I realized that I haven't written a post here in over 8 years, primarily because most of what I post is short enough to go on Twitter. But this post is too long to be split up, and I'd like to start writing more regularly again.
So here is my latest tirade, this one regarding why UCF would deserve a CFP bid if they win out, and why they'll never get it.
If UCF's schedule automatically equates to the team being so overrated, then Bama fans should be SCREAMING to play them in the CFP semis. Easy win, rest the starters for three quarters so they're fresh for the title game, right? But they know what we all know - on any given day, good teams can find a way to win against better teams. Ask OSU how that easy win vs Purdue turned out. Or how Texas' easy win vs Maryland turned out. Explain how UCF can smoke Pitt by 31 and not play their starters in the 4th quarter and have that called a win vs a bad team, but ND only beats Pitt at home by 5 two weekends later and that's a quality win. Did Pitt suddenly improve? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Very few people are arguing Bama is clearly the best team this year. But beyond that, it's a toss up. If you really examine the middle and bottom of the big 5 conferences, LSU playing Arkansas is just as "bad" of a game as UCF playing SMU. Oklahoma playing Baylor is just as "bad" of a game as UCF playing ECU. Assuming UCF remains unbeaten (and that is by no means a given), playing USF on the road the last week of the season will be just as tough as Georgia playing Florida this weekend. Now after you stop laughing, answer this: Does it have the same storied history? Of course not. But aren't rivalry games often tough even when one team is great and another is having an off year? Yes. That happens every year. Well, USF just happens to be UCF's biggest rival, and rivalry games are often close and often result in upsets by a team that's "not as good on paper." Winning those types of games have to count favorably for any team, regardless of the conference.
We've also repeatedly hear that teams like UCF, USF, Memphis, Houston, etc. should "schedule better games." Trust me, all of those schools have tried to schedule better opponents, but often an opponent you expect to be powerful when you scheduled them five or more years ago (i.e Pitt this season) turns out to be having a bad year. So the G5 team gets hammered for scheduling a "bad" P5 team. "Play Bama," they say. But Bama would much rather play Mercer than any team from the AAC or MWC because the potential for one of those teams to be good in a given year is greater than that from a team from the Southern, which means that the potential for an upset or a game too close for comfort exists.
The next argument is "join a P5 conference." Well, that's been tried too. The Big 12 flirted with expansion recently so they could hold a conference championship game only to have ESPN threaten the conference with less money per team. Well, the NCAA felt so bad for the woefully mistreated Big 12 that they allowed them to hold a title game with only 10 teams. Never mind, the Big 12 told those schools they were courting, while laughing all the way to the bank.
Of course the biggest obstacle to P5 expansion is that the lesser schools in the P5 conferences want no part of a UCF and it's 60,000+ student base in a wonderful climate, or a rising Houston program that would over time dilute the recruiting for UT, TAMU, LSU and others. Look at it this way, if the P5 conferences were somehow forced to disband and reselect schools for the 2019 football season (other sports discounted), and they were looking at the long-term success potential of their members, do you really think the SEC would choose BOTH Ole Miss and Mississippi State or BOTH Arkansas and Vanderbilt over either UCF or USF? Do you really think the Big 12 would choose BOTH Kansas and Kansas State or BOTH Baylor and Texas Tech over either Memphis, Cincinnati or Houston? No. Way. Why? Because given the $30-$50 MILLION annual dollars programs get from a P5 conference affiliation, schools like UCF would become much more attractive to recruits once facilities are closer to being equal. Perfect example - UCF's stadium seats 43,000. If they were asked to join the ACC or SEC tomorrow, do you think they couldn't work a deal with the 65,000-seat Citrus Bowl to host games against Clemson or Alabama while their stadium is being enlarged and upgraded? Or that Houston, given an opportunity to join the SEC or Big 12 couldn't work a deal with the 72,000-seat NRG Stadium to host LSU or Texas while they do the same with their stadium?
Ask yourself which is the better road trip as a fan in late November: Lexington, Kentucky, or Orlando, Florida? Ames, Iowa, or Memphis, Tennessee? So it's really the traditional football doormats in the P5 conferences that have the most to lose; not Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State or others that most would consider football's elite.
We've heard from the "Elites" since last year's four CFP teams were announced that, "Bama only got in because of their history and not their play this season." But when UCF (or Boise, etc.) try to say "judge us on THIS season and not our history," all they hear from the Elites is, "Your history is not good enough to be under consideration." Double standard much, do ya?
The ONLY way to settle this is on the field. Nobody is arguing that a G5 school should get a title shot every year. But in years like 2017 and this year, until they are beaten, an unbeaten UCF deserves a shot at the title. But that will never happen because the fact remains that the CFP is an invitational tournament created by 5 conferences, 6 bowls with ties to those 5 conferences and ESPN. And I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that if the "independent committee" that decides those four participants some how decided that UCF should get a bid, those conference commissioners, those bowl commissioners and ESPN would find a way to never even let a hint of that decision leak.
Don't forget that ESPN owns at least part of not only the Longhorns network but the SEC network as well. ESPN doesn't want ANYONE from the AAC in their tournament because they know it will cost them TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS when the AAC TV contract is up for renewal if a team like UCF were to break that glass ceiling. The CFP is rigged. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. Let's prove it - one way or the other - by giving a team like UCF a shot.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Friday, June 4, 2010
I'm glad it wasn't me...
By now everyone who follows even the slightest amount of baseball knows about the call that Jim Joyce missed on June 2nd that cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game.
Having umpired for 26 years, I've had many of my friends ask me in the last 36 hours about the call and what can be done to (a) fix the missed call and (b) make sure it doesn't happen again. I've read countless blogs and posts and listened to several respected national sports commentators give their opinions, most of which lean towards reversing the call and awarding Galarraga his perfect game.
From a purely statistical perspective, it makes sense and would certainly "feel good" to reverse the call. After all, it would not change the outcome of the game and it would right what was clearly a botched call. At first, I thought that was the best way to handle the situation, but I now have changed my mind and believe the changing the call would do more harm than good.
I know, those of you who want the call changed are screaming, "How can changing it be bad?!?" Well, the answer is simple. It's because changing the call would undermine the integrity shown in the past 36 hours by Joyce, Galarraga and the Tigers organization. Jim Joyce could have easily issued a statement saying that he either stood by his call, or that he realized he missed it, but that it's part of the game. But he didn't. He stood up like a man, admitted his mistake, sought out Galarraga and apologized to him with great humility and then apologized basically to the rest of the baseball world (which includes the casual fan like you and me, by the way). Galarraga accepted the apology and neither he nor the Tigers are going to ask for the call to be reversed. Umpires miss calls. I've done it, and trust me, nobody feels worse than the umpire when you know you've blown a call that you can't change. I'm just thankful I never blew a call in such a big situation.
If the call is changed, then I feel that it cheapens the moment we have witnessed over the past two days. We have always known that there is a human element in sports officiating, and until players and management in those sports allow technology to remove some of that human element, mistakes will be made. If MLB wants to change their replay policy as a result of this call, then so be it. I'll be their biggest proponent, if they do it correctly. But not this call. Let's face it: changing this call would make us all feel good, nothing more. If this call had been blown in the fifth or sixth inning, there would not be nearly the same outcry about having it overturned. Why not? Is the 15th or 18th out any less important than the 27th out in a perfect game? Of course not.
