How to Stop Agent-Athlete Corruption in College Athletics

Image via Wikipedia

After the NCAA Infractions Committee body-slammed USC's football program for its "lack of institutional control" in its handling of former star running back Reggie Bush, Trojan fans immediately wondered why the NCAA chose to punish its beloved team, current players, and new coaches for the crimes allegedly committed during a previous regime. In essence, why should current players, such as starting quarterback Matt Barkley, be banned from postseason play when they had absolutely no relationship with the Bush-led teams of the past? The answer is simple - because when a scandal like this breaks loose, the NCAA wants to punish someone, but that someone needs to be within NCAA jurisdiction. Once Bush entered the NFL Draft and signed with the New Orleans Saints, he lost his status as an amateur athlete (Translation:  Bush no longer "belonged" to the NCAA). And Lloyd Lake, the independent sports agent who allegedly tampered with Bush and Bush's family, has as much accountability to the NCAA as Ronnie does to Sammi on MTV's "Jersey Shore" (For those of you unfamiliar with the show…zero). Thus, by process of elimination, who could the NCAA have spanked for this "egregious" oversight? USC. The NCAA had to punish the Trojans because the Trojans were the only participant in this scandal that fell under the NCAA's reach. And while I blame the NCAA for being reckless in the severity of its punishment, I do not blame them for reprimanding the school in general because it was the only recourse offered to the NCAA in our flawed athletic system.

In the current system, the lack of collaboration between the NCAA and professional sports leagues, especially the National Football League and the National Basketball Association, enables athletes and sports agents to violate the rules of amateurism, reap the benefits of those violations, and avoid the consequences of their actions. Let's take a look at an example of how the system allows itself to be abused. And because I hate to beat a dead horse (the Bush scandal), let's examine the events surrounding Marcus Camby's impropriety during his time on the University of Massachusetts basketball team.

As an All-American at UMass, every agent sought to recruit center Marcus Camby in hopes of bringing in a healthy commission on Camby's inevitable payday. Two particular agents, John Lounsbury and Wesley Spears, gave recruitment a whole new meaning. Lounsbury estimated that he gave Camby more than $40,000 in cash and gifts over a two year period. Lounsbury bought stereo equipment and took out rental cars for the prized college recruit. Meanwhile, Spears took it one step further; in addition to funneling cash to Camby, Spears bought the star expensive jewelry and even procured prostitutes with whom Camby slept. Furthermore, both agents showered Camby's friends and family with gifts, praise, and support in hopes of getting deeper into Camby's circle (For a more detailed account of the Camby scandal, read this great article by Sports Illustrated's Phil Taylor).

While I do not condone these actions, I acknowledge the temptations that athletes and agents face, especially considering how easy it is to escape persecution. Camby did not come from a well-to-do background and admittedly used his talents to leverage financial security. If, for just one second, we remove ourselves from our own lives/situations and try to imagine growing up in Camby's shoes, or Bush's shoes, perhaps we can see what these athletes dealt saw. Camby had an opportunity to live a lifestyle he had only dreamt of, and if executed correctly, he could do so without penalty. And that's exactly what Camby did. On the court, he set individual records, won player of the year awards, and led his team to the Final Four. Off the court, he took the money, jewelry, cars, and women and lived like no other student in the country. And when all was said and done, he was drafted, received a huge signing bonus, and collected much more in his NBA career. But here's the catch:  He did so at no cost to himself. Sure, the NCAA eventually nullified the Minutemen's visit to the Final Four, but who did that hurt more, the program or Camby? Well, since Camby's departure, UMass has only made the NCAA tournament twice in thirteen years. Meanwhile, Camby has had a moderately successful 14-year career highlighted by winning Defensive Player of the Year in 2007 and his current $9.15 million/year contract. I would say Camby came out ahead.

As for the agents involved, both have since left the sports representation business. However, had they wanted to remain in it, they would have been able to do so. Agents simply are not punished for providing benefits to college players. In fact, according to Jack Bechta, in this article, plenty of high-profile agents provide benefits to players but the NFL Players Association is hesitant to discipline them because those are the same agents that represent them! So, if agents can discreetly provide improper benefits to college athletes then later remain certified by professional leagues, why would they stop?

The solution to this ubiquitous problem is a coordinated, proactive effort by both the NCAA and the NBA/NFL. Here are some policies they should enact:

1.  Ban the Agents

Any current, certified NBA/NFL agent found to be providing a collegiate athlete with improper benefits should be decertified and banned from future representation in that league. Simple. And if you are an aspiring agent who is discovered to be providing improper benefits to a college player, then you should be banned from even applying for professional certification by the NBA/NFL. If the agents are truly the bad apples in all of this, as coaches seem to think, then they should be kept out of the leagues for good. Do not reward agents who tamper with college athletes!

2.  Jeopardize the Athletes

Any collegiate athlete found to be receiving improper benefits from an agent should be immediately kicked off his athletic team, banned from future participation in NCAA athletics at any level, and prevented from entering the NFL/NBA Draft (Although they can enter the league through free agency). The reason why kids make these decisions is because they know that their futures cannot be jeopardized, only the short-term (For instance, they lose one year of playing eligibility). By kicking them off the team, banning them from NCAA athletics, and forbidding them from entering the NFL/NBA Draft, you send a clear message that should athletes decide to receive improper benefits, they directly harm their own futures. If an athlete can no longer play his sport, he cannot showcase his talent. If he cannot showcase his talent, he will not be a prized possession. If he is not a prized possession, the chances of receiving a big payday is slim; not to mention, if you cannot enter the Draft, you will not collect the huge signing bonuses automatically given to high picks). These kids need to understand that stupid decisions in the present will have drastic ramifications in the future. After all, isn't that true in every other walk of life? Why are athletics any different?

3.  Hire the Family/Friends

The NCAA and the NBA/NFL should PAY the parents/friends of high-profile college athletes to serve as informants (aka snitches) to help crackdown on renegade agents. Ah, the icing on the cake! The biggest problem in these scandals is patrolling the athletes' friends and families, right? After all, USC could have done everything in its power to keep Bush away from agents (on-campus housing, closed practices, etc.) but could it have policed Bush's parents miles away from campus? It's a helpless cause. So, then, if you can't beat them, join them! Team up with the parents, secretly, to weed out the rogue agents! And make sure to pay parents/friends on a commission-basis to encourage proactive snitching! This is brilliant.

Ultimately, I don't know if the system will ever be immune to agent-athlete corruption. But as of today, the system leaves itself astonishingly vulnerable. Hopefully, policymakers will see the light and realize that the only way to limit the corruption is to implement regulations like the three that I provide above.

UFC 118: Recap and Analysis

Joe Lauzon def. Gabe Reudiger (Arm bar, Round 1)

Round 1
Lauzon demolished Reudiger! He landed punishing blows, threw Reudiger around like a rag doll, and once he sunk the arm bar in, forced Reudiger to tap within two seconds. Incredible performance that earns Lauzon some credibility and puts Reudiger back on the UFC chopping block.

Nate Diaz def. Marcus Davis (Guillotine choke, Round 3)

Round 1
I scored the opening round of this fight 10-9 in favor of Diaz. I was very surprised that Diaz not only kept the fight standing, but managed to pepper Davis relentlessly with jabs and hooks. He put a ridiculous amount of damage on Davis' face using nice combination packages that included punches, knees, and high and low kicks. Diaz also played the role of villain by opening the fight with multiple instances of taunting/showboating that resulted in the crowd chanting "Diaz sucks! Diaz sucks!"

Round 2
Very close second round that I gave to Davis 10-9, but I think it could have gone either way. The fight remained primarily a boxing match, although the fighters went to the ground near the end of the round. Diaz' striking amuses me because his lanky body makes it appear as though his punches don't travel very fast, but Joe Rogan and Mike Goldberg insist that his boxing is "smooth." I guess we'd better ask Davis.

Round 3
Diaz' reach really created a big advantage for him especially because Davis was content with keeping it a boxing match. Diaz' boxing really impressed me. Diaz managed a takedown with about 1:30 left in the round. And, as suspected, put together a guillotine choke and Davis, being the warrior the he is, refused to tap. Nighty night, fight over. The fight outcome did not surprise me (in my UFC 118 predictions/preview post, I predicted a Diaz victory). But I really thought the fight would be dominated on the ground, not on foot. Outstanding performance by Diaz.

Gray Maynard def. Kenny Florian (Unanimous decision)

Round 1
This round started off pretty slow and didn't pick up until about two minutes remained. I scored it 10-9 in favor of Florian despite the fact that Maynard managed to take down Florian near the end of the round. Florian pushed the fight more, connected with a punch and a kick or two, and negated Maynard's takedown by preventing Maynard from doing any damage on the ground.

