3 comments "Slate" Has a Terrible Idea on How to Determine Which Country Will Host the Olympics

"Slate" generally has some sort of bizarre (or bad) ideas on their site. Whether it's calling Americans "hypocrites" because nobody likes the Spurs, asking why LeBron has to be so serious, or taking on the evil of youth sports, those who contribute to the site tend to take semi-bizarre stances. I guess it's supposed to be considered "out of the box" thinking that is shown in some of the articles on the site. So a "Slate" writer thinks that cities should be forced to host the Olympics. Yeah, it's an interesting point of view. That's for sure. Logistically I can't see how this makes sense, but of course sometimes I wonder if some of these "Slate" ideas are truly serious. Many times the articles are written in a manner like, "I know this is a terrible idea, so don't take it seriously, unless you think it's a good idea because this is a serious idea we have come up with, in which case this is really a serious idea." The idea of forcing a city to host the Olympics seems to fall into this category as well. Even the cities that host the Olympics can barely afford it, so why is forcing a city to host even close to a good idea? The writer does acknowledge an Olympics held in a poor country would result in terrible facilities, but that sounds like a ton of fun for the athletes who work their entire life to represent their country, doesn't it?

On Monday, the U.S. Olympic Committee announced that Boston was dropping its bid to host the 2024 Olympics following a series of protests, significant public opposition, and a loss of support from the city’s mayor.

So Boston was saying they DO or DO NOT want to host the Olympics? I wish they would be clearer about their stance. 

On Tuesday, the International Olympic Committee told other U.S. cities that might be similarly skeptical of hosting the event that the organization would not take “we don’t want your horrifically costly and burdensome boondoggle of a sporting event in our town” for an answer.

Someone has to step up and take the place of FIFA as the villainous international sports committee. The IOC has been working hard for years to achieve this goal and it's their time. 

But even before Boston was selected and then got itself unselected, both New York City and Philadelphia abandoned bids to be the U.S. candidate for the 2024 Olympics. The 2022 games, meanwhile, were beset by similar abandonments from Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, and Germany.

It's not fair to characterize the Swiss as abandoning the Olympics. They simply said they were neutral on the idea of hosting them. 

For plenty of democratized countries, though, the prospect of hosting the Olympics can seem more like a curse—akin to smallpox, wildfires, and an extra-dimensional Chitauri invasion—than an honor.

I'm terrible with grammar and run-on sentences. So I am not criticizing, just noting this sentence should probably read "For plenty of democratized countries though, the prospect..."

That's how it should read, right? The commas around "though" feel weird when read aloud. But yes, no one wants to host the Olympics. The easy decision would be for the IOC to put a cap on how much can be spent on the Olympics or (gasp) cut costs by getting rid of the supremely boring Opening and Closing Ceremonies. It's like a parade, but somehow more boring. Watching people walk and wave just doesn't appeal to me, yet it takes four hours and costs God knows how much for these ceremonies. Cap how much can be spent and give the option of reducing the spectacle of the Opening and Closing ceremonies or getting rid of them entirely.

The IOC requires each host city to agree to cover excess costs or revenue shortfalls in case the games end up overspending. And practically every Olympic Games overspends. “The average cost overrun from the summer Olympics since 1976 is 252 percent, after controlling for inflation,” writes economist Andrew Zimbalist

Make it a hard cap. I know these countries like to show off (more on that later in this post, because the spectacle the host country likes to show off is why this lottery idea won't work), but don't allow countries to go over a certain cost. 

And yet somebody has to host the Olympics. Right?

Not really. If no country hosts the Olympics then there will be no Olympics. 

There are rational solutions to this problem. They involve reforming the IOC, reining in costs by using existing facilities rather than always building new ones, and changing the bidding process so that it no longer hinges on the discreet transfer of large bags of money.

FIFA, there's a new villain in town.

But the Olympics are not a rational event, and so maybe a farcical solution is in order: The IOC should host a Shirley Jackson–style “lottery” to determine which nation will host the Olympics. Every single nation that wants to have an Olympic team has to enter.

If you aren't familiar with "The Lottery" then basically it's a story where a small town draws names to see who will be stoned to death in order to ensure a good harvest. The author of this article, somewhat surprisingly given the fact his entire idea is a bad one, does not suggest any type of stoning to determine which country hosts the Olympics. Well, he does suggest stoning an IOC member, but that can be forgiven. 

If you participate in the Olympics, you have to participate in the lottery. If your name comes up, you’re stuck with hosting the games.

What could go wrong? Well, countries would opt-out of participating in the Olympics for fear they would have to host. This idea also doesn't give smaller countries any incentive to participate in the Olympics since they will only be sending a few Olympians in a few sports, so it doesn't make sense to take a chance on hosting the Olympics so 8-10 people can participate. So yeah, if the idea is to ensure small-to-medium sized countries don't participate in the Olympics then this idea is for you. 

Once that’s finished, we’ll proceed to the main event, which, like all good things, involves thousands of ping-pong balls and a gigantic air lottery machine. Every nation starts off with 25 ping-pong balls.

Why not 10 ping-pong balls? Why not 5 ping-pong balls? Why not 1 ping-pong ball? Why not 100 ping-pong balls? Who the fuck knows? This idea has all the makings of the author deciding "I just read 'The Lottery' again and have to get a column posted in the next hour so here's all I have." 

After calculating the average world GDP, we’ll add or subtract balls for each nation based on how far a nation falls above or below that average, 

(Bengoodfella falls asleep)

Not only is this idea dumb, but it's also needlessly complicated.

so that the United States would end up with far more balls than, like, Tonga. Then we pull the balls in and run the lottery.

As the NBA Draft shows, even teams with significantly more ping-pong balls in the lottery don't necessarily have the best chance of winning (in this case, losing) the lottery. 

Aside from the very simple egging-and-lottery structure, there will be a few other key points.

Nations can buy extra balls. There are some countries out there that still really, really want to host the Olympics, God bless ’em. 

But, but...if there were countries out there that still want to really, really host the Olympics then why even have this lottery? Just award the Olympics to the country that wants to host the Olympics. Isn't this lottery being suggested under the idea that no countries want to host the Olympics, to where the IOC would have to force a country to host? So if there are countries who will buy extra ping-pong balls because they want to host the Olympics so badly then what's even the purpose of this lottery? The fact nations will want extra balls contradicts the reason for the lottery, which is no countries want to host the Olympics. 

These countries can spend $5 million per ball to increase their chances, up to 40 extra balls; the money will go directly toward the cost of the Olympics, whoever gets awarded them, as a kind of tax on wealthy autocrats that really want the games.

Up to 40 balls. Because spending $200 million on additional chances to host the Olympics is reasonable, while spending $205 million on additional chances to host would be excessive. And again, if a country is willing to spend $200 million for the opportunity to host the Olympics then there is no need for a lottery. Even if the country that so badly wants to host isn't big enough to host, there is a chance the lottery would award the Olympics to this country (or an even smaller country) anyway. 

Nations can sell their balls to other nations. Same as before, $5 million a ball, with the money being split between the selling nation and the cost of the games themselves. Here’s the catch: A nation can’t do this for two lotteries in a row, and if a nation chooses this option, the next time around it will automatically be given as many balls as the nation with the highest GDP.

The author is apparently under the assumption the more complicated he makes the idea then the better that idea will appear to be. This is not true. Basically, nations that don't want to host the Olympics will be selling balls to nations that do want to host the Olympics. Again, why not just award the Olympics to the nation that wants to host? 

No nation can host twice in a row. If you’re unlucky enough to get picked for 2024, then you’re out of the running for 2028.

What happens if a warm-weather country is chosen to host the Winter Games? If it is truly incapable of hosting, then it’ll be levied a financial penalty and assigned to host the next Summer Games instead.

Right, because that warm-weather country will be able to financially afford to be able to host the next Summer Games if the financial penalty is severe. Also, this country would simply not be a part of the next Summer Games. What to do then? What if Jamaica gets the Winter Olympics, is awarded the Summer Olympics and then decides not to send a team? The IOC can't get an army together and invade Jamaica and force them to host the Summer Olympics.

This will probably lead most warm-weather countries to withdraw from the Winter Games entirely rather than risk winning the lottery—

Which apparently is the goal. It seems the goal of this lottery idea is to get fewer countries to participate in both the Summer and Winter Olympics. I think that's the brilliance behind it. The Olympics are a good chance for each country in the world to be represented and compete against each other in a show of national pride. This lottery idea decides that's stupid and would rather exclude countries from hosting the Olympics by setting up a situation where only the wealthiest countries can participate because only wealthy countries can afford to host the Olympics.

It also allows for the hilarious possibility that if a country like Mexico gets chosen to host the Winter Games, rather than pay the penalty it’ll just say, “Screw it, we’ve got mountains and snow machines, we’ll give it a go.”

Olympic games that would have terrible facilities and the athletes wouldn't enjoy participating in their chosen event? This would be hilarious! Why doesn't the NBA just play on ice for a year and the NHL can play on a basketball court? It would be HILARIOUS!

Nothing says, "Olympic spirit" like poor conditions and shitty facilities. Really, the best way to honor and celebrate the Olympians who have spent their lives perfecting their craft and finally get a chance to show their skills to the world would be to make a mockery of all they have worked for. 

Obviously, this system is set up so that the countries that can afford to host the Olympics are most likely to actually get them. But it also leaves open the hilarious possibility that a country that does not want the Olympics and cannot really afford to host them will nevertheless be forced to do so.

It would bankrupt countries. More hilarity would ensue! I'm sure the entire country of Greece is in stitches right now at the idea of their bankruptcy. It's so much fun! 

But the point isn’t to bankrupt poor countries.

Except, you know, that's what it will do. Forcing countries to either choose between participating and potentially having to host the Olympics, or sitting out the Olympics entirely ruins the entire point of the Olympic competition. When the author has noted expenses for the Olympics often extend beyond the given budget and not every country can afford to host the Olympics, then the intent ends up being bankrupting or excluding poor countries.

If, say, Dominica somehow ends up with the Summer Olympics, well, then, it’ll just be a Dominica-sized Olympics.

Except, you know, these countries don't want to be seen as a laughingstock so they will spend tons of money on facilities they can't afford in order to not make their country seem like a shit hole. Even wealthy countries spend too much money trying to host the Olympics, so I don't believe Dominica would actually host a small Olympics because that's all they can afford. It's a matter of national pride (and future tourism revenue) to make it look like your country isn't a shit hole.

All you really need to host an Olympics is a gym, a track, a pool, and a field. 

Plus facilities to house the athletes, enough room for the thousands of fans that want to attend to be comfortable, and facilities for these thousands of fans to stay at while watching the Olympics. So other than needing a gym, track, pool, field and the infrastructure to house, transport and feed thousands of people in a small area, not much else would be needed.

I assume that every country, no matter how poor, has at least one gym, track, pool, and field.

And that's all you really need to host the Olympics, right? One pool, one gym, one field and one track. Sure, they need to all be Olympic-sized and the country also has to have enough seating for everyone, plus housing and food, but one gym, track, pool and field is basically all that's needed. 

Because this new system removes the various crooked bidding processes that lead to the overpromising and underbudgeting of facilities, winning cities will feel far less compelled to build extravagant and unnecessary white elephant stadiums, pay for infrastructure that they might not really need or be able to afford, and generally kowtow to the IOC in a way that damages its residents.

I disagree with this. The lottery won't stop countries that are forced to host the Olympics from making extravagant stadiums and paying for infrastructure improvements that country may not need. No country wants to be known as the country that hosted the shitty Olympics. The Olympics by definition require most countries to build infrastructure they may not need, since most countries won't ever have so many different athletic events happening at the same time, with so many spectators attending these events in such a small area ever again.

Right now, various national idiosyncrasies notwithstanding, every Olympics is pretty much the same as every other Olympics, with the same top-tier facilities and stadia and such. If we assign the Olympics via lottery, we will probably end up alternating between lavish games and homemade ones, and this would be a great way of keeping in touch with the games’ amateur origins.

