As the summer goes on and the NFL Lockout continues I become more and more convinced that certain NFL insiders are perpetuating a "gloom and doom" scenario to drum up news for themselves so they can continue to have something to talk about during this lackluster offseason. Jason Whitlock called Profootballtalk.com and Mike Florio out on this via twitter a couple weeks ago and created quite a stir.
I respect Adam Schefter, Jason LaCanfora, Chris Mortenson, et. al. and understand they have many inside contacts within the NFL that allow them to report things before everyone else. Social media has accelerated this and I believed has created an "arms race" to be the first to break something, etc. Unfortunately there are little to no consequences for being wrong, and time after time these guys are wrong (particularly Peter King, but that's another story).
However, during the current labor negotiations it has been clear to me that both the players & owners have been feeding these insiders doom and gloom scenarios to further their agendas. All the NFL insiders report the same stuff within minutes of each other regarding the "progress" or lack thereof of CBA discussions.
Then, this past week, the owners and some player reps (including Goodell & Smith) attended "clandestine" meetings in Chicago, precluding the court mandated mediation that was scheduled next week. Amazingly, it has been reported that the first progress has been made all summer. Imagine that, throw the lawyers and media out of the situation and instantly progress is being made in the talks. I have stated all along that the sides will work something out when it comes down to it, and the June 3rd decision is about 50/50 at this point whether the courts will allow the lockout to continue or not, but it is clear that some powerful owners realize that it is time to get back into discussions and the players all along have stated that all they want to do is play.
I don't expect a deal done this month, but I think that the table is set for a CBA to be completed by late July/Early August, maybe with limited training camp and shortened preseason, but the regular season will go on as expected on Sept. 8th with the Packers hosting the Saints.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
What?
So, it has been a month since I have posted anything. Why is this? Many reasons, but the #1 reason is that I about to collaborate on a new venture with a friend. We have been talking about our concepts for a good sports blog, but not one that caters to people who overreact and overanalyze everything so soon after it happens. We want to write articles that get a dialog going on topics that most people don't want to cover.
The long and the short of it is that Pete has gone to graduate school and studied sports journalism and wants to use sports blogging as part of that. I have been talking to him about being a part of that. I will post the new site when we have it up and going (sometime in the next week or two). Might be a little crude at first, but I am looking forward to it.
The long and the short of it is that Pete has gone to graduate school and studied sports journalism and wants to use sports blogging as part of that. I have been talking to him about being a part of that. I will post the new site when we have it up and going (sometime in the next week or two). Might be a little crude at first, but I am looking forward to it.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Rookie Quarterbacks
If there's one thing the world needs, it is more analysis on rookie prospects by an average fan.
I've heard some recent buzz about teams possibly trading up to get one of the top 3, 4 rated quarterbacks in the upcoming draft. Everyone knows that a quality starting QB is a must when it comes to winning in the NFL. Often this causes teams to "reach" for the guy that they believe is their man.
Here's a list of the first QBs taken from 2000 on:
2000 - Chad Pennington. I wouldn't classify this as a bust, but he didn't exactly lead teams to winning seasons year after year either. (The * in this year is that Tom Brady was taken late in the 6th round, at 199 overall, obviously far outplaying any QB taken before him... see "The Brady 6" last week on ESPN).
2001 - Michael Vick. Once again, a little bit of mixed results. Has put up some impressive numbers, really set the league on fire when he first burst on the scene for Atlanta, but no Super Bowl appearances.
2002 - David Carr. Houston was an expansion team, and this was supposed to be their franchise QB. Most recently, he was in competition with another 1 overall pick, Alex Smith, and couldn't win the job.
2003 - Carson Palmer. Heisman trophy winner, puts up impressive numbers. Has had some impressive statistics, but no playoff wins.
2004 - Eli Manning. This is an interesting scenario. 3 young QBs were affected by this. Won Super Bowl in 2007 to everyone's surprise. Has had his ups and downs, but can't argue with a championship. This was the pick that was traded for Philip Rivers. I don't think San Diego has a problem with that trade at all. Rivers has put up huge numbers, with and without Tomlinson, with and without Vincent Jackson and Antonio Gates. He is legit, but once again, has not made the big game. The 3rd QB indirectly involved here is Drew Brees. San Diego drafted him to be their QB but didn't see the progress in him to give him a big second contract so they drafted Rivers. Of course, Brees then had a big season, but was still allowed to pursue free agency. He signed with New Orleans, and won a Super Bowl in January of 2010.
2005 - Alex Smith. Do I need to really say anything? The obvious storyline here is that Aaron Rodgers was the second QB taken at 24 by the Green Bay Packers. After some early struggles and being humbled as a young player backing up an all time great in Brett Favre, Rodgers led the Packers to a Super Bowl in 2011 while the 49ers fired their 2nd coach in 3 years and are still searching for a franchise QB.
2006 - Vince Young. Well, another player who is on his way out by the team that drafted him. He offers some glimpses of ability and excitement, but does not have the ability and understanding to run NFL offenses.
