Ron Brown is an assistant coach for the Nebraska football team. He has taken a public stance against homosexuals due to this faith. Gene Wojciechowski takes a stance against Ron Brown due to Brown's stance against homosexuals. Here is the interesting part about Gene's stance against Ron Brown. Gene poses hypothetical questions and suggests the University of Nebraska should fire Ron Brown or force him to change his views as an employee of the institution. Apparently the irony of forcing a person to quit his job or change his views because you don't like this views is lost on Gene. Let's get a few things out of the way before I tackle Gene's semi-hypocritical column.
1. The University of Nebraska is partially publicly funded, so theoretically Brown could be dismissed because of his beliefs by the University of Nebraska...maybe. I don't know if Nebraska is an at-will employment state or not nor do I really understand employment law that well. Th University may have to show cause for his firing. A lawsuit would probably be inevitable though.
2. Ron Brown has espoused his views and not done much else on this subject. He hasn't violated the rights of a Nebraska football player or student at this point. So this isn't a case of him actively persecuting homosexuals during the course of his job. Granted, Brown probably would treat homosexuals differently, but that's pure speculation on my part and I have no information this speculation is true.
3. Suggesting someone should be fired because you don't like their use of free speech, which Gene is essentially suggesting the University of Nebraska should do, is hypocritical when criticizing a person for his personal views. There seems to be something inherently wrong in my mind with saying, "I don't like Ron Brown's opinion, he should be fired." In a few ways, even though she got confused by how the Marlins were within their rights to punish Ozzie Guillen, Jen Engel was correct in that free speech means nothing if we only use it to defend speech we agree with.
Ron Brown isn't the only person who has an issue with homosexuals. The state of North Carolina will vote on Amendment One today. This amendment to the state constitution would define marriage in the state of North Carolina as between a man and a woman. I understand where those who favor the amendment are coming from, but I personally oppose it. Mostly, because I would prefer my state focus on the important things, like the rapidly declining funding for colleges, the unemployment rate, and actual important issues that affect the state rather than taking up time to fight the "moral decay" of our state. The state of North Carolina is a sinking ship financially and those legislators who proposed Amendment One are spending valuable legislative time making sure the deck chairs are arranged perfectly and the ship has a shiny look, rather than working to plug the hole that is causing the ship to sink.
That's just my opinion and this isn't intended to be a political blog. I only espouse my view to give what I am writing a certain perspective. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect me. Two women being married doesn't mean my marriage is a sham and it doesn't make me feel any differently about my personal faith. To propose an amendment which specifically outlaws the marriage of a man and a woman in a state where gay marriage isn't even legal seems a bit cruel and petty to me. I see where Ron Brown is coming from though. His personal faith helps form his opinion of homosexuality and though I may disagree with it, that doesn't mean I am right or he doesn't have the right to espouse his opinion publicly as I just have. There is a separation of church and state, but people still have a right to their beliefs.
Gene Wojciechowski seems to believe Ron Brown doesn't have this right and wants the state of Nebraska or the University of Nebraska to bully Brown into changing his view or otherwise risking the security of his job.
Let's say there is a gay running back on the Nebraska roster. And Ron Brown is his position coach.
Let's say this gay running back probably wouldn't want to play for a position coach he considers to be a homophobe or disapproving of the way he lives his life. Would this player choose to play at Nebraska for Ron Brown?
Think about that for a moment.
Ok, thought about it. The running back would probably look to transfer or go to another college if it bothered him that much. Nebraska would be wise to allow him to transfer without sitting out an entire year. Problem solved.
And then think about Brown's very public stance against homosexuality.
Which he is within his right to have a very public stance on. That damn First Amendment allows this and his employer doesn't seem to want to punish for the stance. Therefore let him have his beliefs.
The Cornhuskers assistant coach recently testified in front of the Omaha (Neb.) City Council that gays, lesbians and transgender people shouldn't receive anti-discrimination protection under a proposed ordinance.
Again, while I disagree with him on this stance, this is his right. It always amazes me when people want others to be more open-minded on issues, but also want to silence or punish others for not being open-minded on these issues. It seems weird to me to try to silence others for not holding the same belief you do. Isn't Gene Wojciechowski questioning whether Ron Brown should be able to keep his job with the University of Nebraska (which is what he is doing, he just doesn't have the balls to come out and say it) because of his personal views a bit closed-minded? This is also example of Gene trying to project his beliefs on others when he is criticizing Brown for this very thing.
None of this would matter if Brown were an ordinary citizen with an extraordinary belief in his interpretation of the Bible's position on homosexuality.
This is very true. Because Ron Brown is a public employee it calls into question how tax dollars are going to pay for the salary of a coach who has a political stance based on personal views. If the University of Nebraska wanted to fire Ron Brown, they probably could do so. Of course by firing Ron Brown the University of Nebraska would be using tax dollars to espouse a political stance as well. So there's that.
But Brown isn't an ordinary citizen. He is a coach at a public university and for a revered football program whose reach stretches from Omaha to Scottsbluff. When he speaks, his words carry more power because of his association with Nebraska football.
You mean sort of like what has happened when University of Nebraska administrators, including the Chancellor, has come out as saying they don't agree with Ron Brown's personal views? Do his words carry more power or as much power as Brown's? I would possibly say so.
And there is no separation of church and state on Brown's Nebraska football office voice message:
"I praise the Lord Jesus Christ for today. I hope you're having a blessed day. Not able to answer my phone right now. Give me a try back and Lord willing, I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Have a great day."
So is Gene Wojciechowski saying that public employees can't espouse personal beliefs in public? I can see where this voicemail can be perceived as pro-Christianity, which apparently Gene finds personally offensive. It seems a bit constricting to not allow public employees from participating in a public discussion on a topic of interest to that employee. To be fair, if this is the position that Gene takes that Brown shouldn't be able to speak out against gay rights, a public employee should also not come out in favor of gay rights or any other "controversial" position like that. To prevent those who disagree with Gene's view from having a voice would also be to prevent those who agree with Gene from having a voice. The Chancellor of the University of Nebraska would not be able to say he favors homosexuals receiving anti-discrimination protection. It has to go both ways.
Brown, as well as Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne, has said that Brown's city council testimony reflected only the assistant coach's personal views. But those views were made by an employee of a public university that receives 42 percent of its funding from the federal government and state appropriations.
So he should he be fired or forced to change his belief to keep his job? In the interview process after Ron Brown gets fired would it be fine if the applicant was asked his opinion on homosexuals and whether they deserve protection from discrimination? Could any applicants who don't agree with homosexuals receiving protection from discrimination be immediately eliminated as a candidate for the job? Or would any candidate who had a personal view that may conflict with popular opinion be forced to stay silent about his beliefs in order to keep his job, even though those in the majority of popular opinion are able to speak their beliefs? I'm pretty sure this is discrimination in and of itself.
And there in that statement, in boldface type, by the way, is this: "It is the policy of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln not to discriminate based upon age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran's status, marital status, religion or political affiliation."
Gene is getting confused. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln does not discriminate based upon: "age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran's status, marital status, religion or political affiliation." This doesn't mean University of Nebraska-Lincoln employees are held to this standard when they aren't in the course of their job. So as long as Ron Brown isn't representing the University of Nebraska when he comes out against including homosexuals in an anti-discrimination law, I don't see why he should be punished for his view.
The policy of a business, university or institution doesn't necessarily apply to the employees who work at the school and what they believe away from that business, university or institution.
In a March 30 statement, Perlman said he was "personally offended" by Brown's stance relative to gays and lesbians. "Whether intended to do so or not, they reflect poorly on the university, on our athletic programs, and I am certain they cause pain and discomfort among a valued and productive segment of our community."
Then fire him! Silence him because Gene Wojciechowski doesn't agree with him! Agree with the majority or lose your job!
But Perlman added: "Unless and until I have evidence that Coach Brown has engaged in conduct beyond speech that many of us find offensive, I do not intend to do more than seek to assure that he speaks only for himself and to disassociate myself and this university from his position."
If this is how the University has chosen to handle the situation, they are very much within their rights to do so. Just like Ron Brown is within his rights to talk about his personal beliefs outside of his job as a University of Nebraska football assistant coach.
In other words, Brown can continue to call gays and lesbians "sinners," and then report to work the next morning.
Gene is the type of person I absolutely can't stand when he says things like this. Gene believes the anti-discrimination law should only apply to those who agree with the anti-discrimination law. It's not fine to discriminate against homosexuals, but if you hold an opinion Gene doesn't agree with, it is fine to discriminate against you.
Multiple interview requests were made to Brown, who is on the road recruiting. An athletic department spokesperson said Brown wasn't likely to respond to those requests.
Naturally, because Gene is concerned about Ron Brown's views having a public forum, Gene wants to give Ron Brown a public forum to talk about his views.
Actually what Gene wants to do is interview Brown to blow the story up so the story goes more national and Brown will eventually resign or be let go for his views on homosexuality. Gene can't fool me. I know what he is up to.
So Brown would be a willing martyr. And if he continues to confuse faith with a person's fundamental right not to be discriminated against, then Perlman and Osborne should fire him.
Well, I guess Gene does come out and say it. While I do agree with Gene's general position, I don't know if I agree with Gene putting pressure on the University of Nebraska to fire Ron Brown because of a personal belief.
Brown has the absolute right to express his views. But at what point do those views bleed into the workplace?
At the point where Brown's views negatively affect his ability to do his job as an assistant coach for Nebraska or he discriminates against a certain player because his sexuality. That's the point when his views bleed into the workplace. We are already at the point where Gene's views are bleeding over into Brown's right to freedom of speech. If the University of Nebraska wants to fire him, that's their business, but for Gene to want to urge the University to punish Brown for his personal view by causing him to lose his job isn't right in my opinion.
And Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini has said that Brown discusses religion with his players, but, according to the AP, no team member has complained.
But what does that mean exactly? That the players want Brown to continue mixing religion with football, or that they're reluctant to say anything, in fear that it could affect their standing with a coach who controls their place on the depth chart?
Or...it could be the players like to talk to Ron Brown about religion, don't necessarily share every single one of his religious views, but still believe he is a good person with which to discuss religion. At the point a Nebraska player feels he has been demoted by Brown because his personal view that would be the point Brown is infringing on the rights of others and I would have an issue.
And what if there were a gay player on the Nebraska roster? Or what if one of the players Brown is trying to recruit this week is gay, or has a family member or friend who is gay?
Then that player needs to think, "Do I want to play for a team and University which has an employee who espouses the beliefs that Ron Brown has?"
These are not unreasonable scenarios. Would you want to play for a coach who thinks God loves gays less than women or African-Americans?
Probably not. Would I actively try to get the coach fired for merely having this belief? Absolutely not.
Would you want to play for a coach who preaches compassion and love, but is willing to turn his back on a fellow human being because of that person's sexual orientation?
Probably not. Would I write a column about an assistant coach who has a belief I don't agree with and suggest he is fired for having this belief, despite the fact it hasn't bled over into his work life? Absolutely not. Again, the University of Nebraska could theoretically try to fire Ron Brown, but the idea he should be fired merely for holding a belief people don't agree with seems like it is against the principles the United States holds dear.
(starts waving an American flag and chanting U-S-A!)
Discrimination is discrimination. It isn't a buffet line where Brown can pick and choose who can be protected from it. It is repugnant in all forms.
It's repugnant in all forms, unless you are trying to discriminate against a person who holds a belief you don't agree with. In that case, there's nothing wrong with a little discrimination. After all, everyone has to have one universal opinion in Gene Wojciechowski's preferred version of democracy.
Whether he realizes it or not, Brown's supposed private stance has public -- and Nebraska football -- implications.
Whether you realize it or not, you are projecting your own beliefs on Ron Brown and suggesting because he doesn't adhere to the same beliefs you do then he should be punished in the form of losing his job.
(a phone rings)
That's the North Korean government on the phone for you Gene. They want you to be the editor of the state newspaper. Apparently they read this column and were very impressed.
His beliefs find their way back to his players and the message is this: I've got your back -- as long as you're not gay.
Gene, you have made the First Amendment very sad. As long as Ron Brown isn't infringing on the rights of any of his players in the course of his doing his job, leave him alone and accept others have a different point of view than you do.
Showing posts with label Gene Wojciechowski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gene Wojciechowski. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
9 comments I'm Just Not Sure About Paying College Athletes
I have always wavered on whether college athletes should be paid or given a stipend of some sort or not to partially offset the fact many of these college athletes make a ton of money for the schools they attend. I'm not sure when I will come to an eventual conclusion about this. I always go back and forth and I believe if a good proposal were ever put out there, I could get behind paying college athletes. Gene Wojciechowski seems to think Jim Delany's proposal to pay Big 10 athletes a stipend is a good idea. I'm not sure I like his reasoning for thinking it is a good idea.
Dylan and I talked about this on a podcast a few weeks ago. I probably should come to a definitive conclusion on this issue so I can talk about it in a confident voice when asked. Because in the era of "First Take" it is not possible to talk about a sports-related topic and not have a definite position on that topic, so I must be way behind the times.
In the immortal word of Saturday Night Live's Seth Meyers: "Really?"
Nine people laughed at this, eight people wanted to punch something imagining the smug look on Seth Meyers' face when saying this, and Bill Simmons just Re-Tweeted something Seth Meyers said to him in an effort to remind us that he KNOWS Seth Meyers.
Think about it: A college athletics power broker recently proposed an idea that actually helps the Division I scholarship players responsible for generating billions of dollars in revenue.
It is crazy. The problem is the proposed idea only helps some of the Division-I scholarship players responsible for generating billions of dollars in revenue. It helps players in the Big 10. It basically tells mid-majors schools, "it's not our fault you don't have the money to do this." So this plan helps only a certain number of Division-I scholarship players.
But by the time the skeptics and cynics were done mangling the facts beyond recognition, the proposal needed reconstructive facial surgery.
Unfortunately, one man's fact is another man's opinion. Also, simply because something is a fact doesn't mean it is irrefutable.
The power broker -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany -- suggested a plan that would bridge the growing financial gap between the value of a scholarship and the actual sticker price of going to school.
What about the growing financial gap between the value of an academic scholarship and the actual sticker price of going to school? I guess those people, and that is the majority of people who attend college, are just fucked. Pay back those loans you have to take out people, you can't play sports well enough and don't bring the school enough money to deserve to not have to take loans out to cover living expenses.
What about the financial gap between major conferences and mid-major conferences? Can mid-major conferences afford to bridge the gap in tuition and the value of a scholarship? Shouldn't we care about these athletes' cost of tuition as well?
That average estimated annual gap of about $3,000 would be given to the D-I player to help defray the costs of, say, transportation, clothing, laundry and pepperoni pizzas. It works out to a whopping $8.22 a day.
That's $8.22 PER ATHLETE per day. Not total, but per athlete. So when you multiply this by 3,000 athletes it turns out to be quite a few dollars.
Hey Gene, can you give me $1 million dollars over the next 30 years? It is only $91.32 per day!
Instead of getting a standing ovation for trying to improve the rust-coated system now in place, Delany was accused of grandstanding, of creating a play-for-pay scenario,
I don't know if I agree with Delany's idea, but it doesn't mean I think it is a play-for-pay scenario or anything of the like. I just may disagree with his point of view on this.
