Today, I step away from sports and into the world of politics, sort of. I won't make this political, but I do plan on making a statement, and a demand.
Last night, listening to the radio, I had the displeasure of hearing an interview of former Cubs boss Dallas Green's son, John, talk about waking up without his 9-year-old daughter Christina for the first time. Christina was shot and killed in Tuscon, Arizona, on Saturday along with five others. As a father of two young children, it brought me to tears. It's absolutely crushing to think of this ever happening.
First of all, we don't know why the lunatic did what he did. This is not meant to be a statement of blame or any other political finger pointing. What we do know, is he was very involved in his own political agenda. We don't know if it was right-wing or left-wing. We do know it was angry.
So, this angry lunatic, for whatever reason, thinks it's a good idea to go to a political gathering, seek out a state representative and federal judge and open fire. In the process, he kills and wounds innocent people who are just interested in being heard, just like he is. They, on the other hand, do it legally. He feels it's necessary to kill someone to get his point across.
Political assassinations are not new to this, or any other, country. They happen. I don't want to gloss over the death of the judge or the intense injury of the representative. It's horrible. They, though, know what they're getting into when they go into politics.
Christina-Taylor Green, on the other hand, was just interested in our political process as a young American. She was curious. Innocent. Not jaded. She didn't know what she was getting into. Yet, the gunman decided to take her life with the others.
What causes someone to do this? I don't think anyone knows. I'm sure he fits a profile and we will hear about why he did what he did. I'm afraid this is a symptom, however, of the overall political state of our country.
During Bill Clinton's presidency, the anger and rhetoric aimed at the American President was at an all-time high, at least in the open. It spewed from the radio waves and was repeated at the water coolers. It continued through the Bush years and is now at an all-time high in the Obama Presidency. In the past, people got their political messaging and information from friends and family as well as the newspaper. Now, the rhetoric is easily accessible via the radio waves, television and Internet. Unfortunately, the fringe elements dominate the discussion.
Both sides of the aisle need to cool the rhetoric. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. on the right and Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore, etc. on the left, need to cool it. Disagreement is a part of our system. Violence is not supposed to be. The talking heads get angrier and angrier because it is good for ratings. Meanwhile, people are influenced, lunatics are inspired and tragedies happen.
I'm all for free speech. I'm also all for accountability. These people spew opinion as if it's fact. They are the muckrakers of our time, with a bigger audience and much more power. They have influence over the easily influenced. They are primarily on the AM radio stations, catering primarily to the uneducated and easily influenced segments of our society. They spew party-line language as if it's the only way to think.
The majority of the voters sit on the fence on most of the issues. The talking heads, on the other hand, have this "you're with me or your against me" mentality that has turned our country into a verbal, and obviously sometimes a literal, war zone. They carry a lot of the blame for the divide in this country. They support the candidates that are on the fringes, while the majority of the country sits in the middle. They have the influence, both verbally and financially, to control the candidates that get on the ballot.
So, what can we do about this? We, in the middle, need to get more active and educated in all things government. We need to realize that government serves a purpose in our lives, but if we let it, can take control of things we don't want it to control. We need to realize that if the fringe elements keep winning elections and making money spewing hateful diatribes, they will be able to take control of those things we don't want them to. Both sides have big government ideas. Both sides want control of our lives, whether it be financially or socially.
We need to let the fringe elements, whether it be on the right or left, know that we're not happy with the way things are going. We need to quit allowing the hateful, violent rhetoric into our homes, businesses and places of worship. We need to take back control of our country. We need to do it the right way. We need to elect people who are more like us.
How do we do that? I'm certainly not well enough versed in the ins and outs of politics to start the movement, but it needs to be started and continued WITHOUT intervention by political parties. I believe the Tea Party, whether you agree with what they stand for or not, was this sort of movement until the politicians saw it as an avenue of victory. Any movement needs to avoid party-line politics. It needs to be an independent movement.
Until then, please make every effort to talk peacefully. Please avoid the hateful diatribes. Please avoid the fringe talk shows. The best way to end them is to hit them in the pocketbooks. If they don't have listeners, they don't make money. If they don't make money, they'll realize people no longer want to hear what they're saying.
Christina Taylor-Green didn't deserve to die on Saturday. Her family deserves to have her home. We all need to take notice. It could be any of us. We are all to blame. Get involved. Peacefully.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
UConn Women's Basketball--Let Them Stand Alone
I knew what I was going to write about this week for quite a while. I wasn't sure how to write it or how to articulate my feelings until this morning. The problem is that you can't touch on this subject without someone getting defensive, offended or just flat pissed off.
So, what the hell? I'll take a stab at making enemies!
Last night at dinner, I ran this thought by an opinionated, strong-minded female friend. I was surprised to see that my thoughts weren't exactly contrary to hers, but they needed some fine tuning. She brought up good points and I was able to mold my opinion a bit thanks to hers.
This morning, Geno Auriema was on The Dan Patrick Show. He gave me my final touch on this subject. Dan Patrick essentially asked him whether it cheapened the accomplishment to compare it to UCLA. Geno said Patrick was 100% correct. It's exactly what I've been thinking.