Round 2
Maynard won this round 10-9. After he took Florian down about halfway through the round, Maynard unleashed all sorts of damage on his lightweight counterpart. Using effective ground and pound, Maynard was able to open up numerous cuts on Florian. It could have been worse, but it was definitely something Florian probably wanted to avoid coming into the fight.

Round 3
I guess I would give this round to Maynard, even though neither fighter really impressed me. The fight on the whole was pretty uneventful and that always happens whenever you have someone whose only strength is wrestling (Maynard). I, like the judges, had Maynard as the winner.

Demian Maia def. Mario Miranda (Unanimous decision)

Round 1
I don't remember ever seeing Mario Miranda fight, but the guy looks athletic and he's fighting out of Kirkland, Washington, so I have to cheer for him. I gave the first round 10-9 to Maia because Maia took Miranda down twice and was able to dominate a little on the ground in terms of positioning and even a minor submission attempt. Miranda's striking and explosive was effectively neutralized.

Round 2
Maia dominated Miranda on the ground in this round. He was able to take Miranda down early and get into the mount and do some ground and pound. Maia was close to sinking an arm bar near the end of the round, but Miranda managed to roll out of it.

Round 3
Maia took Miranda down early and grabbed his back. The fighters spent about three minutes on the ground until Miranda wiggled his way back up . They stood around for a bit, tired. And then Maia took Miranda down once more. A pretty boring, one-sided fight.

Randy Couture def. James Toney (Arm triangle choke, Round 1)

Besides the obvious story lines for this fight, I am excited to see a professional boxer switch from the traditional 10-12 ounce boxing gloves to MMA's four-ounce gloves. It will be interesting to see how much faster his hands are, the power behind them, and how Toney adjusts to receiving a blow at the expense of the lighter gloves. As I said in my predictions/preview post, I think Couture will shed Toney quickly on the ground. But I hope I can see them exchange some punches before that.

Round 1
Couture took down Toney within the first fifteen seconds of the fight, got to full mount, and began delivering blows. Just as I, and probably everyone else in the MMA world, expected. The crowd's chant of "UFC! UFC!" made me crack a smile. And with 1:42 left in the round, Couture sank in an arm triangle choke and Toney quickly tapped. Simply put, Toney got worked.

Not only did Couture dominate/annihilate Toney, but Toney did not even throw a single punch! To Toney's credit, he did show a little bit of toughness while eating the punches on his back.

Frankie Edgar def. B.J. Penn (Unanimous decision, defends Lightweight Championship)

B.J. Penn is not only in the top two of my list of favorite fighters, but he has the sickest entrance song! And did you notice how when B.J. walked into the Octagon he instinctively walked into the champions corner? Awesome. And during the fighter introductions, Penn looked as calm as I have ever seen him. He is usually very finicky and slaps himself a couple times in his own face. Tonight he stood still in his non-traditional black trunks. He looked pissed, determined, and ready to fight.

Round 1
Edgar opened the round with an impressive takedown. B.J. was able to get back his feet after about a minute of grappling on the ground. Edgar took Penn down again with about 1:40 left in the round. Anytime B.J. gets thrown to the ground it is honestly a huge shock. His takedown defense is among the best in MMA and, prior to his encounters with Edgar, we rarely saw Penn get taken to the ground. Because of the takedowns and because the striking was relatively even throughout the round, Edgar gets the edge to begin the fight.

Round 2
I gave this round to Edgar. Both fighters landed a couple of decent shots, but Edgar was able to add a takedown. I started to develop the same concern that I felt midway through the first fight. Specifically, when will B.J. turn it on? Waiting…waiting…

Round 3
This round made me sick. Edgar outboxed and outworked Penn. And it was obvious. To this minute I am still baffled by the following statistic:

Number of B.J. Penn takedown attempts in five rounds at UFC 112 and through another three rounds tonight at UFC 118:  ZERO.

Round 4
FINALLY! Penn took down Edgar 20 seconds into Round 4. I feel like I just saw a miracle. Unfortunately, Edgar got a huge knockdown later in the round and was able to put some ground and pound on The Prodigy. Another round in the bag for Edgar.

Round 5
With about one minute left in the round, I felt like B.J. was going to get knocked out. His hands were at his sides, he was clearly tired and his mind was out of the fight. It was sad, surprising, and pathetic all at the same time. Although Edgar was not able to finish Penn off, he easily dominated and proved that the first fight was no fluke. Either Penn's career is dramatically coming to an end before our eyes or Edgar simply has his number. I hope its the latter.

One final comment:  Penn's should reevaluate who he wants in his corner during his fights. His team did not give him one ounce of advice throughout the five rounds. They were passive in the words they used and they failed to make any adjustments to help Penn mount an attack.

UFC 118: Penn vs. Edgar 2 - Fight Previews and Predictions

Promotional image courtesy of UFC.com

In just a few hours, UFC 118 will begin live from Boston, Massachusetts. Fight fans anticipate this particular event not only because it's the UFC's first time in Boston, but also because the card features several dynamic match-ups that will certainly provide for an enjoyable couple of hours.

Main Event:  B.J. Penn vs. Frankie Edgar (c), Lightweight Championship Bout

For the first time in what seems like forever, B.J. Penn steps into the Octagon as the challenger in a Lightweight Championship fight. The Prodigy, coming off arguably the most disappointing performance of his career versus Frankie Edgar at UFC 112 in Abu Dhabi, looks to redeem himself and prove that he still has a tight stranglehold on the Lightweight division. Despite how poorly Penn fought in the loss to Edgar, I am confident that Penn can avenge the loss and regain his championship belt. But in order to that, Penn needs to learn from the first fight.

During the first contest, Penn simply did not fight his fight. Sure, one could attribute that to Edgar's energetic, tenacious, and up-tempo fighting style. Edgar, to his credit, pushed the pace of the fight and constantly tried to force Penn out of his comfort zone. But Penn is a mixed martial arts legend, and I believe that someone of his skill level can hold off Edgar's ferocity. Instead, Penn was content simply trying to out-box Edgar. And although The Prodigy did outscore Edgar in the striking category, his strikes did little damage and Edgar had clear control of the Octagon for the majority of the fight.

B.J. Penn is one of my favorite fighters (him and Georges St. Pierre are 1-2, and I am not sure of the order). The loss was particularly painful because it seemed like B.J. was waiting, and waiting, and waiting for his move…but never made it. I agree with the assessment that B.J. is a superior striker, but eventually you have to ditch the game plan and try something else. I was shocked that Penn did not try to take down Edgar and utilize his superior Brazilian jiujitsu abilities. In fact, Edgar managed to take B.J. down a couple times, which was even more shocking, despite the fact that Edgar does have above-average wrestling skills. But B.J. has shown in the past that he can dominate fighters on the ground (see Joe "Daddy" Stevenson). And if B.J. wants to rewrite the script tonight, he needs to take advantage of his strong ground game.

Finally, Penn cannot leave this bout in the hands of the judges. The decision at UFC 112 was very controversial for several reasons. First, many fans felt that Edgar did not dominate enough to earn the championship. There is a common belief that in any close championship fight, the judges should evaluate on the more conservative side and favor the champion. But judges have repeatedly shown that they are not afraid to award a challenger if they feel as though the challenger outworked the champion (another example:  Forrest Griffin defeating Rampage Jackson). The decision was also controversial because of how decisively Edgar won. The verdict was unanimous despite many fans feeling that Penn at least won the first and second rounds and possibly the third. But ultimately, this only proves that Penn needs to go out tonight and fight to win by knockout, submission, or TKO. This time he is the challenger and he knows the feeling of being snake-bitten by the judges. The first time it happened you could blame the judges, but if it happens again, you can only blame B.J. Penn.

My fearless prediction:  Penn def. Edgar via rear naked choke (Round 4)

Randy Couture vs. James Toney

Perhaps even more anticipated than the main event, some fans have billed Couture vs. Toney as "MMA vs. Boxing." While I think that label is completely unfair, I do admit that I look forward to this fight. We will NEVER be able to truly compare mixed martial arts to boxing inside a ring because the definitions of the two sports are mutually exclusive. By stepping into the Octagon tonight after having trained in mixed martial arts for the past six to eight months, James Toney has transformed himself, albeit rudimentarily, into a mixed martial artist. As a result, tonight's matchup no longer pits a mixed martial artist versus a boxer, but rather a seasoned mixed martial artist versus an amateur mixed martial artist with a mastery of boxing. Perhaps I should spend an entirely separate post related to this topic.

Regardless, I expect Couture to severely overwhelm Toney tonight. This fight is akin to a basketball trick shot expert/professional H-O-R-S-E player challenging an NBA player to a game of one-on-one hoops. Nobody doubts Toney's ability to box just as nobody doubts the trick shot expert's ability to sink ridiculous shots. But boxing is only one aspect of mixed martial arts just as shooting is only one aspect of a one-on-one basketball showdown. Can Toney defend Couture's take down and submission attempts? Can Toney prevent Couture from passing from half guard to mount? Likewise, how will a trick shot expert defend an NBA star in the low post? And how will he adjust to having to shoot over the NBA star's extended arms? Despite Toney's training leading up to this fight, he is dealing with a completely different animal. To be fair, I believe that if Couture were thrown into the boxing ring with Toney, the dynamics of the matchup would be much different and probably result in a Toney victory. But for tonight, it's a mixed martial arts fight in the Octagon. And that means Couture has a huge advantage.

