I want to start by saying I'm not an economist. I'm just a sports fan. I cheer for my favorite teams and live and die with every second of an important game. I'm having trouble though figuring out why everyone, including Michigan State coach Tom Izzo, is saying this Final Four run is a dream come true for a troubled state in difficult times. This team being here in Detroit for the Final Four is called a silver lining of a dark cloud hanging over Michigan. WHY?
I understand the emotional piece of it and I get that. However, when everyone is referencing the economic state of...well, the state, what do they think they get out of this by the Spartans playing a part? Fans who already live in Detroit will not fill up restaurants or hotels much more than they would have with MSU out of the Final Four.
This is a time for visitors to travel into town and spend their money supporting their team. Louisville would have brought travelers into the city, filled the airport with additional business. Cab drivers and rental companies would have more business then they will with a home team included in the mix. Hotels miss out on a fourth opportunity to serve out of town guest. Local attractions won't see the locals this week. Only three teams and their fans will venture out to places Detroit and Michigan natives have already seen. Potential tax income is wasted.
Meanwhile, lifelong fans who have followed the Spartans their whole life may pool all their money to make it to the games. It is their right to and it makes a good story. What about next week though? When the car breaks down and the money they had is gone from game expenses and they have to max out credit cards for years to keep up. Is it still a great thing for the state of Michigan? Maybe I'm being a bit dramatic, but the premise behind what I'm saying is solid and it will happen this week.
Don't get me wrong, this will be a money maker for the state of Michigan and it could not come at a better time. Just don't throw the economic rhetoric in with the story on how Michigan benefits with Michigan State playing in the Final Four.
And for the record...yes...I'm rooting for the Spartans..ha ha
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
We lost...but we still get ice cream, right Coach?
Wow, I'm actually writing about hockey..ha ha. Maybe it's because I'm pulling an Evander Holyfield and coming out of retirement for the 4th or 5th time and making my return to Butler Dek Hockey this Sunday? Nah, that's not it...I'm writing because of something that bothers me about the NHL. Just a little something I feel the NHL should do to spark more fan interest. I believe the NHL's most crowd-pleasing course of action is to take it back a decade and do things the old-fashioned way:
Two points for a win: be it regulation, overtime, or shootout. And (stay with me, folks) zero points for a loss, no matter how it comes.
Sure, I count myself among fans who take solace in the fact my team did not come away empty-handed when the game continues past regulation. And that is just my point: This system takes away the feeling of a gut-wrenching loss for fans. That pain is also as much a part of sports as winning. There should be no prize for coming in second in a two-team race. This isn't Little League; we do not have to reward a team for doing their best and falling a bit short. This is America, and our policy is "Winner take all!"
There could be no greater evidence that this system should be adopted than watching NHL action at this point in the season. This is the time when two teams in contention for the Stanley Cup Playoffs will go ultra-conservative in the last five minutes to ensure themselves a point in the standings. This is found especially in inter-conference games since giving the other team a point will not harm a team's playoff position.
Now throw in the fact that the loser of a game gets nothing and things tend to get more interesting. A team who is not a successful shootout opponent will be more inclined to let it all hang out to get a win in regulation or the overtime period, lest they lose everything in the shootout. This also takes away the shootout being an anti-climactic way to end a hockey game.
For example, let's say Phoenix is playing San Jose. There is no question the Sharks are the more talented of the two teams and the odds-on favorite to win the game. Normally if these teams were to go to a shootout, the Coyotes, with a point in hand, would leave most of their fans content. They just took a point from the best team in the Western Conference. Sure, Phoenix fans have a rooting interest in the shootout. But are they that disappointed should they lose? Not really.
Now, take that same point away and you have Coyote fans on the edge of their seat. Poised to leave the Sharks with nothing for their efforts that night. That makes for dramatic television. And, after all, isn't it all about expanding the audience these days?
The "one point for regulation tie" rule was put into effect to let teams be aggressive in the 4-on-4 overtime period and avoid the dreaded tie. This no longer needs to be the case. You can not tie in the NHL! The shootout fixed that loophole. Now that the game has a clear-cut winner and loser, why do we need points for second place?
This also makes the point race at the top of each conference as interesting as the race for the last few playoff spots. For example this year: The Boston Bruins' stumble down the stretch could cost them the top spot had they not picked up points while losing. If a team sitting in the fourth seed could string together five or six wins in a row, coupled with the top seed losing 9 of 12 over a stretch (as Boston did recently) it is conceivable for that team to make an assault on the top conference spot.
Adding more points to the standings just further confuses the general public. The guys on my favorite show, PTI, consistently make fun of the NHL because of the point system and how they don't understand it. But there is one philosophy that everyone understands:
Win or go home!
Two points for a win: be it regulation, overtime, or shootout. And (stay with me, folks) zero points for a loss, no matter how it comes.