Let's be honest, the depth of quality men's basketball teams today is so much more than women's basketball that you can't compare the two sports. Boys grow up wanting to throw balls around, be rough and tumble, etc. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that, because there are all kinds of theories we could throw around as to why, but the fact of the matter is, from the time he could, my son was throwing balls around our living room. My daughter didn't have any interest until we started playing catch in the front yard when she was two. This is the norm everywhere. So, when you have more males interested in playing sports than females, you have more opportunities for elite athletes to be driven to basketball in men's sports. That's just basic statistics.
That all being said, the UCLA basketball team under John Wooden dominated teams in its era the same way UConn is dominating teams today. So, can we possibly think that the lack of depth of college athletics in the '60's was beneficial to UCLA the same way it has been to UConn this decade? Who knows? And that's the problem.
I don't think we should compare the two accomplishments. What UConn has done is amazing. In fact, I don't think there's ever been anything like it in sports. Auriema has built a machine that we haven't witnessed. Tiger hasn't dominated like this. Federer isn't this dominant. We've never seen this, even from UCLA. UConn gets ANY athlete it wants. It is extremely rare for Auriema to lose a recruit he covets. Therefore, they have eight McDonald's All-Americans on the team. They're beating ranked teams by 30 points. The vast majority of their wins are by double-digits. It's ridiculous.
Auriema could coach anywhere. He doesn't need to prove anything. He's incredible and will go down as one of the best coaches in any sport in history. He's that good. So, when I heard him going off on the media in the press conference this weekend, I was baffled. Why? There's no reason to call out the media. The fact that they're in the room is good for your sport and your team. Why the anger? He explained it as poking fun at the men's basketball beat writers who had to be there to cover his team. My experience tells me there's a little truth in his rant. He truly feels disrespected and probably uses that every day to motivate himself.
There's no reason to compare men's and women's basketball. It does us no good. It's comparing apples and oranges. There's absolutely no reason to argue about whether the women can play and compete with the men. They don't play against each other. We don't argue about baseball teams against football teams.
So, let's leave it at this: UConn women's basketball just broke the record for wins in a row in college basketball. They didn't break a men's record, like the media is trying to cram down our throats. They broke a basketball record, and it's an amazing feat. The accomplishment can stand on its own. Let's not cheapen it with worthless discussion and bickering.
So, what the hell? I'll take a stab at making enemies!
Last night at dinner, I ran this thought by an opinionated, strong-minded female friend. I was surprised to see that my thoughts weren't exactly contrary to hers, but they needed some fine tuning. She brought up good points and I was able to mold my opinion a bit thanks to hers.
This morning, Geno Auriema was on The Dan Patrick Show. He gave me my final touch on this subject. Dan Patrick essentially asked him whether it cheapened the accomplishment to compare it to UCLA. Geno said Patrick was 100% correct. It's exactly what I've been thinking.
Let's be honest, the depth of quality men's basketball teams today is so much more than women's basketball that you can't compare the two sports. Boys grow up wanting to throw balls around, be rough and tumble, etc. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that, because there are all kinds of theories we could throw around as to why, but the fact of the matter is, from the time he could, my son was throwing balls around our living room. My daughter didn't have any interest until we started playing catch in the front yard when she was two. This is the norm everywhere. So, when you have more males interested in playing sports than females, you have more opportunities for elite athletes to be driven to basketball in men's sports. That's just basic statistics.
That all being said, the UCLA basketball team under John Wooden dominated teams in its era the same way UConn is dominating teams today. So, can we possibly think that the lack of depth of college athletics in the '60's was beneficial to UCLA the same way it has been to UConn this decade? Who knows? And that's the problem.
I don't think we should compare the two accomplishments. What UConn has done is amazing. In fact, I don't think there's ever been anything like it in sports. Auriema has built a machine that we haven't witnessed. Tiger hasn't dominated like this. Federer isn't this dominant. We've never seen this, even from UCLA. UConn gets ANY athlete it wants. It is extremely rare for Auriema to lose a recruit he covets. Therefore, they have eight McDonald's All-Americans on the team. They're beating ranked teams by 30 points. The vast majority of their wins are by double-digits. It's ridiculous.
Auriema could coach anywhere. He doesn't need to prove anything. He's incredible and will go down as one of the best coaches in any sport in history. He's that good. So, when I heard him going off on the media in the press conference this weekend, I was baffled. Why? There's no reason to call out the media. The fact that they're in the room is good for your sport and your team. Why the anger? He explained it as poking fun at the men's basketball beat writers who had to be there to cover his team. My experience tells me there's a little truth in his rant. He truly feels disrespected and probably uses that every day to motivate himself.
There's no reason to compare men's and women's basketball. It does us no good. It's comparing apples and oranges. There's absolutely no reason to argue about whether the women can play and compete with the men. They don't play against each other. We don't argue about baseball teams against football teams.
So, let's leave it at this: UConn women's basketball just broke the record for wins in a row in college basketball. They didn't break a men's record, like the media is trying to cram down our throats. They broke a basketball record, and it's an amazing feat. The accomplishment can stand on its own. Let's not cheapen it with worthless discussion and bickering.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Are the "Big Money" Bowl Games Costing You Money?
You've probably read the articles, given that you're obviously interested in sports if you're reading this. Team after team is having trouble selling tickets to the bowl games this year. What you probably haven't read about, or even thought about, is how this might be affecting you.