The idea the Olympic athletes would participate in events that take place in sub-par facilities is a terrible idea. It's spitting in the face of Olympians who have worked their entire life only to be told, "Here run on this dirt track and try not to trip over the rocks!" 

I am absolutely sure that this system has lots of problems. But so does the existing system!

Well, then the new system of using a lottery to determine which country hosts the Olympics should be adopted, simply for the hilarity of it all. Replacing one system that has problems with a different system that also has problems is not a solution. 

If it’s a choice between two flawed systems, I think the world should always go with the one that is funnier, 

Because the Olympics are supposed to be funny, you dipshit? The Olympics aren't supposed to be funny and it's not funny to send athletes out to compete in shitty facilities. 

that results in a better deal for the local populace, 

Like bankruptcy or countries simply choosing not to participate. 

and that involves a ceremonial egging. Am I wrong?

Yes. This idea is terrible. The lottery idea is probably the worst idea ever conceived to fix the issues that have plagued determining which country will be hosting the Olympics. If there are countries that really, really want to host, then those countries will bid under the current (non-perfect) system and try to be awarded the games. Simply because no United States city wants to host the Olympics doesn't mean this is true for cities throughout the world. 

4 comments Slate Wants to Get Rid of Youth Sports Leagues, Because This Will Totally Get Rid of Obnoxious Sports Parents

Baseball is dying, football will eventually die and now "Slate" wants to get rid of youth sports leagues. It appears that sports, while seemingly to be as popular as they have ever been, are in fact dying. Who knew? A columnist for "Slate" writes that it is time to get rid of youth leagues, specifically Little League, because it serves no purpose other than to allow parents to fill the void in their own soul through their children's sports activities. God knows if youth leagues went away parents would find no other way to fill that empty part of their soul where the crowning sports glories of the past that never happened reside. Get rid of Little League, get rid of obnoxious sports parents. Plus, one city has shown a decrease in sports participation and it may be a sign youth sports participation is declining everywhere. So rather than answer the question of whether this decline in youth league participation is just indicative of one specific area and not a worldwide trend, the author responds to this possibility with "Who cares," which probably sums up his attitude towards youth sports and affects his point of view that all youth sports should be eliminated. Because mostly, we can't have kids becoming stressed. Kids who become stressed become adults who haven't learned how to deal with stress and adults who don't know to handle stress are definitely the type of person the world needs more of. Parents would never find a way to stress their children out if it weren't for youth sports. No way. No how.

Is Little League participation on the wane? And, if so, should we care?

Who cares if Little League participation is on the wane? If you don't care for Little League like the author doesn't care for Little League then that's his point of view. End of column. The author doesn't care if Little League dies or not, while those who do care can continue to participate. Good talk. Let's move on to ano---

Those were two major questions raised by a Wall Street Journal piece from last week documenting the apparent decline of casual sporting leagues in a nation of kids who have either been bewitched by video games or encouraged to specialize in one sport year-round—or both, if the sport in which they specialize is competitive Minecraft.

Here's my issue with casual sporting leagues. It's not that I don't want my kids to participate, but it's a massive time suck. There are only so many hours in a day and one practice during the middle of the week for an hour, combined with games every Saturday morning can kill a family's free time. That's just for one kid. If a family has multiple children, that's multiple games during the weekend and multiple practices during the week. I don't think that's the entire reason why youth leagues have declined, but kids participating in sporting events all year round means all year round the kids will have to be somewhere at 6pm every single Tuesday evening and be free every Saturday from 8am to 11am (depending on the time of the game) nine months of the year. When there are two parents working and other kids in the household who have shit to do during the week, it becomes a time suck. No more do we live in a society where mommy can take the kids to soccer practice at 5:30 a couple times a week. Mommy sometimes doesn't get home until 5:45pm and then mommy wants to do shit that mommy wants to do, like stop doing work or eat a plate of food. I'm sure these were problems in the past as well, but from my personal experience, these leagues are a time suck, especially when practice takes place in the middle of the week. But there are parents who don't mind their child participating in one sport or participating in all sorts of sports throughout the year. They enjoy youth sports and that's good for them. I enjoyed youth sports as a kid, but I also used to ride my bike to tennis and baseball practice, and now parents are generally required to stand there while practice is going on. My parents didn't have to attend practice for two of the four sports I played because I went alone.

{I was thinking about this the other day. I rode my bike to school everyday...elementary school. I met my friends outside their house and we rode our bike three miles to school. I would go to school, come home, do my homework and then leave again. I would never let my kid do that. Same goes for tennis and baseball practice. My mom was not there for either practice. She just knew where I was (without a cell phone!) and trusted I would be home at some point or later tell her where I was going. Now if my son wants to play soccer, practice is on a field that is eight miles away from my house. It's just how it is I guess, but I think this has something to do with youth leagues being on the decline. Parents have less free time and don't feel right sending their kid out the door by themselves. If I sent my son out the door to go to the park by himself he would look at me like I was drunk. He's going to be nine years old in July. He can ride his bike 2.5 miles to the park, but the idea I would let him do that would blow his mind. I recognize this is anecdotal evidence, but I do believe time constraints are part of the reason for decline in youth sports league participation...assuming it is declining.}

Whether you find the WSJ report convincing and conclusive—and there are good reasons to be skeptical of it—it should raise in your mind an overwhelmingly important point: Little League and other youth sports leagues are terrible, and we should not be sad to see them go.

Nope. Not really. Perhaps the author doesn't care for youth sports, but they teach teamwork and are fun to play. I would play youth league sports if it weren't for the fact I'm not a youth. Some of the best memories of my childhood was playing youth sports. They can be terrible at times, but they can also be great. Much like everything else in the world.

the Journal reported that while 8.8 million children between the ages of 7 and 17 played baseball in 2000, only 5.3 million children in that age group did the same in 2013. It’s worth noting, though, that the study seems to document declining youth participation in almost all sports, not just baseball.

But of course the author only focuses on Little League, because baseball is dying and all of that. May as well just stick to the story.

By the way, the fact participation has declined around all sports (I believe) reflects the demographic changes more than it reflects declining interest in organized youth sports. Sports are very popular and more and more families just don't have the time for their kids to take part in multiple sports over a calendar year.

The only sport highlighted by the Journal with increased participation from 2000 to 2013 is tackle football,

And more and more kids are playing only one sport and it makes sense the kid's choice would be the most current most popular sport.

proving once again that Americans do not read the newspaper.

Or proving once again that kids like football and parents haven't gotten to the point they where they believe football can't be made reasonably safe at the youth league level.

The Journal also reported on the declining fortunes of a youth baseball league in Newburgh, New York, a city “on the front lines of the fight for baseball’s future.” Whereas 206 children played Little League in Newburgh in 2009, only 74 signed up to play this year

A sample size of one city. What could go wrong with extrapolating a larger trend out of this one city's fortunes?

Extrapolated to the wider world, this purported Little League participation crisis is bad news for Major League Baseball, given that the boy who plays baseball grows up to be the man who spends $149 on a Mark Trumbo jersey.

Baseball is dying at a much younger age now! Also, you can get a Mark Trumbo jersey for cheaper than $149. If a man spends that much on a jersey there is a chance he is getting ripped off.

Is the Newburgh Little League crisis truly indicative of broader Little League trends? Or is the Journal’s piece just a small-sample-size look at the amateur sporting fortunes of an impoverished city in a cold-weather region? 

Great question. Let's see i---

And does it matter?

Since this is the second time you have posed this question and this entire column is based around the premise that this one small sample size is indicative of a larger trend, then yes, I would say that it does matter. I do like how the author throws out potentially misleading information and then rather investigate whether the information is misleading or not he just throws his hands up and says, "Fuck it, let's pretend it's accurate." The author makes contentions and then tries to end the discussion with "And does it matter?" before these contentions can be proven correct or incorrect. 

Along with Mom and apple pie, Little League baseball symbolizes wholesome Americana. But just as apple pie is fattening and Mom won’t stop nagging you to come visit, neither is Little League an unalloyed good.

In your opinion, not on the whole. 

Little League was founded in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, in the 1930s by a man named Carl Stotz who grew to hate what his creation became. “Originally, I had envisioned baseball for youngsters strictly on the local level without national playoffs and World Series and all that stuff,” Stotz later said, according to Mark Hyman in his book on youth sports, Until It Hurts. Then, in the 1950s, businessmen essentially staged a hostile takeover, forced Stotz out of the league, and proceeded to turn it into the worldwide entity that it is today, with its international World Series and its ESPN affiliation.

So for the last 60 years Little League has been a corporate creation that takes the soul out of sports? Interesting that youth league participating is only now declining. Besides, someone is going to find a way to make a buck off almost anything sports related. It's nearly impossible to avoid.

I became utterly disgusted,” said Stotz. He died a bitter man.

I'm sorry this happened, but it doesn't mean that Little League doesn't serve some good.

Stotz found the bigness of Little League to be awful in part because it seemed like an exploitative ploy that used kids’ athletic ambitions to fill adult-sized voids. 

And if Little League didn't exist then these adults would have no other way to fill those voids. Is that what I am to believe? Outside of outlawing sports on the whole, there is really no way for society to prevent adults living their athletic ambitions through their children. And why is Little League getting picked on here, like there aren't other sports where adults live out their athletic fantasies? Spending time trying to prevent parents from living out their athletic fantasies through their children is a fool's errand. 

For children, Carriere argues, Little League served to reinforce social order; it was “a highly supervised activity that engendered in children a healthy respect for law and order, taught proper gender roles, and, most importantly, brought families together.”

It still can be this. For every parent who lives out their sports fantasy through their child, there are three parents who just enjoy watching their child play a sport. Okay, that's an estimate, but any person attends a youth league game in any sport knows the majority of parents attending are either (a) disinterested or (b) just hoping their child has fun. 

The league helped compensate for the denatured character of postwar corporate labor while simultaneously preparing boys to enter the workforce and “accept such dispositions as specialization, rationalization, and bureaucratization.” By formalizing unstructured youth sporting play, modeling it on professional leagues, putting adults in charge, and keeping score and maintaining league standings, Little League “began to be seen as simply one stop on the trajectory of young people’s professional lives.”

It's also a way to teach children to compete and get used to losing every once in a while. It still serves a purpose, even if there seems to be less and less participation. 

So why should this bother us? Because youth sports leagues are stressful and regimented at their worst, and even at their best, they promote the idea that organized, performative play is the most valid and important kind of play.

What? This is ridiculous. Kids can play in a spontaneous or organized fashion. It's not one or the other. Youth leagues promote the idea that an organized competition with rules, people enforcing those rules and families showing up to support the kids is a fun activity. It's not some regimented task. Anyone who thinks a youth sports league is a regimented task children are forced to perform hasn't been to any 5 or 6 year old youth league games. 

The mere fact that adults take such a keen interest in the sporting activities of children invests those activities with an importance that just screwing around in a vacant lot will never have.

Much like school. Adults showing interest in children doing their homework, getting good grades and being a high achiever says that learning is important and just randomly learning knowledge is not something that is valued. 

That’s a horrible attitude to promote. 

Exactly. Adults showing an interest in their child succeeding in school tells the kid that organized learning is the only learning that will be accepted and not encouraging learning outside of school is a horrible attitude to promote. 

I played organized youth baseball until I was 14 or so, and the fun moments I remember are vastly outnumbered by the terrible and stressful ones: botching a critical play and feeling horrible about it for a week, failing to make all-star teams because the coaches nominated their own kids, the tension and agita of pretending these games have actual stakes, and the sense that if you don’t perform at your best, you’re letting everybody down.

So basically, the author had a bad experience in Little League. The author thinks this means that every child had the same experience in Little League that the author had. While criticizing organized sports for imposing one worldview on children, the author is imposing his own worldview on organized sports. The author believes his experiences in organized sports are the experiences of every child in organized sports. Because he has these feelings, every child must have these feelings. Bill Simmons is that you? 