Sure, I count myself among fans who take solace in the fact my team did not come away empty-handed when the game continues past regulation. And that is just my point: This system takes away the feeling of a gut-wrenching loss for fans. That pain is also as much a part of sports as winning. There should be no prize for coming in second in a two-team race. This isn't Little League; we do not have to reward a team for doing their best and falling a bit short. This is America, and our policy is "Winner take all!"
There could be no greater evidence that this system should be adopted than watching NHL action at this point in the season. This is the time when two teams in contention for the Stanley Cup Playoffs will go ultra-conservative in the last five minutes to ensure themselves a point in the standings. This is found especially in inter-conference games since giving the other team a point will not harm a team's playoff position.
Now throw in the fact that the loser of a game gets nothing and things tend to get more interesting. A team who is not a successful shootout opponent will be more inclined to let it all hang out to get a win in regulation or the overtime period, lest they lose everything in the shootout. This also takes away the shootout being an anti-climactic way to end a hockey game.
For example, let's say Phoenix is playing San Jose. There is no question the Sharks are the more talented of the two teams and the odds-on favorite to win the game. Normally if these teams were to go to a shootout, the Coyotes, with a point in hand, would leave most of their fans content. They just took a point from the best team in the Western Conference. Sure, Phoenix fans have a rooting interest in the shootout. But are they that disappointed should they lose? Not really.
Now, take that same point away and you have Coyote fans on the edge of their seat. Poised to leave the Sharks with nothing for their efforts that night. That makes for dramatic television. And, after all, isn't it all about expanding the audience these days?
The "one point for regulation tie" rule was put into effect to let teams be aggressive in the 4-on-4 overtime period and avoid the dreaded tie. This no longer needs to be the case. You can not tie in the NHL! The shootout fixed that loophole. Now that the game has a clear-cut winner and loser, why do we need points for second place?
This also makes the point race at the top of each conference as interesting as the race for the last few playoff spots. For example this year: The Boston Bruins' stumble down the stretch could cost them the top spot had they not picked up points while losing. If a team sitting in the fourth seed could string together five or six wins in a row, coupled with the top seed losing 9 of 12 over a stretch (as Boston did recently) it is conceivable for that team to make an assault on the top conference spot.
Adding more points to the standings just further confuses the general public. The guys on my favorite show, PTI, consistently make fun of the NHL because of the point system and how they don't understand it. But there is one philosophy that everyone understands:
Win or go home!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Onions!
Yesterday I was at home, watching all my recorded college basketball games from Saturday when my fiance came into the living room. She sat down on the couch, looked at the TV, and proclaimed, "I'm so sick of you watching basketball." She couldn't understand how I could spend hours watching something as boring as the game of basketball. Wait a second...did she say BORING?!?!
So I sat in my chair the rest of the afternoon and wondered to myself how she could call a game I grew to love boring. There are many reasons I love college basketball. I could start with growing up pretending to play the entire NCAA tournament bracket with my Nerf hoop. I could describe the hoop down at Lake Arthur Estates mobile home park. The one with the slanted rim and the concrete court that had potholes that acted as defenders. I could talk about draining endless free throws on that court or on the gravel driveway at my friend's house.
I can also focus on why I love the game now. The way college kids swarm the court, as if a dam had burst 60 rows up, after an upset win over a ranked team or capturing that NCAA automatic bid. Or how about nine seconds left, the floor spread and the arena roaring as the star player holds the ball at the top of the key, about to break thousands of hearts. I could only imagine what it would be like to be in the student section at Cameron Indoor, it has to feel like you're surfing a tsunami. I can explain how March Madness has the power to propel me out of my seat and want me to yell..."Onions!!" Not to mention that I still take vacation time for the first two days of the tournament so I don't miss a single minute of it.
I can confess that I've spent an hour talking to someone and never made a true connection like the one that comes from running a give and go with a stranger during a pickup game. I can remember when I was younger and seeing a play on TV one night, then seeing it again the next afternoon when I brought it (or tried to..ha ha) to the court. I get a kick out of watching the guys on the bench during games stick out their arms to hold each other back, as if saving one another from oncoming traffic, because the last play was just too damn exciting.
I also appreciate the old school ways of college basketball. Like how the pick-and-roll might be the oldest play in the book, and teams still can't stop it. I still enjoy watching and playing (on my PS2) the Princeton style offense. To me a perfectly executed backdoor cut is the most beautiful play in sports. Although I still get goose bumps from the student section reactions to an alley-oop dunk.
I could explain all this to my fiance and she probably still wouldn't understand. Using her as a prop while showing the half-court trap on our living room rug would probably have her totally confused (Yes, the trap is my favorite defense in college basketball). After all, college basketball is a game you have to grow into, and with luck you'll never grow out of it. So overall, why do I love college basketball?
Because it makes me happy...especially when Duke loses.
