4 comments Drew Sharp is Unhappy the NBA Lottery Works As It Is Intended to Work

Drew Sharp is upset that the Detroit Pistons haven't had better luck in the NBA Draft lottery over the past few seasons. He's mad that the Pistons are too good to get high lottery picks, but aren't good enough to make the playoffs. The only takeaway from this is that the NBA Draft lottery is broken and must be fixed. Of course, in the same article where Sharp complains the Pistons deserve a high lottery pick, he also points out how drafting high in the NBA lottery isn't a sure-fire way to land a great player. So Sharp is unhappy the NBA Draft lottery works in the way it is intended to because the Pistons deserve a high lottery pick that Sharp points out may not even get the Pistons an outstanding player. The last time the Pistons landed a high lottery pick, they drafted Darko Milicic. Since 2010 when the Pistons have drafted in spots 6-10 they have drafted Greg Monroe, Brandon Knight, Andre Drummond, and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope. So it seems like Sharp should want the Pistons to NOT get a Top 5 pick in the NBA Draft lottery. Alas, that is not the argument Sharp is making. He thinks the lottery is broken because it works how it is supposed to and he wants the Pistons to land a Top 5 pick that Sharp points out have a tendency to not live up to expectations anyway. Of course.

The NBA's lottery logic is egregiously flawed.

Not just flawed, but EGREGIOUSLY flawed. There is no coming back from how flawed the lottery is.

While the bad should be rewarded with the first dips into the pool of fresh, young talent, the league is failing miserably in maximizing the value of the process.

The No. 1 overall pick shouldn't be awarded. It should be won.

Instead of the draft lottery, there should be a draft tournament.

The logic is flawed. The worst teams should be rewarded with higher draft picks, so logically, the best way to do this is to hold a tournament where the winner of the tournament gets to draft first. So logically, the worst teams will be rewarded through the process of a tournament where the teams that didn't make the playoffs will compete for the #1 overall pick. Again, LOGICALLY (my God, there's no logic in this), it makes sense to maximize the value of the lottery process by holding a tournament, where the worst teams don't have a good chance of winning this tournament, in order to determine which team gets the #1 overall pick. How in the holy hell does it make sense to award the #1 overall pick to a team that wins a tournament, while acknowledging the worst NBA teams deserve the first shot at players in the draft? 

See, if a team is so bad that it is in the running for the #1 overall pick then that team logically won't be able to beat other NBA teams in a tournament. Therefore, it makes no logical sense to say, "Hey, the worst teams should have the best chance at getting the #1 overall pick," and then stating the #1 overall pick should be determined by the very same basketball games that showed the worst teams are the worst teams. Logically, the best "bad" teams will win this tournament and be awarded a better draft pick. It doesn't reward bad teams for being bad, it simply reproves the worst teams in the NBA are going to be the worst teams in the NBA and ensures a better NBA team gets a better draft pick than one of the worst NBA teams. It's not a bad idea, it's just an idea that doesn't achieve it's intended purpose. Logically. 

The current lottery system — a number of ping-pong balls in proportion to the number of games lost — punishes the Pistons more than other teams.

I mean, I would argue differently considering Greg Monroe and Andre Drummond exist on the Pistons roster. Or Greg Monroe DID exist prior to hitting free agency. Who the hell knows what's happening now? What punishes the Pistons more than other teams are really stupid fucking free agent signings. Ben Gordon, Josh Smith, and Charlie Villanueva would like to talk about this issue. Maybe Drew Sharp should look into stupid fucking free agent signings as the source of the Pistons' biggest issues.

Though bad the past six seasons, they haven't been dreadful enough to improve their chances at getting a top-three selection. The Pistons have a 3.89% chance of landing a top-three selection in Tuesday night's draft lottery.

The Pistons have been bad, but not one of the worst teams in the NBA. Therefore, the Pistons don't have a good chance of landing a very high draft pick. The lottery has worked as it is intended to.

It has been 12 years since they last got a top-three selection. The Pistons' problem is that they stay in the middle of the lottery pack. This will be their sixth straight season in the draft lottery, but they've never had a selection higher than seventh. The newly crowned NBA MVP, Golden State's Stephen Curry, was the seventh pick in 2009.

The Pistons made the playoffs from 2001-2002 through 2008-2009, so they had no chance at getting a top-three selection during those years. The Pistons didn't have a first round pick in 2012 and 2014. so that leaves the, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 drafts where they could have landed a top-three pick. The Pistons only had four chances in the last 12 years to get a top-three selection. They feel less cursed if you provide complete information, no?

The Pistons built the core of their current team in those four drafts, so it's not like they have really struggled finding talent in spots 6-10 of the first round. Considering the Pistons made the playoffs in half of those 12 years since they last received a top-three selection, I'm not sure what Drew Sharp is bitching about.

The draft lottery should benefit those close enough to genuinely contend for playoff series victories in the next season as well as those still molding a foundation onto which they could build a contender in another two or three years.

Whatever happened to the idea Drew mentioned where bad teams should be the ones who get the first dip into the talent pool? I guess that doesn't matter anymore.

I disagree the draft logic is flawed. Why should teams close enough to contend for playoff series victories be rewarded with higher draft picks? And let's be honest. The Pistons are good enough to contend for playoff victories only because they are in the Eastern Conference. They haven't won more than 32 games in a season since 2008-2009 season. They are consistently a mediocre team that has drafted well enough to win games, but have made other dumb moves that have held them back from making the playoffs. Why should this be rewarded over other teams who are just flat-out terrible? One man's "molding a foundation onto which they could build a contender in another two or three years" is another man's "they draft well, but don't draft well enough to cover up for other mistakes that are made in building the roster."

They might be the Eastern Conference lottery team best positioned for a dramatic surge upward if they score in the draft.

Maybe they are or maybe they are not. Who knows? Pretending this assumption is correct doesn't mean this assumption is actually correct. The Pacers, Heat, and Hornets all made the playoffs a year ago and two of those teams were missing their best player for a large part of the season. If any of those three teams landed a top-three pick then I would say they would surge upwards faster than the Pistons would, PLUS these teams have all shown that they actually can win a playoff series in reality (except the Hornets) and not theoretically on paper...you know, like Sharp claims the Pistons could.

Can you imagine a starting backcourt next season of point guard Reggie Jackson and Ohio State's D'Angelo Russell with Andre Drummond holding fort down low? Or how about Kentucky's Karl-Anthony Townes pairing with Drummond next season?

Can you imagine D'Angelo Russell slinging passes to Roy Hibbert and Paul George? How about Karl-Anthony Towns and Hassan Whiteside on the same team protecting the rim? What about Justise Winslow leading the fast break for any of these teams? If these players are any good they will help whatever team they are drafted by. Simply because the Pistons have a few good players doesn't mean they are more "worthy" than the Heat or Pacers, both teams who suffered injuries to important players this past season.

A draft tournament would help teams like the Pistons.

And obviously, because the draft tournament would help teams like the Pistons then it is a good idea. There's no doubt about that. The draft lottery would help teams like the Thunder, Pacers, Heat or Suns a little bit more.

It's something NBA commissioner Adam Silver and the NBA Players Association should strongly consider — if for nothing else but silencing the annual harping from skeptics that bad teams deliberately tank for more losses and more lottery ping-pong balls.

Ironically, Drew Sharp is talking about harping from skeptics and he happens to be one of those skeptics. So Drew Sharp has created the idea of a draft tournament in order to help his hometown team get a top-three draft pick and to stop himself from bitching about teams that deliberately lose games to get a better draft pick. He's acting like this draft tournament is anything but an attempt to satiate his own bitching and whining about the lottery process by acting like he isn't one of these skeptics. I really do believe the media cares more about tanking than the average NBA fan does. I could be wrong, but the media bitches about tanking so much that they create their own echo chamber where they believe tanking to be a huge issue when I think it's a huge issue of their own creation. I'm not sure how much the public, outside of fans of the teams doing the tanking, care about the issue.

