2 comments Tim Keown Was Intrigued by the Fight Between a Latino and American Baseball Player

We have seen Tim Keown comment before on Hispanics coming into the United States and taking the jobs of American baseball players. After the near-brawl between the Atlanta Braves and the Milwaukee Brewers, Tim Keown has decided to try his best to learn something from this incident. One may say, "All we can learn is that pitchers don't like to be shown up when a player hits a home run off him, but if a pitcher doesn't want to be shown up don't previously have hit the batter and then try not to give up a home run to that same batter." Tim Keown thinks there is more we can learn from this incident than just that.  We can learn Americans players control their emotions and Latino players do not. It's true that we can learn that, but we can also learn about ourselves, dammit. 

Great theater should never be discouraged. For that reason, there's no need for the actions of Carlos Gomez and Brian McCann to send you to the nearest fainting couch, muttering about what to tell the children.

My brief summary on this "theater."

1. Paul Maholm had hit Gomez earlier in the year so it's natural for Gomez to strut a bit after he hits a home run off Maholm.

2. Brian McCann was out of line (well, actually in the line) and should have just ignored Gomez as he crossed the plate rather than confront him on the basepaths. Shake your head, say "check the standings" or do something like that. Don't try to start a fight in the basepaths and then never really apologize for it.

3. Why is it three times in the past months teams that have shown up the Braves? Is it because teams know they can get the Braves un-focused, are the Braves assholes, or are they as a team just really, really sensitive?

4. There's no way this brawl should have happened because the Braves players should have been smarter to avoid any suspensions that could have resulted from the brawl. They needed to focus on the postseason, not jawing with a player from a non-playoff team.

5. No one is fainting or worried about what to tell the children. The Braves struggled going into that game and should be more worried about hitting the ball better and NOT giving up home runs, as opposed to an opponent's reaction upon hitting a home run off a Braves pitcher.

6. Freddie Freeman should not have been ejected. 

Gomez and the Braves turned a game nobody cared about into something thought-provoking and hilarious. A rare feat. So thanks, guys.

Ah yes, many sportswriters prefer drama to the actual sporting contest.

There are so many layers and sublayers here. There's the whole idea of whether Paul Maholm, following the tradition of many before him, has at times decided that hitting Gomez with a fastball is a better approach than trying to get him out.

Well, it seems Maholm has trouble getting Gomez out this season at least. So maybe he should just not suck and find a way to get Gomez out and avoid all of this trouble.

There's Gomez and his General Sherman trip around the bases 

A Civil War reference. Only 150 years too late.

With one swing of the bat and one nearly complete home run trot, Gomez ignited a series of events that raised a ton of questions while answering few.

I really think Tim Keown may be making this brawl out to mean a lot more than it really does. The batter hit a home run, stared at it, and then talked shit to the opposing players as he rounded the bases. The opposing players talked shit back as the player rounded the bases and then the opposing catcher got really angry and confronted the batter in the basepaths on the way to home plate. I'm not sure "a ton" of questions were raised. It seems pretty much like a simple brawl in baseball and thank goodness no one got hurt.

Gomez believes Maholm drilled him intentionally two months ago, and this was his payback. "You hit me. I hit you," were apparently the words that rocked the Braves' world. Is that a worse offense than intentionally hitting someone? 

No. There's no "worse" or "better" offense in this situation. There is no ranking of whether a hitting a batter is worse than strutting after you hit a home run off the pitcher who hit you. If the batter wasn't hit intentionally then the batter is being oversensitive. If the opposing team doesn't want to give up a home run to the batter and watch him strut, don't give up a home run to the batter. I think Tim Keown may be trying to make too much of this incident.

(I keep reading and hearing about Gomez's home run "celebration," but what I saw was not a celebration, not with all that anger attached. It was a spiteful display, equal parts vengeful and belittling. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed all parts of it, but I didn't detect any joy.)

I think there was joy in being spiteful, vengeful and able to belittle the Braves for hitting him a few months ago and then being able to hit a home run.

The greedy among us keep coming back to one specific question: What will McCann do for his next act?

How about have a great postseason and help the Braves win a playoff series rather than play the part of "Sheriff Over Baseball's Unwritten Rules"?

After confronting Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez at home plate less than three weeks ago to discuss transgressions real or imagined after a home run,

Fernandez just happened to be pitching well against the Braves that night and then hit a home run. Notice a trend here? A team plays well against the Braves and McCann (and company) get pissy and start trying to be the unwritten rules police. Maybe they are just bad sports and can't enjoy the idea they are getting beaten, so they get pissy when an opposing player shows any type of joy at having hit a home run.

he upped the ante by walking down the third-base line to stop Gomez before he could feel the satisfaction of his shoe hitting the plate.

If there was ever a time to bring up that the Braves are in the playoffs and the Brewers are not, this may be it. Don't become a human barricade in order to try and be the sheriff who judges which actions are appropriate and which are not.

Is there a chance McCann is working on a higher plane? Knowing his team has been struggling -- and perhaps discounted as a legitimate World Series contender as the postseason approaches -- is his judge-and-jury act a calculated effort to send a message to his team and any future opponents?

There is also a good chance the only message McCann is sending is that the Braves are more concerned with what the opposing team is doing as opposed to being worried about whether the Braves are hitting the baseball and playing well enough to win a playoff series or two or three. It shows me the priorities of the team could very well be in the wrong place.

If his motivation was to motivate, the Braves' response -- two hits and zero runs off Kyle Lohse in their nine offensive innings after the incident -- should have him considering other approaches.

By the way, two games later Chris Johnson threw his helmet in the dugout and got into a brief argument with Terry Pendleton. Perhaps the Braves have frustration stemming from the fact they haven't played well over the past month or maybe the entire team needs anger management. Either way, McCann probably was not working on a higher plane and was simply reflecting the hot head attitude the rest of the team tends to show every time they get their panties in a wad at the "disrespect" an opposing player is showing them...in a not-quite-coincidence usually this perceived disrespect is being shown while the opposing team is beating the Braves. 

The responsible reaction is to state the obvious: Everybody was wrong -- Gomez, Freeman, Gomez, McCann, Gomez.

Considering this really wasn't that notable of an incident, then let's just say every party was wrong. Gomez should quit strutting and the Braves need to worry about things other than how respected they feel while protecting unwritten baseball rules.

At the risk of falling face-first into rhetorical quicksand -- I imagine it looks like Alpha-Bits, only thicker and smellier -- what about the cultural aspects of this? (Wait, is that an elephant in the room?)

Good point. Jose Fernandez is Hispanic, Carlos Gomez is Hispanic. The Braves just hate players with Hispanic names. Don't tell Fredi Gonzalez though.

It's a little frightening that Tim Keown is going to look at the cultural aspects of this situation, especially considering he wrote the article I linked in the beginning of this post about how Latin American players are taking the jobs of hard-working American baseball players. I'm not sure I trust Tim to anchor a conversation such as this one. 

White players seem to have a death grip on The Code, while Latin players seem more comfortable with their emotions.

Asian players have no emotions and black players are all super-athletic and don't have to work as hard. Is there a stereotype that I missed?

To an extent, Tim Keown is a little bit correct and this is one of the ramifications of baseball being such a worldly game. Different cultures don't all act the same way. The cultural aspects of this seem to be that Latin players don't like to get hit with a baseball, just like white players don't like to get hit with a baseball.

The majority of American-born players were raised in a hypervigilant and ultrasensitive baseball environment. From Little League on up, the emphasis is on keeping emotions hermetically sealed. Do your job, keep quiet about it and by all means take offense when someone strays from your ethos.

If American-born players are raised to keep their emotions sealed then how does that explain American-born players taking offense when someone strays from their ethos? Doesn't this mean American-born players are raised to not show up someone else, but to use their own judgment when they think they are being disrespected and therefore this allows others to choose when that American-born player loses control of his emotions? In that way of looking at it, perhaps the American-born players aren't taught to keep their emotions heremetically sealed. After all, getting pissy and standing in the baseline when you feel you have been disrespected isn't exactly keeping your emotions in check.

Latin players come from a different environment, with fewer hang-ups and perhaps without the same focus on narrow, ill-defined rules.

So you mean the unwritten rules that aren't really rules and only certain players pay attention to these rules as a set of guidelines on the appropriate type of behavior aren't universal? Brian McCann would like to stand in the baseline and refuse to allow you to pass in order to discuss this more fully. 

One side preaches the humility necessary to achieve success in a sport that is all about failure. The other sees a sport that is so fraught with failure and frustration that grand achievements should sometimes be honored accordingly.

