I must thank the Baltimore Ravens for providing me with the topic for this post. Although there certainly isn’t a shortage of issues to talk about, I haven’t really felt compelled to write about anything recently. With the Winter Olympics underway, I hope to write down a few opinions on these events in the coming days. I’ve made similar promises before, so don’t hold your breath waiting for my next entry.
Anyway, about these Ravens…
Like most ridiculous stories, it is often times difficult to decide where to begin. With all of their current stable of wide receivers headed for free agency, the Ravens apparently thought their position was so dire that they needed to go out and start signing convicted criminals. Enter Donte Stallworth. In case you are unaware, Stallworth pleaded guilty to DUI vehicular manslaughter in which he killed a Miami construction worker after a night of drinking. He did all of this about a year after signing a mega-deal with the Cleveland Browns. You can check out all of the details related to his court sentence and the subsequent one-year suspension that was levied by the NFL here.
While it is embarrassing enough for the pathetic legal system that only sentenced him to 30 days in jail (of which he served only 24 days) to be shown up by the NFL and their not-as-limp-wristed-but-still-pretty-lame year-long suspension, for any team to immediately sign this guy is another awful twist in an already pitiful exhibition. I wonder what horrifying atrocities a player needs to commit in order to receive a lifetime ban from the NFL or, at the very least, for teams to not jump at the first chance to sign them?
One of the things that came to mind for me will be to see what kind of a public outcry there will be against the Ravens for signing Stallworth and against Stallworth himself in comparison to Michael Vick. I won’t get into the debate about whether torturing and killing dogs is worse than getting liquored up and running over a human being – I’ll leave that up to my sophisticated readership to figure out on their own. At the very least, there should be some sort of equal public displeasure with this particular personnel decision by the Ravens. Unfortunately, I doubt we will see the same sort of fanatical protests for the Ravens and Stallworth as was seen for the Eagles and Vick. We can already see that it wasn’t as hard or as long a process for Stallworth to find a new job as it was for Vick.
Beyond the Vick comparisons, I am just ashamed of my hometown team for feeling it necessary to immediately sign this guy. Winning is nice, but at what cost? And sure, I am in favor of everyone getting a second chance. Unfortunately, not everyone gets a second chance. It appears that second chances are primarily reserved only for the very gifted or the well-connected among us. Dose anyone out there believe that the initial punishment or the ability to receive a second chance in his profession is anything close to the type of treatment that any normal citizen would receive?
Further, when looking at second chances and athletes, the staggering amount of money they make to play a game makes it even worse. Typically, I don’t have any problem with athletes' high-dollar contracts. If you are among the top performers in your profession, I believe that you should be rewarded as such. Although Stallworth is set to make a fraction of the total value of his old contract with the Browns (now having since been made into confetti), he is still set to make $900,000 for one year of work, plus incentives that could add up to an additional $300,000. There should be a different set of salary rules for criminals who are allowed to re-enter the league – especially for people who plead guilty to manslaughter (like Stallworth).
Maybe I’m just being stupid, but I will find it very difficult to cheer for this guy.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Moving On...
Ok, so it appears that this really is the blog that everyone has been “waiting” for. Unfortunately for me and my devoted readers, it appears that it takes me a little longer to devote the necessary time towards making thorough, thoughtful posts about a particular subject. Either way, the waiting is now over and I’m on to my next topic of disgust…
The BCS.
Recently, I read that the US Government appears poised to act in an attempt to change or eliminate the BCS in favor of a playoff system. That appears to be quite unnecessary when you consider all the other major issues that the President, Congress, and all their ancillary personnel could be addressing. I’ve never been a big fan of the BCS, but I’ve also never held the venomous contempt for it that so many other college football fans share. As such, if anything is to change about the BCS, I would hope that it could come about without the “help” of the Federal Government.