"I never used the words, 'play-for-pay,"' says Delany. "I never used the word, 'compensation.' All I said is, 'Can we have a discussion? We'd like to have a discussion about providing a grant-in-aid that corresponds to the cost of education.'
I will already confess the idea of the student-athlete is a joke at times. Many student-athletes are students in that they have to go to school in order to keep playing their school of choice. Many student-athletes are also going to class and getting an education though.
The hardest part for me to justify in not paying players a stipend is how much money these players do bring into the school for that school. It is a ton of money, so that does differentiate them from "normal" college students, but when it comes to the cost of education at a school this is a cost ALL college students share. It is not just relevant only to student-athletes or a cost only placed upon the college athlete, but nearly every college student has to find a way to pay for school. So in that way, the idea a college athlete should receive a stipend of some sort to offset the costs of school seems like they are getting a benefit for bringing more money into the school. Which is true of course.
So the part of me that can't justify paying players a stipend is the part that doesn't like simply because a college athlete brings money into the school means he/she should receive a regular college student does not receive to defer the cost of education at that school. Why should the backup quarterback get $3000 when a guy/girl who has a 4.0 and is trying to go to law school after graduation has to make due in taking out loans or taking a job to help pay for school and living expenses? Part of me thinks a stipend, though fully knowing a college athlete brings money into the school, isn't fair to the rest of the students who are trying to pay for college.
Why should a college athlete receive $3000 to defer the cost of an education that he probably isn't even attending the college to receive? Let's be fair, we aren't talking about volleyball players or baseball players who should get paid, it is the sports that bring in a ton of money to the school, like football and basketball. Many of these guys have their eyes on professional sports, so they aren't necessarily in school to receive the education, but to play their sport of choice. Why should I care they struggle to pay for living expenses (remember the stipend is for living expenses, which aren't exclusive expenses to student-athletes) when every college student either has to take out loans or has to struggle themselves to pay for living expenses? Perhaps, because they bring in a ton of money to the schools...which is a valid point. So there are valid points on both sides of the argument.
In its simplest terms, Delany's proposal is a cost-of-living adjustment for D-I scholarship athletes.
This is a cost of living adjustment nearly every college student needs. Herein lies the issue. While many times the idea of a student-athlete is an illusion, thousands of college student-athletes don't go play professionally. So essentially the stipend would be money given to an athlete (in addition to a scholarship) simply because that person is an athlete and not because that athlete brings money into the school.
It would make college life a little bit easier and, given the revenue the players generate for their universities, a little fairer.
Not all college athletes and sports generate revenue. So wherein it may make sense to offset (in some way possible) the revenue a player may bring in by providing a stipend to that player, it may not make sense to provide a stipend to a men's lacrosse player when that sport may not generate revenue to the school. I don't hate Delany's idea, but the way Gene Wojciechowski is running with it as if there are no issues with the idea is a bit incorrect.
The stipend idea isn't fair to the college student-athletes that do make income for the school because even the student-athletes that don't play a sport which brings money into the school would receive the stipend. The stipend idea isn't exactly fair to regular college students because they need the cost of tuition to be defrayed as well. So if a men's lacrosse player isn't playing a sport that is bringing money into the school, why should he receive a stipend while an Accounting major doesn't get the money, yet has the same cost of tuition?
But nobody is going to buy a yacht with the additional money.
That's not the point. This sounds like the excuse a person who is stealing money from his job would use to justify the crime.
In the late 1960s, when Delany played point guard for Dean Smith at North Carolina, players nationwide received what amounted to laundry money each week. Now, some players have difficulty making the end of their grant-in-aids meet the end of the month. Their scholarships don't cover the true cost of attending college.
Again, the same is true for many college students.
It feels circular, but the difference in some college student-athletes from normal college students is they make money for the school. So giving these students this stipend may make sense. But then you can't just give money only to the sports that make money because that isn't fair, so the stipend has to go to all Division-I college student-athletes, even those that aren't making money for the school. This puts them in the same boat as normal college students who face the exact same costs of attending college, the only difference being the student-athlete plays a sport, but otherwise has the same effect on revenue as a normal college student does. Which leads us back to the beginning where it is wondered how to help out student-athletes who bring in a ton of revenue to the school.
My favorite anxiety-filled response from those who instantly opposed the idea: Providing scholarship athletes with a "cost of education" increase would give such conferences as the Big Ten a recruiting advantage.
What a crazy criticism of this proposal!
Delany's response: They're right, it would.
Or not. So Gene's favorite response to the proposal is an accurate criticism of the proposal?
After all, it only makes sense that a recruit might be more tempted to sign with a conference whose institutions can afford to put that $8.22 in his or her pocket each day.
If it isn't that much money then why provide the money to them? Oh wait, because it is a lot of money for a student-athlete to have provided to them or else Gene wouldn't be advocating this proposal. Gene can't bash the $3,000 proposal as not giving the student-athlete enough money, so it is harmless, while also advocating the $3,000 as a fix to the problem for the cost of tuition. If it helps the student-athlete enough for the change to be made, it is probably enough money to tempt a recruit.
The Big Ten, the Southeastern Conference, the Big 12, the Pac-10, the ACC and the Big East already enjoy recruiting advantages over other conferences. Their stadiums, arenas and practice facilities are larger and more luxurious. Their geographic footprints are wider. Their TV contracts are more lucrative. Their coaches' salaries are higher. Their tradition, Q ratings and alumni bases are more pronounced.
So why not widen the gap between majors and mid-major conferences? Is that the reasoning Gene is going for here?
Even before Delany's proposal was made public, the country's best high school recruits were choosing the major conferences. That isn't going to change. The only difference is that this time something extra is being done to help the scholarship athlete.
There is some truth in this statement. Though I don't know if this truth is enough justification to just say "fuck it" and give the major conferences an even larger advantage when it comes to attracting recruits.
So if Big Ten athletic departments have the financial assets to pay for a cost-of-education increase for those 3,000 scholarships (in that conference's case, an estimated $9 million or so more a year), then I'm all for it.
$9 million dollars isn't that much money! It is only $24,657 per day! That's what you generally find in your couch cushions while cleaning.
Not because it's good for the Big Ten or the other conferences that can afford it (such as the SEC, etc.), but because it's good for the athletes in the Big Ten and for the athletes in those other wealthy conferences.
It is good for the athletes in the Big Ten conference. Merely saying something is good for athletes in certain conferences isn't entirely great justification for doing that "something." It would be good for athletes in the wealthy conferences if they had a tutor that took all of their exams for them or didn't have to take exams, so they could focus completely on sports. It doesn't mean it is the best decision to be made.
"And somebody would say, 'You know, we can't do it, so you can't do it,"' says Delany. "So I'm saying, 'If we can do it and it's not above the cost of education, why shouldn't we be able to do it? It's a welfare issue.
Cost of education is a welfare issue, but it is also a welfare issue that non-athletes face as well. It is not like the normal college student has a full ride to school and is easily able to pay all of his/her bills every single month. $3,000 would come in handy for them as well. This would come in handy for regular college students as well, but they aren't eligible because they are not athletes. The solution presented isn't a solution to fix a welfare issue for college students, it is a way of compensating college student-athletes who make money for the school disguised as a welfare issue. If it were truly a welfare issue every student that faces the cost of education problem would benefit and receive the $3,000.
This isn't about level playing fields, because there is no such thing in Division I athletics. If there was, every athletic department would be able to do what Notre Dame did and cut Charlie Weis a $6.6 million, please-go-away payment, or build a 109,000-seat stadium like the one at Michigan.
I'm not sure this is entirely relevant to the point. Every school has a different sports budget. I believe this is different from schools in certain conferences being able to offer student-athletes a stipend of money for merely attending their college. The stipend of $3,000 is a specific tangible benefit an athlete receives for attending a college in a certain conference, which I think is separate from a student-athlete choosing a college based on the size of the stadium.
Instead, it should be about the scholarship athletes who helped transform March Madness into a billion-dollar TV contract for the NCAA, or the BCS into a national title monopoly, or bowl season into the most wonderful time of the year.
These are two sports that bring money in. What about the other scholarship athletes who don't transform the month of March and aren't on television? Why should they get a stipend for playing a sport that doesn't provide significant revenue to the school?
It should be about the nonrevenue sports athletes who play for the love of the game.
So the nonrevenue sports athletes that play for the love of the game should get money to pay for the cost of attendance at a college, while nonrevenue students of the college don't deserve any help, while attending college for the love of getting a good job and making something of themselves with an education? Why is playing for the love of the game and not generating revenue deserve special financial consideration compared to a person who wants to get an education at that same school?
Therein lies my problem with this proposal, not my problem (because I am not sure I have one) overall with paying college athletes in some manner. You can pay those athletes who make money for the school, but once you start paying nonrevenue athletes, you are essentially paying Student A money to offset the tuition cost for playing a sport while Student B, who faces the same cost of tuition, is screwed over simply because he/she did not play a sport. Say Student A has a full ride to college for men's tennis and Student B has a full ride on a Science scholarship. Neither students provides revenue to the school, but Student A chooses to play a sport so that student gets his/her cost of attendance supplemented with a $3,000 stipend, while Student B has to take out loans or find another way to pay for pizza, laundry, and beer.
There are some positive things in this proposal, it may be getting near to the right idea, but the execution seems off.
For Delany's proposal to go from the cocoon stage to actual legislative reality would require approval from NCAA membership. And a lot of luck.
Dylan and I talked about this on a podcast a few weeks ago. I probably should come to a definitive conclusion on this issue so I can talk about it in a confident voice when asked. Because in the era of "First Take" it is not possible to talk about a sports-related topic and not have a definite position on that topic, so I must be way behind the times.
In the immortal word of Saturday Night Live's Seth Meyers: "Really?"
Nine people laughed at this, eight people wanted to punch something imagining the smug look on Seth Meyers' face when saying this, and Bill Simmons just Re-Tweeted something Seth Meyers said to him in an effort to remind us that he KNOWS Seth Meyers.
Think about it: A college athletics power broker recently proposed an idea that actually helps the Division I scholarship players responsible for generating billions of dollars in revenue.
It is crazy. The problem is the proposed idea only helps some of the Division-I scholarship players responsible for generating billions of dollars in revenue. It helps players in the Big 10. It basically tells mid-majors schools, "it's not our fault you don't have the money to do this." So this plan helps only a certain number of Division-I scholarship players.
But by the time the skeptics and cynics were done mangling the facts beyond recognition, the proposal needed reconstructive facial surgery.
Unfortunately, one man's fact is another man's opinion. Also, simply because something is a fact doesn't mean it is irrefutable.
The power broker -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany -- suggested a plan that would bridge the growing financial gap between the value of a scholarship and the actual sticker price of going to school.
What about the growing financial gap between the value of an academic scholarship and the actual sticker price of going to school? I guess those people, and that is the majority of people who attend college, are just fucked. Pay back those loans you have to take out people, you can't play sports well enough and don't bring the school enough money to deserve to not have to take loans out to cover living expenses.
What about the financial gap between major conferences and mid-major conferences? Can mid-major conferences afford to bridge the gap in tuition and the value of a scholarship? Shouldn't we care about these athletes' cost of tuition as well?
That average estimated annual gap of about $3,000 would be given to the D-I player to help defray the costs of, say, transportation, clothing, laundry and pepperoni pizzas. It works out to a whopping $8.22 a day.
That's $8.22 PER ATHLETE per day. Not total, but per athlete. So when you multiply this by 3,000 athletes it turns out to be quite a few dollars.
Hey Gene, can you give me $1 million dollars over the next 30 years? It is only $91.32 per day!
Instead of getting a standing ovation for trying to improve the rust-coated system now in place, Delany was accused of grandstanding, of creating a play-for-pay scenario,
I don't know if I agree with Delany's idea, but it doesn't mean I think it is a play-for-pay scenario or anything of the like. I just may disagree with his point of view on this.
"I never used the words, 'play-for-pay,"' says Delany. "I never used the word, 'compensation.' All I said is, 'Can we have a discussion? We'd like to have a discussion about providing a grant-in-aid that corresponds to the cost of education.'
I will already confess the idea of the student-athlete is a joke at times. Many student-athletes are students in that they have to go to school in order to keep playing their school of choice. Many student-athletes are also going to class and getting an education though.
The hardest part for me to justify in not paying players a stipend is how much money these players do bring into the school for that school. It is a ton of money, so that does differentiate them from "normal" college students, but when it comes to the cost of education at a school this is a cost ALL college students share. It is not just relevant only to student-athletes or a cost only placed upon the college athlete, but nearly every college student has to find a way to pay for school. So in that way, the idea a college athlete should receive a stipend of some sort to offset the costs of school seems like they are getting a benefit for bringing more money into the school. Which is true of course.
So the part of me that can't justify paying players a stipend is the part that doesn't like simply because a college athlete brings money into the school means he/she should receive a regular college student does not receive to defer the cost of education at that school. Why should the backup quarterback get $3000 when a guy/girl who has a 4.0 and is trying to go to law school after graduation has to make due in taking out loans or taking a job to help pay for school and living expenses? Part of me thinks a stipend, though fully knowing a college athlete brings money into the school, isn't fair to the rest of the students who are trying to pay for college.
Why should a college athlete receive $3000 to defer the cost of an education that he probably isn't even attending the college to receive? Let's be fair, we aren't talking about volleyball players or baseball players who should get paid, it is the sports that bring in a ton of money to the school, like football and basketball. Many of these guys have their eyes on professional sports, so they aren't necessarily in school to receive the education, but to play their sport of choice. Why should I care they struggle to pay for living expenses (remember the stipend is for living expenses, which aren't exclusive expenses to student-athletes) when every college student either has to take out loans or has to struggle themselves to pay for living expenses? Perhaps, because they bring in a ton of money to the schools...which is a valid point. So there are valid points on both sides of the argument.
In its simplest terms, Delany's proposal is a cost-of-living adjustment for D-I scholarship athletes.
This is a cost of living adjustment nearly every college student needs. Herein lies the issue. While many times the idea of a student-athlete is an illusion, thousands of college student-athletes don't go play professionally. So essentially the stipend would be money given to an athlete (in addition to a scholarship) simply because that person is an athlete and not because that athlete brings money into the school.
It would make college life a little bit easier and, given the revenue the players generate for their universities, a little fairer.
Not all college athletes and sports generate revenue. So wherein it may make sense to offset (in some way possible) the revenue a player may bring in by providing a stipend to that player, it may not make sense to provide a stipend to a men's lacrosse player when that sport may not generate revenue to the school. I don't hate Delany's idea, but the way Gene Wojciechowski is running with it as if there are no issues with the idea is a bit incorrect.
The stipend idea isn't fair to the college student-athletes that do make income for the school because even the student-athletes that don't play a sport which brings money into the school would receive the stipend. The stipend idea isn't exactly fair to regular college students because they need the cost of tuition to be defrayed as well. So if a men's lacrosse player isn't playing a sport that is bringing money into the school, why should he receive a stipend while an Accounting major doesn't get the money, yet has the same cost of tuition?
But nobody is going to buy a yacht with the additional money.