2007 - JaMarcus Russell. Purple Drank (aka sizzurup).
2008 - Matt Ryan. Off to an extraordinary start as a starting NFL QB. Led team to playoffs in first & third years, and 3 straight winning seasons for this first time in franchise history. No playoff wins, but let's not judge this early. Bona fide QB stud.
2009 - Matthew Stafford. Set to be the Lions franchise QB of the future. Has dealt with injury troubles in his first couple years, but could be the leader of a solid offense and improving team in the next couple years.
2010 - Sam Bradford. The Rams were convinced of Bradford's ability in the months leading up to last year's draft and went with him at #1 over dominant defense tackle Ndamokong Suh. He led the Rams to a surprising 2nd place finish in the NFC West and put up decent numbers for a rookie considering the injury problems facing the team. Bright future ahead.
2011 appears to be the year Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert get the nod as the top QB prospect. In my opinion teams are forcing themselves to be interested in mediocre prospects because that is all that is available at this time. As you can see, drafting a QB # 1 is a risky prospect, as is any other position. Due to the prominence and money that goes to a #1 QB pick the scenario is magnified. This year the focus is even greater due to the labor situation and the fact that teams are unable to pick up a free agent QB by the time the draft rolls around (unless a miracle deal is struck in the next week and a half).
By my observation there is no quarterback that deserves to be drafted in the top 10 in this month's draft. Cam Newton led a powerhouse SEC team to an BCS Championship and won the Heisman Trophy. The problem is that he did not play in a "pro style offense" and has had some mechanic/accuracy issues. Gabbert played for Missouri, who also do not run a "pro style offense." He is also fairly mobile, and has the physical characteristics that NFL personnel men love. Once again, I do not see a player who can barely lead a team to a Big 12 Division Championship as a big time NFL prospect. The other players receiving 1st round consideration are Jake Locker (Washington), Christian Ponder (FSU), Colin Kaepernick (Nevada), and Andy Dalton (TCU).
I'm not saying that one or more of these players can't become legitimate NFL quarterbacks. My point is that every year teams convince themselves to draft players higher than they should to fill a need, or get a player that has a buzz and they have convinced themselves that they have to have. This sets up a domino effect, where every other quarterback needy team feels they need to draft the next best player, and so on.
To me it just seems that letting the draft play out as it may, and grabbing the best QB available on your board is a much better strategy than reaching for the flavor of the week. NFL scouting and analysis is an inexact science, as much as Mel Kiper & Todd McShay & ESPN would like to believe otherwise, they have no clue who is going to be the next star/bust, etc.
I've heard some recent buzz about teams possibly trading up to get one of the top 3, 4 rated quarterbacks in the upcoming draft. Everyone knows that a quality starting QB is a must when it comes to winning in the NFL. Often this causes teams to "reach" for the guy that they believe is their man.
Here's a list of the first QBs taken from 2000 on:
2000 - Chad Pennington. I wouldn't classify this as a bust, but he didn't exactly lead teams to winning seasons year after year either. (The * in this year is that Tom Brady was taken late in the 6th round, at 199 overall, obviously far outplaying any QB taken before him... see "The Brady 6" last week on ESPN).
2001 - Michael Vick. Once again, a little bit of mixed results. Has put up some impressive numbers, really set the league on fire when he first burst on the scene for Atlanta, but no Super Bowl appearances.
2002 - David Carr. Houston was an expansion team, and this was supposed to be their franchise QB. Most recently, he was in competition with another 1 overall pick, Alex Smith, and couldn't win the job.
2003 - Carson Palmer. Heisman trophy winner, puts up impressive numbers. Has had some impressive statistics, but no playoff wins.
2004 - Eli Manning. This is an interesting scenario. 3 young QBs were affected by this. Won Super Bowl in 2007 to everyone's surprise. Has had his ups and downs, but can't argue with a championship. This was the pick that was traded for Philip Rivers. I don't think San Diego has a problem with that trade at all. Rivers has put up huge numbers, with and without Tomlinson, with and without Vincent Jackson and Antonio Gates. He is legit, but once again, has not made the big game. The 3rd QB indirectly involved here is Drew Brees. San Diego drafted him to be their QB but didn't see the progress in him to give him a big second contract so they drafted Rivers. Of course, Brees then had a big season, but was still allowed to pursue free agency. He signed with New Orleans, and won a Super Bowl in January of 2010.
2005 - Alex Smith. Do I need to really say anything? The obvious storyline here is that Aaron Rodgers was the second QB taken at 24 by the Green Bay Packers. After some early struggles and being humbled as a young player backing up an all time great in Brett Favre, Rodgers led the Packers to a Super Bowl in 2011 while the 49ers fired their 2nd coach in 3 years and are still searching for a franchise QB.
2006 - Vince Young. Well, another player who is on his way out by the team that drafted him. He offers some glimpses of ability and excitement, but does not have the ability and understanding to run NFL offenses.
2007 - JaMarcus Russell. Purple Drank (aka sizzurup).
