FREEHAND FREELANCE
The Truth About Fantasy Football
April 13, 2009
Someone needs to clear a few things up, and perhaps dispell some nasty stereotypes and misconceptions about Fantasy Football. For far too long now, Fantasy Football owners have held the reputation of being nerds or geeks, living in a world of make-believe, rotting away in front of a computer moniter in their parent's basement. Some people actually feel hate towards Fantasy Football. Sports personalities such as SI.com writer Don Banks, and ESPN Radio'sColin Cowherd have publicly slammed the activity. There have been anti-Fantasy Football wesites popping up around the internet. My favorite is a site called womenagainstfantasysports.com, a site made by women who have grown tired of the attention and time their significant others are devoting to Fantasy Football. As a guy who is not only not a nerd, but most likely the coolest guy that you know, I would like to step up to the challenge of defending Fantasy Football's good name.
We'll begin with the myth that all FF(We'll refer to Fantasy Football as FF from here on out) players are superdorks, on par with Dungeons and Dragons guys and trekkies. Though some guys who fit this description may play, most FF aren't anything like that. And there are no real similarities in the activities themselves. Fantasy Football is a game, but it's a game that revolves around an actual event. Without real Football there is no Fantasy Football. There are no real dragons, or warlocks, or protection spells, or cloaks of invisibility, or final frontiers, or Captain Kirks. The Fantasy about FF is the team that you pick, but the scoring is very real. We may be stat geeks in a sense, but a stat geek is way less losery than just a geek.
But if you think FF is limited to just stat-crunching sports geeks, I'll hit you with some knowledge. The number of FF participants is absolutely staggering. In 2006 it was estimated that over 34,000,000 Americans played FF. That number is believed to have increased by several million over the last two years. A stat that suggests those who play FF don't quit, and millions of new players get hooked every year. Allow me to put these numbers into perspective. Approximately 306 million people live in our country. Out of those people, approximately 37 million play FF. That's about 12% of our population. Almost the same number exactly as the population of California, the most populated state. So it can't be just basement-dwelling losers playing, FF is unarguably mainstream.
Some people have made the connection between race and FF participants. ESPN's Stephen A. Smith did an article for ESPN the Magazine a while back, stating that 93% of all FF players are white, 1.6% are black, 2.3% are Latino, and 1.1% are Asian. Smith also found that 96% of all FF players are men. For the article in its entirety, go to http://digg.com/d1Z4UZ. It's hard to make sense of these numbers. Studies are showing that as a more diverse group of people are gaining access to high-speed internet, a more diverse group is also taking up FF. I don't think that FF appeals only to white men, but I believe that some things begin in certain cultures, and then spread to others. Look at how much White America has been influenced by African-American culture. Black music, vocabulary, and fashion have all spread into mainstream white culture. And likewise, FF, will cross racial lines and grow in popularity among all races in time.
Through all of the debate that surrounds FF, the main fact that goes largely unmentioned is the money, the reward, the payoff. I imagine that this subject goes untouched because it's supposedly illegal to partake in this kind of wagering. Yet each year, millions of dollars in payouts are handed out to FF winners, and I still haven't heard of a single arrest. It's the same concept with the NCAA tournament. Do you think it would be such a big deal without those sheets of paper and a payout at the end? But we never talk about it. Even though ignoring the money as it pertains to FF and NCAA brackets is like failing to mention oil when talking about the war in Iraq. You're leaving out a key factor to the whole story. I play in two FF leagues, one pays $500 and the other pays $300. If I win both leagues, I'm taking home nearly a grand, pretty nerdy huh? So you keep watching football, and calling me a nerd. And I'll keep watching the same exact games, and go home with a paycheck.
My goal with this is not to try and recruit new players, FF doesn't need my help with that. I just want people to know why it is we play. It doesn't change the way we root for our favorite teams or players. It just makes us interested in games we wouldn't normally care about. And ultimately, can lead to a pretty nice wad of cash if you're lucky enough. See you Wednesday night...