My fearless prediction:  Couture def. Toney via ground and pound (Round 1)

Kenny Florian vs. Gray Maynard

I like both of these fighters and I think this will be an exciting fight. Florian is a great fighter who is skilled and relentless. Maynard is a dangerous wrestler with incredible strength. I think Florian wins because of his experience. He will rely on his Octagon-savvy and heart to suck the life out of Maynard.

My fearless prediction:  Florian def. Maynard via triangle choke (Round 3)

Other fight predictions:

Demian Maia def. Mario Miranda
Nate Diaz def. Marcus Davis
Joe Lauzon def. Gabe Ruediger

Running Commentary of Croatia vs. USA (2010 FIBA World Championship Preliminary Round)

Starting Lineups:

USA:
G - Chauncey Billups
G - Derrick Rose
F - Andre Iguodala
F - Kevin Durant
C - Lamar Odom

Croatia:
G - Roko-Leni Ukic
G - Marko Tomas
F - Bojan Bogdanovic
F - Luka Zoric
C - Ante Tomic

On paper this looks like a severe mismatch. Croatia ranks tied for 15th internationally and I don't recognize a majority of the names in its starting lineup (Tomas and Tomic being the exceptions). That being said, anything can happen on a given day, and that's why you play the game!

First Quarter:

2-0 - USA opens the defensive side of the ball in a man-to-man and forces an off-balance three. USA immediately runs on the fast break and Billups blows by everyone to force a foul on a layup attempt.

7-2 - USA's length is already creating problems for the Croatians. They have had multiple second-chance opportunities.

9-7 - Croatia pulls within two points with a long range three. The Croatians show early that the trey is a huge part of their game.

15-11 - Odom continues his strong start with 4 points and 4 boards in the first five minutes. On the defensive side however, Tomic has backed Odom down and shot over Odom on multiple possessions. This was one of my fears coming into the tournament--a big man who could use his size to score over our guys down low. Luckily, Tomic still has a long way to go before he can be considered dominant by any stretch of the imagination.

18-15 - Stephen Curry and Rudy Gay both enter the game. Ironically, Croatia switches to a zone defense.

18-19 - Croatia takes its first lead of the game off a second-chance opportunity. They have shown a lot of fight so far in this game by weathering the Americans' early storm.

22-19 - The basketball court in Istanbul has an advertisement in the circle at the top of the key. On two occasions so far in this quarter, a player has lost his footing on the ad and turned the ball over (Iguodala and Tomic). Is the ad really necessary? If it is, why in such a pivotal area on the court?

Second Quarter (Begins USA leading 22-20)

29-22 - Durant slips on the advertisement while playing defense. I am keeping a running count of the number of slips/falls caused by the advertisement! We're at three right now.

32-22 - Team USA reaches its largest lead on the back of a three and several floaters by Rose. I'm telling you, the guy is a monster.

36-22 - Croatia has resulted to fouling the USA on fast breaks and whenever the USA blows by them on dribble penetration. This could be a long game.

38-24 - The first fast break dunk of the game for the Americans is delivered by Russell Westbrook. Durant grabbed the rebound on the opposite end, threw a nice outlet pass to Rose who then delivered a dart on the run to Westbrook for the jam. The play literally looked like a blur, especially because ESPN Classic is not broadcasting in high-definition.

38-24 - Westbrook just leapt over the 7'2" Tomic to grab a rebound off of a free throw miss.

47-26 - Eric Gordon hits back-to-back three pointers to bring the USA to its largest lead. Gordon reminds us of the sweet stroke that gained so much hype after one season at Indiana. Rudy Gay felt left out so he added a three pointer to the part. The color commentator says, "Now, if you're Croatia, it's time to start thinking about the next game…think strategically."

Third Quarter (USA leads 48-26)

54-33 - Just as USA was beginning to turn the game into an embarrassment, Croatia responds with a small run of its own. Emphasis on the word "small."

63-34 - Billups steals the ball and leads a fast break the other way that results in the Americans' first alley-oop of the contest (to Iguodala).

Fourth Quarter (USA leads 80-48)

80-50 - Remember when the game was close? Croatia had its one and only lead during the game at 19-18 (scroll up!). And then the avalanche started. On a side note, ESPN Classic finally figured out how to display a running game clock; for the first three quarters of the game, there was no clock next to the score on the bottom line. Suddenly, it appears! Too little too late because I think most viewers have tuned out by now.

90-62 - A funny ebb-and-flow has occurred in the past five minutes or so. The Croatians have been making small runs as a product of easy layups in an attempt to get a moral victory as the game comes to an end. But the Americans answer with a run of their own every once in awhile. I'll bet five dollars that USA holds/grows its lead and wins by more than 30 points…

104-75 - My 30-point victory bet with myself is the only thing keeping me in the game. This must be how addicted sports gamblers feel on a daily basis!

106-78 - USA is dribbling out the clock and the game is coming to an end! This is ludicrous! There goes my money. 

Final Analysis

Well, as expected, the opening match of the preliminary round was lopsided affair. The Croatians showed a lot of courage by sticking with the Americans early, but Team USA simply had too much athleticism. Up next for Team USA is Slovenia tomorrow morning. Slovenia also appears to be an easy match-up, and with the tougher Brazilians looming, Team USA needs to be careful not to overlook the Slovenians.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Big second quarter helps U.S. run away from Croatia (nbcsports.msnbc.com)

PR Disaster: The Pervasive Mismanagement of High-Profile Athletes

Image by Keith Allison via Flickr

As part of a campaign politics course that I took at USC, I read a book titled "Hardball," written by political commentator and news anchor Chris Matthews. In the book, Matthews talks about the various lessons that he has learned during his time in politics through both personal and vicarious experiences. He develops his ideas through countless examples in politics that either directly or indirectly demonstrate the validity of the lesson at hand. Although he gears the book toward managing politicians, I think it applies very well to sports figures, too; both sets of people attract abnormal public attention on a daily basis. Inappropriate comments made by a Congressional leader during a hearing will undoubtedly be deconstructed on Meet the Press or The O'Reilly Factor just as negative comments made by a basketball player regarding poor officiating will air on SportsCenter. That being said, I want to take a particular concept that I came across in "Hardball"--hanging a lantern on your problem--out of politics and into the world of sports.

Here are some direct quotes from Matthews that describe exactly what it means to "hang a lantern on your problem":

• "…it's always better to be the bearer of your own bad news."

• "…if a question has been raised publicly about your personal background, you need to address the issue personally."

• "…when in doubt, get [the bad news] out."

• "[Hanging a lantern on your problem]…protects [you] from being surprised and embarrassed by hearing it from someone outside."

In summary, if there is a blemish on your resume, you, personally--not the media, not your teammates, not an anonymous fan--should reveal the shortcoming to the public. And if you cannot be the first to deliver the news, you need to acknowledge the news then either admit to it and apologize or provide adequate evidence to dispel it. Then move on and begin repairing your image. If you don't follow these steps, you supply your enemies and critics with dangerous ammunition in their war against you. Case in point:  Tiger Woods.

Much has been made about El Tigre's drama. You know the story already:  the prolific golfer drove his (expensive) SUV into a tree after midnight last Thanksgiving. He was then found lying on the curb, unconscious, with more cuts and bruises than Rihanna after an argument with Chris Brown. But what transpired next was the most intriguing; Tiger's PR team, whose name is now the You're F****ed Foundation, went into hibernation and took Mr. Woods with them! They literally disappeared from the face of the Earth for about three MONTHS. Now, I'm not suggesting that Tiger and his crew could have dealt with the rumors/speculation within the hour that the news broke. But why not that same day? What the hell could they have been doing?

Listening to ESPN Radio last night, the host, a woman whose name I forgot, claimed that the reason why Tiger fell so hard, so fast, is because he had given the public a "bill of goods." She claimed that Tiger sold himself as a legendary golfer, dedicated dad, faithful husband, smooth businessman, etc. And I agree--Tiger did create that image for himself. But I don't believe that the "bill of goods" lead to his downfall. Rather, it was his inability to hang a lantern on his problem. As a nation, we waited for him. We waited for his PR team. Hell, we would've been satisfied with his dad descending from heaven to provide us some clarity. We just wanted an answer! Some truth amidst all the rumors and speculation! (For instance, why did he sleep with woman #4 before he slept with woman #5? Woman #4 is so much hotter. Please tell us WHY?!) But instead, we got silence. Well, almost…

• PGA Tour veteran Ben Crane:  "This is not surprise to anyone who knows Tiger. He's a phony and a fake and he can't retain that squeaky-clean endorsement deal any longer."