2008 - Matt Ryan. Off to an extraordinary start as a starting NFL QB. Led team to playoffs in first & third years, and 3 straight winning seasons for this first time in franchise history. No playoff wins, but let's not judge this early. Bona fide QB stud.
2009 - Matthew Stafford. Set to be the Lions franchise QB of the future. Has dealt with injury troubles in his first couple years, but could be the leader of a solid offense and improving team in the next couple years.
2010 - Sam Bradford. The Rams were convinced of Bradford's ability in the months leading up to last year's draft and went with him at #1 over dominant defense tackle Ndamokong Suh. He led the Rams to a surprising 2nd place finish in the NFC West and put up decent numbers for a rookie considering the injury problems facing the team. Bright future ahead.
2011 appears to be the year Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert get the nod as the top QB prospect. In my opinion teams are forcing themselves to be interested in mediocre prospects because that is all that is available at this time. As you can see, drafting a QB # 1 is a risky prospect, as is any other position. Due to the prominence and money that goes to a #1 QB pick the scenario is magnified. This year the focus is even greater due to the labor situation and the fact that teams are unable to pick up a free agent QB by the time the draft rolls around (unless a miracle deal is struck in the next week and a half).
By my observation there is no quarterback that deserves to be drafted in the top 10 in this month's draft. Cam Newton led a powerhouse SEC team to an BCS Championship and won the Heisman Trophy. The problem is that he did not play in a "pro style offense" and has had some mechanic/accuracy issues. Gabbert played for Missouri, who also do not run a "pro style offense." He is also fairly mobile, and has the physical characteristics that NFL personnel men love. Once again, I do not see a player who can barely lead a team to a Big 12 Division Championship as a big time NFL prospect. The other players receiving 1st round consideration are Jake Locker (Washington), Christian Ponder (FSU), Colin Kaepernick (Nevada), and Andy Dalton (TCU).
I'm not saying that one or more of these players can't become legitimate NFL quarterbacks. My point is that every year teams convince themselves to draft players higher than they should to fill a need, or get a player that has a buzz and they have convinced themselves that they have to have. This sets up a domino effect, where every other quarterback needy team feels they need to draft the next best player, and so on.
To me it just seems that letting the draft play out as it may, and grabbing the best QB available on your board is a much better strategy than reaching for the flavor of the week. NFL scouting and analysis is an inexact science, as much as Mel Kiper & Todd McShay & ESPN would like to believe otherwise, they have no clue who is going to be the next star/bust, etc.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Quarterbacks
I read a blurb on Profootballtalk about how Donovan McNabb is interested in playing for the Minnesota Vikings, and the feeling may be mutual. Signing qbs at the end of their careers has been the Vikings specialty for the past 15 or so years. In the mid 90s Warren Moon led some good Viking teams. He was followed by a player they actually drafted, Brad Johnson, for a couple years, but that soon gave way to Randall Cunningham who led one of the great offensive teams of all time, the 1998 Vikings. That team is considered one of the best to never win the Super Bowl, losing the NFC Championship at home after going 15-1 during the regular season. The next season didn't start off as hot for him, so he was replaced by Jeff George. Then comes the big exception in the Vikings recent history - Daunte Culpepper. He was drafted in the 1st Round by Minnesota and burst on the scene in 2000, putting up huge numbers throwing and running, leading the Vikings once again to the NFC championship game where they got destroyed by the Giants. This was followed up by a couple disappointing, injury ridden seasons, but he came back for a historic personal year in 2004, however the team struggled. The injury problems continued the next year, and so he was replaced by, yes, that's right, Brad Johnson. After that came the Tarvaris Jackson experiment, and feeling that wasn't the answer they famously turned to Favre, who again led the Vikings to the NFC championship, where they once again lost in agonizing fashion. Now it seems the reins may be turned over to their younger guys, Joe Webb or Tarvaris Jackson, but most likely they will make a desperate play for McNabb.
The reason I elaborated on that situation so much is because I feel it is kind of an example of how many teams can struggle for years through quarterback and coaching changes, having good seasons mixed in with terrible ones, trying to find an solution to finally get them through to the Super Bowl.
If you look at the NFL Champions from this decade you will mostly find teams that drafted and developed their own quarterbacks under a consistent system. Green Bay, Indianapolis, New England (3 times), Pittsburgh (twice), all won with a quarterback they drafted. St Louis, Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and New Orleans won with quarterbacks that they did not draft. Kurt Warner was obviously an unbelievable story, something that I don't think any thinks will be replicated any time soon. New Orleans had Drew Brees, who was drafted by San Diego, had a few ok seasons, then in his contract year played excellent. However, the Chargers chose their rookie, Philip Rivers over Brees, and Drew went to the Saints with Sean Payton and became a Pro Bowl caliber quarterback. Baltimore and Tampa Bay went by the theory that with an outstanding defense and veteran "caretaker" at quarterback it is possible to win a Super Bowl.
I think that the Tampa & Baltimore situations have made a lot of people believe that formula for success is something that can be replicated. Looking back, it sure seems like an anomaly, especially when you look at how historically great those defenses were.