Winning to prove that you deserve to be the biggest loser.

There are 14 nonplayoff teams. But the 13th- and 14th-ranked lottery teams shouldn't eligible for the tournament.

LO-fucking-L! So Drew Sharp goes through this whole column talking about a tournament that rewards those teams that are close enough to contend in a playoff series, but aren't good enough to make the playoffs. Then he immediately eliminates the two lottery teams that are the closest (in terms of record) to making the playoffs from the tournament. The Thunder and the Suns would have made the playoffs if they were in the Eastern Conference, but those are the two teams that Drew Sharp so amazingly chooses as not belonging in the tournament specifically designed for good teams who aren't good enough to make the playoffs.

I would say this is a shocking example of ineptitude, but it's not shocking. It's typical of modern sportswriting. Drew Sharp has an end he wants to achieve and he'll be damned if he doesn't achieve that end, even if he has to contradict his intent. He wants a tournament for NBA lottery teams to prove they deserve the #1 overall pick because they have molded a foundation, so he eliminates the two teams that are closest to actually making the playoffs and currently seem to be the closest to molding that foundation to success. Brilliant.

Take the remaining 12 teams. The worst four get a first-round bye. Each will play in its own three-team bracket. The next eight play one another based on their lottery seeding. The four first-round winners will play the four worst teams in the second round. The second-round winners will represent the draft's Final Four.

Or maybe it should be called the Flawed Four.

And the intent of this tournament is? To reward the best teams in the NBA with better picks? Because if the intent is anything but that, then this tournament will not achieve it's intended purpose. The worst teams in the lottery have had 82 games to prove they don't deserve to make the playoffs. A draft lottery tournament will only go to reinforce this as true.

The NBA has expressed resistance in such a plan because it doesn't want anything detracting from the full attention on the league's best battling for an actual championship. But shouldn't all league parties involved want the best system possible for those teams striving to become a playoff team?

Yes, they should. Teams that aren't very good right now do want to become a playoff team in time, so that's why they get the best possible lottery position, because they aren't very good and they want to be a playoff team. Simply because the Pistons are a mediocre to below average team doesn't mean they want to make the playoffs more than a team like the Magic or Sixers, who aren't very good at all, want to make the playoffs.

The 19-year-old draft entry requirement effectively has rendered the current lottery system obsolete. You're extremely fortunate now if just one of the top-four players selected becomes a decently productive starter, let alone a superstar such as former No. 1 overall selections Anthony Davis, Kyrie Irving and Derrick Rose.

Great, more LOL'ing for me. Drew Sharp writes this column about how the NBA needs to "reward" NBA teams who try to build good teams and almost make the playoffs with a top-three pick. Then Drew Sharp ends the column with "NBA teams are fortunate if a top-four player becomes a productive NBA starter." So if the Pistons need luck to get a productive player in the top-four of the draft then why would the NBA "reward" them with a top-four pick? The Pistons have found two productive starters with the four first round starters they had between picks 6-10. Why not just have the Pistons stay there since they have proven they can find productive starters in those spots and not "reward" them by turning the intent of the lottery around? 

I think this is hilarious and very Terence Moore-esque of Drew Sharp. He spends an entire column talking about how the Pistons deserve an early lottery pick and then writes that teams are lucky to find productive players with those early lottery spots anyway. He submarines his own point. Welp, I guess it's not really a problem that the Pistons don't get those early lottery picks is it? 

Over the past seven drafts, only eight of the 28 players selected in the top four have been even remotely impactful.

That's basically a 25% average (one out of four).

And THESE are the guys that Drew Sharp so vehemently wants the Pistons to be in a position to draft?

If the odds are that long in finding that one potential star among the top-four selections, then shouldn't the value of that pick be worth more than the random assembly of ping-pong balls?

Notice how Drew Sharp leaves out the 2007 draft. If the 2007 draft were included then it would be 11 of 32 players selected in the top-four that have been remotely impactful. If that odds are that long in finding that one potential star among the top-four selections, then shouldn't it make sense to leave the draft lottery as it is and allow the teams with the worst record to have the best chance at the top-four picks? After all, the Pistons aren't really missing out on anything special if that's hard to find a productive player in the top four picks.

Over the last seven drafts (2008-2014) I count 11 players that have been remotely impactful in the 5-8 spots in the first round and 9 players that have been remotely impactful drafted in the 9-12 spots in the first round. So what does it matter if the lottery is egregiously flawed for the reasons that Drew Sharp indicates? Why is a tournament needed if the teams that are building something great can still find impactful players later in the lottery? After all, Drew Sharp admits it's not easy to find great, productive players in the first four picks of the draft. So how is allowing them the chance (through a tournament) even a reward for teams like the Pistons? I guess we will see tonight how it goes for them.

7 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought of: Baseball Hall of Fame Voting Reactions Edition

I'm pretty tired of the reactions to the Baseball Hall of Fame inductee announcement and the debate that surrounds it. Don't get me wrong, I could write about it for an entire month, but I would be repeating myself quite a bit. Since I have a ton of links saved up about the baseball Hall of Fame I figured I would dust off "Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought of," which is basically a cheap way of clearing out all the links I have saved up in my bookmarks. These are articles that don't deserve (or I don't feel like deserve) a full takedown on this site, but still deserve recognition for the awfulness (and sometimes non-awfulness) contained in them. I haven't done one of these in over three years, and yes, I realize I sometimes do five items and not ten. Being lazy is hard work.

1. Terence Moore tells us the Hall of Fame voting process is almost perfect. It's so shocking for Terence to take a stance like this. If the Hall of Fame voting wasn't perfect then that would mean it needs to be changed and Terence is against change in baseball...except for the one game Wild Card playoff which he thinks is a brilliant idea. This opinion has nothing to do with his affiliation at MLB.com of course.

As for the truth, the voting process for Hall of Famers is almost flawless, and I'm not saying that just because I'm among the voting members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Maybe I'm a little biased, but here's an example of why I'm more objective than not when it comes to the big picture of this Cooperstown thing: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas. Heard of them? 

This is a real jewel of a sentence. Terence says he may be a little biased because he's a voter for the baseball Hall of Fame, but he's also more objective than not. So Terence believes himself to be a little biased, as well as objective. Hmmm...

Then there is the future, where the list of undisputed Hall of Fame picks stretches from now into forever. In 2015, John Smoltz, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and Gary Sheffield will lead first-timers on the ballot, and if Biggio doesn't get in this year, he'll do so next year. In '16, there is Ken Griffey Jr., and that's more than enough. Then comes a drought in '17 -- well, unless holdovers such as Trevor Hoffman or Curt Schilling make Cooperstown. But '18 will give us Chipper Jones, and then we'll have some Yankees in '19, with Mariano Rivera and Andy Pettitte. Jim Thome didn't wear pinstripes, but he also could be in that class.

You get the idea. When you combine the picks of the Expansion Era Committee of those legendary managers with what the BBWAA voters will announce Wednesday and with all of those Cooperstown entrees to come beyond this year, the Hall of Fame selection process is working just fine, thank you.

Terence is basing his belief the Hall of Fame voting process is working fine on FUTURE inductions into the baseball Hall of Fame of course. What if Randy Johnson isn't voted into the Hall of Fame, Craig Biggio never makes it in, or Gary Sheffield doesn't make it because of his suspected PED use? What if Pettitte is left out or Thome gets the stench of PED's surrounding him? At that point, is the voting process working? It's silly to use future inductions as an example of how the voting system is working, but that's Terence Moore.