If you change this call, which had no bearing on the outcome of the game, why not go back and change calls that DID affect the outcome of the game? Anyone care to guess how many people in Cardinal Nation would scream bloody murder if this call was changed, but the Dinkinger call in the '85 World Series was allowed to stand? After all, that call only changed the WINNER of the World Series, not just an individual accomplishment. So I say, let this call stand. It will make Joyce, already a very, very good umpire even better. It reminds us that everyone is human, and that forgiveness is easiest when one admits their mistakes and accepts the consequences.
Now let's talk about how to fix this moving forward. The technology certainly exists to allow the reversal of calls that are obviously wrong. The issue is how to do so without affecting the integrity of the game. My personal opinion is that replay could be used in one of two ways for calls other than balls and strikes challenges.
One way would be to give each manager one or two challenges per game for a play at a base or maybe a catch/no catch situation. The umpires would then follow the same procedures they currently use for instant replay. But if you used this method, how would you "penalize" the manager if he's wrong? In the NFL, the team loses a timeout if their challenge is unsuccessful. What similar penalty could you impose in MLB? If you charged an out (for a failed challenge by the offense) or put a runner on base (for the defense), you have potentially changed the integrity of the game. Some (me included) have advocated letting the opposing team choose a bench player to be scratched for the rest of the game after a failed challenge. But that could be very bad too. Could you imagine the Yankees losing a challenge and then having the Red Sox scratch Mariano Rivera in the 8th inning of game 7 of the ALCS?
Maybe a better way is to have a replay official in the press box similar to how college football handles reviews. Let the replay official take a look, then signal the crew chief if a further review is warranted. Many of you will find this hard to believe, but for the vast majority of games, replay would never be used. MLB umpires make very few mistakes, save balls and strikes. Forget about the "neighborhood" force out play at second base; that will always be called that way, and while that is a blog for another day, the primary reason is safety. As I was taught in many umpiring schools, "if he's gonna be out, he's gonna be out."
One other key component in any proposed replay change will be the stance of the players. Note that you haven't heard an outcry from the players about adding replay as a result of this call. In fact, the vast majority of players have said that the human element is part of the game. The players union would have to approve any change, and they are about as immovable as the US Government. The strike zone is the perfect example. The rule book definition of a strike and what is called in MLB are two completely separate things. But you don't hear the players complaining about the current strike zone as it is called. So why doesn't MLB change the rule book definition to match what is currently being called? The players union. Plain and simple.
The bottom line is that I hope that replay will be expanded to allow blatently missed calls to be changed, as long as a method that doesn't change the integrity of the game can be found. But the call made by Jim Joyce needs to stand.
Having umpired for 26 years, I've had many of my friends ask me in the last 36 hours about the call and what can be done to (a) fix the missed call and (b) make sure it doesn't happen again. I've read countless blogs and posts and listened to several respected national sports commentators give their opinions, most of which lean towards reversing the call and awarding Galarraga his perfect game.
From a purely statistical perspective, it makes sense and would certainly "feel good" to reverse the call. After all, it would not change the outcome of the game and it would right what was clearly a botched call. At first, I thought that was the best way to handle the situation, but I now have changed my mind and believe the changing the call would do more harm than good.
I know, those of you who want the call changed are screaming, "How can changing it be bad?!?" Well, the answer is simple. It's because changing the call would undermine the integrity shown in the past 36 hours by Joyce, Galarraga and the Tigers organization. Jim Joyce could have easily issued a statement saying that he either stood by his call, or that he realized he missed it, but that it's part of the game. But he didn't. He stood up like a man, admitted his mistake, sought out Galarraga and apologized to him with great humility and then apologized basically to the rest of the baseball world (which includes the casual fan like you and me, by the way). Galarraga accepted the apology and neither he nor the Tigers are going to ask for the call to be reversed. Umpires miss calls. I've done it, and trust me, nobody feels worse than the umpire when you know you've blown a call that you can't change. I'm just thankful I never blew a call in such a big situation.
If the call is changed, then I feel that it cheapens the moment we have witnessed over the past two days. We have always known that there is a human element in sports officiating, and until players and management in those sports allow technology to remove some of that human element, mistakes will be made. If MLB wants to change their replay policy as a result of this call, then so be it. I'll be their biggest proponent, if they do it correctly. But not this call. Let's face it: changing this call would make us all feel good, nothing more. If this call had been blown in the fifth or sixth inning, there would not be nearly the same outcry about having it overturned. Why not? Is the 15th or 18th out any less important than the 27th out in a perfect game? Of course not.
If you change this call, which had no bearing on the outcome of the game, why not go back and change calls that DID affect the outcome of the game? Anyone care to guess how many people in Cardinal Nation would scream bloody murder if this call was changed, but the Dinkinger call in the '85 World Series was allowed to stand? After all, that call only changed the WINNER of the World Series, not just an individual accomplishment. So I say, let this call stand. It will make Joyce, already a very, very good umpire even better. It reminds us that everyone is human, and that forgiveness is easiest when one admits their mistakes and accepts the consequences.
Now let's talk about how to fix this moving forward. The technology certainly exists to allow the reversal of calls that are obviously wrong. The issue is how to do so without affecting the integrity of the game. My personal opinion is that replay could be used in one of two ways for calls other than balls and strikes challenges.
One way would be to give each manager one or two challenges per game for a play at a base or maybe a catch/no catch situation. The umpires would then follow the same procedures they currently use for instant replay. But if you used this method, how would you "penalize" the manager if he's wrong? In the NFL, the team loses a timeout if their challenge is unsuccessful. What similar penalty could you impose in MLB? If you charged an out (for a failed challenge by the offense) or put a runner on base (for the defense), you have potentially changed the integrity of the game. Some (me included) have advocated letting the opposing team choose a bench player to be scratched for the rest of the game after a failed challenge. But that could be very bad too. Could you imagine the Yankees losing a challenge and then having the Red Sox scratch Mariano Rivera in the 8th inning of game 7 of the ALCS?
Maybe a better way is to have a replay official in the press box similar to how college football handles reviews. Let the replay official take a look, then signal the crew chief if a further review is warranted. Many of you will find this hard to believe, but for the vast majority of games, replay would never be used. MLB umpires make very few mistakes, save balls and strikes. Forget about the "neighborhood" force out play at second base; that will always be called that way, and while that is a blog for another day, the primary reason is safety. As I was taught in many umpiring schools, "if he's gonna be out, he's gonna be out."
One other key component in any proposed replay change will be the stance of the players. Note that you haven't heard an outcry from the players about adding replay as a result of this call. In fact, the vast majority of players have said that the human element is part of the game. The players union would have to approve any change, and they are about as immovable as the US Government. The strike zone is the perfect example. The rule book definition of a strike and what is called in MLB are two completely separate things. But you don't hear the players complaining about the current strike zone as it is called. So why doesn't MLB change the rule book definition to match what is currently being called? The players union. Plain and simple.
The bottom line is that I hope that replay will be expanded to allow blatently missed calls to be changed, as long as a method that doesn't change the integrity of the game can be found. But the call made by Jim Joyce needs to stand.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Roll Tide and Assorted Other Notes from the Title Game
I knew the moment that Longhorns QB Colt McCoy left the game with an injury that UT fans across the country would want to place an asterisk next to this game should Alabama end up victorious. I didn't, however, think it would happen during the game.
A quick check of the Facebook pages of some of my Longhorn friends this morning had the usual whining by the losing team's fans about bad coaching decisions, Bama running up the score, and the expected laments that the outcome would have been different if McCoy had played the entire game. What surprised me was when I realized that many of these comments were posted long before the outcome of the game was over.