It's the grand struggle between acting like you have been there and getting excited over your personal achievements. Of course, the media picks and chooses when they like their Latino athletes to celebrate grand achievements. Yasiel Puig is an asshole for staring at his home runs, but it was just so cute to watch Sammy Sosa run out to right field with a flag in his hand at the start of a game or do a little hop and happy stroll around the bases when he hit a home run. Of course then you have Mariano Rivera who was very business-like in how he did his job and Jonathan Papelbon who sometimes acts like he cured cancer after getting a save.

If everyone approached the game like McCann -- in other words, if everyone always abided by the Big League Code of Honor -- baseball would lose something. And if every home run trot became an exercise in angry self-aggrandizement, the game would be anarchy.

I really think Tim Keown is blowing this game out of proportion into something it is not. Also, the annoying part about Brian McCann's actions is that it is clear he expects everyone to always abide by his honor code. It's one violation of the fake honor code that caused him to stand in the baseline and then get in Carlos Gomez's face. McCann seems to expect everyone to abide by the so-called "Big League Code of Honor." 

It's clear Gomez chose the wrong time and place to deliver his message of personal redemption. Within the rigid constructs of the game, he was wrong and admitted as much. 

I'm not sure Brian McCann ever said he was wrong to stand in the baseline and not allow Carlos Gomez to pass. I think that's wrong, that McCann acts like a jerk and then isn't sorry when it is clear that he was in some way in the wrong to block the baseline. Holding up unwritten rules you perceive to be violated is fine, but starting a brawl when your team is a week away from starting the playoffs is not fine.

And amid the moral, cultural and procedural questions raised by this random confluence of events, one stands alone: Who among us is not disappointed the Brewers and Braves don't play again right away?

Not me, because that would mean the Braves weren't in the playoffs and were still playing regular season games. I much prefer watching them play postseason games. Of course, I just hope no opposing player does anything to piss off Brian McCann or else he will risk a suspension to enforce unwritten rules that aren't his responsibility to enforce. 

5 comments Tim Keown Thinks the NCAA Should Pay for Johnny Manziel's Parking Ticket

I've sort of already made my feelings regarding Johnny Manziel's Twitter response upon receiving a parking ticket known, but I just had to cover this Tim Keown article. Of course after I write this, Johnny Manziel decides he is too hungover to attend the Manning Quarterback Camp, causing another controversy. Tim Keown isn't writing about that, but writing about Manziel's parking ticket issues. Tim in very serious fashion (just look at his picture, he's really fucking serious) confuses the issue of Manziel's parking ticket by explaining this wouldn't happen if Manziel could make money off his likeness. I guess that's his point. The main point about Manziel's Tweet should be about Manziel wanting to get out of College Station and his Tweeting "walk a mile in my shoes" as some sort of grab for sympathy over a parking ticket. It's not a big deal that he complains about wanting out of College Station, but his "mile in my shoes" Tweet (which Keown ever-so-conveniently doesn't even touch on) seems to be the big disconnect for me. The issue is not about Manziel Tweeting angrily, but about him attempting to gain sympathy for being well-known around the Texas A&M campus and becoming a celebrity. Tim Keown says Johnny Manziel wouldn't get a parking ticket if he got paid to play football. I guess that's his point. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't see how college athletes getting paid has anything to do with illegal parking. Talk about confusing the issue.

The Memorial Student Center at Texas A&M is quite a place. It's a testament to the nothing-is-too-good-for-our-kids philosophy of college architecture -- glass, stone and steel, with luxurious sitting rooms and restaurants and whatever else you might need to escape the infernal College Station heat.

Except you can get a parking ticket if you choose to park near the bookstore?

The most prominent clothing items are "No Heisman without the MAN" T-shirts and "Heisman Football" T-shirts and No. 2 jerseys and No. 2 T-shirts and No. 2 baseball caps. It's all very careful: no direct reference to Johnny Manziel

Well of course there's no reference to Manziel. These shirts and baseball caps aren't necessarily referring to Manziel. It could be referring to Marcus Gold or Earvin Taylor. Maybe Texas A&M just likes the number 2 because they think putting the number 1 on the back of a jersey is too presumptive and doesn't look as good on a T-shirt?

and no mention of "Johnny Football," the nickname Manziel has attempted to protect -- and eventually monetize -- through copyright.

Walk a day in Manziel's shoes, Tim Keown. Copyrighting a nickname isn't as easy as you think it is. You have to think of a nickname, fill out the patent form, then fill out the envelope while spelling "Alexandria, Virginia" correctly, make sure you sending it to the "US Patent and Trademark" headquarters and not the "US Patient Office," while also learning how exactly to mail a letter out. That's assuming you want to file the patent an easy way. If he wants to try the hard way and file the patent online, then Manziel has to figure out how to turn on this thing that looks like a television but his remote control won't work on it and when he approaches the computer all he sees are a bunch of numbers and letters on a long rectangular looking object that plugs into the DVR-looking object beside the television-looking object. It's just not as easy to file a patent as it initially seems. It's good to have bros who can help out when it comes to things like mailing letters and turning on a computer.

I walked through the bookstore on a quiet and hot June afternoon a couple of weeks ago, 

I like how Tim Keown appears to just randomly cruise around college campuses. "I was hanging around the quad at Auburn University recently, just watching some guys play Ultimate Frisbee..."

I thought about it again when I read the uproar over the ridiculously minuscule controversy regarding Manziel's ill-advised tweet after a parking ticket last weekend.

I admit it is a miniscule controversy. There's no doubt about that, but the topic is not so miniscule that Tim Keown can't write an entire column about it. The Tweet was really not a very big deal, other than it made people wonder why Manziel wanted to leave College Station. It became more annoying than anything, at least to me, when Manziel wanted us to "walk in his shoes."

The overriding perception of tremendous young athletes has always been confusing. A 19-year-old can design a T-shirt or a computer game that sells millions and we call him a prodigy, an entrepreneur. We celebrate his ingenuity and his wealth. But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money,

No, Johnny Manziel can design a T-shirt or a computer game that would make millions and he is entitled to this money. He can't design a T-shirt that trades off his own image though, because that's a big no-no. Overall, I'm not sure at all what this has to do with a Tweet about a parking ticket, but I'm hanging in here hoping Tim Keown gets to the point.

But a 20-year-old whose college football jersey sells millions isn't entitled to that money, or to the money generated by his talent on game day. And if he points out the unfairness of this relationship in any way, he is labeled an ingrate for not understanding the value of his college education.

I think college athletes have more support than ever as it pertains to those people who understand the unfairness of this relationship. The problem, as always has been the problem, is that no one has a clue as to how to compensate these college athletes for the value they bring into their college through sports. It's a two-step process and we aren't even past the point where many feel comfortable giving college athletes compensation for playing college sports. Once that point is reached (if that point ever gets reached) it needs to be decided how to go about actually compensating these athletes fairly. Good luck with that.

Back to this article...it is a very tenuous relationship between Johnny Manziel Tweeting angrily about a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel getting paid to play football. I think Tim Keown really wanted to write an article about paying college athletes but just needed a way to slip into this discussion. Much like 75% of these sportswriters who write about paying college athletes, Keown has absolutely no suggestions as to how much Manziel should get paid, how it is decided which college athletes even get paid, and where the money to pay these athletes will come from. I would be angry over this, but it is common. I read a lot of snide comments about how college athletes should get paid, but don't find ideas on how to pay these athletes alongside these comments.

It simply doesn't matter that his school is probably selling enough individually branded gear -- however obtuse the presentation -- in a week to pay for his scholarship several times over.

And this has what to do with a parking ticket and Johnny Manziel's frustration upon receiving a parking ticket again?

For decades, the NCAA has done a remarkable job of public relations. The NCAA powers that be know we all look back fondly on the days when we were playing games, and that sentiment is a powerful influence when it comes to old guys deciding who should get what and who should just shut up about it already.

I'm not very smart. I don't get how Johnny Manziel getting a parking ticket and getting upset about it on Twitter has anything to do with Manziel being paid to play football. Even if he got paid to play quarterback, he would still have to pay the parking ticket, right? Or is part of his compensation from Texas A&M that he could park wherever he wants?

It's easy to draw a connecting line from the bookstore to the parking ticket to the tweet in which Manziel expresses his disgust for College Station and a desire to leave "whenever it may be."

It's actually really not that easy to do this. It's easy to draw a connecting line from Manziel getting a parking ticket to him Tweeting about a desire to leave College Station and then asking us to "walk a mile in my shoes" once he is surprised about the feedback he received on Twitter when he stated he can't wait to leave Texas A&M.