Which brings us back to No. 5 and the words "integrity" and "character." Which eliminates any player involved with PEDs. Which shoves Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and others away from Cooperstown's city limits. That otherwise terrific trio represented the first wave of players from the Steroid Era destined to fall shy of the 75 percent of the votes needed during a given year to reach Cooperstown. Good. That's even more vindication for the Hall of Fame voting process.

Except for the fact Jeff Bagwell won't make it and he is being eliminated in large part because of his suspected PED use. That's vindication for the different standards each Hall of Fame voter uses to elect players into the Hall of Fame and is a reason to make slight changes to the process.

Here's more vindication: The present, where Hall of Famer voters get it. We really do, especially since Maddux will come as close to a 100-percent lock for Cooperstown as you can get.

So further proof the voting process works is that obvious Hall of Fame inductees are inducted into the Hall of Fame? That's like saying your washer isn't broken because it gets the clothes wet isn't it? It's not a question of whether the obvious candidates get in, but a matter of the different standards used by different voters that some have an issue with.

I have a problem with that. If you were a Hall of Famer after you retired, you remain one forever. So why play first-ballot games? But remember: I said the voting process was almost flawless.

And he's objectively biased when he says this.

2. Michael Knisley has a pretty good article up on ESPN.com about PED-affiliated players falling off the ballot. He talks specifically about Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. It turns out only Palmeiro fell off the ballot for next year.

And once they're off the writers' ballot, their Cooperstown prospects are gone forever, or at least until some future incarnation of a Veterans Committee fringes them in.

(Overwrought aside: How much do we perceive a player inducted on a Veterans Committee vote to be a sort of second-class Hall citizen? If, say, Dick Allen or Keith Hernandez is ever admitted that way, do we place him at a mind's-eye table near the back of the room, or do we seat him up on the Ruth-Aaron-Gehrig dais in a sort of one-for-all Hall of Fame democracy? Just askin', 'cause I struggle with that question myself.)

I have to admit I'm not entirely sure how to treat these Veterans Committee inductees myself. It sort of feels like a cheap way to get players into the Hall of Fame that never really had support to be inducted, but the Veterans Committee decides to overrule the electorate anyway because they like certain players.

And as much as I wonder about what the Hall will be, what it will mean, without Palmeiro, McGwire and Sosa, I can't make any sense at all of a future writers' vote that puts Clemens and Bonds into the Hall of Fame when we didn't see our way clear to send those other three.

I view the baseball Hall of Fame as a museum where fans can go and look at the legacy of baseball players. In this line of thought, museums often contain some negative images or ideas that were popular but are preserved because it's part of the history the museum wants to represent. So for me, I vote Clemens and Bonds into the Hall of Fame if I view it from the standpoint it is like a museum. Include the legacy of the Steroid Era, embrace it, don't run from it, and I think it makes the Hall of Fame more complete.

I look at it this way: The debate as it pertains to PEDs is a tension between those who want the Hall to celebrate the best in baseball and those who want the best in baseball to be worthy of the Hall's celebration. I side with the second half of that dynamic. No apologies, even if it means that little baseball museum in Cooperstown might have a different feel to it next Thursday morning than it does right now.

You don't have to apologize, but know guys like Whitey Ford and Gaylord Perry are known cheaters who are in the baseball Hall of Fame. Perry has bragged about throwing a spitball, so I'm not sure in that aspect he is worthy of the Hall's celebration. But hey, I'm sure the voters thought long and hard about the integrity clause when inducting Perry.

3. Rick Morrissey blames the players for creating a climate of distrust. While I see where he is going with this, the doubts and distrust are something relative to each voter. So the players create the climate of distrust, but it's the voter's job to sort through this climate and determine which players and why don't deserve this distrust. This column comes off as more of a power play on Rick Morrissey's part than an actual statement that means anything. He doesn't have to vote for players he thinks used PED's and he is going to rub your face in it.

Everyone brings different criteria to the voting process. Mine happen to include whether I have even a sliver of suspicion a player might have used PEDs. The ones I’m not sure about don’t get a checkmark next to their names. It’s a subjective, severe and sometimes unfair method.

And I had an agnostic “no,’’ if there is such a thing, for Steroid Era guys such as Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Luis Gonzalez and Jeff Kent.

I can’t emphasize this enough: I’m not sorry about any of it.

Well, the voting is about Rick Morrissey and what he is sorry for. 

Don’t blame me for the people who didn’t get into the Hall. Blame an era. Blame the dirty players (and there were a lot of them) for creating an atmosphere heavy with distrust. Blame Major League Baseball if you think it was either complicit in the Steroid Era or looked the other way. I don’t care.

While I understand Rick Morrissey has already stated it's not fair, I'm not sure this statement prevents me from asking why guys who Morrissey assumes PED's are left off his Hall of Fame ballot? Is it really right for Craig Biggio to not be inducted into the Hall of Fame because other players have cast suspicion on him? 

I get to vote how I want, for whom I want and by whatever yardstick I want. That’s how it works when you walk into a voting booth, isn’t it? You bring in all your experiences, opinions and prejudices.

Actually no, that's not how it is supposed to work. When voting for the baseball Hall of Fame all prejudices and biases should be set aside in favor of electing the best players in baseball history into the Hall of Fame. If I am a voter who hates the Yankees, does this mean I use my prejudice against the Yankees and refuse to give Mariano Rivera or Derek Jeter my vote? That's acceptable? 

I’ve been asked how I can be so sure Thomas didn’t take steroids. The answer, of course, is that I can’t be sure about anyone. But Thomas was always big. He had thick arms and legs when he was a kid and when the Sox called him up in 1990. Take a look at photos of Sosa and Bonds when they debuted and tell me if they look anything like the heavily muscled beasts they became.

Frank Thomas as a rookie. Frank Thomas near the end of his career.

Barry Bonds early and late in his career.

I don't know. I don't think Frank Thomas used steroids and I think Barry Bonds did, but Frank Thomas did get bigger as he aged and hit 39 home runs as a 38-year old. 

Voting for former players who took drugs legitimizes PED usage. It sends a terrible message to young athletes. I guess that makes me hopelessly unsophisticated. Not sorry about that, either.

Fine then. I have always laughed at these sportswriters who get worked up over the PED era while completely ignoring the era of greenie use because it's not convenient for them to do so. After all, those players from the 60's and 70's are legends. No need to touch their legacy.

4. Steve Wulf wonders if there could be a new baseball Hall of Fame. It's an interesting idea, but MLB would never allow this to happen.

I realize the HOF vote is no longer about honoring baseball. It's about arguing over it. Some boob voted for 148-game winner Aaron Sele last year. Another stooge voted for Jacque Jones this year. What if the Jacque-backer didn't vote for Craig Biggio, who came up two votes short?

The dysfunctional and anachronistic voting process has rendered the institution irrelevant. Surely, there were more than three worthy inductees on this remarkably rich slate. And here's where my fury gives way to fear.

What if there were another shrine to the game? What if an entrepreneur came along and decided to erect a temple that better reflected reality, made history more readily accessible, catered to a new generation of fans?

I don't think this should make anyone fearful. If a person wanted to open another hall of fame for baseball then it would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would be successful without the backing of MLB. 

What if it celebrated Ruth and Rose and Ryan and didn't bother with Faber and Ferrell and Flick?

Well, in that case the hall of fame would be incomplete, just like many think the current Hall of Fame is incomplete without Bonds, Rose, and Clemens.

What if it waived the five-year wait, knowing that it didn't need a bunch of writers to tell people that certain players -- Derek Jeter, for instance -- were worthy of inclusion?

I like the waiting period. It gives sportswriters time to cool off the hyperbole they will write about the player while casting that player has a "first ballot Hall of Famer."