I honestly thought going into the game that the true title game had been played in the SEC Championship, and that UT would not last more than a half against an Alabama defense that embarassed Florida in December. At halftime last night, it looked like I was right. Then UT took advantage of some uncharacteristly conservative play calling by Bama and mounted a great comeback. For a while I thought I'd have a lot of crow to eat this morning, but then the first sack of the night by the Tide defense forced a fumble that effectively sealed the game.
Longhorn fans can lament all they want that the outcome would have been different with Colt at QB, but I beg to differ for two reasons. First, the aforementioned sack would have forced a fumble even if (insert legendary QB of your choice here) had taken that snap. Second, Alabama's defensive game plan likely used the tendencies they had seen in video of Colt McCoy not those of Garrett Gilbert. That's not to say that Gilbert fooled the Tide defense, per se, it's just to indicate that the Tide's McCoy-to-Gilbert videotape ratio was probably in the 10:1 range. Little-used players off of the bench can often wreak havoc on a defense that prepared for the other team's star. This was no different.
I'd also venture that the Tide defense also subconsciously relaxed a little after McCoy left as well. That would be a natural tendency of almost any competitor. But for those who still think that McCoy would have made the difference, look no further than the Longhorn's opening possession. After a fake punt that gave the Horns not only incredible field position but a chance to make a statement in the opening minutes of the game, they had to settle for a field goal. Points yes, but a moral victory for the Tide defense. Then the Horns had another chance after the mental lapse on the ensuing kickoff by the Tide special teams unit. Again, another field goal, albeit McCoy was out of the equation by this point.
Injuries are part of the game. Should we put an asterisk next to the Texas win against Oklahoma after Sam Bradford went out? Sooner fans would probably say yes, but I'll bet my life savings that Longhorn fans would claim that "Texas would have won with Bradford playing." Sound familiar?
What Longhorn fans should really be upset about is the absolutely asinine question that ABC's Lisa Salters asked Colt McCoy about 5 nanoseconds after his team had lost its national championship bid. You can hear the entire interview at http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/colt-mccoy-national-championship-postgame-interview/4259931995, but for the sake of this blog, here is the question that almost made me throw a damaging object through my TV last night.
"What was it like for you to watch this game, your last game in a Longhorn uniform, from the sidelines?"
While this question might be appropriate in the post game news conference, it has no business being asked right after the game. The only reason to ask that question with that phrasing is if you are trying to elicit an emotional response. It almost worked. Colt clearly choked back tears, then just as clearly suppressed the response that I wanted him to give, then answered Lisa with grace and dignity. A response for the ages.
In case you're wondering, my response would have been, "I don't know, Lisa. I guess I felt the same way that Dale, Jr. felt when he helplessly watched his father die during the Daytona 500. Or maybe the same way that Jackie Kennedy felt when JFK was shot while she sat helplessly next to him."
Of course, he could have replied, "Well, Lisa. It felt great. Even though Alabama was favored to win, since I left the game so early they're not really the national champions. Clearly this win will be forever tainted and Bama fans will never truly savor this win because they know Texas would have won if I had not been injured."
But what I'd really like one ballsy athlete to say one day is, "How would you feel, Lisa, if you had the chance to win an ESPY for sideline reporting, but lost it to Erin Andrews because you were having a bad hair day and got replaced for this game?"
A much better question, in my opinion, would have been, "Colt, once you realized you were not going to be able to return to the game, what did you do from the sidelines to try to help your teammates, especially Gilbert, maintain their poise and focus?"
The bottom line is that in a world where so many of the TV sideline reporters are nothing more than people who aren't good enough to be the game's color analyst, it's no wonder why coaches and players are wary of talking to the media. Players the world over should watch this interview to see exactly how to handle an idiotic question. And sports executives should watch the same interview and fire anyone who asks such a question. Those same sports executives should watch my friend Whit Watson for examples of exemplary sideline reporting.
I'm not saying tough questions are off limits. But questions that have no relevance to the game that just ended should be saved for the locker room or the interview room.
Longhorn fans have no reason to try to place an asterisk on this game. You fought well, but lost to a superior team. Alabama fans have no reason to apologize for this win. ABC, on the other hand, should just be ashamed of itself. And just think, we get to watch ABC/ESPN botch BCS coverage for the next four years.
I can hardly wait.
A quick check of the Facebook pages of some of my Longhorn friends this morning had the usual whining by the losing team's fans about bad coaching decisions, Bama running up the score, and the expected laments that the outcome would have been different if McCoy had played the entire game. What surprised me was when I realized that many of these comments were posted long before the outcome of the game was over.
I honestly thought going into the game that the true title game had been played in the SEC Championship, and that UT would not last more than a half against an Alabama defense that embarassed Florida in December. At halftime last night, it looked like I was right. Then UT took advantage of some uncharacteristly conservative play calling by Bama and mounted a great comeback. For a while I thought I'd have a lot of crow to eat this morning, but then the first sack of the night by the Tide defense forced a fumble that effectively sealed the game.
Longhorn fans can lament all they want that the outcome would have been different with Colt at QB, but I beg to differ for two reasons. First, the aforementioned sack would have forced a fumble even if (insert legendary QB of your choice here) had taken that snap. Second, Alabama's defensive game plan likely used the tendencies they had seen in video of Colt McCoy not those of Garrett Gilbert. That's not to say that Gilbert fooled the Tide defense, per se, it's just to indicate that the Tide's McCoy-to-Gilbert videotape ratio was probably in the 10:1 range. Little-used players off of the bench can often wreak havoc on a defense that prepared for the other team's star. This was no different.
I'd also venture that the Tide defense also subconsciously relaxed a little after McCoy left as well. That would be a natural tendency of almost any competitor. But for those who still think that McCoy would have made the difference, look no further than the Longhorn's opening possession. After a fake punt that gave the Horns not only incredible field position but a chance to make a statement in the opening minutes of the game, they had to settle for a field goal. Points yes, but a moral victory for the Tide defense. Then the Horns had another chance after the mental lapse on the ensuing kickoff by the Tide special teams unit. Again, another field goal, albeit McCoy was out of the equation by this point.
Injuries are part of the game. Should we put an asterisk next to the Texas win against Oklahoma after Sam Bradford went out? Sooner fans would probably say yes, but I'll bet my life savings that Longhorn fans would claim that "Texas would have won with Bradford playing." Sound familiar?
What Longhorn fans should really be upset about is the absolutely asinine question that ABC's Lisa Salters asked Colt McCoy about 5 nanoseconds after his team had lost its national championship bid. You can hear the entire interview at http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/colt-mccoy-national-championship-postgame-interview/4259931995, but for the sake of this blog, here is the question that almost made me throw a damaging object through my TV last night.
"What was it like for you to watch this game, your last game in a Longhorn uniform, from the sidelines?"
While this question might be appropriate in the post game news conference, it has no business being asked right after the game. The only reason to ask that question with that phrasing is if you are trying to elicit an emotional response. It almost worked. Colt clearly choked back tears, then just as clearly suppressed the response that I wanted him to give, then answered Lisa with grace and dignity. A response for the ages.
In case you're wondering, my response would have been, "I don't know, Lisa. I guess I felt the same way that Dale, Jr. felt when he helplessly watched his father die during the Daytona 500. Or maybe the same way that Jackie Kennedy felt when JFK was shot while she sat helplessly next to him."
Of course, he could have replied, "Well, Lisa. It felt great. Even though Alabama was favored to win, since I left the game so early they're not really the national champions. Clearly this win will be forever tainted and Bama fans will never truly savor this win because they know Texas would have won if I had not been injured."
