You find the best blog-worthy articles on the entire internet when you don't do anything at work for the first hour...
I read an article today on ESPN.com compiling the opinions of several writers as to who they thought were the best owners in the NFL. Naturally, ESPN only surveyed 4 writers, because they did not want a sample that reflected the true feelings of the population. As such, the vote was split between two owners: New England's Bob Kraft, and $h!++$burgh's Dan Rooney. The latter, of course, did not sit well with me.
The problem I have with this simple survey is that the writers read "Who is the best owner" and voted for who they thought was the best team of the last ten years. I fail to see where either of these two owners strive above and beyond the rest. Kraft has won three Super Bowls recently, but how much of an impact has he really made? All he does is sign the players his coaches and scouts tell him to, and wait for Tom Brady to make another daring and dramatic fourth quarter comeback. Kraft gets the glory and gets to put the Lombardi Trophy on his mantle, but his role in the whole ordeal is truly minor.
Rooney somehow made the list, and he does significantly less than Kraft. Rooney doesn't even make the effort to retain the players they do have. Rooney has let players like Kevin Greene, Kendrell Bell, Jason Gildon, Kordell Stewart, Plaxico Burress, Joey Porter, and Keydrick Vincent depart via free agency because he's too cheap to resign them. Rooney abuses a player until it's time to reward the player for the job they have done, then tosses them out into the street like it didn't even matter. If anything, Rooney has done more to hinder his team than to help them.
Naturally, when 30 out of 32 owners are left out of the discussion, the fans will speak up on their behalf. The message boards were alive with fans demanding to know why Pat Bowlen (Broncos), Jerry Jones (Cowboys), and even Dan Snyder (some delusional nut thought the 'Skins owner was worthy) weren't even included in the discussion. And of course, jokesters were out in full force in mock support of the Ford Family (Lions), Al Davis (Raiders), and the Bidwell Family (Cardinals). One obviously knowledgeable poster even mentioned a Mr. Steve Bisciotti as an up-and-comer to watch.
I know what you're all expecting. You're all expecting me to rant about how Steve deserved to be on the list, and how he's the best owner, and that it's wrong that he's not on there. To be sure, Steve does deserve it, but he's still so young and so fresh as an owner that he should pay his dues before being mentioned as the best owner in the league. That day will come, but it's not here yet.
Instead, I would like to make a case for the owner that should've been #1 with a bullet. Drumroll please.... the best owner in football is.... the owners of the Green Bay Packers. Don't know who it is? Go to Green Bay and ask anybody there, and they will probably tell you that they own the team. And they wouldn't be lying. Green Bay is the only professional sports franchise in the country that is actually owned by the fans. And it's a glorious idea.
Think about it. The city owns the team, so the team can't relocate. The citizens of the city have a genuine vested interest in the team, because they own it. Proceeds from merchandise and tickets and vendor sales all go back to the owners, which is the city. The citizens get to help make the decisions, because they own part of the team. I could go on and on, because this is clearly the best way to own and operate a franchise.
I wish other cities had the gull to run a team like Green Bay does. Truth be told, it's probably the only way the Packers can be run, because they reside in the smallest market of any team. One person can't front enough money to run the franchise on his/her own and keep the team in Green Bay, so why not just draw from the wells of the taxpayers. If Baltimore owned the Ravens, I wouldn't mind paying taxes so much, because I could see the tax dollars being put to a legitimate, good use (OK, I know I barely pay taxes, and I don't technically live in the city, but you get my point).
I know it's just idealistic thinking, and it would never fully happen, but it would be a pretty cool day if all cities owned and operated their sports franchises. People would be so passionate about their teams and players, and care so much more about how things are run and who is playing and coaching. It would be like every pro franchise had the same type of following that a college team does. There are no fans more passionate than college fans, because the team they root for represents them directly. Now everybody take a second and think how great it would be if just one particular, Mid-Atlantic based baseball team were actually owned and operated by the city in which it resides. What a great day that would be.
Peace.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
"So Fit, It's Scary"
July is quickly approaching kids, and you know what that means.... FOOTBALL SEASON!!!...
The quote that serves as the title for this post is a quote by Ray Lewis to describe himself after tweaking his offseason workout regimen. In order to lose what little body fat he still had left, Ray added kickboxing, wrestling, and swimming to his routine (I'd hate to have been the guy who had to wrestle Ray Lewis). As a result, Lewis is as lean and as fit as he has ever been in his 11 year playing career. To reiterate, a man who twice won defensive MVP, a Super Bowl MVP, and an 8 time Pro Bowler is in the best shape of his life. That, my friends, might be the definition of scary.
Unfortunately, the world we live in is corrupt, and people can no longer accept accomplishments as just the result of hard work and a passion for your job. I blame this corruption on the over-exposure of obvious cheaters like Barry Bonds. The issue is that ESPN.com posted the story about Ray losing weight and getting fit on it's website. The problem with ESPN.com is that it treats every article like a blog, and allows fans/ haters to post comments to the article, regardless of who wrote it (it was an Associated Press article, for the record). After reading that Ray is now more fit than ever, many of those haters started accusing him of using steroids.
Let me start out by saying that anybody accusing Ray Lewis of substance abuse is stupid and should really be deported. Accusing Ray Lewis of using steroids is like accusing me of working too hard at work (I'm sitting in my cubicle writing a blog post). Ray Lewis is the definition of hard work. He gets to work early, he stays late, and he barely stops during the day. He breaks down tape, practices plays, studies his playbook, breaks down more tape, practices some more, and adds fuel to his considerable fire that he will ultimately unleash on some unsuspecting punk on Sunday. Ray Lewis is a self- made man, who grew up without a father, and helped to raise his siblings just to help his mother out. Everything Ray Lewis has today is a result of the hard work and dedication he has shown throughout his life. He even went back to school during his playing career to finish his degree.
To accuse Ray Lewis of substance abuse just because he got leaner also shows a misunderstanding of what steroids actually do. The last time I checked, steroids build unhealthy amounts of muscle mass. Barry Bonds looked just a little bit bigger than me 10 years ago. Today, at the ripe old age of 42, he looks like the Hulk, and his head is bigger than most watermelons. Ray Lewis, conversely, got leaner, which means smaller. To those accusing him of using, let me restate that: He got smaller. His muscle mass did not grow, and his body fat went down. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's very possible that the kickboxing, wrestling, and swimming could have contributed to the slimming of his body.
The haters of Ray Lewis need to unite against him for one simple reason: If they unite, there's a slim, slim, slim chance they may be able to stop him. A leaner Ray Lewis will be able to run faster, but it's still Ray Lewis, so when he hits you, there's a 30% you will die. From what I could tell, most of the haters came from two distinct and unsurprising groups: AFC North rivals (which I respect, since you have to hate your rivals), and AFC contenders. To the North rivals, I say good luck, because the Ravens are even hungrier than they were last year, and Ray is just the tip of the iceberg.
To the AFC Contenders (Colts, Pats, Chargers), I say you're all cowards. If you are all as good as you think you are, why does it matter if Ray Lewis has reached all new levels of scary? If the Colts offense "can't be stopped" (0 TDs last year against the Ravens), or the Chargers are the "most balanced team in football" (lost to the Ravens), or the Pats made the "best off season moves" (enjoy your headcase WR), then why are the Ravens even on the radar? The answer is the others are scared. They've always been scared of us, because they know defense wins championships. Now the face of that defense is in such good shape, even he thinks it's scary.