Personally, I think all systems that could be used to establish a champion for college football are flawed. People complain about the BCS now because it shuts out a lot of teams from a chance to be in the BCS Championship Game. That seems reasonable enough, but where does it stop? A four team playoff? Eight team? More? Who decides who makes the cut? Wouldn’t that just be based on the same rankings that are already used by the BCS or the Coaches Poll? Just like anything, there will always be people who will complain and there will always be teams that will be shut out from being able to compete in any playoff system.
When I think about the BCS or any playoff system, I first want to determine what the point is for any of these systems. What defines a team as being a championship team? Are the playoffs the best gauge to find the best team for that given year or the best team during the playoffs? For the most part, it would appear that playoffs do not always find the best team for a particular year or are a completely pointless exercise altogether.
For an example of what I mean, let’s look at the NFL. This year, the Saints went 13-3 this year and were the #1 seed in the NFC. The Colts went 14-2 and were the #1 seed in the AFC. It could be argued that, through their performance in the regular season, both were the best teams in their respective conference. Through their performances in the playoffs, they have maintained that distinction and they are now set to play each other for the championship. In this instance, it appears that the playoffs system in the NFL was an unnecessary practice.
Look at most other sports and you’ll see that the higher ranked teams are usually still winning the championships over their lower ranked competitors. This could be because they are truly the better team and/or because they get favorable match-ups through the seeding process that is typically locked into any type of playoff system. In either case, it appears to me that a playoff system is mostly a waste of time. It provides more games and more intrigue, but does it provide any better results? In the cases where lower ranked/lower seeded teams happen to win a championship (like the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers, or 2006 St. Louis Cardinals), can it be said that the best team actually won the championship for that year – as opposed to just being the best team in the playoffs? In the same way that a lesser team can “get lucky” and beat a better team during the regular season, the same can happen during the playoffs. The only difference is when the match-up between teams actually occurs. In either case, if the purpose of crowning a champion is to find the “best” team, could you really argue that losing during the regular season or the playoffs makes any difference?
Coming back to college football – it is important to take into account the few distinct variables between college and pro (the number of teams, different conferences, etc.) when thinking about solutions for picking a champion. Most of these items are taken into account with the BCS. Check out this “brief” synopsis of the BCS: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html. It is fantastically confusing and, I think, that is what makes it so great – er, appropriate – for college football.
Any bracket-style playoff system is just as inherently flawed as people have suggested the BCS to be. It would be unfortunate to see college football abandon the BCS in favor of a four, eight, or more team playoff system. This just appears to be a dumbed-down version of the system they already have in place and will not eliminate any controversy.
The BCS.
Recently, I read that the US Government appears poised to act in an attempt to change or eliminate the BCS in favor of a playoff system. That appears to be quite unnecessary when you consider all the other major issues that the President, Congress, and all their ancillary personnel could be addressing. I’ve never been a big fan of the BCS, but I’ve also never held the venomous contempt for it that so many other college football fans share. As such, if anything is to change about the BCS, I would hope that it could come about without the “help” of the Federal Government.
Personally, I think all systems that could be used to establish a champion for college football are flawed. People complain about the BCS now because it shuts out a lot of teams from a chance to be in the BCS Championship Game. That seems reasonable enough, but where does it stop? A four team playoff? Eight team? More? Who decides who makes the cut? Wouldn’t that just be based on the same rankings that are already used by the BCS or the Coaches Poll? Just like anything, there will always be people who will complain and there will always be teams that will be shut out from being able to compete in any playoff system.
When I think about the BCS or any playoff system, I first want to determine what the point is for any of these systems. What defines a team as being a championship team? Are the playoffs the best gauge to find the best team for that given year or the best team during the playoffs? For the most part, it would appear that playoffs do not always find the best team for a particular year or are a completely pointless exercise altogether.