Without the Heisman and the adulation, of course, nobody would care. 

Absolutely true. No one would care about Manziel if he didn't receive all this adulation. Now the question is whether Manziel pursued this adulation and my opinion is that he absolutely did. He has made a great effort to be seen as a celebrity. He has Tweeted out pictures of money he won gambling, he posts pictures of him sitting courtside at NBA games, and he posts pictures of him with celebrities. Mark Ingram, Cam Newton, Robert Griffin, and Sam Bradford all managed to win a Heisman Trophy and they didn't receive quite the amount of adulation and fame outside of the fame that came with being a high-profile college football player. Robert Griffin by all accounts managed to take classes in the Baylor classroom with his fellow students, Cam Newton had controversy surrounding him at Auburn but he still found a way to not post pictures of himself with stacks of money, and Mark Ingram didn't need to Tweet out pictures of himself sitting courtside at NBA games.

It's nothing against Manziel and I in no way think he is in the wrong. It's just he has chased this celebrity that he has now achieved. Manziel is doing nothing wrong by enjoying his time in the spotlight, but he has also made it very clear he enjoys and will continue to pursue being in the spotlight. He can't just turn it on and off when it is convenient for him.

The idolatry creates something you can't just un-create.

Fine, but who created it? I have some sympathy for Manziel, but the bottom line is that Manziel helped to create the idolatry by creating a public persona which encourages this idolatry. He's a stupid, young college kid who knows he wants to be famous enough to take pictures with coeds and celebrities, but doesn't want to deal with all the negative attention this may bring.

Overreaction is part of the deal. Now, though, with social media providing an instant connection to the world, even the most insignificant complaints end up as headlines.

That's absolutely true. These insignificant complaints end up as headlines more often when the person making the complaint has put himself out in the public and has a large social media presence like Manziel has. I would fully expect Manziel to overreact and that's something he is entitled to do every once in a while, but his overreaction has more to do with him being 20 years old and less to do with him not being paid to play football.

If you felt you received a bogus parking ticket on campus 20 years ago and told your roommates, "I can't wait to get out of this place," they probably would have nodded and gone about their business.

That's probably true, but I also would have told my roommates this and not share this thought out with the entire world. I would fully know I am a public figure at the school I attend and could probably just go to public safety and explain the situation...assuming it was a bogus ticket.

Is Manziel immature? It seems like it. Should he, and every other high-profile athlete, be judicious about using social media to voice petty concerns? Definitely, if only to avoid having to explain his way out of something insignificant.

And again, notice how Keown carefully avoids the "woe is me" Tweet where Manziel encouraged us to "walk a mile in his shoes." He avoids this because he knows Manziel has brought a lot of this attention upon himself by trying really hard to have a public persona off the football field. Instead, Keown desperately tries to tie Manziel's parking ticket to the Texas A&M bookstore selling #2 jerseys.

But Manziel's momentary displeasure with his surroundings -- spurred, it must be noted, by his decision to park his Mercedes, which has windows tinted too darkly, pointing the wrong direction -- brings up an uncomfortable truth:

That uncomfortable truth being that Manziel clearly seemed to deserve this parking ticket?

You might get all misty-eyed when the band plays the alma mater after a big win, but these guys don't. Just because it was the best years of your life doesn't mean it's the best of theirs.

Hey, it's another straw-man argument. Tim Keown is saying Johnny Manziel's parking ticket rant on Twitter isn't a big deal (which it really isn't) because he doesn't get paid to play football and because Manziel doesn't care as much as Texas A&M fans do about the outcome of the football games.

That's the crux of the O'Bannon antitrust lawsuit, which aims to give current and former players a cut of media revenue and other merchandise -- A&M No. 2 jerseys, for example.

Oh, so Manziel doesn't care about Texas A&M, but he certainly wants to get his cut of revenue he is generating from the school he doesn't care about? I think I understand what Tim Keown is saying now. Actually, I don't understand. Keown has essentially indicated he thinks Manziel's parking ticket was well-earned, but then gets off on a tangent about Manziel getting paid to play football which seemingly has little to do with the parking ticket Manziel received nor Manziel's Twitter rant.

It raises a multitude of important questions, and here's one related to Manziel: If college athletes were paid, would a player such as Manziel -- a college hero with a questionable NFL future -- be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility?

Some players would be more inclined to stay in school through four years of eligibility, but for college athletes that have a chance at being a successful pro athlete I'm not sure the aim should be to keep these players in college for all four years. It's preferred, but would Johnny Manziel rather earn $100,000 playing for Texas A&M or earn $1 million playing for an NFL team? It's not a hard decision for some college athletes.

Would the NCAA, in effect, become a short-term competitor for the NFL?

The NCAA is not intended to be a short-term competitor for the NFL. It's intended to be a collegiate sports system where amateur athletes can earn an education while playing sports. Obviously the NCAA doesn't always succeed in this area, but the NCAA is not set up to be a competitor to the NFL nor should it be set up that way.

Good. From the botched Miami investigation to the unfair transfer rules to the outrageous coach salaries, serious tectonic movement is a hell of an idea. It's a concept we should all embrace.

And of course like any good backseat driver Tim Keown has no idea how this concept should be initiated nor does have any good ideas, but he just knows how things work now isn't working.

Big Ten president Jim Delany says it wouldn't be out of the question for the conference to adopt a Division III, nonscholarship model if college players gain financial control over their likeness and performance.

It feels like an outrageous suggestion -- mostly because it is -- but there's another way to look at it:

Is the other way to look at it that this has nothing to do with a parking ticket Johnny Manziel received in 2013?

If the lawsuit goes forward, and the players win, there might be no need for scholarships.

And of course athletes would never again get another parking ticket.

One thing is for sure: Judging by the clothes hanging in the A&M bookstore, Johnny Manziel wouldn't need one.

This article had nothing to do with the parking ticket that Johnny Manziel received. Why is Manziel so popular and why wouldn't he need a scholarship (which by the way, Manziel's parents seem to be pretty wealthy so I'm not sure he needs a scholarship to Texas A&M, which seems to cost about $4600 per semester for in-state tuition)? Possibly because Manziel has done an excellent job of taking his on-field persona and translated it to an off-the-field persona, which is why I don't feel bad for him when he wants me to take a walk in his shoes.

2 comments Tim Keown Completely Misinterprets Kobe Bryant's Comments

I have started a Fantasy Baseball league and Fantasy NCAA Tournament Bracket in Yahoo if anyone cares to join. The league ID is 76959 and password is "eckstein" for the Fantasy Baseball league and the league ID is 5876 and password is "eckstein" for the NCAA Tourney bracket. We have about six spots left in the Fantasy Baseball league and feel free to give feedback on the set up of the league if you would like.

I am sure we have all heard or read about Kobe Bryant's comments directed towards Lakers management. If you haven't, take a look at the article that shows how screwed up the Lakers front office currently is. Ken Berger wrote that and it is very well written. There you go. One example of good journalism. Who says I am negative all the time?

So yes, Kobe is back at whining about the state of the Lakers team a few years after his whining resulted in the Lakers trading for Pau Gasol. Tim Keown heard Kobe's comments and either (a) wanted to have an original take on the story or (b) completely misinterpreted Kobe's comments. Since Keown's original take on the story made him look pretty silly, I am guessing Keown is misinterpreting Kobe's comments. I think you will agree.

Kobe Bryant threw down the gauntlet to Lakers management Sunday afternoon, telling those in charge to do one of two things: (1) trade Pau Gasol or (2) don't.

I think Kobe is in the right on this one. Of course beating up on Kobe Bryant is low hanging fruit for sportswriters, so the idea of acknowledging Kobe is doing his best to be a team leader and send a message to management isn't discussed at all. It's just assumed he is a huge jerk who believes Pau Gasol isn't carrying his weight on the Lakers team. I'm sure Bill Simmons has a really interesting "6 for 24" joke to go along with any future comment Kobe Bryant makes and T.J. Simers has already come out and called Kobe an asshole for calling out management. I would link the T.J. Simers article, but does anyone want to voluntarily read what he wrote? I doubt it.

Really, I blame David Stern for this whole problem. The Lakers wouldn't have to trade Gasol if Stern had allowed the Chris Paul-to-the-Lakers trade to go through. If you want to bash someone for the Lakers current situation that resulted in Kobe's comments, then see if you can find Stern up in his ivory tower so you can blame him. He started this chain of events with his veto of the Lakers-Hornets trade.

It is assumed that Mitch Kupchak and his guys already knew their options on this one, but Bryant is there for them, just in case.