That's not the point. This sounds like the excuse a person who is stealing money from his job would use to justify the crime.
In the late 1960s, when Delany played point guard for Dean Smith at North Carolina, players nationwide received what amounted to laundry money each week. Now, some players have difficulty making the end of their grant-in-aids meet the end of the month. Their scholarships don't cover the true cost of attending college.
Again, the same is true for many college students.
It feels circular, but the difference in some college student-athletes from normal college students is they make money for the school. So giving these students this stipend may make sense. But then you can't just give money only to the sports that make money because that isn't fair, so the stipend has to go to all Division-I college student-athletes, even those that aren't making money for the school. This puts them in the same boat as normal college students who face the exact same costs of attending college, the only difference being the student-athlete plays a sport, but otherwise has the same effect on revenue as a normal college student does. Which leads us back to the beginning where it is wondered how to help out student-athletes who bring in a ton of revenue to the school.
My favorite anxiety-filled response from those who instantly opposed the idea: Providing scholarship athletes with a "cost of education" increase would give such conferences as the Big Ten a recruiting advantage.
What a crazy criticism of this proposal!
Delany's response: They're right, it would.
Or not. So Gene's favorite response to the proposal is an accurate criticism of the proposal?
After all, it only makes sense that a recruit might be more tempted to sign with a conference whose institutions can afford to put that $8.22 in his or her pocket each day.
If it isn't that much money then why provide the money to them? Oh wait, because it is a lot of money for a student-athlete to have provided to them or else Gene wouldn't be advocating this proposal. Gene can't bash the $3,000 proposal as not giving the student-athlete enough money, so it is harmless, while also advocating the $3,000 as a fix to the problem for the cost of tuition. If it helps the student-athlete enough for the change to be made, it is probably enough money to tempt a recruit.
The Big Ten, the Southeastern Conference, the Big 12, the Pac-10, the ACC and the Big East already enjoy recruiting advantages over other conferences. Their stadiums, arenas and practice facilities are larger and more luxurious. Their geographic footprints are wider. Their TV contracts are more lucrative. Their coaches' salaries are higher. Their tradition, Q ratings and alumni bases are more pronounced.
So why not widen the gap between majors and mid-major conferences? Is that the reasoning Gene is going for here?
Even before Delany's proposal was made public, the country's best high school recruits were choosing the major conferences. That isn't going to change. The only difference is that this time something extra is being done to help the scholarship athlete.
There is some truth in this statement. Though I don't know if this truth is enough justification to just say "fuck it" and give the major conferences an even larger advantage when it comes to attracting recruits.
So if Big Ten athletic departments have the financial assets to pay for a cost-of-education increase for those 3,000 scholarships (in that conference's case, an estimated $9 million or so more a year), then I'm all for it.
$9 million dollars isn't that much money! It is only $24,657 per day! That's what you generally find in your couch cushions while cleaning.
Not because it's good for the Big Ten or the other conferences that can afford it (such as the SEC, etc.), but because it's good for the athletes in the Big Ten and for the athletes in those other wealthy conferences.
It is good for the athletes in the Big Ten conference. Merely saying something is good for athletes in certain conferences isn't entirely great justification for doing that "something." It would be good for athletes in the wealthy conferences if they had a tutor that took all of their exams for them or didn't have to take exams, so they could focus completely on sports. It doesn't mean it is the best decision to be made.
"And somebody would say, 'You know, we can't do it, so you can't do it,"' says Delany. "So I'm saying, 'If we can do it and it's not above the cost of education, why shouldn't we be able to do it? It's a welfare issue.
Cost of education is a welfare issue, but it is also a welfare issue that non-athletes face as well. It is not like the normal college student has a full ride to school and is easily able to pay all of his/her bills every single month. $3,000 would come in handy for them as well. This would come in handy for regular college students as well, but they aren't eligible because they are not athletes. The solution presented isn't a solution to fix a welfare issue for college students, it is a way of compensating college student-athletes who make money for the school disguised as a welfare issue. If it were truly a welfare issue every student that faces the cost of education problem would benefit and receive the $3,000.
This isn't about level playing fields, because there is no such thing in Division I athletics. If there was, every athletic department would be able to do what Notre Dame did and cut Charlie Weis a $6.6 million, please-go-away payment, or build a 109,000-seat stadium like the one at Michigan.
I'm not sure this is entirely relevant to the point. Every school has a different sports budget. I believe this is different from schools in certain conferences being able to offer student-athletes a stipend of money for merely attending their college. The stipend of $3,000 is a specific tangible benefit an athlete receives for attending a college in a certain conference, which I think is separate from a student-athlete choosing a college based on the size of the stadium.
Instead, it should be about the scholarship athletes who helped transform March Madness into a billion-dollar TV contract for the NCAA, or the BCS into a national title monopoly, or bowl season into the most wonderful time of the year.
These are two sports that bring money in. What about the other scholarship athletes who don't transform the month of March and aren't on television? Why should they get a stipend for playing a sport that doesn't provide significant revenue to the school?
It should be about the nonrevenue sports athletes who play for the love of the game.
So the nonrevenue sports athletes that play for the love of the game should get money to pay for the cost of attendance at a college, while nonrevenue students of the college don't deserve any help, while attending college for the love of getting a good job and making something of themselves with an education? Why is playing for the love of the game and not generating revenue deserve special financial consideration compared to a person who wants to get an education at that same school?
Therein lies my problem with this proposal, not my problem (because I am not sure I have one) overall with paying college athletes in some manner. You can pay those athletes who make money for the school, but once you start paying nonrevenue athletes, you are essentially paying Student A money to offset the tuition cost for playing a sport while Student B, who faces the same cost of tuition, is screwed over simply because he/she did not play a sport. Say Student A has a full ride to college for men's tennis and Student B has a full ride on a Science scholarship. Neither students provides revenue to the school, but Student A chooses to play a sport so that student gets his/her cost of attendance supplemented with a $3,000 stipend, while Student B has to take out loans or find another way to pay for pizza, laundry, and beer.
There are some positive things in this proposal, it may be getting near to the right idea, but the execution seems off.
For Delany's proposal to go from the cocoon stage to actual legislative reality would require approval from NCAA membership. And a lot of luck.
"It's unlikely that this could ever get passed," Delany says.
I think we are a long way from having any sort of money or payment given to players who participate in a sport that is revenue-generating for the school. I'm not necessarily against players being paid when they play a sport that generates revenue for a school, but I don't think a stipend being paid to student-athletes to offset the cost of education that affects every college student is the way to go. Maybe the worst case result of this proposal is it starts a conversation or helps develop a better idea.Wednesday, January 5, 2011
11 comments UConn's Women's Basketball Team Could Not Beat a Division-I Basketball Team
This may be the post where I offend a ton of women, if any women read this blog, or they may completely agree with me...I don't really know. We may have talked about a subject like this before, but I don't recall it. I think UConn's women's basketball team would lose a game to any Division-I basketball program that has enough scholarship players (five) to field a starting lineup. The source of my thought concerning this is Gene Wojciechowski's column on this issue. I respect women's sports, but the answer to this question isn't even in doubt in my mind.
But he can't have it both ways. He can't break UCLA's historic 88-game win streak, say basketball is basketball, but then become a miserable bastard when I ask one simple question:
"If I had 13 scholarship guys, I would say we would absolutely win," said first-year Centenary coach Adam Walsh. "Seeing that we're competing with four scholarship players, I don't know."
Walsh laughed when he said it, which is better than I expected. I expected him to slam down the phone or ask Tucker Carlson to demand I be executed.
Topical reference! References like this are what makes Gene such a great (bad) sportswriter.
Instead, it's about trying to quantify just how amazing the UConn women are -- and doing so in terms guys can understand.
Really, I don't know if it is that complicated. Can a men's Division-I college basketball team beat the very best women's basketball team? That's the question and I don't think it involves a difficult answer. What the UConn women have done is amazing in the context of women's college basketball, just like what high school football teams that go undefeated is admirable in the context of high school football. Outside of the context of high school football, say that team was to go against a Division-I program,. then the high school team would likely be out of its realm and lose.
Walsh has watched Auriemma's Huskies.
"It'd be tough for us," said Walsh of a UConn-Centenary matchup. "I'm sure it'd be tough. I'm not dealing with scholarship guys. And that's no disrespect to the guys I have."
No, that is partial disrespect for the guys you have and mostly respect for the UConn women's team. It is partial disrespect for the guys on the team because athletically they should be able to beat a team of women (that isn't an All-Star team) and it is respect for the UConn's women's team because that team is really good and has been for a while.
Memphis beat the Gents by 64. Tulane beat them by 41 and LSU by 42. Marquette won by 29. Summit League opponent Oakland recently won by 27. Centenary plays hard, but it has only one player averaging double-figure points (Maxx Nakwaasah's 10.8). Its two tallest players (both 6-foot-8) average 1.5 and 1.4 points, respectively.
All of these teams are comprised of basketball players that are men. The Gents have two players that are 6'8" and though height isn't the end-all-be-all, these players each have a 3 inch height advantage over the tallest player on the UConn women's roster. So the Gents would have a clear rebounding advantage when those players are in the game. UConn has five players that are over six feet tall and Centenary has two players that are shorter than six feet tall and their weight ranges from 160 pounds to 245 pounds. I couldn't find the weights of the UConn women's basketball players, but I am assuming there isn't any player on the roster coming close to 245 pounds.
And Walsh's five leading scorers are 6-3, 6-6, 6-5, 6-0 and 6-1.
The entire starting lineup is not only comprised of men, who are probably stronger and more athletic than the UConn women's roster, but they are also all over six feet tall. This is an advantage when it comes to the UConn players getting a shot off on offense and rebounding. It is also an advantage when it comes time to substitute players into the game. Naturally, it will be more physically demanding for a women's team to play a men's team as compared to them playing a women's team, so I would assume the bench would be used more. The players coming off the UConn bench, like Samarie Walker, who plays the 5th most minutes on the team are going to have to also play at a high level to beat the men. It's not just about talent on each team, but the talent of the depth.
UConn's starting five goes 6-5 (Stefanie Dolson), 6-0 (Moore), 5-11 (Kelly Faris), 5-10 (Tiffany Hayes) and 5-7 (Bria Hartley).
I respect the hell out of Maya Moore but I question whether she can play power forward against a men's basketball team. That's the position she would have to guard and even against the smaller (for a power forward) presumed power forward for Centenary she would be giving up 5 inches. Take the fact they are talented women out of the equation and just look at the heights of the players for UConn and a team that is taller at every position would have an immediate perceived advantage in rebounding.
Throw in the fact they are women, even if they are highly athletic women, and they are still going against highly athletic men. So just on paper, it seems the men's team would have several physical advantages before even taking the court. Would UConn possibly give the Centenary team a run for their money? Maybe, but I think Centenary would win.
Tennis had Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs. Softball had pitcher Jennie Finch against major league players (they came, they saw, they whiffed).
This is a terrible comparison to Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs. Jennie Finch did throw well against major league players, but these players did not play softball. It's a different sport from baseball. I can understand the comparison if the major league players had trained for a period of time and played softball competitively, but hitting a softball is different from hitting a baseball. So while what Jennie Finch did was impressive, I am imagining if the major league players had dedicated their lives to hitting a softball they would have been able to hit her fairly effectively.
So why not the UConn women against a Division I or II or III men's team one of these days? Make it a preseason exhibition game. Designate a percentage of the proceeds to a charity of each program's choice. The V Foundation. Breast cancer research. Whatever. There are hundreds of worthy causes.
Because there is absolutely no upside to doing this. A Division-I men's team has no incentive to prove they can beat a women's basketball team. If they win, it was expected of them and if they lose they could possibly never recruit another basketball player again. Even when Centenary goes Division-III (which they are planning on doing), they may have a tough time recruiting. Sad...but true. There's no incentive for a Division-I team to set up this matchup.
UConn's women's basketball team has more incentive to set up a matchup, but not as much incentive as Gene would think. If the UConn women's team happened to lose, everyone who says negative things about women's basketball and the streak of 90 straight games UConn won in a row would feel vindicated. If the UConn women's team happened to win, then it would have been worth it to them. If they lose that game, then it will be a step back for women's sports in some respects.
I guarantee you it would get boffo TV ratings. At the very least, it would get bigger numbers than what the Huskies got for grinding Florida State into pepper flakes when they broke UCLA's consecutive win streak.
I realize ratings are the food that keeps networks going, but simply because this game would get good ratings doesn't mean it would be good for men's or women's college basketball. Sure, I would probably watch, and I don't want to sound cocky, but I don't think this would be good women's basketball because I think UConn would lose. Is it too much to ask that the Huskies accomplishment stands on its own? Why do these women have to compete against men?
No one is petitioning to see if the San Francisco Giants could beat the champions of the Japan league (though this would be somewhat different since it doesn't cross genders) to see how good they are, nor is anyone asking for women and men to compete against each other in other sports. It is not that bad keeping men's and women's sports separately instead of having them face off as if this answers every gender-based sports question for the next year.
It wouldn't matter who won the game.
No, I really think it would matter. Gene is telling us it wouldn't matter if the women beat the men or if the men beat the women? No matter the outcome, it matters and conclusions will be drawn.
The game would be a gimmick, a chance to prove that women's basketball doesn't need to prove a thing
This is stupid. The game would be showing that women's basketball DOES have to prove a thing. They will have to prove they can beat the worst Division-I college basketball men's team. They will have to prove their sport isn't a sport of inferior athletes. Specifically in this case UConn would need to prove their run of 90 straight games is on par with the UCLA record during the John Wooden era. Having this game would be entirely about proving something.
Instead, you'd play the game for the right reason -- for the fun of it.
Aren't all athletic events designed to be played for the fun of it? Isn't that the point of sports?
I respect women's basketball, but the differences in the men's college basketball game and the women's college basketball game would be too much for them to overcome to beat a Division-I men's college basketball team. In a one game playoff, I think the men win.
Now an All-Star team of women's college basketball players versus the Centenary team may be a different story...maybe.
But he can't have it both ways. He can't break UCLA's historic 88-game win streak, say basketball is basketball, but then become a miserable bastard when I ask one simple question:
Could Auriemma's No. 1-ranked UConn women's team, winners of 90 (and counting) in a row, beat the 345th-ranked -- last in Jeff Sagarin's Division I computer ratings -- Centenary men's team, losers of 14 (and counting) in a row?
My answer is a simple no. Centenary only has four scholarship players so they could possibly be beat depending on how good the non-scholarship players are, but I think any Division-I team that has enough scholarship players to field a starting lineup could beat the UConn women's team. I don't say this out of sexism, but out of the acknowledgment there are physical differences the women's team could not overcome. Basketball is basketball, but basketball is also a sport where the physical differences in talented players shows up the most. A team that is physically more talented than another team (all things being equal) have a built-in advantage. That is what I think the case would be here. This isn't even including the discussion on the Centenary men's basketball team is athletic or more athletic than the UConn women's team."If I had 13 scholarship guys, I would say we would absolutely win," said first-year Centenary coach Adam Walsh. "Seeing that we're competing with four scholarship players, I don't know."
