure for a while. Nor have the vast majority of Division I schools that don't have the ability to fund their entire Athletic Department with the revenue they bring in from football.
Some of the concerns of the BCS programs are valid. Texas, which has a BCS football program, operates its Athletic Department completely differently than Bucknell, which has an FCS football team that costs the school millions of dollars a year. Likewise, both are different than the likes of DePaul, which doesn't have a football team at all. (Hell, the different agendas of football and basketball schools is the whole reason the American Athletic Conference even exists in the first place.) Yet, since all of those schools are Division I, they all have the same voting rights. In the eyes of Texas, why does DePaul get to have an opinion about football? Honestly, they've got a point.
They also want to know why football is governed by the same rules as women's tennis. I think I see where they were trying to go, but I'm not sure I agree with this one. The only rules that are the same are ones that apply to all sports when it comes to things like eligibility, academics and rules compliance. Yes, football players are required to go to class just like women's tennis players are. What a novel concept! I'm not sure why that's such a problem.
One of the other main arguments of the big programs is that it's gotten too easy to become Division I. This is absolutely correct. Did you know that Grand Canyon and Albeline Christian and UMass Lowell are now Division I institutions? They've made it somewhat harder to move up to D-I because you're now required to have a conference to join before you can make the jump, but that doesn't change the fact there are way too many Division I schools and a lot of them have no business being there. NJIT and Longwood should be sitting at the kiddies table, not hobnobbing with the cream of the NCAA crop.
It's these smaller schools that squashed the proposed legislation that would've provided a stipend of up to $2,000 to cover a student-athlete's "total cost of attendance." For the BCS schools, providing this stipend would've been no big deal. But they're in the minority on that front. For everybody else, it would've been a tremendous additional cost that they couldn't afford to bear. That's why they voted it down.
The stipend really seems to be the impetus that has got the BCS schools going on this trajectory. And it does seem like their hearts are in the right place. They want to level the playing field, and, unfortunately, the only way to do that in their opinion is to let them play on one level and everybody else on another. In a perfect world, this would work out great for everybody. This isn't a perfect world, though. While some may view a separate BCS division as a great idea, I think it would lead to more problems than they're trying to solve.
For starters, they're only talking about football here. This is my biggest problem with college football and the role it plays on many campuses. What about every other sport? I understand football is what brings in the money, but there doesn't seem to be any flaws in the system with any other sport. Why cut off your leg because you broke your toe? Changing the entire structure of college sports simply to help football teams make even more money seems silly to me.
It would open up opportunities for the non-BCS Division I schools on the national stage. National Championships in even non-revenue sports seem to be monopolized by BCS programs, simply because they have the money for more scholarships and, as a result, bring in better athletes. So, like I said, it would level the playing field. However, it would also water down the rest of Division I and reduce it to basically on-par with Division II and Division III. The TV money that they get now would be gone. Because the TV networks don't care about lower-level Division I schools. They want the big names. And that would further the divide.
There's an even bigger problem I foresee, though. Should these radical changes move along and they develop some sort of new division involving only the BCS schools, I'm sure offering stipends to student-athletes would pass with flying colors. However, I'm also fairly certain there would be an attempt to limit the stipends to football, men's basketball and other revenue-producing sports. Well, without even bringing Title IX into it, that would raise equity issues even within these schools. Why should a football player on full scholarship get a stipend, but not a student-athlete on the women's golf team who has the same full scholarship? You give stipends to one team, you've got to give them to everybody. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of hybrid model where only student-athletes on full athletic scholarships are eligible for stipends, but that's a discussion for another day.
The NCAA is in need of reform. I don't think there's anybody who would disagree with that. But something this radical isn't the answer. Can the necessary changes take place without blowing up the entire system? Yes, I believe it can. But they have to give it time to be implemented and work. Sadly, with the current state of college athletics, I'm not sure they'll be given that time they need. And the system as we know it might be forever changed as a result.
With the ridiculous amount of money that the TV networks are paying the conferences for college football (which is what's led to the ridiculous conference jumping), something like this seemed inevitable. It's no secret that the BCS schools haven't been happy with the current structure for a while. Nor have the vast majority of Division I schools that don't have the ability to fund their entire Athletic Department with the revenue they bring in from football.
Some of the concerns of the BCS programs are valid. Texas, which has a BCS football program, operates its Athletic Department completely differently than Bucknell, which has an FCS football team that costs the school millions of dollars a year. Likewise, both are different than the likes of DePaul, which doesn't have a football team at all. (Hell, the different agendas of football and basketball schools is the whole reason the American Athletic Conference even exists in the first place.) Yet, since all of those schools are Division I, they all have the same voting rights. In the eyes of Texas, why does DePaul get to have an opinion about football? Honestly, they've got a point.
They also want to know why football is governed by the same rules as women's tennis. I think I see where they were trying to go, but I'm not sure I agree with this one. The only rules that are the same are ones that apply to all sports when it comes to things like eligibility, academics and rules compliance. Yes, football players are required to go to class just like women's tennis players are. What a novel concept! I'm not sure why that's such a problem.
One of the other main arguments of the big programs is that it's gotten too easy to become Division I. This is absolutely correct. Did you know that Grand Canyon and Albeline Christian and UMass Lowell are now Division I institutions? They've made it somewhat harder to move up to D-I because you're now required to have a conference to join before you can make the jump, but that doesn't change the fact there are way too many Division I schools and a lot of them have no business being there. NJIT and Longwood should be sitting at the kiddies table, not hobnobbing with the cream of the NCAA crop.
It's these smaller schools that squashed the proposed legislation that would've provided a stipend of up to $2,000 to cover a student-athlete's "total cost of attendance." For the BCS schools, providing this stipend would've been no big deal. But they're in the minority on that front. For everybody else, it would've been a tremendous additional cost that they couldn't afford to bear. That's why they voted it down.
The stipend really seems to be the impetus that has got the BCS schools going on this trajectory. And it does seem like their hearts are in the right place. They want to level the playing field, and, unfortunately, the only way to do that in their opinion is to let them play on one level and everybody else on another. In a perfect world, this would work out great for everybody. This isn't a perfect world, though. While some may view a separate BCS division as a great idea, I think it would lead to more problems than they're trying to solve.
For starters, they're only talking about football here. This is my biggest problem with college football and the role it plays on many campuses. What about every other sport? I understand football is what brings in the money, but there doesn't seem to be any flaws in the system with any other sport. Why cut off your leg because you broke your toe? Changing the entire structure of college sports simply to help football teams make even more money seems silly to me.
It would open up opportunities for the non-BCS Division I schools on the national stage. National Championships in even non-revenue sports seem to be monopolized by BCS programs, simply because they have the money for more scholarships and, as a result, bring in better athletes. So, like I said, it would level the playing field. However, it would also water down the rest of Division I and reduce it to basically on-par with Division II and Division III. The TV money that they get now would be gone. Because the TV networks don't care about lower-level Division I schools. They want the big names. And that would further the divide.
There's an even bigger problem I foresee, though. Should these radical changes move along and they develop some sort of new division involving only the BCS schools, I'm sure offering stipends to student-athletes would pass with flying colors. However, I'm also fairly certain there would be an attempt to limit the stipends to football, men's basketball and other revenue-producing sports. Well, without even bringing Title IX into it, that would raise equity issues even within these schools. Why should a football player on full scholarship get a stipend, but not a student-athlete on the women's golf team who has the same full scholarship? You give stipends to one team, you've got to give them to everybody. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of hybrid model where only student-athletes on full athletic scholarships are eligible for stipends, but that's a discussion for another day.
The NCAA is in need of reform. I don't think there's anybody who would disagree with that. But something this radical isn't the answer. Can the necessary changes take place without blowing up the entire system? Yes, I believe it can. But they have to give it time to be implemented and work. Sadly, with the current state of college athletics, I'm not sure they'll be given that time they need. And the system as we know it might be forever changed as a result.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Another Tainted Star
The first domino in the ongoing Biogenesis scandal fell today, with Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun being suspended for the remainder of the season. Others are sure to follow, but I think it's telling that the first one is Braun. Unlike A-Rod, who's been Public Enemy No. 1 from the moment he put on a Yankee uniform, Braun was a good old boy. A clean-cut, hard-working guy who was the face of a small market franchise. It always bothered me that Braun, for the most part, was given a free pass by almost everyone after his positive test in 2011 and successful appeal. Well, after today, Braun's never going to get a free pass again (unless it's during a game).
To me, there was always something fishy with Braun and that prior test. And his arrogance about it really irked me. He got off on a technicality, yet smugly had that defiant press conference denying everything and proclaiming himself to be "proud the system worked." I didn't believe him then (the only reason he got off was because of chain-of-custody issues, not because there was anything questionable with the results of the test). Well, as it turns out, that press conference was a bold-faced lie. Braun got caught and he knew it, but still held that press conference knowing it was nothing but a big, fat lie. For that, he should be ashamed.
Then Braun's name came up in all the Biogenesis stuff. (I'd also like to again go on record by saying that Tony Bosch isn't some sort of "hero" like people are making him out to be. The guy's slime. Why would he keep detailed records like that if he wasn't ultimately going to double-cross these guys?) His reason seemed a little too convenient. He "consulted Bosch during his appeal." It made sense, so people bought it. Well, now we know that Bosch provided Braun with a lot more than just advice.
ESPN's Buster Olney has said that Braun is now baseball's Lance Armstrong. There couldn't be a more apt comparison. I'll be the first to admit that I was as fooled by Lance Armstrong as anybody. I'm almost embarrassed that he pulled the wool over my eyes for so long before finally coming clean. Well, I was never fooled by Ryan Braun. It always felt like he was hiding something. Turns out, he was.