Yesterday, the Sioux City (IA) Journal published a story that outlined the University of Iowa's ticket situation for the Insight Bowl. (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/sports/football/college/article_cf0d84ea-ce20-5362-8e0f-b23ceedf98c9.html) The Hawkeyes have sold just over half of their allotment to the bowl game. Iowa has already committed to all of those tickets. So, after all of the bowl money has been distributed by the Big 10, the Insight Bowl will get paid for the unused tickets. Not only that, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of travel expenses for the university and a lot of money goes into events and entertainment.
When it was all said and done at the 2009 Outback Bowl, the Hawkeyes lost $150,000.00 in unsold tickets. They also spent over $300,000.00 to get their band to the game. This year, the cost of the remaining tickets (averaging at a minimum of $65.00 per ticket) would be about $325,000.00 if they didn't sell any more tickets. Given the situation at Iowa right now, I wouldn't anticipate a huge surge in ticket sales, and thus, you can estimate that Iowa will take a bath of a minimum of $200,000.00 in unused tickets.
Luckily for Iowa, it seems that the Big 10 revenue sharing takes all of this into account. They will take home a little over $2 million when all is said and done. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm) Using last year's expenses (http://thegazette.com/2010/05/05/iowa-cuts-bowl-ticket-losses-by-nearly-114000/) and this year's expected ticket losses, Iowa would make a little over $500,000.00 for its bowl game this year. What a windfall of revenue, right?
The story for Virginia Tech is not as good. In the 2009 Orange Bowl, the Hokies suffered a loss of over $1 million in unused ticket sales. The result? They lost money going to a BCS bowl. Let me repeat that just in case you didn't hear or believe me. Virginia Tech LOST money going to the 2009 Orange Bowl. This year, they're in danger of repeating that loss. So, it seems that the system is set up to make the bowls money, but it really doesn't take the schools' best interests into account, right?
The Orange Bowl would argue. The bowl likes to use past success as its measuring stick for schools making money in these ventures. (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/tech-may-lose-money-again-orange-bowl) Unfortunately, things have changed, which is one of the main reasons it is time for a change. In the past, there were half the number of bowls. The bowls matched-up traditional powers who travel well and teams who weren't necessarily used to going to bowl games who obviously could sell tickets to success-starved fans. Now, with 70 teams going to a bowl every year, there is major travel fatigue.
This year, for example, Virginia Tech is matched up with Stanford in the Orange Bowl. They're going to the bowl for the second time in three years and not playing a traditional power, which would elevate sales. Another example of this comes from the Fiesta Bowl, where Oklahoma is having trouble selling its ticket allotment and Connecticut has only sold a little over 4,000 of its 17,500 tickets to the game. Connecticut is almost guaranteed to take a loss on the game.
Then there's Washington. The Huskies expect to break even on their bowl game. Therefore, they will make the same amount of money playing in the Holiday Bowl as they did the last few years not playing in a bowl at all. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2013689596_uwfb16.html)
So, what does this all mean? It means a couple of things. First of all, some of these programs are self funded, so in theory, this wouldn't effect the overall school budgets. Of course, Cal Berkley's athletic program is supposed to be self funded, and that's not the case there. (http://alumni.berkeley.edu/news/california-magazine/spring-2010-searchlight-gray-areas/price-excellence) Let's assume, though, that the self funded universities don't take from the overall budget. What they do take from is student athletic fees, which have been rising quickly all across the country. So, in part, the students are subsidizing the rising costs of athletics. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-09-21-student-fees-boost-college-sports_N.htm)
In the other cases, when the schools are funding or partially funding the athletic departments, the tax payers and current students can be on the hook for the costs. The rising athletic budgets and costs are paid for with higher fees, higher educational costs and bigger state budget deficits. So, since these schools are publicly funded, it should be required that they do what is most fiscally responsible in order to save tax payers money, right?
In "Death to the BCS", it is estimated that a playoff system would generate $600 million more in revenue than the current bowl system. That money would go directly into the schools, athletic departments and cities that those schools are in. Tax revenue would grow. Athletic budgets would be helped and even if conferences split the ticket and television revenue evenly, schools would be talking in the tens of millions of dollars in take home revenue.
Yet, we're supposed to believe that the current system is the best, most responsible system. The bowls are making money. The cities that the bowls are in get extra revenue. The conference commissioners, athletic directors and coaches are getting bonuses. They are all making money.
Is it at your expense?
Yesterday, the Sioux City (IA) Journal published a story that outlined the University of Iowa's ticket situation for the Insight Bowl. (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/sports/football/college/article_cf0d84ea-ce20-5362-8e0f-b23ceedf98c9.html) The Hawkeyes have sold just over half of their allotment to the bowl game. Iowa has already committed to all of those tickets. So, after all of the bowl money has been distributed by the Big 10, the Insight Bowl will get paid for the unused tickets. Not only that, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of travel expenses for the university and a lot of money goes into events and entertainment.
When it was all said and done at the 2009 Outback Bowl, the Hawkeyes lost $150,000.00 in unsold tickets. They also spent over $300,000.00 to get their band to the game. This year, the cost of the remaining tickets (averaging at a minimum of $65.00 per ticket) would be about $325,000.00 if they didn't sell any more tickets. Given the situation at Iowa right now, I wouldn't anticipate a huge surge in ticket sales, and thus, you can estimate that Iowa will take a bath of a minimum of $200,000.00 in unused tickets.
Luckily for Iowa, it seems that the Big 10 revenue sharing takes all of this into account. They will take home a little over $2 million when all is said and done. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2006-12-06-bowl-payouts_x.htm) Using last year's expenses (http://thegazette.com/2010/05/05/iowa-cuts-bowl-ticket-losses-by-nearly-114000/) and this year's expected ticket losses, Iowa would make a little over $500,000.00 for its bowl game this year. What a windfall of revenue, right?