The NFL is in for a big shock this year. Ray Lewis is back, and when he gets loose and starts running roughshod all over the opposing offense, it's not going to be a pretty sight, especially for all you haters out there.
Peace.
The quote that serves as the title for this post is a quote by Ray Lewis to describe himself after tweaking his offseason workout regimen. In order to lose what little body fat he still had left, Ray added kickboxing, wrestling, and swimming to his routine (I'd hate to have been the guy who had to wrestle Ray Lewis). As a result, Lewis is as lean and as fit as he has ever been in his 11 year playing career. To reiterate, a man who twice won defensive MVP, a Super Bowl MVP, and an 8 time Pro Bowler is in the best shape of his life. That, my friends, might be the definition of scary.
Unfortunately, the world we live in is corrupt, and people can no longer accept accomplishments as just the result of hard work and a passion for your job. I blame this corruption on the over-exposure of obvious cheaters like Barry Bonds. The issue is that ESPN.com posted the story about Ray losing weight and getting fit on it's website. The problem with ESPN.com is that it treats every article like a blog, and allows fans/ haters to post comments to the article, regardless of who wrote it (it was an Associated Press article, for the record). After reading that Ray is now more fit than ever, many of those haters started accusing him of using steroids.
Let me start out by saying that anybody accusing Ray Lewis of substance abuse is stupid and should really be deported. Accusing Ray Lewis of using steroids is like accusing me of working too hard at work (I'm sitting in my cubicle writing a blog post). Ray Lewis is the definition of hard work. He gets to work early, he stays late, and he barely stops during the day. He breaks down tape, practices plays, studies his playbook, breaks down more tape, practices some more, and adds fuel to his considerable fire that he will ultimately unleash on some unsuspecting punk on Sunday. Ray Lewis is a self- made man, who grew up without a father, and helped to raise his siblings just to help his mother out. Everything Ray Lewis has today is a result of the hard work and dedication he has shown throughout his life. He even went back to school during his playing career to finish his degree.
To accuse Ray Lewis of substance abuse just because he got leaner also shows a misunderstanding of what steroids actually do. The last time I checked, steroids build unhealthy amounts of muscle mass. Barry Bonds looked just a little bit bigger than me 10 years ago. Today, at the ripe old age of 42, he looks like the Hulk, and his head is bigger than most watermelons. Ray Lewis, conversely, got leaner, which means smaller. To those accusing him of using, let me restate that: He got smaller. His muscle mass did not grow, and his body fat went down. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's very possible that the kickboxing, wrestling, and swimming could have contributed to the slimming of his body.
The haters of Ray Lewis need to unite against him for one simple reason: If they unite, there's a slim, slim, slim chance they may be able to stop him. A leaner Ray Lewis will be able to run faster, but it's still Ray Lewis, so when he hits you, there's a 30% you will die. From what I could tell, most of the haters came from two distinct and unsurprising groups: AFC North rivals (which I respect, since you have to hate your rivals), and AFC contenders. To the North rivals, I say good luck, because the Ravens are even hungrier than they were last year, and Ray is just the tip of the iceberg.
To the AFC Contenders (Colts, Pats, Chargers), I say you're all cowards. If you are all as good as you think you are, why does it matter if Ray Lewis has reached all new levels of scary? If the Colts offense "can't be stopped" (0 TDs last year against the Ravens), or the Chargers are the "most balanced team in football" (lost to the Ravens), or the Pats made the "best off season moves" (enjoy your headcase WR), then why are the Ravens even on the radar? The answer is the others are scared. They've always been scared of us, because they know defense wins championships. Now the face of that defense is in such good shape, even he thinks it's scary.
The NFL is in for a big shock this year. Ray Lewis is back, and when he gets loose and starts running roughshod all over the opposing offense, it's not going to be a pretty sight, especially for all you haters out there.
Peace.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Broken Record
It seems as though whenever I start praising the Orioles during a hot streak, the wheels fall off the wagon. It happened again this past week...
The Orioles managed to string together a six game win streak, and everything was going swimmingly. The hitters were hitting, the offense was balanced, pitchers were getting wins and throwing strikes, the manager let them pitch, and the team clawed it's way back to .500. Then the hitters stopped hitting, the offense was way unbalanced, the pitchers are getting No Decisions and allowing a lot of hits, the manager is pulling them too early, and we've gone back to our comfort zone of five games below .500. It all sounds too familiar. It has happened before, at least once this season, and probably many more times in the coming years. What I don't understand, however, is why?
Why do we (the fans) have to constantly suffer through the inconsistency of this team? Why can't they just win 2 games, lose 1, win 2, lose 1, and finish with a .667 winning percentage (unrealistic even for a good team, I know)? Why is it that every time we finally look legitimate because we're doing things differently, we revert back to the way we were doing them when we sucked and start losing again?
I know what you're thinking: Kurt, you've said all this before, can't you find something new to write about? The answer is no, I can't find something new, because the team is the same old sorry excuse for a baseball team that it has been for 10 years. Every time we look like we might finally be coming out of it (most recently 2005), spiralling back down we go. We've tried everything, literally everything, to try to stop it, short of actually winning games. We tried loading the roster with veterans, and we lost. We released all the veterans, went with all young blood, and we lost. We tried buying a winning team (highest payroll in baseball in 1998) and we lost. We tried using bargain players (Marty Cordova, David Segui), and we lost. We tried hiring a manager from a winning organization (Lee Mazzilli) and we lost. We promoted a manager from within our crappy organization, and we lost. We've replaced GM's, rosters, staffs, waterboys, and hot dog vendors, and sadly nothing has made us win. And why?
Because the Orioles don't listen. To anybody. Period. The Orioles are a rather delusional bunch, and for some reason do not realize the severity of their awful situation. Case in point, Rick Dempsey. The Demper, when he's not "domestically violating" Jay Gibbons, serves as an analyst for O's Xtra. No matter how bad the loss was, or how heartbreaking, or how demoralizing, Dempsey will undoubtedly sugar coat the loss by spouting off the usual Oriole corporate lines: "It's still early"; "They played hard"; "They were undermanned"; "They were overmatched"; "The coaches made the right calls". News flash Rick: It's not that early (All-Star Game, dead ahead), they don't play hard, they have as much talent as you can ask for, the other teams aren't that much better, and the coaches suck (see previous posts for proof of all of the above).
Dempsey is just the tip of the iceberg, however, because he's not even within the organization. The real meat of the organization, like Mike Flanagan, Jim Duquette, and Peter Angelos, are the ones paying Dempsey to sugar coat everything in an attempt to deceive the fans. News Flash for you three clowns: We're not stupid. We've seen the chaos that has become the Orioles. Furthermore, we've tried to prove to you that we aren't stupid, and that we want the team to be a winner, and that you can't sugar coat things from us forever, but you don't listen. Newspaper columnists, radio hosts, TV sportscasters, even casual bloggers have all seemingly come up with more answers than the team. The team is trying to stay the course, ride it out, let it heal itself, but this isn't something that can heal itself. The Orioles need to start paying attention.