So I sat in my chair the rest of the afternoon and wondered to myself how she could call a game I grew to love boring. There are many reasons I love college basketball. I could start with growing up pretending to play the entire NCAA tournament bracket with my Nerf hoop. I could describe the hoop down at Lake Arthur Estates mobile home park. The one with the slanted rim and the concrete court that had potholes that acted as defenders. I could talk about draining endless free throws on that court or on the gravel driveway at my friend's house.
I can also focus on why I love the game now. The way college kids swarm the court, as if a dam had burst 60 rows up, after an upset win over a ranked team or capturing that NCAA automatic bid. Or how about nine seconds left, the floor spread and the arena roaring as the star player holds the ball at the top of the key, about to break thousands of hearts. I could only imagine what it would be like to be in the student section at Cameron Indoor, it has to feel like you're surfing a tsunami. I can explain how March Madness has the power to propel me out of my seat and want me to yell..."Onions!!" Not to mention that I still take vacation time for the first two days of the tournament so I don't miss a single minute of it.
I can confess that I've spent an hour talking to someone and never made a true connection like the one that comes from running a give and go with a stranger during a pickup game. I can remember when I was younger and seeing a play on TV one night, then seeing it again the next afternoon when I brought it (or tried to..ha ha) to the court. I get a kick out of watching the guys on the bench during games stick out their arms to hold each other back, as if saving one another from oncoming traffic, because the last play was just too damn exciting.
I also appreciate the old school ways of college basketball. Like how the pick-and-roll might be the oldest play in the book, and teams still can't stop it. I still enjoy watching and playing (on my PS2) the Princeton style offense. To me a perfectly executed backdoor cut is the most beautiful play in sports. Although I still get goose bumps from the student section reactions to an alley-oop dunk.
I could explain all this to my fiance and she probably still wouldn't understand. Using her as a prop while showing the half-court trap on our living room rug would probably have her totally confused (Yes, the trap is my favorite defense in college basketball). After all, college basketball is a game you have to grow into, and with luck you'll never grow out of it. So overall, why do I love college basketball?
Because it makes me happy...especially when Duke loses.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Giving up hope for Lent??
So yesterday marked the beginning of Lent for all the Catholic folks, along with other religions out there. One of the traditions of the season is to "give something up" between now and Easter. Most people try to give up something like chocolate, alcohol, smoking, or eating meat. So of course it's nice to see the Vikings supporting their local churches by completely giving up on hope that they'll have a proven, dependable quarterback in 2009. Of course they can't make their pledge official until midnight Thursday night, but all signs are pointing to the Vikes picking up their next great backup quarterback, Sage Rosenfels.
I'm half-kidding, but doesn't this acquisition raise more questions than answers? I feel like I'm watching a "Deal or No Deal" episode where the contestant still has a few big amounts left but takes a lowball deal anyways just to be safe. Last week I commented to some people how I thought Jeff Garcia would probably be our best option. Apparently Childress & Co. have a pretty big crush on Sage, because this is the second straight offseason the Vikings have tried to land him, and it looks like they'll succeed this time.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't you rather go after someone that can change the face of your team instead of maybe upgrading you from a D+ to a C- at quarterback? I've said in this space numerous times that I'm big fans of Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte... as backups. I'm afraid the same will go for "The Guy Named After a Household Herb."
Of course it's not like I have a ton of past work to base this opinion on other than the research I did after this story broke. Although this will be Rosenfels' 8th season in the league, he's played in only 32 games and started a whopping 7. He's played very well in some games and terribly in others. He seems that he can carry a team here and there, but he's also been a big reason for a few losses in his career. It's tough to tell if the success he has enjoyed was because of his talent or the benefit of having one of the best players in the league on his side.
Wait a second... who does this sound like? Lack of experience, streaky, bailed out a lot by a superstar teammate.... that's right....Tarvaris Jackson! That's why this move doesn't make much sense to me. Are the Vikings "set" at quarterback for 2009 now? Do they think Jackson or Rosenfels will start, assuming this move would signal the end of Gus' time in Minnesota? Is the front office OK with these two battling it out for NFL mediocrity? Will the 2009 starter simply be the guy that screws up the least?
So yeah, I'm not exactly thrilled with it, but I don't think it's all bad. I do like the price the Vikings are paying for a potential starting quarterback. Giving up a 4th round pick and paying him around $3 million/year (reportedly) seems reasonable if he produces at all. It also gives the Vikings quite a bit of cap room left to do something big in free agency, whether it's a cornerback, wide receiver, tackle, or another position they need depth in.
I also think Sage probably has more "upside" than T-Jax. From time to time, he's looked like an honest-to-God NFL quarterback that can win games for you. He looked pretty darn good when he came in for Schaub at the Metrodome this past season. Although the Vikings are notorious for making every quarterback in the league look like Hall of Fame material. Even in Tarvaris' best games, he just looked like someone that had only perfected scrambling and the rollout pass.