In contrast, the most fun I had in childhood was with ad hoc games with other kids from my neighborhood: basketball on my driveway until dark, baseball with maybe four other kids in a vacant lot.

Spontaneous play is better than organized play

Again, the irony of the author criticizing organized sports for imposing one view on how sports are supposed to be played, while imposing his own view on how sports are supposed to be played in wanting youth leagues to be eliminated is delicious.

"I had a bad experience in Little League. Little League tells children that organized sports are the only way that sports can be played. Little League, and youth leagues like it, should be left to die because there is only one way to play sports...spontaneously."

The two can coexist, of course.

Apparently not. This entire column is about how organized sports can not co-exist with spontaneous sports, because organized sports are part of an attempt to suck the fun out of sports to fulfill their parents' fantasies of athletic achievement. So apparently the author does not think organized sports can co-exist with spontaneous sports.

But spontaneous play allows children to be in charge of their worlds for a while, to set and explore their own rules and boundaries, to exercise their imaginations in addition to their bodies.

Children can do both. They can play sports with their friends sometimes and then play organized sports against other children at other times. The author says it doesn't have to be one or the other, but he doesn't mean it, because the premise of this column is that children can't play spontaneous sports due to the lessons organized sports teaches. 

So who cares whether youth baseball really is waning in Newburgh?

Obviously you do because this entire column is based around the idea youth baseball is declining in popularity, especially in Newburgh. You then use the waning of baseball in Newburgh as a reason why it would be fine if Little League just was eliminated all together. So it seems you deeply care if youth baseball is really waning in Newburgh, because it proves the point you want to prove. 

As long as they can play pickup games, the town’s children will be fine.

And they can play pickup games while playing organized sports. It's awful hard to find 18 kids that all can play baseball at the same time, so just playing pickup baseball is hard. The same goes for a pickup game of football. Organized sports have their place in society. If the reason for getting rid of organized sports is because there are parents who take it too seriously, well, these parents will just find something else to take too seriously. You can't get rid of Little League because a minority of parents live out their fantasies through their children. 

4 comments How To Fix the NBA Lottery By Making it More Non-Sensical and Absurd

Has anyone been worried about the NBA lottery and how it rewards teams for tanking? No worries from here on out! This problem has been figured out by "Slate." There is a brilliant idea posted on the site on how to fix the NBA lottery and make everything more fair. The best part is this idea takes the lottery process and turns it into a circus atmosphere, where the intention goes away from choosing lottery spots for each team and becomes more of an exercise in creating manufactured drama. Why does everything have to be dramatic and overly-difficult?

On another note, does anyone but sportswriters care that the NBA lottery is fixed to where teams have some incentive to tank? Like, is this a big deal that the normal sports fan really cares about or is the complaining about tanking simply something the media cares about more than a sports fan does? Me personally, I could care less if the 76ers tank and get a high draft pick. It doesn't bother me. The idea some teams are so terrible they get rewarded for being bad just doesn't bother me that much (as long as I'm not a fan of that team). I could be in the minority, but I feel like others in the media are more concerned about this than I am.

This is the year that NBA tanking went off the rails. 

Every year over the past few years, this has been written somewhere. 

The Philadelphia 76ers, for starters, exemplified a whole new level of basketball seppuku with a team so willfully awful that the New York Times Magazine felt compelled to publish a feature story about their willful awfulness.

The 76ers were so terrible that people in the media noticed how terrible they were.

By descending into “tank mode,” the Sixers hoped to lose enough games that they’d receive one of the valuable first picks in the upcoming NBA draft.

Oh, so THAT is how tanking works? Thanks for clearing that one up. By the way, this is the third straight season the 76ers have essentially done this. So if they were "off the rails" this year then it isn't "the year" tanking went "off the rails." There are a lot of quotes in that sentence. More quotes than good points made in this column in fact.

The New York Knicks, Los Angeles Lakers, and other teams were accused of plunging into the tank for large swaths of this season. Which is sad.

Let's be slightly fair, the Lakers stumbled on to tanking. They managed to lose their first round pick to injury, their best player to injury, and their old point guard tried to come back from injury and had to retire instead. The intention wasn't to tank, but at some point they have to throw up their hands and realize it ain't their year.

Tanking makes for ugly basketball and it throws off competitive balance.

(Bengoodfella shrugs his shoulders) As long as a large percentage of the NBA isn't tanking then I really don't feel too concerned about this problem.

Perhaps worst of all: Fans of tanking teams find themselves not only watching putrid hoops but also perversely rooting against their hometown squads

And again, this is very weird and not good for the fans of these teams. Would fixing the lottery so these teams don't get good players really help the situation? The assumption is management would stop tanking, but would it really stop this strategy? I'm not entirely sure. Lest it be forgotten that the current lottery system was put in place to prevent tanking. From the Bondy column:

The lottery was put into place by David Stern after the spring of 1984 turned into an uncomfortable tank-fest. The way it worked, teams with the very worst record in each conference flipped a coin for the first pick and then other selections were made in inverse order of won-loss records. Not surprisingly, the franchises that still owned their first-round picks hemorrhaged defeats. The Rockets dropped 14 of their last 17 games, nine of their last 10, and their final five. They were rewarded with Olajuwon as the No. 1 pick. The Bulls lost 14 of their last 15 to land Jordan at No. 3.

To quell this perception, Stern instituted the draft lottery, which gave teams far less reason to throw away games.

Sounds a lot like the strategy teams are using 30 years later. The draft lottery was supposed to stop teams from tanking. It didn't. So changes are being suggested again. And again, teams will tank anyway.

You know something has gone awry when Knicks coach Derek Fisher feels pressure to apologize to fans for winning.

In that article, Fisher seemed to say he doesn't feel pressure to apologize to fans for winning. He's not going to apologize for it, so therefore I would say he doesn't feel the pressure. OR it could be we are arguing over semantics in regard to a lottery change that won't ever change the fact NBA teams are going to tank.

The best tanking solution would be relegation, as happens in European soccer leagues. Each year, the bottom three teams in the continent’s top divisions are kicked out of the league and relegated to a lower one. Regrettably, with NBA teams currently selling for $2 billion apiece, it's unlikely we'll get owners to agree that a few of them should be banished to the D-League each year to compete against the Sioux Falls Skyforce.

Clearly the author is a fan of Bill Simmons since Bill has floated this idea jokingly (not jokingly?) in columns before. And yes, no NBA team will be relegated. I don't even know how that would work with the NBA Draft and I don't really care either.

A more likely solution would be for the NBA to flatten out the lottery odds. Right now the worst team has a 25 percent chance at the top pick while the 14^th-worst team has a 0.5 percent chance. We could switch to a true lottery, in which all 14 non-playoff teams would get an equal 7.14 percent chance at the top pick.

So basically the same lottery system the NBA used to use, then got rid of in order to discourage teams from tanking? Get rid of the currently lottery system in order to go back to the old lottery system which was changed because it encouraged teams to tank? Gotta have a sense of history. The odds are not as great now that a team would land the #1 pick (it was around 14% thirty years ago), but the system was no longer used for a reason. 

Another draft scheme that’s gotten lots of attention is “the wheel”—a system in which the draft order would be set far in advance so that a team’s draft position would have zero to do with its on-court performance.

Sounds great, but I have a feeling teams would still find a way to tank. I have no idea how, but NBA teams have tanked at times for decades and it is almost a reflex for some teams who are looking to rebuild. 

This would eliminate any reason to tank, but it would also do nothing to help bad teams get better. The worst team in the league might end up picking dead last in the draft.

And therein lies the whole problem with the media's teeth-gnashing over fixing the lottery. How can a lottery be set up for the purpose to help teams that aren't very good so they do become very good, while also not giving teams incentive to tank? The NBA can't help bad teams, while also not giving teams incentive to be bad. That is, unless some convoluted lottery set up over a several year span where to occur. Something like a team can't get a Top 5 pick for a certain amount of years if they have had one in the previous year. But again, this would work at cross purposes to help a team that's trying to get better. The Thunder never would have had the chance to draft James Harden and Russell Westbrook if this rule were in effect over the last decade.

As horrible as the status quo is, some version of reverse-order drafting—and the increased parity it helps create—is still a worthy goal. So the problem seems intractable.

It is. It's very hard to help bad teams while not incentivizing these teams to be bad.

But fear not, NBA fans! A superior answer exists, and a friend of mine has invented it. It’s fair, it’s elegant, and it’s fun. My friend calls it the “You’re the Worst!” draft.

Maybe not ironically, this draft idea is the worst draft idea. It's convoluted and turns the lottery into a drama that becomes more game show than simple lottery to determine draft position.

How would it work? On the day before the regular season began, the NBA would hold a “You’re the Worst!” draft. Selection order for the YTW draft would be determined like any standard reverse-order draft—the team that had the worst win-loss record in the previous season would pick first, the team that had the best record would pick last. But the teams wouldn’t be drafting players.

(Cue overdramatic music)

They’d be choosing the rights to another team’s position in the next NBA draft.

I see that you, as a reader, maybe confused by one part of this. You may be asking, "But, would each team point at each other and say 'you're the worst' during this process?" Fear not, that is something that would happen. Just wait for the full plan to be revealed.

So, for example, the Minnesota Timberwolves, who finished this season with the worst win-loss record, would have the first YTW pick in the fall when the 2015–16 season started. One day before opening day, all of the league’s general managers would gather together in a room. The T-Wolves would look around that room and decide which team they thought would finish worst in 2015–16.

Again, this is over complicating the entire lottery process needlessly. There is no reason to do this, other than to provide needless drama and over-complicate the process. It's a fun idea, but not something that should really happen.

Minnesota general manager Milt Newton might predict that the Knicks would be the worst team next season. In which case he would shout, “You’re the worst!” while pointing at Knicks President Phil Jackson, stealing the Knicks’ position in the 2016 NBA draft.

I wonder if it doesn't count as saying a team is the worst if a team's GM chooses to point but not shout or simply decides to shout without pointing? I would say this is all a joke, but I really don't think it is based on the columnist really defending why this is a good way to determine a team's lottery position.

If the Knicks indeed finished worst next year, the T-wolves would then receive the top pick in the 2016 draft. If the Knicks finished with the third-worst record, the T-Wolves would receive the No. 3 pick.

I'll play this game. I feel like there is some issue with this method if one team owns another team's first round pick in certain situations (if it falls out of the Top 7, etc) that could affect how this idea would work. I'm trying to think of specific examples, but can't. Perhaps this isn't an issue, but it feels to me like this lottery set up could impact draft picks that are lottery protected.

In this scenario, say the Knicks plan on tanking during the 15-16 year to get a better pick and everyone knows this. The Timberwolves know they will end up getting a high pick in the draft no matter what because they have chosen the Knicks as the team with the worst record, so it won't affect whether THEY tank or not. They are free to tank (again) because they know they will get the first (or really close to first) team choice again the next year. Alternatively in this scenario, say the Timberwolves plan on trying to win as many games as possible and they are chosen to have the sixth worst record in the NBA. If the Timberwolves know the Knicks are tanking during the 15-16 season and they are guaranteed to have a high lottery pick, then what's the point in trying to win games? They have another chance to pick early during the 16-17 lottery! Why should the T-Wolves care if another team gets a higher pick through the T-Wolves deciding to tank as long as the Knicks keep losing? At that point, the T-Wolves can continue to tank, but just as long as they know the Knicks are worse than them.

(Hopefully that made sense. Basically, the T-Wolves still have no incentive to be a good team in this lottery system.)

After the Wolves picked, Jackson and the Knicks, with their second-worst record this past season, would look around the room, predict which remaining team might perform most horribly in 2015–16, and select that team’s 2016 draft pick. Preferably while pointing and shouting, “You’re the next worst!”

Yes, preferably there would be pointing and shouting.