Walsh laughed when he said it, which is better than I expected. I expected him to slam down the phone or ask Tucker Carlson to demand I be executed.
Topical reference! References like this are what makes Gene such a great (bad) sportswriter.
Instead, it's about trying to quantify just how amazing the UConn women are -- and doing so in terms guys can understand.
Really, I don't know if it is that complicated. Can a men's Division-I college basketball team beat the very best women's basketball team? That's the question and I don't think it involves a difficult answer. What the UConn women have done is amazing in the context of women's college basketball, just like what high school football teams that go undefeated is admirable in the context of high school football. Outside of the context of high school football, say that team was to go against a Division-I program,. then the high school team would likely be out of its realm and lose.
Walsh has watched Auriemma's Huskies.
"They're pretty good," he said. "I don't think a men's scholarship program loses to them. But I've had that debate myself. I think most coaches have had that debate."
I feel bad for however many Division-I college basketball coaches are asking themselves if their team can beat the UConn Huskies women's basketball team. I know some nights it may feel like a real question to these coaches, but it doesn't even seem like a real question to me. There is more that goes into a successful team than height and athleticism, but I simply think in a 40 minute game the Centenary men's basketball team would wear down the UConn women's basketball team...as long as there wasn't a different set of rules when it comes to fouls and the physical play for the women."It'd be tough for us," said Walsh of a UConn-Centenary matchup. "I'm sure it'd be tough. I'm not dealing with scholarship guys. And that's no disrespect to the guys I have."
No, that is partial disrespect for the guys you have and mostly respect for the UConn women's team. It is partial disrespect for the guys on the team because athletically they should be able to beat a team of women (that isn't an All-Star team) and it is respect for the UConn's women's team because that team is really good and has been for a while.
Memphis beat the Gents by 64. Tulane beat them by 41 and LSU by 42. Marquette won by 29. Summit League opponent Oakland recently won by 27. Centenary plays hard, but it has only one player averaging double-figure points (Maxx Nakwaasah's 10.8). Its two tallest players (both 6-foot-8) average 1.5 and 1.4 points, respectively.
All of these teams are comprised of basketball players that are men. The Gents have two players that are 6'8" and though height isn't the end-all-be-all, these players each have a 3 inch height advantage over the tallest player on the UConn women's roster. So the Gents would have a clear rebounding advantage when those players are in the game. UConn has five players that are over six feet tall and Centenary has two players that are shorter than six feet tall and their weight ranges from 160 pounds to 245 pounds. I couldn't find the weights of the UConn women's basketball players, but I am assuming there isn't any player on the roster coming close to 245 pounds.
And Walsh's five leading scorers are 6-3, 6-6, 6-5, 6-0 and 6-1.
The entire starting lineup is not only comprised of men, who are probably stronger and more athletic than the UConn women's roster, but they are also all over six feet tall. This is an advantage when it comes to the UConn players getting a shot off on offense and rebounding. It is also an advantage when it comes time to substitute players into the game. Naturally, it will be more physically demanding for a women's team to play a men's team as compared to them playing a women's team, so I would assume the bench would be used more. The players coming off the UConn bench, like Samarie Walker, who plays the 5th most minutes on the team are going to have to also play at a high level to beat the men. It's not just about talent on each team, but the talent of the depth.
UConn's starting five goes 6-5 (Stefanie Dolson), 6-0 (Moore), 5-11 (Kelly Faris), 5-10 (Tiffany Hayes) and 5-7 (Bria Hartley).
I respect the hell out of Maya Moore but I question whether she can play power forward against a men's basketball team. That's the position she would have to guard and even against the smaller (for a power forward) presumed power forward for Centenary she would be giving up 5 inches. Take the fact they are talented women out of the equation and just look at the heights of the players for UConn and a team that is taller at every position would have an immediate perceived advantage in rebounding.
Throw in the fact they are women, even if they are highly athletic women, and they are still going against highly athletic men. So just on paper, it seems the men's team would have several physical advantages before even taking the court. Would UConn possibly give the Centenary team a run for their money? Maybe, but I think Centenary would win.
Tennis had Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs. Softball had pitcher Jennie Finch against major league players (they came, they saw, they whiffed).
This is a terrible comparison to Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs. Jennie Finch did throw well against major league players, but these players did not play softball. It's a different sport from baseball. I can understand the comparison if the major league players had trained for a period of time and played softball competitively, but hitting a softball is different from hitting a baseball. So while what Jennie Finch did was impressive, I am imagining if the major league players had dedicated their lives to hitting a softball they would have been able to hit her fairly effectively.
So why not the UConn women against a Division I or II or III men's team one of these days? Make it a preseason exhibition game. Designate a percentage of the proceeds to a charity of each program's choice. The V Foundation. Breast cancer research. Whatever. There are hundreds of worthy causes.
Because there is absolutely no upside to doing this. A Division-I men's team has no incentive to prove they can beat a women's basketball team. If they win, it was expected of them and if they lose they could possibly never recruit another basketball player again. Even when Centenary goes Division-III (which they are planning on doing), they may have a tough time recruiting. Sad...but true. There's no incentive for a Division-I team to set up this matchup.
UConn's women's basketball team has more incentive to set up a matchup, but not as much incentive as Gene would think. If the UConn women's team happened to lose, everyone who says negative things about women's basketball and the streak of 90 straight games UConn won in a row would feel vindicated. If the UConn women's team happened to win, then it would have been worth it to them. If they lose that game, then it will be a step back for women's sports in some respects.
I guarantee you it would get boffo TV ratings. At the very least, it would get bigger numbers than what the Huskies got for grinding Florida State into pepper flakes when they broke UCLA's consecutive win streak.
I realize ratings are the food that keeps networks going, but simply because this game would get good ratings doesn't mean it would be good for men's or women's college basketball. Sure, I would probably watch, and I don't want to sound cocky, but I don't think this would be good women's basketball because I think UConn would lose. Is it too much to ask that the Huskies accomplishment stands on its own? Why do these women have to compete against men?
No one is petitioning to see if the San Francisco Giants could beat the champions of the Japan league (though this would be somewhat different since it doesn't cross genders) to see how good they are, nor is anyone asking for women and men to compete against each other in other sports. It is not that bad keeping men's and women's sports separately instead of having them face off as if this answers every gender-based sports question for the next year.
It wouldn't matter who won the game.
No, I really think it would matter. Gene is telling us it wouldn't matter if the women beat the men or if the men beat the women? No matter the outcome, it matters and conclusions will be drawn.
The game would be a gimmick, a chance to prove that women's basketball doesn't need to prove a thing
This is stupid. The game would be showing that women's basketball DOES have to prove a thing. They will have to prove they can beat the worst Division-I college basketball men's team. They will have to prove their sport isn't a sport of inferior athletes. Specifically in this case UConn would need to prove their run of 90 straight games is on par with the UCLA record during the John Wooden era. Having this game would be entirely about proving something.
Instead, you'd play the game for the right reason -- for the fun of it.
Aren't all athletic events designed to be played for the fun of it? Isn't that the point of sports?
I respect women's basketball, but the differences in the men's college basketball game and the women's college basketball game would be too much for them to overcome to beat a Division-I men's college basketball team. In a one game playoff, I think the men win.
Now an All-Star team of women's college basketball players versus the Centenary team may be a different story...maybe.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
4 comments Gene Wojciechowski Must Think the NFL Season Is 6 Weeks Long
Gene Wojciechowski has decided to write a column after the first two weeks of the NFL season and separate all of the teams into three categories: The doomed, the desperate and the dominant teams. He did this after two weeks. You may be saying in his defense, "but Bengoodfella three weeks have been played now and Gene possibly could be showing early signs of dementia." My answers are "you are right" and "I think it is just his writing style."
Much like the very idea of "The Herminator," this idea is dumb, (though "the Herminator" is much, much, much, much, much more dumb. Look at it on YouTube and see if Herm Edwards ever will coach anywhere ever again) the idea of teams being out of it or dominant already after two weeks is useless and any attempt to say otherwise will only fail...like Gene did.
The NFL is so predictable. Seriously, who couldn't have seen the Philadelphia Eagles trading their Pro Bowl quarterback to a division rival, handing the job to his franchise-groomed backup and then ditching the detailed succession plan essentially after the first two quarters of the season opener? I mean, duhhhh.
I get it. Sarcasm. The NFL is not predictable. Regardless of whether this column is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, which I don't think, it is impossible to gauge really so I will assume Gene is being serious. Besides, if any of these predictions came true Gene would take credit for having said it.
Up is down. Snelling is Turner.
Not really. Michael Turner had 30 carries in Sunday's football game. It's too early to really base any solid conclusions off two games being played.
Anyway, it's never too soon to break down the league into three distinct early season categories: The Doomed ... The Desperate ... The Dominant.
Because when a season is 12.5% complete, there is so little room for movement it makes sense to break teams into distinct categories...assuming you are a lazy journalist of course. As proof of how pointless this exercise/column is, only one week has gone by and already Gene's predictions are off-base.
The Doomed
Cowboys -- Deader than Don Draper's secretary.
Current pop culture reference! Watch out Bill Simmons!
Wade Phillips rules with a Jell-O fist, his team had as many rushing first downs as penalties last week (six) and an 0-3 start is a distinct possibility, what with Sunday's road game against unbeaten Houston.
Naturally, the Cowboys beat the Texans who (spoiler alert) are on the "dominant" list that Gene made. Inaccuracy thy name is Gene.
The fact it was a road game didn't mean much since Houston is in the same state as Dallas and the Cowboys are overwhelmingly the more established team so it means there were probably a few Cowboys fans in attendance in Houston. Still, Gene thought they are doomed.
Since 1990, 22 teams have started 0-2 and still reached the playoffs. Three of the 22 won a Super Bowl.
Or maybe the Cowboys aren't doomed? Statistically, every year one team starts 0-2 and makes the playoffs. So I guess the Cowboys aren't doomed.
Rams -- The Rams aren't going to win many games, but at least rookie QB Sam Bradford looks like a keeper.
I don't really understand the difference in a doomed team and a desperate team. I would think doomed teams are also desperate. I also believe the Rams aren't a playoff team, but they play in the wide open NFC West and they beat the Redskins (who are on Gene's dominant list...yet another fail for him) this week. Pretty much anything can happen in the NFC West and I wouldn't rule the Rams out at this point. Here are some of the crappy teams the Rams play this year.
Lions
Panthers
Buccaneers
49ers (twice)
Cardinals
Are they really doomed? Not to sound like Joe Morgan, but it really is too early to tell.
Panthers -- John Fox is respected by his coaching peers, but it looks like he's going to need some cardboard boxes, Styrofoam bubbles and packing tape soon. A team with Steve Smith, DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart scored seven points against Tampa Bay last week.
If only football was a three man sport and a quarterback and 2nd receiver wasn't required for a team to be successful...then Gene would have a point. It's hard to run against nine men in the box and hard to throw with bad quarterback play and one good receiver.
Titans -- The AFC South is a two-team race and the Titans aren't one of the two teams.
Even though they do have the same record as the two dominant teams (yet again, Gene fails on this list. It's like he just randomly put teams in each category) that are in their division. The Colts, Texans, and Titans are now 2-1, yet after two weeks Gene was able to know the Titans are doomed while the other two teams are dominant.
The Desperate
49ers -- I'm with Mr. Eyes-Bulging-From-Their-Sockets, Mike Singletary: the Niners are still going to win this division. The turnaround begins Sunday at Kansas City.
If by "turnaround" Gene means "losing by 21 points and in a miserable fashion" then he hit the nail on the head. This is why it is not smart to list teams into distinct categories after only two weeks of games in a 16 game season.
Vikings -- Brett Favre already has four interceptions in two games. Any chance the Vikes could run the same offense he runs in those Wrangler ads? Favre completes passes in those TV games. And, oh: Get well soon, Sidney Rice.
I'm not going to defend the Vikings, but they do get Sidney Rice back at some point and they still have Adrian Peterson.
Giants -- Antrel Rolle, who's been a Giant for about 20 minutes, is already popping off about the stifling, control-freak nature of coach Tom Coughlin. Coughlin's no-nonsense rule is a surprise how? Rolle is chirping. Brandon Jacobs is heaving helmets. And the Titans' Chris Johnson comes to town Sunday.
I like how Gene puts the Titans in the doomed category and then when he talks about Giants outlook for the rest of the year he mentions that Chris Johnson (who plays for the Titans and should be taken into account in his ranking of them) is coming to town. So the Titans are doomed, but not really because they have Chris Johnson.
Jets -- I know they beat the Patriots, but they go to Miami without Revis Island, without knucklehead Braylon Edwards in the starting lineup and without a good reason to think they won't be 1-2.
Other than the fact they did beat Miami and are now 2-1 and not 1-2. I wish I was as smart as Gene and could tell how the entire NFL season would play out after 2 games.
Falcons -- There's a lot to like about the Falcons. There will more to like if they beat the New Orleans Saints in the Who Dat Dome.
How can a team that was 1-1 and lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh 15-9 be a desperate team? They aren't, which is why they beat the Saints this weekend in New Orleans. This column is just a bunch of fail with words.
Seahawks -- Is the Matt Hasselbeck era winding down? He's one of my faves, but those three interceptions against Denver left a bruise mark.
Do we have to ask the question of whether Matt Hasselbeck's era in Seattle is winding down? He's 35 years old and has had back issues. Yes, the era is winding down quite obviously. Seattle, may be desperate in the opinion of Gene, but they also seem to be the best team in the NFC West. Of course there are only three weeks that have gone by in the NFL season so I wouldn't write a column saying this necessarily...because that would be presumptive and stupid.
Last week the Seahawks beat the Chargers, another team Gene put in the dominant category. He's not very good at this.
In fact, of the nine teams Gene has put in the dominant category, six of them lost last week and two of them lost to teams from Gene's "doomed" category, three of them lost to a team from Gene's "desperate" category and only one team lost to another "dominant" team. Somehow Gene has found a group of rankings that are even more pointless and useless than power rankings.
The Dominant
Redskins -- Yeah, I know. They just blew a fourth-quarter lead at home and the running game is on a skim milk carton. So maybe dominant isn't the right word.
If dominant isn't the right word then why did Gene put the Redskins in the dominant category? I hope he understands he has full control of these rankings. They aren't handed down on high from some non-all-knowing God who is too stupid to realize the NFL season was only two weeks old when this was written.
But the more I see of the Cowboys, the Giants and Donovan McNabb, the more I like the Redskins' chances to win the division or get a wild-card spot.
Gene has ranked every NFC East team other than the Redskins in the desperate or doomed category, but thinks the team he ranked in the dominant category could win the Wild Card. Wouldn't it make sense that if they are the only dominant team in the NFC East they would win the NFC East?
Chargers -- Rookie RB Ryan Mathews isn't going to fumble every game, is he? Key stat last week for the Chargers: They forced six turnovers.
Gene has now put a 1-2 team with one loss to a division rival in the dominant category. They have two road losses so far. Dominant teams win on the road.
Packers -- Make your list of the five most dominant defensive players this season. Clay Matthews better be on it.
No person in their right mind would make a list of the five most dominant defensive players in the NFL this season after two games have been played. I guess the key phrase is "in their right mind."