Recently we have seen teams like Arizona, and Carolina make exciting runs to the Super Bowl with qbs signed in free agency, but they both came up short, losing at the end of the game in memorable fashion. Also, teams have made runs to the conference championship game like the 09 Vikings, 05 Broncos and Panthers, but it just seems that recent history favors teams that are cohesive and have been together for years. I think that this is evident in the recent versions of the New England Patriots. They still have their super star and MVP QB, but don't have the caliber of defense that they did in the early 00s, with mostly young players, and little leadership and playmaking ability.
I guess, basically what this all comes down to, is there is no formula for winning a Super Bowl, but if there is, it definitely seems to be assembling a team of players drafted in your own system, with a quarterback that your staff has developed, and a few playmakers on defense. Seems so easy, right? Which is probably why every year people reach for quarterback prospects hoping that they have found their future. I think this will lead me to write a post this week about the rookie quarterback prospects this year.
The reason I elaborated on that situation so much is because I feel it is kind of an example of how many teams can struggle for years through quarterback and coaching changes, having good seasons mixed in with terrible ones, trying to find an solution to finally get them through to the Super Bowl.
If you look at the NFL Champions from this decade you will mostly find teams that drafted and developed their own quarterbacks under a consistent system. Green Bay, Indianapolis, New England (3 times), Pittsburgh (twice), all won with a quarterback they drafted. St Louis, Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and New Orleans won with quarterbacks that they did not draft. Kurt Warner was obviously an unbelievable story, something that I don't think any thinks will be replicated any time soon. New Orleans had Drew Brees, who was drafted by San Diego, had a few ok seasons, then in his contract year played excellent. However, the Chargers chose their rookie, Philip Rivers over Brees, and Drew went to the Saints with Sean Payton and became a Pro Bowl caliber quarterback. Baltimore and Tampa Bay went by the theory that with an outstanding defense and veteran "caretaker" at quarterback it is possible to win a Super Bowl.
I think that the Tampa & Baltimore situations have made a lot of people believe that formula for success is something that can be replicated. Looking back, it sure seems like an anomaly, especially when you look at how historically great those defenses were.
Recently we have seen teams like Arizona, and Carolina make exciting runs to the Super Bowl with qbs signed in free agency, but they both came up short, losing at the end of the game in memorable fashion. Also, teams have made runs to the conference championship game like the 09 Vikings, 05 Broncos and Panthers, but it just seems that recent history favors teams that are cohesive and have been together for years. I think that this is evident in the recent versions of the New England Patriots. They still have their super star and MVP QB, but don't have the caliber of defense that they did in the early 00s, with mostly young players, and little leadership and playmaking ability.
I guess, basically what this all comes down to, is there is no formula for winning a Super Bowl, but if there is, it definitely seems to be assembling a team of players drafted in your own system, with a quarterback that your staff has developed, and a few playmakers on defense. Seems so easy, right? Which is probably why every year people reach for quarterback prospects hoping that they have found their future. I think this will lead me to write a post this week about the rookie quarterback prospects this year.
Monday, March 28, 2011
NCAA
It has been awhile since anything has really come to mind to write about. It''s a little surprising to me given the exciting NCAA Tournament we are having, but I really have nothing to offer in that department, although I did get one Final Four team right in my picks (UCONN).
Obviously this has been the year of the little guy in college basketball a mid-major guaranteed of making the championship game for the second straight year. Two astounding stories there: A team that was in the "First Four" is now in the "Final Four." That is unbelievable. Analysts are fond of saying things like "Duke and coach K are the kind of team that can win 6 games in March" insinuating that it takes 6 games in three consecutive weekends to win the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship. Well, VCU has already won 5, and they have two more games to go to be champions, because they played USC in one of these much maligned play in games (that the NCAA insists on calling "first round" games) on the Wednesday before everyone else started their games. And Butler, they made the Final Four for the 2nd straight year. That is absurd. Teams like UNC, Kentucky, Duke, Michigan State, UCLA and even Florida, Kansas and Connecticut might make 2 Final Fours in a row, but Butler? After their losing their best player to the NBA? That just doesn't make sense, so I won't really try to make any out of it.
College football and specifically the BCS system has tilted the scales to 6 power conferences (and Notre Dame) that are home to 90% of the premier football schools/teams in the nation. There is no tournament. Teams historically were always ranked, and at the end of the season the press & coaches would vote for who they thought was the champion after all the teams had played out their seasons, and especially in more recent history, after their bowl matchups, which were predetermined by your conference's commitment (Big Ten/Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl, Big 12/ACC in the Orange). Most of the time it was clear cut. But some split decisions in the 90s made the college football landscape want a more definitive answer as to who was the best team in the land. Why can't Michigan & Nebraska (1997) play, or Washington/Miami (1992) etc? Well, if a system could be set up that paired the top two teams to play in the championship game regardless of conference affiliation, that would solve our problems, right?