It's not just the local fans that get ignored, either. The Orioles also seem to ignore the trends that go on in Major League Baseball. While other teams are cultivating young talent across the board, or tapping foreign markets for players (Milwaukee, Seattle, Anaheim, Boston), the Orioles sign the recycled cast offs from contending teams (Aubrey Huff, Danys Baez). There is clearly a reason why baseball players become unemployed, and it is that they aren't any good. Baseball has no salary cap, so if a player is worth keeping, you can keep him. Instead, the Orioles trade away the young talent they've invested their time and money in, like John Maine or Gary Matthews, resign free agents that have little talent to begin with, like Jay Gibbons, and make no major plays for the foreign superstars that have become en vogue lately in MLB.
One final trend that the Orioles tend to ignore is the trend that correlates winning and revenue. Peter Angelos is famous for two things: suing Bethlehem Steel for workers getting asbestos, and bitching that the Orioles don't make any money for him. What he doesn't realize is that it is infinitely more expensive to lose than it is to win. Sure, to lose all you need is a low payroll and a washed up coach, while winning requires hiring good scouts, tracking trends, an investing time in players. But the payoff is enormous for winning. Winning puts fans in the stands at an average of $25 a ticket. Twenty-five dollars a ticket times the 48,000 seats the stadium holds comes out to $1.2 milllllllllion dollars in just tickets sales. Think about the hot dogs, popcorn, soda, beer, and Boog's Bar-b-que those 48,000 people will consume, plus the hats, jerseys, pennants, foam fingers, and programs they'll buy, and you can almost pay the entire team with that money for an entire season. But in order to reap those benefits, Peter, you have to put in the time to make the team a winner. Everybody knows the Orioles' favorite series are the ones against New York and Boston, because those series fill the seats, albeit with the wrong people. Peter, imagine getting that every night, with those people wearing orange and black. If you win, we will come.
One day, maybe the team will listen. It's not like the fans haven't tried. Last season, "Nasty" Nestor Aparicio of WNST organized a fan walkout during a game. The players noticed, but knew there was nothing they could do about it. The target of the walkout was Mr. Angelos, who simply scoffed and patronized the fans who participated. He said, "They don't know how hard it is to run a team. They don't know anything". We may not, but it seems like you're in the same boat, Pete. The least you can do is give the fans a bone and maybe start to listen to some of our ideas. Listen to the people who pay to sit in the seats amongst all the Yankee and Red Sox fans, and quietly cheer for a team we wish would return to prominence. My readers, I apologize for sounding like a broken record.
Peace.
Cool Note: In order to reach a wider audience, the Long Beach Armada minor league baseball team took the Anaheim Angels' approach to naming the team. The new official name of the team is the Long Beach Armada of Los Angeles of California of the United States of North America Including Barrow, Alaska. Read all about it here.
The Orioles managed to string together a six game win streak, and everything was going swimmingly. The hitters were hitting, the offense was balanced, pitchers were getting wins and throwing strikes, the manager let them pitch, and the team clawed it's way back to .500. Then the hitters stopped hitting, the offense was way unbalanced, the pitchers are getting No Decisions and allowing a lot of hits, the manager is pulling them too early, and we've gone back to our comfort zone of five games below .500. It all sounds too familiar. It has happened before, at least once this season, and probably many more times in the coming years. What I don't understand, however, is why?
Why do we (the fans) have to constantly suffer through the inconsistency of this team? Why can't they just win 2 games, lose 1, win 2, lose 1, and finish with a .667 winning percentage (unrealistic even for a good team, I know)? Why is it that every time we finally look legitimate because we're doing things differently, we revert back to the way we were doing them when we sucked and start losing again?
I know what you're thinking: Kurt, you've said all this before, can't you find something new to write about? The answer is no, I can't find something new, because the team is the same old sorry excuse for a baseball team that it has been for 10 years. Every time we look like we might finally be coming out of it (most recently 2005), spiralling back down we go. We've tried everything, literally everything, to try to stop it, short of actually winning games. We tried loading the roster with veterans, and we lost. We released all the veterans, went with all young blood, and we lost. We tried buying a winning team (highest payroll in baseball in 1998) and we lost. We tried using bargain players (Marty Cordova, David Segui), and we lost. We tried hiring a manager from a winning organization (Lee Mazzilli) and we lost. We promoted a manager from within our crappy organization, and we lost. We've replaced GM's, rosters, staffs, waterboys, and hot dog vendors, and sadly nothing has made us win. And why?
Because the Orioles don't listen. To anybody. Period. The Orioles are a rather delusional bunch, and for some reason do not realize the severity of their awful situation. Case in point, Rick Dempsey. The Demper, when he's not "domestically violating" Jay Gibbons, serves as an analyst for O's Xtra. No matter how bad the loss was, or how heartbreaking, or how demoralizing, Dempsey will undoubtedly sugar coat the loss by spouting off the usual Oriole corporate lines: "It's still early"; "They played hard"; "They were undermanned"; "They were overmatched"; "The coaches made the right calls". News flash Rick: It's not that early (All-Star Game, dead ahead), they don't play hard, they have as much talent as you can ask for, the other teams aren't that much better, and the coaches suck (see previous posts for proof of all of the above).
Dempsey is just the tip of the iceberg, however, because he's not even within the organization. The real meat of the organization, like Mike Flanagan, Jim Duquette, and Peter Angelos, are the ones paying Dempsey to sugar coat everything in an attempt to deceive the fans. News Flash for you three clowns: We're not stupid. We've seen the chaos that has become the Orioles. Furthermore, we've tried to prove to you that we aren't stupid, and that we want the team to be a winner, and that you can't sugar coat things from us forever, but you don't listen. Newspaper columnists, radio hosts, TV sportscasters, even casual bloggers have all seemingly come up with more answers than the team. The team is trying to stay the course, ride it out, let it heal itself, but this isn't something that can heal itself. The Orioles need to start paying attention.
It's not just the local fans that get ignored, either. The Orioles also seem to ignore the trends that go on in Major League Baseball. While other teams are cultivating young talent across the board, or tapping foreign markets for players (Milwaukee, Seattle, Anaheim, Boston), the Orioles sign the recycled cast offs from contending teams (Aubrey Huff, Danys Baez). There is clearly a reason why baseball players become unemployed, and it is that they aren't any good. Baseball has no salary cap, so if a player is worth keeping, you can keep him. Instead, the Orioles trade away the young talent they've invested their time and money in, like John Maine or Gary Matthews, resign free agents that have little talent to begin with, like Jay Gibbons, and make no major plays for the foreign superstars that have become en vogue lately in MLB.
One final trend that the Orioles tend to ignore is the trend that correlates winning and revenue. Peter Angelos is famous for two things: suing Bethlehem Steel for workers getting asbestos, and bitching that the Orioles don't make any money for him. What he doesn't realize is that it is infinitely more expensive to lose than it is to win. Sure, to lose all you need is a low payroll and a washed up coach, while winning requires hiring good scouts, tracking trends, an investing time in players. But the payoff is enormous for winning. Winning puts fans in the stands at an average of $25 a ticket. Twenty-five dollars a ticket times the 48,000 seats the stadium holds comes out to $1.2 milllllllllion dollars in just tickets sales. Think about the hot dogs, popcorn, soda, beer, and Boog's Bar-b-que those 48,000 people will consume, plus the hats, jerseys, pennants, foam fingers, and programs they'll buy, and you can almost pay the entire team with that money for an entire season. But in order to reap those benefits, Peter, you have to put in the time to make the team a winner. Everybody knows the Orioles' favorite series are the ones against New York and Boston, because those series fill the seats, albeit with the wrong people. Peter, imagine getting that every night, with those people wearing orange and black. If you win, we will come.