Let’s look at how things would have panned out if we’d held a YTW draft for the 2014–15 season. Since the Bucks accumulated the worst win-loss record last year, and the 76ers appeared to be clearly the worst team entering this season, the Bucks would've selected the 76ers first in the YTW draft. It turned out that the 76ers earned the third-worst record, so the Bucks would be getting the third pick in this June’s NBA draft. 

And the Bucks made the playoffs, so naturally they should be rewarded for making the playoffs by receiving a higher draft pick. Wait, that's not the purpose of the lottery is it?

Here’s how the 2015 NBA draft might look if there’d been a YTW draft on Oct. 27, 2014, the day before this season started (we’ll use SCHOENE projections from the start of the season as a proxy for how general managers might have projected other teams):

1. Denver Nuggets (The Nuggets had the 11^th-worst record in 2013–14, so they’d pick 11^th in the YTW draft; the Timberwolves were projected to be the 11^th-worst team this season, so the Nuggets would have stolen their pick. Since the T-Wolves finished with the league’s worst record, the Nuggets would get the first pick in June’s draft.)
2. Sacramento Kings (seventh-worst record in 2013–14, steal New York Knicks pick)
3. Milwaukee Bucks (worst record in 2013–14, steal 76ers pick)
4. Boston Celtics (fifth-worst record in 2013–14, steal Lakers pick)
5. Philadelphia 76ers (second-worst record in 2013–14, steal Orlando Magic pick)

It’s a pretty good result. 

It is a pretty good result based upon your guess on which teams other teams would choose as being the worst. It's always fun when a writer wants to prove his point as correct and then uses his assumptions as the "factual basis" that shows the underlying points as correct.

And it's not exactly pretty good. Two of these teams made the playoffs and out of the 10 worst teams in the NBA this past year only 3 will get a Top 5 pick and of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, only 1 of those teams gets a Top 5 pick. So if the purpose was to stop tanking, it would work, but if the purpose was to help teams like the Knicks, Lakers, T-Wolves, and Magic get better (and really, I would only count one of those teams as truly tanking) then this result doesn't work well at all.

Although the Bucks, last year’s worst team, wouldn't end up with the first pick in this year’s NBA draft—something that often doesn't happen anyway, due to the lottery—the new positions still would be heavily weighted toward the bottom feeders.

As long as you ignore that of the bottom 5 teams in the NBA, only 1 of them gets a Top 5 pick. As I said, it works at cross-purposes to decrease tanking while trying not to award the worst teams with the chance to draft the best players. It's very hard to do both.

Though the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the upcoming player draft, despite finishing with the worst record, they would own the YTW No. 1 this fall, which would very likely pay off in 2016.

I like how the author tries to sell this. He sells it as "the T-Wolves didn't get the first pick in the draft, so preventing tanking works, but next year they will get the first chance to pick which NBA team will be the worst, so tanking does pay off."

Funny how that works isn't? Tanking isn't necessarily discouraged any more than a team knows the pay off for tanking will come, but maybe not immediately. The author can't have it both ways. He can't have this system as a way to prevent tanking, then point out how a team that tanks will be set up to have an early pick two drafts from now.

The obvious benefit of this system is that no team would have an incentive to tank throughout the season (barring collusion). Just think about how this season could have been different.

But a team would still have incentive to tank, because as the author just said, the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the draft by having the worst record but they would still have the chance to pick the worst team in the NBA the next year. In fact, the author says having the worst record during the 14-15 season would "pay off" in 15-16. So there's the incentive.

If the Knicks didn’t derive a direct benefit from being so terrible, would they have shut down Carmelo? Would the 76ers dare to build a team so nakedly atrocious?

Yes, because teams that tank aren't thinking about the short-term, but only in the long-term. In the long-term, tanking will "pay off" through having the first chance to choose the worst team in the NBA for the upcoming season. There is the incentive to tank.

Another benefit to the “You’re the Worst” system: It would be exciting! 

No, this is the only benefit. Something being exciting doesn't mean that it's also a good idea. I don't think this system would prevent tanking, especially since most teams that are tanking aren't looking at the short-term view. Having to wait another year for tanking to pay off wouldn't be a big deal to an NBA team.

With YTW, we’d replace the lottery with even better drama. Wouldn’t you tune in to see Newton, or better yet Wolves president and coach Flip Saunders, walk up to the podium on national television, look Phil Jackson straight in the eye, and say, “You’re the worst!”? (OK, it would be more like, “With the first pick in the preseason selection-order draft, the Timberwolves select the Knicks.” But the implied insult would be there.)

I probably would not be more inclined to watch this than I'm inclined to watch the current lottery selection show.

Because NBA fans have long memories, animosity would instantly sprout. Consider: If the Knicks visited Philadelphia right after calling them “the worst,” the Philly crowd might get rowdy

There's nothing like trying to manufacture a rivalry AND manufacture drama.

It stinks to root against your own team, but it’s hella fun to root against other teams. Players would also be eager to prove rival teams’ projections wrong. Ultimately, YTW would enhance—wait for it—competitiveness!

It would not in the same way the current lottery system was supposed to stop tanking and it did not. But it's hella fun to pretend NBA teams aren't going to just tank anyway in an effort to stop something that will happen as long as the intent of the lottery is to get the best players to the worst teams.

To be sure, this system is not perfect.

Noooooooooooooooooo. This system seems pretty perfect to me.

It might take a casual fan a few run-throughs to understand. And it puts a heavy premium on the forecasting skills of NBA front offices. Nerdy spreadsheet jockeys would become even more valuable than they already are.

Does the author really believe the Sixers would not have tanked over the past three seasons in an effort to get a good draft pick if they knew they had to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? This is a real belief the author has? A team like the Knicks or 76ers that are trying to cut salary and gather high draft picks won't be willing to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? These teams know they would get a pretty good pick if they tank, because they would get to choose which NBA team they think will be the worst during the upcoming season, and they know a 3-5 year rebuilding plan takes 3-5 years. So what's waiting another year for tanking to pay off?

But it might be better for Sam Hinkie to put his geek skills to use in the service of predictive analysis—or maybe even figuring out how to help his team win—instead of searching for the most efficient way to lose.

Because he wouldn't use that predictive analysis to find out which teams will be the worst so that once the Sixers continue to tank they can choose another team that's just as terrible as they are, all in the name of getting a higher pick. This system won't stop tanking any more than the change to the system used prior to 1985 stopped tanking. 

2 comments Bill Plaschke Also Claims Baseball is Dying, But Don't Worry, He Has Solutions

We've heard from many sportswriters about just how dead baseball is. For a sport that is dead, there sure is a lot of talk about that sport. One would think if baseball was really dying that it wouldn't create so much interest in it's death. Bill Plaschke adds to the chorus and provides solutions to increase interest in baseball. I'm not entirely sure how some of these changes for baseball will do anything for World Series ratings. I guess it's not Bill's job to create solutions that fix the supposed problem he is trying to fix. It's Bill's job to improve baseball, and even though these solutions have nothing to do with World Series ratings, these great World Series ratings will come. If baseball removes the DH, they will come.

The pressure is off, America. The Fall-Over Classic is finished.

It was a really good World Series. What I watched of it, I enjoyed. Much like any other sporting event that runs too late though, I can't always watch the whole thing live. There was no pressure, it was an enjoyable World Series. But that's not enough! Not by a long shot. How dare the World Series be enjoyable, because ratings. Ratings!

No more fourth-place teams battling fifth-place teams for a first-place trophy.

Yeah, but the fourth and fifth place teams beat the teams better then them in a five or seven game playoff. It's not a fluke if it happens in a five or seven game series...or at least it shouldn't be a fluke.

No more rules chaos, home-field confusion and seriously creepy Rob Lowe commercials.

Okay, where's the confusion about homefield advantage? The team who wins the All-Star Game gets homefield advantage. There's a lot of issues with how homefield advantage is determined, but it's a very simple idea to understand.

It ended Wednesday after the only one of the seven games that folks actually watched. 

If I'm not wrong, and I don't think I am, all of the seven World Series games were among the Top 20 shows in primetime during a given week. I have discussed this before.

You're off the hook for another year, America. You no longer have to feel bad about not watching the World Series.

Let me get this straight...no one watches the World Series, but those who do watch the World Series only watch out of guilt? Is there anyone who watches a television show or sporting event because they would feel guilty if they didn't watch it?

Even though the Game 7 victory by the Giants over the Kansas City Royals was watched by nearly 24 million viewers, that was nearly double the average of the previous six games, making this still the second-least watched World Series in history.

Which I am sure only increased the guilt those 24 million who watched Game 7 felt. Imagine how guilty these people would feel if Game 7 wasn't one of the most watched television programs during the week it aired.

Baseball's premier event was tackled for a huge loss by "Sunday Night Football," outsmarted by the "The Big Bang Theory" and devoured by the zombies of "Walking Dead."

Bill Plaschke has won awards for this type of writing by the way. I can't figure out why print media is dying.

Yes, there are many more channel choices than the days of, say, a 1978 Dodgers-New York Yankees series that drew a huge rating. But what explains a recent decline that shows five of the least-watched Series all occurring in the last seven years?

What explains it is there are many more channel choices then the days of, say, a 1978 Dodgers-New York Yankees series. The fact there are more channel choices would easily explain the recent decline in ratings for the World Series. It's not like many more channel choices is a trend that is 30 years old. It's been the last decade or so when Americans have had so many channel choices and have chosen to try and afford all of those channel choices.

This is like saying (and this is hypothetical), "Sure, there are healthier more affordable options available then 20 years ago when McDonald's had record revenues. But what explains a recent decline in revenues where five of the last seven years have been the lowest revenue earning years for McDonald's?"

There's your answer. It's right there. More options.

Make no mistake, baseball is a thriving sport.

It's thriving, yet dying. It's the Keith Richards of sports.

The Dodgers sold for more than $2 billion, then cut a cable television deal worth four times that amount. Baseball's top-10 attendance totals have all occurred in the last 10 years.

People still love their hometown teams.

IF PEOPLE LOVE THEIR HOMETOWN TEAMS THEN HOW COME TOP-10 ATTENDANCE TOTALS HAVE ALL OCCURRED IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?

So Bill Plaschke's conclusion is that interest in baseball needs to be rekindled based on World Series ratings. This despite knowing:

-World Series still draw relatively good ratings.

-MLB teams are worth more now than every before.

-People still love their hometown teams.

-More people than ever are choosing to attend baseball games.

So as long as Bill ignores the financial aspect and the fact fan interest in seeing their favorite team play live has never been higher, baseball desperately needs to rekindle interest in the sport. This because the World Series doesn't draw record-setting ratings. No one is interested in the sport of baseball, as long as you ignore those who are interested in the sport of baseball that attend games.

The problem is, they're increasingly falling out of love with the actual game. The national pastime has sadly become a regional pastime.

True. This isn't a sign that fans are falling out of love with the game, but simply choose not to watch a game between two teams they have no rooting interest in. It happens in every sport except for the NFL, because people are currently obsessed with the NFL.

Every team has plenty of fans, but when those teams are eliminated from postseason, those fans stop watching because suddenly it's all about only, ugh, the baseball.

No, you can't claim to know what a large group of people are thinking like this. Those fans stop watching because there are other shows on television they want to watch, and while they enjoy the sport of baseball, they don't care to see another team celebrate a World Series victory. There are World Series I haven't watched because I can't stand to not watch my favorite team participating in the World Series. But no, Bill Plasckhe knows what every baseball fan thinks because he's so fucking smart and can read minds. I love baseball, but that doesn't mean I will spend my evenings watching two teams who aren't my favorite team play baseball game. It's a long season. I'm kind of tired towards the end of it.

Few people drive to their local stadiums saying, "I want to see a baseball game." No, it's almost always, "I want to see a (insert team name here) game."