February 25, 2009
The Consequences of Storming the Court
I'd like you to imagine something if you will. Imagine for a second that you are a high school senior. You're a promising 6'6" multi-sport athlete, with a full-ride scholarship to a prestigious Division 1 school. It's the night before your 18th birthday, and you're leading your school's basketball team to victory over your cross-town rivals. Just to cap it off, you seal your opponents fate with a huge, late-game dunk that immediately sends your crowd into a frenzy. You're in a truly unique situation, on top of the world, with seemingly nowhere to go but up. But in a split second, your whole life changes.
The buzzer sounds. You're instantly transformed from town hero, to the most vulnerable target for a swarming mob of ecstatic fans. One fan gets to you before you can even assess the situation. You recognize him as football player from your school. Not a friend really, more of an aquaintance. He's made a beeline directly for you. He tackles you to the ground, in true football fashion. Then what's known as a dogpile forms on top of you both, pinning you to the floor. Your neck gets twisted in a way that you know it shouldn't. You can't breathe, you can't scream, everything goes black.
It sounds terrifying, but it was a reality to Joe Kay. Joe suffered a stroke that night. His right side left partially paralyzed. His ability to walk and speak forever hindered. He's 22 now. And thanks to Stanford University honoring his scholarship, Joe will hopefully be receiving a degree in Law in the very near future. He's making the most of the hand he was dealt. But he shouldn't of had to. He should have had the opportunity to live the life he worked so hard to obtain. But due to group ignorance and carelessness, Joe will never get to. And what's the hardest thing for Joe to swallow? That football player responsible for initially taking Joe to the floor, couldn't even muster up the decency to apologize.
It's hard for me to understand why this "Storming the Court" phenomenon has been allowed to go on. And Joe's case was only a high school game. The real danger lies in collegiate events, where the crowds can be 10 to 20 times larger. We've seen this several times already this season, most recently last night, in a game where Providence upset #1 ranked Pitt (Video below). We saw it earlier this season in a Clemson win over Duke. Duke was ranked #2 at the time, so it was a significant win. But Clemson was ranked #10, so it could hardly be called an upset. So why storm the floor? Is stupidity an airborne contagious virus that spreads through arenas like wildfires through California? Will someone have to actually die in a nationally televised game before a legitimate rule is put in place? I think that the heads of all sporting activities are largely to blame. Whether it be high school or college, a rule needs to be instituted that would resort in a forfiet for any schools team whose fans participate in this reckless form of mob-action. Fans would have to find a new, safer way to celebrate so as to not turn that win they're so proud of into an embarassing loss.
And what of the fans? The people in charge shoulder a bulk of the blame for not policing this issue in the least. But the rest of the blame falls directly into the lap of us, the fans. We've got to realize that we are just a few steps away from soccer hooligans when we let our emotions pour over into our fanhood. We're better and smarter than this. What if you're in the 19th row at a home game for your favorite college team. What if you have your son or daughter, neice or nephew, or whatever child is closest to you, sitting right beside you. And your team pulls off a win against a top ranked school in the middle of the regular season. Suddenly you find yourself much closer to the chaos than the exit. With literally thousands of screaming, unruly fans flooding down from above you, completely oblivious to anything in their way. How do you protect that child? How do you protect yourself? Trying to go against the flow of people is as impossible as swimming up a waterfall. Your kid is scared for their life. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
We need to fix this ourselves, since the rulemakers seem to be content to just wait for a catastrophe to take any action. Think about the message you're conveying as you rush the floor. Aren't you just saying, "There's no way my team should have won." And don't say you only condone it for tournament games. That's like saying drunk driving is only acceptable on holidays. Or that incest is only alright if you have a really hot cousin. Excuses are for the weak. What's wrong in January is wrong in March too. So try to appear as if you're not totally shocked by your team pulling out a victory over a quality opponent. Stand up, cheer, whistle, high-five, scream as loud as you want, enjoy the moment to its fullest. Then file out in an orderly fashion like the sheep you are, and drive home safely. To quote a football cliche made up by crusty old white guys who cheered Joe Namath's flamboyant predictions and fur coats to no end, meant to condemn today's players for drawing a little extra attention to themselves in the endzone, act like you've been there before.