What if instead of plaques, it had holograms of the game's legends? What if it made use of technology and creativity to put visitors right in the dugout to sit beside Casey Stengel and watch Mickey Mantle play?

That would be cool, though if this hall of fame were to be successful then in fifty years it would have the same issue the current Hall of Fame has, where visitors may not always remember who Casey Stengel was and it could seem dated.

There would be problems, of course. Major League Baseball would surely fight such a venture, wielding copyright laws and making its displeasure known to the baseball stars tempted by the venture.

This is one of the reasons I don't believe another hall of fame would work. MLB has copyrights to many of the film and other aspects that would make this new hall of fame so fun to attend. It's quite possible MLB would fight in court to ensure the new hall of fame could not even use the Yankees logo. It would then be like an early 90's Nintendo baseball game without the rights to the player's names. It can be the Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball Hall of Fame (and yes, I went in and changed the names of every player on that game to the correct name...I had very few friends as a child).

But I do want the so-called guardians of baseball to realize that they are hurting the game by turning it into an internecine War of the Nerds. Don't deny Biggio because of some arcane reason or twisted math. He had 3,000 hits, for heaven's sake.

While I sigh at the idea of using 3,000 hits as a primary measure for why Biggio should be in the baseball Hall of Fame, I do agree with the sentiment.

Make the F about their Fame and not your Folly.

And ask yourself: What if paradise gets lost because of your reluctance to change?

That's a sentence I never thought a guy like Steve Wulf would write. In the end, a new hall of fame wouldn't work because MLB wouldn't let it work. It would be defamed as the PED Hall of Fame by BBWAA members as well. I think Murray Chass would have a heart attack if another hall of fame were built.

5. Jon Heyman, the shill for Scott Boras, thinks PED users should not make the Hall of Fame...yet. The difference in why these PED users should make it in five years and not now eludes me even after I read the column.

Faced with a Hall of Fame ballot stacked with all-time greats, generational greats and just plain old regular greats, there's been a predictable chorus of complaints by voting sportswriters who've been forced by the 10-player limit to omit candidates they believe are worthy (though maybe not quite as worthy as the 10 they did include).

The fact the arbitrary cut-off is at 10 players doesn't mean the 11th player isn't worthy of Hall of Fame induction.

Next year, I will reconsider them all. But I'm not close to being ready to squeeze a clean guy off the ballot so I can put a steroid guy onto the ballot, as it appears many others are. The result is a ballot I can be proud of (even if it's a ballot sure to draw internet ridicule). Admittedly, mine is not a ballot with the 10 most accomplished, or even, quite likely, the 10 best players.

This is some crazy-ass logic to me. Barry Bonds is worthy of Hall of Fame induction if the only other guys on the ballot is Trevor Hoffman, but when put up against more "worthy" inductees all of a sudden Barry Bonds isn't Hall of Fame-worthy. I get rewarding a clean player and not rewarding a steroid guy. That I can get, but isn't the steroid guy getting rewarded by being elected into the Hall of Fame during a "down" year anyway? It's a reward for his career achievements just in the same way a clean player is being rewarded by being first in line to the Hall of Fame. No matter the place in line, the reward is the same. I say if Jon Heyman is going to vote for a steroid guy, then just do it. Don't use fuzzy logic to push Bonds' induction back until he becomes worthy because other clean candidates aren't available.

Integrity.

Sportsmanship.

Character.

They still count. At least they do here.

Unless it is a slow year, in which case being able to attend the Hall of Fame ceremony takes precedence over these three words. These three words count until they don't need to count anymore.

Still, it's a point lost by many nowadays, as steroids, performance enhancers, and cheating in general is becoming more and more excused as the way of an entire era.

And in slow years for the Hall of Fame, cheating would excused so that at least one player is inducted into the Hall of Fame. I can't believe Jon Heyman doesn't see the problem with his logic.

But no one's going to take away their trophies, the extra millions they made or certainly the at-the-time adulation. The only recourse is the vote, and the time isn't right to add to their accolades. At least not for me.

But if Bonds and Clemens have the accolades to be in the Hall of Fame, then why not vote them in now? Why choose to vote them in down the road when their accolades don't change, just the competition for a Hall of Fame spot is reduced?

All that being said, I understand the "yes" votes. I don't believe the new numbers guys are any less aware of the benefits of steroid use, nor do I believe they are any less moral. I just think their whole thing is stats, and they don't know how to account for steroids, so they just ignore them. Or mostly ignore them.

Well, then tell us the great and power Jon Heyman, how do you account for steroids? Give us the lowdown on how to account for steroids because I would love to know as a perceived stats guy how I am supposed to account for them since numbers are all I know. Yeah, exactly. Jon Heyman doesn't know how to account for steroids either.

That's OK. It's their call, their right. And I get it; those guys were undeniably great players. I can't do it, though. So, without further ado, here are my honest, honorable, deserving 10 players.

And the undeserving players may become more deserving depending on how strong the Hall of Fame class is down the road. I'll save Jon Heyman's ballot for another day because I don't perceive it to be worthy right now, but if there are fewer interesting articles to write about one week, maybe his ballot will suddenly become worthy of being discussed on this blog.

6. Drew Sharp doesn't understand why the Hall of Fame is intentionally snubbing the 1984 Detroit Tigers team. They won the World Series title after all. I want to know why the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks are being snubbed. Curt Schilling and Luis Gonzalez are winners, don't all World Series champions deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?

But I still can’t understand why the 1984 Detroit Tigers remain the most disrespected World Series champion among the Hall of Fame electorate. Jack Morris doesn’t possess the bevy of individual accolades that dazzle the statistically inclined...His three World Series rings from a nine-year period as respective staff ace for three teams (Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays) attest to that special clutch gene that so few competitors possess.

Jim Leyritz had that clutch gene too. Where's his Hall of Fame plaque?

Alan Trammell likely won’t come anywhere close to the necessary 75% for election. And how Lou Whitaker didn’t garner enough voting support to last beyond his first appearance on the ballot 14 years ago remains one of the great injustices in Hall of Fame voting history.

I think the answer is clear. The Hall of Fame hates the 1984 Detroit Tigers. There's no other explanation for why Jack Morris isn't in the Hall of Fame.

If they played in the day of the 24/7 MLB Network and limitless cable television access to a dozen games a day, Morris’ combustibility coupled with that fiery competitiveness would have made a more captivating national narrative.

The evolution of the Trammell-Whitaker infield pairing from when they debuted together in the final days of the 1977 season through their career inseparability would have taken more of a star turn.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass on the ground.

I'm not against Alan Trammel or Lou Whitaker being in the Hall of Fame necessarily, but the idea where Drew Sharp is connecting a lack of exposure to these players not being in the Hall of Fame speaks to issues with the process. If voters aren't able to evaluate a player without evaluating the hype around that player, then I'm not sure that voter should be electing players into the Hall of Fame.

Justin Verlander could retire today and make a more compelling argument for getting into the Hall of Fame in another five years than Morris.

This says a lot of about Jack Morris and his candidacy.

Verlander arguably has accomplished more in eight years than Morris achieved in his entire career — two no-hitters and a couple of near misses, an American League Most Valuable Player Award and Cy Young Award in the same year (and he was a few votes shy of winning a consecutive Cy Young). Verlander has three AL strikeout titles. He won the pitching Triple Crown in 2011 (first in wins, strikeouts and ERA).

Now see, THAT is what a Hall of Fame pitcher's resume is supposed to look like.

But he has pitched terribly in two World Series.

This would possibly be a relevant point if Verlander was a borderline Hall of Fame candidate (much like Morris is, except the candidacy of Morris is based on his postseason record and hyperbole), but he isn't. The fact Verlander hasn't pitched well in the World Series doesn't mean Jack Morris has a better candidacy because he pitched well in some (not all) World Series games.