One day, maybe the team will listen. It's not like the fans haven't tried. Last season, "Nasty" Nestor Aparicio of WNST organized a fan walkout during a game. The players noticed, but knew there was nothing they could do about it. The target of the walkout was Mr. Angelos, who simply scoffed and patronized the fans who participated. He said, "They don't know how hard it is to run a team. They don't know anything". We may not, but it seems like you're in the same boat, Pete. The least you can do is give the fans a bone and maybe start to listen to some of our ideas. Listen to the people who pay to sit in the seats amongst all the Yankee and Red Sox fans, and quietly cheer for a team we wish would return to prominence. My readers, I apologize for sounding like a broken record.
Peace.
Cool Note: In order to reach a wider audience, the Long Beach Armada minor league baseball team took the Anaheim Angels' approach to naming the team. The new official name of the team is the Long Beach Armada of Los Angeles of California of the United States of North America Including Barrow, Alaska. Read all about it here.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Ray of Hope?
It really hurts to do this one...
Chris Ray, I know you are reading this, so listen to me carefully: If you keep blowing saves, I will no longer champion your cause. End of story. If you are being paid the big bucks to pitch, you better pitch like you mean it.
For anyone who turned off yesterday's O's- Angels game before the ninth inning, thinking, "They got it", you should've stuck around. Then you could be sharing the same disbelief and pain that every other O's fan has. It seemed like something I've seen before. Jeremy Guthrie pitched like a master, throws an eight inning, 3 hitter, and leaves with a lead. Ray comes in, and two batters later, the Angels are jumping around and dancing on the plate. To quote Yogi, it was De ja vu all over again, because it wasn't over until it was over.
First, some good things about yesterday: Guthrie, of course. The man can flat out pitch. He's currently 4th in the AL in ERA. That's not too shabby for a rookie (he's technically a rookie because he did not appear in enough games during his Indians stint to qualify as a veteran). Every time he pitches, the Orioles know they're going to get 8 strong innings, and then Guthrie will receive a No Decision when the bullpen blows the game. Another positive from yesterday was a Mr. Melvin Mora. The Original Big Papi (come on, he has 6 kids) blasted a homerun that would have served as the game winner if it wasn't for Ray. He continues to be one of the most consistent players on the team, delivering day in and day out. He also showed some spark yesterday by giving the water cooler a good kick when he left the field after the ninth inning debacle. Thank god another Oriole has reached the breaking point. Now Mora and Jay Payton can start inspiring the rest of the team. Other positives included Brian Roberts continuing his latest hot streak (he's the early leader for Orioles' MVP) and Nick Markakis again delivering a big hit (a close second for OMVP).
Then the wheels fell off the wagon yet again. It would seem like it would be too much of a stretch to ask Major League Baseball to shorten the length of a game to eight innings, wouldn't it? That being the case, we have to do something to find a way to win games in the last inning. One solution would have been to LEAVE GUTHRIE IN! How many times have we said that this year? The poor guy pitches a masterpiece, a one hitter through 7, a three hitter through 8, and we yank him, even though he only had 88 pitches under his belt. Three weeks ago, during the Beatdown in Boston, Guthrie was yanked after 102 pitches to "save his arm". From what? A win? And what was today's excuse, Sammy? He only had 88 pitches. He already went 8 innings. That's 11 pitches per inning. He would have finished with 99 (in theory), which is even one pitch short of that mystical 100 pitch plateau that Perlozzo and Mazzone keep to like it's religious doctrine. He should be leading the league in complete games right now, and have at minimum two more wins. Instead, he can only be found when you look at the American League ERA stats. What's more is that everybody except the management knows that Guthrie could have finished it. Even casual baseball fans like the Mix 106.5 Morning Show knew he should've been left in. Said the DJ's, "If you're going to try and save his arm, pull him in the sixth, not the eighth. His arm is gone anyway by the eighth, at least let him try to finish it, and possibly win the game, or lose it on his terms." If I were Guthrie, I'd be ready to kick a little @$$.
The latest managing gaff wasn't even the worst part, however. Many would argue that going to the closer in the bottom of the ninth whilst clinging to a one run lead is the right thing to do. That is the right thing to in the textbook, but the Orioles are far from a textbook case. Perlozzo should know his team well enough by now to know that treating the Orioles like a textbook scenario can only lead to heartbreak. And it did. Bringing in Ray looked great on paper, and may have stemmed some of the heat from Perlozzo. By bringing in Ray, Perlozzo can again take no responsibility for the loss, which he promptly did. Quoth the oil painting, "We just needed three outs. We played our hearts out until that point. Our closer is supposed to come in and get you three outs. And it didn't happen... If your closer and your eighth-inning guy can't get anybody out, where do you go?" I'll tell you, Sammy: go to someone else. Redefine the roles. Don't worry about one guy racking up saves and another having the lowest ERA. Let the pitcher who is hot (Jamie Walker, Chad Bradford, John Parrish) have a crack at it.
So now we're left with Ray. What do we do with Chris Ray. Last year, he looked like he would be an Oriole forever through the first 4 months of the season. He was a Superman, a man who only knew one thing, and it was how to get those three hard outs. He was invincible. No batter could touch him. As a rookie, in late April, in Yankee Stadium, clinging to a 1 run lead with two outs, he struck out Hideki Matsui with runners on to preserve an Oriole win. He was a Yankee killer, a world beater, and nobody was going to stop him. He was destined for Copperstown. I even let Kim pose with him for a picture during Oriole Photo Day (OK, I was awestruck and let her pose with anybody, including Jon Halama). But then something changed.
I was actually present at Camden Yards during the fateful night that might have been the beginning of the end for Chris Ray. It was a typical warm evening. It was floppy hat night. Everybody was happy. The Orioles went into the ninth with a three run lead. It was Ray time. Marilyn Manson's "Sweet Dreams" blared over the speakers, and in came The Man. I was ready to stand up and take my floppy hat on home. Then a batter got on base. No biggy. Then another. We're OK. Then a third. He's fine, it's Chris Ray. Suddenly, there was a crack of the bat, and the left fielder just didn't have enough space. The ball sailed over the wall. It was what would prove to be a game winning Grand Slam, and the Yard was silent. I wanted to vomit.
I figured that was an isolated incident, and still championed Chris Ray's cause. Then A-Roid did the same damn thing. And it has happened to him four times this year, just not necessarily with a homerun. He has only had 16 save opportunities, and he has blown four of them. That's unacceptable. Think about it: 4/16 is 25%. If he has 32 opportunities (he had 35 last year), that's 8 blown saves. Eight additional losses, which would account for roughly 5% of the O's total games this year. So in theory, at the outset of the year, we would have to say we would like to finish with a .505 win percentage in order to compensate for Chris Ray. This is a team that struggles to make it to .500, and can't stay there when it does. Asking for .505 to account for the closer is just not feasible.
So with that, I bid adieu to my blind faith in Chris Ray. O's fans everywhere have been burned entirely too many times to be naive enough to keep going back to him. The problem then becomes who to use as the closer. On paper, the role would go to Danys Baez, the "set-up man" (I hate that term). The problem is, Baez is worse than Ray. I am now firmly of the camp that we should have a closer by committee, and just let whoever has the hot hand do the closing. Unfortunately, what makes sense and what Sam Perlozzo does are usually two different things.
Peace.
Chris Ray, I know you are reading this, so listen to me carefully: If you keep blowing saves, I will no longer champion your cause. End of story. If you are being paid the big bucks to pitch, you better pitch like you mean it.