March 14, 2008
My Solution to Steroids in Sports
If you follow the show, or even taken the time to read a few of our blogs or bulletins, there’s a good chance you’ve heard me make some pretty far-fetched suggestions. I’ve said that baseball should play half the number of regular season games, and play primarily on the weekend during waking hours. I’ve suggested they alter the automatic bid system so only teams who place first in their conference and also win their conference tournament receive automatic bids. By the way, the only teams that would be left out so far this year are Mt. St. Mary’s and San Diego, two teams that don’t belong there anyway. I’ve asked what kind of game we’d see if the players on winning teams in professional all-star games took home $500,000 individually, and the losers get nothing. Not even airfare or hotel stay. All things that would never happen, but fun to think about. And the list goes on, I even said the Pats would win by 21. But what I’m about to suggest sounds a little crazy even to me. And from what I just heard, to my fiance Amanda. But I’ve decided to go forward with the story much to her disapproaval.
Let me start off by saying that this all starts with bad parenting. Teach your kids the difference between right and wrong, smart and stupid. If we could just handle the basics, kids wouldn’t grow up and make stupid decisions. Sadly, in some cases, the damage is done. Which is why we have a situation now where PEDs(Performance enhancing drugs) are at the forefront of sports conversation. They’re incredibly prevelant, and seem to always be a step ahead of the rules. As soon as they test for one, a whole new drug is developed, and is even harder to detect. We’re constantly, and for good reason, asking ourselves ’I wonder if this guy juices?’ There’s no denying that PEDs are a big part of sports culture. And it’s simply ignorant to think that it will go away. As long as there’s competition, competitors will look for any edge they can get.
So why fight a war you can’t win? We all know that steroids are a dangerous drug and are most definitely not for kids. And we can all agree that PEDs aren’t good for sports in the current format. We have guys who go about it the right way, and actually care about their bodies, competing against roided out hulking freaks who could care less about back acne or testicular well-being. Guys who will harm their bodies to get an athletic edge. It’s not a level playing field. So why not divide the playing field? Here’s where I lose you if I haven’t already. Why not have a seperate league for guys who want to use PEDs? We could call it the ENFL (Enhanced National Football League), or EMLB for baseball. You could have an alternate league for all the sports. Listen, I don’t think taking these drugs is a good idea. Personally, I never would. But what another adult wants to put into his or her body is none of my business. If we can drink until our liver explodes, our eat combo meals until our arteries burst, why are steroids illegal? I understand why they’re banned from sports, but it shouldn’t be against the law for a person to destroy their own body. So why not make a little money off of them? There’s a perfectly good half of a year without football that could very well be occupied by a professional steroid league. We’d still have the regular leagues, and we’d know that they were clean. But in the offseason, we’d get to see a whole new league with giant mutated athletes ripping each others heads off. Or a league full of guys hitting 600 ft. bombs. Or even two roided out boxers both with the strength of Ivan Drago from RockyIV giving each other brain damage. When you can’t eliminate a problem, find a way to make everyone happy and turn a financial gain.
So that’s my answer, professional steroid leagues. It would clean up our beloved sports leagues and insure that our cherished stat books aren’t in any way tainted. It would level all playing fields, natural vs.natural, chemical vs. chemical. And people would most certainly watch and attend events, giving those cities an economic boost. See, everyone wins. Problem solved, you’re welcome.