I never say I want to go see an NFL game. I always say, "I want to see a Team X game." I'm not even sure what Bill is trying to say here. Only 30 areas of the United States even have a local baseball team (which obviously is a point that proves just how out of touch Bill Plascke is). Someone who lives in Nebraska isn't going to drive hundreds of miles to see the Texas Rangers play on a given night just because he wants to see a baseball game. That's an important point for Bill to understand. There aren't a whole lot of "local stadiums" with MLB teams around the country. I would ask if Bill was referring to minor league baseball here, but he doesn't once refer to minor league baseball in this article.

It's 2014. I don't have to pay for a ticket to go see a baseball game. I can turn on my television. It's certainly not the same thing, but Bill is acting like the ability to see a baseball game is a rare resource when that's not true. Baseball is everywhere. I disagree with Bill's assertions on so many levels. In fact, I would argue a lot of people who attend minor league baseball games go simply because they want to watch a baseball game. But again, Bill doesn't seem to be talking about minor league baseball.

It's not that way in football, where many folks watch the NFL just because they love watching football, which is the reason the league has thrived despite not having a team in its second-largest market. The same goes for pro basketball, where folks are attracted to the fast pace and incredible athleticism even if their hometown team — say, the Lakers — might not win a game again, ever, in the history of the world.

It must be awkward for Bill to write a column knowing the facts won't fully back up the assertions he is trying to make. He's acting like the NBA Finals get incredibly great ratings compared to the World Series. This isn't entirely true. The World Series are lower than the NBA Finals ratings, but Plaschke should hold off on the NFL comparison.

People love watching football, but the NBA has the benefit of their star players being in the NBA Finals on a near yearly basis (which isn't good luck, but good marketing). The NBA Finals ratings don't blow the World Series ratings out of the water as Bill suggests might be true.

Once again this fall, baseball did not have a true World Series. It didn't even have a National Series. It had a San Francisco-Kansas City Series with a few outsiders watching from the cheap seats.

This is really true of every sport's championship game or series. The NBA Finals are really a series between the two teams with everyone else just watching. The same goes for the Super Bowl. The difference is the number of outsiders who choose to watch from the cheap seats.

Baseball is my favorite sport, the sport I covered for 10 seasons as a beat reporter. It is the most regal yet rawest of endeavors, the perfect marriage of sport and humanity. I love it, yet as a columnist for this newspaper, I have not covered a World Series for seven years

So basically Bill Plaschke is one of those people who he claims have fallen out of love with baseball. Because he lacks interest in the sport, he assumes others lack interest as well.

because it is no longer a sport that resonates beyond the love for the local teams.

Right, but that's fine and doesn't mean baseball is dying. Baseball is a regional sport now, but it doesn't mean fan interest needs to be rekindled in the World Series. It just means the World Series won't draw the ratings it used to draw.

Baseball used to be Mr. October, now it is October miss.

Again, this type of writing has won Bill Plaschke multiple sportswriting awards.

Here's hoping incoming commissioner Rob Manfred can overcome his sports stilted smugness and agree. Here's some ideas to get him started.

Here is some ideas that will help increase interest in baseball and the World Series, despite the fact a couple of these ideas won't help increase interest in baseball because they are cosmetic changes to the game that wouldn't usually affect a person's enjoyment of watching the sport be played.

Use a pitch clock to shorten the games.

MLB is already trying this out during the offseason.

This season's Game 4 required nine innings but lasted four hours. In 1960, a pressurized seventh game of the World Series between the Yankees and Pittsburgh Pirates produced 19 runs, yet lasted only 2 hours 36 minutes.

How many commercial breaks were there during this game? Also, there is no way to combat that baseball has become a more specialized sport. Teams make more pitching changes than they made 54 years ago and this slows the pace of the game. The only way to combat this would be to make each game seven innings long as opposed to nine innings long.

The simplest and best way would be to install an 18-second pitch clock, cutting down on the average major league delivery time of about 22 seconds. It would quicken deliveries, force batters to stay in the box, and make the game feel faster. Pro basketball tried this in 1954, and its newfangled 24-second clock saved the game.

I'm interested to see how this works. Now whether this would increase ratings for the World Series is an entirely other matter. If the game is faster, does Plaschke know more viewers will begin to enjoy the sport of baseball?

Increase the division series to seven games.

So the key to rekindling interest in the World Series is to increase the division series to seven games? If the division series is seven games more people will watch the World Series and fall back in love with baseball? I don't see how the hell this makes sense logically. I don't think the length of the division series has anything to do with baseball's World Series ratings or someone's love for the sport. Does Bill really think there is someone out there who says, "I used to love baseball, but now the season isn't long enough. If they just increased the season by two more games I think I could fall in love with the sport again"?

This wouldn't lengthen baseball's schedule — just reduce the days off between series — but it would fortify baseball's integrity.

Ah yes, "fortify baseball's integrity." How many people don't watch the sport of baseball because it lacks integrity? And since when does playing more games involve having more integrity?

Of the three major sports that conduct their postseasons in series of games, baseball is the only one where the first round is only five games, which means it's the only sport where six months of greatness can be erased in three bad days.

But there is also an argument that what makes football so exciting is that the sample sizes and margin for error are so small. Every game means something, so fans of football tune in to see what happens because teams only get one chance to win a game and advance in the playoffs. I don't see how making the division series longer is going to make baseball more popular.

Fans should want the World Series to be contested by the two best teams over the course of six months, not simply the hottest teams in October. The Giants and Royals were fun, but do you really believe they were baseball's two best teams?

No, but both teams won a five and seven game series. They proved they deserved to meet in the World Series. The NFL has one game playoffs and I don't recall Bill Plaschke bitching when a Wild Card team makes it to the Super Bowl or claiming the "real" best NFL team didn't make it to the Super Bowl. All of a sudden, baseball has to ensure the best teams make it to the World Series, so obviously extending the playoff season will make this happen. 

DH or no DH, make up your mind.

How the hell would making a decision about the DH create more fan interest in baseball and the World Series? Maybe choosing to implement the DH in both leagues or in neither league is a positive change for MLB, but whether both or neither league have the DH should have no effect on the World Series ratings.

It is stunning that baseball's most important series is still conducted under two different sets of rules, with no designated hitter allowed in the National League city. Can you imagine the NBA eliminating the three-point line for three games in the middle of its championship series?

It's not entirely the same thing. A better comparison would be if a three-point specialist was allowed on the home court of a Western Conference team, but not on an Eastern Conference team. MLB doesn't change the rules of baseball on an American/National League field, they just change the use of two players within those rules.

Without the use of their DH, Billy Butler, the rules change seriously hurt the Royals this October, and it almost always hurts the American League team. Of the last nine World Series, 25 games were played under National League rules, and the AL team is 8-17 in those games.

Of the last nine World Series, 24 games were played under American League rules, and the NL team is 11-13 in those games. It's not like the National League thrives under American League rules.

Not to mention, whether the DH is used or not probably won't have an effect on how many people choose to watch the World Series and whether the sport will stop becoming more popular regionally.

Give home-field advantage to the team with baseball's best record.

I don't understand how the hell this will positively affect the ratings for the World Series. Does Bill honestly think there are people who don't watch baseball or don't watch the World Series because they don't like how homefield advantage is decided for the World Series? This would be a cosmetic change that shouldn't have a significant impact on baseball's ratings.

Manfred's first act should be to end the practice of allowing an exhibition game in the middle of July, a.k.a the All-Star game, to determine home-field advantage in the most important games of the season.

Fine, let's say I agree. How does changing homefield advantage to the team with the best record increase World Series ratings? People are going to love baseball again because they like how the Giants got homefield advantage because they had a better record than the Royals? I doubt it.

That further cheapens a World Series that has been discounted enough.

Sure, fine. Will this increase ratings though? It seems Bill Plaschke has four suggestions to rekindle interest in baseball and increase World Series ratings, yet two of these reasons really are cosmetic changes to the sport and wouldn't necessarily increase World Series ratings nor seem to have to do much with why baseball is considered more of a regional sport. Not well done, Bill. 

6 comments Paul Hoynes Thinks MLB Should Have a Salary Cap to Create the Competitive Balance That Already Exists

Over the last 48 NBA Finals, 15 different NBA teams have won the NBA Title. 27 different teams have played in the Super Bowl with 18 teams winning a Super Bowl. Of the last 48 World Series, 27 different teams have been represented and 20 different teams have won the World Series. So obviously MLB has to do something about the competitive balance issue they have which has allowed a larger diversity of teams to win that major sport's title. Well, not really, but that's your view if you are Paul Hoynes of Cleveland.com. A salary cap fixes all of a sport's issues. Just ask the NBA, where only nine different teams have won the NBA Title since 1980. A salary cap will fix everything, because small market teams like the Cleveland Indians just can't compete in the current market.

There is never going to be competitive balance in baseball.

This is a trick statement. There is already some competitive balance. Small market teams like the A's and Rays are competing for division titles. You can't fool me!

In a game where the players have proven time and time again that they will strike to prevent it, perhaps it was never meant to be.

By the way, Hoynes will blame the players for MLB not having a salary cap. It's their fault. If Selig really felt a salary cap was so necessary, don't you think he would have pushed it harder during negotiations for the CBA? So it seems neither side wants a salary cap, but Hoynes still thinks it's a good idea to ensure the type of competitive balance the sport already has.

Bud Selig leaves the commissioner's office on Jan. 24. He has accomplished more than anyone who has held the office before him, but he couldn't wrestle this problem into submission.

I don't hate Bud Selig as much as it seems others do, but let's simmer down a bit.

Selig championed revenue sharing and it has kept many teams, the Indians included, afloat during troubled times.

Yeah, you are welcome Miami Marlins. While writers complain about a lack of parity, the revenue from high revenue teams is awarded to lower revenue teams who don't spend as much and are able to make a profit as a result. I still don't know how I feel about this system, but while Hoynes complains about a lack of salary cap, some of the excessive spending on free agents leads to asses in seats, which leads to revenue, which helps keep teams like the "non-competitive" Indians afloat.

But afloat and competitive are different things, especially when the use of revenue sharing funds can be siphoned to other areas besides player payroll.

Which is why it is the responsibility of the team receiving this revenue sharing to use these funds in the best possible manner to improve the team.

He instituted one wild-card team for each league in 1994 to the groans and wails of purists. It worked so well that he added another wild card to each league in 2013.

It's not a wild card, it's a one game playoff. I'm so frustrated with this set up I'm going to stop typing now.

But all that progress suffers when the Red Sox can simply open their wallet and pay free agent infielders Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez a reported $183 million in combined salaries.

Because when has it ever not worked out after a large market team opened up it's wallet and spent money on free agents? I can remember all the World Series won by the Rockies after signing Denny Neagle and Mike Hampton. Who can forget the Texas Rangers dynasty led by Alex Rodriguez and Chan Ho Park? More recently, the addition of Adrian Gonzalez (through trade) and Carl Crawford led to a World Series victory for the Red Sox...of course after they had traded both players. Not to mention the Dodgers recently had the highest payroll in the majors with Hanley Ramirez on that roster and it didn't even turn into an NLCS appearance this past season. But yeah, progress is suffering because the teams that spend the most money are always winning the World Series and are the only teams that can compete. Just don't pay attention to what's really happening and this statement may be true.

Two years ago the Red Sox won the World Series. This year they finished last in AL East at 71-91.

And of course, Ramirez and Sandoval are the two players that will make the only difference in the Red Sox winning 71 games again or winning the World Series. Over the last five years here is how many games that have been won by the Red Sox compared to Hoynes' hometown Cleveland Indians.

The Red Sox have won 416 games.
The Indians have won 394 games.

That's a difference of 22 wins over five seasons with a difference in payroll of $477 million (Going by Opening Day payroll of about $816 million for the Red Sox and $339 million for the Indians). The Red Sox paid $21.68 million for each additional win and the same number of playoff appearances (one each), but it's a huge problem when teams like the Red Sox spend money due to competitive parity being totally ruined.

During the course of the 2014 season, much was written about Boston rebuilding with young players such as Brock Holt, Xander Bogaerts, Mookie Betts, Christian Vazquez and others...The rebuilding effort lasted about a half a season before Boston's owners waved their wallet at the problem.