• Golf great Tom Watson:  "It's bad for our game. It's something he needs to get control of and a handle on and make some amends and show some humility to the public…"

So while Tiger and his staff slept the months away, the media, fans, and other golfers took shots at the guy. Rumors that were not addressed turned into truth. Women who potentially slept with Tiger were crowned official mistresses. All because he didn't hang a lantern on his problem.

We have seen this mistake repeatedly in sports. In 2007, Alex Rodriguez emphatically responded "No" when Katie Couric asked him if he had ever used steroids, HGH, or any other PED. Over a year later, after reports surfaced that showed A-Rod had in fact used PEDs, the Yankees slugger negated his 2007 comments and admitted to ESPN's Peter Gammons that he used PEDs from 2001 to 2003. A-Rod and his PR team dropped the ball on several accounts. First, he had the chance to address the speculation and bear his own bad news, but failed to do so. And not only did he fail, but he lied in the process. It's one thing to dance around the issue (Barry Bonds) but it's another thing to lie and later be caught.

In our media-driven society, athletes are never safe. The news cameramen are everywhere, and when they are on break, average, unassuming citizens turn into nosy paparazzi wielding camera phones and hidden tape recorders. What then, is a high-profile athlete to do (besides stay away from controversy)? All together now:  Hang a lantern on your problem.

Jordan Rides the Bus: A Review and My Observations

Image via Wikipedia

Last night I watched the newest installment, Ron Shelton's "Jordan Rides the Bus," in ESPN's "30 for 30" sports documentary series. The piece explored Michael Jordan's first retirement from the NBA and his subsequent career playing professional baseball. While I consider myself a lifelong NBA fan and an absolute diehard MJ supporter, I was simply too young to understand the ramifications of his move back when it happened; I was about six years old at the time. The only thing I remember about that time period is an Upper Deck baseball card of Michael Jordan in a White Sox uniform that I happened to procure (to this day one of my favorite cards in my remaining collection). Thus, when I heard that this piece dove directly into the retirement/career change, I highly anticipated its premiere.

As a whole, "Jordan Rides the Bus" was a solid production and an informative work that any NBA fan should watch. There has always been a lot of speculation over why Michael Jordan decided to retire and play baseball. In this documentary, Shelton does his best to set the record straight. That is, MJ retired for a combination of reasons, namely:  1) he was bored with basketball and had lost his passion for playing; and 2) his father, who was murdered shortly after Jordan won his third NBA championship, had always dreamt for MJ to play baseball, so this was a decision to honor his dad. As a kid, I don't remember any mention of the murder of MJ's father. And perhaps that is for the better because I doubt any parent would want their child watching a news story of a man found dead in a creek. But that is such a vital component of the MJ story and I am glad that I learned of it. Finally, from a production standpoint, I wish the producers had the chance to interview MJ, today, about the events. I noticed that in many of the "30 for 30" pieces, the subjects of the documentaries are rarely featured in present-day interviews. It would have been great to hear from the man himself as he undoubtedly could provide insight/knowledge/information that you simply cannot get from analyzing videotape or talking to friends.

From a sports perspective, here are some things that intrigued me:

1. When MJ went to Chicago Bulls and Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf to inform Reinsdorf of his decision to retire and try baseball, Reinsdorf suggested that MJ talk to coach Phil Jackson about the decision. Reinsdorf felt that Jackson would be able to offer valuable advice/insight to the young star. Jackson, in his meeting with MJ, said, "You have to understand…you are depriving so many people who enjoy this sport [of] the opportunity of such a great amount of pleasure." Two things jumped at me when I heard that line. First, although the Zen Master is completely correct in his assessment, that is truly terrible advice. I wonder how much MJ even considered that in making his decision. I understand the sentiment that professional athletes play "for the fans," but in MJ's situation, was that even an appropriate thing to say? Sprinkled in Jackson's comment is the foundation for today's team/owner/city mentality that a professional athlete is simply property. When LeBron decided to leave Cleveland for Miami, Cavs owner Dan Gilbert and Cavs fans were irate because they felt LeBron owed them his services. They felt he belonged to them. The Ménage à trois between sports franchises, players, and fans, is unique and certainly special. But people need to keep things in perspective.

My second reaction to Jackson's comment is this:  Imagine if MJ had stayed in the NBA and played full 1993-94 and 1994-95 seasons. Would the Bulls have won eight championships in a row? As unimaginable as the feat seems, if there's one team that could have done it, it was MJ and his Bulls. By all accounts the year off for MJ was valuable to his basketball career--Jackson says MJ became a much better teammate when he returned for the second three-peat. So, being on the conservative side, let's say MJ, suffering from burnout in 1993-94, doesn't win that season, but wins the next season (1994-95). That means in a span of eight NBA seasons, MJ and the Bulls would have won seven titles, including a four-peat. A four-peat? Does that even exist? If that had happened, I don't think we would ever see a more impressive team accomplishment in the modern era.

2. What is today's equivalent of MJ's move to baseball? Think about the components of this career change. For one, he left the top of one sport to go to the middle of another sport. Second, he left money, success, dominance, and everything else that came with being the NBA's top player for road trips on busses with no-names and ballparks that seat roughly 10,000 fans. Third, he moved to a sport that emphasizes completely different skills. And fourth, he left a media that loved him and never questioned him to a media that doubted him and wanted to see him fail. Because baseball is so unique as a sport, the only transitions even comparable to MJ's are another basketball star to baseball or a football star to baseball. And because it's too easy to use a basketball-to-baseball comparison (LeBron, Kobe), let's try football to baseball.

The only equivalent I can think of is Tom Brady moving to baseball (to hit, not pitch) after he had won his third title in four years with the Patriots (2004-05 season). Like Mike, Brady was the unquestioned leader and most valuable component to a team that had a stranglehold on its sport. And like Mike, Brady had a flawless public image and a unique way with the media. Brady does have a more established baseball background than MJ (Brady was drafted by the Expos as a catcher). But the point is you throw Brady in without having any at-bats in the past 10 years, at a somewhat high level in the sport, and see what he can do.

But if someone were to try it, I don't think it would generate as much fanfare as MJ's move did. Sure, if Brady tried baseball, SportsCenter would go crazy and probably take us to every at-bat live. But would minor league stadiums sell out? Doubtful. In the one season MJ played with the Birmingham Barons, the attendance tripled. Home and road games had the "Stephen Strasburg effect" for a guy who had not picked up a baseball bat since high school! He wasn't a highly touted prospect with once-in-a-lifetime raw talent, highlight videos, or gaudy amateur statistics!

3. The most incredible part of all of this is the following:  Michael Jordan won three consecutive titles with the Bulls, then took a year and a half off to play professional baseball, and came back and won another three consecutive titles. That's greatness. That will never, ever happen again in any professional sport. He didn't take a year off to rest and recuperate his body like Favre. He spent that year toiling in baseball stadiums and under the scrutiny of sports media. Yet he came back and picked up right where he left off. Amazing. The greatest ever.

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Jordan Rides The Bus" Debuts on ESPN (chicagoist.com)
• Michael Jordan's year in baseball (espn.go.com)

Five Reactions to Team USA's 86-85 Victory over Spain

Image via Wikipedia

With the 2010 FIBA World Championship tournament less than one week away, Team USA continues its preparation through a series of exhibition games in Europe. After recovering from a sluggish start yesterday to defeat Lithuania 77-61, the Americans had to bring their "A" game today if it hoped to stay with the tournament's defending champion, Spain. Luckily for Team USA fans, the stars and stripes came to play. Just hours ago, the Americans defeated their Spanish counterparts in Madrid, just narrowly, 86-85. It was a down-to-the-wire affair that ended with two game-saving blocks on the final possession by Kevin Durant. I was fortunate enough to watch the game from tip-off to the final buzzer, and here are five reactions I had to the contest:

1.  Team USA's quickness and athleticism - I cannot imagine any team being able to keep up with the Americans in these two areas. Say what you want about the team's pure shooting skills or general fundamentals, but one thing you cannot teach is quickness and athleticism. The Team USA guards, Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, Stephen Curry, and even Chauncey Billups--Rajon Rondo had the day off--penetrated Spain's defense effortlessly. Our guards blew by their defenders on every play and either created their own shots or found open players under the basket and on the wings. Westbrook played very aggressively on both ends of the court and pushed the pace of the game nicely. I can't wait to see Rondo out there. And then the forwards had a clear advantage over Spain's big men, and I assume this advantage will apply to any international team. Odom and Durant are matchup nightmares; they are simply too quick and crafty for big men out on the perimeter and too big and long for smaller defenders on the block. But the player who stuck out the most was...