And who said regular-season games don't matter in the NFL? Pack at Soldier Field on Monday night.
I am pretty sure no one said regular season games don't matter in the NFL. There are only 16 games overall so regular season games matter a lot. No one would probably ever say that regular season NFL games don't matter...at least I don't think so.
Ok, now I want to know. Really. Who said regular season games don't matter in the NFL?
Or was this a false premise that Gene put out there to debunk in order to show how important the Packers-Bears game was on Monday night?
"Who said the Colts are never going to win another football game this year?"
"Who said Tom Brady was going to get benched this year?"
"Who said the Bills are a playoff team?"
Dolphins -- I knew I should have picked them to win the division. I wussed out.
The Dolphins lost last week to one of Gene's desperate teams.
Saints -- Niners running back Frank Gore was right: San Francisco whupped the Saints up and down the field. And yet the Saints still found a way to win. In Drew Brees, I always trust.
The Saints are 2-1 with 3-1 staring them straight in the face, but they have been outplayed in two of the three games this year and now Drew Brees seems to have a knee injury. I still count them as a dominant team, but I wouldn't worry about Drew Brees as much as I would worry about the rest of the team. The Saints are still a great team, but Brees has been on the team in past seasons when they haven't been a dominant team.
I think Gene couldn't think of a column idea and so he just wrote this. I am hoping he immediately regretted it being published.
Much like the very idea of "The Herminator," this idea is dumb, (though "the Herminator" is much, much, much, much, much more dumb. Look at it on YouTube and see if Herm Edwards ever will coach anywhere ever again) the idea of teams being out of it or dominant already after two weeks is useless and any attempt to say otherwise will only fail...like Gene did.
The NFL is so predictable. Seriously, who couldn't have seen the Philadelphia Eagles trading their Pro Bowl quarterback to a division rival, handing the job to his franchise-groomed backup and then ditching the detailed succession plan essentially after the first two quarters of the season opener? I mean, duhhhh.
I get it. Sarcasm. The NFL is not predictable. Regardless of whether this column is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, which I don't think, it is impossible to gauge really so I will assume Gene is being serious. Besides, if any of these predictions came true Gene would take credit for having said it.
Up is down. Snelling is Turner.
Not really. Michael Turner had 30 carries in Sunday's football game. It's too early to really base any solid conclusions off two games being played.
Anyway, it's never too soon to break down the league into three distinct early season categories: The Doomed ... The Desperate ... The Dominant.
Because when a season is 12.5% complete, there is so little room for movement it makes sense to break teams into distinct categories...assuming you are a lazy journalist of course. As proof of how pointless this exercise/column is, only one week has gone by and already Gene's predictions are off-base.
The Doomed
Cowboys -- Deader than Don Draper's secretary.
Current pop culture reference! Watch out Bill Simmons!
Wade Phillips rules with a Jell-O fist, his team had as many rushing first downs as penalties last week (six) and an 0-3 start is a distinct possibility, what with Sunday's road game against unbeaten Houston.
Naturally, the Cowboys beat the Texans who (spoiler alert) are on the "dominant" list that Gene made. Inaccuracy thy name is Gene.
The fact it was a road game didn't mean much since Houston is in the same state as Dallas and the Cowboys are overwhelmingly the more established team so it means there were probably a few Cowboys fans in attendance in Houston. Still, Gene thought they are doomed.
Since 1990, 22 teams have started 0-2 and still reached the playoffs. Three of the 22 won a Super Bowl.
Or maybe the Cowboys aren't doomed? Statistically, every year one team starts 0-2 and makes the playoffs. So I guess the Cowboys aren't doomed.
Rams -- The Rams aren't going to win many games, but at least rookie QB Sam Bradford looks like a keeper.
I don't really understand the difference in a doomed team and a desperate team. I would think doomed teams are also desperate. I also believe the Rams aren't a playoff team, but they play in the wide open NFC West and they beat the Redskins (who are on Gene's dominant list...yet another fail for him) this week. Pretty much anything can happen in the NFC West and I wouldn't rule the Rams out at this point. Here are some of the crappy teams the Rams play this year.
Lions
Panthers
Buccaneers
49ers (twice)
Cardinals
Are they really doomed? Not to sound like Joe Morgan, but it really is too early to tell.
Panthers -- John Fox is respected by his coaching peers, but it looks like he's going to need some cardboard boxes, Styrofoam bubbles and packing tape soon. A team with Steve Smith, DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart scored seven points against Tampa Bay last week.
If only football was a three man sport and a quarterback and 2nd receiver wasn't required for a team to be successful...then Gene would have a point. It's hard to run against nine men in the box and hard to throw with bad quarterback play and one good receiver.
Titans -- The AFC South is a two-team race and the Titans aren't one of the two teams.
Even though they do have the same record as the two dominant teams (yet again, Gene fails on this list. It's like he just randomly put teams in each category) that are in their division. The Colts, Texans, and Titans are now 2-1, yet after two weeks Gene was able to know the Titans are doomed while the other two teams are dominant.
The Desperate
49ers -- I'm with Mr. Eyes-Bulging-From-Their-Sockets, Mike Singletary: the Niners are still going to win this division. The turnaround begins Sunday at Kansas City.
If by "turnaround" Gene means "losing by 21 points and in a miserable fashion" then he hit the nail on the head. This is why it is not smart to list teams into distinct categories after only two weeks of games in a 16 game season.
Vikings -- Brett Favre already has four interceptions in two games. Any chance the Vikes could run the same offense he runs in those Wrangler ads? Favre completes passes in those TV games. And, oh: Get well soon, Sidney Rice.
I'm not going to defend the Vikings, but they do get Sidney Rice back at some point and they still have Adrian Peterson.
Giants -- Antrel Rolle, who's been a Giant for about 20 minutes, is already popping off about the stifling, control-freak nature of coach Tom Coughlin. Coughlin's no-nonsense rule is a surprise how? Rolle is chirping. Brandon Jacobs is heaving helmets. And the Titans' Chris Johnson comes to town Sunday.
I like how Gene puts the Titans in the doomed category and then when he talks about Giants outlook for the rest of the year he mentions that Chris Johnson (who plays for the Titans and should be taken into account in his ranking of them) is coming to town. So the Titans are doomed, but not really because they have Chris Johnson.
Jets -- I know they beat the Patriots, but they go to Miami without Revis Island, without knucklehead Braylon Edwards in the starting lineup and without a good reason to think they won't be 1-2.
Other than the fact they did beat Miami and are now 2-1 and not 1-2. I wish I was as smart as Gene and could tell how the entire NFL season would play out after 2 games.
Falcons -- There's a lot to like about the Falcons. There will more to like if they beat the New Orleans Saints in the Who Dat Dome.
How can a team that was 1-1 and lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh 15-9 be a desperate team? They aren't, which is why they beat the Saints this weekend in New Orleans. This column is just a bunch of fail with words.
Seahawks -- Is the Matt Hasselbeck era winding down? He's one of my faves, but those three interceptions against Denver left a bruise mark.
Do we have to ask the question of whether Matt Hasselbeck's era in Seattle is winding down? He's 35 years old and has had back issues. Yes, the era is winding down quite obviously. Seattle, may be desperate in the opinion of Gene, but they also seem to be the best team in the NFC West. Of course there are only three weeks that have gone by in the NFL season so I wouldn't write a column saying this necessarily...because that would be presumptive and stupid.
Last week the Seahawks beat the Chargers, another team Gene put in the dominant category. He's not very good at this.
In fact, of the nine teams Gene has put in the dominant category, six of them lost last week and two of them lost to teams from Gene's "doomed" category, three of them lost to a team from Gene's "desperate" category and only one team lost to another "dominant" team. Somehow Gene has found a group of rankings that are even more pointless and useless than power rankings.
The Dominant
Redskins -- Yeah, I know. They just blew a fourth-quarter lead at home and the running game is on a skim milk carton. So maybe dominant isn't the right word.
If dominant isn't the right word then why did Gene put the Redskins in the dominant category? I hope he understands he has full control of these rankings. They aren't handed down on high from some non-all-knowing God who is too stupid to realize the NFL season was only two weeks old when this was written.
But the more I see of the Cowboys, the Giants and Donovan McNabb, the more I like the Redskins' chances to win the division or get a wild-card spot.
Gene has ranked every NFC East team other than the Redskins in the desperate or doomed category, but thinks the team he ranked in the dominant category could win the Wild Card. Wouldn't it make sense that if they are the only dominant team in the NFC East they would win the NFC East?
Chargers -- Rookie RB Ryan Mathews isn't going to fumble every game, is he? Key stat last week for the Chargers: They forced six turnovers.
Gene has now put a 1-2 team with one loss to a division rival in the dominant category. They have two road losses so far. Dominant teams win on the road.
Packers -- Make your list of the five most dominant defensive players this season. Clay Matthews better be on it.
No person in their right mind would make a list of the five most dominant defensive players in the NFL this season after two games have been played. I guess the key phrase is "in their right mind."
And who said regular-season games don't matter in the NFL? Pack at Soldier Field on Monday night.
I am pretty sure no one said regular season games don't matter in the NFL. There are only 16 games overall so regular season games matter a lot. No one would probably ever say that regular season NFL games don't matter...at least I don't think so.
Ok, now I want to know. Really. Who said regular season games don't matter in the NFL?
Or was this a false premise that Gene put out there to debunk in order to show how important the Packers-Bears game was on Monday night?
"Who said the Colts are never going to win another football game this year?"
"Who said Tom Brady was going to get benched this year?"
"Who said the Bills are a playoff team?"
Dolphins -- I knew I should have picked them to win the division. I wussed out.
The Dolphins lost last week to one of Gene's desperate teams.
Saints -- Niners running back Frank Gore was right: San Francisco whupped the Saints up and down the field. And yet the Saints still found a way to win. In Drew Brees, I always trust.
The Saints are 2-1 with 3-1 staring them straight in the face, but they have been outplayed in two of the three games this year and now Drew Brees seems to have a knee injury. I still count them as a dominant team, but I wouldn't worry about Drew Brees as much as I would worry about the rest of the team. The Saints are still a great team, but Brees has been on the team in past seasons when they haven't been a dominant team.
I think Gene couldn't think of a column idea and so he just wrote this. I am hoping he immediately regretted it being published.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
4 comments Gene Wojciechowski Is The First To Write A "Here's How You Fix The MLB All-Star Game" Column
Every year about this time sportswriters start getting bored and trying to figure out ways to fix the MLB All-Star Game. Gene Wojciechowski deserves some congratulations because he is the first sportswriter I have seen to write this type column for 2010. As if to rub his achievement in, he writes it in the form of an open letter, or something that looks like an open letter, which is probably one of the laziest forms of sportswriting. Some of the solutions aren't terrible (while some are), but I have grown tired of the yearly "let's fix the All-Star Game" columns.
If you want to make the All-Star Game relevant again, here are the solutions to your problem:
It's the first sentence of the column and I already am irritated slightly. The All-Star game is relevant because it decides which league gets home field advantage in the World Series. That makes the All-Star Game relevant. We need solutions on how the All-Star Game can deserve to be relevant. Personally, I think the All-Star Game as a format is completely outdated and worked better when fans didn't have satellite television and MLB Network to watch any game of their choosing and did not get to see players play any time they wanted. The purpose originally was to see players who fans didn't normally get to see play together and have a competition to see which league was better. Free agency, the opening of rosters to where each team has a player included, and time has caused the game to lose its luster. I don't think it is coming back either.
Still, let's hear Gene's solutions to "fix" the All-Star Game.
Instant replay
For starters, you have months to scout out the perfect positions for replay cameras at the All-Star Game stadium.
It really wouldn't take months to figure this out. Television cameras presently catch the replays during games very well. It would take maybe a day to figure the camera placement for instant replay out.
Balls and strikes belong to the umpires, but everything else is reviewable. The managers each get, say, three challenges during the first nine innings and one additional challenge if the game goes into extras.
Son of a bitch! Three challenges during the first 9 innings of the game for both managers? Has Gene ever seen a baseball game? There is maybe one semi-controversial call per game, much less six plays that would need to be challenged during a typical 9 inning game that doesn't involve balls and strikes.
Holy crap, three replays per manager is a huge amount. Seriously, has Gene watched a baseball game lately?
If it works -- and it will -- then you prove to the traditionalists that the human element of umpiring can coexist with replay.
You can do this during a regular season game as well. I don't get why the experimentation of instant replay works in an exhibition game that isn't really an exhibition game rather than in a regular season game.
The point of replay is to get the call right. Nothing else should matter.
Agreed, though I don't see how the All-Star Game is the best chance to experiment with instant replay...but three challenges for each manager? That's a lot.
Metal bats
Metal bats being used in the All-Star Game is perhaps the worst idea in this column and that is saying a lot. I don't care to see a home run derby. The official Home Run Derby I don't watch prior to the All-Star Game is boring enough for me as it is. Metal bats in the hands of professional baseball players is a terrible, terrible idea. The players don't want to use them and shouldn't have to. If a pitcher got hit by a ball off a metal bat during an exhibition game...well I would hate to be Bud Selig trying to explain to the General Manager of the Phillies why Roy Halladay had to face batters who had metal bats when Halladay is missing a month and a half due to breaking his leg from a line drive hitting him.
Let the Home Run Derby contestants go aluminum and ping themselves silly. More dingers. More freakish distance.
The Home Run Derby is exciting for the first 5 minutes. Then it gets boring, tedious and makes me want to book a red eye flight to strangle the hell out of Chris Berman.
No more fan voting
It isn't the All-Popularity Game; it's the All-Star Game.
I am on the fence about fan voting. Fans are idiots and stuff the ballot for stupid players, but the game is also for the fans so the players they want to see start should be able to start. It sort of takes away the point of the All-Star game if the fan voting is taken away. I was always under the assumption the game is supposed to be for the fans, so naturally fans should vote for the players they want to see. This is why people who use All-Star Game appearances as a main criteria to say why a player should be in the Hall of Fame are idiots.
Did you realize you can vote online up to 25 times before the deadline of midnight, July 1? And depending on how many punch cards you scarf up at a major league stadium, a minor league game or a home improvement store (an official distribution site), you can stuff the ballot boxes full of votes for Mark Teixeira (.229, 12 home runs, 45 RBIs) instead of for Miguel Cabrera (.328, 19, 61).
I believe it is 25 times per day. The fan selection can be retarded, there is no doubt about that. Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, if ESPN didn't feature so many games that involved the New York Yankees or gave Miguel Cabrera a similar amount of coverage they give to Mark Teixeira more fans would vote for Miguel Cabrera. The same thing goes for Brennan Boesch. Perhaps if the media spent less time up the ass of Jason Heyward, they could figure out there is an equally good rookie outfielder in the American League.
Again, this is just a suggestion, but a writer for ESPN complaining that certain players aren't well enough known is very ironic to me. Naturally, the teams that win more games and are more popular are going to have players who get more votes.
So my careful, well-researched and performance-based vote for Cabrera doesn't have a chance against someone with a laptop or a chad fetish for Teixeira. Dumb.