Sort of. Seemingly every year the BCS gets exposed as flawed. I won't go into the details, but lets be honest: Everyone hates the BCS. The little guy (Utah, Boise St, TCU) doesn't get the chance to prove themselves on the field. Sure, the BCS has made it possible for those teams to get an at large bid if they are in the top 12. But in the end, history doesn't really remember Utah's win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, or TCU's win over Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. They want to see David vs. Goliath.
This is what basketball offers. Not that often, but it offers the hope of it. And this year the hope came true for two small schools, one of which, in VCU, many pundits said shouldn't even be in the field in the first place.
But what is my point? None of what I've said so far is really news to anyone. Well, I've seen some comments made on Twitter by a few sports writers that I follow about the contrast between this NCAA Tournament and the College Football BCS System. The point being that this basketball postseason should make the football presidents and BCS committee realize that they need a playoff. Personally, I think it will not change their minds one bit, for one main reason. The big schools, presidents, and BCS don't want a small school (or even a BCS conference team) who played a "soft" regular season schedule to have a chance at the title. They want the power schools who every week have to play top 10, top 15 teams to get rewarded for the regular season battles they went through. Many people like to argue that every week is a playoff in the NCAA season. Games like Auburn/Alabama, Texas/Oklahoma, USC/Oregon, Ohio State/Michigan, and so on basically define a team's chances of going undefeated, or finishing with one or two losses and having the chance to play for the title or not. The old guard likes this week in and week out craziness that mirrors the 3 week basketball tournament in March, but for 3 months.
Is this fair? No. Every sport has a tournament or NCAA sponsored championship except football. BCS or AP National Championships aren't even recognized by the NCAA as national championships for their purposes of record keeping. But nothing is going to change. There is so much money in the current system, and those in control like it the way it is, and of course the fans complain, but in reality still come out to games in record numbers year after year. So, don't get your hopes up that a Butler or VCU championship will get the powers that be to change their minds.
Obviously this has been the year of the little guy in college basketball a mid-major guaranteed of making the championship game for the second straight year. Two astounding stories there: A team that was in the "First Four" is now in the "Final Four." That is unbelievable. Analysts are fond of saying things like "Duke and coach K are the kind of team that can win 6 games in March" insinuating that it takes 6 games in three consecutive weekends to win the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship. Well, VCU has already won 5, and they have two more games to go to be champions, because they played USC in one of these much maligned play in games (that the NCAA insists on calling "first round" games) on the Wednesday before everyone else started their games. And Butler, they made the Final Four for the 2nd straight year. That is absurd. Teams like UNC, Kentucky, Duke, Michigan State, UCLA and even Florida, Kansas and Connecticut might make 2 Final Fours in a row, but Butler? After their losing their best player to the NBA? That just doesn't make sense, so I won't really try to make any out of it.
College football and specifically the BCS system has tilted the scales to 6 power conferences (and Notre Dame) that are home to 90% of the premier football schools/teams in the nation. There is no tournament. Teams historically were always ranked, and at the end of the season the press & coaches would vote for who they thought was the champion after all the teams had played out their seasons, and especially in more recent history, after their bowl matchups, which were predetermined by your conference's commitment (Big Ten/Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl, Big 12/ACC in the Orange). Most of the time it was clear cut. But some split decisions in the 90s made the college football landscape want a more definitive answer as to who was the best team in the land. Why can't Michigan & Nebraska (1997) play, or Washington/Miami (1992) etc? Well, if a system could be set up that paired the top two teams to play in the championship game regardless of conference affiliation, that would solve our problems, right?
Sort of. Seemingly every year the BCS gets exposed as flawed. I won't go into the details, but lets be honest: Everyone hates the BCS. The little guy (Utah, Boise St, TCU) doesn't get the chance to prove themselves on the field. Sure, the BCS has made it possible for those teams to get an at large bid if they are in the top 12. But in the end, history doesn't really remember Utah's win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, or TCU's win over Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. They want to see David vs. Goliath.
This is what basketball offers. Not that often, but it offers the hope of it. And this year the hope came true for two small schools, one of which, in VCU, many pundits said shouldn't even be in the field in the first place.
But what is my point? None of what I've said so far is really news to anyone. Well, I've seen some comments made on Twitter by a few sports writers that I follow about the contrast between this NCAA Tournament and the College Football BCS System. The point being that this basketball postseason should make the football presidents and BCS committee realize that they need a playoff. Personally, I think it will not change their minds one bit, for one main reason. The big schools, presidents, and BCS don't want a small school (or even a BCS conference team) who played a "soft" regular season schedule to have a chance at the title. They want the power schools who every week have to play top 10, top 15 teams to get rewarded for the regular season battles they went through. Many people like to argue that every week is a playoff in the NCAA season. Games like Auburn/Alabama, Texas/Oklahoma, USC/Oregon, Ohio State/Michigan, and so on basically define a team's chances of going undefeated, or finishing with one or two losses and having the chance to play for the title or not. The old guard likes this week in and week out craziness that mirrors the 3 week basketball tournament in March, but for 3 months.