Those writers like Dan Shaughnessy who claimed the Red Sox were rebuilding with young players were mistaken at the time and they are mistaken now. Ben Cherington made it clear that he was dumping payroll so that he could clear up the books and make a run at free agents or players through trade this offseason. The mistake was not listening to what Cherington said when he stated things like:

"We felt like what made the most sense for us was to try to focus on impact major league talent that is ready and we have a lot of good young players, we have strength in our farm system, so that is already a strength," Cherington said. "Although there were some prospect packages or prospects available to us that were very attractive, we wanted to add to the major league team and really give ourselves a head start on like I said building again and becoming as good as we can as quickly as possible. 

"...becoming as good as we can as quickly as possible." Sure sounds like they were going to be a player in the free agent market didn't it? Cherington was focusing on "impact major league talent that is ready..." which would lead one to believe they weren't just rebuilding around young players. But again, it's better to paint the Red Sox as going against their word of rebuilding slowly, even though that wasn't their word. 

The wealth of the Boston ownership and the loyalty of Red Sox Nation has allowed it to work the system. They're good at developing their own players and have been aggressive on the international free agent market. Plus they have more than enough money to correct mistakes and fill holes.

Because the money has helped them so much over two of the last three seasons when they essentially gave up on the season, sold off the expensive players Paul Hoynes is horrified they were able to sign and ended up being last place in the AL East. The list of teams who have thrown money at players to fix holes and correct mistakes which ultimately led to failure is quite long. What caused the Red Sox to go to such extremes in rebuilding is that they had expensive players who ended up being mistakes or had players they wanted to unload in order to temporarily lower payroll. The only reason the Red Sox have to sign Ramirez (to play left field it seems) is because Crawford didn't work out in left field and the Red Sox ended up trading him.

It is a tough combination to beat. Sandoval and Ramirez both received qualifying offers from their old clubs, the Giants and Dodgers, respectively. It means the Red Sox, if they sign both players, will forfeit two high draft picks in June, but not their first pick. That will be protected because of their last place finish this year.

The Red Sox also have a competitive balance pick from the A's. WHAT? A competitive balance pick went to a team who is the very reason competitive balance picks are necessary! What madness has baseball wrought without a salary cap?

There are 29 other teams in the big leagues and not all of them are as talented or as wealthy as the Red Sox.

And yet, 26 of them have appeared in one of the last 48 World Series and 19 of them have won the World Series over the last 48 seasons. This is better than two leagues with a salary cap, the NFL and the NBA, can claim. Anyway, despite the fact Paul hasn't even come close to pointing out why a salary cap would be beneficial, instead choosing to focus on why no salary cap is supposedly hurting the competitive balance in MLB, let's move on.

This is what happens when there is no salary cap. The teams that can afford to burn money do it whenever necessary.

While true, this doesn't mean these teams that burn money also have the most success. The Indians have a better record than the Red Sox over the last three seasons and the Kansas City Royals just made the World Series. The St. Louis Cardinals aren't a small market team, they also don't spend money on expensive free agents that often, and they have been one of the dominant National League teams over the past five years. The other dominant National League team over the past five years is the San Francisco Giants, another team not well-known for flashing cash around to acquire big name free agents. The Giants do have a high payroll but three of their six players making double-digit millions in 2014 were homegrown and five of these players were already on the Giants' team when they signed their contract to make $10 million or more per season.

Certain teams can spend money, that's well-known, but spending money isn't the same thing as having success and winning championships. Paul Hoynes should not get these two things confused with each other.

The teams that can't, have no choice but to stand and watch.

Except, not really. Again, the Kansas City Royals just appeared in the World Series, while the Rays and A's have both been very successful in the last decade without a large payroll. It can be done and teams that can't pay for expensive free agents can still compete.

It seems as if every team takes its shot now and then. The rich teams just have more ammunition.

The teams that have a larger margin of error also tend to spend bigger in great quantities than other teams who spend money on free agents only occasionally. The mistakes the rich teams make are bigger mistakes. This tends to even things out at times.

The Indians spent a combined $104 million on free agents Nick Swisher and Michael Bourn before the 2013 season. Halfway through their four-year deals it has not been money well spent.

And yet, the Indians have won 177 games over the last two years despite having Swisher and Bourn on the roster. Also, they have the reigning Cy Young Award winner and a starting rotation of under-25 guys like Trevor Bauer, Danny Salazar, T.J. House, along with a 27 year old Carlos Carrasco. But yeah, those two contracts haven't been good for the Indians, but they also haven't ruined the Indians team like Hoynes would like you to believe.

The Twins spent $84 million last off-season on free-agent pitchers Ricky Nolasco, Phil Hughes and Mike Pelfrey.

Hughes was pretty good last year and the Twins' problem wasn't simply that they spent $25.5 million on these three players last year. It's not like if they three pitchers had pitched well then the Twins would have won 90 games necessarily. Common sense shows that it's not just about spending money on free agents, but spending money on the right free agents and filling in the roster around these players. That's why the Red Sox signing Ramirez and Sandoval isn't the best example of why MLB needs a salary cap. These two players could just easily be two more Carl Crawford-type contracts for the Red Sox. They may not be, but that's the risk the Red Sox are taking. Even if it works, there is no guarantee of another World Series victory in Boston.

Giancarlo Stanton wasn't a free agent when the Marlins gave him a 13-year, $325 million extension earlier this month, but it certainly was a shot across the bow that carries no expectation of a repeat performance. Especially by Marlins fans, who have a firm grasp on what is here today is not necessarily here tomorrow.

By the way, a salary cap in MLB would do more to prevent the Marlins from building around Stanton because they couldn't necessarily afford to spend money on pitchers like Jose Fernandez or Henderson Alvarez. After giving Stanton the contract they did, the Marlins could conceivably not have the cap room to spend money to keep the rest of their young team together. The Marlins may not keep these players together anyway, but at least they have control over how much they spend if they did want to keep Fernandez and Alvarez.

Other than screaming, "IT'S BAD FOR THE GAME" and ignoring recent and long-term evidence this isn't true, Paul Hoynes hasn't given a good reason for why MLB needs a salary cap. Baseball has competitive balance, regardless of whether Hoynes wants to believe it or not.

The current bargaining agreement ends after the 2016 season.

Will that be the time the owners once again try to impose a cap on team payrolls? Will this generation of players, untouched by labor strife and under new union leadership, respond as steadfastly as their predecessors?

They probably will. A salary cap isn't the cure-all that Paul Hoynes presents it as. I think the players are smart enough to realize this. Baseball's economic structure isn't perfect by any means, but a salary cap wouldn't necessarily go a long way to ensuring competitive balance. It seems MLB is doing decently right now in ensuring there is competitive balance in the sport even without a salary cap. Again, rich teams spending money on free agents doesn't immediately lead to a World Series title.

Or will baseball simply continue to be a game where only the uber-rich can compete as owners?

If baseball is a game where only the uber-rich can compete as owners then what does that make the other sports like football and basketball where fewer teams have won titles over the last 48 years? Rich teams have the chance to acquire good, expensive players, but as is seen time and again, this doesn't mean that team won't regret signing those expensive players. All teams have to be smart in making personnel moves. It's just some teams have the money to acquire expensive free agents and other teams do not. In acquiring these expensive free agents comes risk for these rich teams.

Where teams like the Indians, owned by Paul Dolan and family, have no realistic chance at ending a World Series drought that will be entering its 67th year come opening day in 2015?

The Indians have no realistic chance at ending their World Series drought? Two years ago the Indians were in the one game Wild Card playoff, just like the Kansas City Royals and San Francisco Giants were in the one game Wild Card playoff this year. Don't give me this crap about the Indians not having a realistic chance to compete for a World Series. 

7 comments Gregg Easterbrook Suggests the NFL Play Two-Handed Tag Instead of Tackle Football

Gregg Easterbrook took a bye week the week before Christmas and then I didn't get a chance to cover his December 23 TMQ. So, here it is. When we last checked in with the diarrhea splatter of loosely-based facts and contentions which are opinions held by Gregg that change on a weekly basis, he was throwing his authentic games metric to the side as just a joke-y metric he created that meant nothing so don't really believe Gregg thought it was accurate and making his fourth Super Bowl pick of the NFL season. This week is giving NFL fans permission to move on from teams that are losers, as well as using his lack of knowledge about the NBA to give NBA fans permission to give up on their team as well. I wish Gregg would give up writing TMQ.

What if your favorite NFL team is terrible -- should you stand firm?

Yes.

No. It's OK to be a fair-weather fan.

I disagree.

Five teams -- City of Tampa, Jacksonville, Jersey/B, Oakland and Tennessee -- are poised to finish with no more than three wins, versus only two teams that bad last season. The Bears and Giants have been huge disappointments, while the Eagles knocked themselves out of a seemingly locked-up postseason bid with an all-time phoned-in bad game versus 4-11 Washington. Buffalo hasn't reached the postseason in a league-worst 15 years and laid an egg versus 3-12 Oakland.

If any of these are your favorite teams, just write them off until such time as they may improve.

The Eagles and Bears made the playoffs last season and the Redskins made the playoffs two seasons ago, so giving up on them until they improve is the very definition of fair weather fandom. I wouldn't doubt that Gregg thinks it is fine to be a fair weather fan. It seems to fit his personality and how he writes a weekly NFL column, because he doesn't seem to understand much about the sport of football, including the emotional attachment to a certain team.

NFL teams that consistently promise to improve, then stay terrible, are manipulating you. Strike back! It's OK to be a fair-weather fan.

How is not cheering for that team "striking back"? Enough fans will stick by the team that an NFL team won't really care if a few fans give up on the team until they are good again. When that team is good again, then a fair weather fan will jump right back on the bandwagon. That's the annoying thing about fair weather fans. Plus, three of these teams that Gregg listed made the playoffs recently and the Giants won the Super Bowl just a few short years ago. The NFL is consistent only in that it isn't consistent on a year-by-year basis. It's ridiculous to state an NFL team is terrible if they have two bad years in a row. I don't think the Giants, Bears, or Eagles have "stayed" terrible and the Redskins were in the playoffs two years ago. I wouldn't expect any type of accuracy from Gregg of course. He will mislead his readers in order to prove his point.

Fans and boosters of college football should stay true to their schools through thick or thin because colleges play a larger role in society.

Plus, people graduate from these colleges with degrees as well as give money to these colleges, so boosters of a school have a financial tie. But yeah, "larger part of society" and all of that. Sure. I'm sure that's why fans and boosters should stay true to their schools.

NFL teams are strictly entertainment organizations. If the entertainment is bad, write 'em off. You wouldn't purchase a crummy album by a pop star. Why watch the games of a terrible NFL team?

It's different to cheer for a team and buying an album from a pop star. Again, there is an emotional tie to the team that isn't there to the pop star (usually).

That some NFL clubs consistently are good while others consistently are bad may be a case study in coaching and management. Regardless, if your favorite team is bad, you owe them nothing.

Then don't attend games. That makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't require much in terms of spending to be a fan of a team. Watch their games and choose to care or don't care. In the sports world, not caring because a team isn't good can be frowned upon for whatever reason. No one likes someone who sticks around only through the good times. It doesn't shock me at all that Gregg tries to be academic about fandom and doesn't understand the fans of an NFL team can cheer for the team because they want to, not because they consider the team to be a product that is purchased.

Don't feign loyalty. Take pride in being a fair-weather fan!

Cheering for a losing team isn't feigning loyalty. That's being loyal. Cheering for a team that is terrible is the very definition of being loyal to that team. I think that's the part Gregg doesn't get. Redskins fans aren't feigning loyalty, they are loyal when they cheer for the team. This is part of why Gregg shouldn't broach the topic of being a fair weather fan in TMQ. He doesn't understand the loyalty is real and not fake. For Gregg, he pretends to be too smart and clinical to be capable of understanding why fans of a team would stick with that team through thick and thin.