But I want to hear from someone why you have to carefully research how well Cabrera is doing at the plate this year, while it is assumed Teixeira is having a good year. Why would fans (outside of Yankees fans) vote for Teixeira vote for him if he isn't having a good year? Why would many fans just assume Teixeira is having a good year, other than plain ignorance?
My solution: Bud Selig appoints a 12-person selection committee that chooses the starters. The committee would include a mixture of, say, Hall of Famers, members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, Bob Costas, Bill James, George Will (he's on every baseball-related commission or committee, so he might as well be on this one), someone from Baseball Prospectus and an advance scout or two.
Because we all know the BWAA is always spot-on with their analysis of players and who deserves certain honors and who doesn't deserve certain honors. It may be better to choose the All-Star Game with darts and a dartboard. The Hall of Famers probably know less than the fans (example #1: Joe Morgan) and what the hell does Bob Costas know about baseball that doesn't involve broadcasting it?
So rather than have the All-Star Game starters voted upon by the biases and perceptions of the fans who watch the games and players, we will have the starters voted on by the biases and perceptions of more famous people who watch the game and players. At this point, we are essentially switching the biases and perceptions of the average fan for the biases and perceptions of a different group of people.
You'd still have controversies, but I can live with those debates. And this way the selection show would have some meat on its bones.
I would agree that some of those people Gene listed could probably do a better job than the fans, but there is still going to be some curious selections to the All-Star team if Hall of Famers, Bob Costas, George Will and the BBWA get to vote...at least I would think so.
I love the assumption that fans are idiots when it comes to choosing the best players, but this doesn't go for the fans who read Gene's columns. Fans can be idiots when it comes to the All-Star voting, but I find it deeply ironic sportswriters like Gene believe those who fans who vote for the All-Star Game can't get accurately choose the best players, but he will be glad to use the pageviews he gets from these moronic fans who choose to read his columns to show ESPN what a great writer he is and how valuable he is to get a raise at his next annual review.
So people are idiots and can't make smart choices unless their idiocy serves some purpose.
Stephen Strasburg
Player vote
I've talked to players about their All-Star votes. Most of them try to make informed choices, but there are plenty who vote purely on reputation, or because they think a guy is a good dude, or because they're trying to keep somebody else off the roster.
I am sure players wouldn't be petty or vote for an umpire based on reputation. I am sure players wouldn't punish an umpire who is good at his job but abrasive and difficult to talk to and reason with. Why not have the people who admit to having biases in voting for their peers vote for the umpires?
Stagger the starters
This is a terrible idea. So the backups would potentially play more than those players voted in to start the All-Star Game?
No more World Series home-field advantage
I like the idea behind it -- make the All-Star Game more meaningful -- but why would you want an RBI infield single by a Pittsburgh Pirate in July in Anaheim to be the reason the New York Yankees don't get home-field advantage in October?
I don't know. What is Gene's preference for what decides which team gets home field advantage in the playoffs? We will never know. This never fails to annoy me. It is fine to not like an idea, but if you can't think of a solution to the problem either, then you are just a part of the problem yourself. Gene may hate the idea, but he doesn't seem to have a better solution.
Ditch mandatory representation
Tweet
Let the players sitting on the bench or in the bullpen use Twitter during the game.
Why would I really care about what the players are thinking about during the game? I want to watch the All-Star Game for the actual game itself. I don't care to be entertained by the "hilarious" thoughts of the players.
We can read their tweets online, or Fox can scroll selected messages continuously at the bottom of the screen.
Gene does know we can read the player's Tweets online now, right? The last thing I want to see during any television viewing is more shit scrolling down at the bottom or top of my screen. I don't get how more visual distractions will make the All-Star Game more enjoyable for me.
Texts are good
And we, the fans, text our answers during the next 10 minutes. Girardi has to go with our vote. This way the manager picks the finalists, but we pick the pitcher.
So the fans aren't smart enough to vote the players into the All-Star game, but are plenty smart enough to decide which pitcher should face which hitter?
Bud and Joe Fan
Now if Gene was talking about letting fans sit on the bench of the NL/AL All-Star team, that may be a good idea but swanky seats are a good idea, but I don't know about sitting next to the commissioner.
I don't know if I even like the idea of ending mandatory representation because I feel like they will cause lesser players from better teams to end up on the All-Star team and cause players on teams that aren't winning as much to be overlooked. If MLB could think of a better way to determine home field advantage, other than the obvious (and best) idea of giving it to the team with the best record, than I think they should go with it.
If you want to make the All-Star Game relevant again, here are the solutions to your problem:
It's the first sentence of the column and I already am irritated slightly. The All-Star game is relevant because it decides which league gets home field advantage in the World Series. That makes the All-Star Game relevant. We need solutions on how the All-Star Game can deserve to be relevant. Personally, I think the All-Star Game as a format is completely outdated and worked better when fans didn't have satellite television and MLB Network to watch any game of their choosing and did not get to see players play any time they wanted. The purpose originally was to see players who fans didn't normally get to see play together and have a competition to see which league was better. Free agency, the opening of rosters to where each team has a player included, and time has caused the game to lose its luster. I don't think it is coming back either.
Still, let's hear Gene's solutions to "fix" the All-Star Game.
Instant replay
If ever there was a game in which to experiment and expand the use of instant replay, this is it. I mean, what's the downside? That the umpires might get their feelings hurt?
I don't see why instant replay would be experimented with in the All-Star Game rather than a regular season game. The All-Star Game winner decides which league gets home field advantage in the World Series, so it is probably better if there isn't too much experimentation during this game. While a Texas-Seattle game where one game in the standings is on the line is probably a better place to experiment with instant replay. Why choose the game where home field advantage in the World Series lies to experiment with new concepts?For starters, you have months to scout out the perfect positions for replay cameras at the All-Star Game stadium.
It really wouldn't take months to figure this out. Television cameras presently catch the replays during games very well. It would take maybe a day to figure the camera placement for instant replay out.
Balls and strikes belong to the umpires, but everything else is reviewable. The managers each get, say, three challenges during the first nine innings and one additional challenge if the game goes into extras.
Son of a bitch! Three challenges during the first 9 innings of the game for both managers? Has Gene ever seen a baseball game? There is maybe one semi-controversial call per game, much less six plays that would need to be challenged during a typical 9 inning game that doesn't involve balls and strikes.
Holy crap, three replays per manager is a huge amount. Seriously, has Gene watched a baseball game lately?
If it works -- and it will -- then you prove to the traditionalists that the human element of umpiring can coexist with replay.
You can do this during a regular season game as well. I don't get why the experimentation of instant replay works in an exhibition game that isn't really an exhibition game rather than in a regular season game.
The point of replay is to get the call right. Nothing else should matter.
Agreed, though I don't see how the All-Star Game is the best chance to experiment with instant replay...but three challenges for each manager? That's a lot.
Metal bats
Want to see a 600-foot home run? Me too.
Want to see someone die? I don't.Metal bats being used in the All-Star Game is perhaps the worst idea in this column and that is saying a lot. I don't care to see a home run derby. The official Home Run Derby I don't watch prior to the All-Star Game is boring enough for me as it is. Metal bats in the hands of professional baseball players is a terrible, terrible idea. The players don't want to use them and shouldn't have to. If a pitcher got hit by a ball off a metal bat during an exhibition game...well I would hate to be Bud Selig trying to explain to the General Manager of the Phillies why Roy Halladay had to face batters who had metal bats when Halladay is missing a month and a half due to breaking his leg from a line drive hitting him.
Let the Home Run Derby contestants go aluminum and ping themselves silly. More dingers. More freakish distance.
The Home Run Derby is exciting for the first 5 minutes. Then it gets boring, tedious and makes me want to book a red eye flight to strangle the hell out of Chris Berman.
No more fan voting
It isn't the All-Popularity Game; it's the All-Star Game.
I am on the fence about fan voting. Fans are idiots and stuff the ballot for stupid players, but the game is also for the fans so the players they want to see start should be able to start. It sort of takes away the point of the All-Star game if the fan voting is taken away. I was always under the assumption the game is supposed to be for the fans, so naturally fans should vote for the players they want to see. This is why people who use All-Star Game appearances as a main criteria to say why a player should be in the Hall of Fame are idiots.
Did you realize you can vote online up to 25 times before the deadline of midnight, July 1? And depending on how many punch cards you scarf up at a major league stadium, a minor league game or a home improvement store (an official distribution site), you can stuff the ballot boxes full of votes for Mark Teixeira (.229, 12 home runs, 45 RBIs) instead of for Miguel Cabrera (.328, 19, 61).
I believe it is 25 times per day. The fan selection can be retarded, there is no doubt about that. Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, if ESPN didn't feature so many games that involved the New York Yankees or gave Miguel Cabrera a similar amount of coverage they give to Mark Teixeira more fans would vote for Miguel Cabrera. The same thing goes for Brennan Boesch. Perhaps if the media spent less time up the ass of Jason Heyward, they could figure out there is an equally good rookie outfielder in the American League.
Again, this is just a suggestion, but a writer for ESPN complaining that certain players aren't well enough known is very ironic to me. Naturally, the teams that win more games and are more popular are going to have players who get more votes.
So my careful, well-researched and performance-based vote for Cabrera doesn't have a chance against someone with a laptop or a chad fetish for Teixeira. Dumb.
But I want to hear from someone why you have to carefully research how well Cabrera is doing at the plate this year, while it is assumed Teixeira is having a good year. Why would fans (outside of Yankees fans) vote for Teixeira vote for him if he isn't having a good year? Why would many fans just assume Teixeira is having a good year, other than plain ignorance?
My solution: Bud Selig appoints a 12-person selection committee that chooses the starters. The committee would include a mixture of, say, Hall of Famers, members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, Bob Costas, Bill James, George Will (he's on every baseball-related commission or committee, so he might as well be on this one), someone from Baseball Prospectus and an advance scout or two.
Because we all know the BWAA is always spot-on with their analysis of players and who deserves certain honors and who doesn't deserve certain honors. It may be better to choose the All-Star Game with darts and a dartboard. The Hall of Famers probably know less than the fans (example #1: Joe Morgan) and what the hell does Bob Costas know about baseball that doesn't involve broadcasting it?
So rather than have the All-Star Game starters voted upon by the biases and perceptions of the fans who watch the games and players, we will have the starters voted on by the biases and perceptions of more famous people who watch the game and players. At this point, we are essentially switching the biases and perceptions of the average fan for the biases and perceptions of a different group of people.
You'd still have controversies, but I can live with those debates. And this way the selection show would have some meat on its bones.
I would agree that some of those people Gene listed could probably do a better job than the fans, but there is still going to be some curious selections to the All-Star team if Hall of Famers, Bob Costas, George Will and the BBWA get to vote...at least I would think so.
I love the assumption that fans are idiots when it comes to choosing the best players, but this doesn't go for the fans who read Gene's columns. Fans can be idiots when it comes to the All-Star voting, but I find it deeply ironic sportswriters like Gene believe those who fans who vote for the All-Star Game can't get accurately choose the best players, but he will be glad to use the pageviews he gets from these moronic fans who choose to read his columns to show ESPN what a great writer he is and how valuable he is to get a raise at his next annual review.
So people are idiots and can't make smart choices unless their idiocy serves some purpose.
Stephen Strasburg
Do I even have to explain why?
Yes, you do. He has had five starts in the majors. If he is one of the 12 best pitchers than he should be in the All-Star Game. This does need to be explained.Player vote
Forget about the players voting for other players. Let them vote for the umpires.
What about a 12 man committee voting for the umpires? WHAT ABOUT A COMMITTEE INVOLVING BOB COSTAS? HE'S THE VOICE OF A GENERATION!I've talked to players about their All-Star votes. Most of them try to make informed choices, but there are plenty who vote purely on reputation, or because they think a guy is a good dude, or because they're trying to keep somebody else off the roster.
It can get that petty and arbitrary.
So these are definitely the people we need voting for the All-Star umpires.I am sure players wouldn't be petty or vote for an umpire based on reputation. I am sure players wouldn't punish an umpire who is good at his job but abrasive and difficult to talk to and reason with. Why not have the people who admit to having biases in voting for their peers vote for the umpires?
Stagger the starters
Instead of pulling all the starters by the fifth or sixth innings, use three in the first three innings, another three in innings four through six and another three in innings seven through nine. That way you always have at least three starters in the game.
Yeah, but this would ruin the entire purpose of the All-Star Game, which is to have all the best players on the field at the exact same time. What kind of honor would it be for a player to be voted into the All-Star Game if he gets to play the same amount of time as the backups, doesn't get to start the game, and enters the game after most East Coast viewers have gone to bed?This is a terrible idea. So the backups would potentially play more than those players voted in to start the All-Star Game?
No more World Series home-field advantage
MLB's heart was in the right place, but the All-Star Game shouldn't determine who gets to start the World Series at home.
I've always been pretty torn on whether the All-Star Game was the best place to determine which team gets home field advantage in the World Series. At least MLB tries to make the All-Star game relevant again. I still think home field advantage should go to the team that has the best record in the majors and if that is a tie then to the team with the best record in their division. This seems easier and allows the home field advantage to go to the team that has earned it the most.I like the idea behind it -- make the All-Star Game more meaningful -- but why would you want an RBI infield single by a Pittsburgh Pirate in July in Anaheim to be the reason the New York Yankees don't get home-field advantage in October?
I don't know. What is Gene's preference for what decides which team gets home field advantage in the playoffs? We will never know. This never fails to annoy me. It is fine to not like an idea, but if you can't think of a solution to the problem either, then you are just a part of the problem yourself. Gene may hate the idea, but he doesn't seem to have a better solution.
Ditch mandatory representation
This isn't the U.S. Senate. Not every team should get an automatic spot for one of its players.
Shouldn't this take care of the problem with home field advantage being decided by a Pittsburgh Pirate player having an RBI infield single that takes away home field advantage for the Yankees? If every team isn't forced to have a player represented in the All-Star Game shouldn't this ensure that only players who are good enough to play in the game could participate? Would it make everyone feel better about the All-Star Game deciding home field advantage in the World Series if Albert Pujols or the third-string All-Star shortstop gets an RBI base hit that takes away home field advantage for the Yankees?Tweet
Let the players sitting on the bench or in the bullpen use Twitter during the game.
Why would I really care about what the players are thinking about during the game? I want to watch the All-Star Game for the actual game itself. I don't care to be entertained by the "hilarious" thoughts of the players.
We can read their tweets online, or Fox can scroll selected messages continuously at the bottom of the screen.
Gene does know we can read the player's Tweets online now, right? The last thing I want to see during any television viewing is more shit scrolling down at the bottom or top of my screen. I don't get how more visual distractions will make the All-Star Game more enjoyable for me.
Texts are good
Girardi turns to the camera in the sixth inning and says, "If I have to bring in a new reliever in the eighth inning, who should I use? So-and-so or what's-his-name?"
This is just stupid. What if Girardi has 2 minutes to make the decision and not enough time to text out the question? What's the point of having a manager who appeared in the World Series the year before managing the All-Star team if he doesn't have a chance to actually make the changes he wants to make?And we, the fans, text our answers during the next 10 minutes. Girardi has to go with our vote. This way the manager picks the finalists, but we pick the pitcher.