Is this fair? No. Every sport has a tournament or NCAA sponsored championship except football. BCS or AP National Championships aren't even recognized by the NCAA as national championships for their purposes of record keeping. But nothing is going to change. There is so much money in the current system, and those in control like it the way it is, and of course the fans complain, but in reality still come out to games in record numbers year after year. So, don't get your hopes up that a Butler or VCU championship will get the powers that be to change their minds.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Random Rantings
Miami Heat:
Tonight the Heat beat the Lakers ending their 5 game losing streak that has cause a lot of debate across the sports world. Everyone knows they brought the best player in the NBA, and greatest Free Agent in league history to pair with former NBA Champion and super star in his own right, Dwyane Wade. Throw in Chris Bosh, a former Toronto all star who was much coveted in his own right and everyone dubbed them a super team, the new Big 3.
Of course, there were questions going into this season of how effective this team could be. 5 people play at one time, not just 3. And you have to dynamic playmakers who like to have the ball in their hands and create for their teammates in Wade & James. Then you have Bosh who is more of a finesse big man. He is tall, but lanky and tends to play away from the basket. The one "muscle" type player they had, Udonis Haslem, got injured before the season started and the pick ups that they team has tried to make (Juwan Howard, Erick Dampier, and James' old teammate Ilgauskas) are too old and beat up to really make an impact on a daily basis.
Despite all of this the Heat went on a streak during the early part of the season where they won 21 of 22 games, and really seemed to put to rest many of the doubts that had been raised in their lackluster 9-8 start. But since the end of February the Heat have struggled to put games away, once again raising loud concerns from NBA analysts & pundits across the country that this team's present construction is not suitable for beating top teams (Magic, Bulls, Celtics especially, being their eastern conference foes) when the game is on the line.
Having said all that, I think it is absurd to immediately crucify this team. In today's age of social media and 24 hour sports coverage on the internet, blogs, and ESPN it is very easy to get caught up in the latest good/bad news. After a couple games won/lost teams are instantly crowned as great or terrible. Anyone who doubts how good Lebron James really is needs to know one thing. The team that James left is the worst team in the NBA. And he is the only significant player they lost. So in one year they go from being one of the 3 best, to the worst team in the league. I don't think that the Heat will win this year, but it sure seems like they will figure it out, get some role players who figure out how to play with the stars, and definitely make a run in the next 6 years that they have all three players signed.
NFL Labor (Again):
I read a great article the other day about the NFL CBA situation as it relates specifically to Roger Goodell as the NFL Commissioner. When I say great article, basically that means I agree with it, because I think I am always right. Nevertheless, here is the link to Gene Wojciechowski's article. Basically, his point is that his job is to lead his sport, not just to be a "mouthpiece" for the owners. He should be one of the voices of reason in this debate, not someone who just continues to project the hardline stance of the owners.
But here is the main point that I want to make regarding Goodell and these negotiations. This is the first time in his tenure as NFL Commish that he has actually had to negotiate. This is a man who unilaterally makes league wide decisions year after year. The NFL Personal Conduct Policy? After Pac Man Jones' run in with the law at a strip club Mr. Goodell decided the NFL needed a Personal Conduct Policy and retroactively applied it to Pac Man Jones and suspended him for an entire year. For what? Going to a strip club, tossing dollar bills in the air, and then being present while a fight broke out. Ok, pretty dumb behavior, but it is very rare for players to get a one year suspension. You only get 4 games for a steroid violation. Then this season he set out to "reinforce" the league's policy on illegal hits. From Wikipedia: "On October 19th, 2010, the NFL handed out fines to Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison, Falcons Cornerback Dunta Robinson, and New England Patriots Safety Brandon Meriweather after they were involved in controversial hits the previous Sunday." Once again, he unilaterally decided something needed to be done for the good of the game. That is his right as the caretaker of the game. Yet apparently he doesn't consider having a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players & owners as something "good for the game." He would rather hold on to a stance that the owners have taken that their business model is broken, and they need concessions from the players to fix it. Nevermind that they don't want to provide any detailed financial information to back it up.
Imagine your job coming to you and telling you that things are tough and that you need to take a 25 percent pay cut after they previously gave you a record raise 4 years ago. By all accounts you are working for a supremely successful business. One that dominates its industry across the country and collectively keeps putting up record numbers year after year. But concerns about further development of franchise locations & a few huge payments that have been made to employees who turned out to be not ready for their jobs have caused the management to threaten cost cutting measures across your company. I have a feeling that you wouldn't be that thrilled about it, and if you could band together as a union of employees and have legal representation to make sure that your side was heard and a fair agreement could be reached, that you would.
And as I heard a caller into a nighttime sports radio show say the other day, no one cares about the owners. The American public is enamored with football games, which are played by the PLAYERS on the gridiron.
Tonight the Heat beat the Lakers ending their 5 game losing streak that has cause a lot of debate across the sports world. Everyone knows they brought the best player in the NBA, and greatest Free Agent in league history to pair with former NBA Champion and super star in his own right, Dwyane Wade. Throw in Chris Bosh, a former Toronto all star who was much coveted in his own right and everyone dubbed them a super team, the new Big 3.