October 11, 2006
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS AND SPORTS
I know you're probably wondering how the two are connected, don't worry I'll tell you. Lately there has been a string of shootings in schools around the country. It started in Columbine a few years ago and they're becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on. And it's usually the same story, some kid is an outcast, probably ridiculed from time to time by bigger more socially accepted kids. He comes to school one day with a gun, nobody ever saw it coming. Sometimes it's just one kid, sometimes it's a group of troubled kids with an elaborate plan. But the one thing these kids never are, is an athlete. It's never a disgruntled basketball team that comes to school and kills people. That's not a coincidence, there's a reason. Kids who participate in sports from an early age are more likely to be comfortable in social situations as they get older. What I'm trying to say is parents need to encourage their children to participate sports from an early age. It's the same reason most of you have, or will have fat children. I'm not saying you should force your kids to play sports, just encourage. You can influence your kids without forcing them. That's your job as parents, to shape and mold your kids into acceptable members of society. Too many parents these days are giving their children the option to simply do as they please. And given the option, most kids will sit in front of the T.V., play video games, or sit on the internet all day as opposed to going outside and doing something active. These same kids will never be in shape, and because of their lack of human interaction will be socially akward in a high school setting. Then when they get picked on for being weird, they deal with things the way they were taught to deal with things on T.V. or Grand Theft Auto. There is no way this happens with a kid who is involved with sports his whole life. Like it or not, athletic kids who are in shape don't get picked on. And they feel more comfortable around their peers as a result of being a part of a team. All I'm saying is get involved in your kids life. Encourage them to do sports, or anything that involves social interaction from an early age. It's never the kid on the football team with all of the friends that comes back shooting, remember that the next time your kid is sitting in front of an electronic screen on a beautiiful day. And if you're currently in high school, make sure to pass the ball to the weird kid in gym class, he may spare your life later when he goes on a rampage. I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Let me know how you feel.
February 7, 2008
Why?gate
Let me start by stating something that I've said countless times before. I am not a Patriots fan. In fact, I'm a 49ers fan. So don't confuse what I say as a fan making excuses for his team. I know that the Pats cheated by videotaping the Jet's defensive coaches on the sideline in week 1. I know this because the NFL made it available to the public. I also know that the tapes were taken and destroyed, and the Pats received the stiffest punishment ever given to any team for any infraction. I'm well aware of all of this thanks to Roger Goodell and the NFL. Case closed right? Well it should have been. But then an Eagles fan/congressman named Arlen Specter, and a jealous ex-videographer named Matt Walsh decided that wasn't enough. Specter because his beloved Eagles lost a Super Bowl to the Pats a few years back. And Walsh because he was fired by the Pats. I'm not saying the Patriots weren't videotaping before this season. In fact, I'm quite sure they were. But according to the NFL, and countless coaches around the league, everyone was. It was extremely common for all teams to try and get an edge on the competiton any way they could. Secret videotaping being one of the methods. It was so common in fact, that prior to this past season, the NFL warned ALL TEAMS that this practice has to stop. The Patriots were the only team known to have disregarded this warning. I say known because they were the only team caught in the act. But it was handled by the league, and should've been a dead issue. I find it odd that congress as a whole could care less about this. It's just one Eagles fan in a position of power who has singled out one team because they crushed his Super Bowl dreams. I would have no problem whatsoever if this were a league-wide investigation of all teams. I wouldn't understand what congress hoped to accomplish, but our government has a tendency of sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. So I guess I would understand. But to just single out one team, when most teams in the league were doing the same thing is nothing more than a witch hunt. And Matt Walsh, he was fired in '03. So why come out with this information now? You've had this knowledge for five years, so why now? It sounds like a jealous ex, trying to kick the Pats while they're down. In no way do I condone cheating of any kind. But if an investigation is to take place, they need to investigate every team. Including Specter's beloved Philadelphia Eagles. I've got a better idea Arlen. Why don't you leave the NFL to police it's own league, and you use your power for something worthwhile, like ending this fiasco of a war, or making gas affordable? The NFL will be fine.