The story for Virginia Tech is not as good. In the 2009 Orange Bowl, the Hokies suffered a loss of over $1 million in unused ticket sales. The result? They lost money going to a BCS bowl. Let me repeat that just in case you didn't hear or believe me. Virginia Tech LOST money going to the 2009 Orange Bowl. This year, they're in danger of repeating that loss. So, it seems that the system is set up to make the bowls money, but it really doesn't take the schools' best interests into account, right?
The Orange Bowl would argue. The bowl likes to use past success as its measuring stick for schools making money in these ventures. (http://hamptonroads.com/2010/12/tech-may-lose-money-again-orange-bowl) Unfortunately, things have changed, which is one of the main reasons it is time for a change. In the past, there were half the number of bowls. The bowls matched-up traditional powers who travel well and teams who weren't necessarily used to going to bowl games who obviously could sell tickets to success-starved fans. Now, with 70 teams going to a bowl every year, there is major travel fatigue.
This year, for example, Virginia Tech is matched up with Stanford in the Orange Bowl. They're going to the bowl for the second time in three years and not playing a traditional power, which would elevate sales. Another example of this comes from the Fiesta Bowl, where Oklahoma is having trouble selling its ticket allotment and Connecticut has only sold a little over 4,000 of its 17,500 tickets to the game. Connecticut is almost guaranteed to take a loss on the game.
Then there's Washington. The Huskies expect to break even on their bowl game. Therefore, they will make the same amount of money playing in the Holiday Bowl as they did the last few years not playing in a bowl at all. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2013689596_uwfb16.html)
So, what does this all mean? It means a couple of things. First of all, some of these programs are self funded, so in theory, this wouldn't effect the overall school budgets. Of course, Cal Berkley's athletic program is supposed to be self funded, and that's not the case there. (http://alumni.berkeley.edu/news/california-magazine/spring-2010-searchlight-gray-areas/price-excellence) Let's assume, though, that the self funded universities don't take from the overall budget. What they do take from is student athletic fees, which have been rising quickly all across the country. So, in part, the students are subsidizing the rising costs of athletics. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-09-21-student-fees-boost-college-sports_N.htm)
In the other cases, when the schools are funding or partially funding the athletic departments, the tax payers and current students can be on the hook for the costs. The rising athletic budgets and costs are paid for with higher fees, higher educational costs and bigger state budget deficits. So, since these schools are publicly funded, it should be required that they do what is most fiscally responsible in order to save tax payers money, right?
In "Death to the BCS", it is estimated that a playoff system would generate $600 million more in revenue than the current bowl system. That money would go directly into the schools, athletic departments and cities that those schools are in. Tax revenue would grow. Athletic budgets would be helped and even if conferences split the ticket and television revenue evenly, schools would be talking in the tens of millions of dollars in take home revenue.
Yet, we're supposed to believe that the current system is the best, most responsible system. The bowls are making money. The cities that the bowls are in get extra revenue. The conference commissioners, athletic directors and coaches are getting bonuses. They are all making money.
Is it at your expense?
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Beginning of the End for the BCS
If you were paying attention yesterday, you were listening to the beginning of the end of the BCS. Actually, that started right before Thanksgiving, and I'll explain. Greed ruins everything, and thankfully, it's about to ruin the BCS.
In the days leading up to Thanksgiving, Gordon Gee, president at The Ohio State University, explained to anyone who would listen why Boise State shouldn't have a chance at a national championship. They don't play the schedule that Ohio State does (Ohio State's non conference: Marshall, Miami (FL), Ohio and Eastern Michigan, one of which ended with a winning record). They don't have to endure the rigors of a Big 10 or SEC schedule (You'll notice that the Big 10, with Nebraska, is joining hands with the SEC in this fight). Teams like Boise State could schedule big-time programs if they wanted to, but don't (nevermind them playing Virginia Tech and Oregon State this season).
It's the company line for the BCS Conference commissioners. They're starting to feel the pressure of the majority. You see, any poll of fans will show you that the people who pay the bills prefer a playoff to decide a national champion. Up until now, though, the conference commissioners, the NCAA and the BCS all had control of the media. They had their company line and that is the only argument that was given any credence.
This year, though, Yahoo's Dan Wetzel released a book that shook the BCS world. In "Death to the BCS", Wetzel thoroughly outlines the lies that the BCS "cartel" is perpetrating and also gives a well researched, viable solution to an NCAA playoff system. Wetzel's book has gotten a ton of press, and if you're a college football fan, you need to read it. The bottom line is that the wrong people get paid in the current system. The schools don't make good money. A playoff would generate 500% more revenue than the bowl system. It's time for a change.
The BCS Conference commissioners know this. They know it's time for a change. They know their backs are against the wall. They are starting to fight. The reason? The majority of their job is to protect their conferences' football programs and the revenue and prestige of those programs. A playoff system will allow the Boise State's and TCU's of the world to infiltrate that prestige. If that prestige goes away, so does their cushy job with the inflated paycheck. They're fighting. I would too.
Yesterday, reports came out with quotes from a press conference at a conference commissioners' meeting. They were telling and they were harsh. They were also a sign that the end is near. The conference commissioners are starting to fight, and with that fight comes contradictions to everything they've been saying about equality. The truth is they don't want equality. They want what they have.