Of course, there were questions going into this season of how effective this team could be. 5 people play at one time, not just 3. And you have to dynamic playmakers who like to have the ball in their hands and create for their teammates in Wade & James. Then you have Bosh who is more of a finesse big man. He is tall, but lanky and tends to play away from the basket. The one "muscle" type player they had, Udonis Haslem, got injured before the season started and the pick ups that they team has tried to make (Juwan Howard, Erick Dampier, and James' old teammate Ilgauskas) are too old and beat up to really make an impact on a daily basis.
Despite all of this the Heat went on a streak during the early part of the season where they won 21 of 22 games, and really seemed to put to rest many of the doubts that had been raised in their lackluster 9-8 start. But since the end of February the Heat have struggled to put games away, once again raising loud concerns from NBA analysts & pundits across the country that this team's present construction is not suitable for beating top teams (Magic, Bulls, Celtics especially, being their eastern conference foes) when the game is on the line.
Having said all that, I think it is absurd to immediately crucify this team. In today's age of social media and 24 hour sports coverage on the internet, blogs, and ESPN it is very easy to get caught up in the latest good/bad news. After a couple games won/lost teams are instantly crowned as great or terrible. Anyone who doubts how good Lebron James really is needs to know one thing. The team that James left is the worst team in the NBA. And he is the only significant player they lost. So in one year they go from being one of the 3 best, to the worst team in the league. I don't think that the Heat will win this year, but it sure seems like they will figure it out, get some role players who figure out how to play with the stars, and definitely make a run in the next 6 years that they have all three players signed.
NFL Labor (Again):
I read a great article the other day about the NFL CBA situation as it relates specifically to Roger Goodell as the NFL Commissioner. When I say great article, basically that means I agree with it, because I think I am always right. Nevertheless, here is the link to Gene Wojciechowski's article. Basically, his point is that his job is to lead his sport, not just to be a "mouthpiece" for the owners. He should be one of the voices of reason in this debate, not someone who just continues to project the hardline stance of the owners.
But here is the main point that I want to make regarding Goodell and these negotiations. This is the first time in his tenure as NFL Commish that he has actually had to negotiate. This is a man who unilaterally makes league wide decisions year after year. The NFL Personal Conduct Policy? After Pac Man Jones' run in with the law at a strip club Mr. Goodell decided the NFL needed a Personal Conduct Policy and retroactively applied it to Pac Man Jones and suspended him for an entire year. For what? Going to a strip club, tossing dollar bills in the air, and then being present while a fight broke out. Ok, pretty dumb behavior, but it is very rare for players to get a one year suspension. You only get 4 games for a steroid violation. Then this season he set out to "reinforce" the league's policy on illegal hits. From Wikipedia: "On October 19th, 2010, the NFL handed out fines to Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison, Falcons Cornerback Dunta Robinson, and New England Patriots Safety Brandon Meriweather after they were involved in controversial hits the previous Sunday." Once again, he unilaterally decided something needed to be done for the good of the game. That is his right as the caretaker of the game. Yet apparently he doesn't consider having a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players & owners as something "good for the game." He would rather hold on to a stance that the owners have taken that their business model is broken, and they need concessions from the players to fix it. Nevermind that they don't want to provide any detailed financial information to back it up.
Imagine your job coming to you and telling you that things are tough and that you need to take a 25 percent pay cut after they previously gave you a record raise 4 years ago. By all accounts you are working for a supremely successful business. One that dominates its industry across the country and collectively keeps putting up record numbers year after year. But concerns about further development of franchise locations & a few huge payments that have been made to employees who turned out to be not ready for their jobs have caused the management to threaten cost cutting measures across your company. I have a feeling that you wouldn't be that thrilled about it, and if you could band together as a union of employees and have legal representation to make sure that your side was heard and a fair agreement could be reached, that you would.
And as I heard a caller into a nighttime sports radio show say the other day, no one cares about the owners. The American public is enamored with football games, which are played by the PLAYERS on the gridiron.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Labor
Finally it is time for my NFL Labor post.
Interesting that in a year when the NFL & NBA collective bargaining agreements between the league & players expire setting up likely lockouts & court battles that my home state, Wisconsin, is also going through a controversial labor situation. I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of collective bargaining and the rights of workers vs. the rights of the employer, but I definitely have an opinion on the NFL situation.
The NFL has revenues of 9-10 billion dollars a year. The split is currently 60/40 players/owners. This is after a 1 billion dollar credit for expenses that the owners get to develop the league and theoretically create more revenue, which then gets split with the players. The primary source of revenue for NFL owners, besides the enormous TV contracts is their stadiums The hilarious thing about this to that the public finances most of the stadiums across the country, sometimes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Including the "expense credit" it is basically a 50/50 split, however at this point the owners determine this to be a "unsustainable business model."