That's what makes some of the wording in today's press release all the more disturbing. Braun "realizes now" that he has made some mistakes. He didn't realize that a year and a half ago when he got caught, got away with it, then proceeded to lie to the entire country? And what is it that made him realize? The mountain of evidence against him and imminent suspension that would've been much longer had he not cut a deal with Major League Baseball?
Likewise, it's a strange choice of words by MLB's Rob Manfred, who "commended" Braun for taking responsibility for his actions. What exactly has he done that deserves being commended? That's the last word that should be used regarding him in this whole situation. Braun was exposed as a fraud, a liar and a cheat. That's not generally behavior that's classified as "commendable." Yes, he took his punishment like a man. I'll give him that. But that punishment only came as a result of striking a deal that would limit his suspension to this season, so even that can be taken with a grain of salt.
I know I come off as a flip-flopper here. I'm in a proud minority with my unwavering support for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the like, but I'm quick to jump all over Ryan Braun for being a cheater. Well, there's one big difference. Bonds and Clemens, regardless of what they took and how much they knew about what it was, never failed a test and weren't breaking any rules. Well, successful appeal or not, Braun did fail a test. And that test was administered as a part of Major League Baseball's drug testing policy. Braun broke the rules. All of the guys during the Steroids Era didn't. Sorry, but I'll keep coming back to that as my reason for being in their corner.
It's pretty clear that Bonds and Clemens are never getting into the Hall of Fame. Whether you think that's the right thing or not (I obviously don't, you can't pretend the '90s never happened) isn't the point. The point is that something else became clear today. Ryan Braun's never getting a plaque in Cooperstown, either. He's just the latest in a long line of fallen stars whose legacy is forever tarnished. It's a damn shame, too.
To me, there was always something fishy with Braun and that prior test. And his arrogance about it really irked me. He got off on a technicality, yet smugly had that defiant press conference denying everything and proclaiming himself to be "proud the system worked." I didn't believe him then (the only reason he got off was because of chain-of-custody issues, not because there was anything questionable with the results of the test). Well, as it turns out, that press conference was a bold-faced lie. Braun got caught and he knew it, but still held that press conference knowing it was nothing but a big, fat lie. For that, he should be ashamed.
Then Braun's name came up in all the Biogenesis stuff. (I'd also like to again go on record by saying that Tony Bosch isn't some sort of "hero" like people are making him out to be. The guy's slime. Why would he keep detailed records like that if he wasn't ultimately going to double-cross these guys?) His reason seemed a little too convenient. He "consulted Bosch during his appeal." It made sense, so people bought it. Well, now we know that Bosch provided Braun with a lot more than just advice.
ESPN's Buster Olney has said that Braun is now baseball's Lance Armstrong. There couldn't be a more apt comparison. I'll be the first to admit that I was as fooled by Lance Armstrong as anybody. I'm almost embarrassed that he pulled the wool over my eyes for so long before finally coming clean. Well, I was never fooled by Ryan Braun. It always felt like he was hiding something. Turns out, he was.
That's what makes some of the wording in today's press release all the more disturbing. Braun "realizes now" that he has made some mistakes. He didn't realize that a year and a half ago when he got caught, got away with it, then proceeded to lie to the entire country? And what is it that made him realize? The mountain of evidence against him and imminent suspension that would've been much longer had he not cut a deal with Major League Baseball?
Likewise, it's a strange choice of words by MLB's Rob Manfred, who "commended" Braun for taking responsibility for his actions. What exactly has he done that deserves being commended? That's the last word that should be used regarding him in this whole situation. Braun was exposed as a fraud, a liar and a cheat. That's not generally behavior that's classified as "commendable." Yes, he took his punishment like a man. I'll give him that. But that punishment only came as a result of striking a deal that would limit his suspension to this season, so even that can be taken with a grain of salt.
I know I come off as a flip-flopper here. I'm in a proud minority with my unwavering support for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the like, but I'm quick to jump all over Ryan Braun for being a cheater. Well, there's one big difference. Bonds and Clemens, regardless of what they took and how much they knew about what it was, never failed a test and weren't breaking any rules. Well, successful appeal or not, Braun did fail a test. And that test was administered as a part of Major League Baseball's drug testing policy. Braun broke the rules. All of the guys during the Steroids Era didn't. Sorry, but I'll keep coming back to that as my reason for being in their corner.
It's pretty clear that Bonds and Clemens are never getting into the Hall of Fame. Whether you think that's the right thing or not (I obviously don't, you can't pretend the '90s never happened) isn't the point. The point is that something else became clear today. Ryan Braun's never getting a plaque in Cooperstown, either. He's just the latest in a long line of fallen stars whose legacy is forever tarnished. It's a damn shame, too.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Waiting for Reinforcements
So, A-Rod strained his quad in his Triple-A game last night, so his return to the Yankees won't be tomorrow like we originally thought. This is the same injury that knocked out Derek Jeter in his first game back. The plan is for all of these injured guys to come back eventually, but I'm really starting to believe that's more hope than anything else. Regardless of who it is, though, the Yankees are in dire need of some offensive reinforcements.
The fact that they're still even thinking about the postseason right now really is remarkable if you think about it. They've used 45 players already, have more career home runs on the DL than most teams have on the active roster, and can't hit. A-Rod will be third baseman number eight to go along with the six different shortstops they've used. And first baseman Lyle Overbay, who's been one of the most consistent players on the team, was picked up off the scrap heap during the final week of Spring Training because nobody else wanted him. Yet the Yankees, while not where they wanted to be, are in the mix.
Things have gotten so bad that they're down to the backups of the backups of the backups. They signed Kevin Youkilis to play third base until A-Rod returned. He played roughly 20 games, is having back surgery, and might return in mid-September. Jeter's original replacement at short, Eduardo Nunez, missed two months, then once he finally came back, Jayson Nix, an incredibly valuable utility guy, went on the DL. The current third baseman is Luis Cruz, who was claimed off waivers from the Dodgers at the end of June.
With the exception of Mark Teixeira, all of the regulars are expected back sometime this season. These pending returns and the questions surrounding them make next week's trade deadline that much harder. The Yankees know they need to do something. A right-handed bat, preferably one that plays first base, is a must. But beyond that, they don't know what they need because they aren't really sure what they have.
Curtis Granderson is expected back in early August. That puts the projected outfield of Granderson, Gardner and Ichiro back together with Zoilo Almonte as a backup while also freeing up Vernon Wells to be the right-handed DH. With this scenario in mind, you would think that there isn't really anywhere for an outfielder to play. Same thing with a third baseman or shortstop. They're expecting both Jeter and A-Rod back. They can't both DH, which means at least one of them needs to be healthy enough to play the field before returning. The goal is to have them both in the field, with Wells and Hafner (who, with his injury history, it's a miracle he's lasted this long) splitting the DH at-bats. (Even though Romine can't hit, they're fine at catcher until Cervelli comes back.)
See the predicament? A reduced Jeter and/or a reduced A-Rod are still better options than what they've currently got, and they're both probably better than anybody they'd be able to acquire in a trade. But they also can't sit back and wait. The AL East is too competitive, and they're running the risk of being too far out with too few games remaining for them returning to even make much of a difference.
The Yankees also have the chips to trade. The reason they're even in the conversation despite all these injuries has obviously been the pitching staff. Instead of winning games 10-8, they're winning 4-2 this season. The bullpen has been outstanding, and the rotation is so deep that they have seven starters if you count Michael Pineda. Phil Hughes is by far the most tradable piece, and I've been advocating swapping Hughes for a right-handed bat (preferably Michael Young) for weeks now. They can even sweeten the deal by throwing in Joba, provided somebody actually wants him (if that even is "sweetening" at all).
It's obvious to everyone that the 2013 Yankees have been more defined by who's not on the field than who is. It's already been a long season, and it's only bound to get longer the more time goes by with the likes of Luis Cruz in the everyday lineup. That's one of my main counterarguments to the A-Rod haters that hope he never comes back. For the sake of the New York Yankees, I want Alex Rodriguez batting cleanup behind Robinson Cano. Because I'd much rather have him playing third base than anybody else they've thrown out there. My main concern is seeing the Yankees win, which is something they're more equipped to do with Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter than the guys who've been playing the infield for nearly four months.
This season is starting to feel like 2008. And the similarities are way too prevalent. In 2008, the Yankees hosted the All-Star Game. This year the Mets did. There were a ton of injuries in 2008. This year, there have been so many injuries it's hard to keep track. In 2008, they missed the playoffs for the only time in the 18 seasons the Division Series has existed. This season certainly feels like it could end the same way, which I think a lot of Yankees fans are getting prepared for. Years like this make you appreciate losing in October so much more.
There's one last similarity to 2008 that can't be overlooked, either. That season was the final season in the Old Yankee Stadium, and everything thing that happened was overshadowed by that inevitable goodbye. Instead of figuring out games back and magic numbers, it was counting down the games until the Old Stadium closed its doors forever. And when they didn't make the playoffs, it was almost OK. Because that meant the last regular season game at the Old Stadium was THE last game, and they were able to go out with a win rather than a disappointing playoff loss.
Before this season even started, we all knew what 2013 was going to be about. Mariano Rivera's Farewell Tour. Much like the final game at the Old Stadium, Mariano's pending retirement has been the underlying theme of this entire season. And much like 2008, counting down those final chances to Mariano Rivera seem more important than anything else. The final home game against Tampa Bay on September 26 is already sold out. For one reason and one reason only.