So the fans aren't smart enough to vote the players into the All-Star game, but are plenty smart enough to decide which pitcher should face which hitter?
Bud and Joe Fan
Nine randomly chosen fans -- one for each inning -- get to sit next to the commish in his swanky seats during the game. Selig buys the beers.
Why would anyone want to pay for tickets to the All-Star Game and then not get to sit with the people they came to the game with? More importantly, why would a person want to waste an inning of their life sitting next to Bud Selig?Now if Gene was talking about letting fans sit on the bench of the NL/AL All-Star team, that may be a good idea but swanky seats are a good idea, but I don't know about sitting next to the commissioner.
I don't know if I even like the idea of ending mandatory representation because I feel like they will cause lesser players from better teams to end up on the All-Star team and cause players on teams that aren't winning as much to be overlooked. If MLB could think of a better way to determine home field advantage, other than the obvious (and best) idea of giving it to the team with the best record, than I think they should go with it.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
5 comments Gene Wojciechowski Has Trust Issues and Bill Plaschke Has Timing Issues
Recently, both Bill Plaschke and Gene Wojciechowski have written articles about the new fall-back option for sportswriters who don't have anything else to talk about. They write about Tiger Woods and his return to golf at the Masters. I am not sure if anyone has heard anything about this, but apparently Tiger Woods is making his non-triumphant return to competitive golf at the Masters. You may have missed this recently and just been confused as to why Rick Reilly was showing his face on television and actually being able to give an opinion. It's because he is an amateur Tiger Woods psychologist of course, plus ESPN has to get their money's worth out of Reilly at some point, and commenting on Tiger Woods seems to be the best way to do that.
Bill Plaschke has serious issues with where Tiger Woods has decided to return to the PGA Tour. He thinks Tiger should just ease back into golf at a different tournament, even though it is completely impossible for Tiger to ease into anything related to golf at this point. Bill still believes Tiger could ease his way back into golf and he says it in his own 1-2 sentence paragraph way.
Here's hoping it will be a more humble, humane Tiger Woods who takes his first official golf swings after spending five months mired in a sex scandal.
Here's to who gives a shit about a humble Tiger. I want to watch him hit a golf ball far and do fist pumps in excitement.
But, let's face it, only someone still bathed in delusions of grandeur would do so in a church.
Which is why he is doing it at a golf tournament. You wouldn't think a column that has 200 total words, 42 sentences and 39 paragraphs would need filler...apparently you would be wrong.
Good for him. But why Augusta?
Other than he loves playing in the tournament, it provides limited media access, and he is hoping the start of the baseball season and the end of the college basketball season overshadows his return? Also, other than it is a tournament which features a gallery that will probably not be heckling him too often? Other than those reasons, there is no reason to pick Augusta.
The Masters tournament is one of the last sports events that is bigger than any of the athletes who compete there. Woods' comeback will completely swallow it.
Unless you want to count the World Cup, the Super Bowl, the NCAA tournament, the Summer/Winter Olympics and various other sporting events that I can't think of right now, this is a true statement. More importantly, I would love to know where have some of the sports events that were bigger than the athletes gone? Did they disappear, and if so, I would love to know which sports events these were?
Forget the green jacket. The only article of clothing that will concern anyone will be something worn by Tiger Woods' wife Elin, if she attends.
She won't attend and it really doesn't matter. I never looked for her anyway and I bet 95% of the audience didn't give a shit if she was there 5 years ago and won't care if she is there for this tournament.
Forget Amen Corner. The most watched hole will be the one played by Woods, who will spend four days as the most witnessed landmark in Masters history.
As opposed to every other Masters when no one was paying attention to Tiger?
Bill Plaschke is completely ignoring the fact every hole Tiger Woods plays is the most watched hole and viewers watch tournaments on television and attend tournaments merely because Tiger will be present. So Tiger being the most watched golfer should have no bearing on whether the Master's was the correct place to start his PGA year. It was going to happen this way regardless of any outside circumstances because Woods is the most popular golfer in the world.
It is obvious why Woods chose this venue for his return. Remember his recent speech in front of friends and family, his completely controlled return to the public eye?
The following was the fourth paragraph and 4th sentence of this column:
Good for him. But why Augusta?
Bill has either answered his own question or he just can't remember what he has written a few paragraphs before.
It is obvious why Woods chose this venue for his return.
If it is obvious, then why does Bill Plaschke ask himself why Tiger chose Augusta?
Inside the Augusta gates, every move is regulated, every action monitored, every emotion corralled.
Is there any other golf tournament where spectators are expressly forbidden to ‘'run?'' It is surely the only golf tournament where running will result in the loss of your tickets.
It is the only sporting event where the number of credentialed media is kept at a low level and rarely changed. It is also the only golf event where the media is not allowed inside the ropes, allowing the golfers a sort of peace that they will not find anywhere else.
So now that Bill Plaschke has answered his own question, why would Tiger Woods not choose Augusta as the place of his return? As contradictory as this sounds, it is probably one of the lowest profile and least disrupting places on the PGA Tour to return to competitive golf for Woods.
Can we imagine the amount of press and disruption that would occur if Tiger had come back at the Shell Houston Open the week before the Masters or the Verizon Heritage the week after the Masters? Those tournaments aren't equipped to handle the amount of media coverage Tiger's return would have caused. There's no way it wouldn't have been a clusterfuck. Meanwhile, Augusta is well-equipped to handle this type of media pressure.
For Woods, this will be a sort of halfway house from heaven. But for the Masters, it could be four days — or maybe just two days? — of hell.
I am sure the Masters really hates the increased interest and focus on the tournament and CBS hates the ratings it will give them. How terrible! Everyone is interested in our tournament, what shall we ever do?
Every Woods news conference will be filled with the sort of talk that will stage the event as something other than a golf tournament.
This would have happened anywhere Tiger Woods chooses to make his comeback. This isn't a problem exclusive to the Masters.
His rounds will be taut with the expectation of distraction from a crowd that is famous for its forced etiquette. Yes, everyone is polite, but this is the Bible Belt, and they do serve beer, and who knows when this will become the U.S. Open in Bethpage?
I really have no idea what the Bible Belt and serving beer has to do with the crowd getting unruly. I realize Bill Plaschke gets most of his ideas about the South from movies like "Sweet Home Alabama" where everyone lives in a trailer, does Civil War re-enactments, has a dog, and is very kind but looks down on sinners...but outside of this Hollywood stereotype I don't think the moral police are going to be in the gallery looking down on Tiger Woods.
I hate to ruin his view of the South, but I don't expect there to be massive amounts of Tiger taunting going on from the gallery because they don't agree with his moral decisions. If I had to make a list of the most annoying Southern stereotypes, near the top of the list is that everyone in the South goes to church and passes judgment on others. I digress...
One can argue that Woods' presence would dominate any golf tournament. But it's not quite the same at the Masters.
One would also be exactly right if one made this argument.
While he's a four-time champion here, he has always been treated the same as everyone else here, just another stitch in golf's most glorious quilt.
Which is why they re-designed the course so that it would be more difficult for him to play well and give the other competitors a chance to beat Tiger. Other than re-designing the course for him, they treat Tiger the same as other golfers.
No Masters winner will ever be as forgotten as the guy who wins this year —and no, Woods is not going to win it. Every bit of fragrant air will be sucked up by the world's most famous fallen athlete looking for a soft landing.
Who won the Masters two years ago? I would bet 4 out of 10 people couldn't tell me. I had to actually look it up. My point is that Masters winners are forgotten for various reasons, like sometimes no one has heard of the winner prior to his Masters victory and also because time has a way of taking our memory away. Regardless, Masters winners will be forgotten and this year's winner would be no different if Tiger was in the tournament or not.
Hell, more people may remember who won this Masters because they watched since Tiger was playing in it.
Woods could have avoided turning Augusta into a circus by sending in the clowns a couple of weeks earlier. He could have started his comeback at next week's Arnold Palmer Invitational, which he has won the last two years and six times overall.
This event could probably not handle the media crush that would ascend on the tournament and this tournament would be turned on it's head. Plus, then Bill Plaschke would write an article about how it was wrong for Tiger to return to golf at a tournament named for the God-like Arnold Palmer. Bill would probably also accuse Tiger of smearing Palmer's name by coming back at his tournament.
I know he is filthy cheater (like 80% of athletes), but if Tiger wants to play at the Masters and they don't mind him playing...let him play.
It would have been nuts, but then it would have been over, and he could have walked into Augusta National in the quiet shadows of the pines and dogwoods like everyone else.
Bill Plaschke is living in a fantasy land if he thinks Tiger Woods could walk the grounds of Augusta National at any point in the past or future like everyone else. He was always, and will always be, the main draw. The same questions asked of him at the clusterfuck that would be the Arnold Palmer Invitational would be asked at Augusta.
Plaschke does realize Tiger Woods was the most popular golfer before this whole cheating incident doesn't he?
Then again, maybe the Augusta National nobles deserve this. After all these years of excluding women, their club is about to be stolen by a guy running from them.
Yes, maybe the Masters deserves the indignity of Tiger Woods making this the most-watched and relevant golf tournament of this year. How will they ever survive?
-Gene Wojciechowski just can't trust Tiger Woods anymore and he is greatly broken up over this fact.
For years, Tiger Woods deceived himself, his wife, his mother, his in-laws, his children, his friends, his sponsors, his peers, his entourage, his fans, the media and even his mistresses. So while I'd love to jump headfirst into the new Tiger Pond of Trust, it's going to take more than Monday's 34-minute news conference to make me a full believer.
Apparently this is Gene's first head-on collision with the fact people, lie, and cheat to serve their own measures. Really if he was jaded and negative about the world he probably wouldn't be so hurt by this.
I want to believe, I really do. It's in our DNA to see someone's better angels, to take the leap of faith from distrust to trust.
Actually, it is in the media's DNA to never believe someone even when they are claiming to be telling the truth. An apology is never good enough because it will either sound too rehearsed or not sincere enough.
There were 48 questions. But there weren't 48 answers. At times, New Tiger reverted to Old Tiger -- that is, he laid up on the truth.
I always find it hilarious the media somehow believes that Tiger Woods owes me and the rest of the world an apology or the truth. It is as if there is some warped sense that because we cheered for him in sports, he has done us wrong personally by transgressions in his personal life and our lives are forever changed. If true, this would be pathetic, but fortunately it is not true at all.
He hit a 3-iron when he could have, should have, hit driver with his explanations and words.
This is very simple. I just don't get what else Tiger has to say. Does he have to paint the world a fucking picture of what happened, does he need to bust out with a PowerPoint presentation and outline his transgressions, and why does he have to tell the world everything? Why can't those asking the questions just use their imagination on what happened on that November night and draw their own conclusions based on what Tiger has said previously? More importantly, why the hell should I care about the truth? This is a personal matter.
I want to watch Tiger Woods hit the golf ball and that's not shallow, that's his job. He is a fallible human being and any attempt to paint him in a different light is a fantasy. I treat Tiger Woods shallowly. I want to watch him hit a golf ball, fist pump and generally play golf well because this entertains me. I want to use him for this. Good for him if he works his personal stuff out, but the truth only distracts from the fact I want to be entertained and enjoy watching him play golf. All the other stuff can go away.
Monday is the day we discovered that Woods tore his right Achilles late in 2008. It's the day he admitted he took the painkiller Vicodin and the sleep aid Ambien. It's the day he denied ever taking human growth hormone or performance enhancing drugs.
See, this is the type of boring stuff I personally don't care about when discussing Tiger Woods. For me, the truth is boring and not relevant to my use for Tiger Woods...which is to be able to watch him play golf.
Exactly. Woods has a long and creepy history of deception. He didn't live a secret life; he lived a dozen of them. It took 16 months before we found out about the torn Achilles.
Why is the torn Achilles a big deal at all and why do we need to know the truth about that? Football players have injuries all the time they don't reveal publicly for competitive reasons, why should golfers be any different? Is it really that important he doesn't reveal he has a torn Achilles? Is there a golfing injury rule that I don't know about, where golfers are required to reveal their injuries?
My point is that Gene cares about Tiger telling the truth about shit that isn't even relevant to the Masters, Tiger cheating, or anything else. How can a torn Achilles in late 2008 matter right now? As far as showing a pattern of lying, this is weak evidence, because athletes cover up the true nature of injuries all the time.
It took weeks before we found out that federal investigators have contacted his agent about Woods' medical relationship with Galea. It took years and years before we found about the mistresses.
Are we his parents? Is the fan's role to condone or not condone an athlete's actions? I don't think so. Gene is acting like a 10 year old boy who has been let down by his favorite baseball player. I feel like he wants to curl up in bed and cry until dinnertime.
Isn't it fair to wonder what else Woods hasn't mentioned from his past?
Sure, but it is not relevant. What if we find out Tiger isn't deeply involved with making the video game that has his name on it? Will this change my life forever? Should I really give a shit? Am I asking too many closed-ended questions?
I don't need or want details of his affairs, or an Elin/marriage update.
Apparently you do require this.
I needed better than, "I did everything to the letter of the law," when asked why he didn't speak with Florida law enforcement investigators last December.
Maybe he is still hiding something. Most likely it doesn't matter.
And I definitely needed better than Woods saying he's learned the importance of perspective after the death of his father, the birth of his children and now the implosion of his personal life and carefully crafted public image.
Yes, in the past he has not learned from his mistakes, but this is also the first time he has been called on those mistakes, so this is the first time he has had to learn from them. So Tiger was saying after all of those events, he has now learned perspective and we can't really question that statement because he hasn't slipped up again.
Peace and Woods haven't been in the same tee box for who knows how long. He says rehab has made a difference, but, sigh, he wouldn't even say what kind of rehab program he completed.
Now the fact Tiger Woods won't reveal the exact nature of the rehab program isn't a private matter, but a reason we can't trust him. Whereas in the past I think we could all move on past the exact nature of the rehab program, it can't happen during this point in time. Journalists feel like they have to know the full story or else they don't know any of the story. They don't have to turn a blind eye, but need to say, "okay he is not telling us the answer to this question, is it really important to get the answer?" I think this is the point where sports journalism becomes sports tabloid journalism.
People want to believe in Woods. That much was evident as he played his Monday morning practice round. The patrons were polite, supportive, but I thought a little more subdued than usual.
Right, because usually the Masters gallery is rowdy and excessively loud. The definition of a golf gallery is usually, "polite, supportive, and subdued." Especially for a practice round.
Honesty -- what a concept. Woods has gone from baby steps to fuller steps, but I'm still not prepared to take that full Tiger plunge. Let's see if he actually acts differently on and off the course.
If he plans on cheating again, he will be much more careful this time. So I don't think we are going to get a great glimpse at him acting differently off the course. Think about it, he was cheating IN PUBLIC with multiple women, some of which were semi-public figures, and it never really came out before late November of this year. What makes anyone think if he cheated again he wouldn't be more careful?
Talk is cheaper than an Augusta National pimento sandwich. Time for Woods to prove the actions match the words.
That's some tough talk by Gene. How about we don't care if we can trust Tiger Woods and just watch him play golf? Is that too easy?
The one part I don't believe Tiger Woods on is when he claims life wasn't fun when he was living his "double life."