July 28, 2007
A Different perspective on Dog-Fighting
Unless you've been off on some remote island away from any and all technology, or the unlikely event that you've actually perished in the last few months, you know a little something about the Mike Vick dog-fighting story. I for one love animals and would never dream of pitting two of them together in a fight to the death. I can't even go hunting because I feel bad for killing another living creature. When I first heard about the Vick investigation, I was disgusted. I'm sure most of you felt the same way. I couldn't believe that such a huge star would risk his career by forcing animals to fight each other. I mean, it's not like the dogs have a choice right? Of course not. Dogs don't want to kill each other by nature, they have to be trained. All a dog wants to do is get petted, sniff other doggie ass, and hump random inanimate objects. They certainly don't want to be a pit-fighting champion. I thought long and hard on the subject while turning my steaks the other night(Which were delicious). Then I went in and sat on my new leather sofa and nearly wept at the thought of innocent animals dying for needless causes. Then I thought to myself, "You know what goes really good with a fat steak? Hotwings." I can't think of a better reason to butcher a chicken than those fantastic wings. I hope you're picking up on the sarcasm. My point is, I'm not sure what makes two dogs mauling each other to death worse than a pig getting killed to make such wonderful sausage patties and links. Surely you're not thinking it's in the way they're killed. Think about it like this, would the Holocaust have been more acceptable if Hitler fattened up the Jews first, and then peacefully gassed them to death? I promise you that no cow in the world wants to be a delectable juicy burger, or a ridiculous jacket. But we'll keep eating them, myself included. And I'm not a dog-fighting advocate, I really do think it's terrible. But I guess when you really think about it, terrible things happen to animals everyday solely for human purposes. But who wants a veggie-burger? Just a little perspective.
June 29, 2007
Arrested Athletes
Why can't Pacman Jones stop going to strip joints? Why can't he not spit on people at the club? Why can't he stop hanging out with people who shoot bouncers? What convinced Mike Vick that Dogfighting was acceptable? Why would Tank Johnson be driving anywhere at 3:30 in the morning? Why would Eddie Griffin think it alright to play tug-of-war with little Eddie while driving and watching porn? Why can I do a segment twice a week on our show called 'Arrested Athletes' and have an overabundance of material? Let's delve. I think that star athletes are given preferential treatment from a young age. At my high school the athletes were the worst kids. I would know, I hung out with all of them. They were the ones throwing the parties. They were the ones who sold weed. They were the ones that started the cocaine craze at our school. The athletes. How was it in your town? In ours, these guys were like local celebrities. They could get away with anything. I'm not lumping every athlete into one giant criminal category, they weren't all bad. But some of the worst kids I knew were high school athletes. And some did occasionally get into a little trouble. But no matter the offense, it was always kind of swept under the rug. And this was my school, we don't exactly breed top-tier athletes. I can only imagine the privelages given to a real star athlete. We give these kids a false sense of invincibility when they're 15 and 16 years old. If they get caught drinking in the parking lot and get into no real trouble, what did they learn? As these players grow physically, so does their sense of invincibility. That kid who thought it was alright to smoke one-hits in shop class is now toting 400 pounds of chronic down the highway. He's never learned. He's never been properly disciplined for his actions. By putting young athletes up on some pedestal, we're breeding a crop of criminals. And not good ones either. They all get caught when they grow up. We let them believe that because they're talented at sports, they can do what they want. That's not the case in grown-up world. If you're a professional athlete you have a legal bullseye on you right from the start. We have to remember that these are still kids who need to be taught. Then maybe if they do make it to the pros, they'll know how to conduct themselves. Just my thoughts. I appreciate any and all feedback as always.
April 15, 2007
Baseball's Here! Wait, Where are all of the Black Guys?
Alright, I know in ths time of extreme racial sensitivity following the Don Imus spectacle, I should maybe talk about something different. But I'm not going to. I've heard several people point out recently that the number of African-American players in baseball is declining rapidly. So I'm trying to come with some sort of answer. And I believe I've found one. I don't think that this drop-off is a result of baseball's failure to market themselves to black youth. I believe that baseball just isn't as exciting as either basketball or football. Baseball used to be the nations pastime, but our nation is evolving. And like most instances, black guys are ahead of the curve. I'm not knocking baseball, I'm a huge fan. But I do realize that baseball isn't as fast-paced or athletic as the other two mainstream sports. Translation: Black guys think baseball is boring. I'm going to say something next that may strike some of you as wrong, just hear me out. I believe that most stereotypes are fact-based. Notice I said most, there's always exceptions. However, stereotypes would not exist, were there not a little truth behind them. That being said, I think black guys are more athletic. Not every black guy is a better athlete than every white guy. Some black guys have little or no athletic ability at all. And some white guys can jump out of the gym. I understand this. But I'm saying, as a whole, African-Americans have more athletic ability. If you don't believe that, you're either in denial or completely ignorant. Now how does this apply to baseball? I think I just explained it. Baseball isn't athletic enough, and I think we'll see a significant decrease in fan interest over the next few years. So when they ask why only 9% of the players in baseball are black compared to about 80% in the NBA, the answer is right in front of them. I'm just the only one not scared to say it. Black guys are more athletic, so they play the sports that allow them to fully exhibit their skills. It's not rocket science. Market baseball all you want to urban youth, it won't work. You don't think black kids have ever heard of baseball? You don't think they have cable or the internet? It's not that they don't know. They're just attracted to sports with more action, simple as that.