We don't know when his last game is going to be. But we've prepared ourselves for that game not being in the month of October (which would keep Mariano's record total of postseason saves at the incredibly appropriate 42). I'm not saying there's any reason to give up hope on the Yankees. If everybody does come back and be productive, a run to the playoffs isn't entirely out of the question. But thanks to Mariano, the month of September is going to have meaning one way or the other.
The fact that they're still even thinking about the postseason right now really is remarkable if you think about it. They've used 45 players already, have more career home runs on the DL than most teams have on the active roster, and can't hit. A-Rod will be third baseman number eight to go along with the six different shortstops they've used. And first baseman Lyle Overbay, who's been one of the most consistent players on the team, was picked up off the scrap heap during the final week of Spring Training because nobody else wanted him. Yet the Yankees, while not where they wanted to be, are in the mix.
Things have gotten so bad that they're down to the backups of the backups of the backups. They signed Kevin Youkilis to play third base until A-Rod returned. He played roughly 20 games, is having back surgery, and might return in mid-September. Jeter's original replacement at short, Eduardo Nunez, missed two months, then once he finally came back, Jayson Nix, an incredibly valuable utility guy, went on the DL. The current third baseman is Luis Cruz, who was claimed off waivers from the Dodgers at the end of June.
With the exception of Mark Teixeira, all of the regulars are expected back sometime this season. These pending returns and the questions surrounding them make next week's trade deadline that much harder. The Yankees know they need to do something. A right-handed bat, preferably one that plays first base, is a must. But beyond that, they don't know what they need because they aren't really sure what they have.
Curtis Granderson is expected back in early August. That puts the projected outfield of Granderson, Gardner and Ichiro back together with Zoilo Almonte as a backup while also freeing up Vernon Wells to be the right-handed DH. With this scenario in mind, you would think that there isn't really anywhere for an outfielder to play. Same thing with a third baseman or shortstop. They're expecting both Jeter and A-Rod back. They can't both DH, which means at least one of them needs to be healthy enough to play the field before returning. The goal is to have them both in the field, with Wells and Hafner (who, with his injury history, it's a miracle he's lasted this long) splitting the DH at-bats. (Even though Romine can't hit, they're fine at catcher until Cervelli comes back.)
See the predicament? A reduced Jeter and/or a reduced A-Rod are still better options than what they've currently got, and they're both probably better than anybody they'd be able to acquire in a trade. But they also can't sit back and wait. The AL East is too competitive, and they're running the risk of being too far out with too few games remaining for them returning to even make much of a difference.
The Yankees also have the chips to trade. The reason they're even in the conversation despite all these injuries has obviously been the pitching staff. Instead of winning games 10-8, they're winning 4-2 this season. The bullpen has been outstanding, and the rotation is so deep that they have seven starters if you count Michael Pineda. Phil Hughes is by far the most tradable piece, and I've been advocating swapping Hughes for a right-handed bat (preferably Michael Young) for weeks now. They can even sweeten the deal by throwing in Joba, provided somebody actually wants him (if that even is "sweetening" at all).
It's obvious to everyone that the 2013 Yankees have been more defined by who's not on the field than who is. It's already been a long season, and it's only bound to get longer the more time goes by with the likes of Luis Cruz in the everyday lineup. That's one of my main counterarguments to the A-Rod haters that hope he never comes back. For the sake of the New York Yankees, I want Alex Rodriguez batting cleanup behind Robinson Cano. Because I'd much rather have him playing third base than anybody else they've thrown out there. My main concern is seeing the Yankees win, which is something they're more equipped to do with Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter than the guys who've been playing the infield for nearly four months.
This season is starting to feel like 2008. And the similarities are way too prevalent. In 2008, the Yankees hosted the All-Star Game. This year the Mets did. There were a ton of injuries in 2008. This year, there have been so many injuries it's hard to keep track. In 2008, they missed the playoffs for the only time in the 18 seasons the Division Series has existed. This season certainly feels like it could end the same way, which I think a lot of Yankees fans are getting prepared for. Years like this make you appreciate losing in October so much more.
There's one last similarity to 2008 that can't be overlooked, either. That season was the final season in the Old Yankee Stadium, and everything thing that happened was overshadowed by that inevitable goodbye. Instead of figuring out games back and magic numbers, it was counting down the games until the Old Stadium closed its doors forever. And when they didn't make the playoffs, it was almost OK. Because that meant the last regular season game at the Old Stadium was THE last game, and they were able to go out with a win rather than a disappointing playoff loss.
Before this season even started, we all knew what 2013 was going to be about. Mariano Rivera's Farewell Tour. Much like the final game at the Old Stadium, Mariano's pending retirement has been the underlying theme of this entire season. And much like 2008, counting down those final chances to Mariano Rivera seem more important than anything else. The final home game against Tampa Bay on September 26 is already sold out. For one reason and one reason only.
We don't know when his last game is going to be. But we've prepared ourselves for that game not being in the month of October (which would keep Mariano's record total of postseason saves at the incredibly appropriate 42). I'm not saying there's any reason to give up hope on the Yankees. If everybody does come back and be productive, a run to the playoffs isn't entirely out of the question. But thanks to Mariano, the month of September is going to have meaning one way or the other.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Gay, Powell, and What It All Means
I'm as shocked and saddened as anybody about the positive doping tests by both Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell (as well as those of Jamaican female Olympic medalists Veronica Campbell-Brown and Sherone Simpson). With their positives, the list of fastest sprinters of all-time just had two more asterisks attached to it. And it once again brings up the same questions about Usain Bolt. How can he be that much better than everybody else and not be on something? It's a valid question. Some in the track & field community have been suspect of Bolt for a while, and the latest news about Gay and Powell (two of his closest competitors) doesn't help his case.
People like to talk about cycling as a tainted sport, but sprinting's recent history is just as murky. Sprinters were among the main culprits when the BALCO scandal first broke in the early 2000s, but it looked like track & field had finally moved on from those dark days, due in large part to Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay, among others. Now Gay is tainted, along with way too many of the sport's stars for things to be comfortable. I just hope we're not being duped through another dark era.
Those involved in the track & field and anti-doping world point to these positive tests as a good thing. It's proof that the system is working. I don't disagree with that contention. It's better to disqualify athletes right away and get repeat offenders out of the sport than deal with changing results years after the fact. Adam Nelson won the gold medal in the shot put at the 2004 Olympics. Only, he didn't find out (or get his medal) until last year! Nelson originally finished second behind Ukraine's Yuriy Bilonog, whose positive result wasn't confirmed until eight years later. So instead of having his Olympic moment, Nelson had to wait nearly a decade to get the medal that was rightfully his.
They've certainly gotten much more efficient with these tests, and we've even seen varying degrees of punishments based on the seriousness of the violation. American 800-meter runner Maggie Vessey was given a public warning (a slap on the wrist) because a banned substance was in a prescription medication she was taking. Reduced suspensions are also common if the positive test was deemed to be inadvertent and/or unintentional. The standard suspension used to be two years, but that will be extended to four when the next edition of the World Anti-Doping Code comes out (so that athletes have to miss an Olympics), with a life ban for a second offense.
Some sprinters have proven that a doping suspension doesn't necessarily mean their career is over, either. For every Marion Jones or Kelli White or Tim Montgomery, who disappeared after their positive tests because they we're competitive otherwise, there's a Justin Gatlin. Gatlin won the Olympic 100 meters in Athens, then received a four-year doping suspension from 2006-10. He came back to win the bronze medal in London, beat Bolt earlier this season, and is a favorite to win a medal at the World Championships next month. Same with LaShawn Merritt, who finished second in the 400 at the 2011 World Championships weeks after returning from his own 21-month ban.
While this whole situation is sad and ugly, I give Gay credit for being a man about it. He came right out and admitted his guilt, didn't make any excuses, and voluntarily withdrew from the World Championships (where his showdown with Bolt was going to be one of the most anticipated events). If and when his "B" sample comes back positive, I'm sure his cooperation is something that will be taken into consideration when it comes to doling out punishment. Contrast that to Asafa Powell, who has taken the same "deny, deny, deny" approach as so many before him. But a positive sample is a positive sample.
Maybe Lance Armstrong was right when he said he wouldn't have been able to win the Tour de France without doping. Maybe the same thing can be applied to sprinting, too. I hope that's not the case, but it brings us back to the question at hand: "How can Bolt be clean when it seems like nobody else is?"
Well, I counter with this. Allyson Felix. Sanya Richards-Ross. Kirani James. They've proven that you don't need to be on PEDs to be a world-class sprinter (God, I hope I'm right about all three of them).
For me, that's really the saddest takeaway from the Gay/Powell situation. Just when we thought we were past the point where everyone's results come into question, we're back to hoping athletes prove our faith in them is warranted while, at the same time, not being overly surprised if/when they let us down. Tyson Gay let us down and he knows it. His taking responsibility for his actions is the only "refreshing" thing about this entire ugly situation. And who knows? Maybe Tyson Gay will somehow help restore our faith in a sport that's suddenly, once again, dealing with a serious credibility issue.
People like to talk about cycling as a tainted sport, but sprinting's recent history is just as murky. Sprinters were among the main culprits when the BALCO scandal first broke in the early 2000s, but it looked like track & field had finally moved on from those dark days, due in large part to Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay, among others. Now Gay is tainted, along with way too many of the sport's stars for things to be comfortable. I just hope we're not being duped through another dark era.