Jim Delany of the Big 10 was the harshest. "The problem is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902."
What? Seriously? This has officially become AT&T vs. the world. AT&T created the stage and became a monopoly. They didn't want to give any more, and thus, the government had to step in and break AT&T up.
Then you have this gem that Beebe gave to FanHouse.com. "Don't push it past this because if you push it past this, the Big 12's position is we'll just go back to the old (bowl) system. You're getting the ability to get to places you've never gotten before. We've Jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."
He actually referred to the bowl system and the BCS as a "free market system". Maybe Mr. Beebe should be more involved in keeping his conference relevant instead of pumping up a system that may or may not include him in 5-10 years at the current rate.
It's quite simple, really. A playoff system makes sense. Every other sport uses one. Every other division of college football uses one. Every single BCS argument has been debunked. The teams in the smaller conferences have become more competitive every year with scholarship limitations and more exposure for the sport. The time has come. It's time for a playoff.
Mike Leach, former Texas Tech head coach, said it best on his radio show a couple of weeks ago. "Division-IAA hates their playoff so much that they expanded from 16 to 20 teams this year."
Keep it up conference commissioners, university presidents and BCS and bowl cohorts. Playoff supporters everywhere appreciate you continually sticking your collective feet in your mouths and increasing the chances that we will see a playoff soon!
In the days leading up to Thanksgiving, Gordon Gee, president at The Ohio State University, explained to anyone who would listen why Boise State shouldn't have a chance at a national championship. They don't play the schedule that Ohio State does (Ohio State's non conference: Marshall, Miami (FL), Ohio and Eastern Michigan, one of which ended with a winning record). They don't have to endure the rigors of a Big 10 or SEC schedule (You'll notice that the Big 10, with Nebraska, is joining hands with the SEC in this fight). Teams like Boise State could schedule big-time programs if they wanted to, but don't (nevermind them playing Virginia Tech and Oregon State this season).
It's the company line for the BCS Conference commissioners. They're starting to feel the pressure of the majority. You see, any poll of fans will show you that the people who pay the bills prefer a playoff to decide a national champion. Up until now, though, the conference commissioners, the NCAA and the BCS all had control of the media. They had their company line and that is the only argument that was given any credence.
This year, though, Yahoo's Dan Wetzel released a book that shook the BCS world. In "Death to the BCS", Wetzel thoroughly outlines the lies that the BCS "cartel" is perpetrating and also gives a well researched, viable solution to an NCAA playoff system. Wetzel's book has gotten a ton of press, and if you're a college football fan, you need to read it. The bottom line is that the wrong people get paid in the current system. The schools don't make good money. A playoff would generate 500% more revenue than the bowl system. It's time for a change.
The BCS Conference commissioners know this. They know it's time for a change. They know their backs are against the wall. They are starting to fight. The reason? The majority of their job is to protect their conferences' football programs and the revenue and prestige of those programs. A playoff system will allow the Boise State's and TCU's of the world to infiltrate that prestige. If that prestige goes away, so does their cushy job with the inflated paycheck. They're fighting. I would too.
Yesterday, reports came out with quotes from a press conference at a conference commissioners' meeting. They were telling and they were harsh. They were also a sign that the end is near. The conference commissioners are starting to fight, and with that fight comes contradictions to everything they've been saying about equality. The truth is they don't want equality. They want what they have.
Jim Delany of the Big 10 was the harshest. "The problem is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902."
What? Seriously? This has officially become AT&T vs. the world. AT&T created the stage and became a monopoly. They didn't want to give any more, and thus, the government had to step in and break AT&T up.
Then you have this gem that Beebe gave to FanHouse.com. "Don't push it past this because if you push it past this, the Big 12's position is we'll just go back to the old (bowl) system. You're getting the ability to get to places you've never gotten before. We've Jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."
He actually referred to the bowl system and the BCS as a "free market system". Maybe Mr. Beebe should be more involved in keeping his conference relevant instead of pumping up a system that may or may not include him in 5-10 years at the current rate.
It's quite simple, really. A playoff system makes sense. Every other sport uses one. Every other division of college football uses one. Every single BCS argument has been debunked. The teams in the smaller conferences have become more competitive every year with scholarship limitations and more exposure for the sport. The time has come. It's time for a playoff.
Mike Leach, former Texas Tech head coach, said it best on his radio show a couple of weeks ago. "Division-IAA hates their playoff so much that they expanded from 16 to 20 teams this year."
Keep it up conference commissioners, university presidents and BCS and bowl cohorts. Playoff supporters everywhere appreciate you continually sticking your collective feet in your mouths and increasing the chances that we will see a playoff soon!
Friday, December 3, 2010
Oklahoma vs. Nebraska--Case in Point of What is Wrong With College Football Today
Tomorrow is the official end of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. As an Oklahoma alum, there's a bit of nostalgia to the ending. The truth is, though, this rivalry ended years ago.
In 1994, the Big 12 was born. It was a marriage between the old Big 8 and the old Southwest Conference. Like any marriage, though, it certainly had its challenges. Unfortunately, like a lot of marriages these days, it was doomed from the start.
The Big 8 teams had the majority going in. The conference was to be headquartered in Kansas City, the championships would be held in Kansas City and St. Louis and the Big 8 records would be intact. It was essentially the Big 8+4. That would quickly change, though.