For anyone who turned off yesterday's O's- Angels game before the ninth inning, thinking, "They got it", you should've stuck around. Then you could be sharing the same disbelief and pain that every other O's fan has. It seemed like something I've seen before. Jeremy Guthrie pitched like a master, throws an eight inning, 3 hitter, and leaves with a lead. Ray comes in, and two batters later, the Angels are jumping around and dancing on the plate. To quote Yogi, it was De ja vu all over again, because it wasn't over until it was over.
First, some good things about yesterday: Guthrie, of course. The man can flat out pitch. He's currently 4th in the AL in ERA. That's not too shabby for a rookie (he's technically a rookie because he did not appear in enough games during his Indians stint to qualify as a veteran). Every time he pitches, the Orioles know they're going to get 8 strong innings, and then Guthrie will receive a No Decision when the bullpen blows the game. Another positive from yesterday was a Mr. Melvin Mora. The Original Big Papi (come on, he has 6 kids) blasted a homerun that would have served as the game winner if it wasn't for Ray. He continues to be one of the most consistent players on the team, delivering day in and day out. He also showed some spark yesterday by giving the water cooler a good kick when he left the field after the ninth inning debacle. Thank god another Oriole has reached the breaking point. Now Mora and Jay Payton can start inspiring the rest of the team. Other positives included Brian Roberts continuing his latest hot streak (he's the early leader for Orioles' MVP) and Nick Markakis again delivering a big hit (a close second for OMVP).
Then the wheels fell off the wagon yet again. It would seem like it would be too much of a stretch to ask Major League Baseball to shorten the length of a game to eight innings, wouldn't it? That being the case, we have to do something to find a way to win games in the last inning. One solution would have been to LEAVE GUTHRIE IN! How many times have we said that this year? The poor guy pitches a masterpiece, a one hitter through 7, a three hitter through 8, and we yank him, even though he only had 88 pitches under his belt. Three weeks ago, during the Beatdown in Boston, Guthrie was yanked after 102 pitches to "save his arm". From what? A win? And what was today's excuse, Sammy? He only had 88 pitches. He already went 8 innings. That's 11 pitches per inning. He would have finished with 99 (in theory), which is even one pitch short of that mystical 100 pitch plateau that Perlozzo and Mazzone keep to like it's religious doctrine. He should be leading the league in complete games right now, and have at minimum two more wins. Instead, he can only be found when you look at the American League ERA stats. What's more is that everybody except the management knows that Guthrie could have finished it. Even casual baseball fans like the Mix 106.5 Morning Show knew he should've been left in. Said the DJ's, "If you're going to try and save his arm, pull him in the sixth, not the eighth. His arm is gone anyway by the eighth, at least let him try to finish it, and possibly win the game, or lose it on his terms." If I were Guthrie, I'd be ready to kick a little @$$.
The latest managing gaff wasn't even the worst part, however. Many would argue that going to the closer in the bottom of the ninth whilst clinging to a one run lead is the right thing to do. That is the right thing to in the textbook, but the Orioles are far from a textbook case. Perlozzo should know his team well enough by now to know that treating the Orioles like a textbook scenario can only lead to heartbreak. And it did. Bringing in Ray looked great on paper, and may have stemmed some of the heat from Perlozzo. By bringing in Ray, Perlozzo can again take no responsibility for the loss, which he promptly did. Quoth the oil painting, "We just needed three outs. We played our hearts out until that point. Our closer is supposed to come in and get you three outs. And it didn't happen... If your closer and your eighth-inning guy can't get anybody out, where do you go?" I'll tell you, Sammy: go to someone else. Redefine the roles. Don't worry about one guy racking up saves and another having the lowest ERA. Let the pitcher who is hot (Jamie Walker, Chad Bradford, John Parrish) have a crack at it.
So now we're left with Ray. What do we do with Chris Ray. Last year, he looked like he would be an Oriole forever through the first 4 months of the season. He was a Superman, a man who only knew one thing, and it was how to get those three hard outs. He was invincible. No batter could touch him. As a rookie, in late April, in Yankee Stadium, clinging to a 1 run lead with two outs, he struck out Hideki Matsui with runners on to preserve an Oriole win. He was a Yankee killer, a world beater, and nobody was going to stop him. He was destined for Copperstown. I even let Kim pose with him for a picture during Oriole Photo Day (OK, I was awestruck and let her pose with anybody, including Jon Halama). But then something changed.
I was actually present at Camden Yards during the fateful night that might have been the beginning of the end for Chris Ray. It was a typical warm evening. It was floppy hat night. Everybody was happy. The Orioles went into the ninth with a three run lead. It was Ray time. Marilyn Manson's "Sweet Dreams" blared over the speakers, and in came The Man. I was ready to stand up and take my floppy hat on home. Then a batter got on base. No biggy. Then another. We're OK. Then a third. He's fine, it's Chris Ray. Suddenly, there was a crack of the bat, and the left fielder just didn't have enough space. The ball sailed over the wall. It was what would prove to be a game winning Grand Slam, and the Yard was silent. I wanted to vomit.
I figured that was an isolated incident, and still championed Chris Ray's cause. Then A-Roid did the same damn thing. And it has happened to him four times this year, just not necessarily with a homerun. He has only had 16 save opportunities, and he has blown four of them. That's unacceptable. Think about it: 4/16 is 25%. If he has 32 opportunities (he had 35 last year), that's 8 blown saves. Eight additional losses, which would account for roughly 5% of the O's total games this year. So in theory, at the outset of the year, we would have to say we would like to finish with a .505 win percentage in order to compensate for Chris Ray. This is a team that struggles to make it to .500, and can't stay there when it does. Asking for .505 to account for the closer is just not feasible.
So with that, I bid adieu to my blind faith in Chris Ray. O's fans everywhere have been burned entirely too many times to be naive enough to keep going back to him. The problem then becomes who to use as the closer. On paper, the role would go to Danys Baez, the "set-up man" (I hate that term). The problem is, Baez is worse than Ray. I am now firmly of the camp that we should have a closer by committee, and just let whoever has the hot hand do the closing. Unfortunately, what makes sense and what Sam Perlozzo does are usually two different things.
Peace.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Breaking Baseball's Hallowed Records & More
I read an interesting article today about the next record that will be rewritten in baseball's history books, and it's not the one you may think it is...
John Donovan, baseball beat writer extraordinaire for Si.com, wrote a great piece today about the lost art of arguing with umpires. What brings this art to the attention of the national media today? The record is soon to fall. Bobby Cox, who has managed the Braves since the Roosevelt administration, is closing in on his 131st ejection from a major league game. That would tie the record, and 132 will break it. Donovan wanted to investigate the art of the ejection a little bit more, so he went straight to the Picasso of Picking a Fight, the Van Gogh of Getting the Boot, the Da Vinci of Da Gate, none other than Baltimore Oriole legend Earl Weaver.
It came as a shock to me to learn that The Earl of Baltimore did not hold MLB's ejection record of 131. It is actually held by John McGraw, a manager from the turn of the century. Interestingly enough, Cox has technically already broken the record for ejections by a manager, since McGraw was ejected 14 times as a player. But if you're going to break a record and carve your name into baseball's record book, go for the gusto and do it right (Barry Lamar Bonds). The Earl is actually fourth on the all time list with 97. It may just be me, but I would be in favor of rehiring the Earl just long enough so he could be ejected three more times and break 100 (come on, it would only take three games).