2.  Derrick Rose - He has turned into an absolute beast on the court and I am excited to see what he does not only in the tournament but this coming season in the NBA. Rose was the most explosive player on the court today and his combination of speed and strength is ridiculous. Like I said in the previous point, every guard on this squad can get to the rim with ease. But Rose's ability to finish at the hole, in traffic, over/around big men, and with contact puts him head and shoulders above the others. This particular game went down to the wire and Coach K called Rose's number in pick-and-roll sets on back-to-back possessions. On the first play, Rose used the pick and drove straight to the basket into Marc Gasol's body. Undoubtedly, he made the tough layup (no foul was called). On Team USA's next possession, Rose again used the screen to get a step on the defense and this time was fouled by Gasol going up for the shot (he made both free throws). What I've concluded about Rose after today's game is that, during crunch time, I want the ball in his hands at the top of the arc! I have full confidence in his abilities to make a big play and I envy the Bulls for having that luxury for 82 games per year.

3.  Marc Gasol/Team USA's vulnerability to the low-post - While the American big men certainly have an advantage on the perimeter with their quickness, athleticism, and ball handling skills, their general lack of size/strength leaves the team vulnerable to teams with powerful presences down low. Today, Spain had Marc Gasol, who dumped 17 points on the Americans with a variety of baby hooks, turn around jump shots, and easy layups. The only real hope the Americans have defensively down low is Tyson Chandler, whose mercurial personality and inconsistent play leaves more to be desired. If a team can slow down the pace of the game, make it a low scoring contest, and pound the Americans in the paint, I could see the Americans flying home early from Turkey.

4.  Ricky Rubio - This is almost an obligatory mention for the much-hyped young stud. It was my first chance to watch Rubio in a live game, and I liked what I saw. The kid has great ball handling skills and has a nice flow to his game. He was able to hit the mid-range jump shot effectively. But obviously, the strength of his game is his ability to create opportunities for his teammates using his dribbling, court vision, and creativity. He made some dazzling passes and consistently created good looks for his teammates, especially the big men. I think his game needs a bit of refining, but his potential excites me.

5.  Lack of focus - Team USA obviously has tons of talent and a great coaching staff. But the key this tournament will be whether the team can stay focused, buckle down when it counts, and play within themselves. The Americans opened the game hot from the field and built a 13 point lead late into the 3rd quarter. But they started to play sloppy:  silly fouls, careless ball handling and passing, and missed defensive assignments. With 1:54 left in the game, Spain took its first lead in the game and the crowd woke up and created an entirely new atmosphere. Suddenly the Americans found themselves in a tight ball game that went back and forth. If it weren't for Rose on the offensive end and Durant on the defensive end, Team USA would be looking at a sour defeat. But, fortunately for them, the prime time players stepped up and sealed the victory. If Team USA hopes to march through the rest of its exhibition matches and the upcoming tournament, the players have to play hard for the entirety of each game.

Team USA's next game is on Wednesday, August 25th, against Greece in Athens (televised on ESPN at 9:00 a.m. PDT). Let's hope the team learns from tonight's win against Spain and builds on the positive momentum.

Life After Favre: Looking Ahead to Minnesota's Painful Transition

Image via Wikipedia

Consistent, prolonged success in the NFL relies heavily on the ability of a front office to manage its player personnel.  Management can replenish its talent pool through the annual draft, purchase players via free agency, or barter with other teams in hopes of filling its own holes.  Regardless of the method, one thing is clear:  chance plays a big role in both immediate and future success or failure.  That being said, a strong organization knows how to increase its chances of success through a combination of strategic planning and due diligence.

Strategic planning is most apparent at the NFL Draft.  During each offseason, the months leading up to the NFL Draft are filled ad nauseum with scouting reports and highlight videos. Teams spend countless hours formulating a  "big board" of players they plan to draft.  Who they decide to draft depends on a mix of need and overall talent. 

Drafting for need can be tricky because needs are not always easily identifiable.  Players get injured, players hold out, and players underachieve.  At times, a need is not apparent until its too late.  But sometimes needs can be foreseen, and when they are, management cannot miss or bypass the opportunity to preempt that future need.  If they do, a disaster looms.  Case in point:  the Minnesota Vikings in the 2010 NFL Draft.

Going into this past draft, consensus was that the Vikes needed to get younger at cornerback and offensive line, both positions in the team's defense filled by aging veterans.  While I don't dispute those needs, I truly believe that the Vikes needed a future, franchise quarterback even more.  Quarterback is the most important position in sports.  Although Favre's comeback momentarily shoves the issue to the back burner for this season, the Vikings will undoubtedly need a new field general soon (as in, next season, because Favre "says" this is his last year). Prior to the draft, what were the team's options? Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels.

Jackson has shared the quarterback role in Minnesota for several years now. He had one season in which he had the job outright (2008) and took the team to the Wild Card round of the playoffs (loss). But can you really depend on Jackson to win consistently? Not in my mind. Jackson is a dual-threat quarterback who poses a significantly higher threat with his feet. But this is a throwing league. At the end of the day, your quarterback has to make plays in the air.  To prove my point, let's look at the quarterbacks of the past five Super Bowls.

2009:  Ben Roethilisberger; Kurt Warner
2008:  Tom Brady; Eli Manning
2007:  Peyton Manning; Rex Grossman
2006:  Ben Roethlisberger; Matt Hasselbeck
2005:  Tom Brady; Donovan McNabb

With the exception of Grossman in 2007, each quarterback on the above list is a franchise quarterback who can gun the football.  Sure, it helps to have a ridiculous defense (Grossman had the 2007 version of the Monsters of the Midway) and an MVP-winning running back (Hasselbeck had Shaun Alexander who set a then-record for most rushing touchdowns in a season), but the cornerstone of any title contender, especially a consistent contender, is a legit quarterback under center.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Tarvaris Jackson does not fit the mold.  As for Rosenfels? The guy is old enough to be my grandpa.  While he can provide a moderate level of mentorship to a young up and comer, the Vikings aren't in the business of career advising.  They want to win football games, and if your arm can't help them do that, then you aren't starting at quarterback.

What should the Vikings have done? They should have drafted Jimmy Clausen, the emu look-a-like from Notre Dame! People may doubt the guy's leadership, but nobody argues that he has all the talent necessary to be a franchise quarterback. And isn't that what the Vikings, or any team for that matter, want? Especially on the heels of an aging legend. Sounds like a great chance to pass the torch. And keep in mind now that the Vikings window of opportunity is shrinking. They have one of the best running backs in the NFL in Adrian Peterson, but Peterson takes an insane amount of damage to his body each season. He probably only has another six seasons in him, with three of those being at top notch. You simply can't waste the prime of a dominant player by failing to provide him with the support needed to win in the league. And I'm afraid the Vikings have done just that.

To be fair, the team did draft a quarterback in the sixth round--Joe Webb out of UAB.   But Webb is a dual threat quarterback just like Tarvaris Jackson.  And although he comes out of a smaller school, his upside is not in Joe Flacco territory. Besides, the chances of him outperforming Clausen by the end of their two careers is slim. They should have drafted Clausen in the 2nd round to prepare for life after Favre. Instead, the team's strategic failure will cost them years of potential success (barring a huge free agent acquisition) and the prime of Peterson's career.  Now you might ask:  How easy is it to plan/foresee such a transition? Have teams successfully done this in the past? Well, yes. Some successfully and some unsuccessfully.  But the bottom line is that planning for the transition gives you a better chance at success, and increasing those odds is the best you can do in such a high risk game. The following are some efforts made by other teams in the past that the Vikings should have modeled their plans after.

• In 2000, the New England Patriots drafted Tom Brady from Michigan in the sixth round in hopes of making him the successor to Super Bowl winner Drew Bledsoe.  The team was forced to call on Brady earlier than expected after Bledsoe was injured early in the 2001 season.  But Brady had learned plenty from Bledsoe in the one year as a backup.  He is no doubt a future Hall of Famer and arguably the best quarterback of the decade.

• In 2005, the Green Bay Packers selected Aaron Rodgers out of Cal to eventually supplant Favre from the helm in Wisconsin.  Rodgers spent three full seasons under Favre's guidance, and this move has paid dividends for Green Bay.  Since becoming the full-time starter two seasons ago, Rodgers has averaged over 4,200 yards per season, earned Pro Bowl honors, and led the team to a playoff berth.  He is now recognized as a franchise quarterback (not to mention a fantasy football monster).

• In 2006, the Arizona Cardinals drafted Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart from USC with the 10th overall pick.  Leinart spent four full seasons under the tutelage of future Hall of Famer Kurt Warner.  Although the verdict is still out on Leinart's career, you can't fault the Cards for trying.

As you can see, teams have made draft picks to successfully transition from a Super Bowl-winning veteran to a young up and comer.  While the strategy does not always pan out, the exceptions suggest that the potential warrants the risk.