Peace
April 1, 2007
Oden or Durant
Let's say you're the GM of whichever team is lucky enough to win the draft lottery and you get the first pick. Who do you take? The dominant force down low or the all-around dynamic player? Most people seem to think that you take the sure-fire thing and select Oden. And why not? As a freshman he's already a better player than 75% of the centers in the NBA right now. Imagine the force he'll be in say, five years. Scary, isn't it? But I'm not so sure that's what I would do. It's great to have that dominant force down low, but historically that's not what brings home the championships. As a matter of fact, every NBA championship team that I can think of has had a dynamic superstar, able to take games over by putting the whole team on his shoulders when it matters most. For that, I'm taking Durant. Out of the two, this is your franchise superstar. This is a guy able to put up 30 points on any given night, despite the oppositions defensive scheme. And every championship team has a guy like that. And I'm not saying that a dominant big man hasn't ever won a championship. They just haven't done it without a dynamic scorer on the roster with them. Think about it, Shaq has zero rings without Kobe or D-Wade. David Robinson couldn't do it without Tim Duncan (note: Duncan doesn't count. He, like Olajuwon, is the rare breed of dynamic scoring big men). And then you have a guy like Pat Ewing who, despite his dominance, retired with no rings to his credit. And I think the comparisons between Oden and Ewing are fair. He reminds me a lot of a young Ewing. And I'm in no way knocking Greg Oden. He is a remarkable player no doubt. And I believe he will have a successful career at the next level. But I don't believe he'll bring home any titles without the help of a big-time scorer. And historically, big-time scorers don't need a dominant big man to get it done. That's why I'd take Michael Jordan over Sam Bowie, and Kevin Durant over Greg Oden.
March 25, 2007
Automatic Bids Are Dumb
What did I tell you? Here we are, middle of the Elite Eight, and where's our story? Where's our team that doesn't belong? Everyone does realize that the Elite Eight consists of three 1 vs. 2 matchups and one 1 vs. 3. What a shock. I was convinced this was THE YEAR for Holy Cross. If not them, then why not Jackson St. or Belmont? Let's be honest with ourselves, automatic bids are dumb. While Syracuse and Clemson are battling in the NIT, teams like Wright State and Niagra are dancing. It just doesn't make sense. I don't see the point in rewarding a team because they got hot for 3 or 4 games. I've heard the argument made that the winner of the regular season should get the bid from each conference, but then why have the conference tournament? So I propose this: Why not only give automatic bids to those teams who both finish first in their conference for the regular season AND win their conference tournament. This would reduce the number of automatic bids given out each year to non-deserving teams, and reward teams for being the obvious top team in their conference. This would place major importance on both the regular season and the conference tournament. It also would leave more room for at-large selections, putting more teams in place that actually may knock off a top seed. Until something changes, you won't have many Cinderella stories to talk about. And I thought that was the whole selling point of this tournament. Just think about it. And before you go reminding me of George Mason and their incredible journey to the Final Four I'd like you to remember a few things. 1) As an 11 seed, George Mason is the lowest seeded team to ever make the Final Four. EVER. 2) The current tournament format has been in place for around 25 years, which means there has been roughly 100 eleven seeds to NOT make it that far before George Mason. Not to mention the teams seeded 12-16. You do the math. 3) And probably most important, George Mason did NOT win their conference tournament to make it into the Big Dance, they were an at-large. Meaning that they, as a small school in a small conference did enough during the regular season for the selection commitee to take notice and invite them in. Where they proceeded to show everyone they belonged. My way doesn't take away opportunities for small schools, it would open the door for more teams like George Mason. Teams that are good enough to be there but maybe had an off-night during the conference tourney. Let me know what you think. And listen to our show.