But what I'd really like one ballsy athlete to say one day is, "How would you feel, Lisa, if you had the chance to win an ESPY for sideline reporting, but lost it to Erin Andrews because you were having a bad hair day and got replaced for this game?"
A much better question, in my opinion, would have been, "Colt, once you realized you were not going to be able to return to the game, what did you do from the sidelines to try to help your teammates, especially Gilbert, maintain their poise and focus?"
The bottom line is that in a world where so many of the TV sideline reporters are nothing more than people who aren't good enough to be the game's color analyst, it's no wonder why coaches and players are wary of talking to the media. Players the world over should watch this interview to see exactly how to handle an idiotic question. And sports executives should watch the same interview and fire anyone who asks such a question. Those same sports executives should watch my friend Whit Watson for examples of exemplary sideline reporting.
I'm not saying tough questions are off limits. But questions that have no relevance to the game that just ended should be saved for the locker room or the interview room.
Longhorn fans have no reason to try to place an asterisk on this game. You fought well, but lost to a superior team. Alabama fans have no reason to apologize for this win. ABC, on the other hand, should just be ashamed of itself. And just think, we get to watch ABC/ESPN botch BCS coverage for the next four years.
I can hardly wait.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Walmart vs. QVC
Although those who know me personally know my political beliefs, I typically try not to share them in print because it is nearly impossible to hold meaningful debate with those who may share a differing opinion without someone getting their feelings hurt over a misread sentence or misplaced punctuation.
But a story posted by the Associated Press this past Friday morning got my blood boiling. You might want to read it first at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security_seniors then come back and read the rest of this blog entry.
(Jeopardy theme plays while you're off reading.)
Now that you're back, I hope you are as offended at the writer of that story as I am. It is the job of a journalist to give an unbiased account of the news. Nothing more, nothing less. People are supposed to form their own opinions based upon the facts presented. Going beyond those prinicples makes one a columnist or a blogger, not a reporter.
The title of the story certainly has truth in it. No COLA raise for senior adults on a fixed income will likely mean that many of them will have to cut some corners, particularly if they were budgeting for next year with a COLA raise in mind. Nothing surprising there since the COLA adjustments have been awarded every year since they were first authorized in 1975.
The story could have shown how seniors who were expecting the COLA raise may have to forgo a medical test or procedure they had planned to take, or maybe that they might have to switch to a cheaper prescription because they could not afford the copayment. That should be a legimitate concern of every American.
Nope. This story told the terrible tragedy of how 76-year-old Agnes Conti of Pembroke Pines, FL would not be able to afford any of the finer things in life since she was not getting a COLA raise this year. We were supposed to be drawn to tears because poor Agnes now must "settle" for clothing from Walmart instead of the "nice new clothes" she sees on QVC.
The last time I checked, Walmart was not considered a thrift store. They certainly cater to people looking for a bargain, but so do Target and K-Mart. Why didn't the reporter choose to mention those stores instead of (or in addition to) Walmart? Simple. Because people "understand" that the "less fortunate among us" must shop at Walmart or they cannot make ends meet. Many of the elite among us now view Walmart the same way some view soup kitchens - a place we would never willingly enter. Using Walmart as the example instead of any other store is supposed to tug at our heartstrings and make us feel that this poor lady is somehow being mistreated because she can't afford to shop at QVC or because she has to put a cheaper cut of meat into her pot roast. Now I'm no cook, but isn't one of the beauties of pot roast the fact that if properly prepared, it makes a lesser cut of meat taste more expensive?
The rest of the story is more of the same. Lucy Polieto can't afford steak, and has to prepare eggplant, chicken cacciatori and pasta fazool instead. The last time I checked, many an Italian restaurant owner made a decent living serving those dishes. And somehow all of that would have been rectified if the Social Security Administration had changed their rules and provided a COLA adjustment. Give me a break.
As you determine your position on this story, and the government's role in our lives in general, remember this: every penny the government spends comes from your pocket. Every penny. So make sure YOUR wallet can afford all of the programs the government is budgeting for 2010 and beyond. Otherwise you might have to settle for shopping at Walmart too.
But a story posted by the Associated Press this past Friday morning got my blood boiling. You might want to read it first at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security_seniors then come back and read the rest of this blog entry.
(Jeopardy theme plays while you're off reading.)
Now that you're back, I hope you are as offended at the writer of that story as I am. It is the job of a journalist to give an unbiased account of the news. Nothing more, nothing less. People are supposed to form their own opinions based upon the facts presented. Going beyond those prinicples makes one a columnist or a blogger, not a reporter.
The title of the story certainly has truth in it. No COLA raise for senior adults on a fixed income will likely mean that many of them will have to cut some corners, particularly if they were budgeting for next year with a COLA raise in mind. Nothing surprising there since the COLA adjustments have been awarded every year since they were first authorized in 1975.
The story could have shown how seniors who were expecting the COLA raise may have to forgo a medical test or procedure they had planned to take, or maybe that they might have to switch to a cheaper prescription because they could not afford the copayment. That should be a legimitate concern of every American.
Nope. This story told the terrible tragedy of how 76-year-old Agnes Conti of Pembroke Pines, FL would not be able to afford any of the finer things in life since she was not getting a COLA raise this year. We were supposed to be drawn to tears because poor Agnes now must "settle" for clothing from Walmart instead of the "nice new clothes" she sees on QVC.
The last time I checked, Walmart was not considered a thrift store. They certainly cater to people looking for a bargain, but so do Target and K-Mart. Why didn't the reporter choose to mention those stores instead of (or in addition to) Walmart? Simple. Because people "understand" that the "less fortunate among us" must shop at Walmart or they cannot make ends meet. Many of the elite among us now view Walmart the same way some view soup kitchens - a place we would never willingly enter. Using Walmart as the example instead of any other store is supposed to tug at our heartstrings and make us feel that this poor lady is somehow being mistreated because she can't afford to shop at QVC or because she has to put a cheaper cut of meat into her pot roast. Now I'm no cook, but isn't one of the beauties of pot roast the fact that if properly prepared, it makes a lesser cut of meat taste more expensive?
The rest of the story is more of the same. Lucy Polieto can't afford steak, and has to prepare eggplant, chicken cacciatori and pasta fazool instead. The last time I checked, many an Italian restaurant owner made a decent living serving those dishes. And somehow all of that would have been rectified if the Social Security Administration had changed their rules and provided a COLA adjustment. Give me a break.
As you determine your position on this story, and the government's role in our lives in general, remember this: every penny the government spends comes from your pocket. Every penny. So make sure YOUR wallet can afford all of the programs the government is budgeting for 2010 and beyond. Otherwise you might have to settle for shopping at Walmart too.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Waiting to Exhale
I can still remember the notes my wife Karen hid around the house that led me to my 1988 Christmas present. I had asked for 82 "pieces of paper" that year. A pair of season tickets for the Orlando Magic's inagural season in the NBA (I didn't think to count the preseason games). When I finally found the hidden box, it had 82 pieces of paper in it; strips cut and torn from notebook paper, because the season tickets would not be printed for several more months. Section 227, Row S. Nosebleed to be sure, but I was going to be there when the curtain rose on the NBA in Orlando.
The night of the first preseason game came, and we were there early (anyone who knows me knows that I HAVE to be early to everything). I remember walking down to the floor to see my friend David Steele, who was about to provide the radio play-by-play for the very first game in Magic history. I also ran into another good friend, Bob Gardner, who was lucky enough to be the courtside statistician for Sunshine Network's TV coverage that night.