I really do hope I'm wrong about this, but it just feels like we're about to get more of the same at quarterback next year. So Mr. Rosenfels, if my favorite team does indeed acquire you when free agency starts, please prove me wrong. Make me look as silly as Catholics with the ashes on their foreheads after church last night. Please help us Vikings fans give up mediocrity instead of hope.
I'm half-kidding, but doesn't this acquisition raise more questions than answers? I feel like I'm watching a "Deal or No Deal" episode where the contestant still has a few big amounts left but takes a lowball deal anyways just to be safe. Last week I commented to some people how I thought Jeff Garcia would probably be our best option. Apparently Childress & Co. have a pretty big crush on Sage, because this is the second straight offseason the Vikings have tried to land him, and it looks like they'll succeed this time.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't you rather go after someone that can change the face of your team instead of maybe upgrading you from a D+ to a C- at quarterback? I've said in this space numerous times that I'm big fans of Tarvaris Jackson and Gus Frerotte... as backups. I'm afraid the same will go for "The Guy Named After a Household Herb."
Of course it's not like I have a ton of past work to base this opinion on other than the research I did after this story broke. Although this will be Rosenfels' 8th season in the league, he's played in only 32 games and started a whopping 7. He's played very well in some games and terribly in others. He seems that he can carry a team here and there, but he's also been a big reason for a few losses in his career. It's tough to tell if the success he has enjoyed was because of his talent or the benefit of having one of the best players in the league on his side.
Wait a second... who does this sound like? Lack of experience, streaky, bailed out a lot by a superstar teammate.... that's right....Tarvaris Jackson! That's why this move doesn't make much sense to me. Are the Vikings "set" at quarterback for 2009 now? Do they think Jackson or Rosenfels will start, assuming this move would signal the end of Gus' time in Minnesota? Is the front office OK with these two battling it out for NFL mediocrity? Will the 2009 starter simply be the guy that screws up the least?
So yeah, I'm not exactly thrilled with it, but I don't think it's all bad. I do like the price the Vikings are paying for a potential starting quarterback. Giving up a 4th round pick and paying him around $3 million/year (reportedly) seems reasonable if he produces at all. It also gives the Vikings quite a bit of cap room left to do something big in free agency, whether it's a cornerback, wide receiver, tackle, or another position they need depth in.
I also think Sage probably has more "upside" than T-Jax. From time to time, he's looked like an honest-to-God NFL quarterback that can win games for you. He looked pretty darn good when he came in for Schaub at the Metrodome this past season. Although the Vikings are notorious for making every quarterback in the league look like Hall of Fame material. Even in Tarvaris' best games, he just looked like someone that had only perfected scrambling and the rollout pass.
I really do hope I'm wrong about this, but it just feels like we're about to get more of the same at quarterback next year. So Mr. Rosenfels, if my favorite team does indeed acquire you when free agency starts, please prove me wrong. Make me look as silly as Catholics with the ashes on their foreheads after church last night. Please help us Vikings fans give up mediocrity instead of hope.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Daytona.....400???
The Daytona 500 has been the mecca of auto racing since the 1979 race (the 1st nationally televised NASCAR event). The 500 has been considered THE race of the year, the "Super Bowl" of auto racing. Only the Indy 500 comes close to the stature of the Daytona 500.
So, why can't NASCAR's owner get it together when it comes to the largest event of his sport? Dropping the green flag at 3:51 p.m. EST is incredibly ridiculous. I understand they want to race part of the event at night, but there were still 90 laps to go when the lights came on. This race is supposed to finish, or at least run mostly, during the day.
NASCAR is a sport that prides itself in tradition. Turning the 500 into a night race is a far cry from that idea. Brian France is no stranger, however, to completely ignoring the traditions of the sport; removing the races from Rockingham and continually ignoring the Southeastern fan base that made NASCAR what it is today.
The biggest problem of all is the thought its okay to finish the Daytona 500 under a rain delay. Baseball does not end its World Series for a rain delay, football does not end the Super Bowl for one, and if the ice melted during the Stanley Cup the NHL would have it fixed and picked up again.
Many fans were upset that the Daytona 500 was called so quickly after rain began to fall, just
after 6:30 p.m. EST. There was less than 50 laps remaining at the time, which was well past the required halfway mark to make the race official. Matt Kenseth was declared the winner early, and everyone was sent to the exits without even an attempt to wait it out and dry the track. What's up with that? Didn't the Pepsi 400 located at the same track go until like 2:00 a.m. about a year ago?
Yes, I know it could rain just as easy at 1:00 as it could at 6:00, but with such a late start time, there is little, if any, "wiggle room" in the event schedule to compensate for red flags, rain, or wrecks. However, there is plenty of state of the art weather predictors and NASCAR knew rain was headed towards the track, so how hard is it to maybe cut out some of the pre-race nonsense? Just make an announcement at the track and don't worry about the viewers at home. The coverage was on at 2 pm anyway, and I'm sure I speak for most fans when I say I would rather miss the start of the race then not get to see the 200th lap at all.