Those involved in the track & field and anti-doping world point to these positive tests as a good thing. It's proof that the system is working. I don't disagree with that contention. It's better to disqualify athletes right away and get repeat offenders out of the sport than deal with changing results years after the fact. Adam Nelson won the gold medal in the shot put at the 2004 Olympics. Only, he didn't find out (or get his medal) until last year! Nelson originally finished second behind Ukraine's Yuriy Bilonog, whose positive result wasn't confirmed until eight years later. So instead of having his Olympic moment, Nelson had to wait nearly a decade to get the medal that was rightfully his.
They've certainly gotten much more efficient with these tests, and we've even seen varying degrees of punishments based on the seriousness of the violation. American 800-meter runner Maggie Vessey was given a public warning (a slap on the wrist) because a banned substance was in a prescription medication she was taking. Reduced suspensions are also common if the positive test was deemed to be inadvertent and/or unintentional. The standard suspension used to be two years, but that will be extended to four when the next edition of the World Anti-Doping Code comes out (so that athletes have to miss an Olympics), with a life ban for a second offense.
Some sprinters have proven that a doping suspension doesn't necessarily mean their career is over, either. For every Marion Jones or Kelli White or Tim Montgomery, who disappeared after their positive tests because they we're competitive otherwise, there's a Justin Gatlin. Gatlin won the Olympic 100 meters in Athens, then received a four-year doping suspension from 2006-10. He came back to win the bronze medal in London, beat Bolt earlier this season, and is a favorite to win a medal at the World Championships next month. Same with LaShawn Merritt, who finished second in the 400 at the 2011 World Championships weeks after returning from his own 21-month ban.
While this whole situation is sad and ugly, I give Gay credit for being a man about it. He came right out and admitted his guilt, didn't make any excuses, and voluntarily withdrew from the World Championships (where his showdown with Bolt was going to be one of the most anticipated events). If and when his "B" sample comes back positive, I'm sure his cooperation is something that will be taken into consideration when it comes to doling out punishment. Contrast that to Asafa Powell, who has taken the same "deny, deny, deny" approach as so many before him. But a positive sample is a positive sample.
Maybe Lance Armstrong was right when he said he wouldn't have been able to win the Tour de France without doping. Maybe the same thing can be applied to sprinting, too. I hope that's not the case, but it brings us back to the question at hand: "How can Bolt be clean when it seems like nobody else is?"
Well, I counter with this. Allyson Felix. Sanya Richards-Ross. Kirani James. They've proven that you don't need to be on PEDs to be a world-class sprinter (God, I hope I'm right about all three of them).
For me, that's really the saddest takeaway from the Gay/Powell situation. Just when we thought we were past the point where everyone's results come into question, we're back to hoping athletes prove our faith in them is warranted while, at the same time, not being overly surprised if/when they let us down. Tyson Gay let us down and he knows it. His taking responsibility for his actions is the only "refreshing" thing about this entire ugly situation. And who knows? Maybe Tyson Gay will somehow help restore our faith in a sport that's suddenly, once again, dealing with a serious credibility issue.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Sure, Let's Boycott the Olympics...It Worked So Well the Last Time
Do U.S. Senators ever think before they say anything? I'm really thinking they don't. Because some of our "brilliant" elected officials come up with some of the stupidest ideas. Then say it on the record all proud of themselves while the rest of the country is sitting there thinking, "Are you an idiot?"
I'm, of course, talking about South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who suggested the U.S. boycott the upcoming Sochi Games because, well I couldn't really figure out why. He's mad that Edward Snowden is trying to get temporary asylum in Russia (since it's evidently their fault a guy with no passport can't get out of the Moscow airport). He also made some sort of reference about Hitler, said something about Iran, and implied the Russian government only wants the Olympics to spread propaganda (I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking six-and-a-half years ago when they won the bid, those evil geniuses. Never fear, Lindsey's on to 'em!).
Where do I start with how ridiculous this entire idea is? How about the fact that it's July? The Olympics are in February. That's seven months from now! All of this stuff could easily be resolved by then. It's also merely a coincidence that the Olympics are going to be in Russia. If they were anywhere else, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. (Will similar issues magically pop up again in the lead up to the 2018 World Cup?)
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. What about the athletes? What did they do to deserve having their Olympic dream taken away from them? And for what? Whether or not you think Edward Snowden is a traitor isn't even remotely close to the point. The point is that one senator's opinion about this one man isn't enough to warrant taking that opportunity away from these athletes, who've dedicated years to their sport and might only get this one chance. Not to mention depriving the American people the thrill and pride of watching Team USA. The London Olympics were the highest-rated in history for a reason.
What's more, we've tried this already. The only other time Russia hosted the Olympics, in 1980, the U.S. didn't go. How'd that turn out again?
That was a different time, though. 1980 was the height of the Cold War, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the main protagonists. The U.S. didn't attend the Summer Olympics in Moscow for political reasons, and a number of our Western allies followed suit. Then when LA hosted the Olympics four years later, the Soviet Union responded with a boycott of its own, purely out of spite. Did either of those boycotts accomplish anything constructive? No. All that the 1980 and 1984 boycotts did was water down those Olympics and deprive thousands of athletes the opportunity of a lifetime. All because of political interference.
Things have changed significantly in the past 30 years. For starters, the Cold War is over. We won. The Soviet Union hasn't even existed in 20 years. And while we don't always see eye-to-eye, Russia has become an important ally. However, if the U.S. were to actually boycott the Sochi Olympics, all it would do is bring both countries back to an uncomfortable past. One we've both moved on from. (The fact that this will be the first time the U.S. is participating in an Olympics held in Russia is already one of the big storylines leading up to the Games.)
I can't believe we're even talking about this. House speaker John Boehner has said Senator Graham is "dead wrong," pointing out (correctly) that it would be unfair to punish the athletes. The USOC referred to 1980 in its rebuttal, noting that the boycott did nothing to resolve the underlying conflict between the two nations (I'd even argue it might've made things worse). And at least in 1980, there was an underlying conflict between the U.S. and Russia, making Jimmy Carter's decision to boycott the Moscow Games, while still a terrible move, a little more understandable.
Furthermore, the U.S. government (which, it's also worth pointing out here, contributes nothing financially to the USOC) no longer has a say as to whether or not the United States sends a team to the Olympics. That decision lies solely in the hands of the USOC. While I'm sure if there was a legitimate reason for the government to propose an Olympic boycott, the USOC would probably at least listen, this isn't one. Senator Graham is wrong. There's absolutely no chance the U.S. won't be competing in Sochi. The fact that we're even discussing it is a complete joke.
I'm, of course, talking about South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who suggested the U.S. boycott the upcoming Sochi Games because, well I couldn't really figure out why. He's mad that Edward Snowden is trying to get temporary asylum in Russia (since it's evidently their fault a guy with no passport can't get out of the Moscow airport). He also made some sort of reference about Hitler, said something about Iran, and implied the Russian government only wants the Olympics to spread propaganda (I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking six-and-a-half years ago when they won the bid, those evil geniuses. Never fear, Lindsey's on to 'em!).
Where do I start with how ridiculous this entire idea is? How about the fact that it's July? The Olympics are in February. That's seven months from now! All of this stuff could easily be resolved by then. It's also merely a coincidence that the Olympics are going to be in Russia. If they were anywhere else, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. (Will similar issues magically pop up again in the lead up to the 2018 World Cup?)
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. What about the athletes? What did they do to deserve having their Olympic dream taken away from them? And for what? Whether or not you think Edward Snowden is a traitor isn't even remotely close to the point. The point is that one senator's opinion about this one man isn't enough to warrant taking that opportunity away from these athletes, who've dedicated years to their sport and might only get this one chance. Not to mention depriving the American people the thrill and pride of watching Team USA. The London Olympics were the highest-rated in history for a reason.
What's more, we've tried this already. The only other time Russia hosted the Olympics, in 1980, the U.S. didn't go. How'd that turn out again?
That was a different time, though. 1980 was the height of the Cold War, with the United States and the Soviet Union as the main protagonists. The U.S. didn't attend the Summer Olympics in Moscow for political reasons, and a number of our Western allies followed suit. Then when LA hosted the Olympics four years later, the Soviet Union responded with a boycott of its own, purely out of spite. Did either of those boycotts accomplish anything constructive? No. All that the 1980 and 1984 boycotts did was water down those Olympics and deprive thousands of athletes the opportunity of a lifetime. All because of political interference.
Things have changed significantly in the past 30 years. For starters, the Cold War is over. We won. The Soviet Union hasn't even existed in 20 years. And while we don't always see eye-to-eye, Russia has become an important ally. However, if the U.S. were to actually boycott the Sochi Olympics, all it would do is bring both countries back to an uncomfortable past. One we've both moved on from. (The fact that this will be the first time the U.S. is participating in an Olympics held in Russia is already one of the big storylines leading up to the Games.)
I can't believe we're even talking about this. House speaker John Boehner has said Senator Graham is "dead wrong," pointing out (correctly) that it would be unfair to punish the athletes. The USOC referred to 1980 in its rebuttal, noting that the boycott did nothing to resolve the underlying conflict between the two nations (I'd even argue it might've made things worse). And at least in 1980, there was an underlying conflict between the U.S. and Russia, making Jimmy Carter's decision to boycott the Moscow Games, while still a terrible move, a little more understandable.
Furthermore, the U.S. government (which, it's also worth pointing out here, contributes nothing financially to the USOC) no longer has a say as to whether or not the United States sends a team to the Olympics. That decision lies solely in the hands of the USOC. While I'm sure if there was a legitimate reason for the government to propose an Olympic boycott, the USOC would probably at least listen, this isn't one. Senator Graham is wrong. There's absolutely no chance the U.S. won't be competing in Sochi. The fact that we're even discussing it is a complete joke.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
A Festival For the Fans
A lot of stuff went on while I was on my own personal little All-Star Break. I obviously can't go without talking about the devastating positive drug tests of Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell. Nor can I ignore the latest in the Biogenesis scandal, which is probably going to result in some pretty lengthy suspensions to start the 2014 season. But I'll get to those later in the week. First, I'll share with you what I've been up to over much of the past week.