Before the conference even commenced competition, the Big 12 offices had moved to Texas. The Texas schools and AD's began flexing their muscles and Big 8 traditions were the victim. The most visible tradition to go by the wayside was the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. Tom Osborne was against it from the start. He knew the end game and it wasn't good for Nebraska. He was right.
So, in 1996, the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry died. The two powerhouses no longer played everyday. Oklahoma was down at the time, so the impact was large on a national scale. If you weren't an Oklahoma or Nebraska fan at the time, it didn't mean that much. The impact it had on the conference, though, was huge.
I blame the original setup of the divisions for the demise of the Big 12. You can't separate Oklahoma and Nebraska and expect everyone to be happy with it. Nebraska wasn't. Eventually, the money started flowing south. Nebraska, from the start, felt like an afterthought in the Big 12, and rightfully so. They were. It was all about the money, and the money was in Texas. Texas, and most of all The University of Texas, was in control. It still is.
As an Oklahoma alum, I understand some of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. I am enough of a student of the history of college football to understand the impact the rivalry had on the rise of college football in this country. I'm not old enough to truly remember the great matchups of the 70's and early 80's, but I hear about those legendary games on a regular basis. It is a
As Oklahoma and Nebraska meet for one final time (noting that they are working on a home and home series in 2021 and 2022), it's important for other conferences to keep the Big 12 in mind as inevitable expansion takes place. If you want a functional, happy conference, don't let a few dollars get in the way. Figure out a way to make everyone happy. One or two teams can't get fat while others starve. It will fall apart in the long run.
If you're not 40 years old, you don't have a great memory of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. After 1988, in was on its way downhill. Tomorrow night will be a great night for the networks to reminisce. One last game to end the regular season for a conference championship. The only thing that would make it better would be a trip to a national championship in the Orange Bowl at stake. Since it's not, though, take it in and enjoy the end of a classic rivalry and the beginning of the end of college football as we know it.
In 1994, the Big 12 was born. It was a marriage between the old Big 8 and the old Southwest Conference. Like any marriage, though, it certainly had its challenges. Unfortunately, like a lot of marriages these days, it was doomed from the start.
The Big 8 teams had the majority going in. The conference was to be headquartered in Kansas City, the championships would be held in Kansas City and St. Louis and the Big 8 records would be intact. It was essentially the Big 8+4. That would quickly change, though.
Before the conference even commenced competition, the Big 12 offices had moved to Texas. The Texas schools and AD's began flexing their muscles and Big 8 traditions were the victim. The most visible tradition to go by the wayside was the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. Tom Osborne was against it from the start. He knew the end game and it wasn't good for Nebraska. He was right.
So, in 1996, the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry died. The two powerhouses no longer played everyday. Oklahoma was down at the time, so the impact was large on a national scale. If you weren't an Oklahoma or Nebraska fan at the time, it didn't mean that much. The impact it had on the conference, though, was huge.
I blame the original setup of the divisions for the demise of the Big 12. You can't separate Oklahoma and Nebraska and expect everyone to be happy with it. Nebraska wasn't. Eventually, the money started flowing south. Nebraska, from the start, felt like an afterthought in the Big 12, and rightfully so. They were. It was all about the money, and the money was in Texas. Texas, and most of all The University of Texas, was in control. It still is.
As an Oklahoma alum, I understand some of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. I am enough of a student of the history of college football to understand the impact the rivalry had on the rise of college football in this country. I'm not old enough to truly remember the great matchups of the 70's and early 80's, but I hear about those legendary games on a regular basis. It is a
As Oklahoma and Nebraska meet for one final time (noting that they are working on a home and home series in 2021 and 2022), it's important for other conferences to keep the Big 12 in mind as inevitable expansion takes place. If you want a functional, happy conference, don't let a few dollars get in the way. Figure out a way to make everyone happy. One or two teams can't get fat while others starve. It will fall apart in the long run.
If you're not 40 years old, you don't have a great memory of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. After 1988, in was on its way downhill. Tomorrow night will be a great night for the networks to reminisce. One last game to end the regular season for a conference championship. The only thing that would make it better would be a trip to a national championship in the Orange Bowl at stake. Since it's not, though, take it in and enjoy the end of a classic rivalry and the beginning of the end of college football as we know it.
The Greatest Cubs Fan of Them All
I turned on the radio this morning to learn that Ron Santo died. It was like someone kicked me in the gut. Don't get me wrong, I've never met Ron Santo. I don't know him and he doesn't know me. That being said, as a die-hard Cubs fan (officially, since 1980 according to my official "Die Hard Cubs Fan Club" card), Ron Santo felt like a friend.
Santo will be remembered for his passionate, and sometimes (okay most of the time) over-the-top, emotion during the Cubs radio broadcasts. Pat Hughes and Santo produced great broadcasts for Cubs fans, though those not affiliated probably found them unbearable at times. Santo wasn't going to win any awards, but as a Cubs fan, it was nice to know you weren't the only one going through the emotional roller coaster that is the life of a Cubs fan.
Santo was passionate about many things in life. You could tell, based on the documentaries, etc., that he was very passionate about his family. He was extremely active in raising money for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, a disease he fought himself. As a Cubs fan, though, he was focused on two things. He wanted a World Series on the north side of Chicago. He lived for that. I'm very sad that he never got to see that. He also waited patiently (or impatiently) by the phone every year when the veterans' committee was announcing their Hall of Fame inductees. He never got that call.