You are being snide, I get it! It's interesting Tim Keown is being snide about what Kobe's comments meant since he is about three paragraphs away from completely misinterpreting Kobe's comments.

Set aside for the moment whether Bryant should have said what he said. Set aside whether he's right.

I say he is right. It is hard to set aside whether Kobe is right or not knowing Tim Keown is about to misinterpret Kobe's comments, call Kobe a ball-hog and portray him as a person who thinks Pau Gasol is a wimp. It would be easier to ignore whether Kobe is right under the correct interpretation of his comments if the incorrect interpretation didn't reflect poorly in some ways on Kobe. So I can't ignore if Kobe was right or not in this case, because to ignore if he was right or not goes to the very heart of what his comments really meant and who they were intended towards.

Set aside the possibility that Gasol's problems extend beyond the external issues of trade talk, and that something internal -- say, Kobe's near-pathological insistence on taking every possible shot -- is part of his big sag.

This is probably very irrelevant. The Lakers won two titles with Kobe's near-pathological insistence on taking every possible shot. Why would it be a problem now?

Tim Keown refers to Gasol's "big sag" here, yet Keown will acknowledge in a few paragraphs that Gasol's play hasn't dropped off at all. Then Keown says because Gasol's play hasn't dropped off, then he hasn't been affected by the trade talk. Finally, Keown gives an example of Gasol looking at trade rumors on the Lakers' team plane, which shows he has been affected by the trade talk. This is a disaster of a column is my point.

The headlines dwell on the Kobe-rips-management angle, suggesting that Kobe's message had just one audience. On its face, that's a legitimate interpretation.

There is really only one interpretation.

"It's just tough for a player to give his all when you don't know if you're going to be here tomorrow," Bryant said. "I'd rather them not trade him at all. If they're going to do something, I wish they would just [expletive] do it. If they're not going to do it, come out and say you're not going to do it."

"They" are Lakers management. It's the only interpretation, unless you believe that Kobe Bryant believes there is a higher being who controls the fate of NBA teams and controls the minds of the GM's running those teams. Now that would be news if the "they" Kobe is talking about is a higher being with this mental power over NBA teams and their front offices. Otherwise, "they" are Lakers management so that's a huge clue as to who Kobe was referring to in his comments.

But it seems to me the true target of the message was Gasol himself.

It seems to me you are very wrong.

"It's hard for Pau because of all this trade talk and all this other stuff; it's hard for him to kind of invest himself completely or immerse himself completely into games when he's hearing trade talk every other day."

What do you hear in those words?

I hear Kobe Bryant sticking up for a teammate that has already been traded once this offseason (to the Rockets) and has been on the trade block for nearly three months now. I hear Kobe Bryant saying Pau Gasol is being affected by the trade talk and the team as a whole is tired of it.

Is Kobe really telling the Lakers -- through the media -- that the trade either needs to be made now or not made at all? (His preference, he said, was for Gasol to stay.) Or is he not-so-indirectly addressing not only management but also Gasol and his effort?

Nope, Kobe is pretty much just telling the Lakers through the media that he hasn't been updated on any of this trade talk and he would prefer it if the Lakers make a decision. Shit or get off the pot. In the (semi) words of Tony Soprano, it isn't so important what the decision is, but it is important that a decision be made in a timely fashion. That's what Kobe is saying.

Most people, whether they play for the Lakers or not, probably feel that a guy making more than $18 million a year (as Gasol is) can put aside the rumblings from the front office and manage to give an undivided effort a few times a week.

And Gasol has done exactly that. He is averaging 16.6 points, 10.7 rebounds, and 1.3 blocks per game. Kobe was probably being hyperbolic in an effort to get Lakers management to make a move or don't make one at all. I don't think Kobe's intention was to say, "Pau isn't playing well and it is completely management's fault because they are looking to trade him."

There's no question that these guys aren't robots, and ancillary events undoubtedly play a role in what happens on our fields and courts, but we've found a new definition of "sensitive" if Gasol's attention on the court somehow drifts in and out because Kupchak might be talking to the Bulls about Carlos Boozer.

So ancillary events undoubtedly play a role in what happens on the court...but Gasol is being overly sensitive if his attention on the court is distracted because of the trade rumors? So the trade rumors undoubtedly have an impact on what happens on the court, but generally they shouldn't have an impact on what happens on the court? I'm not sure this makes of sense.

(The weird thing is, Gasol's performance doesn't seem to reflect an uninvested, nonimmersed Pau. He seems to be about what he always is -- roughly 17 points and 11 boards -- and he's doing it on 10 fewer shots a game than Bryant.

Which is exactly why the idea of Bryant criticizing Gasol's performance on the court is a misinterpretation of Bryant's comments.

Maybe it came to a head Sunday because Gasol reportedly was busted by Lakers coach Mike Brown on the team plane Sunday morning. Gasol's offense? Looking up trade rumors on his laptop. Which, if true, is kind of weird.)

Seriously? Tim Keown's interpretation of Kobe's comments are that they were directed at Gasol and the part that said:

it's hard for him to kind of invest himself completely or immerse himself completely into games when he's hearing trade talk every other day."

is Kobe saying Gasol needs to get his head in the game. That's how Tim Keown read them. Meanwhile the rest of the free world believes Kobe was saying Gasol is being adversely affected by the trade rumors. A position which is completely rational to believe considering we now know this anecdote of Gasol reportedly looking at trade rumors on the Lakers' team plane. Doesn't this anecdote pretty much completely support the idea Gasol is distracted by the trade rumors and Kobe wasn't directing his comments at Gasol, but at Lakers management? I'm convinced. Tim Keown still isn't convinced.

He can address his comments to management much more easily than he can to Gasol, and this way the message gets to all the right people while potentially annoying only those with whom Kobe doesn't share the court.

That's a great theory...except for the fact Kobe's comments were clearly directed towards Lakers management. In fact, there is a chance the comments weren't even directed at Mitch Kupchak, but at Lakers management above Kupchak to get their shit together. One thing I know for sure is these comments weren't directed at Pau Gasol, even though they were about Pau Gasol.

But given that there hasn't been that much Gasol-trade talk since the demise of the Chris Paul deal --

Really? Perhaps Tim Keown should do an internet search for "Pau Gasol trade rumors." A lot of the stories are about Kobe's comments, but there are also plenty of trade rumors concerning Gasol going another team through trade prior to Kobe's comments.

it's safe to assume the message was meant mostly for his teammate.

It really isn't safe at all to assume the message was meant for Gasol. There is only one piece of information that helps us assume the message was meant for Gasol. That piece of information is that Tim Keown believes the message was meant for Gasol. On the other hand, there is much more evidence the message was meant for Lakers management. Here are the facts that support Kobe's message was meant for Lakers management and therefore it is ridiculous to feel safe in assuming the message was for Gasol.

1. The content of the message was entirely directed towards Lakers management and how they need to decide whether to trade Gasol or not. We know Lakers management is looking to trade Gasol.

2. Lakers management has already traded Gasol once, to the Rockets.

3. The supporting facts around the situation (Berger's report the Lakers front office is a mess) directly support Kobe's contention of indecision in the message intended for Lakers management.

4. The message would not be meant for Gasol because Gasol's statistics on the court have not declined this year. Pau doesn't seem affected by the trade rumors going around him, at least while on the court. So Kobe has no reason to covertly call him out for his performance.

5. There is proof the rumors do have Pau Gasol worried when he isn't off the court. He was reportedly found to be searching trade rumors on the team plane. So Kobe's comments seem to have some merit.

6. It is clear from Ken Berger's column that Lakers upper management and ownership don't exactly have their shit together. It is safe to assume they also aren't communicating with Kobe on what moves they want to make, which is why Kobe would have a problem with the trade rumors. They are prolonged rumors and he is being left out of the loop. He doesn't like this.

So the facts surrounding the Lakers and Kobe Bryant seem to indicate there is very little reasoning to assume Kobe's message was meant for Pau Gasol. Yet, this doesn't stop Tim Keown from still believing this to be true.

Bryant has his faults, but his basketball acumen isn't in question -- and neither is his desire. You've got to believe this issue -- fully investing under duress -- is close to Kobe's heart. He has played through personal and professional issues his entire career, maybe more than any other player in the Internet era: rape allegations, the Shaq stuff, divorce -- yet his intensity seems to rise in relation to the severity of the scrutiny.

This means Kobe also understands how off-the-court distractions can affect a person's mindset and the Lakers team as a whole. This doesn't mean he thinks Gasol is an emotional wimp.

Judging by his words, he doesn't see the same qualities in Gasol right now.

No. Judging by Kobe's actual words, he wants the Lakers to either trade Gasol or not trade Gasol.