"Look at what I was engaged in," Woods said to a packed interview room at Augusta National Golf Club, where Woods held his first news conference in more than five months. "When you're living a life that is a lie, life isn't fun ... that's been stripped away. It feels fun again."
I can't believe that living a life that was a lie and having sex with multiple women wasn't fun...or else Tiger Woods wouldn't have done it. Unless of course he was massively depressed and had some mental problems that caused him to do it...which as I said above I don't care about as long as he hits a golf ball far. Otherwise, he had fun with his life that was a lie.
Bill Plaschke has serious issues with where Tiger Woods has decided to return to the PGA Tour. He thinks Tiger should just ease back into golf at a different tournament, even though it is completely impossible for Tiger to ease into anything related to golf at this point. Bill still believes Tiger could ease his way back into golf and he says it in his own 1-2 sentence paragraph way.
Here's hoping it will be a more humble, humane Tiger Woods who takes his first official golf swings after spending five months mired in a sex scandal.
Here's to who gives a shit about a humble Tiger. I want to watch him hit a golf ball far and do fist pumps in excitement.
But, let's face it, only someone still bathed in delusions of grandeur would do so in a church.
Which is why he is doing it at a golf tournament. You wouldn't think a column that has 200 total words, 42 sentences and 39 paragraphs would need filler...apparently you would be wrong.
Good for him. But why Augusta?
Other than he loves playing in the tournament, it provides limited media access, and he is hoping the start of the baseball season and the end of the college basketball season overshadows his return? Also, other than it is a tournament which features a gallery that will probably not be heckling him too often? Other than those reasons, there is no reason to pick Augusta.
The Masters tournament is one of the last sports events that is bigger than any of the athletes who compete there. Woods' comeback will completely swallow it.
Unless you want to count the World Cup, the Super Bowl, the NCAA tournament, the Summer/Winter Olympics and various other sporting events that I can't think of right now, this is a true statement. More importantly, I would love to know where have some of the sports events that were bigger than the athletes gone? Did they disappear, and if so, I would love to know which sports events these were?
Forget the green jacket. The only article of clothing that will concern anyone will be something worn by Tiger Woods' wife Elin, if she attends.
She won't attend and it really doesn't matter. I never looked for her anyway and I bet 95% of the audience didn't give a shit if she was there 5 years ago and won't care if she is there for this tournament.
Forget Amen Corner. The most watched hole will be the one played by Woods, who will spend four days as the most witnessed landmark in Masters history.
As opposed to every other Masters when no one was paying attention to Tiger?
Bill Plaschke is completely ignoring the fact every hole Tiger Woods plays is the most watched hole and viewers watch tournaments on television and attend tournaments merely because Tiger will be present. So Tiger being the most watched golfer should have no bearing on whether the Master's was the correct place to start his PGA year. It was going to happen this way regardless of any outside circumstances because Woods is the most popular golfer in the world.
It is obvious why Woods chose this venue for his return. Remember his recent speech in front of friends and family, his completely controlled return to the public eye?
The following was the fourth paragraph and 4th sentence of this column:
Good for him. But why Augusta?
Bill has either answered his own question or he just can't remember what he has written a few paragraphs before.
It is obvious why Woods chose this venue for his return.
If it is obvious, then why does Bill Plaschke ask himself why Tiger chose Augusta?
Inside the Augusta gates, every move is regulated, every action monitored, every emotion corralled.
Is there any other golf tournament where spectators are expressly forbidden to ‘'run?'' It is surely the only golf tournament where running will result in the loss of your tickets.
It is the only sporting event where the number of credentialed media is kept at a low level and rarely changed. It is also the only golf event where the media is not allowed inside the ropes, allowing the golfers a sort of peace that they will not find anywhere else.
So now that Bill Plaschke has answered his own question, why would Tiger Woods not choose Augusta as the place of his return? As contradictory as this sounds, it is probably one of the lowest profile and least disrupting places on the PGA Tour to return to competitive golf for Woods.
Can we imagine the amount of press and disruption that would occur if Tiger had come back at the Shell Houston Open the week before the Masters or the Verizon Heritage the week after the Masters? Those tournaments aren't equipped to handle the amount of media coverage Tiger's return would have caused. There's no way it wouldn't have been a clusterfuck. Meanwhile, Augusta is well-equipped to handle this type of media pressure.
For Woods, this will be a sort of halfway house from heaven. But for the Masters, it could be four days — or maybe just two days? — of hell.
I am sure the Masters really hates the increased interest and focus on the tournament and CBS hates the ratings it will give them. How terrible! Everyone is interested in our tournament, what shall we ever do?
Every Woods news conference will be filled with the sort of talk that will stage the event as something other than a golf tournament.
This would have happened anywhere Tiger Woods chooses to make his comeback. This isn't a problem exclusive to the Masters.
His rounds will be taut with the expectation of distraction from a crowd that is famous for its forced etiquette. Yes, everyone is polite, but this is the Bible Belt, and they do serve beer, and who knows when this will become the U.S. Open in Bethpage?
I really have no idea what the Bible Belt and serving beer has to do with the crowd getting unruly. I realize Bill Plaschke gets most of his ideas about the South from movies like "Sweet Home Alabama" where everyone lives in a trailer, does Civil War re-enactments, has a dog, and is very kind but looks down on sinners...but outside of this Hollywood stereotype I don't think the moral police are going to be in the gallery looking down on Tiger Woods.
I hate to ruin his view of the South, but I don't expect there to be massive amounts of Tiger taunting going on from the gallery because they don't agree with his moral decisions. If I had to make a list of the most annoying Southern stereotypes, near the top of the list is that everyone in the South goes to church and passes judgment on others. I digress...
One can argue that Woods' presence would dominate any golf tournament. But it's not quite the same at the Masters.
One would also be exactly right if one made this argument.
While he's a four-time champion here, he has always been treated the same as everyone else here, just another stitch in golf's most glorious quilt.
Which is why they re-designed the course so that it would be more difficult for him to play well and give the other competitors a chance to beat Tiger. Other than re-designing the course for him, they treat Tiger the same as other golfers.
No Masters winner will ever be as forgotten as the guy who wins this year —and no, Woods is not going to win it. Every bit of fragrant air will be sucked up by the world's most famous fallen athlete looking for a soft landing.
Who won the Masters two years ago? I would bet 4 out of 10 people couldn't tell me. I had to actually look it up. My point is that Masters winners are forgotten for various reasons, like sometimes no one has heard of the winner prior to his Masters victory and also because time has a way of taking our memory away. Regardless, Masters winners will be forgotten and this year's winner would be no different if Tiger was in the tournament or not.
Hell, more people may remember who won this Masters because they watched since Tiger was playing in it.
Woods could have avoided turning Augusta into a circus by sending in the clowns a couple of weeks earlier. He could have started his comeback at next week's Arnold Palmer Invitational, which he has won the last two years and six times overall.
This event could probably not handle the media crush that would ascend on the tournament and this tournament would be turned on it's head. Plus, then Bill Plaschke would write an article about how it was wrong for Tiger to return to golf at a tournament named for the God-like Arnold Palmer. Bill would probably also accuse Tiger of smearing Palmer's name by coming back at his tournament.
I know he is filthy cheater (like 80% of athletes), but if Tiger wants to play at the Masters and they don't mind him playing...let him play.
It would have been nuts, but then it would have been over, and he could have walked into Augusta National in the quiet shadows of the pines and dogwoods like everyone else.
Bill Plaschke is living in a fantasy land if he thinks Tiger Woods could walk the grounds of Augusta National at any point in the past or future like everyone else. He was always, and will always be, the main draw. The same questions asked of him at the clusterfuck that would be the Arnold Palmer Invitational would be asked at Augusta.
Plaschke does realize Tiger Woods was the most popular golfer before this whole cheating incident doesn't he?
Then again, maybe the Augusta National nobles deserve this. After all these years of excluding women, their club is about to be stolen by a guy running from them.
Yes, maybe the Masters deserves the indignity of Tiger Woods making this the most-watched and relevant golf tournament of this year. How will they ever survive?
-Gene Wojciechowski just can't trust Tiger Woods anymore and he is greatly broken up over this fact.
For years, Tiger Woods deceived himself, his wife, his mother, his in-laws, his children, his friends, his sponsors, his peers, his entourage, his fans, the media and even his mistresses. So while I'd love to jump headfirst into the new Tiger Pond of Trust, it's going to take more than Monday's 34-minute news conference to make me a full believer.
Apparently this is Gene's first head-on collision with the fact people, lie, and cheat to serve their own measures. Really if he was jaded and negative about the world he probably wouldn't be so hurt by this.
I want to believe, I really do. It's in our DNA to see someone's better angels, to take the leap of faith from distrust to trust.
Actually, it is in the media's DNA to never believe someone even when they are claiming to be telling the truth. An apology is never good enough because it will either sound too rehearsed or not sincere enough.
There were 48 questions. But there weren't 48 answers. At times, New Tiger reverted to Old Tiger -- that is, he laid up on the truth.
I always find it hilarious the media somehow believes that Tiger Woods owes me and the rest of the world an apology or the truth. It is as if there is some warped sense that because we cheered for him in sports, he has done us wrong personally by transgressions in his personal life and our lives are forever changed. If true, this would be pathetic, but fortunately it is not true at all.
He hit a 3-iron when he could have, should have, hit driver with his explanations and words.
This is very simple. I just don't get what else Tiger has to say. Does he have to paint the world a fucking picture of what happened, does he need to bust out with a PowerPoint presentation and outline his transgressions, and why does he have to tell the world everything? Why can't those asking the questions just use their imagination on what happened on that November night and draw their own conclusions based on what Tiger has said previously? More importantly, why the hell should I care about the truth? This is a personal matter.
I want to watch Tiger Woods hit the golf ball and that's not shallow, that's his job. He is a fallible human being and any attempt to paint him in a different light is a fantasy. I treat Tiger Woods shallowly. I want to watch him hit a golf ball, fist pump and generally play golf well because this entertains me. I want to use him for this. Good for him if he works his personal stuff out, but the truth only distracts from the fact I want to be entertained and enjoy watching him play golf. All the other stuff can go away.
Monday is the day we discovered that Woods tore his right Achilles late in 2008. It's the day he admitted he took the painkiller Vicodin and the sleep aid Ambien. It's the day he denied ever taking human growth hormone or performance enhancing drugs.
See, this is the type of boring stuff I personally don't care about when discussing Tiger Woods. For me, the truth is boring and not relevant to my use for Tiger Woods...which is to be able to watch him play golf.
Exactly. Woods has a long and creepy history of deception. He didn't live a secret life; he lived a dozen of them. It took 16 months before we found out about the torn Achilles.
Why is the torn Achilles a big deal at all and why do we need to know the truth about that? Football players have injuries all the time they don't reveal publicly for competitive reasons, why should golfers be any different? Is it really that important he doesn't reveal he has a torn Achilles? Is there a golfing injury rule that I don't know about, where golfers are required to reveal their injuries?
My point is that Gene cares about Tiger telling the truth about shit that isn't even relevant to the Masters, Tiger cheating, or anything else. How can a torn Achilles in late 2008 matter right now? As far as showing a pattern of lying, this is weak evidence, because athletes cover up the true nature of injuries all the time.
It took weeks before we found out that federal investigators have contacted his agent about Woods' medical relationship with Galea. It took years and years before we found about the mistresses.
Are we his parents? Is the fan's role to condone or not condone an athlete's actions? I don't think so. Gene is acting like a 10 year old boy who has been let down by his favorite baseball player. I feel like he wants to curl up in bed and cry until dinnertime.
Isn't it fair to wonder what else Woods hasn't mentioned from his past?
Sure, but it is not relevant. What if we find out Tiger isn't deeply involved with making the video game that has his name on it? Will this change my life forever? Should I really give a shit? Am I asking too many closed-ended questions?
I don't need or want details of his affairs, or an Elin/marriage update.
Apparently you do require this.
I needed better than, "I did everything to the letter of the law," when asked why he didn't speak with Florida law enforcement investigators last December.
Maybe he is still hiding something. Most likely it doesn't matter.
And I definitely needed better than Woods saying he's learned the importance of perspective after the death of his father, the birth of his children and now the implosion of his personal life and carefully crafted public image.
Huh? If anything, Woods has shown an inability to learn from his mistakes. You can't rent perspective. Either you buy into it or you don't.
It seems like Gene is misunderstanding what Tiger was saying. He was saying after ALL of those events, he has learned perspective. He is not saying he learned new perspective after each single event.Yes, in the past he has not learned from his mistakes, but this is also the first time he has been called on those mistakes, so this is the first time he has had to learn from them. So Tiger was saying after all of those events, he has now learned perspective and we can't really question that statement because he hasn't slipped up again.
Peace and Woods haven't been in the same tee box for who knows how long. He says rehab has made a difference, but, sigh, he wouldn't even say what kind of rehab program he completed.
"That's personal, thank you," he said.
Not to keep repeating myself, but why does it matter what rehab he went to? This is what I don't like about where sports journalism is going. I don't think journalists should turn a blind eye to what Tiger Woods does or this scandal, but there comes a time when the line needs to be drawn. He won't reveal what rehab he went to, it doesn't really matter in the long run, so let's all move on.Now the fact Tiger Woods won't reveal the exact nature of the rehab program isn't a private matter, but a reason we can't trust him. Whereas in the past I think we could all move on past the exact nature of the rehab program, it can't happen during this point in time. Journalists feel like they have to know the full story or else they don't know any of the story. They don't have to turn a blind eye, but need to say, "okay he is not telling us the answer to this question, is it really important to get the answer?" I think this is the point where sports journalism becomes sports tabloid journalism.
People want to believe in Woods. That much was evident as he played his Monday morning practice round. The patrons were polite, supportive, but I thought a little more subdued than usual.
Right, because usually the Masters gallery is rowdy and excessively loud. The definition of a golf gallery is usually, "polite, supportive, and subdued." Especially for a practice round.
Honesty -- what a concept. Woods has gone from baby steps to fuller steps, but I'm still not prepared to take that full Tiger plunge. Let's see if he actually acts differently on and off the course.
If he plans on cheating again, he will be much more careful this time. So I don't think we are going to get a great glimpse at him acting differently off the course. Think about it, he was cheating IN PUBLIC with multiple women, some of which were semi-public figures, and it never really came out before late November of this year. What makes anyone think if he cheated again he wouldn't be more careful?
Talk is cheaper than an Augusta National pimento sandwich. Time for Woods to prove the actions match the words.
That's some tough talk by Gene. How about we don't care if we can trust Tiger Woods and just watch him play golf? Is that too easy?
The one part I don't believe Tiger Woods on is when he claims life wasn't fun when he was living his "double life."
"Look at what I was engaged in," Woods said to a packed interview room at Augusta National Golf Club, where Woods held his first news conference in more than five months. "When you're living a life that is a lie, life isn't fun ... that's been stripped away. It feels fun again."
I can't believe that living a life that was a lie and having sex with multiple women wasn't fun...or else Tiger Woods wouldn't have done it. Unless of course he was massively depressed and had some mental problems that caused him to do it...which as I said above I don't care about as long as he hits a golf ball far. Otherwise, he had fun with his life that was a lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)