For an example of what I mean, let’s look at the NFL. This year, the Saints went 13-3 this year and were the #1 seed in the NFC. The Colts went 14-2 and were the #1 seed in the AFC. It could be argued that, through their performance in the regular season, both were the best teams in their respective conference. Through their performances in the playoffs, they have maintained that distinction and they are now set to play each other for the championship. In this instance, it appears that the playoffs system in the NFL was an unnecessary practice.
Look at most other sports and you’ll see that the higher ranked teams are usually still winning the championships over their lower ranked competitors. This could be because they are truly the better team and/or because they get favorable match-ups through the seeding process that is typically locked into any type of playoff system. In either case, it appears to me that a playoff system is mostly a waste of time. It provides more games and more intrigue, but does it provide any better results? In the cases where lower ranked/lower seeded teams happen to win a championship (like the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers, or 2006 St. Louis Cardinals), can it be said that the best team actually won the championship for that year – as opposed to just being the best team in the playoffs? In the same way that a lesser team can “get lucky” and beat a better team during the regular season, the same can happen during the playoffs. The only difference is when the match-up between teams actually occurs. In either case, if the purpose of crowning a champion is to find the “best” team, could you really argue that losing during the regular season or the playoffs makes any difference?
Coming back to college football – it is important to take into account the few distinct variables between college and pro (the number of teams, different conferences, etc.) when thinking about solutions for picking a champion. Most of these items are taken into account with the BCS. Check out this “brief” synopsis of the BCS: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html. It is fantastically confusing and, I think, that is what makes it so great – er, appropriate – for college football.
Any bracket-style playoff system is just as inherently flawed as people have suggested the BCS to be. It would be unfortunate to see college football abandon the BCS in favor of a four, eight, or more team playoff system. This just appears to be a dumbed-down version of the system they already have in place and will not eliminate any controversy.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Welcome Back, Miggy
Ok, so the Orioles signed Miguel Tejada. I guess Andy MacPhail doesn't read my blog.
Let me just clarify that, in terms of being a baseball player, Tejada still has plenty of ability. As I've said, his home run power is probably gone forever. I doubt he can be counted on to hit over 20 home runs ever again. Hopefully, he can make the defensive transition from shortstop to third base without many issues. Offensively, the Orioles were not going to find a better option for third base with the remaining free agents.
If Tejada can keep all of his past issues behind him, he will be a valuable member of the 2010 Baltimore Orioles. It has been reported that several current Orioles wanted Tejada on the team and are excited to have him back. If they are excited, so am I.
This move might also indicate that the Orioles believe Josh Bell needs a full year at Triple-A. At the very least, it provides the Orioles with the ability to not have to rush Bell.
Let me just clarify that, in terms of being a baseball player, Tejada still has plenty of ability. As I've said, his home run power is probably gone forever. I doubt he can be counted on to hit over 20 home runs ever again. Hopefully, he can make the defensive transition from shortstop to third base without many issues. Offensively, the Orioles were not going to find a better option for third base with the remaining free agents.
If Tejada can keep all of his past issues behind him, he will be a valuable member of the 2010 Baltimore Orioles. It has been reported that several current Orioles wanted Tejada on the team and are excited to have him back. If they are excited, so am I.
This move might also indicate that the Orioles believe Josh Bell needs a full year at Triple-A. At the very least, it provides the Orioles with the ability to not have to rush Bell.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A Shortstop At Third Base
Before I offer my analysis of the Jeter versus Ripken debate, I want to offer my opinion of another famous shortstop. I came upon a story earlier this week concerning former Orioles’ shortstop Miguel Tejada. According to the Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-sp.orioles19jan19,0,7347196.story), the Baltimore Orioles are considering Tejada among their options to fill their current void at third base. While I am intrigued by the idea of the Orioles bringing back a former player, I wonder if this is the right move for the team.
Unfortunately, when thinking about Tejada, my mind immediately goes to the thought of performance enhancing drugs. The Orioles were hammered throughout the early phases of steroid saga (Rafael Palmeiro). I believe they narrowly escaped the brunt of further bad press by trading Tejada to the Houston Astros one day before he was named in the Mitchell Report – basically making the story the Astros’ problem. Eventually, Tejada pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about steroid use.