What ever happened to earlier start times in NASCAR, like 12:30 or 1:30 p.m.? In the 2009 schedule, only two races start earlier than 2:00 p.m. Those are Talladega, on Nov. 11, at 1:15 p.m., and Martinsville, on Oct. 25, at 1:45 p.m. There only five races which start at 2 p.m.; that leaves 29 races starting later in the afternoon.
The television networks want later starting times to make races an option for the entire country. A 3:30 EST start meant it was 12:30 PST. I guess it also helps with the church crowd, as they can go to service, grab a bite to eat, change clothes, and be back home to watch the race.
Had the Daytona 500 started at 1:30 p.m., the full 500 miles would have been completed before the rain ever arrived. Yes, it would have made it 10:30 a.m. start in California, but I don't think that makes that big of a difference.
Probably also taken into consideration was the fact that FOX had a full lineup of prime-time shows slated to air on Sunday night, including the first HD episode of The Simpsons.
For those that would suggest that FOX shift the race to one of its other networks, that would not be likely. They had spent weeks advertising the "Great American Race" to the nation. They would have looked like they were not giving sufficient priority to such a major sporting event.
Again though, an earlier start time could have been scheduled. Keith Urban can probably sing just as well at 12:30 as he can at 2:30, and Tom Cruise can probably drive the pace car just as well at the earlier time. Besides, we already have a night race at Daytona later in on the season.
Could it be that FOX pushed NASCAR to make a quick decision and “blame it on the rain,” so as not to interrupt The Simpsons? Who really runs NASCAR? Is it FOX, ESPN, or is it NASCAR themselves?
My advice to NASCAR: Listen to the fans before you don't have any. If people paid for 500 miles, give them 500, or at least act like you are trying to. NASCAR can not continue to allow its premiere event to finish early. It is a horrible image to relay to the nation and the sporting world. If Brian France wants to be the visionary his daddy once was... he can start by fixing the mess he has made with the Daytona 500.
So, why can't NASCAR's owner get it together when it comes to the largest event of his sport? Dropping the green flag at 3:51 p.m. EST is incredibly ridiculous. I understand they want to race part of the event at night, but there were still 90 laps to go when the lights came on. This race is supposed to finish, or at least run mostly, during the day.
NASCAR is a sport that prides itself in tradition. Turning the 500 into a night race is a far cry from that idea. Brian France is no stranger, however, to completely ignoring the traditions of the sport; removing the races from Rockingham and continually ignoring the Southeastern fan base that made NASCAR what it is today.
The biggest problem of all is the thought its okay to finish the Daytona 500 under a rain delay. Baseball does not end its World Series for a rain delay, football does not end the Super Bowl for one, and if the ice melted during the Stanley Cup the NHL would have it fixed and picked up again.
Many fans were upset that the Daytona 500 was called so quickly after rain began to fall, just
after 6:30 p.m. EST. There was less than 50 laps remaining at the time, which was well past the required halfway mark to make the race official. Matt Kenseth was declared the winner early, and everyone was sent to the exits without even an attempt to wait it out and dry the track. What's up with that? Didn't the Pepsi 400 located at the same track go until like 2:00 a.m. about a year ago?
Yes, I know it could rain just as easy at 1:00 as it could at 6:00, but with such a late start time, there is little, if any, "wiggle room" in the event schedule to compensate for red flags, rain, or wrecks. However, there is plenty of state of the art weather predictors and NASCAR knew rain was headed towards the track, so how hard is it to maybe cut out some of the pre-race nonsense? Just make an announcement at the track and don't worry about the viewers at home. The coverage was on at 2 pm anyway, and I'm sure I speak for most fans when I say I would rather miss the start of the race then not get to see the 200th lap at all.
What ever happened to earlier start times in NASCAR, like 12:30 or 1:30 p.m.? In the 2009 schedule, only two races start earlier than 2:00 p.m. Those are Talladega, on Nov. 11, at 1:15 p.m., and Martinsville, on Oct. 25, at 1:45 p.m. There only five races which start at 2 p.m.; that leaves 29 races starting later in the afternoon.
The television networks want later starting times to make races an option for the entire country. A 3:30 EST start meant it was 12:30 PST. I guess it also helps with the church crowd, as they can go to service, grab a bite to eat, change clothes, and be back home to watch the race.
Had the Daytona 500 started at 1:30 p.m., the full 500 miles would have been completed before the rain ever arrived. Yes, it would have made it 10:30 a.m. start in California, but I don't think that makes that big of a difference.
Probably also taken into consideration was the fact that FOX had a full lineup of prime-time shows slated to air on Sunday night, including the first HD episode of The Simpsons.
For those that would suggest that FOX shift the race to one of its other networks, that would not be likely. They had spent weeks advertising the "Great American Race" to the nation. They would have looked like they were not giving sufficient priority to such a major sporting event.