March 11, 2007
NHL Violence
I usually won't say a word about the NHL ever. Not in my writing, not on our show, not EVER. And it's not that I don't respect hockey as a sport, or hockey players as athletes. I simply don't watch. As a fan, I don't follow hockey like I do other sports. And when I speak on things, I tend to choose things that I know about. I can't stand it when people make uneducated comments on things they know nothing about. So I simply don't touch hockey. But recently something has caught my attention. In a recent NHL game a player named Chris Simon used his stick as a weapon and whacked a guy named Ryan Hollweg in the face. Rightfully so, this player has been suspended indefinitely and I assume may face criminal charges. But what I don't understand, is the shock and awe among hockey fans and analysts when something like this happens. If I remember correctly, a few years ago a guy named Brashear (sp?) recieved an intentional blow to the head with a stick. There was also a situation with a guy named Bertuzzi where a player was blindsided by a punch, knocking him to ground and breaking his neck. Both instances were met with similar reactions as the latest one. "How could this happen? There's simply no place in hockey for actions like this." Oh there's not? How can a sport that not only condones fighting, but encourages and promotes it act surprised when this sort of thing happens? I realize fighting occurs in most every sport. But only in hockey is it considered "part of the game." Think about it, there's at least one case of assault and battery in almost every hockey game. Like I said, I'm not a hockey guy. I'm in no way entitled to say that fighting doesn't belong in the game. I'm just telling you to not be surprised when large men with sticks who are encouraged to fight each other in an adreneline-driven game violently attack each other from time to time. It's bound to happen. The only way to avoid it would be to take fighting out all together and make hockey about the actual sport. But seeing how horrible that's worked out for sports like football, basketball, and baseball I guess I understand your dilema.
March 5, 2007
HGH
This topic is so often discussed and covered that I've personally never addressed it. So I will, one time and one time only here and now. And then I promise I'll never do it again. And I'm no doctor, but I put HGH and steroids in the same category. And I've heard the same ridiculous argument several times, once recently which made me decide to finally address this issue. The argument is as follows: "Well, HGH might make you stronger, but it doesn't help you see the ball better. It doesn't help you decipher between a fastball and a changeup. It's not as though anyone could take performance enhancing and become a star pro athlete." This is of course the stupidest shit I may have ever heard. While it's true the act of hitting a ball in itself is not altered by HGH, it turns someone who has this skill down into a much more dangerous batter. Let's try an example. Not to imply anything, but for this example we'll use a player like, oh I don't know, we'll say Barry Bonds. I was just picking a player at random. In Bonds we had maybe the best contact hitter to ever pick up a bat. Now let's assume that Barry, who already sees the ball better than anyone in the game, decides to experiment with some performance enhancing drugs. Then let's assume Barry balloons into some freakish monster who moved up 5 shoe sizes in his late thirties. Let's not forget to mention the change in his jersey size (42 to 52), or that his hat size increased even though he shaved his head (7 1/8 to 7 1/4). So we've taken a man who sees the ball better than anyone, and given him long ball power. And don't say it only gives him another 25 feet on pop fly. That it would turn warning track balls into the occasional homerun. No it does much more. It makes the player more likely to attempt to hit a homerun. A pitch that Barry would normally try to drive into the gap, is now another homerun opportunity. It's not seeing the ball that they need help with, they're in the big leagues. They got where they are by being able to put a bat on a ball more consistently than you and me. Then they cheat to become better than their peers. Do these players think that we as sports fans are all retarded? I mean is there anyone who believes that Bonds is really innocent? How about McGwire? Would you also be shocked to hear that the Ultimate Warrior may not have been entirely clean in his heyday? I'm to the point now that I don't care. I don't want to hear anything else about it until the whole investigation is over. I'm convinced that Barry's numbers will forever carry an asterisk in the minds of sports fans, whether or not they put one in the books. So as far as I'm concerned, Hank Aaron is the all-time homerun leader. And i'm still waiting for someone to break 61 in a season. Long live Maris!