The Orioles were fortunate to trade him when they did. It would appear that either Tejada’s use of steroids or his advanced age had an impact on his power numbers. In his final year with the Orioles (2007) and in his two years with the Astros (2008, 2009), Tejada averaged 15 home runs per year. Prior to that (from 2000 – 2006), Tejada averaged 29 home runs per year and never hit fewer than 24 home runs (which was in 2006).
Despite his recent power struggles, Tejada did have a decent 2009 campaign. Although his home run numbers may not return, Tejada did prove to still have the ability to get extra-base hits. He finished the year with a .313 batting average and four doubles short of his career high at 46. Clearly, he can still play the game of baseball at a high level.
For the Orioles, the questions remain about whether or not he is a good choice for their team. They dodged a bullet in 2007. Is it a good idea to bring in a player like him onto a young team? What if another unflattering story comes out about him during the next year? The distraction that comes with steroids casts a dark shadow over a player and a team. I don’t believe that is what the Orioles want or need at this point.
Unfortunately, when thinking about Tejada, my mind immediately goes to the thought of performance enhancing drugs. The Orioles were hammered throughout the early phases of steroid saga (Rafael Palmeiro). I believe they narrowly escaped the brunt of further bad press by trading Tejada to the Houston Astros one day before he was named in the Mitchell Report – basically making the story the Astros’ problem. Eventually, Tejada pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about steroid use.
The Orioles were fortunate to trade him when they did. It would appear that either Tejada’s use of steroids or his advanced age had an impact on his power numbers. In his final year with the Orioles (2007) and in his two years with the Astros (2008, 2009), Tejada averaged 15 home runs per year. Prior to that (from 2000 – 2006), Tejada averaged 29 home runs per year and never hit fewer than 24 home runs (which was in 2006).
Despite his recent power struggles, Tejada did have a decent 2009 campaign. Although his home run numbers may not return, Tejada did prove to still have the ability to get extra-base hits. He finished the year with a .313 batting average and four doubles short of his career high at 46. Clearly, he can still play the game of baseball at a high level.
For the Orioles, the questions remain about whether or not he is a good choice for their team. They dodged a bullet in 2007. Is it a good idea to bring in a player like him onto a young team? What if another unflattering story comes out about him during the next year? The distraction that comes with steroids casts a dark shadow over a player and a team. I don’t believe that is what the Orioles want or need at this point.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Old News
So it has been a few days since my last entry. I apologize for the delay. I had prepared a lengthy analysis of the Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien fiasco on Tuesday, but the draft was erased accidentally -- not my finest moment. Either way, it is old news at this point and I think most of the world is in agreement that O'Brien is being screwed. Well, he's being screwed about as much as one could be when it is likely he will receive tens of millions of dollars when NBC buys out his contract. In terms of public opinion, Conan is looking great as he has made all the right moves in refusing to move "The Tonight Show" back 30 minutes in order to maintain the integrity of the show. With all the sympathy and added publicity he is getting, there is little doubt that Conan will land on his feet in whatever his next move turns out to be after NBC.
Anyway, the blog will be up and running with more consistent updates in the coming weeks. There are certainly plenty of things to ramble on about. A few examples:
1. Some goofball from ESPN Insider thinks that Derek Jeter is a better shortstop than Cal Ripken. With analysis like this, it makes me ask the question "Why am I paying for ESPN Insider?"
2. Right before I started this entry, I read that the Baltimore Orioles are going to start charging fans extra for purchasing tickets at the box office on the day of games. Apparently, the Orioles have shifted their focus from improving the team to infuriating the fan base.