Just like when Yankee Stadium hosted the All-Star Game in 2008, I partook in the festivities. I worked as a volunteer at FanFest, which was just as enjoyable this time as it was five years ago. I also went over to Citi Field and joined in the fun down there, attending my second All-Star Futures Game/Legends & Celebrity Softball Game.
For those of you who haven't had the pleasure of FanFest coming to your city (or been lucky enough to have it twice), it's a full interactive baseball experience. You can test your baseball skills at various physical attractions or get an autograph from your favorite player. Watch a radio show broadcast live or give one of the various trivia games a shot. Or you can pay a visit to the collectors and check out the memorabilia on display. Some of my favorite exhibits, though, were the museum-like displays about the Hall of Fame, Negro Leagues, Minor Leagues, etc. There was literally something for everybody, even the quasi-baseball fan. Here are some pictures from the weekend.
Mets fans are a loyal bunch. They deserved this. It was nice to see them have something to cheer about for a weekend. It was also great to see people show so much pride in being Mets fans. This All-Star Game was as much for Mets fans as it was for anyone else. And for their part, the Mets did a tremendous job as hosts. Hopefully they won't have to wait 50 years to do it again.
Just like when Yankee Stadium hosted the All-Star Game in 2008, I partook in the festivities. I worked as a volunteer at FanFest, which was just as enjoyable this time as it was five years ago. I also went over to Citi Field and joined in the fun down there, attending my second All-Star Futures Game/Legends & Celebrity Softball Game.
For those of you who haven't had the pleasure of FanFest coming to your city (or been lucky enough to have it twice), it's a full interactive baseball experience. You can test your baseball skills at various physical attractions or get an autograph from your favorite player. Watch a radio show broadcast live or give one of the various trivia games a shot. Or you can pay a visit to the collectors and check out the memorabilia on display. Some of my favorite exhibits, though, were the museum-like displays about the Hall of Fame, Negro Leagues, Minor Leagues, etc. There was literally something for everybody, even the quasi-baseball fan. Here are some pictures from the weekend.
 |
| My favorite exhibit was the display of all the Major League Baseball trophies, where they let you pose with the World Series trophy. |
 |
| This is the World Baseball Classic championship trophy, which has the three winners engraved on the bottom. |
 |
| This beautiful glass bat is now the property of Mariano Rivera, the All-Star Game MVP. |
 |
| The only previous All-Star Game hosted by the Mets was at Shea Stadium in 1964. |
 |
| One of the coolest things at FanFest was the guy from Rawlings demonstrating how to make a baseball. |
 |
| Sorry Mets fans, but he was MVP. (I took pictures of the Harvey and Wright lockers, too.) |
 |
| My view of the Futures Game from the Left Field Landing. |
 |
| Lots of mascots. Apparently Mr. Met got married during the offseason, too. |
 |
| Diamondbacks third base prospect Matt Davidson was the MVP of the Futures Game. |
 |
| Setting up for some softball. |
 |
| There were ex-Mets all over the place, but the Celebrity Softball Game MVP was Josh Wege, who lost both of his legs in Afghanistan and plays for the Wounded Warriors Softball Team. A true hero. |
Mets fans are a loyal bunch. They deserved this. It was nice to see them have something to cheer about for a weekend. It was also great to see people show so much pride in being Mets fans. This All-Star Game was as much for Mets fans as it was for anyone else. And for their part, the Mets did a tremendous job as hosts. Hopefully they won't have to wait 50 years to do it again.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
First Half Awards
I know the first half of the season isn't technically over until Sunday, but since I'll be busy at FanFest all weekend, I decided that I'll hand out my First Half Awards a little early. Some of them are fairly straightforward. In fact, several of these awards are so obvious, they would most likely be unanimous at this point.
AL MVP: Miguel Cabrera-It's close between Miggy and Chris Davis, but I've gotta go with Cabrera. He's running away with the AL batting title right now and has a 10-RBI lead on Davis. Davis has three more home runs, but if Cabrera catches him, which I think he will, we have the potential for an unprecedented second straight Triple Crown. If that happens, there won't be a discussion at the end of the season. Another thing to keep in mind that gives a slight edge to Cabrera...he won the Triple Crown last year. Everybody knows what he's capable of, and he's doing it anyway. For a first place team. Davis has been impressive for sure, but he kind of came out of nowhere in a lot of people's eyes. What Robinson Cano has done can't be overlooked, either.
AL Cy Young: Max Scherzer-Um, yeah. He's 13-0! And don't give me that "wins are overvalued" nonsense. How many other starters are undefeated in July? Scherzer's also second in the AL in strikeouts and his WHIP is under 1. He's the best pitcher on a team that includes Justin Verlander. Even if Jim Leyland wasn't his manager, he'd be a lock to start for the AL on Tuesday night.
AL Rookie: Dan Straily-This was the toughest one for me, mostly because it's a wide open race. Unlike last year with Mike Trout, who was obviously going to win by the All-Star break, there are no standout rookies in the American League. That's why I'm going with Straily, who's stepped right into that Oakland rotation and has a 6-2 record for an A's team that's currently in first place. Still plenty of time for others to emerge, though.
AL Comeback Player: Mariano Rivera-Duh. I think they've already started engraving the award.
AL Manager: Joe Girardi-I was having a conversation about AL Manager of the Year the other day with a Red Sox fan who was looking through his red-colored glasses and said there's no question John Farrell has to win. My response was, "Are you kidding?" The Yankees are in playoff contention despite having already used as many players this year as they did all season in 2012, and doing so without all of their big names. If they make the playoffs, Girardi wins hands down. Even if they don't he still might.
NL MVP: Yadier Molina-Another tough one with plenty of legitimate candidates, but I think Yadier deserves his due. He doesn't have the gaudy power numbers, but he leads the National League in hitting and is one double shy of the league lead (for good measure, he's also tied for fifth in hits). Most importantly, he's a Gold Glove catcher and brilliantly handles that pitching staff. They haven't missed a beat in the two seasons since Albert left, and Yadier Molina's the main reason why.
NL Cy Young: Adam Wainwright-I could give you a list of names of NL pitchers (probably everybody that pitches on Tuesday night), ask you to pick who you think is going to win the Cy Young, and get five different answers, none of which would be wrong. But my choice would be Wainwright. He's the best pitcher on the best team in baseball. Wainwright leads the NL in wins, is third in ERA, fifth in strikeouts and has allowed just five home runs in 140.2 innings (the most in the National League).
NL Rookie: Yasiel Piug-I'm thrilled that enough people didn't get swept up in Puigmania and he was rightfully kept off the All-Star team. But while I don't believe he deserved to be an All-Star, his numbers do blow away the rest of the NL rookie class. He's this year's Harper and Trout rolled into one. And Puig will almost certainly be the most recent Dodgers rookie sensation to win NL Rookie of the Year honors. If he continues to put up numbers at the same pace, he'll probably get a bunch of MVP votes, too.
NL Comeback Player: Matt Garza-Of course, this is all dependent on him not getting traded to an AL team before the end of the season, but Garza has certainly had a nice bounce-back year after missing the second half of last year with an elbow injury. He didn't make his 2013 debut until mid-May, but has been solid since. He's 5-1 in 10 starts and has boosted that trade value right back up. My guess is he ends the season on a team other than the Cubs and somebody else gets NL Comeback Player of the Year as a result.
NL Manager: Clint Hurdle-With all due respect to Kirk Gibson and Walt Weiss, who's clearly the top rookie manager in the majors, there's no question that the Pirates having the second-best record in baseball is one of the best stories of the first half. This is a team that's endured 19 consecutive losing seasons! We've gotten excited about the Pirates before, only to see them fizzle out in August and not even crack 80 wins, but this year does feel different. Even if they fall short of the playoffs, snapping that losing-seasons streak locks up the award for Clint Hurdle.
AL MVP: Miguel Cabrera-It's close between Miggy and Chris Davis, but I've gotta go with Cabrera. He's running away with the AL batting title right now and has a 10-RBI lead on Davis. Davis has three more home runs, but if Cabrera catches him, which I think he will, we have the potential for an unprecedented second straight Triple Crown. If that happens, there won't be a discussion at the end of the season. Another thing to keep in mind that gives a slight edge to Cabrera...he won the Triple Crown last year. Everybody knows what he's capable of, and he's doing it anyway. For a first place team. Davis has been impressive for sure, but he kind of came out of nowhere in a lot of people's eyes. What Robinson Cano has done can't be overlooked, either.
AL Cy Young: Max Scherzer-Um, yeah. He's 13-0! And don't give me that "wins are overvalued" nonsense. How many other starters are undefeated in July? Scherzer's also second in the AL in strikeouts and his WHIP is under 1. He's the best pitcher on a team that includes Justin Verlander. Even if Jim Leyland wasn't his manager, he'd be a lock to start for the AL on Tuesday night.
AL Rookie: Dan Straily-This was the toughest one for me, mostly because it's a wide open race. Unlike last year with Mike Trout, who was obviously going to win by the All-Star break, there are no standout rookies in the American League. That's why I'm going with Straily, who's stepped right into that Oakland rotation and has a 6-2 record for an A's team that's currently in first place. Still plenty of time for others to emerge, though.
AL Comeback Player: Mariano Rivera-Duh. I think they've already started engraving the award.