He might think a vote of confidence from management is the solution to the problem, or maybe he believes such a vote will settle -- once and for all -- the issue of whether Gasol remains a viable candidate to share his court.

Or he may, and I know this sounds crazy because it is backed up by the words that Kobe actually said, want Lakers management to stop submitting Gasol and the Lakers team to trade rumors. The Lakers have already tried to trade Gasol once, and Kobe would like for the Lakers to change the makeup of the team or keep the team the way it is. I derive this conclusion from what Kobe actually said, not speculation on what he could have maybe possibly meant if you think about it he really could have perhaps meant if you look at it from a certain angle.

In the end, the headlines were right; Kobe was directing his message at Lakers management.

Tim Keown from earlier in the column:

But it seems to me the true target of the message was Gasol himself.

So the true target was Gasol, but it was directed at Lakers management. I don't get it. Tim Keown has come to the conclusion Kobe's comments were meant for Gasol, but were actually sent to Lakers management, but were really meant for Gasol. Tim Keown bases this conclusion on...umm...on...a...if you...well frankly Tim Keown had a deadline to meet and didn't know what else to write about. He had to come at this from a different angle and he stretched it as much as he could. You're welcome.

But what he was saying was this: Gasol is unable to play through distractions.

Kobe thinks this despite the fact Gasol has been able to play through distractions. Or perhaps, just maybe, Kobe believes Gasol CAN play through distractions and was directing his comments towards Lakers management. Is there a chance Kobe isn't trying to mindfuck us all? Nah, that's too obvious of a conclusion.

5 comments Tim Keown Thinks Uncontested Touchdowns Are Undignified and Unworthy of the Super Bowl

Don't worry, this is going to be one of the last examples of bad journalism coming from the Super Bowl. It is just the Super Bowl brings out the bad, the overreacting and the hyperbolic in so many writers. Tim Keown must have been desperately searching for an angle to cover on the Super Bowl that had not been covered yet. So he settled on an article about how Ahmad Bradshaw's game-winning touchdown was an undignified way to end the Super Bowl. It's a reach, but you can't tell that to Tim Keown as he stares at us disapprovingly in his ESPN mugshot.

And so the pivotal, deciding play in America's biggest sports showcase, the pinnacle moment in the most bloated spectacle in our culture, came when the defense gave up and the offense didn't want to score.

It does seem bizarre for the final score to go in this way, but these type of end game strategies happen in other sports as well. At the end of basketball games, teams will intentionally foul the other team at the end of a game to stop the clock and hope the opposing player misses the foul shot(s). It may sound weird for the defense to allow the offense to score, but it was a strategy the Patriots used to get the ball back. Then the Patriots tried to go the length of the field in less than a minute with one timeout left. The game was decided on a Hail Mary that barely went out of the reach of a Patriots player. That was fairly exciting.

When the Patriots' defense simply gave up (metaphor alert!) and allowed (forced?) Ahmad Bradshaw to score a 6-yard touchdown he tried to take back, we witnessed a true sports anomaly.

An exciting, interesting part of a game that was actually pretty dull through the entire middle half of it, but exciting in the first and second quarters?

There is no other situation in American sports in which a team would make a similar strategic decision.

This is true, unless you want to count when a basketball team intentionally commits a foul allowing the other team to shoot free throws or when a baseball team will intentionally walk a player to face the next batter. The fact football is original in that one team might allow the other team to score really emphasizes how football is a timed game more than anything else. It makes more sense to lose the lead in order to get the ball back, rather than allow the clock to run out and allow the opposing team an easy field goal attempt to win the game. The fact this strategy seems backwards doesn't make it a bad strategy or make a touchdown resulting from this strategy undignified.

There are loose parallels in other sports, but none that call for a team to relinquish its lead at the end of a game as a means of facilitating a comeback win.

This is true. But, there are instances in basketball when a team will allow another team to score in order to get the ball back. So it isn't completely unprecedented.

In baseball, teams play the infield back and trade outs for runs all the time, but never late in a game when the run would result in losing a lead.

Baseball is not a timed sport. In this situation, the clock was the biggest enemy to the Patriots. The Giants were probably going to score while running the clock out and the Patriots had to get the ball back in order to win the game.

Tennis players have been known to drop the last couple of games in a lost-cause set to conserve energy for the rest of the match. Golfers concede in match play when a hole is deemed unwinnable.

Is it undignified for an individual competing in sports to intentionally lose a game or a match because it is unwinnable or for strategic purposes? I say no. Apparently Tim Keown seems to agree. If Roger Federer wins Wimbledon in the fifth set, but he conserved his energy in a couple of his opponent's service games, does that mean his win is tainted? Not at all. So why would it be undignified or taint a win if a team intentionally allows another team to score for strategic purposes?

No matter how bad it looked -- just iso on Vince Wilfork to see how truly bad it looked -- it was the proper decision and probably should have been made one play sooner.

So this was an undignified way to decide the Super Bowl, but was also the right decision and should have been done earlier? This is what happens when a writer tries to come up with a new angle to the Super Bowl and it turns out half-assed. We get a flimsy premise for a column and an opinion given in the article that somewhat contradicts the premise.

That doesn't alter one fact: It was not a proud or particularly dignified way to decide the Super Bowl.

Who cares? What does it matter if the Super Bowl ended with one of the teams intentionally giving up a touchdown in order to get the ball back? The resulting attempt by the Patriots to score a touchdown with one timeout left was an exciting way to end the game. The Giants drive which led to the intentional touchdown was also exciting.

It seems especially satisfying -- ironic even -- that Bill Belichick, the great defender of all that is manly and stoic and arrogant in the world of the National Football League,

????????????

I get the arrogant part, even if Belichick probably isn't more arrogant than too many other NFL coaches, but manly and stoic? Not so sure about that one. Mostly, this isn't ironic at all.

had to resort to such an emasculating tactic to give his team a chance in the final minute.

Because it is emasculating to try do whatever it takes to win the Super Bowl? If this tactic had worked so many people would have been calling Belichick a genius. We all know being considered a genius is really manly.

Belichick's ploy didn't work, which doesn't mean it was incorrect. It's just a bad look. It runs contrary to every known principle coached by guys like Belichick.

Every known principle in basketball says not to foul a player intentionally and let them shoot foul shots. Teams will do this in order to get the ball back. Yet this happens in nearly every basketball game.

Every known principle in basketball says a player should not intentionally miss a foul shot so the opposing team doesn't have time to organize and get off a good shot. Yet, Coach K had a player intentionally miss a foul shot at the end of the 2010 National Championship Game.

Every known principle in basketball says a team with a three point lead should not intentionally foul a player on the opposing team in order to send him to the foul line so that he can only score two points. Yet, teams do this.

Football isn't the only sport where the best strategy sometimes goes against widely coached principles. It doesn't make it undignified to use these strategies.

You might consider the failure of such strategy to be justice meted out by the football gods, or karma, if you were inclined to think that way. (The world would really be a better place if you didn't.)

How can this be karma paying Belichick and the Patriots back for using this strategy? There was no justice paid out because the Patriots were probably going to lose the game anyway. The Giants had the ball and could have bled the clock down and attempted a field goal. If the field goal were successful, it would have given the Patriots very little time to score. Karma doesn't even fit this situation because the Patriots were going to most likely lose anyway if they didn't consider the strategy.

And so Monday, we were treated to this written description of the Pats' Surrender Formation: "The gutsiest call in Super Bowl history." Please. It wasn't gutsy; it was desperate.

Yes, it was desperate because Bill Belichick wanted to do whatever he could to ensure his team didn't lose the Super Bowl. It was a gutsy call because he let the Giants score a touchdown in an effort to get the ball back. Belichick essentially tried to put his team back on the offensive (no pun intended) by allowing the Giants to score instead of passively letting the Giants run the clock out and kick a field goal. Tim Keown is criticizing him for breaking the principles of football because Belichick gave up the lead in the Super Bowl intentionally. I call that gutsy. It was desperate, but still gutsy.

But there's no way to dress up a move that -- logical or not -- looks blatantly pathetic as it's happening. And even though it's nothing new -- not even for the Super Bowl -- it does raise a question: Is it better to lose traditionally, with your pride intact?

No, it is better to win. How was allowing the Giants to score leaving with Belichick's pride no longer intact? He was trying to win the game. That was his goal. If the Patriots had to take a step back, accept the Giants were going to score, and try to save time on the clock to get the ball in the hands of the New England offense in order to win the Super Bowl, that is what would have to happen.

It is better to try and win a game than to lose traditionally, pride be damned.