Contracts 101: Examining the Tennessee Titans vs. Lane Kiffin/USC Lawsuit

Disclaimer:  I am neither a lawyer nor a law student. My legal knowledge/insight is limited to my work experience and curiosity.

As you may have heard, a little less than one month ago, on July 26, 2010, the Tennessee Titans of the NFL sued USC and its new head football coach, Lane Kiffin, for 1) Inducement of Breach of Contract and 2) Tortious Interference with Contract. The lawsuit stems from Kiffin/USC's alleged "poaching" of former Titans running backs coach Kennedy Pola, who is now USC's offensive coordinator¹. Because fans have not seen many lawsuits like this in sports, let me try to explain, as simple as possible, exactly what is happening.

On February 2, 2010, Kennedy Pola signed an employment contract with the Titans that made him the running backs coach for the team for a one-year term. The contract contained language that prohibited Pola from contacting any other person or entity to discuss potential employment unless Pola was given written consent by the Titans or the NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell².

Then, on July 22, Kiffin contacted Pola with the intent of bringing him to USC as the new offensive coordinator. Two days later Pola accepted the position, thereby terminating (breaching) his contract with the Titans.

Now that Pola has left, the Titans claim, among other things:

1. They are "deprived" of an experienced running backs coach less than one week prior to the beginning of training camp;

2. The departure disrupted its season planning and coordinated effort among its coaches;

3. The departure caused potential loss of confidence by its players; and

4. The departure caused extensive monetary losses (salary and benefits paid to Pola since his term began, as well as "future" damage).

Instead of suing Pola for breach of contract, which they were entitled to do³, the Titans sued Kiffin and USC for interfering with Pola's contract and inducing Pola to breach the contract. And yes, this is a legitimate cause of action. Tennessee state law says, and I'm paraphrasing⁴, you cannot influence someone that has entered into a lawful contract to breach/violate a contract or refuse/fail to perform in accordance to that contract. If you do influence someone in that way, you are liable for three times the amount of damages resulting from the breach of the contract.

If I interpret the law and facts correctly, the Titans do have a case. In their complaint filed in the State of Tennessee, the Titans also try to establish Kiffin as a repeat offender, saying that he induced not only Pola, but that he induced other University of Tennessee coaches (father Monte Kiffin, etc.) during his transition to USC⁵.

But how strong of a case begs to be determined. Given that less than 5% of all cases go to trial and that new USC Athletic Director Pat Haden wants to clean up the program and smother all controversy as soon as possible, a quick settlement seems likely.

On July 30, Kiffin/USC's attorneys filed to remove the case out of Tennessee state court and into federal court. The thinking here is that Kiffin/USC will be in front of federal judges instead of Tennessee judges who might be partial to the state's sports teams. Whether or not that is a legitimate concern is arguable, but I suppose it's not too much of a hassle for the peace of mind.

I will update you once I hear that Kiffin/USC files an answer.

Side note:  Titans coach Fisher is on record to have said that had Kiffin simply extended the common courtesy and asked the Titans if USC could talk to Pola, the Titans would have granted permission. It's worth noting that Fisher is a USC alum. I'm not sure if Kiffin was aware of that, although it's hard to imagine that he didn't. You'd think if Kiffin were to honor such courtesy that he would do so, at the very least, for another member of the family. Guess not.

Footnotes/Commentary

¹Is this considered a promotion for Pola? People seem to think so, but I'm not so sure. While the sheer volume of his responsibilities should increase, and while USC is certainly the most prestigious program in college football, I think it's an overall downgrade. For one, he didn't move to a head coaching position like many past NFL assistant coaches have done (ex:  Charlie Weis). Second, assuming that becoming a head coach is his career goal, does this put him in a better position to reach that end? That's debatable. Considering that Kiffin has assumed this role amidst the NCAA sanctions, that Kiffin is an extremely young head coach, that Kiffin is a member of the Trojan family, and that Kiffin is surrounded by a talented coaching staff, you would think USC is committed to giving Kiffin ample time to develop the program. And if Kiffin succeeds in restoring the program's national dominance, I could see Kiffin at USC for a long, long time. Where else would he go? He has already tried the pros and failed. This is the last stop for him. And while the Titans coaching position has been held down by Jeff Fisher for a long time now,  eventually there has to be a change, especially if the Titans continue to miss the playoffs. I'm not saying Fisher is shown the door soon, but I would bet he is shown the door sooner than Kiffin.

²Paragraph 11(c) of Pola's contract states that Pola would not "under any circumstance solicit discussions or entertain employment with any other person or entity during the [term of employment] unless..given written permission to do so by [the Titans] or by [Goodell]…" and that "verbal consent is inadequate."

³If Pola is guilty of breaching his contract, why doesn't Tennessee go after him? I have heard that maybe the Titans do not want to create a reputation for doing so because that would turn off potential coaches in the future. But how often do coaches actually breach these contracts/clauses? This is the first time I have heard any fuss over something like this, so maybe not very often? If so, I'd sue Pola and tell future coaches that the problem is easily avoidable as long as you honor your agreement. Sounds simple enough to me.

⁴In legal jargon:  "It is unlawful for any person, by inducement, persuasion, misrepresentation, or other means, to induce or procure the breach or violation, refusal or failure to perform any lawful contract by any party thereto; and in every case where a breach or violation of such contract is so procured, the person so procuring or inducing the same shall be liable in treble the amount of damages resulting from or incident to the breach of the contract. The party injured by such breach may bring suit for the breach and for such damages."

⁵This is an interesting tactic by the lawyers that represent the Titans. An important part of any case is framing things to the benefit of your argument. By painting Kiffin as a reckless repeat offender, it can only help. It is also interesting that they name the coaches that Kiffin poached from Knoxville because it begs the question, why didn't the University of Tennessee sue USC? Perhaps those coaches did not have clauses in their contracts that prohibited them from soliciting other employment offers? If this was the case, how common are such clauses?

Court Documents (PDFs)

Tennessee Titans' Complaint Against Kiffin/USC, filed July 26, 2010

Kiffin/USC's Notice of Removal to Federal Court, filed July 30, 2010 

K-Rod's Approach to Dealing with the In-Laws

Image via Wikipedia

After suffering a torn ligament in the thumb on his throwing hand, New York Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez, affectionately named K-Rod, will miss the remainder of the 2010 season. K-Rod's teammates, coaches, fans, and fantasy owners (myself included) will never forgive K-Rod for this disgraceful exit from what had been developing into a solid season for the guy. We are disgusted because this was not an injury sustained in typical baseball player fashion; he did not attempt to carry luggage that was too heavy; he did not drop a weight on his finger; nor did he tear the ligament while stretching to grab a tissue. Instead, K-Rod injured his hand while laying the smack down on his father-in-law in the family room of the team clubhouse. Stay classy, Francisco.

It has been a tumultuous past couple of days for K-Rod. He was arrested and taken into custody after a recent Mets game. He was then suspended for two games by the team. He served the suspension, came back, and got in one inning of shutout ball. Then news spread of the apparent injury, and poof, his season is now over. Now, the Mets are trying to figure out a way to recover some of the money that K-Rod was due to receive, claiming that the injury was non-baseball related (are they ever baseball related?).

There are so many angles you could take with this story:  a disaster for a team whose season has been a large disappointment; a contractual minefield through which management and K-Rod's agent must now navigate; and a selfish, shameful decision made by a father and husband. But the one that perhaps interests me most is the fact that this serves as yet another example of a baseball player getting injured doing something so completely random--others include a player scalding himself while ironing a shirt that he was wearing on his body; a player falling out of bed and crashing into a nightside table after nightmares of being covered by spiders; and a player suffering back spasms while violently sneezing. You can't help but ask the question:  what is it about baseball players that makes them prone to such ridiculous injuries? It is a silly phenomenon unique to baseball. And only God knows why.

Related articles by Zemanta

• K-Rod has torn ligament in thumb, needs surgery (sportsillustrated.cnn.com)
• Mets Considering Attempt To Void K-Rod's Contract (mlbtraderumors.com)

My 2010 Fantasy Football Draft

My fantasy football league, run through NFL.com, hosted its draft this past Sunday, August 8th. I just wanted to breakdown my thoughts on the draft/results and my outlook for this year in fantasy land.

League Rules

To keep this interesting, I have sifted through the litany of rules and decided to highlight only the most interesting/important/unique ones. Specifically:

• Passing TDs are worth 6 points each, which is the same as a rushing or receiving TD;
• Receivers/running backs/tight ends receive 1 point per reception;
• Twelve teams total in the league split evenly into three divisions; and
• Teams will start two QBs, two RBs, four WRs, one TE, one K, and one DEF.