AL Manager: Joe Girardi-I was having a conversation about AL Manager of the Year the other day with a Red Sox fan who was looking through his red-colored glasses and said there's no question John Farrell has to win. My response was, "Are you kidding?" The Yankees are in playoff contention despite having already used as many players this year as they did all season in 2012, and doing so without all of their big names. If they make the playoffs, Girardi wins hands down. Even if they don't he still might.
NL MVP: Yadier Molina-Another tough one with plenty of legitimate candidates, but I think Yadier deserves his due. He doesn't have the gaudy power numbers, but he leads the National League in hitting and is one double shy of the league lead (for good measure, he's also tied for fifth in hits). Most importantly, he's a Gold Glove catcher and brilliantly handles that pitching staff. They haven't missed a beat in the two seasons since Albert left, and Yadier Molina's the main reason why.
NL Cy Young: Adam Wainwright-I could give you a list of names of NL pitchers (probably everybody that pitches on Tuesday night), ask you to pick who you think is going to win the Cy Young, and get five different answers, none of which would be wrong. But my choice would be Wainwright. He's the best pitcher on the best team in baseball. Wainwright leads the NL in wins, is third in ERA, fifth in strikeouts and has allowed just five home runs in 140.2 innings (the most in the National League).
NL Rookie: Yasiel Piug-I'm thrilled that enough people didn't get swept up in Puigmania and he was rightfully kept off the All-Star team. But while I don't believe he deserved to be an All-Star, his numbers do blow away the rest of the NL rookie class. He's this year's Harper and Trout rolled into one. And Puig will almost certainly be the most recent Dodgers rookie sensation to win NL Rookie of the Year honors. If he continues to put up numbers at the same pace, he'll probably get a bunch of MVP votes, too.
NL Comeback Player: Matt Garza-Of course, this is all dependent on him not getting traded to an AL team before the end of the season, but Garza has certainly had a nice bounce-back year after missing the second half of last year with an elbow injury. He didn't make his 2013 debut until mid-May, but has been solid since. He's 5-1 in 10 starts and has boosted that trade value right back up. My guess is he ends the season on a team other than the Cubs and somebody else gets NL Comeback Player of the Year as a result.
NL Manager: Clint Hurdle-With all due respect to Kirk Gibson and Walt Weiss, who's clearly the top rookie manager in the majors, there's no question that the Pirates having the second-best record in baseball is one of the best stories of the first half. This is a team that's endured 19 consecutive losing seasons! We've gotten excited about the Pirates before, only to see them fizzle out in August and not even crack 80 wins, but this year does feel different. Even if they fall short of the playoffs, snapping that losing-seasons streak locks up the award for Clint Hurdle.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Ultimate Home Run Derby
The teams for the Home Run Derby have been named, and there was even an episode of the original Home Run Derby on ESPN Classic this morning. That got me thinking. We shouldn't be limited to one Home Run Derby a year. After all, they once made an entire series out of it. Why can't we do that again?
I'd love to see a 32-player tournament. 16 from each league. Seed them, set up a bracket, and have at it. That's 31 episodes, which is perfect for a season of a TV show. The winner gets prize money for his favorite charity. They could do it right before the start of Spring Training and use the same format as the old TV series (nine innings, three outs per player).
You know fans would eat it up, and I think it would be easy enough to get 16 players from each league to sign on. (They could even seed them 1-32 rather than doing it by league if they want.) I'm sure the owners probably wouldn't like it that much, but if the Union wants to do it, I don't really think there's much they could do to stand in the way. And think of how much fun it would be! You could put it on MLB Network (which would give them offseason programming) and let one of their guys be the host. I don't see any drawbacks to this idea.
Here's a sample bracket for the first season of the new Home Run Derby:
AMERICAN LEAGUE
(1) David Ortiz vs. (16) Adrian Beltre
(8) Josh Hamilton vs. (9) Robinson Cano
(4) Chris Davis vs. (13) Adam Dunn
(5) Jose Bautista vs. (12) Evan Longoria
(3) Miguel Cabrera vs. (14) Adam Jones
(6) Albert Pujols vs. (11) Justin Morneau
(7) Alex Rodriguez vs. (10) Nelson Cruz
(2) Prince Fielder vs. (15) Joe Mauer
NATIONAL LEAGUE
(1) Giancarlo Stanton vs. (16) Carlos Beltran
(8) Matt Kemp vs. (9) Ryan Howard
(4) David Wright vs. (13) Matt Holliday
(5) Carlos Gonzalez vs. (12) Bryce Harper
(3) Joey Votto vs. (14) Pedro Alvarez
(6) Pablo Sandoval vs. (11) Adrian Gonzalez
(7) Hanley Ramirez vs. (10) Michael Cuddyer
(2) Ryan Braun vs. (15) Justin Upton
There could easily be five or six other guys in each league that could've been included, but these are the 32 I'd most like to see. I wouldn't be opposed to a play-in game for the right to face the No. 1 seed in each league, either.
I'd love to see a 32-player tournament. 16 from each league. Seed them, set up a bracket, and have at it. That's 31 episodes, which is perfect for a season of a TV show. The winner gets prize money for his favorite charity. They could do it right before the start of Spring Training and use the same format as the old TV series (nine innings, three outs per player).
You know fans would eat it up, and I think it would be easy enough to get 16 players from each league to sign on. (They could even seed them 1-32 rather than doing it by league if they want.) I'm sure the owners probably wouldn't like it that much, but if the Union wants to do it, I don't really think there's much they could do to stand in the way. And think of how much fun it would be! You could put it on MLB Network (which would give them offseason programming) and let one of their guys be the host. I don't see any drawbacks to this idea.
Here's a sample bracket for the first season of the new Home Run Derby:
AMERICAN LEAGUE
(1) David Ortiz vs. (16) Adrian Beltre
(8) Josh Hamilton vs. (9) Robinson Cano
(4) Chris Davis vs. (13) Adam Dunn
(5) Jose Bautista vs. (12) Evan Longoria
(3) Miguel Cabrera vs. (14) Adam Jones
(6) Albert Pujols vs. (11) Justin Morneau
(7) Alex Rodriguez vs. (10) Nelson Cruz
(2) Prince Fielder vs. (15) Joe Mauer
NATIONAL LEAGUE
(1) Giancarlo Stanton vs. (16) Carlos Beltran
(8) Matt Kemp vs. (9) Ryan Howard
(4) David Wright vs. (13) Matt Holliday
(5) Carlos Gonzalez vs. (12) Bryce Harper
(3) Joey Votto vs. (14) Pedro Alvarez
(6) Pablo Sandoval vs. (11) Adrian Gonzalez
(7) Hanley Ramirez vs. (10) Michael Cuddyer
(2) Ryan Braun vs. (15) Justin Upton
There could easily be five or six other guys in each league that could've been included, but these are the 32 I'd most like to see. I wouldn't be opposed to a play-in game for the right to face the No. 1 seed in each league, either.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Some All-Star Thoughts
Today's selection of the American and National League All-Star teams didn't bring that many surprises. Of course there are some guys who weren't picked that should've been, but those seemed to be fairly limited this year. Especially in the AL, where they only have two spots available for backup position players (Leyland squeezed in a third by making the Final Vote all pitchers), one of which had to be used on the token Astro, and there were four! third basemen worthy of backing up Miguel Cabrera in the game.
Not really too many issues with the starters either. I'm not sure what the obsession with Jose Bautista is. I've long thought he's perhaps the most overrated player in the game, but I guess that's what happens when all of Canada votes for one player. Not overly enamored with J.J. Hardy at shortstop, either, but the options were pretty limited this year, so that's easy enough to get over. The only NL starter that could be considered "undeserving" is Bryce Harper, but the guy's a sensation that people want to see. No problem with him getting elected by the fans.
There are some burning issues I have with this group of All-Stars, though...
AL: Mike Trout-LF, Robinson Cano-2B, Miguel Cabrera-3B, Chris Davis-1B, Jose Bautista-RF, David Ortiz-DH, Adam Jones-CF, Joe Mauer-C, J.J. Hardy-SS, Max Scherzer-P
NL: Brandon Phillips-2B, Carlos Beltran-RF (very curious to see what kind of reaction he gets from Mets fans), David Wright-3B, Joey Votto-1B, Paul Goldschmidt-DH, Bryce Harper-CF, Carlos Gonzalez-LF, Yadier Molina-C, Troy Tulowitzki-SS, Matt Harvey-P
Not really too many issues with the starters either. I'm not sure what the obsession with Jose Bautista is. I've long thought he's perhaps the most overrated player in the game, but I guess that's what happens when all of Canada votes for one player. Not overly enamored with J.J. Hardy at shortstop, either, but the options were pretty limited this year, so that's easy enough to get over. The only NL starter that could be considered "undeserving" is Bryce Harper, but the guy's a sensation that people want to see. No problem with him getting elected by the fans.
There are some burning issues I have with this group of All-Stars, though...
- Bruce Bochy putting Yasiel Puig on the Final Vote is a total cop out. He didn't want to use one of his selections on Puig because, I have a sense, he agreed with all the players who took issue with the fact he was even in the discussion after just 30 games in the Majors. It wouldn't have been fair to select Puig over someone just as deserving who's been doing it all season. I think Bochy knew that. But putting it in the fans' hands wasn't any better. It's obvious that Puig's going to win the vote. By a wide margin. Bruce, just make a decision! Either you want him on the team or you don't.
- Completely ridiculous that Bartolo Colon was only named to the team as an injury replacement. Oakland didn't have anybody elected by either the fans or players, so Jim Leyland was obliged to pick an A with one of his manager selections. That should mean he's selected BEFORE injury replacements are named. What's the difference if one of the other pitchers was named as the injury replacement.