March 5, 2007
NBA AGE RULE
As most of you know, the NBA has put a rule in place that requires a player to have at least one year of college in before he can be drafted into the league. Such a rule seemed almost necessary the way teams were drafting unproven kids right out of high school. The new rule has already improved the college ranks, with freshmen like Greg Oden and Kevin Durant dominating the competition. You have to believe that these two, among a few others, would have foregone college and made themselves eligible for this past year's draft. And it all but guarantees a better end product for the NBA. Imagine the impact Kobe Bryant might have had his rookie year, had he a season of college hoops under his belt. I have to be honest, at first I loved the new rule. I couldn't see any flaws in the new system, it all made sense to me. And then Bobby Knight spoke out against the new age requirement. And I realized that, for a senile old man, he had a good point. What reason do these kids have to put forth any effort towards school when the basketball season ends? They know they're going to the NBA regardless of what they may, or may not have done in school. Then I started to think about all-star weekend and the players involved. Some of the biggest contributers were guys drafted out of high school. Kobe Bryant (Who also earned MVP), Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Tracy McGrady, and Amare Stoudemire. Not to mention Gerald Green, the winner of the dunk contest. I'm having a hard time now with the whole issue. Isn't it the team's responsibility to draft accordingly? I say, let them go if they want to go. And if you're an NBA team, know the difference between a LeBron James and a Shaun Livingston. I just don't believe that every player truly needs that one year of college ball. Am I wrong? I'd love to know what you think.
March 5, 2007
What's your take on the BCS?
Because I hate it. I'm not even a real College Football fan. But I might be if they could develop a better system of determining the champions each year. I mean, obviously a playoff of some sort would be a simple solution. It works wonders in every other major sport. I'm convinced that the people in charge of NCAA Football are simply too proud to admit their system blows. They would stand to make what could only be described as a butt-load of money, which of course they make now. So what's left? Concern for the college athlete? Nice try, but if you're so concerned with your athletes fulfilling their duty as students then why do I see football games being broadcast LIVE on school nights as I'm going to sleep? No, it may be hard to swallow but the folks in charge don't really care that much about anything but revenue and the product on the field. So with little concern for the student-athletes and no real financial loss to worry about, why not give the fans what they want and switch to a playoff format? And if you're going to just select two teams to play for the title, why not have the fans vote? Let us see the teams we want in there. But still, I think the best option is a 6 or 8 team playoff. It's only a few extra games and it leaves everyone satisfied. I do realize that this is not likely to happen anytime soon. So guess what I've done....that's right, I came up with a plan. Knowing full well that the cats running the show will never admit their system is flawed, I suggest a compromise. Instead of number 1 playing number 2 for the championship, number 2 plays number 3. The winner of that game earns the right to play the number 1 team for the championship. Let's look at the likely scenario this year. Ohio State beats Michigan this weekend (hypothetically of course) and stays unbeaten the remainder of the season securing their spot in the title game. Then let's say USC and Michigan go unbeaten the rest of the year becoming arguably the two best one-loss teams in the nation. The title game will be OSU vs. USC because Michigan already has a loss to OSU. Does that make USC better than Michigan? Absolutely not. So with both teams having identical records, who's to say which team is better? Surely not some stupid computer. So why not have those teams play each other in a one-game playoff to see who goes on to play OSU. I think that Michigan beating USC in a game of that magnitude, earns them the right to a rematch with OSU for the title. I know, I know, that's pretty smart. You're probably wondering why I don't use my powers for important things like world hunger, and curing things like mouth herpes. And to that I say, all in due time. The sports world needs me now more than ever. Feel free to let me know what you think. I'm interested in hearing how the BCS has affected your life, and what should be done. Good responses (and funny ones) will be read LIVE on our show The Athletic Supporters this weekend. Thanks and goodnight