3. I did some reading about the Colts move from Baltimore to Indianapolis. Since the move happened before I was born, I've never harbored much ill will towards the city of Indianapolis. In fact, I would consider the Colts to be my second favorite team in the NFL behind, of course, the Baltimore Ravens. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with fans who are still bitter about the Colts leaving town almost 30 years ago. However, if what I am reading is true, it appears that Robert Irsay (Colt's owner at the time of the move) might not be the only villain in this story.
You can count on entries discussing these topics and more in the future.
Anyway, the blog will be up and running with more consistent updates in the coming weeks. There are certainly plenty of things to ramble on about. A few examples:
1. Some goofball from ESPN Insider thinks that Derek Jeter is a better shortstop than Cal Ripken. With analysis like this, it makes me ask the question "Why am I paying for ESPN Insider?"
2. Right before I started this entry, I read that the Baltimore Orioles are going to start charging fans extra for purchasing tickets at the box office on the day of games. Apparently, the Orioles have shifted their focus from improving the team to infuriating the fan base.
3. I did some reading about the Colts move from Baltimore to Indianapolis. Since the move happened before I was born, I've never harbored much ill will towards the city of Indianapolis. In fact, I would consider the Colts to be my second favorite team in the NFL behind, of course, the Baltimore Ravens. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with fans who are still bitter about the Colts leaving town almost 30 years ago. However, if what I am reading is true, it appears that Robert Irsay (Colt's owner at the time of the move) might not be the only villain in this story.
You can count on entries discussing these topics and more in the future.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Return of the Mac
I'm very pleased with myself on the title and, as such, I'm concerned that I've already peaked in this entry. Considering my introductory post garnered four comments -- and ignoring the fact that they were all wise remarks -- I would say the pressure is on now to not disappoint.
Yesterday was a strange day in news. Two fairly predictable, yet fairly significant, events occurred. First, Sarah Palin signed a multi-year contract with Fox News to serve as a contributor. I didn't see that one coming. We all knew Sarah couldn't stay out of the spotlight for long -- if she ever really left. I guess Fox is planning on going rogue in attempting to get some opinions that range beyond the viewpoints of their usual stable of conservative commentators... or not. I think most will agree that it was just a matter of time before she ended up with Fox.
The second noteworthy item was that St. Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire admitted to using steroids during his career. Once again, you can knock me over with a feather over that revelation. However, I sincerely never thought he actually did steroids, but I'm not shocked to hear that he did. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I wanted to believe that the only questionable thing he took during his career was androstenedione.
Maybe the Palin story isn't that big of a deal -- at least, compared to McGwire. Mark McGwire coming out is obviously the bigger story for no other reason than it is several years in the making. The country has only really known Sarah Palin existed for about a year and a half -- plus, there is no controversy. All she did was get a job. Good for her. Either way, I would like to thank both of them for providing me with a couple of decent stories to talk about for my first substantive blog entry (2nd post overall).
Anyway, we'll get back to Palin on another day when she inevitably says something that raises eyebrows.
Concerning McGwire, I'm a little torn on how to feel over his admission of having taken steroids. I still remember where I was (over my neighbor's house playing FIFA '98 on his computer) when I watched his line drive sail over the left field fence at old Busch Stadium. It was a pretty cool moment. The whole chase between McGwire and Sammy Sosa going after Roger Maris' record of 61 home runs in one season was fun to watch and it certainly was essential in bringing a lot of fans back to the sport after the damaging strike of 1994. Everyone knows this. And if you didn't, now you do.
While I guess I should be happy that McGwire finally has come clean about his past, this admission, just like all the others, is most damaging to the fans. More than any other player, Mark McGwire's admission is the biggest gut shot to many people's memory of a great moment in the sport. By the time that Barry Bonds was breaking McGwire's record, everyone assumed that he (Bonds) was on the juice, so the fans' perception of what they were witnessing was already pretty tainted. In 1998, very few people, if any, were thinking about steroids with McGwire and we could all enjoy the ride for what it was at the time. Now, all of that has changed. It is sad.