Getting Morris into the Hall won’t excuse ignoring Trammell and Whitaker, but it would be hopeful start in the right direction.

Notice how this column went from "The 1984 Detroit Tigers are overlooked" into "Jack Morris needs to be in the Hall of Fame"?

7. Jerry Green also voted for Jack Morris, which shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

A different young pitcher was running to the left-field bullpen. He started to warm up. He was going to start the ballgame in the place of the beloved Fidrych, who had provided excitement to Detroit sports during the doldrums.

Jack Morris remembers that night well because he was the replacement pitcher and he has talked frequently about his raw welcome.

“Fidrych was hurt, and when I ran out to the bullpen in left field, everybody booed,” Morris told me time and again through the years. “It was my first start.

Boy, I'm sure Jack Morris ran out to the bullpen in a dogged manner that showed how he was going to gut out complete games and be the best pitcher of a cherry-picked span of time. 

And he survived 6½ innings before manager Ralph Houk yanked him and went to the bullpen.

Jack Morris didn't throw a complete game? This goes against everything I've ever heard about him throw the hyperbole and anecdotal stories. 

There is no duel here. Maddux and Glavine will stuff Morris out of the competition. Jack goes 15 years and out, on to the Veterans Committee.

It’s a shame, a pity. Jack should have collected the required 75 percent of the votes years ago. One of his World Series victories was for the Twins, a 1-0 Game 7 epic in 10 innings over the Braves in 1991.

I wish the Braves had lost that game in nine innings 12-0 for a variety of reasons, but the fact this game is mentioned every single time the Hall of Fame and Jack Morris is brought up is probably chief among these reasons. 

This year, one of the 700 plus voters among us sold his — or her — Hall of Fame ballot to Deadspin.com. The person remains anonymous. The guy is a traitor, and once upon a time there was way to deal with those committing treason. A firing squad.

Oops, baseball is a game.

Hilarious. The funny part is Jerry Green's fellow voters act like Dan Le Batard should get the firing squad for allowing Deadspin.com voters to vote for him. He didn't sell his vote, but what are facts when lies work just as well in the absence of facts? 

That the best baseball team I ever covered —the 1984 Tigers — will have not a single player in the Cooperstown Hall of Fame. Only Sparky Anderson, the manager, has been elected to the Hall of Fame. And forced to choose, Sparky opted to go into the Hall as the once-manager of the Cincinnati Reds.

The process somehow should be changed.

I like how both old school voters and new school voters both want the system changed, but nearly everyone of them agrees that Dan Le Batard should not have done what he did in showing the absurdity of the current Hall of Fame voting system. 

8. Jay Mariotti is sad the PED bums ruined the day for Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas. Not only are the proven and suspected PED users not being elected into the Hall of Fame, but now they are being accused of ruining the Hall of Fame announcements with their mere existence. 

When the occasion called for tributes to deserving Hall of Fame inductees, there instead was overwrought shouting about those tainted and shunned by the Steroids Era.
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/a-day-for-the-greats-not-the-ped-bums/#1gJJqP9HGd1zkkqB.99

When the occasion called for tributes to deserving Hall of Fame inductees, there instead was overwrought shouting about those tainted and shunned by the Steroids Era.

On the day of the announcement I heard no one complaining that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were being shunned. I think Jay Mariotti lives in his own world where there is no reality, just Jay's perception of reality. Arguments that may never have occurred happened because Jay wanted them to occur. 

This should be their stage, period, yet in commentaries and talk-show discussions, you heard furious debates — again — about whether Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and other presumed users of performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed through Cooperstown’s gates regardless of their chemical sins.

I actually didn't hear any of this. Most of the talk was about Dan Le Batard or the three inductees. Also notice how Jay is complaining these PED users are dominating the conversation but the column that Jay writes the day after the Hall of Fame announcement is about these PED users. So who is causing this conversation about the PED users to occur again? 

As a Chicago columnist in the Steroids Era, I realized early amid the McGwire-Sosa carnival that we were being hoodwinked.

Of course you did, Jay. Of course you did. That's why you wrote the article that doesn't exist about these players having used PED's? Isn't that right? You were going to say something since you already had it all figured out, but just didn't get around to it. But you totally knew. 

I was just as pleased to see a voter mock the process. Miami Herald columnist Dan Le Batard turned over his ballot to a low-grade web site, saying he hates “the hypocrisy in this” and that he always likes “a little anarchy inside the cathedral we’ve made of sports.” It is an unprofessional and self-promotional move, I realize, but in this case, it further taunts the voting farce.

You won't believe this, but in article #9 Jay rips Dan Le Batard for doing the very thing Jay described as being "pleased" Le Batard did. But of course. 

Last year, Cooperstown was a ghost town in July. No one was elected, making the Hall of Fame a casualty of the Steroid Era. This summer, Main Street will be booming again, with three players and three managers.

But Jay Mariotti will still perceive that the PED users will dominate the day and then write a story about how Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens overshadowed the inductions. There are few writers as delusional and willing to make up a reality for a column as Jay Mariotti is. 

9. Now Jay Mariotti has gone from pleased with Dan Le Batard to ripping him in the matter of one day.

It’s disturbing enough that ESPN has prioritized its multi-billion-dollar relationships with nearly every imaginable sports enterprise at the expense of a once-proud trademark — investigative reporting — knowing that it can’t rat out business bedfellows without jeopardizing lucrative deals. It’s also troubling that Fox Sports 1, supposed ESPN challenger, has fewer viewers than certain “To Be Announced” channels, this after reducing a quality web site to unreadable sophomoric mish-mash. 

Translation: Neither of these sites will hire Jay Mariotti. So he rips them until they hire him. 

 Bill Simmons? A blogging creation who masturbates to his rambling prose and couldn’t break a piece of china, much less a story. When Doc Rivers referred to him as a glorified fan, he nailed it.

I can't choose between Jay Mariotti and Bill Simmons. While Mariotti is correct about the first sentence here, he is also very jealous of Bill Simmons. Simmons got all the forums and opportunities at ESPN that Mariotti wanted and couldn't get.

In one sense, I was pleased Le Batard chose to protest the process by which players are elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Frustrated that perceived users of performance-enhancing drugs are being kept out of Cooperstown by voting writers, he didn’t use his vote this year. The system is broken — writers should be reporting news and commenting on news, not making news as the exclusive HOF arbiters — and Le Batard wasn’t afraid to voice his feelings publicly.

Jay likes it, but he didn't like who Le Batard gave his vote to. Deadspin makes fun of Jay Mariotti and has a grudge against them for this. 

Though I don’t agree about admitting the juicers — when their lying and denial have done irreparable damage to the sport, why admit them to a sacred shrine that celebrates what is right about baseball? — he does have every right to voice his contempt. Where he erred was stooping into the gutter of a trashy site, a decision that wasn’t supported by his ESPN and Miami Herald bosses.

This is an inconsistency in Jay's argument. Through this whole column he rips ESPN for being overly-corporate and kowtowing to their special interests, but when an ESPN employee goes against the special interests and doesn't do something the corporation doesn't like, Jay says that employee should fall in line with corporate policy. It's okay to rebel, just do it in a way Jay Mariotti likes. 

Why not use his ESPN platforms to deliver his message in a more credible, professional and sensible manner? “I hate all the moralizing we do in sports in general,” he told the trash site, “but I especially hate the hypocrisy in this. I always like a little anarchy inside the cathedral we’ve made of sports.”

Maybe Le Batard should have used a forum through ESPN to get his message across. The message was giving his vote to another site for their readers to vote, so unless ESPN was willing to let ESPN readers vote for players on Dan Le Batard's ballot, he couldn't make the point he wanted to make without having someone outside of ESPN vote on his behalf. 

the biggest brain cramp belonged to a writer who lost his soul and let a bunch of future burger-flippers smudge his career.