I was so envious. I had been involved in sports game administration in some form or fashion since I was in high school. This was one of the few times in my life that I would be not be sitting courtside for a sporting event. Reluctantly, I let Karen lead me back up the steps so we could make our way to our upper bowl seats. We wandered around the concourse for a few minutes taking in the atmosphere. As we entered the tunnel to our section, (now) legendary PA Announcer Paul Porter barked, "May I have your attention please." I turned to Karen, laughed, and said in my best PA voice, "Would Tracy Clayton please report to courtside immediately." Not a millisecond later, Paul spoke the words that still bring chills up my spine today - "Would Tracy Clayton please report to the Sunshine Network table courtside."
Honest, those were his exact words. You can't make that kind of stuff up.
I set a new land speed record getting down to the floor. It turns out that one of the statisticians for Sunshine was not going to make the game and they were short one person. I was stunned. I was about to sit courtside for the very first NBA game in Orlando. And then I remebered that this night was about being a fan. This night was about appreciating Jimmy Hewett and Pat Williams and the DuPont family and everyone who had made this night a reality.
So I politely declined, and headed back to my upper bowl seat, wondering the whole time if I had lost my freaking mind. But once the players came out for warmups, and certainly by the opening tap, I realized I had made the right decision. As much as I enjoy being a part of the game, I realized that I also enjoy being a fan from time to time.
And so began my love affair with the Orlando Magic and the NBA. The next season I was hired by the Magic to be David's radio statistician, a gig that would eventually lead to a position in the Magic's IT department where I was still fortunate enough to work game nights. I traveled with the team for the London Games in 1993. I was there for the embarassing sweep by Indiana in the 1994 playoffs. I was there for the first game of the 1995 playoffs when we handed the Boston Celtics the worst lost in the history of their storied franchise (124-77). I personally felt the power of Shaquille O'Neal in that same series when he lost his balance while trying to jump the scorer's table for a loose ball and planted one of his Reebok's into my chest, sending me sprawling onto my back, with him on top of me.
I was there when Nick Anderson made the single greatest play in Magic history - the steal from Michael Jordan in the '95 conference semi-finals that led to a Horace Grant dunk to seal the win in game 1. (As an aside, David Steele's call of that play also goes down as the best radio call I've ever heard.) Magic fans started walking around with a swagger. We, for that moment anyway, were now among the NBA's elite. Our team was headed to the NBA Finals; a Championship banner was imminent; the parade route was being drawn.
And then came the loss that outsiders have used to define this team and the city of Orlando. You know which one I'm talking about. I was there. It was a bad loss, stunningly bad at the time. But I remember thinking a couple of hours after the game that it was no big deal. We'd regroup and get 'em back in game 2. We all know how that storied season ended, and Magic fans have been holding their breath ever since. Waiting for another chance to erase the notion that Orlando is nothing more than a "Mickey Mouse" town and that this franchise will forever be defined by the closing seconds of regulation in game 1.
(For the record, blowing a 20 point first half lead is the reason the Rockets won that game. But that's another blog for another day.)
For the past 14 years Magic fans have often felt how I imagine Cubs fans feel every year. Good teams getting beaten in the playoffs; losing playoff series after having what seemed to be insurmountable leads. Superstars bolting for brigher lights and greener pastures. Magic fans began to wonder if this team would ever regain the mojo that led them to the Finals in 1995.
Suddenly a draft choice we now call Superman, a couple of free agent signings later, and a rookie star-to-be and this Magic team has us wanting to believe again. This team became the first team ever to overcome a 3-2 deficit against the Celtics. This team DISMANTLED the Cleveland Cavaliers. This team was ready to erase 14 years of ghosts against the Los Angeles Lakers. Collectively, we started to think that we didn't need to hold our breath quite so hard. We peeked cautiously out of one eye; we dipped a toe into the water to see if it was safe to jump back in.
And then came the blow out in game 1 last Thursday night in LA, followed by the heartbreaking loss in game 2. 0-for-6. Would this team EVER win a game in the NBA Finals? Would Orlando again be defined by a missed shot? Every Magic fan took another deep breath and asked the basketball gods for just one thing - a home win in this series. A chance for the 17,000+ Magic fans in the Am plus the hundreds of thousands more watching on ABC or listening to the radio to exorcise 14 years of "what-ifs." Just one win. A chance to thank this team for their incredible heart and hustle as well as a chance to thank the hundreds of former players, coaches and staff that laid the groundwork for this season.
I know that I was on pins and needles all day yesterday. The opening tip couldn't come fast enough. I was working the Astros/Cubs game at Minute Maid Park, so I was relegated to following the score on NBA.COM until late in the fourth quater. I rushed to my car as soon as my game duties ended and found the Magic up by 4 with about 3 minutes to play. I don't remember any of the drive home, but I could probably recite Mike Tirico's play by play from memory.
Lakers trail by one, 102-101. I wondered if we'd be able to score to widen the lead? Lewis jumper from 23 feet...YES!
Could we get the defensive stop we needed? Kobe tries to split two defenders; Pietrus steals the ball and is fouled by Kobe...YES!! (Can anyone say, "Nick Anderson stole the ball! Nick Anderson stole the ball from Michael Jordan!")
Could we hit clutch free throws? Pietrus hits the second, and the Magic lead by 4 with 28.7 seconds remaining. Timeout LA...YES!!!
How much time are they going to put back on the clock? The officials huddle around the replay monitor to see how much time should go back on the clock. It looks like no more than two or three tenths of a second. Please let it be less than 0.3...PLEASE! 0.2 says Joe Crawford. All the Lakers can do now is attempt a long pass and a tip-in...Lewis hits the first free throw, and it's over because there's no way LA is going to tip-in a three point shot. YES!!!!! We WIN!!!!!
I was screaming at the radio while the celebration started at Amway Arena. At exactly 11:59 EDT, we could finally exhale. We were no longer the team that had never won a game in the NBA Finals. We were now the team that had handed LA their seventh consecutive NBA Finals road loss. We were the team that had set and NBA Finals record for field goal percentage in a game. We were the team that was within an eyelash of being ahead 2-1 in the series.
Phil Jackson's teams are 42-0 when they win the opening game of a series. So it would not be surprising to the basketball world if the Lakers won the next two games and closed this thing out at the Am. But I'm betting that we're about to see the team that defied the odds against the Celtics and the Cavs. I'm betting that this team can change that stat to read 42-1.
But regardless of the outcome, Magic fans can finally put the past behind them. WE have won a game in the NBA Finals. Breathe easy, Magic fans. This series is just getting started.
The night of the first preseason game came, and we were there early (anyone who knows me knows that I HAVE to be early to everything). I remember walking down to the floor to see my friend David Steele, who was about to provide the radio play-by-play for the very first game in Magic history. I also ran into another good friend, Bob Gardner, who was lucky enough to be the courtside statistician for Sunshine Network's TV coverage that night.
I was so envious. I had been involved in sports game administration in some form or fashion since I was in high school. This was one of the few times in my life that I would be not be sitting courtside for a sporting event. Reluctantly, I let Karen lead me back up the steps so we could make our way to our upper bowl seats. We wandered around the concourse for a few minutes taking in the atmosphere. As we entered the tunnel to our section, (now) legendary PA Announcer Paul Porter barked, "May I have your attention please." I turned to Karen, laughed, and said in my best PA voice, "Would Tracy Clayton please report to courtside immediately." Not a millisecond later, Paul spoke the words that still bring chills up my spine today - "Would Tracy Clayton please report to the Sunshine Network table courtside."
Honest, those were his exact words. You can't make that kind of stuff up.