Since late Sunday night, we've been told the percentages were with Belichick and the Patriots. Their chances of scoring a touchdown with 57 seconds and one timeout remaining were better than their chances of stopping the Giants from kicking a chip-shot field goal. But if the Legend of Billy Cundiff taught us anything, it's that no field goal is a guarantee,

If the other 90% of the time told us anything, it is that an NFL kicker will not miss a field goal from 30 yards or less. Tim Keown can have his one-time events to prove anything can happen and I will take what the percentages say...especially when a Super Bowl title is on the line.

regardless of percentages, especially when the time is short and the pressure is big.

Yes, but time wasn't short for the Giants. They could have run the clock down and Lawrence Tynes would have had plenty of time to line up and prepare to kick the potential game-winning field goal. The pressure would have been big, but Tynes has hit big kicks before and all indications are that he would have had plenty of time to line up his kick and the ball would have been set perfectly in the middle of the field. So time was on the Giants side and there was time for Tynes to deal with the pressure involved with such a kick.

In the end, we were left with the empty feeling that it could have been better. It could have been so much better.

Whatever. The end of the game was the most exciting part. For me, the first and the fourth quarter were the most exciting parts of the game. So I don't have the feeling the game could have been better. What was exciting about watching the Giants run the clock out and then kick a potential game-winning kick, as compared to the Giants scoring and watching the Patriots go the length of the field to score a game-winning touchdown? If anything, watching the Patriots scramble to score, and failing after tossing up a Hail Mary to the end zone, is a more exciting ending then a game-winning field goal.

New England linebacker Jerod Mayo said the Patriots were given specific instructions in the event a Giants player successfully fought human nature and stopped himself short of the goal line. What were the Patriots going to do? "We were going to drag him into the end zone," Mayo said.

it would have been quite a sight: America's most sacred sporting moment reduced to a group of defenders dragging an unwilling running back into the end zone.

Yes, but this didn't happen. Don't use hypothetical situations that didn't occur (hence, being hypothetical) as further proof the strategy employed by the Patriots was undignified. Bradshaw fell into the end zone and the Patriots got the ball back. As a strategy for the Patriots, it beat passively watching the Giants run the clock out and then hoping there was enough time left to get a Hail Mary into the end zone.

Talk about lost opportunities.

BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THIS WAY!

Oh well, there's always next year.

Yes, and if this strategy is employed next year it could still be considered a good strategy. Allowing the other team to score in order to get the ball back is a sound strategy when in the situation the Patriots were in. Basketball teams use a similar strategy and it isn't unmanly nor does it violate some core principle of sports. I think perhaps a blank web page with Tim Keown's name on the byline would have been a better angle on the Super Bowl then what was written.

3 comments Tim Keown Thinks the Penn State Football Team Should Decline a Bowl Invitiation

Tim Keown believes Penn State should decline a bowl invitation. I disagree. He does his best to refute my point of view, but I think he ultimately fails. What I find to be so incredibly interesting is Keown goes on a rant in this article about the lack of a presumption of innocence and how Penn State isn't saying "allegedly" to describe the actions of Sandusky. Yet, Keown thinks despite his own pleas for the assumption of innocence, Penn State should decline a bowl invitation. So he wishes there was more of a presumption of innocence and then encourages Penn State to penalize their current players based on a presumption of guilt.

The questions will not go away, no matter how hard the people around the Penn State football program try to wish them away. They're going to be there through this season, into the offseason and through the summer. They're going to be there through Tom Bradley's interim reign, through a coaching search and well into the tenure of the next guy. A stench this strong doesn't disappear just by opening a couple of windows.

So let's get directly to the point:

One paragraph consisting of four sentences later, Tim Keown announces we are getting straight to the point. Maybe he doesn't understand what "directly to the point" means.

Penn State should step up and decline any invitation to a bowl game.

No, they should not. I don't believe Penn State should punish the current players for the actions of the Penn State coaches and leadership. (cue violins playing sad music) These players didn't do anything wrong except choose to believe Joe Paterno and his other coaches when they made all of their promises during the recruitment process. Why should the Penn State players be punished for actions they had nothing to do with? I realize Penn State should be punished in some fashion, but the current players shouldn't be punished for the actions of their leadership.

They should play Wisconsin on Saturday and, if they win, play in the Big Ten championship game, and then call it a season.

What would this prove exactly? Would not playing in a bowl game help the rest of the public forget about Sandusky's (alleged) actions with 40 children? Is not playing in a bowl game and giving the football team a chance to put Penn State in a positive light and the best way to show how serious Penn State is about cleaning up the program? I think the way to put Penn State in a positive light goes further than just declining a bowl bid. These problems Penn State has experienced over the past couple of weeks aren't "team" problems. They are leadership problems. I say don't punish the players for the actions of their leadership.

They should reverse their recent trend and do something that doesn't reek of self-interest.

I can see how the Penn State team going to a bowl game would be seen as looking out for the school's self-interest. To me, participating in a bowl game would say the current Penn State players aren't going to be punished for the actions of their leadership. It would also say the school won't punish the current players for actions they aren't responsible for taking.

We've heard Ken Frazier, who is leading the trustees' inquiry, talk tough, and seen the school hire former FBI director Louis Freeh to conduct an investigation to measure the depth of the corruption surrounding Jerry Sandusky's alleged activities.

It sure sounds like Penn State is serious about cleaning up the actions of Sandusky and company. Time will tell if this is true.

(It's worth noting that Freeh's résumé looks better from a distance. He was a blundering FBI director -- Richard Jewell, the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, Wen Ho Lee -- but an FBI director nonetheless.)

I bet Penn State hired Freeh to oversee the investigation knowing he was incompetent and would screw the investigation up! Those Penn Staters are always up to shenanigans like this.

We've heard that Penn State will make the difficult decisions that will restore a sense of dignity to the administration and the football program.

So prove it. Walk away from a bowl game.

Again, while I can see some value in doing this, I also see value in not punishing the current Penn State football players by not allowing them to participate in a bowl game. Declining a bowl invitation this year would be more about punishing the current players and making a small statement rather than other actions down the road which will make a larger statement about the overall direction of the football program.

Walk away from something that would put money in your pocket. Make the tough choice.

Depending on the bowl game they make, Penn State could very well lose money in going to the bowl game. Many times these bowl games are for the athletes and not used as a way to line the pockets of the school.

The University of Miami became eligible for a bowl game with a win over South Florida on Saturday, and on Monday the school announced it would not accept a bowl invitation.

Tim Keown is unable to determine the difference in Miami announcing they would not accept a bowl invitation because of actions surrounding players in the football program, as opposed to Penn State not accepting a bowl bid based on the actions of the leadership in the Penn State program. I think there is a difference.

The Penn State situation is much different. Obviously, it's much worse.

The Penn State situation is also much worse because the allegations of impropriety around the program does not involve the players, who are young adults, but the allegations of impropriety at Penn State involve the adults running the program.

(By the way, is it possible to be repelled by Sandusky while still being a little troubled by the utter lack of presumption of innocence? This became cringingly apparent when the new president used his PSA to discuss "the victims" without even bothering to qualify it.

Here goes Keown on his "innocent until proven guilty" rant. Remember this is a guy who has spent this entire column saying Penn State should decline to participate in a bowl game based on the actions of those leading the program. Now he wants to act as if he is being open-minded and not wanting to indict the Penn State leaders and Sandusky for their alleged actions.

So we will keep a presumption of innocence for those accused, but punish the current Penn State players for these alleged actions before they were proven? Somehow I think this makes Keown's position even less defensible. Sandusky and company are getting the benefit of the doubt by using the word "allegedly," but Keown wants to go ahead and punish the school by not assuming the charges are "alleged" and suggesting Penn State should decline a bowl bid.

To that end, shouldn't people like the school president -- and Paterno, for that matter -- at least drop an "allegedly" into the conversation every so often?

And yet, again, while Tim Keown recognizes the "alleged" part of the allegations he doesn't care about the charges being alleged when doling out punishment to the Penn State football program. When it comes to the program and whether Penn State should accept a bowl bid, the charges are factual. When it comes to discussing Sandusky, the charges are alleged.

If Penn State goes to a bowl game, if it glad-hands the guys in the garish blazers and takes the gift bags and the check and the national attention, it'll be nothing short of an act of hypocrisy.

You mean hypocrisy like reminding people the Sandusky charges are alleged, but then suggesting a punishment for Sandusky's employer that acts as if the charges are factual? That's some good hypocrisy there. You can't have it both ways. You can't lay the gauntlet down on Penn State and then complain the charges are only alleged.