- Surprised Leyland went with five setup guys as the Final Vote candidates. That means Adrian Beltre, Evan Longoria and Josh Donaldson will all be sitting at home next Tuesday. I understand why he picked Zobrist as the Ray (utility guy to use late in the game), but I would've taken Longoria (and probably Beltre instead of Jason Kipnis). Simply because of that logjam at third base.
- The Omar Infante Award goes to an American Leaguer for the first time. This award was created in 2010 when they expanded the rosters by one and Charlie Manuel for some reason picked Omar Infante as an NL reserve. It goes to the player who's selection is the biggest head-scratcher because he really shouldn't be there (and it can't be a token team representative). Other previous winners include Ryan Vogelsong in 2011 and Bryan LaHair last year. This year the award goes to Blue Jays reliever Brett Cecil. He's left-handed. That's the only reason I can think of why he's on the team. I'll all for including setup guys, but the Cecil pick confuses me. And Steve Delabar is on the Final Vote ballot. That's two setup guys from a last-place team. Seems a little absurd.
- Now that they're using the DH in the All-Star Game every year no matter what, I have an idea for how the NL DH should be chosen. It should be the leading vote-getter that didn't finish first at his position. Yadier Molina and Buster Posey were 1-2 overall in the NL for a while. It ended up being a moot point because Posey's going anyway, but imagine if he had finished with something like 7 million total votes, more than most of the starters, and wasn't even named an All-Star?
- There should be more than one Brave on the National League roster. Justin Upton was among the top three in the outfield for a while, so it looked like Atlanta was going to end up with two. But the closer is the only guy from a team that's been in first place all year worthy of being on the All-Star team? Highly doubtful. If you don't want to take Upton, take Freddie Freeman, who's on the ballot for the Final Vote. Allen Craig's going as an extra first baseman. It should be Freeman, though.
- Biggest snubs in the NL are Ryan Zimmerman and Gerardo Parra. They're not even on the ballot for the Final Vote. No issue with Pedro Alvarez going at third base or Ian Desmond representing Washington on the Final Vote, but no Parra at all is just wrong. Hopefully he's first in line as an injury replacement.
- The selection of Allen Craig pretty much locks it up that Paul Goldschmidt will be the NL's starting DH. As for the starting pitchers, that should be pretty easy. It would be a crime if it's anybody other than Max Scherzer and Matt Harvey.
AL: Mike Trout-LF, Robinson Cano-2B, Miguel Cabrera-3B, Chris Davis-1B, Jose Bautista-RF, David Ortiz-DH, Adam Jones-CF, Joe Mauer-C, J.J. Hardy-SS, Max Scherzer-P
NL: Brandon Phillips-2B, Carlos Beltran-RF (very curious to see what kind of reaction he gets from Mets fans), David Wright-3B, Joey Votto-1B, Paul Goldschmidt-DH, Bryce Harper-CF, Carlos Gonzalez-LF, Yadier Molina-C, Troy Tulowitzki-SS, Matt Harvey-P
Friday, July 5, 2013
Best Analyst By Sport
While watching that incredible Novak Djokovic-Juan Martin Del Potro match today, I was reminded of something that is easily forgotten. When he isn't busy kissing Rafael Nadal's ass, John McEnroe is one hell of a tennis analyst. Take the Nadal hero-worship out of the equation, and McEnroe would easily be considered the best in the game. I think all of ESPN's tennis analysts are excellent, but they bring Johnny Mac in for Wimbledon and the US Open for a reason. Because he's very, very good at what he does. But he's not alone.
There are many fine broadcasters, as well as some not-so-good ones. So who's the best of the best? Let's see. (This list only includes analysts, not play-by-play guys or studio hosts/personalities. Also, I don't watch golf, college football or the NBA, so those sports have been excluded from this list.)
Baseball: Ron Darling-It's well-documented here in New York that SNY broadcasts are better than YES broadcasts. Ron Darling is the main reason why. He's well-informed, non-biased and extremely professional. Darling was probably the leading candidate to replace Tim McCarver at FOX next season. That's why TBS wisely locked him up to a multi-year deal before he could bolt.
Football: Cris Collinsworth-Duh. Michaels and Collinsworth are far-and-away the best announcer duo in sports. That's why he was hand-picked by John Madden to take over when he retired. Collinsworth knows the game better than the viewers, but he's never in-your-face about it. He understands what the fans know and doesn't patronize them by overexplaining things. Plus, Al Michaels knows his stuff, too, and the two work very well together. Collinsworth has done some very good feature pieces during the Olympics, as well, so he's not just a one-trick pony like Madden was.
Hockey: Pierre McGuire-Doc Emrick doesn't need an analyst. In fact, there were times during the playoffs when he'd go all Vin Scully on everyone and Eddie Olczyk wouldn't say anything for like two minutes straight. The second-best member of NBC's main hockey team, though, is Pierre McGuire. I'm not a fan of that ice-level guy being the analyst when they're using a two-man crew, but when they have two guys in the booth and Pierre between the benches, those broadcasts are at their best. That's where McGuire shines, too. My favorite is when he butts into Doc and Edzo's conversations just to contribute his two cents.
College Basketball: Steve Kerr-I was so tempted to go with Bill Raftery here ("Onions!"), but I couldn't do it. The best games during the Tournament are the ones that Marv Albert and Steve Kerr do. And not just because of Marv Albert. When they bring him in for the Final Four and do a three-man booth, it isn't disruptive. He gels very nicely with Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg.
Women's Basketball: Doris Burke-There are those out there who hate Doris Burke and/or find her incredibly annoying. I'm not one of them. I've always been extremely impressed with Doris Burke as an analyst. Nobody knows more about women's basketball than she does. And not just the game. She actually follows the game and knows everything about the players. ESPN has recognized the talent they have on their hands. They've had her doing men's games in the Old Big East for years, and she more than holds her own talking about the men's game.
NASCAR: Darrell Waltrip-Boogity, boogity, boogity. DW is great. He's entertaining. He knows what he's talking about. He's got great stories. He really does know what it's like for the drivers in the various different situations they might encounter during a race, which brings a tremendous amount of credibility to everything he says. Not all retired players-turned analysts have made the transition as smoothly as Darrell Waltrip.
Women's Tennis: Chris Evert-Sometimes you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. That was certainly the case with Chris Evert, which has been made even more clear now that she's back working tournaments regularly. No offense to Pam Shriver and Mary Joe Fernandez, who are both great, but they're no Chris Evert. She's kind of like McEnroe. You can't really explain why she's so good. She just is.
Soccer: Taylor Twellman-I absolutely loved John Harkes. I still don't know why ESPN fired him, and I didn't even realize they had until like a year later. I forget what game it was I was watching (I think it was in Euro 2012) when I was telling somebody how much I enjoy listening to John Harkes. I was then informed that it was actually Taylor Twellman on the broadcast. Since I don't know if Harkes is currently working anywhere, and they're so similar in my mind that they might as well be interchangeable, Twellman gets the nod for now.
Track & Field: Ato Boldon-One of the smartest things NBC ever did with its Olympic coverage was canning Carol Lewis and replacing her with Ato Boldon. They knew they had a special talent on their hands. It almost seems like a revolving door sometimes with all the people covering any given track meet, but it's refreshing when they have a sprint race and it's just Tom Hammond and Ato. The second and third replays of the sprints, where Tom Hammond shuts up and lets Ato break down the race, are where he really shines.
Swimming: Rowdy Gaines-OK, I know. You're probably wondering, "Are there any other swimming analysts?" But the lack of competition doesn't make Rowdy Gaines any less great at what he does. In fact, the fact that he's so good is probably why there aren't any other swimming analysts. (And by being on every swimming telecast on every network, he gets steady work.) That's why it was kind of surprising last week when NBC announced that he would be back in Rio. Was there any doubt?
There are many fine broadcasters, as well as some not-so-good ones. So who's the best of the best? Let's see. (This list only includes analysts, not play-by-play guys or studio hosts/personalities. Also, I don't watch golf, college football or the NBA, so those sports have been excluded from this list.)
Baseball: Ron Darling-It's well-documented here in New York that SNY broadcasts are better than YES broadcasts. Ron Darling is the main reason why. He's well-informed, non-biased and extremely professional. Darling was probably the leading candidate to replace Tim McCarver at FOX next season. That's why TBS wisely locked him up to a multi-year deal before he could bolt.
Football: Cris Collinsworth-Duh. Michaels and Collinsworth are far-and-away the best announcer duo in sports. That's why he was hand-picked by John Madden to take over when he retired. Collinsworth knows the game better than the viewers, but he's never in-your-face about it. He understands what the fans know and doesn't patronize them by overexplaining things. Plus, Al Michaels knows his stuff, too, and the two work very well together. Collinsworth has done some very good feature pieces during the Olympics, as well, so he's not just a one-trick pony like Madden was.
Hockey: Pierre McGuire-Doc Emrick doesn't need an analyst. In fact, there were times during the playoffs when he'd go all Vin Scully on everyone and Eddie Olczyk wouldn't say anything for like two minutes straight. The second-best member of NBC's main hockey team, though, is Pierre McGuire. I'm not a fan of that ice-level guy being the analyst when they're using a two-man crew, but when they have two guys in the booth and Pierre between the benches, those broadcasts are at their best. That's where McGuire shines, too. My favorite is when he butts into Doc and Edzo's conversations just to contribute his two cents.