I set a new land speed record getting down to the floor. It turns out that one of the statisticians for Sunshine was not going to make the game and they were short one person. I was stunned. I was about to sit courtside for the very first NBA game in Orlando. And then I remebered that this night was about being a fan. This night was about appreciating Jimmy Hewett and Pat Williams and the DuPont family and everyone who had made this night a reality.
So I politely declined, and headed back to my upper bowl seat, wondering the whole time if I had lost my freaking mind. But once the players came out for warmups, and certainly by the opening tap, I realized I had made the right decision. As much as I enjoy being a part of the game, I realized that I also enjoy being a fan from time to time.
And so began my love affair with the Orlando Magic and the NBA. The next season I was hired by the Magic to be David's radio statistician, a gig that would eventually lead to a position in the Magic's IT department where I was still fortunate enough to work game nights. I traveled with the team for the London Games in 1993. I was there for the embarassing sweep by Indiana in the 1994 playoffs. I was there for the first game of the 1995 playoffs when we handed the Boston Celtics the worst lost in the history of their storied franchise (124-77). I personally felt the power of Shaquille O'Neal in that same series when he lost his balance while trying to jump the scorer's table for a loose ball and planted one of his Reebok's into my chest, sending me sprawling onto my back, with him on top of me.
I was there when Nick Anderson made the single greatest play in Magic history - the steal from Michael Jordan in the '95 conference semi-finals that led to a Horace Grant dunk to seal the win in game 1. (As an aside, David Steele's call of that play also goes down as the best radio call I've ever heard.) Magic fans started walking around with a swagger. We, for that moment anyway, were now among the NBA's elite. Our team was headed to the NBA Finals; a Championship banner was imminent; the parade route was being drawn.
And then came the loss that outsiders have used to define this team and the city of Orlando. You know which one I'm talking about. I was there. It was a bad loss, stunningly bad at the time. But I remember thinking a couple of hours after the game that it was no big deal. We'd regroup and get 'em back in game 2. We all know how that storied season ended, and Magic fans have been holding their breath ever since. Waiting for another chance to erase the notion that Orlando is nothing more than a "Mickey Mouse" town and that this franchise will forever be defined by the closing seconds of regulation in game 1.
(For the record, blowing a 20 point first half lead is the reason the Rockets won that game. But that's another blog for another day.)
For the past 14 years Magic fans have often felt how I imagine Cubs fans feel every year. Good teams getting beaten in the playoffs; losing playoff series after having what seemed to be insurmountable leads. Superstars bolting for brigher lights and greener pastures. Magic fans began to wonder if this team would ever regain the mojo that led them to the Finals in 1995.
Suddenly a draft choice we now call Superman, a couple of free agent signings later, and a rookie star-to-be and this Magic team has us wanting to believe again. This team became the first team ever to overcome a 3-2 deficit against the Celtics. This team DISMANTLED the Cleveland Cavaliers. This team was ready to erase 14 years of ghosts against the Los Angeles Lakers. Collectively, we started to think that we didn't need to hold our breath quite so hard. We peeked cautiously out of one eye; we dipped a toe into the water to see if it was safe to jump back in.
And then came the blow out in game 1 last Thursday night in LA, followed by the heartbreaking loss in game 2. 0-for-6. Would this team EVER win a game in the NBA Finals? Would Orlando again be defined by a missed shot? Every Magic fan took another deep breath and asked the basketball gods for just one thing - a home win in this series. A chance for the 17,000+ Magic fans in the Am plus the hundreds of thousands more watching on ABC or listening to the radio to exorcise 14 years of "what-ifs." Just one win. A chance to thank this team for their incredible heart and hustle as well as a chance to thank the hundreds of former players, coaches and staff that laid the groundwork for this season.
I know that I was on pins and needles all day yesterday. The opening tip couldn't come fast enough. I was working the Astros/Cubs game at Minute Maid Park, so I was relegated to following the score on NBA.COM until late in the fourth quater. I rushed to my car as soon as my game duties ended and found the Magic up by 4 with about 3 minutes to play. I don't remember any of the drive home, but I could probably recite Mike Tirico's play by play from memory.
Lakers trail by one, 102-101. I wondered if we'd be able to score to widen the lead? Lewis jumper from 23 feet...YES!
Could we get the defensive stop we needed? Kobe tries to split two defenders; Pietrus steals the ball and is fouled by Kobe...YES!! (Can anyone say, "Nick Anderson stole the ball! Nick Anderson stole the ball from Michael Jordan!")
Could we hit clutch free throws? Pietrus hits the second, and the Magic lead by 4 with 28.7 seconds remaining. Timeout LA...YES!!!
How much time are they going to put back on the clock? The officials huddle around the replay monitor to see how much time should go back on the clock. It looks like no more than two or three tenths of a second. Please let it be less than 0.3...PLEASE! 0.2 says Joe Crawford. All the Lakers can do now is attempt a long pass and a tip-in...Lewis hits the first free throw, and it's over because there's no way LA is going to tip-in a three point shot. YES!!!!! We WIN!!!!!
I was screaming at the radio while the celebration started at Amway Arena. At exactly 11:59 EDT, we could finally exhale. We were no longer the team that had never won a game in the NBA Finals. We were now the team that had handed LA their seventh consecutive NBA Finals road loss. We were the team that had set and NBA Finals record for field goal percentage in a game. We were the team that was within an eyelash of being ahead 2-1 in the series.
Phil Jackson's teams are 42-0 when they win the opening game of a series. So it would not be surprising to the basketball world if the Lakers won the next two games and closed this thing out at the Am. But I'm betting that we're about to see the team that defied the odds against the Celtics and the Cavs. I'm betting that this team can change that stat to read 42-1.
But regardless of the outcome, Magic fans can finally put the past behind them. WE have won a game in the NBA Finals. Breathe easy, Magic fans. This series is just getting started.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Where INCONSISTENCY Happens...
Anyone who watched Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals between the Cavs and Magic last night know exactly where this blog will be going today.
Officiating in the NBA is broken. Badly. And it has to be fixed before fans start to believe the outcome of NBA games is determined the same way they are in the WWE: based on ratings and popularity.
Now don't get me wrong. I am NOT one of the conspiracy theorists that believes the NBA assigns officials to a specific game in order to try to dictate a specific outcome, nor do I believe that NBA officials are crooked or that games are fixed.
What I am saying, however, is that the officials have become so inconsistent and so accustomed to anticipating the outcome of plays that the integrity of the game is being jeopardized as a result. Last night's game provided a plethora of examples that help to prove my point. The most glaring was the foul called on Dwight Howard late in the 4th Quarter. Howard cleanly blocked LeBron James' three-point attempt, but was whistled for a foul. Replays from every angle plainly showed that the block was clean. There was no contact with LeBron. Why was the foul called? Because it looked like a foul. And because the player shooting was LeBron James. And I haven't even mentioned the non-foul call in the waning seconds of a game in the Denver/Dallas series where the NBA admitted the officials made a mistake - a mistake that likely cost Dallas the game.
So why is this happening? I think I have a likely answer.
Not too long ago, it was rare to find more than a handful of NBA players that could make highlight-reel plays. And even those players didn't do it more than a couple of times a game. But NBA athletes are now bigger, stronger and better than ever. A play that would have led SportsCenter 10 years ago might not even make the "Top 10 Plays of the Day" today. Dwight Howard can dunk on a 12 foot goal. A 12-foot goal! So why is it so hard to believe that he could block a LeBron James jump shot without commiting a foul?
Examples of blatenly blown calls exist in virtually every NBA game. I doubt that can ever be fixed because officials are human. But that's not the real issue with NBA officiating.