The NFL is trying to make football less violent, and to safeguard its substantial economic investment in quarterbacks. Fair enough. 

Or, you know, in order to reduce concussions. This just happens to be one of Gregg's pet projects and all. But sure, the NFL is changing rules to protect a team's investment in quarterbacks and it's not about making the sport safer overall.

So TMQ proposes a new "passer stance" rule: a player in a passer stance cannot be hit in any manner and is down with two-hand touch.

Seriously, go away. Just go away.

Of course, Gregg throws this idea out there without actually fully explaining his rule. It's not his job to explain the rule he just created, and after all, he may need to change the rule down the road when it's proven this is a stupid rule. So it's best if he just create the rule and then not mention anything else about it with too many specifics in case he needs to contradict the rule down the road.

I'm in earnest about this. A two-hand touch rule for the quarterback would not sissify football, anymore more than banning grabbing the facemask (once that was legal) sissified football.

This is so stupid, I won't even address it. Here is why Gregg says the current rules protecting the quarterback don't work:

But the pendulum has swung too far, especially considering it is unrealistic for a defender who is charging hard toward the quarterback to come to a complete halt the instant the ball is released.

So Gregg's idea is that because it is too difficult for defenders to stop their momentum and pull up when they are trying to tackle a quarterback, it will be easier to pull and two hand tag that quarterback. Got that? Try this at home. Go charging full speed at something and then try to pull up at the last minute. Then go charging at something, pull up and then try to two-hand tag that something. I'm betting your momentum is going to be hard to stop either way.

This is where Gregg's ability to be academic and realistic comes into play for the worse. It's not the tackling that is the issue, but the momentum a defensive player has which is the issue. So changing it to where the defender has to two-hand tag the quarterback won't stop the momentum he has when trying to go after the quarterback. The defender will still go full speed, even if only to two-hand tag the opposing quarterback. It's not like the invention of an absurd two-hand tag rule will mean defenders won't go full speed anymore. Gregg is very proud of his academic idea that really doesn't work in the real world. Either way, the defender will pull up when trying to tackle the quarterback or two-hand tag the quarterback. He still has momentum caused by his speed, it's just he will two-hand tag the quarterback and not tackle him. And also, a 280 pound defensive lineman doing a two-hand tag is still pretty violent. It's enough to injure the opposing quarterback, especially if the lineman does two-hand tag on the quarterback's arm, neck, shoulder or even his ribs. Quarterbacks can still get hurt when not being tackled. It's a dumb idea that doesn't fix the problem.

No more endless debates about what part of a quarterback can be hit in what manner. Make the rule that a "passer stance" player simply cannot be hit, but is down by two-hand touch.

No really, J.J. Watt can still hurt a quarterback with two-hand tag. It's like Gregg has a complete lack of understanding about how quick, fast and strong NFL players are. A blitzing linebacker or safety can still hurt a quarterback with two-hand tag.

At times such a standard would work against the offense. Quarterbacks may wriggle out of sacks, then scramble to make big plays. There would be no wriggling out of a two-hand touch. The down would end.

Oh, so the game will be less fun to watch AND this idea really won't fix the problem of a defensive player having too much momentum to pull up and not hit the quarterback? Great.

The rules already treat a quarterback who has taken off running as a regular ballcarrier, so no change is needed there. A two-hand touch standard for the quarterback when he is a passer would eliminate booing over ticky-tacky roughing- the-passer calls, make games more interesting by reducing quarterback injuries, and give the defense a better chance of a sack, since the quarterback could no longer wriggle away.

Here is where Gregg's refusal to define what he means further contributes to this stupid, fucking idea. When is a quarterback a passer? When is he a runner? If Cam Newton leaves the pocket and starts running, but is still behind the line of scrimmage, is he a passer or a runner? He can still pass, but he's running. Does the defender have to wait for Newton to pass the line of scrimmage and then he can tackle him? And also, who isn't looking forward to replays determining whether a quarterback was tagged with both hands or not? Not me, that's who. I don't care to see replays where the announcers try to figure out if a defensive player's left hand grazed the quarterback or not in conjunction with that defensive player's right hand.

But really, Gregg does not at all define when a quarterback is a passer or a runner. So without that definition his idea has zero validity. Gregg loves to throw out ideas and then never explain them fully. When is a quarterback a passer? If he pump fakes and then pulls the ball down, is he a runner or a passer?

Sour 'N' Sweet Plays: Carolina leading 17-13 with 3:33 remaining, must-win situation for Cleveland, the Browns punted from midfield. Who cares if it was fourth-and-13? This sour play was Cleveland coach Mike Pettine making sure that if the Browns went down the players would be blamed for performing poorly, rather than him being blamed for a coaching decision.

I'm sure that was Pettine's intent. Of course, he could have been trusting his defense to stop the Carolina offense and get good field position for the offense, but that would be crazy to do. Converting a fourth-and-13 with an offense that had 228 total yards on the day and had completed 10 of 21 passes on the day was a much more likely scenario to have occurred.

Now the Cats have second-and-9 on their 21, 2:44 remaining and Cleveland holding two timeouts. Either rush to move the clock or if you throw, go for the home run.

A short pass to convert the first down or set up a manageable third down was apparently not at all an option. Why would it be when there are only two options available? Obviously the Browns' defense should have set up a defense to expect a rush or a deep pass, because Carolina certainly wasn't going to have any players running shorter routes.

Dallas scored to take a 7-0 lead. On the subsequent possession, Indianapolis faced fourth-and-11 at its 19. The Boys lined up with no one across from either gunner, which the Colts must have come into the contest anticipating. Punter Pat McAfee called an "automatic" -- an audible that is dictated by the defense, as opposed to a signal coming in from the bench -- and threw a nice lob to gunner Dewey McDonald for what would have been the first down. McDonald, a rookie safety, dropped the pass as if it were a live ferret.

Doesn't Gregg mean that Dewey McDonald, an undrafted free agent from a small non-football factory school, dropped this pass as if it were a live ferret? Of course not! Because if Gregg mentioned those two facts then his readers might see through his bullshit about undrafted players and athletes that come from non-football factory schools. Gregg contends undrafted players, especially those from non-football factory schools, work harder and perform better on the field, and Gregg won't allow any attempt at reality to interfere with this thinking.

On the first Dallas snap after the dropped pass, Tony Romo threw a touchdown strike to Dez Bryant on a simple go route.

I think Gregg means highly-paid glory boy Tony Romo threw a touchdown strike to highly-drafted glory boy Dez Bryant.

Checking on an expected arriving parcel, I found that the Postal Service had employed a 22-digit tracking number. Nine digits are needed to assign a unique number to every American citizen, with 684 million combinations to spare. Twenty-two digits is almost enough to assign a unique number to every star in the observable universe. A 22-digit number is a sextillion -- a 1 followed by a quadrillion millions. Yet the USPS needs that many digits to track a package. UPS is far more efficient, as it used a mere 18 digits to track a package. An 18-digit number is 100 quadrillion. Eighteen digits would seem enough to assign a unique number to every living thing in the galaxy. FedEx was super-efficient tracking my package with 11-digits. That's still a 10 followed by a billion, or more unique tracking numbers than there are people on Earth.

It must be nice to have time to worry about pointless shit like this. Gregg's life is so empty he just sits around and has to create things to be outraged about that don't bother normal people.

Doug Marrone's afraid-of-my-own-shadow game management causes Buffalo to be dropped as an Authentic team. So too are the Browns, Dolphins and 49ers, all eliminated. Dropping these four as Authentic entails reshuffling of the standings, as does adding Houston, which is still alive, if a long shot, while others have fallen away.

The problem is that past Authentic Games standings were based on these teams being authentic teams. So Gregg's previous Super Bowl selection changes, was not based on anything that team has done, but based on what other teams have done. I just hate the Authentic Games metric. Gregg has already pointed out how pointless and useless it is. I don't know why he insists on still using it as if it means something.

One premise of this metric is that it's better to play lots of difficult games and lose some than to face only soft opponents: 

Right, but what was once a soft opponent could later be seen as a difficult game.

Gregg's Super Bowl prediction this week based on this stupid metric is Pittsburgh v. Arizona. But no worries, he has two other Super Bowl predictions that he has made also. Actually three. He had his real prediction of Denver-New Orleans, his alternative pick of Seattle-Indianapolis, and his other alternative pick of Seattle-New England. Also thrown in his Authentic Games pick of Pittsburgh-Arizona and Gregg has taken four shots at making a Super Bowl prediction. One of them will be correct and Gregg will certainly brag about it. If it's the Authentic Games prediction that ends up being correct, then he'll say the metric is shit, but also brag about how the metric was correct.

My Non-Authentic Games standings have revealed the following Super Bowl matchups so far:

Packers and Broncos
Saints and Dolphins
Packers and Patriots
Eagles and Bills
Rams and Texans
Carolina-Pittsburgh

This week my Non-Authentic Games pick is Houston-Dallas. So my shitty, made-up metric looks like it could be right as well with my Packers-Broncos, Packers-Patriots or Carolina-Pittsburgh picks. What a great metric.

With Buffalo, Cleveland, Miami and Santa Clara removed from the index, the total number of wins goes down, allowing Pittsburgh to take over first place at 5-1. And though the Broncos just took a beating on "Monday Night Football," at 6-3 they have the most Authentic wins so don't count them out.

But of course, the Steelers have played fewer games against authentic teams and won fewer games against these teams than the Broncos, but Gregg's metric has the Steelers as more "authentic" than the Broncos. That's the sign of a great metric. The Authentic Games metric is supposed to determine the better NFL team based on the "authentic" teams a certain NFL team has played. The metric in this case has an NFL team that's played and won more games against "authentic" teams as compared to another NFL team ranked lower in the Authentic Games metric.

ESPN Grade sorts the Top 25 by graduation rate. Reader Ronald Dufresne of Marshfield, Vermont, put all FBS colleges into a database and found that if overall football graduation rates are weighted, rather than just the Top 25's graduation standing, the final four through Week 15 would be:

Alabama. 1 in AP, 1 in USA Today, 25 in GSR = ESPN Grade 27
TCU. 4 + 4 + 20 = ESPN Grade 28.
Ohio State. 6 + 6 + 29 = ESPN Grade 41.
UCLA. 16 + 17 + 12 = ESPN Grade 45.
 
Oregon drops out at 3 + 3 + 60 = ESPN Grade 66.
Florida State drops further at 2 + 2 + 89 = ESPN Grade 93.

While throwing all FBS teams into the mix is a much better idea, you can see the ranking a team has on the field is still weighted too much as compared to that team's ranking in the classroom. There's no team ranked in the Top 10 in classroom performance in the final four, while three teams ranked in the Top 10 on the field are part of the final four. This metric will never useful until it measures classroom and on the field performance equally and factors in all FBS teams.

In other football-academics news, Nina Mandell of USA Today reports Hugh Freeze of Ole Miss boasted that his team's overall GPA of 2.57 was highest "in recorded history" of Rebels football. So first, we don't know what Ole Miss football GPA was like during the Triassic Period.

Okay, smartass. Was there Ole Miss football in the Triassic Period? There wasn't? So try to understand what you are being snarky about before being snarky. Freeze didn't say "recorded history" overall, but recorded history of Ole Miss football, which hasn't been around since the Triassic Period.

Two weeks ago TMQ wondered how the mega-enormous starship of the heavily promoted SyFy Channel miniseries "Ascension" could have gotten into space using the technology of the 1960s. The Big Reveal turned out to be that the Ascension was never in space. Six hundred people were locked into an underground model of a mega-enormous starship, then tricked into thinking they were on their way to another star system. The real purpose was a sinister experiment in natural selection.

Okay, it's a TV show. But how were the original passengers of the Ascension made to believe they were in outer space if there was never a blastoff? Ascension is said to be moving at 5 percent of the speed of light, which would have meant weeks or months of hard g-forces during acceleration. The original passengers were said to be elite scientists, it would have been obvious to them they were inside something that wasn't accelerating.