College Basketball: Steve Kerr-I was so tempted to go with Bill Raftery here ("Onions!"), but I couldn't do it. The best games during the Tournament are the ones that Marv Albert and Steve Kerr do. And not just because of Marv Albert. When they bring him in for the Final Four and do a three-man booth, it isn't disruptive. He gels very nicely with Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg.
Women's Basketball: Doris Burke-There are those out there who hate Doris Burke and/or find her incredibly annoying. I'm not one of them. I've always been extremely impressed with Doris Burke as an analyst. Nobody knows more about women's basketball than she does. And not just the game. She actually follows the game and knows everything about the players. ESPN has recognized the talent they have on their hands. They've had her doing men's games in the Old Big East for years, and she more than holds her own talking about the men's game.
NASCAR: Darrell Waltrip-Boogity, boogity, boogity. DW is great. He's entertaining. He knows what he's talking about. He's got great stories. He really does know what it's like for the drivers in the various different situations they might encounter during a race, which brings a tremendous amount of credibility to everything he says. Not all retired players-turned analysts have made the transition as smoothly as Darrell Waltrip.
Women's Tennis: Chris Evert-Sometimes you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. That was certainly the case with Chris Evert, which has been made even more clear now that she's back working tournaments regularly. No offense to Pam Shriver and Mary Joe Fernandez, who are both great, but they're no Chris Evert. She's kind of like McEnroe. You can't really explain why she's so good. She just is.
Soccer: Taylor Twellman-I absolutely loved John Harkes. I still don't know why ESPN fired him, and I didn't even realize they had until like a year later. I forget what game it was I was watching (I think it was in Euro 2012) when I was telling somebody how much I enjoy listening to John Harkes. I was then informed that it was actually Taylor Twellman on the broadcast. Since I don't know if Harkes is currently working anywhere, and they're so similar in my mind that they might as well be interchangeable, Twellman gets the nod for now.
Track & Field: Ato Boldon-One of the smartest things NBC ever did with its Olympic coverage was canning Carol Lewis and replacing her with Ato Boldon. They knew they had a special talent on their hands. It almost seems like a revolving door sometimes with all the people covering any given track meet, but it's refreshing when they have a sprint race and it's just Tom Hammond and Ato. The second and third replays of the sprints, where Tom Hammond shuts up and lets Ato break down the race, are where he really shines.
Swimming: Rowdy Gaines-OK, I know. You're probably wondering, "Are there any other swimming analysts?" But the lack of competition doesn't make Rowdy Gaines any less great at what he does. In fact, the fact that he's so good is probably why there aren't any other swimming analysts. (And by being on every swimming telecast on every network, he gets steady work.) That's why it was kind of surprising last week when NBC announced that he would be back in Rio. Was there any doubt?
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Who's In What League
July 1 marks the beginning of the academic year for most colleges, and college conferences. Every year, July 1 is the day when teams change conferences. This year was no exception. In fact, this July 1 might've been the most significant day on the college sports landscape in a while. After all the football-driven "realignment" (aka poaching and conference-jumping), things may finally have settled down. That's because the BCS conferences achieved one of their goals. The Big East as we knew it is dead. In its place are two brand-new conferences: the New Big East and the American Athletic Conference. The American is technically not new, since the old Big East simply rebranded itself, but who are they trying to kid? The Big East schools took the name (and Madison Square Garden) with them. They're still the Big East.
All of this can easily get extremely confusing. Especially when you have schools that are on their third conference in as many years (Butler) and lame-ducks that are biding time in their existing conference before going somewhere else next year (Rutgers, Louisville, Maryland, etc.). It's hard to keep track of who's in what league. Never fear, though. I'm here to help. Here's a handy-dandy little reference guide to the 2013-14 edition of Division I conference realignment (if a conference isn't listed, there was no change in membership between last year and this year):
America East: New: UMass Lowell (moving up from Division II); Gone: Boston University (Patriot League)
American (new conference): (from Big East): Cincinnati, Connecticut, South Florida, Louisville (leaving next year), Rutgers (leaving next year); (from Conference USA): Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU; (from Atlantic 10) Temple
Atlantic 10: New: George Mason (from CAA); Gone: Butler, Xavier (Big East), Charlotte (Conference USA), Temple (American)
ACC: New: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse (from Big East); Gone: None
Big East: New: Butler, Xavier (from Atlantic 10), Creighton (from Missouri Valley); Gone: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers, South Florida (American), Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse (ACC)
Big West: New: None; Gone: Pacific (West Coast)
CAA: New: College of Charleston (from Southern); Gone: George Mason (Atlantic 10), Georgia State (Sun Belt), Old Dominion (Conference USA)
Conference USA: New: Charlotte (from Atlantic 10), Old Dominion (from CAA), Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, North Texas (from Sun Belt), Louisiana Tech, UTSA (from WAC); Gone: Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU (American)
Great West: disbanded; NJIT, the only remaining member, became an Independent
Horizon: New: Oakland (from Summit); Gone: Loyola Chicago (Missouri Valley)
MAAC: New: Monmouth, Quinnipiac (from NEC); Gone: Loyola Maryland (Patriot League)
Missouri Valley: New: Loyola Chicago (from Horizon); Gone: Creighton (Big East)
Mountain West: New: San Jose State, Utah State (from WAC); Gone: None
NEC: New: None; Gone: Monmouth, Quinnipiac (MAAC)
Patriot: New: Boston University (from America East), Loyola Maryland (from MAAC); Gone: None
Southland: New: Houston Baptist (from Great West), New Orleans (Independent), Albilene Christian, Incarnate Word (from Division II)
Summit: New: Denver (from WAC); Gone: Oakland (Horizon), UMKC (WAC)
Sun Belt: New: Texas State, Texas-Arlington (from WAC), Georgia State (from CAA); Gone: Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, North Texas (Conference USA)
West Coast: New: Pacific (from Big West); Gone: None
WAC: New: Chicago State, Texas-Pan American, Utah Valley (from Great West), Cal State Bakersfield (Independent), Grand Canyon (from Division II), UMKC (from Summit); Gone: Louisiana Tech, UTSA (Conference USA), San Jose State, Utah State (Mountain West), Texas State, Texas-Arlington (Sun Belt), Denver (Summit)
There you have it. A total of 20 conferences were affected by this summer's round of realignment, including the creation of a new conference and the disbanding of another. Of course, some big ones are on the horizon again next summer, with Rutgers and Maryland joining the Big Ten, Louisville going to the ACC, and the American adding a few more from Conference USA. So, don't get used to the current conference landscape just yet. It might take the whole year to straighten things out, anyway.
All of this can easily get extremely confusing. Especially when you have schools that are on their third conference in as many years (Butler) and lame-ducks that are biding time in their existing conference before going somewhere else next year (Rutgers, Louisville, Maryland, etc.). It's hard to keep track of who's in what league. Never fear, though. I'm here to help. Here's a handy-dandy little reference guide to the 2013-14 edition of Division I conference realignment (if a conference isn't listed, there was no change in membership between last year and this year):
America East: New: UMass Lowell (moving up from Division II); Gone: Boston University (Patriot League)
American (new conference): (from Big East): Cincinnati, Connecticut, South Florida, Louisville (leaving next year), Rutgers (leaving next year); (from Conference USA): Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU; (from Atlantic 10) Temple
Atlantic 10: New: George Mason (from CAA); Gone: Butler, Xavier (Big East), Charlotte (Conference USA), Temple (American)
ACC: New: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse (from Big East); Gone: None
Big East: New: Butler, Xavier (from Atlantic 10), Creighton (from Missouri Valley); Gone: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers, South Florida (American), Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse (ACC)
Big West: New: None; Gone: Pacific (West Coast)
CAA: New: College of Charleston (from Southern); Gone: George Mason (Atlantic 10), Georgia State (Sun Belt), Old Dominion (Conference USA)
Conference USA: New: Charlotte (from Atlantic 10), Old Dominion (from CAA), Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, North Texas (from Sun Belt), Louisiana Tech, UTSA (from WAC); Gone: Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU (American)
Great West: disbanded; NJIT, the only remaining member, became an Independent
Horizon: New: Oakland (from Summit); Gone: Loyola Chicago (Missouri Valley)
MAAC: New: Monmouth, Quinnipiac (from NEC); Gone: Loyola Maryland (Patriot League)
Missouri Valley: New: Loyola Chicago (from Horizon); Gone: Creighton (Big East)
Mountain West: New: San Jose State, Utah State (from WAC); Gone: None
NEC: New: None; Gone: Monmouth, Quinnipiac (MAAC)
Patriot: New: Boston University (from America East), Loyola Maryland (from MAAC); Gone: None
Southland: New: Houston Baptist (from Great West), New Orleans (Independent), Albilene Christian, Incarnate Word (from Division II)
Summit: New: Denver (from WAC); Gone: Oakland (Horizon), UMKC (WAC)
Sun Belt: New: Texas State, Texas-Arlington (from WAC), Georgia State (from CAA); Gone: Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, North Texas (Conference USA)
West Coast: New: Pacific (from Big West); Gone: None
WAC: New: Chicago State, Texas-Pan American, Utah Valley (from Great West), Cal State Bakersfield (Independent), Grand Canyon (from Division II), UMKC (from Summit); Gone: Louisiana Tech, UTSA (Conference USA), San Jose State, Utah State (Mountain West), Texas State, Texas-Arlington (Sun Belt), Denver (Summit)
There you have it. A total of 20 conferences were affected by this summer's round of realignment, including the creation of a new conference and the disbanding of another. Of course, some big ones are on the horizon again next summer, with Rutgers and Maryland joining the Big Ten, Louisville going to the ACC, and the American adding a few more from Conference USA. So, don't get used to the current conference landscape just yet. It might take the whole year to straighten things out, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)