The real issue is inconsistency. Inconsistency around which violations are called, when violations are called and on whom those violations are called. I would wager that if you secretly polled NBA players, coaches and general managers that they would overwhelmingly cite inconsistency in officiating as the biggest issue facing the NBA today.
Just what, exactly, is inconsistent with NBA officiating? Here are few examples. You don't need a specific game reference. Take the video from any NBA game this season and I guarantee you will see every one of these examples called a different way at different times of the game.
1. The "hip check" illegal screen. In my opinion, this is the one foul that is called most inconsistently. I don't think anyone minds the offensive player making a little slide after setting the pick, but when he throws his hip into the player chasing the ball, that's a foul. Every damn time. But I've yet to figure out what criteria officials use for calling the illegal screen. If you can figure it out let me know.
2. The hand check. The rules about the hand check are very simple. If you use two hands on a player who doesn't have the ball, that's a foul. Yet, time and time and time and time again, we see this called when the ball is at the point and the play hasn't even started to develop while the bigs under the basket are involved in a sumo match for 42 minutes without a single whistle. And then, for no apparent reason, somebody gets called for the hand check in the paint with the game on the line.
3. Traveling. Now, I'm not talking about the extra step that everyone complains about. In fact, in most cases video shows that on the plays where people think a player traveled, he usually did not. No, what I'm talking about is the player that receives a pass on the wing while moving, takes two steps after catching the ball then changes pivot feet before taking a dribble. Now, I couldn't care less if they call that traveling or not. But what I DO care is that they call it the same way every time, every game.
So I've listed three examples that I promise you will see called differently in each of the remaining games of the NBA playoffs. But what's even more infuriating is that you're going to see each of those examples called differently within each of the games yet to be played. There is absolutely no excuse for that. A foul in the first minute of a game should be a foul in the last tenth of a second of a game. A foul called against the 12th man on the Clippers roster should be a foul when Kobe Bryant commits it. A non-call today should be a non-call tomorrow.
The only way the NBA can fix this issue is to first admit that the issue exists. At that point, the rules committe can determine how to address these issues. I think that one factor that the NBA is unwilling to admit is that speed and finesse of today's game has passed many of the veteran NBA officials by. They may know the rules and more importantly the intent of the rules, but they cannot accept that the skill of the players has advanced beyond the skills they saw when they were rookie officials. As a result, the whistle blows when it shouldn't because their years of experience with players of lesser skills leads them to believe a violation must have occurred. They are letting the NBA of the past interfere with the NBA of today.
Officials are human. I know. I was an amateur umpire for 26 years, and I know that I never called a game where I didn't make at least one mistake. But the one thing I always strived for was consistency. A strike in the top of the first inning was a strike in the bottom of the ninth inning. The NBA should demand the same of its officials, and should replace those that can no longer meet that standard.
The best athletes in the world deserve the best officials in the world. It's time for the NBA to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
Officiating in the NBA is broken. Badly. And it has to be fixed before fans start to believe the outcome of NBA games is determined the same way they are in the WWE: based on ratings and popularity.
Now don't get me wrong. I am NOT one of the conspiracy theorists that believes the NBA assigns officials to a specific game in order to try to dictate a specific outcome, nor do I believe that NBA officials are crooked or that games are fixed.
What I am saying, however, is that the officials have become so inconsistent and so accustomed to anticipating the outcome of plays that the integrity of the game is being jeopardized as a result. Last night's game provided a plethora of examples that help to prove my point. The most glaring was the foul called on Dwight Howard late in the 4th Quarter. Howard cleanly blocked LeBron James' three-point attempt, but was whistled for a foul. Replays from every angle plainly showed that the block was clean. There was no contact with LeBron. Why was the foul called? Because it looked like a foul. And because the player shooting was LeBron James. And I haven't even mentioned the non-foul call in the waning seconds of a game in the Denver/Dallas series where the NBA admitted the officials made a mistake - a mistake that likely cost Dallas the game.
So why is this happening? I think I have a likely answer.
Not too long ago, it was rare to find more than a handful of NBA players that could make highlight-reel plays. And even those players didn't do it more than a couple of times a game. But NBA athletes are now bigger, stronger and better than ever. A play that would have led SportsCenter 10 years ago might not even make the "Top 10 Plays of the Day" today. Dwight Howard can dunk on a 12 foot goal. A 12-foot goal! So why is it so hard to believe that he could block a LeBron James jump shot without commiting a foul?
Examples of blatenly blown calls exist in virtually every NBA game. I doubt that can ever be fixed because officials are human. But that's not the real issue with NBA officiating.
The real issue is inconsistency. Inconsistency around which violations are called, when violations are called and on whom those violations are called. I would wager that if you secretly polled NBA players, coaches and general managers that they would overwhelmingly cite inconsistency in officiating as the biggest issue facing the NBA today.
Just what, exactly, is inconsistent with NBA officiating? Here are few examples. You don't need a specific game reference. Take the video from any NBA game this season and I guarantee you will see every one of these examples called a different way at different times of the game.
1. The "hip check" illegal screen. In my opinion, this is the one foul that is called most inconsistently. I don't think anyone minds the offensive player making a little slide after setting the pick, but when he throws his hip into the player chasing the ball, that's a foul. Every damn time. But I've yet to figure out what criteria officials use for calling the illegal screen. If you can figure it out let me know.
2. The hand check. The rules about the hand check are very simple. If you use two hands on a player who doesn't have the ball, that's a foul. Yet, time and time and time and time again, we see this called when the ball is at the point and the play hasn't even started to develop while the bigs under the basket are involved in a sumo match for 42 minutes without a single whistle. And then, for no apparent reason, somebody gets called for the hand check in the paint with the game on the line.
3. Traveling. Now, I'm not talking about the extra step that everyone complains about. In fact, in most cases video shows that on the plays where people think a player traveled, he usually did not. No, what I'm talking about is the player that receives a pass on the wing while moving, takes two steps after catching the ball then changes pivot feet before taking a dribble. Now, I couldn't care less if they call that traveling or not. But what I DO care is that they call it the same way every time, every game.
So I've listed three examples that I promise you will see called differently in each of the remaining games of the NBA playoffs. But what's even more infuriating is that you're going to see each of those examples called differently within each of the games yet to be played. There is absolutely no excuse for that. A foul in the first minute of a game should be a foul in the last tenth of a second of a game. A foul called against the 12th man on the Clippers roster should be a foul when Kobe Bryant commits it. A non-call today should be a non-call tomorrow.
The only way the NBA can fix this issue is to first admit that the issue exists. At that point, the rules committe can determine how to address these issues. I think that one factor that the NBA is unwilling to admit is that speed and finesse of today's game has passed many of the veteran NBA officials by. They may know the rules and more importantly the intent of the rules, but they cannot accept that the skill of the players has advanced beyond the skills they saw when they were rookie officials. As a result, the whistle blows when it shouldn't because their years of experience with players of lesser skills leads them to believe a violation must have occurred. They are letting the NBA of the past interfere with the NBA of today.
Officials are human. I know. I was an amateur umpire for 26 years, and I know that I never called a game where I didn't make at least one mistake. But the one thing I always strived for was consistency. A strike in the top of the first inning was a strike in the bottom of the ninth inning. The NBA should demand the same of its officials, and should replace those that can no longer meet that standard.
The best athletes in the world deserve the best officials in the world. It's time for the NBA to do whatever it takes to make that happen.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Looks Can Be Deceiving
My son is huge WWE fan. I'm not sure why; I've raised him well and exposed him to great sports such as MLB, the NBA and NFL and even NASCAR. He got to travel with me on the Orlando Magic's team plane many years ago and I also took him to the NBA All-Star game in Phoenix a few weeks ago.