I had the 9th pick out of 12. Here is what I ended up with:

My Team

QB1:  Tom Brady

QB2:  Brett Favre

RB1:  Matt Forte

RB2:  C.J. Spiller

WR1:  Andre Johnson

WR2:  DeSean Jackson

WR3:  Vincent Jackson

WR4:  Josh Cribbs
FLEX:  Donald Brown

TE:  Zach Miller

K:  Dan Carpenter

DEF:  New Orleans Saints

Bench:  Matt Hasselbeck (QB), Ben Tate (RB), Michael Bush (RB), Derrick Ward (RB), Larry Johnson (RB), and New England Patriots (DEF)

Analysis

• My first pick was Andre Johnson. I thought I was extremely lucky to get him with my position in the draft. Johnson is the best wide receiver in fantasy football, and if you factor in the point-per-reception league setting, Johnson is actually better than some of the top tier running backs (like Frank Gore, for one). In fact, using our scoring settings on the stats last season, Johnson only 6 points behind Adrian Peterson and 9 points behind Maurice Jones-Drew, who taken 2nd and 3rd, respectively, in this draft. A huge steal.

• The second thing I noticed was that I have the best quarterback combination in the league with Tom Brady and Brett Favre. Managers in my league simply did not place enough emphasis on quarterbacks. They overvalued running backs, and I was counting on that as I was doing my draft prep. With touchdown passes worth the same as rushing/receiving touchdowns, Brady and Favre instantly have more production potential than every running back, even Chris Johnson. If you use this season's scoring on last season's stats, both of my quarterbacks outscored every running back outside of Chris Johnson. Brady and the rest of the Patriots are healthy and I look for them to have a big year. And if Favre plays (which I bet he will), he will have a great year as he looks for redemption. I feel sorry for the managers who did not end up with two above average QBs. And here I sit with two All-Pro QBs.

• A third interesting thing is the underrating of wide receivers by the managers in my league. It is a point-per-reception league, and wide receiver is a very shallow position, compared to running back (more on this later). I already told you about Andre Johnson. But add to him DeSean Jackson, Vincent Jackson, and Josh Cribbs. The two Jacksons are both elite wide receivers in terms of consistent production. To have three of the seven-ish elite wide receivers is amazing. I look for DeSean to have another big year in Andy Reid's offense with Kolb doing a solid job of filling in for Donovan McNabb. Vincent Jackson is suspended for the first three games of the year, and that will undoubtedly hurt. But, assuming he settles his contract issues (God help me), he should be back in time to have a huge season in the San Diego offense. Rivers is an elite QB, and Jackson is arguably his top target. Finally, Cribbs is a jack-of-all-trades who can break for a score in a variety of ways. With the talent at WR getting shallow late in the draft, I decided to grab Cribbs because he is a threat in a variety of ways (running, catching, returning).

• As for running backs, I don't have a strong team by any means. But running back is an overrated position in our league for two reasons. First, as mentioned earlier, their touchdowns are devalued in our scoring system. Why take Adrian Peterson with 18 touchdowns last season when you can have Brett Favre with 33 touchdowns? That's almost double the points from TDs. But more importantly, running back is a very deep position even after the elite five or six at the top. Dozens of teams go with two-headed running attacks or running back-by-committee that it is tough to predict who exactly will get the carries, yards, and touchdowns. What I decided to do was draft for quantity. I picked up Matt Forte who, although he is not elite, is in a one-back system, so he provides me some consistency. Then I picked up high potential playmaking rookie C.J. Spiller, and a variety of guys, most notably Donald Brown, that should contribute enough to make a fantasy impact. If you want a good read about the depth at running back in the fantasy world, check out Matthew Berry's article, The Draft Day Manifesto 2010 Edition

• Tight end is a position that if you do not get a top guy like Antonio Gates or Dallas Clark, you should wait and pick up someone decent enough or with high potential, like John Carlson of the Seahawks, or in my case, Zach Miller of the Oakland Raiders.  Miller is an up and coming star who produced very solidly last season and should only build or even break out this season within the improved Raiders offense. The addition of Jason Campbell at quarterback will give him a passer who can effectively and consistently get him the ball (just as Campbell got Chris Cooley the ball over and over again in Washington).

• Kicker is irrelevant in fantasy football. Anyone who drafts a kicker in a round other than the last does not know what he/she is doing. Dan Carpenter will get the job done.

• Finally, defense is an interesting position because there are definitely elite defenses and you don't want to get stuck with a terrible squad. I went with the Saints because they are a playmaking squad who forces turnovers. I think it's wise to draft or at least pick-up an additional defense so that you can play whichever of your two has a better matchup in a given week. I went with the Pats as my second defense. They are not exactly the Monsters of the Midway, but they are definitely a solid backup option.

In all, I am very pleased with my fantasy team. My only concern, and I suppose it's a big one, is whether or not two of my bigs guys--Favre and Vincent Jackson--play. And if they do, how much do they play? We all know Favre's routin. He is "injured" right now, but the "injury" seems to heal more with every additional dollar the Vikings throw at him. I say he comes back just in time for the regular season and helps the Vikes win the NFC. Meanwhile, Vincent Jackson will miss at least the first three games with his suspension for substance abuse, and he may sit out an additional 5-10 games for contractual reasons (holding out for a long-term deal). That would be devastating to both my team and the Chargers. So let's hope it doesn't reach that point. Here's to another fun and competitive fantasy football season! Good luck to anyone playing the game this year.

Hard Knocks with the New York Jets, Episode 1 Review

Image via Wikipedia

I just finished watching the season premiere of Hard Knocks featuring the New York Jets. For those of you who do not know, Hard Knocks is an HBO sports series that follows an NFL team during its training camp. Besides the obvious appeal of getting behind the scenes of an NFL team and its management, you need to watch this show because HBO does an incredible job of filming and producing everything. You feel like you're watching a movie, and it's amazing.

The first thing I noticed is Rex Ryan and his ridiculous charm. The guy has a personality rivaled by only the size of his gut. He is surprisingly vulgar, as well (he has since issued a public apology for this). In one scene, he goes around each player's dorm room and says good night. He walks into an empty room and says, "Revis? Revis where areeee yoouuu?" Him and his staff repeatedly make light of the Revis situation, which brings me to my next thought...

The show mentions the absent Darelle Revis a lot. Probably more than it should. The Revis contract-negotiation saga has been drawn out for quite awhile now. And I think the Jets, through this program, are bringing a lot of attention to it. Although I think it's an interesting topic (contracts in the NFL), I will save that discussion for a future post related to the collective bargaining agreement.

Finally, it's great to see Mark Sanchez growing into the leader that we got a glimpse of last season. It looks like he is really maturing under the tutelage of offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer, veteran Mark Brunell, and, occasionally, legend Joe Namath. It should be interesting to watch him as not only the show progresses, but as the season does, too.

All in all, the first episode was very entertaining. The Jets are one of my favorite teams in the league because of the Sanchez, coach Ryan, and the way they play football (smash mouth, defense). But most of all, I really enjoy the show production. I encourage you to watch at least one episode and see for yourself. The show is on every Wednesday at 10:00 p.m.

Related articles by Zemanta

• NYJ: Hardknocks Premier a Must See (bleacherreport.com)

LeBron's Decision: What Champions are Made of

Image by JNikon via Flickr

We are officially one month removed from LeBron James' infamous "Decision." Since then, everyone from basketball Hall of Famers to casual fans have ripped the new Miami Heat superstar. Fans have burned jerseys, owners have written scathing letters, and comedians have spoofed the announcement event. As usual, I like to sleep on issues before I offer my reaction to them. That being said, having weighed the merits of every possible side to the debate of whether LeBron's decision was good/bad/justified, I can officially go on record and say that I applaud LeBron's decision. Although I think the way he delivered it was questionable, I believe he made the best choice and put himself in the best position to build a legacy defined by winning championships. Let's begin.

The following is a list of eleven individuals often considered among the top ten greatest players in NBA history. I present the names in no particular order. I took the names from a general survey of various lists compiled by basketball analysts, fans, writers, and present and former players and coaches. The players are:

Michael Jordan
Wilt Chamberlain
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Oscar Robertson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Shaquille O'Neal
Kobe Bryant
Hakeem Olajuwon
Tim Duncan
Bill Russell

What made/makes these players great?  Number of championships? That's debatable. Oscar Robertson, widely considered the best point guard of all time, only won one NBA title and he is often included in most top ten lists. Furthermore, if we looked at sheer championships alone, then the likes of Robert Horry and KC Jones must be included in the list. What about individual accolades, like MVP awards or career points? Again, you could make that argument, but it has some glaring flaws. If you look at the top 10 career scoring leaders, the 2nd (Karl Malone), 6th (Moses Malone), 7th (Elvin Hayes), and 10th (Dominique Wilkins) ranked players are not on the above list. But who is on the list and almost uniformly ranked ahead of the three aforementioned players in any all-time greats discussion? The 33rd ranked all-time leading scorer, Tim Duncan. So there are some inconsistencies in that regard. Well, then, what about the "it" factor? I have no doubt that this is part of the equation, but because different players have different qualities that fit this category, and because "it" cannot be quantified, we cannot rank players solely on that basis. Thus, greatness is a combination of championships/winning, individual achievement, and a special "it" factor.