It is also unfortunate that MLB needs to be rocked year after year with a new player emerging who is either admitting to have used steroids in the past or has been caught through some past test and the results leaked to the media. It is unfair to cast that shadow of doubt over the past players with the possibility that, at any point, some new former user will surface. At this point, nothing can be done about it. These types of stories don’t just ruin the public opinion of the specific player in question. It tarnishes the image of even the clean players, as their accomplishments will be thought less of since doubt hangs over everything. Baseball brought this on itself with the Mitchell Report, but I'll save my opinion of MLB's handling of the steroid saga for another post.
Yesterday was a strange day in news. Two fairly predictable, yet fairly significant, events occurred. First, Sarah Palin signed a multi-year contract with Fox News to serve as a contributor. I didn't see that one coming. We all knew Sarah couldn't stay out of the spotlight for long -- if she ever really left. I guess Fox is planning on going rogue in attempting to get some opinions that range beyond the viewpoints of their usual stable of conservative commentators... or not. I think most will agree that it was just a matter of time before she ended up with Fox.
The second noteworthy item was that St. Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire admitted to using steroids during his career. Once again, you can knock me over with a feather over that revelation. However, I sincerely never thought he actually did steroids, but I'm not shocked to hear that he did. Maybe I'm a sucker, but I wanted to believe that the only questionable thing he took during his career was androstenedione.
Maybe the Palin story isn't that big of a deal -- at least, compared to McGwire. Mark McGwire coming out is obviously the bigger story for no other reason than it is several years in the making. The country has only really known Sarah Palin existed for about a year and a half -- plus, there is no controversy. All she did was get a job. Good for her. Either way, I would like to thank both of them for providing me with a couple of decent stories to talk about for my first substantive blog entry (2nd post overall).
Anyway, we'll get back to Palin on another day when she inevitably says something that raises eyebrows.
Concerning McGwire, I'm a little torn on how to feel over his admission of having taken steroids. I still remember where I was (over my neighbor's house playing FIFA '98 on his computer) when I watched his line drive sail over the left field fence at old Busch Stadium. It was a pretty cool moment. The whole chase between McGwire and Sammy Sosa going after Roger Maris' record of 61 home runs in one season was fun to watch and it certainly was essential in bringing a lot of fans back to the sport after the damaging strike of 1994. Everyone knows this. And if you didn't, now you do.
While I guess I should be happy that McGwire finally has come clean about his past, this admission, just like all the others, is most damaging to the fans. More than any other player, Mark McGwire's admission is the biggest gut shot to many people's memory of a great moment in the sport. By the time that Barry Bonds was breaking McGwire's record, everyone assumed that he (Bonds) was on the juice, so the fans' perception of what they were witnessing was already pretty tainted. In 1998, very few people, if any, were thinking about steroids with McGwire and we could all enjoy the ride for what it was at the time. Now, all of that has changed. It is sad.
It is also unfortunate that MLB needs to be rocked year after year with a new player emerging who is either admitting to have used steroids in the past or has been caught through some past test and the results leaked to the media. It is unfair to cast that shadow of doubt over the past players with the possibility that, at any point, some new former user will surface. At this point, nothing can be done about it. These types of stories don’t just ruin the public opinion of the specific player in question. It tarnishes the image of even the clean players, as their accomplishments will be thought less of since doubt hangs over everything. Baseball brought this on itself with the Mitchell Report, but I'll save my opinion of MLB's handling of the steroid saga for another post.
Post 001
In an effort to find a way to spend my free time and keep my thoughts from eating me alive, I've decided to start this blog. Currently, I've got no real direction in terms of subject matter. I don't shy away from having a strong opinion about most things, so I'm not going to attempt to limit myself to blogging about only one subject. I'm just going to type about whatever I feel like discussing on any given day. That could be sports, politics, television, etc. Sound off if there is something you would like to see me discuss. For now, I'm going to operate this blog under the assumption that no one is reading. Over time, I hope to develop a considerable following. We'll see how things work out...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)