Again though, an earlier start time could have been scheduled. Keith Urban can probably sing just as well at 12:30 as he can at 2:30, and Tom Cruise can probably drive the pace car just as well at the earlier time. Besides, we already have a night race at Daytona later in on the season.
Could it be that FOX pushed NASCAR to make a quick decision and “blame it on the rain,” so as not to interrupt The Simpsons? Who really runs NASCAR? Is it FOX, ESPN, or is it NASCAR themselves?
My advice to NASCAR: Listen to the fans before you don't have any. If people paid for 500 miles, give them 500, or at least act like you are trying to. NASCAR can not continue to allow its premiere event to finish early. It is a horrible image to relay to the nation and the sporting world. If Brian France wants to be the visionary his daddy once was... he can start by fixing the mess he has made with the Daytona 500.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
*Heroes
I'm going to make this one short and sweet. Just felt like I should say something on the topic since it wants to take half of my favorite show to be discussed each day. The fact is I DON'T CARE ABOUT STEROIDS IN BASEBALL!!
The players that use performance enhancing drugs are only hurting their own bodies, not mine. And truthfully, if it wasn't for the all the records that started being broken after the baseball strike in 1994, I probably would have never started watching baseball again anyway. The fans expected reasons to come flock to the ballparks after that strike, so the players delivered. The Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa home run chase "saved" baseball. Do you think I wasn't one of many fans who noticed Barry Bonds went from being a stick figure to the same size of an NFL offensive lineman, seemingly in one off-season? Come on MLB, I knew players were using something...I'm not that naive.
The biggest argument I'm hearing about steroids in baseball is that if one player is using and another isn't, then the player that is using is cheating. Critics also say that all of baseballs records that were broken during the "Steroid Era" should either not count or come equipped with some sort of asterisk to explain that the record in question may or may not have been achieved with the use of a performance enhancing drug. Okay...fine...but wanna know why that still doesn't bother me?
The history of MLB is littered with cheaters and con artists. Just because I'm only 27 years old I know my history of sports. Just ask anyone that dare plays me in a sports related trivia game. So, you don't think I know about Ty Cobb probably fixing games in 1919; Or Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose and many of the ’50’s/’60’s generation who were high on amphetamines; Or Gaylord Perry admitting that he doctored baseballs; Or about Whitey Ford admitting his conspiracy to gouge or wet the baseball; Or my personal favorite story I read about, Tim Raines who would slide headfirst so as to not break the crack vials in his back pocket in the ’80’s. The list goes on and on and on and on. Nobody has a problem with some of those players being in the Hall of Fame, except obviously for Pete Rose since he gambled on baseball, but that's for another discussion. This ‘Golden Age’ in many people’s memories quite simply did not exist.
My point is that Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds should not be harshly penalized for cheating at a game littered with dishonesty and fear of losing one’s job. I quite honestly don’t care that they used steroids, because there is not one single study which has proven that it increases hand/eye coordination, which is much more important than arm strength when you’re talking about homers.
I don’t idolize players like I used to as a kid, but that doesn’t mean I cannot enjoy the games. This preoccupation we have as a society of tearing down celebrities has to stop. So, a player cheats? So? That means he’s just like all of us. I’ve lied. I’ve cheated. I’ve disappointed people. Does this mean I should be banned from work or fined, too? The standard we hold these people to is absolutely unrealistic.
To paraphrase John Kruk: "These ain’t heroes, lady, they’re ballplayers."
The players that use performance enhancing drugs are only hurting their own bodies, not mine. And truthfully, if it wasn't for the all the records that started being broken after the baseball strike in 1994, I probably would have never started watching baseball again anyway. The fans expected reasons to come flock to the ballparks after that strike, so the players delivered. The Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa home run chase "saved" baseball. Do you think I wasn't one of many fans who noticed Barry Bonds went from being a stick figure to the same size of an NFL offensive lineman, seemingly in one off-season? Come on MLB, I knew players were using something...I'm not that naive.
The biggest argument I'm hearing about steroids in baseball is that if one player is using and another isn't, then the player that is using is cheating. Critics also say that all of baseballs records that were broken during the "Steroid Era" should either not count or come equipped with some sort of asterisk to explain that the record in question may or may not have been achieved with the use of a performance enhancing drug. Okay...fine...but wanna know why that still doesn't bother me?
The history of MLB is littered with cheaters and con artists. Just because I'm only 27 years old I know my history of sports. Just ask anyone that dare plays me in a sports related trivia game. So, you don't think I know about Ty Cobb probably fixing games in 1919; Or Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose and many of the ’50’s/’60’s generation who were high on amphetamines; Or Gaylord Perry admitting that he doctored baseballs; Or about Whitey Ford admitting his conspiracy to gouge or wet the baseball; Or my personal favorite story I read about, Tim Raines who would slide headfirst so as to not break the crack vials in his back pocket in the ’80’s. The list goes on and on and on and on. Nobody has a problem with some of those players being in the Hall of Fame, except obviously for Pete Rose since he gambled on baseball, but that's for another discussion. This ‘Golden Age’ in many people’s memories quite simply did not exist.