Now, let's take a look at that same list of eleven players, but this time I will make notes next to each of their names. Specifically, I will note the number of championships that player has won, the number of MVPs the player has won, the number of All-Star game appearances that the player has made, and a brief a couple words that describe the player's legacy or intangibles.

Michael Jordan - 6x champ/5x MVP/14x All-Star/killer instinct, competitiveness, winning

Bill Russell - 11x champ/5x MVP/12x AS/championships, winning, team-first

Wilt Chamberlain - 2x champ/4x MVP/13x AS/100 pt. game, domination

Magic Johnson - 5x champ/3x MVP/12x AS/creativity, versatility, leader

Larry Bird - 3x champ/3x MVP/12x AS/pure shooter, leader, clutch

Oscar Robertson - 1x champ/1x MVP/12x AS/triple double machine, first "big guard"

Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 6x champ/6x MVP/19x AS/the sky hook, all-time scoring leader

Shaquille O'Neal - 4x champ/1x MVP/15x AS/unstoppable down low, domination

Kobe Bryant - 5x champ/1x MVP/12x AS/killer instinct, dynamic scorer

Hakeem Olajuwon - 2x champ/1x MVP/12x AS/the Dream Shake, amazing athletic ability

Tim Duncan - 4x champ/2x MVP/12x AS/defense, consistency, humility, fundamental

The above breakdown only strengthens my definition of "greatness." With the exception of Robertson, each player on the list has multiple championships. Each player on this list has won at least one MVP. Each player on this list has been named to at LEAST 12 All-Star appearances. And finally, each player on the list has an "it" factor, whether it be their enormous drive to win, their ability to score and dominate games, or their ability to perform in crunch time. Before I continue, I know people will object to Robertson being on this list, as he is definitely the weakest, in terms of accolades, of the bunch. But you have to remember that he has just as many All-Star appearances as Larry Bird, as many MVPs as Shaq, Kobe, and Hakeem, he has one ring, he is the ONLY player in NBA history to average a triple-double over an entire season, and he revolutionized the point-guard position. If he's not in your top 10, he is in someone else's top 10, and deserves to be in the conversation at the very least.

These players are the greats of the game. They have set, and in some instances continue to set, the standard by which all future generations will be judged. So let's see how LeBron James measures up.

LeBron James - 0 championships/2x MVP/6x AS/amazing athletic ability, revolutionizing the point-forward position

Obviously, at this point, LeBron is nowhere near qualified to be on the all-time greats list. But he's only played seven full seasons in the league, and you figure he will play at least another seven years at an All-Star level. It also would be reasonable to predict that he will win another two MVP awards; his all-around numbers are so impressive and he will be playing the for awhile in the weaker Eastern conference on a winning team. That brings us to 4 MVPs and 13 All-Star appearances. Those two stats alone would fulfill the individual achievement criteria of greatness. And as I said earlier, he has the "it" factor. He might not have a YouTube archive's worth of buzzer beaters like MJ or Kobe, but you cannot deny that he has put together some big performances when his team has needed them, just ask the Pistons (and yes I admit he has choked in similar situations as well). But the "it" factor is more than just game-winning shots. Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem - those guys don't have multiple game-winners to their credit, but they still remain on the list. LeBron has "it," just a different "it" than Jordan or Kobe. And that's fine.

That brings us to championships. We all know LeBron has yet to win one. He went to the Finals once but was swept by Duncan and the Spurs. In order to make this list by the time his career ends, LeBron needs to win multiple championships. I think if he wins three, LeBron makes this list (assuming the rest of his individual accolades continue at the current pace). And I think LeBron knows this, and that's why he chose to join Wade and Bosh in Miami. Because going to Miami gives him the best chance to win those championships. The decision to go to Miami was fueled by a desire to win and a desire to create a legacy defined by championships. While I know you can never guarantee a championship because anything can happen in a given season, you cannot deny the fact that LeBron, Wade, and Bosh will be the most dominant trio in the NBA for the next five years. Anyone who makes that argument does so just to be a pain in the butt. Don't take that person seriously. LeBron and Wade are two of the top three players in the NBA (Kobe being the other). But the torch is passing quickly to these guys. I give Kobe another year before he is behind the other two in terms of potential to takeover a game. Bosh is a top 20 player in the NBA. And Miami recently showed us that they can surround these guys with decent role players. Now the only thing that needs to happen is the Heat need to learn to play together in a system that puts them in a position to succeed. And I think that will happen in due time.

So why is everyone hating on LeBron for his decision?

I admit that the decision making surrounding "The Decision" was absolutely horrid. LeBron's marketing team clearly has not taken Public Relations 101. And yes I know LeBron devastated the fans of Cleveland by leaving, and the way he did it was pretty brutal, but he had the right to do it. Cleveland is not entitled to his services in any way. He was a free agent and if anyone else was in his shoes they probably would have chosen to leave as well (more on this later). Again, it was a PR disaster. I get that. But in the grand scheme of things, does this misstep really matter? Is it a legacy defining blunder? No. And here's why:  Because winning is everything. At the end of the day, if you believe what the media, analysts, and players and coaches preach, championships matter and everything else is just decoration. If this isn't true, then why do our all-time greats lists never include Karl Malone or Charles Barkley? Malone won 2 MVPs, was selected to 13 All-Star games, is second in career points scored, and was one of the most dominant power forwards of all time. And Barkley won 1 MVP, was selected to 11 All-Star games, is considered perhaps the best rebounder of all time, and accomplished all this despite being undersized for his position (listed at 6 ft. 6 inches). Well, the reason why these two are omitted from most lists is because they combined to win ZERO championships. They failed to fulfill the first of my three criteria for greatness. People know and remember this about them and they place significant value on this shortcoming when discussing their career legacies. By choosing to join the Miami Heat, LeBron told us he does not want to be lumped in with the players that just fell short. He does not want to be another Malone or Barkley. And I respect that.

If LeBron stayed with the Cavaliers, I think he heading straight for Malone/Barkley territory. The Cavaliers consistently fell short in the playoffs, despite posting great regular season records. And while you can blame that on LeBron because he is the leader and two-time MVP, nobody can do the job alone. In fact, a glance at the rosters of each of the past six NBA finals champions reveals that a team needs at least two All-Star caliber guys on their roster in addition to quality role players. Let's take a look at some past examples.

2010 Lakers:  Kobe, Pau Gasol

2009 Lakers:  Kobe, Gasol

2008 Celtics:  Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett

2007 Spurs:  Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker

2006 Heat:  Dwyane Wade, Shaq

2005 Spurs:  Duncan, Ginobili, Parker

Did LeBron James' Cleveland Cavaliers teams have talent to rival those past champions? No. The best players the Cavs brought in to help LeBron was either Mo Williams or Antawn Jamison. Neither players are proven. Neither players are considered winners in the NBA circle. The Cavs never brought in a defensive stopper like the Lakers had in Artest, like the Celtics had in James Posey, like the Spurs had in Bruce Bowen, and like the Heat had in Posey. I honestly think LeBron would have rot away on that Cavs team, thereby creating a legacy of another great player to never win a championship (side note:  other players in danger of creating a similar legacy are Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, and Allen Iverson, all MVP winners and multiple time All-Stars without championships). All great players need help. So I don't buy the "LeBron couldn't do it by himself" argument. Of course he couldn't. Jordan couldn't! When Jordan and Bulls won their titles, Jordan had Pippen and Rodman by his side. Pippen is a Top 50 player of all time, and during his prime probably a top 5 player in the league. Rodman is one of the greatest rebounders of all time and a proven winner as his rings from Detroit evidence. Kobe had Shaq, another Top 10 player of all time on our list above. And while I understand there is a different between LeBron going to Miami versus Wade and Bosh going to Cleveland, maybe Miami is just a better organization to play for. I sure as hell think so.

So let's say this move gives LeBron three rings. In twenty years, when we are sitting around and evaluating LeBron's legacy, will you legitimately object to crowning him a Top 10 All-Time player because of his PR blunder? Are you saying that an off-the-court marketing mistake will cost him a spot among the league's icons? That would be a ridiculously short-sighted comment/opinion. Winning cures all. Ask Kobe Bryant. His image was completely tarnished after the sexual assault fiasco during the summer of 2003. Not only was this a PR nightmare, but it involved a very serious crime. Well, fast forward to 2010, two championships and one MVP later, and Bryant, based on his on-the-court achievements, is widely considered an all-time great. Winning cures all. And I expect nothing different for LeBron. Ultimately, it was a smart decision for an amazing athlete. Although there were sacrifices made along the way (he took a pay cut and alienated hometown fans), LeBron chose winning over everything else and paved his path to greatness.