How did this happen? It's a television show. Stating, "Okay, it's a TV show" and then completely ignoring this because you want to ignore that it's a TV show is a pointless exercise. Gregg is acknowledging why his complaint is ridiculous, then makes the complaint anyway.

 TMQ hopes for fancy chocolates in a box with "Swarovski Elements". The "scintillating opulence" will leave recipients "speechless." Last week the gift was listed as out of stock, which appears to suggest the One Percent has so much money to burn that members can spend $150 on a box of chocolates. Ho ho ho!

Gregg writes this as if he isn't a part of the 1% or anything like that. Gregg is 61 years old and I'm betting he makes about $350,000 per year for his writing and book sales. If not, he's probably pretty damn close to the 1% that he talks about here.

Why does everyone around Rex Ryan contract chronic boasting disease? Geno Smith declared "I've shown flashes of being a Pro Bowl-caliber quarterback."

Rex Ryan doesn't really boast that much anymore. Smith also said after that,

"but what we're looking for here is consistency. The best teams have consistent quarterback play and I realize that and that's truly what I want to show to the fans and everyone outside the building,"

So Smith did say he had shown flashes of being a Pro Bowl quarterback, but was also clear to acknowledge that he hasn't been very consistent. To take his quote in context isn't as much fun as taking it out of the context though.

Then Sheldon Richardson said he is as good as J.J. Watt. When Richardson said this, he had 6.5 sacks, one forced fumble, one recovered fumble and no touchdowns; Watt at the same juncture had 16.5 sacks, three forced fumbles, five recovered fumbles and five touchdowns.

Well, Richardson is pushing for a new contract like J.J. Watt and Gerald McCoy received. And Richardson is pretty good by the way.

Santa Clara's passing attack continues to be awful, while the once-unstoppable Colin Kaepernick continues to regress.

Let's not forget that while Gregg Easterbrook is calling Kaepernick unstoppable now, Gregg stated just last season that the zone read was dead and counted the 49ers out because Kaepernick was suddenly becoming stoppable. So Gregg calls Kaepernick "unstoppable" even though he's never really thought Kaepernick was unstoppable.

For weeks Bill Belichick has seemed to have a clear understanding that the AFC title may come down to where the Broncos and Patriots meet in January. Now any Denver-New England postseason meeting will occur in winter conditions in Massachusetts, opening the door to a Flying Elvii return to the Super Bowl.

Bill Belichick knew that Manning wouldn't want to play in winter conditions so he made it a goal to get homefield advantage throughout the playoffs and try to win every single game. This is as opposed to previous seasons when Belichick didn't try to get homefield advantage in the playoffs and didn't care to win every game the Patriots played.

On Monday night, Manning often saw the press coverages he's seen since last season's playoffs, yet responded by trying to throw super-short. Manning likes to throw super-short but this just doesn't work when receivers are jammed, as the Seahawks demonstrated in the Super Bowl.

If wide receivers are jammed then a team can't throw super-short. This is some great analysis from Gregg. All an opposing team has to do is jam the Broncos receivers and Peyton Manning can't complete a pass. Why hadn't opposing teams thought of doing this before? After all, jam the Broncos receivers and they can never break the jam or catch a pass. This is a rule and not some bullshit that Gregg just made up based on the result of a couple of games.

But yes, if a team has good enough corners to jam the Broncos receivers and not allow them any open space to catch a pass then the Broncos will struggle. The problem is not every team has good enough corners to do this and not every team runs a defense where the cornerbacks will jam the Broncos receivers. So Gregg's analysis leaves out a mention that it's not just as simple as jamming the Broncos receivers.

Cincinnati leading 30-28, Denver took possession on its 20 with 4 minutes remaining. Manning threw super-short twice, setting up third-and-1. On the night the Broncos rushed for an average of 4.5 yards per carry, why not run for the first down? An audible to a deep pass also was attractive.

As we learned earlier in this TMQ, the Broncos do have two options here and only two options. Run the football or throw it deep. Surely the Bengals knew these were the only two options and called up one of those defensive plays that cover the run and cover a deep pass.

Pre-snap, Manning saw seven Bengals on the line of scrimmage and 10 close to the line, a Cover 1 look that fairly screams, "Throw deep!" Instead the call was another super-short pass. Manning retreated 9 yards -- to gain 1 yard! -- then lobbed the ball short into double coverage for the pick-six that iced the contest. Ouch.

But there are only two options for the Broncos here. Throw deep or run the ball! Manning has to choose between these options, because the defense will totally not expect either one. Surely the Broncos would have scored a touchdown if they had just thrown it deep.

Any one rich person taxing himself or herself would do little to alter the overall national-debt equation. But this act would show sincerity and leadership. Treasury nominee Antonio Weiss -- put your money where your mouth is by taxing yourself, and disclosing the proof.

I'm embarrassed for myself that I read TMQ every week, even if I read it just to criticize and make fun of Gregg.

Now it's Steelers 10-6 with 27 seconds remaining before intermission, Kansas City facing fourth-and-1 on the Pittsburgh 12, Chiefs holding a time out. Normally conservative Andy Reid goes for it! But TMQ's Law of Short Yardage holds -- Do a little dance if you want to gain that yard. Power set, straight ahead rush -- no man-in-motion, no misdirection. Runner stuffed.

But going for it here would tell Andy Reid's team that he is very serious about winning the game and then this would inspire the Chiefs to win, right? Even if this fourth down conversion failed? Isn't that how it works? Fortune favors the bold, even if a little dance (which, if a team does misdirection or puts a man-in-motion to gain short yardage then wouldn't this be a tip-off that team is running so the misdirection or man-in-motion wouldn't be nearly as effective?) wasn't done? Why didn't the football gods that Gregg talks about reward Andy Reid for the boldness of going for it on fourth down?

Blur Offense Honks Out: The clock struck midnight for Mark Sanchez, who turned back into a pumpkin as the heavily favored Eagles lost to the woeful Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons. Once 9-3 with an inside track to the postseason, the Eagles are now consigned to the couch for January.

Chip Kelly looked as though he thought he was back at Oregon coaching against a cupcake such as Tennessee Tech, with victory automatic. Philadelphia trailing 17-14 in third quarter, on fourth-and-1, Kelly sent in the field goal unit. The Eagles entered with the league's second-ranked offense: what good is the second-ranked offense if you're afraid to try on fourth-and-1 when trailing a bad team in a must-win situation?

What Gregg neglects to mention is that for the past two seasons he has touted the Chip Kelly and other "West Coast" offenses as the future of football. Of course, he won't mention this when discussing how the Blur Offense of Chip Kelly honked out at the end of the NFL season. Rest assured, once a fast-paced offense picks up again Gregg will have at least one TMQ describing how Blur Offenses are taking over the NFL, while he describes how he knew this was happening. When a Blur Offense doesn't succeed, not much is heard from Gregg about how "West Coast" offenses are taking over the NFL. It's like how Gregg pronounces the zone read dead, then calls Colin Kaepernick "unstoppable" while running the zone read. Gregg loves to mention how revolutions in the NFL are starting or ending, but when faced with the failure or success of that revolution he gets quiet and forgets to mention how he touted or wrote that revolution off. It's dishonest writing, or at the very least, misleading writing that leaves out facts or details which don't match the point Gregg wants to prove.

Buck-Buck-Brawkkkkkk: Trailing by 11 points with six minutes remaining at Jacksonville, 2-12 Tennessee faced fourth-and-goal on the 5 -- and Ken Whisenhunt sent in the field goal unit. The Flaming Thumbtacks needed two scores, but if the trailing team takes the field goal in this situation, then it needs three scores -- field goal, touchdown, deuce conversion.

I don't really consider that to be three scores, but I'm sure Gregg says that only to criticize the Titans. If the Titans don't get a touchdown on the fourth down play then the game is over. They need to score a touchdown at some point anyway, so why not just take the three points and get the ball back knowing they need a touchdown and two-point conversion? Use the same play they would have used on fourth-and-goal (since Gregg is so confident the Titans could convert the touchdown) for the two-point conversion. Yes, the Titans are close enough to score a touchdown, but take the points and trust the defense to get the football back. Maybe I'm too conservative, but when given the chance to get points, I take them. A failure on fourth down here effectively ends the game, and it's not like the Titans wouldn't have to score another touchdown in order to prevent having to get "three scores," even if they did convert the fourth down here into a touchdown. 

The end zone was only five yards away, and needless to say, Tennessee never got near it again.

If the Titans didn't get near the end zone again then it doesn't matter what the fuck they did on this fourth down play. They weren't winning the game anyway. It's not like the Titans' defense would have gotten the football back if they were down four points and not eight points. The result is the same and this play ended up not making a difference in the game.

NBA Race to the Bottom Intensifies: With Rajon Rondo traded, the Celtics now hold at least nine first-round choices in the next four drafts, possibly 10 depending on fine print, plus extra second-round selections. Hey 76ers -- two can play at the deliberate-losing game! If only it were just two: many of the NBA's teams are diving into the tank, though attaining high draft picks often doesn't even work. The Knicks, 5-25 as of Tuesday, are cooperating with the Celtics in the goal of making a mockery of old NBA rivalries.

Except the Knicks aren't tanking intentionally, they are just not a very good team.

So be a proud fair-weather fan and write off the Knicks, Celtics, 76ers and others until such time as they may improve.

Why should I write off the Celtics? It costs me nothing to cheer for them when they are terrible. I don't have a chance to go to the games and I think they have a good plan to be a good team in the future. Why write them off because they are bad for one season? This is annoying point of view. It's not like the Celtics are a consistently bad team that causes me to write them off based on continuous lack of success. It's silly to claim fans should write off a team because that team struggles for a few seasons. It's not feigning loyalty to cheer for these teams, but is the definition of being a loyal fan.

Stay true to your favorite college basketball team because colleges play a larger role in society. NBA teams are just entertainment organizations. 

Well, college sports are entertainment as well. Not to mention, the role in society the NBA or NFL plays is irrelevant as to whether a person should be a fair weather fan or not.

Trailing Arizona by 9 points with six minutes remaining, a loss meaning elimination, facing fourth-and-goal at the Cardinals' 1, St. Louis coach Jeff Fisher sent in the placekicking unit. Yes, Les Mouflons needed two scores. But a field goal can be launched from long distance, St. Louis was just one yard away from the touchdown it had to get. The closest the Rams would come for the remainder of the contest was the Arizona 43.

So could the Rams have made the kick from the Arizona 43? That's a 60+ yard field goal from there. I'm not saying the conservative route is the way to go, but Tre Mason had 2.5 yards per carry during the game and the Cardinals are the a decent team against the rush (13th in the NFL). If they don't convert, the game is over. Fine, go for it, but even if the Rams converted they still may not have won the game.

Seattle leading 21-6 in the fourth quarter at Arizona, the Cardinals had no margin for error on defense. The Bluish Men Group faced first-and-15 deep in their territory. Arizona put nine men into the box against the expected clock-killer run. Marshawn Lynch broke through and reached the Seattle 45, where he was hemmed in at the sideline by Patrick Peterson and Rashad Johnson. Antonio Cromartie, the third defender close to Lynch, came to a complete stop and watched.

That Lynch managed to escape Peterson's grasp is impressive -- Peterson seemed to be trying to shove the Seattle tailback out of bounds rather than use proper form and wrap up. Ricardo Lockette, an undrafted Division II player who is a TMQ favorite, hustled like mad to get downfield and block Johnson out of the action. Cromartie simply stood watching as Lynch got away, not beginning to hustle until it was too late to stop the 79-yard touchdown that all but ended Arizona's bid for home-field advantage leading up to a Super Bowl on Arizona's home field.

You know who else is a TMQ favorite on this play? First round pick Marshawn Lynch. Funny how his draft position isn't mentioned at all when he was the guy running the football, while Gregg takes care to mention an undrafted free agent hustled down the field to block.

Next Week: Who will be fired on Black Monday?

Not Gregg Easterbrook, that's for sure.