My point is that Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds should not be harshly penalized for cheating at a game littered with dishonesty and fear of losing one’s job. I quite honestly don’t care that they used steroids, because there is not one single study which has proven that it increases hand/eye coordination, which is much more important than arm strength when you’re talking about homers.
I don’t idolize players like I used to as a kid, but that doesn’t mean I cannot enjoy the games. This preoccupation we have as a society of tearing down celebrities has to stop. So, a player cheats? So? That means he’s just like all of us. I’ve lied. I’ve cheated. I’ve disappointed people. Does this mean I should be banned from work or fined, too? The standard we hold these people to is absolutely unrealistic.
To paraphrase John Kruk: "These ain’t heroes, lady, they’re ballplayers."
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Hall of Lame
Cris Carter played his last National Football League game a little more than six years ago, a game that many Viking fans will remember. Carter, who was a member of a Miami Dolphins team that was in the driver's seat for the #1 seed in the AFC playoffs, rolled into the Metrodome to take on a Viking team that sat at 3-10 and was simply playing for pride. The defining image of Carter from that game was of him going up and down the Miami sidelines, telling his teammates that Vikings' kicker Gary Anderson "couldn't kick it that far" as he lined up to attempt a 52-yard field goal. Anderson did, indeed, kick it that far, and gave the Vikings a 20-17 win. The loss sent the Dolphins into a tailspin that ultimately found them on the outside looking in at the AFC playoffs.
While that might have been the final image of Carter at the Metrodome, it was far from the most memorable. When Carter retired a couple of weeks later, he had more catches, yards, and touchdown receptions than any player in the history of the National Football League not named Jerry Rice.
Yet, this past Saturday, he was again denied entrance to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I'm completely confused by this injustice. I'm not sure who the man has angered or whose dog he ran over or whose girlfriend he slept with at some point or what the case is here, but the fact that Cris Carter wasn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer was ludicrous enough. . . the fact that he was denied entry on his second attempt at the Hall is damn near inexplicable.
Here's a list of all the wide receivers that have made it into the Hall of Fame in the "modern era," which according to the Hall of Fame's website (where I pulled this list from) is defined as beginning in 1946:
Lance Alworth
Raymond Berry
Fred Biletnikoff
Tom Fears
Bob Hayes
Elroy Hirsch
Michael Irvin
Charlie Joiner
Steve Largent
Dante Lavelli
James Lofton
Don Maynard
Tommy McDonald
Bobby Mitchell
Art Monk
Pete Phios
John Stallworth
Lynn Swann
Charley Taylor
Paul Warfield
Give me five names on that list that you look at and say, "Yep, that guy is definitely better than Cris Carter, no question about it." Hell, give me three names on that list that meet that criteria.
You won't find them, because they simply aren't there. Jerry Rice played until 2004, so his name will come up for eligibility next year, and he's as close to a mortal lock as it gets for Canton, but he's not on the above list yet. Hell, guys like Lynn Swann were never even the best wide receiver on their own damn team (Swann couldn't carry Stallworth's jock, quite frankly, and never had a single 1,000-yard receiving season), yet they get into the Hall of Fame ahead of one of the five greatest receivers to ever strap on a helmet.
And I don't want to hear the "but Carter never got a ring" argument, either. Because, by that criteria, Dan Marino isn't a Hall of Famer and Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are. Super Bowl rings are a team thing. . . the Hall of Fame is a recognition of individual accomplishment. Very few wide receivers have accomplished, individually, what Cris Carter has.
In many cases, the performance of a wide receiver is directly related to consistency and talent at the quarterback position. Guys like Jerry Rice and Marvin Harrison spent (or are spending) their entire career catching passes from guys that are either in the Hall of Fame or will be going there. If you look up and down the leaderboards for wide receivers, you'll find that a lot of the guys up towards the top have had a lot of stability at that position, and/or constantly played with guys that were incredibly talented.
And then there's Cris Carter.
Carter, as a member of the Vikings, had eight consecutive 1,000 yard seasons from 1993 to 2000. Here are the quarterbacks that threw to him during those seasons: Jim McMahon, Warren Moon, Brad Johnson, Randall Cunningham, Jeff George, and Daunte Culpepper.
In those eight 1,000-yard seasons, the man played with six different primary quarterbacks. There's one Hall of Famer on that list in Warren Moon, a guy that Carter played with towards the tail end of Moon's career. None of the other guys on that list are going to the Hall, and frankly none of them are close.
I simply don't understand how this guy has been locked out of the Hall to this point. Yes, it's only been two years. Cris Carter deserved to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, not a guy that's still searching for his spot in Canton on his third try after becoming eligible. Not to mention Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith are both eligible next year so there's two more spots that are already taken. I don't know what sort of message the Hall of Fame voters are attempting to send here, but quite frankly, either you're a Hall of Famer or you're not. And if Cris Carter isn't, I truly have no idea who is.