“Highly Questionable” is the name of Le Batard’s TV show, which he does with his father.

Highly questionable is how I would describe his judgment. Or just high.

Great way to end the column, Jay. Maybe the way Le Batard went about making his statement could have used some work, but rest assured ESPN wasn't going to be a part of any process where a Hall of Fame vote was chosen by someone other than Le Batard. Apparently it is okay to solicit suggestions on who to vote for, which is possibly what Le Batard should have done, but he couldn't have made the point he wanted to make and done it through ESPN.

10. Craig Biggio missed by two votes. Two votes. I would be pissed if I were him at the writers who left him off the ballot because they affiliate him with steroids. I would also be pissed if I were him at the Hall of Fame voter who turned in a blank ballot. If anyone should have their ballot rescinded then it is the voter who turned in a blank ballot. That makes more of a mockery of the process by refusing to participate in the process at all.

Also, how is it okay to openly solicit suggestions on who to vote for like other Hall of Fame voters have done, but it's not okay to have others vote for the players they deem worthy and then sign your name to that ballot? It's nearly the same thing.

I 

On the 

3 comments Drew Sharp Just Wants to Watch the World Burn

The BCS is moving towards a four team playoff in 2014. I am in favor of a four team playoff, though I probably would prefer an eight team playoff more, but baby steps is all I can ask for at this point. I could survive if there was not a college football playoff at all, though I think that four team playoff setup is going to result in more a exciting college football bowl season. Drew Sharp is not a fan of the BCS four game playoff. It's not that he doesn't like the playoff, it is just that he likes to see chaos and mayhem. Some people just like to watch the world burn and it appears Drew Sharp is one of these people. He likes uncertainty and imperfection, especially in situations where perfection or certainty can be attained.

Drew wrote this column before Oregon, Alabama, and Kansas State lost and we knew the national title game would be Notre Dame v. Alabama, which makes his opinion on a bowl system even less persuasive in my mind. There is a one loss team in the BCS Championship Game and why can't Oregon, Florida or Kansas State have a chance to prove they can compete with Notre Dame or Alabama head-to-head? 

Chaos gets a bad rap, especially in college football.

Probably because sports fans tend to prefer champions of a certain sport to be decided on the field in a set format that allows everyone to know who is the ultimate winner of that sports' season. Many sports fans like to know the winners and losers of a certain sport and knowing exactly who won and lost is appealing in order to determine who the best and worst teams are. Many sports fans like certainty, and while uncertainty is good for debate, I think a four game playoff will make college football bowl season more exciting by making it more certain.

Not to mention, a college football playoff isn't like the one game Wild Card playoff in MLB. This isn't a contrived setup in order to create more drama in the sport. There is a reason the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament is so exciting and looked forward to. That reason is college sports tend to work well within a playoff format. I have a feeling the four team playoff or (in my dreams) an eight game playoff would be as well-received, if not more well-received, then the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament...perhaps not immediately, but over a five year span.

Turmoil isn't toxic in this sport. If anything, it's a rejuvenating elixir.

Not really, unless you are one of those people who enjoys the stories and drama surrounding a game more than you enjoy the actual game or sporting event yourself (cough, cough Bill Simmons). Turmoil in itself isn't toxic in sports, but when determining the "winner" of a certain sport then turmoil can often be anything other than a rejuvenating elixir. In the case of college football, turmoil doesn't ruin the sport, but I think it takes a little bit away from the National Championship Game. There is always the idea or perception another team should have been given a shot to participate in the title game. No, the controversies over who should be in the National Championship game doesn't ruin college football, but if given the chance to see which team is the best in a playoff format then I see why it is an attractive option to do so.

It's a sport in which conviction becomes as important as competition. The argument is often more fun than the final score.

And there will still be arguments. If there was a 32 team playoff there would be arguments over which teams deserved to be in that playoff. The NCAA Tournament has 68 teams and the talking heads still discuss "snubs" and teams that don't deserve to be in the tournament. There were always be conviction and argument over the participants in the college football playoff. The only difference is the argument won't potentially (hopefully) be about an unbeaten team who gets no chance to prove they belong in the National Championship Game. The arguments now will be about which teams are #3 or #4 in the nation, as opposed to which teams are #1 or #2 in the nation.

And we've got a doozy of a quarrel coming in another three weeks -- potentially four unbeaten teams squeezing into two spots for the BCS championship game.

Actually there were five unbeaten teams when he wrote this (Louisville, Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame), but since Drew Sharp loves uncertainty and chaos I am guessing he isn't considered with such trivial matters as "research" or "accuracy" when writing his columns.

Four unbeaten teams would be fine and chaotic. I would prefer with there being four (actually five) unbeaten teams we have a determination which of these teams is the best team that doesn't involve a computer or "Six Degrees of Team A" where we say "Team A lost to Team B, but beat Team C, who lost to Team B, but beat Team E in a blowout," to determine if Team A deserves a shot in the National Championship game. Under the four team BCS playoff all of these teams would be in (as long as they stayed unbeaten) and there wouldn't be a debate over which team got "screwed..." except there would be still be a debate. I guarantee if Louisville stayed unbeaten and Georgia only lost one game then there would be those arguing with conviction that Georgia deserves that BCS playoff spot. In fact, if Georgia had beaten another one loss team they would have probably ended up in the BCS title game against Notre Dame. Why can't Oregon or Florida get a shot since they only have one loss? The argument will never end.

A competition between the one loss teams would be a nice thing in my mind, as opposed to relying on BCS rankings to tell us Alabama will end up playing Notre Dame. I think a four team playoff of Alabama-Florida and Notre Dame-Oregon would have been fun to watch. 

I'm rooting for chaos, but not for the reasons you might think.

Well I think it is mostly because you either (a) are a contrarian or (b) you simply don't like change in sports.

I'm not a playoff guy, never have been. I'm not for the same reason that I'm not an advocate for limitless, all-intrusive instant replay in all sports.

That's pretty much the reason I thought. You hate change in sports. All change in sports is bad change, and even though the BCS was a change to the old bowl format, that doesn't matter at all because the new change to the old change is your enemy. I would think an old school guy like Drew Sharp would want the best team decided on the field, not by a computer.

I find it interesting Drew Sharp throws instant replay into his discussion here. There is a big difference to me in a college football playoff and instant replay. Instant replay, at least to me, is about the integrity of the game and ensuring the human factor does not affect the outcome of a sporting event. Instant replay, at least to me, is about making sure sporting events are officiated in the most fair way possible to determine the winner of the matchup. The college football playoff is meant to ensure the best team in college football is decided on the field...or at least with teams worthy of a shot in the National Championship game having a chance to prove their worthiness. 

There's something charming, dramatic and, yes, often enraging about imperfection.

In sports, I would guess that most people like definitive answers. Some people don't find it exciting to watch an entire season's worth of college football only to not know for sure which team is the best team in the country. There is nothing wrong with imperfection, but if college football can enliven the fan experience while also giving more definitive answers as to which team is the best team in college football, I think it is worth exploring.

Why mess with that?

Why must everything fit nicely?

Why must everything not fit nicely? Why must there be chaos?

I'm hoping that Alabama, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame complete the regular season with unblemished records, each with a compelling argument for a berth in the national championship game. But two won't make it. 

Or three won't make it. Or we could have it like last year where LSU was undefeated and Oklahoma State and Alabama had one loss, so Alabama naturally got a shot at the national title since they had lost previously to LSU. They had proven they couldn't beat LSU on their home field in November, but they got another shot at LSU because Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State, which apparently was an inexcusable loss.