I don't know if Santo will ever go into the Hall of Fame. If you look at it objectively, he's borderline. He was never on a winner (in fact, he was an integral part of the '69 Cubs who did anything BUT win) and his stats are certainly on par with some that are in, but not as good as some that aren't. So, we'll have to wait and see, but it certainly won't mean as much without his reaction and emotion.
As for the Cubs, they gave him a couple of runs this past decade. 2003 was memorable. Unfortunately, it will be remembered for the wrong thing, but that was a magical season. After that, it was as if the organization figured out that it could win, and started to spend tons of money. That increased expectations, so it wasn't as easy to enjoy the next two playoff runs, and subsequent disasters. It's sad, though, that the 2010 season was his last. Maybe it was fitting. It was certainly a typical Cubs disaster.
Santo knew how to relate to Cubs fans because, when it came down to it, he was a Cubs fan himself. He didn't try to be a broadcaster, he just added to the broadcast. He was a former Cubs player who, probably more than anyone else in the history of the game, lived and died with his former team. It was refreshing and genuine, and for that, I will always have a spot in my heart for Ron Santo.
In the end, I picture Ron Santo, Harry Caray and Jack Brickhouse sitting together in the afterlife. Harry is complaining about the upcoming season, Ronnie is sky high about the youngsters that are about to bring a championship to the north side and Jack is sitting back enjoying it all.
Rest in Peace, Ron Santo. The radio airwaves will not be the same without you.
Santo will be remembered for his passionate, and sometimes (okay most of the time) over-the-top, emotion during the Cubs radio broadcasts. Pat Hughes and Santo produced great broadcasts for Cubs fans, though those not affiliated probably found them unbearable at times. Santo wasn't going to win any awards, but as a Cubs fan, it was nice to know you weren't the only one going through the emotional roller coaster that is the life of a Cubs fan.
Santo was passionate about many things in life. You could tell, based on the documentaries, etc., that he was very passionate about his family. He was extremely active in raising money for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, a disease he fought himself. As a Cubs fan, though, he was focused on two things. He wanted a World Series on the north side of Chicago. He lived for that. I'm very sad that he never got to see that. He also waited patiently (or impatiently) by the phone every year when the veterans' committee was announcing their Hall of Fame inductees. He never got that call.
I don't know if Santo will ever go into the Hall of Fame. If you look at it objectively, he's borderline. He was never on a winner (in fact, he was an integral part of the '69 Cubs who did anything BUT win) and his stats are certainly on par with some that are in, but not as good as some that aren't. So, we'll have to wait and see, but it certainly won't mean as much without his reaction and emotion.
As for the Cubs, they gave him a couple of runs this past decade. 2003 was memorable. Unfortunately, it will be remembered for the wrong thing, but that was a magical season. After that, it was as if the organization figured out that it could win, and started to spend tons of money. That increased expectations, so it wasn't as easy to enjoy the next two playoff runs, and subsequent disasters. It's sad, though, that the 2010 season was his last. Maybe it was fitting. It was certainly a typical Cubs disaster.
Santo knew how to relate to Cubs fans because, when it came down to it, he was a Cubs fan himself. He didn't try to be a broadcaster, he just added to the broadcast. He was a former Cubs player who, probably more than anyone else in the history of the game, lived and died with his former team. It was refreshing and genuine, and for that, I will always have a spot in my heart for Ron Santo.
In the end, I picture Ron Santo, Harry Caray and Jack Brickhouse sitting together in the afterlife. Harry is complaining about the upcoming season, Ronnie is sky high about the youngsters that are about to bring a championship to the north side and Jack is sitting back enjoying it all.
Rest in Peace, Ron Santo. The radio airwaves will not be the same without you.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Is It Time to Abolish the NCAA?
Most of you have probably never heard of Mike Balogun. Balogun is a linebacker who attended the University of Oklahoma in 2008 and 2009 after transferring from a junior college. He played sparingly in 2008, but after the announcers at the BCS Championship Game mentioned that he had played semi-pro football, he came under investigation. The minor rule he broke, you ask? He supposedly played in a semi-pro football game, without earning any money, after the age of 21.
Now, by all accounts, the only evidence the NCAA ever brought to the table was a box score on a website not affiliated with the team and some affidavits, which were never released to the public, that were pieced together to assume that he played at the age of 22. Balogun maintains to this day that he never played in that game. The NCAA ruled, however, that he could not play his senior year in college.
Most of you probably do know who Dez Bryant is. Bryant was a wide receiver at Oklahoma State and is now with the Dallas Cowboys. Bryant had dinner with Deion Sanders last summer and, when questioned by the NCAA about that dinner, Bryant got intimidated and told them it didn't happen. The NCAA ruled that he was ineligible for the 2009 season because he lied to them. He didn't take money. He didn't receive anything other than a dinner at Sanders' house. He lied to the NCAA, so he got punished.
The stories go on and on. Jeremy Bloom of Colorado was in limbo for most of a year waiting on a ruling on his eligibility based on being an Olympic athlete. They ruled against him. The Reggie Bush debacle went on for five years before the NCAA ruled him ineligible for receiving extra benefits.
Fast forward to this week. Tuesday, without any press or outside knowledge, Auburn ruled Cameron Newton ineligible because his father solicited money from Mississippi State during his recruitment. This is an NCAA violation in and of itself. Auburn immediately appealed to the NCAA for Newton's reinstatement, again without releasing any of this information to the press. No one knew about any of this.