Some critics are even saying he was only a "possession receiver"....okay...well then he was the best "possession receiver" in the history of the NFL...put him in the Hall!! The man is the greatest non-Jerry Rice wide receiver in the history of the National Football League, he possessed what might have been the greatest set of hands in the history of the league (and I'll include Rice in that category, too), and he did it without having a truly great quarterback to work with during his time in the NFL. I was actually looking forward to seeing the first two Viking players that I could say I "grew up watching" get inducted this year, but sadly I won't.
Congrats to Randall McDaniel on his induction though, and here's to hoping that Carter doesn't have to wait so long that his induction becomes some sort of "charity" case.
While that might have been the final image of Carter at the Metrodome, it was far from the most memorable. When Carter retired a couple of weeks later, he had more catches, yards, and touchdown receptions than any player in the history of the National Football League not named Jerry Rice.
Yet, this past Saturday, he was again denied entrance to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I'm completely confused by this injustice. I'm not sure who the man has angered or whose dog he ran over or whose girlfriend he slept with at some point or what the case is here, but the fact that Cris Carter wasn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer was ludicrous enough. . . the fact that he was denied entry on his second attempt at the Hall is damn near inexplicable.
Here's a list of all the wide receivers that have made it into the Hall of Fame in the "modern era," which according to the Hall of Fame's website (where I pulled this list from) is defined as beginning in 1946:
Lance Alworth
Raymond Berry
Fred Biletnikoff
Tom Fears
Bob Hayes
Elroy Hirsch
Michael Irvin
Charlie Joiner
Steve Largent
Dante Lavelli
James Lofton
Don Maynard
Tommy McDonald
Bobby Mitchell
Art Monk
Pete Phios
John Stallworth
Lynn Swann
Charley Taylor
Paul Warfield
Give me five names on that list that you look at and say, "Yep, that guy is definitely better than Cris Carter, no question about it." Hell, give me three names on that list that meet that criteria.
You won't find them, because they simply aren't there. Jerry Rice played until 2004, so his name will come up for eligibility next year, and he's as close to a mortal lock as it gets for Canton, but he's not on the above list yet. Hell, guys like Lynn Swann were never even the best wide receiver on their own damn team (Swann couldn't carry Stallworth's jock, quite frankly, and never had a single 1,000-yard receiving season), yet they get into the Hall of Fame ahead of one of the five greatest receivers to ever strap on a helmet.
And I don't want to hear the "but Carter never got a ring" argument, either. Because, by that criteria, Dan Marino isn't a Hall of Famer and Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are. Super Bowl rings are a team thing. . . the Hall of Fame is a recognition of individual accomplishment. Very few wide receivers have accomplished, individually, what Cris Carter has.
In many cases, the performance of a wide receiver is directly related to consistency and talent at the quarterback position. Guys like Jerry Rice and Marvin Harrison spent (or are spending) their entire career catching passes from guys that are either in the Hall of Fame or will be going there. If you look up and down the leaderboards for wide receivers, you'll find that a lot of the guys up towards the top have had a lot of stability at that position, and/or constantly played with guys that were incredibly talented.
And then there's Cris Carter.
Carter, as a member of the Vikings, had eight consecutive 1,000 yard seasons from 1993 to 2000. Here are the quarterbacks that threw to him during those seasons: Jim McMahon, Warren Moon, Brad Johnson, Randall Cunningham, Jeff George, and Daunte Culpepper.
In those eight 1,000-yard seasons, the man played with six different primary quarterbacks. There's one Hall of Famer on that list in Warren Moon, a guy that Carter played with towards the tail end of Moon's career. None of the other guys on that list are going to the Hall, and frankly none of them are close.
I simply don't understand how this guy has been locked out of the Hall to this point. Yes, it's only been two years. Cris Carter deserved to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, not a guy that's still searching for his spot in Canton on his third try after becoming eligible. Not to mention Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith are both eligible next year so there's two more spots that are already taken. I don't know what sort of message the Hall of Fame voters are attempting to send here, but quite frankly, either you're a Hall of Famer or you're not. And if Cris Carter isn't, I truly have no idea who is.
Some critics are even saying he was only a "possession receiver"....okay...well then he was the best "possession receiver" in the history of the NFL...put him in the Hall!! The man is the greatest non-Jerry Rice wide receiver in the history of the National Football League, he possessed what might have been the greatest set of hands in the history of the league (and I'll include Rice in that category, too), and he did it without having a truly great quarterback to work with during his time in the NFL. I was actually looking forward to seeing the first two Viking players that I could say I "grew up watching" get inducted this year, but sadly I won't.
Congrats to Randall McDaniel on his induction though, and here's to hoping that Carter doesn't have to wait so long that his induction becomes some sort of "charity" case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