To say that Earl wrote the book on getting ejected just doesn't say enough. Earl was the original, the innovator, the creator of the ejection (all this coming from someone who never saw the man coach a game... but his best ejections can be found on YouTube). Before Earl there were none, and after Earl it is just not the same. Earl was a fire ball from start to finish. He was shorter than the average person to begin with, and that made it all better. The fire was more concentrated throughout him and therefore more potent, which led to better arguments and better ejections. Earl would cuss, rant, rave, kick dirt, throw hats, throw dirt, turn the hat around to get closer to the target (read "umpire"), and on one occasion even got ejected before the game started. That's absolute skill, a master of his craft.
The thing that shocks me about Bobby Cox potentially breaking the record is that Cox is so much more mellow than Earl. Cox doesn't have the same emotions on the sleeve fire that Earl did. Cox's arguments rarely get out of hand, and never make SportsCenter. How could an argument truly be an argument if it doesn't even land on SportsCenter. If it's not even good enough for ESPN, it's probably just a tea party with the umpires in which Cox brought Earl Grey tea instead the ump-preferred Green Tea. This is not to take away from Cox's accomplishment, it's just to say that while he will hold the record, nobody did it better than Earl. It's kind of like saying that Bonds will one day hold the record, but nobody hit homeruns like Ruth, except in that situation I take everything away from Bonds.
So what is all the hub-bub about getting ejected? Why is it a good thing to leave your team halfway through a game and strand them manager-less? Because it shows you care. It wasn't too long ago in this space that I wrote about a manager that doesn't care, and how it's reflected by his players. Getting in the face of the umpires to argue what is right shows the team that it can never, ever give up the fight, no matter who it is against, and no matter what the odds. If Sam Perlozzo had the same fire that Earl Weaver had, the Orioles could be in first place right now. Instead, the Orioles' most recent managers (Ray Miller, Mike Hargrove, Lee Mazzilli, and Perlozzo) have all lacked the all important fire. The result? Ten straight losing seasons. Coincidence? I think not. If you give the O's someone like Weaver or Cox or maybe even Lou Piniella, they might not suck. They would show the same emotion that the manager shows, and the team would be full of feisty go-getters like Jay Payton.
To read all of John Donovan's Earl Weaver article/ interview, click here .
In other news this day, May 31st has come and gone, which means the deadline to submit any uniform changes for the 2008 MLB season has come and gone. Why does that matter, Kurt? Because now we must suffer another year of the Orioles' away jerseys reading "Orioles", as opposed to the more customary and less alienating "Baltimore".
Uniform tradition in almost any sport dictates that the home jersey of a franchise read the team name, since the fans will undoubtedly know where the team is from. The away jersey traditionally has the city name, so the opposing fans would know from where the team hails. It most likely dates back to when teams first started to travel, and people in the stands would actually not know where the opposition was from. It would be convenient for them to look down and say, "Oh, they're from [insert city name]". If they were playing the Orioles, however, they would say "Oh, they're from Orioles. That's strange... they're the Orioles Orioles". Now that just sounds stupid.
So now the deadline has come and gone, and we are again stuck pleading to fans of Washington to not abandon us. That's what it all boiled down to. In the 70's, after the Senators left Washington (again!), the owner of the Orioles felt that in order to reach out to the newly orphaned fans, he would remove Baltimore from the away jerseys, so as to give everybody a baseball home. That was great for DC, but a huge slap in the face for the people that actually support and pay for the team. All these years later, the away jerseys are still wrong, even after DC got yet another team. I think the time has come for the Orioles to finally stop alienating the fans of Baltimore, and tell the DC fans to go watch their own team if they can't be loyal because of the city on the uniform.
The problem is, of course, Peter Angelos. Since his normal course of action is to hear what the popular voice is and then do the exact opposite, Angelos keeps stalling Orioles' officials long enough to let the deadline pass. It seems as though Angelos is still under the assumption that DC fans can be kept on our side simply by making the team geographically unaffiliated, but that simply won't work. And if that's the case, why don't we rename the team the United States Orioles in order to attract fans from all over the country; afterall, Hawaii and Alaska are baseball orphans as well. Apparently, Angelos has not talked to his accountant though. If he had, he would have realized by now that changing the uniform means they get to sell new uniforms, and that would just be money in the bank for Angelos and the Orioles.
In the grand scheme of things, adding "Baltimore" to the away jersey is a small change and a small gesture to the city. With the way things are, however, and the Orioles mired in a ten year slump that has seen us become the laughing stock of Major League Baseball, a small gesture could win back a lot of fans who feel alienated by the team. I see it as a no lose situation, and yet still, here we are, wondering why it still says "Orioles" on the away jersey of the Baltimore Orioles.
Peace.
John Donovan, baseball beat writer extraordinaire for Si.com, wrote a great piece today about the lost art of arguing with umpires. What brings this art to the attention of the national media today? The record is soon to fall. Bobby Cox, who has managed the Braves since the Roosevelt administration, is closing in on his 131st ejection from a major league game. That would tie the record, and 132 will break it. Donovan wanted to investigate the art of the ejection a little bit more, so he went straight to the Picasso of Picking a Fight, the Van Gogh of Getting the Boot, the Da Vinci of Da Gate, none other than Baltimore Oriole legend Earl Weaver.
It came as a shock to me to learn that The Earl of Baltimore did not hold MLB's ejection record of 131. It is actually held by John McGraw, a manager from the turn of the century. Interestingly enough, Cox has technically already broken the record for ejections by a manager, since McGraw was ejected 14 times as a player. But if you're going to break a record and carve your name into baseball's record book, go for the gusto and do it right (Barry Lamar Bonds). The Earl is actually fourth on the all time list with 97. It may just be me, but I would be in favor of rehiring the Earl just long enough so he could be ejected three more times and break 100 (come on, it would only take three games).
To say that Earl wrote the book on getting ejected just doesn't say enough. Earl was the original, the innovator, the creator of the ejection (all this coming from someone who never saw the man coach a game... but his best ejections can be found on YouTube). Before Earl there were none, and after Earl it is just not the same. Earl was a fire ball from start to finish. He was shorter than the average person to begin with, and that made it all better. The fire was more concentrated throughout him and therefore more potent, which led to better arguments and better ejections. Earl would cuss, rant, rave, kick dirt, throw hats, throw dirt, turn the hat around to get closer to the target (read "umpire"), and on one occasion even got ejected before the game started. That's absolute skill, a master of his craft.
The thing that shocks me about Bobby Cox potentially breaking the record is that Cox is so much more mellow than Earl. Cox doesn't have the same emotions on the sleeve fire that Earl did. Cox's arguments rarely get out of hand, and never make SportsCenter. How could an argument truly be an argument if it doesn't even land on SportsCenter. If it's not even good enough for ESPN, it's probably just a tea party with the umpires in which Cox brought Earl Grey tea instead the ump-preferred Green Tea. This is not to take away from Cox's accomplishment, it's just to say that while he will hold the record, nobody did it better than Earl. It's kind of like saying that Bonds will one day hold the record, but nobody hit homeruns like Ruth, except in that situation I take everything away from Bonds.