Yesterday, with much pomp and circumstance, the NCAA ruled that Newton was eligible to play. In the ruling, they stated that since they couldn't prove that Newton had knowledge of his father's dealings, he was clear of any charges. Personally, I did a triple-take. What? Are you kidding me?
The more time there is to think about this, the more questions it raises. First of all, it took the NCAA two days to rule on this? The three situations I mentioned above all took months, even years. They didn't involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, only the Bush and Bloom situations involved money at all. Two days? It's all about the kids, right NCAA? It's all about the student athletes. It's all about amateurism. Unless that "amateur" student athlete is the best player on the #1 team in the country preparing to play for his conference championship on his way to the BCS Championship Game. In the immortal words of Mark Mangino, "That's right, BCS. Dollar signs."
Then you get to the really sticky part of this, which is that if the athlete can't be tied to the dealings, the athlete is not culpable. So, as long as my son doesn't know that I'm selling his services to the highest bidder, I can make some cash. I think I'll start today! My one year old son is available to the school who will pay me the most. This is a horrible precedent. We will now have middle men involved in every dealing instead of about 75 percent of them.
And while we're at it, what say should the NCAA have in college football, anyway? It doesn't recognize a champion. It doesn't run any of the bowl games. It's not involved in the conferences or the conference television contracts. The only thing it is involved in is police work. I don't think the organization that won't sponsor a championship should have any say over who is involved in such a championship.
The bottom line about this entire situation is that the NCAA is out of control. They rule with an iron fist, when it won't cost them money. They are hell bent on maintaining amateurism while raking in millions and millions of dollars. It is a complete debacle. It is costing athletes money. It's costing athletes the invaluable experience that they like to sell. It's costing schools millions of dollars for compliance departments that constantly chase their tails.
The NCAA needs to either spend money on a comprehensive plan including more investigators, better and clearer rules and quicker rulings or it needs to get out of the way. But, of course, the NCAA would tell us they don't have the money. It's all about the money.
Now, by all accounts, the only evidence the NCAA ever brought to the table was a box score on a website not affiliated with the team and some affidavits, which were never released to the public, that were pieced together to assume that he played at the age of 22. Balogun maintains to this day that he never played in that game. The NCAA ruled, however, that he could not play his senior year in college.
Most of you probably do know who Dez Bryant is. Bryant was a wide receiver at Oklahoma State and is now with the Dallas Cowboys. Bryant had dinner with Deion Sanders last summer and, when questioned by the NCAA about that dinner, Bryant got intimidated and told them it didn't happen. The NCAA ruled that he was ineligible for the 2009 season because he lied to them. He didn't take money. He didn't receive anything other than a dinner at Sanders' house. He lied to the NCAA, so he got punished.
The stories go on and on. Jeremy Bloom of Colorado was in limbo for most of a year waiting on a ruling on his eligibility based on being an Olympic athlete. They ruled against him. The Reggie Bush debacle went on for five years before the NCAA ruled him ineligible for receiving extra benefits.
Fast forward to this week. Tuesday, without any press or outside knowledge, Auburn ruled Cameron Newton ineligible because his father solicited money from Mississippi State during his recruitment. This is an NCAA violation in and of itself. Auburn immediately appealed to the NCAA for Newton's reinstatement, again without releasing any of this information to the press. No one knew about any of this.
Yesterday, with much pomp and circumstance, the NCAA ruled that Newton was eligible to play. In the ruling, they stated that since they couldn't prove that Newton had knowledge of his father's dealings, he was clear of any charges. Personally, I did a triple-take. What? Are you kidding me?
The more time there is to think about this, the more questions it raises. First of all, it took the NCAA two days to rule on this? The three situations I mentioned above all took months, even years. They didn't involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, only the Bush and Bloom situations involved money at all. Two days? It's all about the kids, right NCAA? It's all about the student athletes. It's all about amateurism. Unless that "amateur" student athlete is the best player on the #1 team in the country preparing to play for his conference championship on his way to the BCS Championship Game. In the immortal words of Mark Mangino, "That's right, BCS. Dollar signs."
Then you get to the really sticky part of this, which is that if the athlete can't be tied to the dealings, the athlete is not culpable. So, as long as my son doesn't know that I'm selling his services to the highest bidder, I can make some cash. I think I'll start today! My one year old son is available to the school who will pay me the most. This is a horrible precedent. We will now have middle men involved in every dealing instead of about 75 percent of them.
And while we're at it, what say should the NCAA have in college football, anyway? It doesn't recognize a champion. It doesn't run any of the bowl games. It's not involved in the conferences or the conference television contracts. The only thing it is involved in is police work. I don't think the organization that won't sponsor a championship should have any say over who is involved in such a championship.
The bottom line about this entire situation is that the NCAA is out of control. They rule with an iron fist, when it won't cost them money. They are hell bent on maintaining amateurism while raking in millions and millions of dollars. It is a complete debacle. It is costing athletes money. It's costing athletes the invaluable experience that they like to sell. It's costing schools millions of dollars for compliance departments that constantly chase their tails.
The NCAA needs to either spend money on a comprehensive plan including more investigators, better and clearer rules and quicker rulings or it needs to get out of the way. But, of course, the NCAA would tell us they don't have the money. It's all about the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)