If that coaching staff -- filled with men who worked alongside Sandusky and sat near him as he brought preteen boys on road trips and into hotel rooms and to meals with the coaching staff, for God's sake -

Allegedly.

There's a coherent argument to be made for banning football altogether at Penn State, at least temporarily,

It makes perfect sense in Tim Keown's world to ban football at Penn State temporarily based on alleged charges for Sandusky, because he is concerned Sandusky won't get a fair trial. I love how he plays both sides of this issue. Keown is like an attorney who wants to get his client a plea deal, while at the same time pleading innocent to all charges.

Even if the Sandusky allegations are true, which all indications is they are, I still don't see why the Penn State players should be punished for the transgressions of their coaching staff. I realize most of us want Penn State punished for what occurred. Unless the NCAA is willing to let Penn State players transfer to another school without having to wait a year, I simply don't believe it is fair to the Penn State players to pay for their leadership's transgressions by banning the Penn State team from playing football next year.

It came up when the idea of canceling the Nebraska game was raised, and even back when the quaint prospect of canceling the rest of the schedule was raised.

Canceling one game, declining a bowl bid and banning football altogether at Penn State are all completely separate issues with separate reasoning for why each should be done. I think the Nebraska game should have been canceled, but I think Penn State should accept a bowl bid.

And that argument is this:

The kids had nothing to do with it. You shouldn't punish the kids for the failures of adults.

That is my argument. Tim Keown does not refute it.

This isn't the Juice Box League, so can we stop turning college athletes into infants?

Wow. That's really all you have, Keown?

No one is turning the athletes into infants, simply recognizing these athletes worked hard all year to make a good bowl game and they shouldn't be denied this opportunity because Jerry Sandusky likes boys in a sexual way (ALLEGEDLY!) and there was a cover-up among the leadership about his (ALLEGED!) activities.

Let's say ESPN gets in trouble with the Bristol police because there is an alleged culture of sexual assault and mistreatment of women on campus. Would Tim Keown believe it is fair to him if ESPN says those executives responsible for the assault and mistreatment, or had knowledge of the behavior, are now fired and the network is going to take a 6 month break from covering sports in order to gain control of the organization. The catch is the current employees can't write columns during that time, but also aren't being let out of their contract and aren't getting paid. Do you believe Tim Keown thinks this would be fair? Probably not. He would wonder why he can't write and get paid. He would also wonder why he has to pay for transgressions he didn't commit.

When the issue is paying athletes, they're kids.

Weak. Paying athletes has nothing to do with the present discussion. Stop trying to confuse the issue because you can't refute a valid argument.

When the issue is trading memorabilia for tattoos, they're adults who should know better.

I know Tim Keown isn't stupid. So he has to see the difference in punishing an athlete for trading memorabilia for a tattoo (which is against the rules even though I disagree with this even being a rule) and punishing an athlete because 12 years ago the school employed a coach who liked to molest and rape underage boys (ALLEGEDLY!). For one, the Penn State football players have zero culpability in this situation. That's the biggest difference.

They can handle the repercussions. They can understand that men make mistakes -- sometimes huge mistakes -- that have ramifications on younger men.

Of course they can handle the repercussions. They shouldn't have to because they didn't commit the crime.

These "kids" have dealt with disappointment before. They've lost games they thought they should have won.

So now Tim Keown is equating the disappointment with losing a game they should have won with not playing in a bowl game because an ex-defensive coordinator (ALLEGEDLY!) committed a sexual crime against boys and the university helped cover it up. Sure, these are comparable situations.

They've played seasons that ended before they thought they should have ended, and they've cried because of it.

And please remember, Tim Keown wants to decline a bid to a bowl game based on Sandusky and the actions of the Penn State leadership despite the fact he wants to give Jerry Sandusky the presumption of innocence...which would also mean the Penn State leadership would also deserve a presumption of innocence.

The letdown came a few weeks ago, when they were forced to come to terms with the possibility that the people they trusted weren't worthy of that trust. After that, a bowl game is a minor disappointment.

So why should the players be punished for the fact the people they trusted weren't worthy of the trust?

And really, the whole thing is easy. When the bowl committee calls, whether it's Rose or Capitol One or Little Caesars, just say one word: Pass.

I think Penn State shouldn't decline a bowl game bid. If they want to cancel the program, the NCAA should allow the players to transfer without sitting out a year, but this year's team should be able to finish out the year.

9 comments Tim Keown Is Tired of All These Foreigners Taking Our Jobs

Tim Keown has had enough. American-born players have a ton of opportunities to be developed and play the game of baseball as they are growing up, yet Hispanic players are prevalent in the majors. What can be done to combat this? At least I think that's what he is saying...or maybe he isn't. It is an interesting dynamic put forth here. Tim Keown says American-born players are "bred" to play baseball and given many opportunities to excel, but then complains foreign-born players are surpassing many American-born baseball players in terms of skill.

You would think the problem would be reversed, at least I would think this. I would think the American-born players populate MLB rosters because they are given more opportunities, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Then, Tim Keown comes to the conclusion America isn't going to stand for this much longer and will want to deport (I assume that is what would happen) foreign-born players. This article is quite the rollercoaster and I am still trying to get my mind around it. I'm not sure if it is racist, calling for quotas in MLB, or highlighting a potential social issue.

A question occurred Monday around the time Juan Cruz was pitching to Nelson Cruz, which was a half-inning after Alexi Ogando got the Rangers out of a seventh-inning jam and one inning before Neftali Feliz came in to close out the Rays.

Is this before or after Josh Hamilton hit a home run off Matt Moore and drove in Ian Kinsler and Mike Napoli, at which point the Rays then brought Kyle Farnsworth in the game as a relief pitcher?

The question was this: Do young American baseball players understand what they're up against?

Up against? I've always felt MLB was one of the most diverse sports and it was made better for it. I don't know where the hell all the players from my favorite team are from and frankly I don't really care. It doesn't matter to me because in baseball it is a matter of the best players being on the team without having to be recognized as a white, black, Dominican, Japanese or American baseball player. So this "up against" crap doesn't really cut it for me because I don't see it as an American v. Foreigner (not the band) issue simply because MLB is fortunate to be so global.

American baseball players probably have the financial advantage over many foreign-born players, so I am not concerned foreign-born players end up surpassing some American-born players in terms of skill.

Every year, hundreds of American college and high school players sign contracts and head out to go to work in the minor leagues. They show up and find the world doesn't look quite the same. Amateur baseball in this country -- especially college baseball -- could be mistaken for a country-club sport.

Foreigners are taking our jobs! They took 'er jobs!

So let me get this straight. I'm supposed to feel bad for the American-born players who suddenly have to be mixed with foreign-born players in the minor leagues? It is a bad thing there are talented players not born in the United States? I don't understand the issue here. Yes, the American amateur baseball circuit probably doesn't contain as much diversity as the minor league systems do. Is this a call for more diversity at the amateur level in America or is this a call for less diversity in the minors?

America is an incredibly diverse country so I would imagine the presence of Hispanic-born players wouldn't shock the American-born players all that much. Even if it did, the idea Hispanic-born players have superior skills doesn't make me worry about these American-born players losing their jobs. If you can play, you can play.

There are shockingly few minorities and not even much in the way of socio-economic diversity. It's an upper-middle-class world, fueled by expensive travel teams, private coaches and the best suburban high schools.

So do these people don't know they will later be up against minorities from a lower-to-middle-class world without the budget for the best baseball-related amenities? I am supposed to worry about this?

In 2006, there were just 24 black players in the SEC, a conference that includes eight states with a black population of more than 25 percent.

I thought we were talking about foreign-born players coming into the minors, not minority players from the United States? Tim Keown does realize the 24 black players in the SEC are not all foreign-born I would hope. I would also really hope an American-born player wouldn’t be thrown off by having a black teammate once he reaches the minors.

I think you can see my confusion about what this article is supposed to be discussing. The title is about Hispanic baseball players and now we are discussing African-American baseball players...but only briefly and then immediately stop discussing this topic and move on to illegal immigration in Arizona and Alabama.

Baseball has become less enticing to African-Americans, a fact attributable either to diminished opportunity (expense/infrastructure/support/coaching) or the allure of other pursuits (basketball/football). College baseball is by far America's most underrated and under-covered sport, but the racial makeup of participants is no different from women's soccer. Players are often groomed more than developed.

What’s weird about this sudden diversion into the discussion of African-Americans in the majors is this is the last we hear of it in this column. It just sort of gets thrown out there and then disappears again, never to be discussed again.

Kids from the Dominican Republic and Venezuela -- to name two countries whose players are exempt from the amateur draft -- show up in droves with little cultural assimilation but a ton of baseball savvy.