So what is all the hub-bub about getting ejected? Why is it a good thing to leave your team halfway through a game and strand them manager-less? Because it shows you care. It wasn't too long ago in this space that I wrote about a manager that doesn't care, and how it's reflected by his players. Getting in the face of the umpires to argue what is right shows the team that it can never, ever give up the fight, no matter who it is against, and no matter what the odds. If Sam Perlozzo had the same fire that Earl Weaver had, the Orioles could be in first place right now. Instead, the Orioles' most recent managers (Ray Miller, Mike Hargrove, Lee Mazzilli, and Perlozzo) have all lacked the all important fire. The result? Ten straight losing seasons. Coincidence? I think not. If you give the O's someone like Weaver or Cox or maybe even Lou Piniella, they might not suck. They would show the same emotion that the manager shows, and the team would be full of feisty go-getters like Jay Payton.
To read all of John Donovan's Earl Weaver article/ interview, click here .
In other news this day, May 31st has come and gone, which means the deadline to submit any uniform changes for the 2008 MLB season has come and gone. Why does that matter, Kurt? Because now we must suffer another year of the Orioles' away jerseys reading "Orioles", as opposed to the more customary and less alienating "Baltimore".
Uniform tradition in almost any sport dictates that the home jersey of a franchise read the team name, since the fans will undoubtedly know where the team is from. The away jersey traditionally has the city name, so the opposing fans would know from where the team hails. It most likely dates back to when teams first started to travel, and people in the stands would actually not know where the opposition was from. It would be convenient for them to look down and say, "Oh, they're from [insert city name]
So now the deadline has come and gone, and we are again stuck pleading to fans of Washington to not abandon us. That's what it all boiled down to. In the 70's, after the Senators left Washington (again!), the owner of the Orioles felt that in order to reach out to the newly orphaned fans, he would remove Baltimore from the away jerseys, so as to give everybody a baseball home. That was great for DC, but a huge slap in the face for the people that actually support and pay for the team. All these years later, the away jerseys are still wrong, even after DC got yet another team. I think the time has come for the Orioles to finally stop alienating the fans of Baltimore, and tell the DC fans to go watch their own team if they can't be loyal because of the city on the uniform.
The problem is, of course, Peter Angelos. Since his normal course of action is to hear what the popular voice is and then do the exact opposite, Angelos keeps stalling Orioles' officials long enough to let the deadline pass. It seems as though Angelos is still under the assumption that DC fans can be kept on our side simply by making the team geographically unaffiliated, but that simply won't work. And if that's the case, why don't we rename the team the United States Orioles in order to attract fans from all over the country; afterall, Hawaii and Alaska are baseball orphans as well. Apparently, Angelos has not talked to his accountant though. If he had, he would have realized by now that changing the uniform means they get to sell new uniforms, and that would just be money in the bank for Angelos and the Orioles.
In the grand scheme of things, adding "Baltimore" to the away jersey is a small change and a small gesture to the city. With the way things are, however, and the Orioles mired in a ten year slump that has seen us become the laughing stock of Major League Baseball, a small gesture could win back a lot of fans who feel alienated by the team. I see it as a no lose situation, and yet still, here we are, wondering why it still says "Orioles" on the away jersey of the Baltimore Orioles.
Peace.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Bloggin' From Work (Shhhh!)
I feel like I'm stealing company time by blogging from work, but they aren't keeping me busy, so it's their fault. I'm also on my lunch break...
It was announced today that more disillusioned morons with money want to try and test their mettle against the NFL. An investment banker, a VP at Google, and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban have banded together to create an upstart United Football League. The idea? Actually compete with the NFL (a moment will be given to squelch any laughter).
My question for these fellows is why? Why even bother to try and compete with the NFL? It's not possible. It's not even plausible. It's certainly not probable. There are no more p-words to describe the money that will be lost in this endeavor. There are currently 4 major sports in the U.S (football, basketball, baseball, and either hockey or NASCAR, depending on if you live in the North or South). There are, by my count, 7 legitimate (read "air on ESPN") professional sports leagues (the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, NASCAR, MLS, MLL [lacrosse, people]). There's no more room for the UFL on ESPN, let alone in the landscape of American sports. And if you are crazy enough to start some upstart league, why go after the NFL, the king, the shah, the sultan, the Grand Poobah of all American sports?
Baseball and basketball are the NFL's closest competitors, and trust me, close is a very loose term. The NFL sold out every game in the first 6 or 7 weeks of the season last year. Even Arizona was enjoying sellouts for a while. Most baseball teams can't even sell out on opening day, and some teams have tickets left over during the playoffs. Basketball fares slightly better because it has fewer games and teams, but it still can't touch the NFL. The NFL steamrolls these leagues every year in TV ratings, merchandise sales, and the all important ticket sales. The most watched sporting event any year? Not the World Series. Not the NBA Finals. It's always the Super Bowl. Even when two teams who nobody cares about are in it, people still watch just to complain that the right teams didn't make it. So if people already care more about the NFL than the MLB and NBA, my next question becomes who is going to watch the UFL Bowl?
The fact that they are challenging the NFL is not even the most fatal flaw that the three investors are making in this costly endeavor. The worst idea they have had so far is that all their franchises will be based in cities without NFL teams. I give them an A for creativity, but an E for results. Going by their logic, they will have Los Angeles, and very little else. If a city does not have an NFL franchise, it is for good reason: the NFL does not want a franchise there (except LA, but they don't support their teams anyway). The NFL has the big markets covered: New York, New England, Washington, Bay Area California, Miami, Green Bay (just kidding). That leaves the UFL with what? LA. Mark Cuban wants to put a franchise in Las Vegas, and will receive no complaint from the NFL. The remaining cities have yet to be announced, but they must be somewhere along the lines of Memphis, Birmingham, Orlando, Portland, San Antonio, and Oklahoma City. These cities are definitely deserving of franchises, but also have NFL teams nearby to crush any UFL competition. Fans wouldn't abandon the Titans or Dolphins or Cowboys or Seahawks to root for lesser caliber teams in a lesser caliber league.
That brings me to my next point: think about who is going to play in this league. It will be full of NFL castoffs, college superstars who couldn't cut it in the real league, and average schmucks who want one last shot at glory. Who wants to watch that? That'll be like watching a high school reunion game or an old timers game. It won't be fast. It won't be fun. There will be very little scoring, and almost zero passing or defense. The players that end up in the UFL also have to be rejected from the mildly successful Arena League, which means they are truly of poor caliber. To recap, it's going to be crappy football played in cities that can't support teams by players who really should have other jobs. Well, let me set my Tivo (shut up, I know I don't have a Tivo).
Other people have challenged the NFL before. When was the last time anybody spoke about the World Football League, the USFL, or the XFL? All of these leagues folded in less than four years, and they had franchises in major markets. The UFL is making an unnecessary attempt to topple a giant that can't be toppled, using tactics that won't work, in cities where it won't happen. The UFL is slated to start play in 2008. Depending on which month it starts, I predict it will be in the annals of bad ideas by late 2008 or early 2009. I just thank God that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore, and we don't have the possibility of getting stuck with a UFL team.
Peace.
It was announced today that more disillusioned morons with money want to try and test their mettle against the NFL. An investment banker, a VP at Google, and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban have banded together to create an upstart United Football League. The idea? Actually compete with the NFL (a moment will be given to squelch any laughter).