Wyatt starting watching WWE events on television a few years ago. I tried to explain to him that this was nothing more than dramatically staged theatre; that the outcome was decided long before the combatants entered the ring. But he was convinced that the punches were real and that the wrestlers were very strong and that's why getting hit over the head with a metal folding chair didn't do any harm.
I thought I was starting to get through to him, and then a very terrible thing happened. The WWE decided to hold Wrestlemania XXV along with WWE RAW (their weekly live TV event) right here in Houston. Wyatt begged for tickets for Wrestlemania, and my wife and I decided they would make a great Christmas present.
To make a long story as short as possible, we ended up getting him RAW tickets for his birthday (which is in early December), and made up a story that Wrestlemania was sold out. It was sold out, he just didn't realize that he was going to get those tickets a few weeks later.
As my wife and I discussed who would take Wyatt to these events, we determined that she would go with him to Wrestlemania on Sunday and he would take a friend to RAW Monday night. Wrestlemania was fun, but the seats I bought (which by the way, cost somewhere just south of a second mortgage) ended up being a little worse than they looked on the seat map. He was excited to be in the stadium with 72,000 of his closest friends, but he was disappointed that when someone got tossed out of the ring that his seats were too close to the floor to see that action live. Thank goodness for the Jumbotron.
Both Wyatt and Karen gave the event decent reviews, but I didn't hear the "Ohmygoshitwasawesome" that I had expected. My plan was working! His love affair with the WWE was about to end.
So this past Monday rolled around, and I was simply going to be the chauffeur, while Wyatt and his friend enjoyed WWE RAW. Well, his friend got sick, so guess who ended up using the second ticket.
We entered the arena just as the doors opened, and made our way to our lower bowl seats. It turned out that ole Dad did good on these tickets, as we were only about 100 feet from the corner of the ring, and high enough that we could see over the heads of the people on the floor. It was strangely quiet when we entered. No music and no lights were on other than the lights hanging above the ring.
I sat bored while we wated for the event to start. There was a pre-show that started at 7:30, which was an undercard of two bouts with wrestlers I'd never heard of. They were entertaining, but I was still wondering why I was there. As 8:00 got nearer, you could feel the energy in the Toyota Center starting to build. Right before we went live on USA Network, we were told that the main event would be a tag-team match featuring 10 WWE superstars, including John Cena, who had won the big title match the previous evening. Cena was probably only one of two or three wrestlers in the world I could pick out of a lineup, so that got me out of my seat.
8:00 came just a few seconds later, and we saw the TV opening credits on the big screen. Randy Orton came out to a deafening roar of boos from the 18,000 plus in the arena, and the drama began.
At about 8:02, I was hooked. I unashamedly became a WWE fan, and I realized why millions of people all over the world follow this "sport" so closely.
For the uninitiated, the WWE is not like wrestling of yesteryear. This is a polished machine that provides an incredible night of -dare I say it- family-friendly entertainment (ok, the scantily dressed WWE Diva's make that a stretch, but that's the only thing that stretches the bounds of decency). There was no profanity. There were no obscene gestures. There were no offensive signs (every sign is checked prior to entering the arena).
Yes, the matches are rigged, and yes, at times it can be comical to watch. But when your "guy" pins his opponent to win a match, you will be on your feet. I was. Repeatedly.
Between the early matches I wondered why I had become so mesmerized by something I had dismissed as trailer-trash fodder less than an hour before. And then it hit me.
The last letter in WWE stands for entertainment. "Wrestling" is simply the vehicle by which they provide that entertainment. What I saw was an incredibly scripted soap opera combined with blockbuster movie-grade stunt work and circus acrobatics. Villians and heroes, only their battleground is inside a 20 by 20 foot square.
Looks can be deceiving, indeed.
Wyatt starting watching WWE events on television a few years ago. I tried to explain to him that this was nothing more than dramatically staged theatre; that the outcome was decided long before the combatants entered the ring. But he was convinced that the punches were real and that the wrestlers were very strong and that's why getting hit over the head with a metal folding chair didn't do any harm.
I thought I was starting to get through to him, and then a very terrible thing happened. The WWE decided to hold Wrestlemania XXV along with WWE RAW (their weekly live TV event) right here in Houston. Wyatt begged for tickets for Wrestlemania, and my wife and I decided they would make a great Christmas present.
To make a long story as short as possible, we ended up getting him RAW tickets for his birthday (which is in early December), and made up a story that Wrestlemania was sold out. It was sold out, he just didn't realize that he was going to get those tickets a few weeks later.
As my wife and I discussed who would take Wyatt to these events, we determined that she would go with him to Wrestlemania on Sunday and he would take a friend to RAW Monday night. Wrestlemania was fun, but the seats I bought (which by the way, cost somewhere just south of a second mortgage) ended up being a little worse than they looked on the seat map. He was excited to be in the stadium with 72,000 of his closest friends, but he was disappointed that when someone got tossed out of the ring that his seats were too close to the floor to see that action live. Thank goodness for the Jumbotron.
Both Wyatt and Karen gave the event decent reviews, but I didn't hear the "Ohmygoshitwasawesome" that I had expected. My plan was working! His love affair with the WWE was about to end.
So this past Monday rolled around, and I was simply going to be the chauffeur, while Wyatt and his friend enjoyed WWE RAW. Well, his friend got sick, so guess who ended up using the second ticket.
We entered the arena just as the doors opened, and made our way to our lower bowl seats. It turned out that ole Dad did good on these tickets, as we were only about 100 feet from the corner of the ring, and high enough that we could see over the heads of the people on the floor. It was strangely quiet when we entered. No music and no lights were on other than the lights hanging above the ring.
I sat bored while we wated for the event to start. There was a pre-show that started at 7:30, which was an undercard of two bouts with wrestlers I'd never heard of. They were entertaining, but I was still wondering why I was there. As 8:00 got nearer, you could feel the energy in the Toyota Center starting to build. Right before we went live on USA Network, we were told that the main event would be a tag-team match featuring 10 WWE superstars, including John Cena, who had won the big title match the previous evening. Cena was probably only one of two or three wrestlers in the world I could pick out of a lineup, so that got me out of my seat.
8:00 came just a few seconds later, and we saw the TV opening credits on the big screen. Randy Orton came out to a deafening roar of boos from the 18,000 plus in the arena, and the drama began.
At about 8:02, I was hooked. I unashamedly became a WWE fan, and I realized why millions of people all over the world follow this "sport" so closely.
For the uninitiated, the WWE is not like wrestling of yesteryear. This is a polished machine that provides an incredible night of -dare I say it- family-friendly entertainment (ok, the scantily dressed WWE Diva's make that a stretch, but that's the only thing that stretches the bounds of decency). There was no profanity. There were no obscene gestures. There were no offensive signs (every sign is checked prior to entering the arena).
Yes, the matches are rigged, and yes, at times it can be comical to watch. But when your "guy" pins his opponent to win a match, you will be on your feet. I was. Repeatedly.
Between the early matches I wondered why I had become so mesmerized by something I had dismissed as trailer-trash fodder less than an hour before. And then it hit me.
The last letter in WWE stands for entertainment. "Wrestling" is simply the vehicle by which they provide that entertainment. What I saw was an incredibly scripted soap opera combined with blockbuster movie-grade stunt work and circus acrobatics. Villians and heroes, only their battleground is inside a 20 by 20 foot square.
Looks can be deceiving, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)