The argument is that if they do not get expenses under control now the league will be under financial hardship in the future and the league & players will both suffer as a result. Most observers find this hard to believe as the NFL continues to be a powerhouse that enjoys incredible popularity among the US public. What muddies the waters further is that the NFL is a private organization of separate entities that all operate individually and are not required to reveal their earnings like a publicly traded company. The only team that does release and financial report every year is the publicly held Green Bay Packers. In 2010 the Packers "only" made $9.8 million. This was compared to $20.1 million the previous year. The main cost for the decrease in profit was "player expenses." The NFL is pointing to this report to show that teams are on a downward trend towards becoming fiscally unstable due to rising player costs. The problem that the NFLPA has is that no other team will reveal their earnings statements.
Does anyone really believe that such power franchises like New England, Dallas, Pittsburgh, and the New York teams are in financial trouble? Get serious. Jerry Jones is not going broke. The Rooney family is not struggling to get by. Meanwhile the players are facing greater and greater physical risk every game that they play. The ironic thing about this is that this past season the NFL cracked down on what is deemed to be dangerous play (ie. leading with the head as a defender) with the emphasis on taking care of players with head injuries being greater than ever before.
I don't think that anyone in this country feels bad for NFL players, nor should they. Like their counterparts in professional sports in the USA they live a dream that few will ever realize, and get paid large sums of money for it. But if I am an NFL player in 2011 I am sacrificing nothing to the Shield to get back on the field and resume playing. The average career of an NFL player is 3 and a half years. No matter how much you are making as a player, a 3 1/2 year career is insignificant. Many of these guys end up with traumatic health issues, physically and mentally - see the recent suicide of former Bears defender Dave Duerson. He even left a note saying that he wanted his brain studied because he knew something just wasn't right. The longer this game which has 1700+ players every year continues to put players at the risk that they do I don't think that there is any amount of money that can make up for it. Many average joes like myself say "I would play for free for the love of the game." Really? You would take the equivalent of 30+ car crashes a game to your body to earn a few million dollars and die, on average, by the age of 50? I suppose many would, and that is the culture that these players are brought up in, and is fostered by the NFL. So quit bickering over dollars and cents, get this thing settled, and please let the NFL Billionaires old boys club of owners figure out how to settle this with their employees that rake in so much money for them.
Interesting that in a year when the NFL & NBA collective bargaining agreements between the league & players expire setting up likely lockouts & court battles that my home state, Wisconsin, is also going through a controversial labor situation. I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of collective bargaining and the rights of workers vs. the rights of the employer, but I definitely have an opinion on the NFL situation.
The NFL has revenues of 9-10 billion dollars a year. The split is currently 60/40 players/owners. This is after a 1 billion dollar credit for expenses that the owners get to develop the league and theoretically create more revenue, which then gets split with the players. The primary source of revenue for NFL owners, besides the enormous TV contracts is their stadiums The hilarious thing about this to that the public finances most of the stadiums across the country, sometimes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Including the "expense credit" it is basically a 50/50 split, however at this point the owners determine this to be a "unsustainable business model."
The argument is that if they do not get expenses under control now the league will be under financial hardship in the future and the league & players will both suffer as a result. Most observers find this hard to believe as the NFL continues to be a powerhouse that enjoys incredible popularity among the US public. What muddies the waters further is that the NFL is a private organization of separate entities that all operate individually and are not required to reveal their earnings like a publicly traded company. The only team that does release and financial report every year is the publicly held Green Bay Packers. In 2010 the Packers "only" made $9.8 million. This was compared to $20.1 million the previous year. The main cost for the decrease in profit was "player expenses." The NFL is pointing to this report to show that teams are on a downward trend towards becoming fiscally unstable due to rising player costs. The problem that the NFLPA has is that no other team will reveal their earnings statements.
Does anyone really believe that such power franchises like New England, Dallas, Pittsburgh, and the New York teams are in financial trouble? Get serious. Jerry Jones is not going broke. The Rooney family is not struggling to get by. Meanwhile the players are facing greater and greater physical risk every game that they play. The ironic thing about this is that this past season the NFL cracked down on what is deemed to be dangerous play (ie. leading with the head as a defender) with the emphasis on taking care of players with head injuries being greater than ever before.
I don't think that anyone in this country feels bad for NFL players, nor should they. Like their counterparts in professional sports in the USA they live a dream that few will ever realize, and get paid large sums of money for it. But if I am an NFL player in 2011 I am sacrificing nothing to the Shield to get back on the field and resume playing. The average career of an NFL player is 3 and a half years. No matter how much you are making as a player, a 3 1/2 year career is insignificant. Many of these guys end up with traumatic health issues, physically and mentally - see the recent suicide of former Bears defender Dave Duerson. He even left a note saying that he wanted his brain studied because he knew something just wasn't right. The longer this game which has 1700+ players every year continues to put players at the risk that they do I don't think that there is any amount of money that can make up for it. Many average joes like myself say "I would play for free for the love of the game." Really? You would take the equivalent of 30+ car crashes a game to your body to earn a few million dollars and die, on average, by the age of 50? I suppose many would, and that is the culture that these players are brought up in, and is fostered by the NFL. So quit bickering over dollars and cents, get this thing settled, and please let the NFL Billionaires old boys club of owners figure out how to settle this with their employees that rake in so much money for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)