My question for these fellows is why? Why even bother to try and compete with the NFL? It's not possible. It's not even plausible. It's certainly not probable. There are no more p-words to describe the money that will be lost in this endeavor. There are currently 4 major sports in the U.S (football, basketball, baseball, and either hockey or NASCAR, depending on if you live in the North or South). There are, by my count, 7 legitimate (read "air on ESPN") professional sports leagues (the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, NASCAR, MLS, MLL [lacrosse, people]). There's no more room for the UFL on ESPN, let alone in the landscape of American sports. And if you are crazy enough to start some upstart league, why go after the NFL, the king, the shah, the sultan, the Grand Poobah of all American sports?
Baseball and basketball are the NFL's closest competitors, and trust me, close is a very loose term. The NFL sold out every game in the first 6 or 7 weeks of the season last year. Even Arizona was enjoying sellouts for a while. Most baseball teams can't even sell out on opening day, and some teams have tickets left over during the playoffs. Basketball fares slightly better because it has fewer games and teams, but it still can't touch the NFL. The NFL steamrolls these leagues every year in TV ratings, merchandise sales, and the all important ticket sales. The most watched sporting event any year? Not the World Series. Not the NBA Finals. It's always the Super Bowl. Even when two teams who nobody cares about are in it, people still watch just to complain that the right teams didn't make it. So if people already care more about the NFL than the MLB and NBA, my next question becomes who is going to watch the UFL Bowl?
The fact that they are challenging the NFL is not even the most fatal flaw that the three investors are making in this costly endeavor. The worst idea they have had so far is that all their franchises will be based in cities without NFL teams. I give them an A for creativity, but an E for results. Going by their logic, they will have Los Angeles, and very little else. If a city does not have an NFL franchise, it is for good reason: the NFL does not want a franchise there (except LA, but they don't support their teams anyway). The NFL has the big markets covered: New York, New England, Washington, Bay Area California, Miami, Green Bay (just kidding). That leaves the UFL with what? LA. Mark Cuban wants to put a franchise in Las Vegas, and will receive no complaint from the NFL. The remaining cities have yet to be announced, but they must be somewhere along the lines of Memphis, Birmingham, Orlando, Portland, San Antonio, and Oklahoma City. These cities are definitely deserving of franchises, but also have NFL teams nearby to crush any UFL competition. Fans wouldn't abandon the Titans or Dolphins or Cowboys or Seahawks to root for lesser caliber teams in a lesser caliber league.
That brings me to my next point: think about who is going to play in this league. It will be full of NFL castoffs, college superstars who couldn't cut it in the real league, and average schmucks who want one last shot at glory. Who wants to watch that? That'll be like watching a high school reunion game or an old timers game. It won't be fast. It won't be fun. There will be very little scoring, and almost zero passing or defense. The players that end up in the UFL also have to be rejected from the mildly successful Arena League, which means they are truly of poor caliber. To recap, it's going to be crappy football played in cities that can't support teams by players who really should have other jobs. Well, let me set my Tivo (shut up, I know I don't have a Tivo).
Other people have challenged the NFL before. When was the last time anybody spoke about the World Football League, the USFL, or the XFL? All of these leagues folded in less than four years, and they had franchises in major markets. The UFL is making an unnecessary attempt to topple a giant that can't be toppled, using tactics that won't work, in cities where it won't happen. The UFL is slated to start play in 2008. Depending on which month it starts, I predict it will be in the annals of bad ideas by late 2008 or early 2009. I just thank God that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore, and we don't have the possibility of getting stuck with a UFL team.
Peace.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Re-Lax
Sorry for the sporadic postings, but I'm trying to get into a work rhythm, and blogging hasn't fit into yet. That'll change, I promise...
Yesterday was not only Memorial Day, but also the National Men's Lacrosse Championship. That means it was the one day 0f the year that I watch the Official Team Sport of Maryland (look it up). As it so happens, Maryland was again well-represented, with Johns Hopkins making it to and winning the National Championship Game. In addition to Hopkins, Loyola, UMBC, Maryland, and Towson also went dancing. Yay for Maryland. What was the world talking about, however? A private, rich, predominantly white school in North Carolina.
The Duke lacrosse team looked poised to make a story book ending to their past 18 months, when Hopkins snatched it away in one of the best lacrosse games ever. Duke's rape scandal almost cost the school the entire program, so be back in the limelight so soon is a major feather in the cap for Duke and other accused and acquitted rapists everywhere.
Lets recap why Duke should not have been afforded a made-for-TV-movie ending. They brought their problems, their "trials and tribulations" (no pun intended) upon themselves. Nobody forced them to have a party. Nobody forced them to have alcohol at the party where most people were under aged. Certainly nobody made them order a stripper. Yes, the stripper turned out to be crazy and a liar, but that doesn't mean that the Duke boys made some bad decisions.
As rich, white, athletic young men with much to lose, they should have known how much of a target was on their collective backs from the beginning. There is an understandable income gap between the types of people who attend college in Durham, NC and the type of people who live there. The stripper (smarter than the average bear) saw the opportunity to take advantage of the wealth and vulnerability of the boys, and she did. It didn't work out in the end, but credit her for taking the chance. The boys should have known it was coming from the minute they invited her to the party, and their shock when the allegations were brought against them is unfounded.
Is it sad they lost their season? Yes. Should the players from that team be granted an extra year of eligibility to compensate? No, because they still got the time to practice and hone their skills that year, and it's entirely their own fault they lost the season. This team isn't the Marshall Football team that came back from a horrific plane crash. They came back from losing very little due to their own bad judgement. Hopkins did the right thing by beating Duke and denying everybody the story book ending. For that, I am grateful.
Peace.
Yesterday was not only Memorial Day, but also the National Men's Lacrosse Championship. That means it was the one day 0f the year that I watch the Official Team Sport of Maryland (look it up). As it so happens, Maryland was again well-represented, with Johns Hopkins making it to and winning the National Championship Game. In addition to Hopkins, Loyola, UMBC, Maryland, and Towson also went dancing. Yay for Maryland. What was the world talking about, however? A private, rich, predominantly white school in North Carolina.
The Duke lacrosse team looked poised to make a story book ending to their past 18 months, when Hopkins snatched it away in one of the best lacrosse games ever. Duke's rape scandal almost cost the school the entire program, so be back in the limelight so soon is a major feather in the cap for Duke and other accused and acquitted rapists everywhere.
Lets recap why Duke should not have been afforded a made-for-TV-movie ending. They brought their problems, their "trials and tribulations" (no pun intended) upon themselves. Nobody forced them to have a party. Nobody forced them to have alcohol at the party where most people were under aged. Certainly nobody made them order a stripper. Yes, the stripper turned out to be crazy and a liar, but that doesn't mean that the Duke boys made some bad decisions.
As rich, white, athletic young men with much to lose, they should have known how much of a target was on their collective backs from the beginning. There is an understandable income gap between the types of people who attend college in Durham, NC and the type of people who live there. The stripper (smarter than the average bear) saw the opportunity to take advantage of the wealth and vulnerability of the boys, and she did. It didn't work out in the end, but credit her for taking the chance. The boys should have known it was coming from the minute they invited her to the party, and their shock when the allegations were brought against them is unfounded.
Is it sad they lost their season? Yes. Should the players from that team be granted an extra year of eligibility to compensate? No, because they still got the time to practice and hone their skills that year, and it's entirely their own fault they lost the season. This team isn't the Marshall Football team that came back from a horrific plane crash. They came back from losing very little due to their own bad judgement. Hopkins did the right thing by beating Duke and denying everybody the story book ending. For that, I am grateful.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