So these American-born players are being bred to play the game of baseball and then are being surpassed by a group that have less money and less opportunity to develop their baseball skills, yet have a ton of baseball savvy? Clearly, this needs to change. Those foreign-born players need to go back home so MLB and the minor leagues can cater to those American-born players who have had greater opportunities to develop their skills don’t have to compete on a level playing field for a chance to get a starting spot on a team.

Major league teams have invested heavily in player development in the DR and other Latin countries, and you can watch that investment pay off in the postseason. It's no coincidence that organizations with some of the best Latin scouting and development systems (Rangers, Yankees, Diamondbacks) are still playing.

Yes, it would make logical sense for the teams that look for talent in a wider pool of talent would have better teams.

This season, 27 percent of major league players and more than 42 percent (conservatively) of minor league players are Hispanic. Which raises an uncomfortable but inevitable question:

Does this really matter?

Is baseball too Hispanic?

How is this an inevitable question? Is the NBA too African-American? Is the NHL too white and foreign-born? I just don’t get how this is an inevitable question at all or why baseball being too Hispanic really matters.

It's a sentiment that occupies a quiet but steady undercurrent throughout the game. How else to explain radioman Tony Bruno's decision to use Twitter -- a technology that sits poised and ready to ruin careers -- to call Giants reliever Ramon Ramirez an "illegal alien" after Ramirez sparked an August fight with the Phillies by hitting Shane Victorino?

You could also explain it by saying Tony Bruno was an idiot for saying this. I don’t know if this one action proves an undercurrent of thought that baseball is too Hispanic.

Keown uses this incident as proof of the undercurrent of thought and doesn’t think about how Bruno called Ramirez an “illegal alien” for hitting a player who isn’t even your typical American-born player. Victorino is from Hawaii, but he has Portuguese, Chinese and Japanese descent as well. His last name is Portuguese and I would bet if you didn't know Victorino's background you would have trouble knowing he was American-born. So Bruno wasn’t really defending your typical American-born player and was mostly just being an asshole.

Bruno's quickly deleted tweet is a byproduct of a small-minded mentality that good old American ballplayers are getting squeezed out by Latin players.

I am not sure if the fans really feel this way. Maybe I’m wrong. I am not sure baseball fans truly care if American ballplayers are getting squeezed out by Hispanic (or Latin as Tim calls them here) players. Maybe there is a small undercurrent angry about how foreign-born players are taking American-born players jobs. It's a small undercurrent and doesn't reflect reality or the majority.

Let’s also ignore that the words “Hispanic” and “Latin” really can’t accurately be used interchangeably.

I was sitting at a high school baseball summer event a couple of months ago when one dad -- a former big leaguer -- waved his hand toward the field and said, "You watch a big league game, see all the Latins and wonder, 'Do any of these kids have a chance?'"

So does Tim Keown just randomly show up at high school baseball games he isn’t responsible for covering for ESPN?

someone else half-jokingly suggested that MLB might want to adopt a limited-foreigner rule similar to those in European professional basketball leagues.

I can understand the frustration of having your child squeezed out in the minor leagues by a superior player who didn’t spend a ton of money on traveling baseball teams, but that’s life. I’m not sure I could support a limited-foreigner rule in MLB. It seems contradictory to the world-wide view I prefer to see the sport take.

The stories of the kids who arrive from the Dominican after playing years with a milk-carton glove and a tree-branch bat are dissolving into folklore. They might start out that way, but, as soon as they show promise, they're funneled into academies that are run like schools and funded by agents, scouts and coaches.

Why is this necessarily a bad thing if the kid wants to play baseball professionally? How is this incredibly different from American-born players on the amateur circut? Because these foreign-born players may be poor and they may not eventually achieve their dream of playing in the majors? This same potential for failure goes for the American-born players on the amateur circuit. America has a way of cultivating amateur players and so does the Dominican. Does Tim think these players are being taken advantage of? Couldn't the argument be the American-born players in the amateur circuit are the ones being taken advantage of by their parents and are not being properly prepared for competition as the skill level of the competition increases? I say this because, as Tim has stated in this very column, foreign-born players are increasing in number in the majors.

I guess I don’t see why the academies are a bad thing. Wasn’t Tim just saying American-born players are on teams and travel around the country playing baseball to cultivate their skills? I don’t see why Hispanic players can’t join academies and do the same. Like everything else in the world, I am sure there is dirty business that goes on, but this really has very little to do with the topic at hand…which if you don’t recall is, “Are there too many Hispanic players in baseball?”

There is an emphasis on training and instruction, but very few (if any) games.

Well clearly they aren’t getting their money’s worth out of these free academies if they are only receiving training and instruction.

The most funhouse-mirror example of the phenomenon came in 2008, when 16-year-old, 6-foot-7 right-handed pitcher Michael Ynoa signed with the A's for a $4.25 million signing bonus. Ynoa had all the qualities scouts covet -- size, projectability, a plus-90 fastball -- but the most eye-popping aspect of Ynoa's signing wasn't the money or even Ynoa's age. It was this: A product of the academy system, Ynoa had never thrown a pitch in a game.

It is a bit weird he had not pitched in a game yet, but he is 16 years old and if the A’s were convinced enough by watching him pitch, then learning to pitch is the next step for him.

(So far, the A's have gotten just three minor league starts out of Ynoa, who had Tommy John surgery and missed the entire 2011 season. He's still only 20.)

This a very passive-aggressive way of saying the A’s didn’t spend their money wisely. There is a part Tim Keown leaves out. In those three minor league starts these are Ynoa’s statistics:

9 innings pitched, 6 hits, 5 runs, 4 walks, 11 strikeouts, 3 wild pitches, 1 hit batter, WHIP 1.111, and an ERA of 5.00.

I’m not a huge fan of projectability or rating a pitcher completely on potential, but Ynoa clearly has a very good arm waiting to be harnessed by the A’s and their system. He is wild and can’t control his pitches, but he also appears to be able to strike out batters and you can work on a pitcher’s control as he develops. So I won’t say Ynoa has been a success, but there appears to be a lot to work with. Even for a guy who never pitched to batters until reaching rookie league ball.

Latin ballplayers are so ingrained in the culture of baseball that it's wild to think it's a problem, but there are indications -- anecdotal and otherwise -- suggesting a chillier climate.

By itself, the Arizona immigration law seemed alarmist, a reactionary one-off. Now, though, comes the Alabama immigration law, raising the possibility of a trend.

I think I’m confused. So Tim starts this column off by asking if there are too many Hispanics in MLB, says there are others who feel this way, and then uses immigration laws created by two states as proof even more people feel this way. So the topic of this article should not be, “Are there too many Hispanic players in baseball,” but instead should be “Are the Hispanic players in baseball going to experience a backlash of negativity because they are so prevalent in the sport?”

Basically, I am not sure a trend towards negativity concerning illegal immigration from two states means there are too many Hispanic players in baseball. There may be some resentment towards foreign-born players, but most people who are sports fans understand baseball players have a unique skill set and the players with the best skill set are the ones that will receive the best opportunities at the major league level.

The talking points are similar: jobs, opportunities, benefits.

The difference, at least in my mind, is the skill set that baseball players possess which makes them different. It seems like a short-sighted comparison to make between regular American workers having their jobs taken away by foreign competition (or competition from foreigners who live in the United States) and American athletes who don't get an opportunity to start because of foreign-born players with a better skill set.

And if we've learned anything from every baseball book we've read or documentary we've seen, it's this: Baseball can't help but mirror society.

Yeah sort of. Baseball mirrors society in some ways, but I can't help but think many times the media wants sports (including baseball) to mirror society more closely than it really does for the purposes of putting forth a narrative. Possibly I am naive, but I am not sure the many foreign-born MLB players are going to find their experience playing baseball in the United States as a negative because two states are cracking down on illegal immigration.

Baseball mirrors society, but sometimes there are different rules for sports. Monopolistic business is not allowed in the United States, but I think it would be fair to say the NFL has a monopoly in the United States and is protected in some ways from receiving fair competition. So sports can mirror society, but this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. I think this is one of those situations. I'm not sure American fans are going to be upset there are too many Hispanic players in the majors.

So why should this be any different?

It should be different because I would guess 95% of people don't care what nationality their shortstop is. Possibly I am in the minority on this opinion, but I believe baseball fans in general don't care about the nationality of the players on their team. It's been widely accepted by serious baseball fans the sport is a national sport so the large amount of Hispanics in baseball is taken as less of an issue to fixed and is seen more as a sign of the inclusive worldwide sport baseball wants to be.