Chaos is not great. Why shouldn't one loss Oregon, Florida or Kansas State get a shot to prove they can beat one loss Alabama and end up in the BCS Championship Game?  Oregon loses to Top 10 BCS team and they aren't in the BCS Championship Game anymore, but Alabama loses to a comparatively worse BCS team and they move up into the BCS Championship Game because Oregon lost. Why not decide which of these two teams is superior on the field, as opposed to seeing what happened on the field and then speculate in the rankings on which team may be better?

And those two relegated to the outside will complain about the unfairness of their fate.

What if we lived in a world where these two teams with no losses weren't complaining about their fate, so there is a larger pool of "deserving teams," but some of the 1 or 2 loss teams left out of a 4 or 8 game playoff were complaining about the unfairness of their fate? Is that not preferable because there isn't enough chaos?

If it's Notre Dame, the Irish will argue that they shouldn't suffer a penalty because of the overall poor quality of the Big Ten this season. 

Wow. This tells you all you need to know about Drew Sharp and his knowledge on the subject he is discussing. Notre Dame is an independent in football. They are not a Big 10 team in football. Again, I'm sure Drew Sharp is perfectly fine attempting to form an opinion on a subject he doesn't have a complete grasp on because that shows he is imperfect. Journalism is all about not doing research and making mistakes with your information, isn't it? Imperfection and chaos in sports journalism is good.

If it's Kansas State, the Wildcats will gripe they were wrongly victimized for not having an easily identifiable football brand.

Or they would complain they beat every team they played this year, but one team (just like Oregon/LSU/Alabama/Georgia) and still didn't get a shot to prove they were the best team in college football? This is an understandable gripe in my opinion. 

If it's Oregon, the Ducks will tout conspiracy theories from fashion consultants who think their hideous uniform ensembles should be convicted of third-degree eye-slaughter.

Cue sad trombone. 

But incessant whining is a big part of this sport's immense national popularity.

No, it really is not. A big part of this sport's immense popularity has to do with football being a very popular sport, tailgating is fun, and fans can cheer for their alma mater against other schools. College football is popular despite the incessant whining about which team gets snubbed and the popularity is most likely about the fact football is very, very popular.

The four-team playoff might seem like the perfect solution this season, but pushing college football closer to the NFL in how it crowns its champion will only hurt the sport long-term.

Be prepared now for a shaky bit of reasoning on the part of Drew Sharp. He will now tell us how making college football like the NFL will only hurt the sport in the long-term. I hate to break it to Drew, but the NFL doesn't have an straight playoff system, so it is still different from college football. The NFL divides its teams into NFC and AFC playoffs, which is different from picking the 12 best teams in the NFL and having a playoff, which is what college football is prepared to do with the four team playoff.

It'll spawn even more aggressive cheating among those teams that already don't care about the NCAA rulebook.

Two things:

1. Traditionally, when making a statement like this a writer would explain exactly what the hell he means by this statement. Drew Sharp hates tradition. He never explains what he means by this. I can't imagine what a four team playoff would do to spawn more aggressive cheating. In fact, shouldn't there be more aggressive cheating under the current bowl system since only two teams can make the National Championship Game? If there are only two spots in the title game and the purpose of this aggressive cheating is to ensure a team gets to participate in the title game, wouldn't there be more aggressive cheating when fewer spots are available?

2. BUT DREW, I THOUGHT YOU LIKED CHAOS!

This is chaos at its finest. Who is cheating, who isn't? Which teams are playing fair and which teams are breaking the NCAA rules? It's imperfection and chaos at it's finest.

It'll create an even wider gulf between the few national programs that consistently dominate and those lesser lights hopeful for that rare, special season when the spotlight hits them at the right angle.

Again, I don't see how this would be true. If anything a more open playoff system would allow teams like TCU, Boise State, and any other team with one loss or no losses to participate. If Drew Sharp believes the BCS conferences will collude to keep these type of mid-major conference teams out of the four team BCS playoff, then rest assured they are keeping them out of the BCS Championship Game under the current system as well.

Some think pollsters will give a 12-0 Notre Dame an edge over an unbeaten Oregon or Kansas State, if only for the sake of nostalgia and the possibility of an Alabama-Notre Dame championship game

And of course this system is preferable to a four team playoff because if the National Championship matchup can't be decided solely by nostalgia and the possibility of two high profile teams being in the game, then this is not a championship game that even needs to be played.

I would argue this sentence is the very reason a four team playoff is necessary. The four team playoff prevents two teams being put in the National Championship game based not on their resume during the season, but based on factors that have very little to do with each team's 2012 season performance.

They would be livid in Eugene, Ore., and Manhattan, Kan.

And that's your imperfect system at work. Sorry Kansas State and Oregon, you don't make us feel nostalgic nor is the profile of your program enough of a draw. Great season, too bad your participation in the BCS Championship game couldn't be decided based on that season's performance. Thanks and goodnight. 

For some, disarray only strengthens the case for what's coming in 2014. No muss. No fuss. No fun. Everything would fit perfectly.

It's not about fitting perfectly, but is about many fans wanting to know which team is the best team in college football. It is about trying to improve the product and getting a definitive outcome on the college football season.

But college football, at its best, always was meant for imperfection.

College football will still be imperfect. There will be arguments over which team(s) are the 3rd or 4th best teams in the country. In a situation like this year where there are quite a few one loss teams, in a four team playoff, someone is getting left behind. Imperfection isn't going away, but simply moving from "Why didn't Team C get a chance to be in the national title game" to "We know Teams A, B, C got in the four game playoff, but why didn't Team E make it?" There is still imperfection, just with slightly less uncertainty at the top. 

4 comments Frank Deford May Have Misunderstood the Purpose of Title IX

Before I get to the Frank Deford article for today, I wanted to very briefly comment on a Drew Sharp article I stumbled upon. In this article he suggests that Isiah Thomas should receive a gold medal as atonement for being left off the 1992 Dream Team. Pretty much everyone knows the story by now. Thomas was left off the team because it was perceived that Michael Jordan (and apparently Scottie Pippen) didn't want him on the team and that team went on to win a gold medal in the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona. I agree that talent-wise Thomas deserved to be on the 1992 Olympic team, but he wasn't on the team, so he doesn't deserve an honorary gold medal. Thomas can take pride in knowing he deserved to be on the team, but as foreshadowing events in his post-NBA life he experienced failure. Thomas was invited to be on the team. Isiah doesn't need a gold medal for "deserving" to be on the team and it is silly to suggest he should get one.

I've detailed before how Frank Deford seems to take on the less controversial issues in sports. Frank Deford wants to know why Title IX doesn't make women better sports fans. Or he wants to discuss the irony of Title IX ruining college football if universities start getting rid of their football programs. Or maybe he wants to talk about how women read more books than men. I do know this column is about women and is sort of about sports. This column is like one of those "Choose your own Adventure" books from the 1980's. The conclusion you take from this column is up to you.

Saturday is the 40th anniversary of Title IX, and although almost nobody anticipated it then, it resulted in women gaining the right to participate in sports in proportion with their numbers attending college.

Title IX didn't state this directly in 1972, but the 1979 Policy Interpretation of Title IX did state specifically as part of a three-prong test that college must be,

Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.

So Title IX didn't specifically give women the right to participate in sports in proportion with the respective undergraduate enrollment at the time it was written, but the purpose of Title IX as stated in the 1972 law was to ensure,

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity

So while I can understand this specific rule about being "substantially proportionate" to the respective undergraduate enrollment wasn't outlined specifically in Title IX, I don't think it is a far leap to this conclusion when knowing the purpose of Title IX was to prevent discrimination for any education program or activity. Title IX was instituted so that women and men would be treated equally with respect to opportunities to compete in an education program or activity. Part of this was giving women equal access to sports teams at the university. At some point, women and men were going to receive equal opportunity to compete in athletics at a university in order to prevent the appearance of discrimination. So the three-prong test outlined the way a university can prevent this appearance of discrimination, which was to state the participation opportunities were proportionate to the school's respective enrollment. There are several degrees of separation, but once the law giving equal access passed, some sense of governing what "equal access" meant would eventually be defined.

In essence, Title IX stated men and women should get equal opportunity to participate in any education program or activity in 1972 and this was specifically interpreted in 1979 as meaning this standard was met if participation opportunities are "substantially proportionate" to the respective undergraduate enrollment. My long form response to Frank Deford's assertion women having the right to participate in athletics in proportion to a school's enrollment was unanticipated, is to say those who were paying attention to Title IX in 1972 could have anticipated there would be a standard needing to met based on either a school's enrollment or the number of sports teams at a school for each gender. It's outlined in Title IX that there can be no discrimination. Women were going to be given access to sports team. Later it was defined in the three-prong test how to meet the standard required to prevent discrimination and it resulted in the "proportionate to enrollment" part of the test. There was going to eventually be some hard standard set out ensuring colleges achieved the intended results of Title IX.

Title IX not only had a huge effect on women's participation in sports, but also it culturally influenced the way both men and women view the idea of women and athletics.

But now, what of the future effects of Title IX?

The future effects? Let's check it out!

(Bengoodfella jumps into his time machine and sets the date for June 2035. Then he realizes his time machine is simply a cardboard box he stole from a homeless man and will not function as a time machine. He gets out of the box and goes back into his mom's attic and continues typing on his computer.)

First of all I see the potential of a great, grand collision between the old law and a recent major medical revelation

I'm going to ruin it for everyone. This major medical revelation is that football players suffer concussions at a high rate. I'm not sure I would describe this is a major medical revelation any more than I would describe it as long overdue results from research that needed to be done on football players and the effects concussions have on their brains.

As the attendance of women in college has increased, so called "minor" men's sports, like wrestling and tennis -- even baseball -- have had to be dropped to keep in compliance with the law.

Herein lies many people's dislike for Title IX.

But now, as the number of women in college approaches 60 percent, while concurrently, evidence mounts that football damages boys' brains, King Football may be the sport in jeopardy -- especially as it's so expensive and has no female analogue.

This may occur at some colleges and universities, but universities and colleges that make money off football and use it as a recruiting tool are not going to do away with football. Now that we know how dangerous concussions can be, I think we've reached the point where colleges and universities can start to take measures to try to make football as safe as possible. I do see some colleges dropping football, but I would doubt enough colleges drop the sport to have a dramatic effect on the number of women's college teams across the nation.

Already in one prominent school district, it's been proposed that football should be eliminated, that schools have no business promoting a "gladiator sport."

One district has proposed this happen. It hasn't happened yet and it may never happen. It's just a proposal from one school district.

How ironic it would be that women's academic predominance would result in America's most popular sport being cut down at its roots.

Actually, America's most popular sport would be cut down at its roots because the sport is inherently dangerous and colleges are afraid of fielding a football field due to the prevalence of concussions in the sport. Women's academic performance wouldn't cause colleges to stop fielding football teams, the prevalence in concussions would lead to this end result. Concussions would be the cause of football programs ending.

But on the other hand, even as women's participation in sport has soared, there's been no corresponding interests in women watching other women play sports.

I say this from a completely sexist point of view...there is no corresponding interest in women watching other women play sports because men's major sports are generally more exciting to watch. This has very little do to with Title IX and has more to do with the fact when women watch sports they may want to be entertained and see sports at its highest level. I believe this higher level to be present mostly in men's sports. So men's sports will generally be more popular than women's sports when it comes to female viewership.

Women do tend to watch more women's sports compared to how many men watch women's sports. Did Frank Deford really believe because Title IX was put in place the interest in women's sports would equal interest in men's sports? I would hope not. That wasn't the intent of Title IX, to make interest in women's sports equal to men's sports. Title IX says women need to be given the same access to sports at an education institution, it doesn't say women's sports need to be given the same level of interest that men's sports receive. So the acceptance of Title IX by educational institutions doesn't mean women's sports will gain as much interest as men's sports have.

The only professional female league of any sustaining viability is the WNBA, which is allowed to serve at the pleasure of its NBA benefactor in basketball off-season.

The WNBA isn't really successful. I guess it is to an extent, but it's viability relies much on being affiliated with the NBA. Still, Frank is right this is the only women's sport that is even somewhat successful.

To be sure, yes, there are many women sports fans, but their numbers and passion are miniscule compared to the mass of male spectators.

Are they really though? I have no statistics supporting my contention, but I feel like when I go to athletic events and talk to people day-to-day in my life, women are very interested in sports. Maybe not to the extent men are interested in sports, but I don't believe the number of female sports fans and their passion are miniscule compared to the mass of male sports fans. I think more men like sports than women, but there isn't as wide of a gap in my opinion between and male and female spectators.

This is another instance where Frank may be confused by the purpose of Title IX. Title IX isn't going to necessarily make women enjoy sports to the same extent that men enjoy sports. Title IX isn't intended to be an end-all, cure-all to equalize the interest women have in sports. It is intended to give women the same access to sports when attending a college or university.

I would suggest Title IX has helped some women become bigger fans of sports, but that wasn't the intent of the law. Nearly every woman I know has a favorite sports team in a certain sport. Maybe that's just me. I would say I could count on one hand how many women I know who don't have a favorite sports team in at least one sport. Title IX has given women some ability to participate more in college athletics and has improved their awareness and enjoyment of sports. Can this awareness and enjoyment simply be chalked up to Title IX? Absolutely not, but I think over the last 40 years the gap between male spectators at an event and women spectators has narrowed drastically. So I think women have become more like a fan.

But so what? Androgyny be hanged. Sometimes the sexes simply have different tastes in amusement.

Obviously different people like different things. So why is Frank wasting time rambling about something that he believes seems so obvious? Sometimes different sexes like different things. Men like sports and women like books. That's right. Books. Men don't like to read, women do like to read. Men like sports and women don't like sports. I like being able to classify different groups of people so easily.

Women, for example, read the vast preponderance of novels.

Apparently some further set of data proving this statement is not needed. This must be universally regarded as true.

Novels are about imagination. Sports are literal.

Women have imagination and men are literal. Got it. It's probably women's imagination that helps them become such great cooks, so it is no wonder women love cooking and reading, while men love sports and fixing things around the house.

I feel very 1950's right now.

They keep score in games. Is it really necessary to have it, as Lerner and Loewe wrote in My Fair Lady for the misogynistic Henry Higgins:

Frank Deford then quotes "My Fair Lady" and since I am a man who has no culture and don't read, I don't get this reference at all.

Myself, I think we've already got quota enough of women being like men.

Frank Deford has had enough of women being like men? So in terms of discussing Title IX, is Frank Deford saying he doesn't like how Title IX makes women more like men? Or is he saying Title IX is good, but he doesn't like women who follows sports? Or he is just done writing right now and can't think of anything else to write?

But the question for the next forty years of Title IX will be:

Why can't a woman be more like a fan?

Women are more like a fan. Just because women's sports don't have universal popularity among women doesn't mean women aren't like fans. They like men's sports or only like some women's sports. I think Frank's conclusion is wrong and his interpretation of the purpose of Title IX is wrong as well.

The title of this article is, "After 40 years of Title IX, why can't a woman be more like a fan?" and the answer is that Title IX wasn't intended to make women more like male sports fans. Title IX was intended to give women equal access to participation in sports while attending a university or college. I believe an unintended consequence is that women have become bigger sports fans over the last forty years, but Title IX can't make women become more like a male sports fan because that's not what it is intended to do. It's about access, not about increasing the level of interest in women's sports.