Millionaire Underdogs

Many sports fans blame "greedy" star athletes for chasing high-paying contracts and for high ticket prices to games, but that anger is better directed at far-wealthier owners taking advantage of players and fans.

An NFL star is a "greedy, me-first diva" if he holds out of training camp to protest being paid far below market worth, and is selfish if he doesn't emulate Tom Brady¹ by agreeing to take less money "for the good of the team". Yet in a league where contracts are not guaranteed, on the frequent occasions when teams cut players under contract it is a smart "business decision" and no one howls about "not honoring an agreement".

Professional athletes who sign big money deals based on their accomplishments are often looked at as sullied. They play a game, goes the common gripe, and being paid $100 million -- or poo-poohing that amount as too little -- to play a game is ridiculous. That's why ticket prices are too high for the average fan to attend, laments the typical ESPN talking head, newspaper "hot take" sports columnist, or pugnacious radio caller. The assumption is always that star players make too much money -- when actually, given the enormous value they generate for their franchises, the best talents often should be paid far more than they are.

The Sports Stock Market

My Diamondback column today proposes a merger of the financial markets and sports:

I think many athletes, especially those in junior leagues or fresh out of college, could hedge the risk on their contracts by selling shares entitling owners to a certain percentage of their future earnings.

Take our star junior linebacker, Erin Henderson, for example. Many experts think he could be a second-round pick in the 2008 NFL Draft. After leaving the Terps, Henderson could decide he wants to secure some money up front, and thus he could sell shares of himself equivalent to 2 percent of his career NFL earnings. His ticker symbol: ERIN … or better yet, STUD.

Henderson would get money right away and, assuming he gets signed by a team, additionally earn 98 percent of a still-hefty paycheck. Both player and investors have the potential to gain. For all you fantasy football gods out there who love to brag about your ability at finding the next best thing before anyone else, getting in on Erin early would be a terrific opportunity to make some money.

Read the rest here.

The Minority Rule

Indian-American Bobby Jindal's victory last week in the Louisiana gubernatorial election prompted me to examine what I call "the minority rule" in my Monday Diamondback column. People like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Condoleezza Rice are proof that minorities have successfully infiltrated that last frontier--the apex of political leadership in this country.

Yet what they and Jindal have in common is what connects them with most politicians in high positions: their affiliation with a Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Simply put, being a woman or black or brown no longer makes you unelectable--as long as you still have the right religion. This, obviously, has some problematic repercussions:

"I definitely don't have any problem with religious people in politics, but I am concerned that religious people of non-Judeo-Christian faiths as well as atheist or agnostic people can be marginalized from the political process. I think the American public is definitely capable of judging a candidate on his or her merits and would not attach much importance to a candidate's religious affiliation. But because religion is talked about so much in the political arena, and because almost all politicians are Christians or Jews, I worry that others who would be great public servants are discouraged from running for office and thus never try."

Click here to read my new column. Also check out this interesting article from the Post about the generational divide between Indian-Americans' attitudes toward Jindal. The older generation (people my parents' age and up) are ecstatic at Jindal's win and proud to have an Indian-American in such a high position. They know how difficult it was for Indians when they first came to the U.S., and had a very different experience than people of my generation. The latter are much more likely to take Jindal's political considerations into account (and not vote for him just because he is Indian). They also are unhappy that Jindal distanced himself from his ethnicity during his run.

* * *

On an entirely separate note, take a look at my previous Diamondback column, in which I tried to explain what "love of the game" really is to a sports fan. It's everything and anything from the rollercoaster ride of following a team through its trials and tribulations with a community of like-minded believers, to the pride you feel when you see a player you saw as a rookie gradually grow into a living legend. And yes, allowing our moods to be affected by the performance of a group of highly-paid strangers is admittedly irrational, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the time and emotion. Read "Fan Feelings".

Put the "Nappy" Controversy to Rest

One of the major headlines of the past week is the controversy surrounding a remark by radio host Don Imus, who described the African-American women of Rutgers' basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." Initially, Imus brushed off criticism of his remark by calling it just an "idiot comment" he made. The furor has grown though, with Al Sharpton and others calling for his firing, and Imus has been suspended for two weeks. He is now in full-blown apology mode--the familiar I'm-not-a-racist, I didn't mean to be offensive routine.

I don't have any personal feelings regarding Imus; I've rarely listened to his show, and I doubt we would agree on very much. (Though he doesn't seem like a bad person, and much less reprehensible than, say, Rush Limbaugh.) But I am annoyed by the huge flareup over this comment. That isn't because I agree with his distasteful remark, but because I think his critics are misguided.

Yes, Imus made an off-color comment to a group that didn't deserve it--the Lady Scarlet Knights, who had a remarkable run to the NCAA finals after overcoming several early season losses. But I don't see how his comment is that big a deal. Those great women basketball players shouldn't care what he has to say about them. They just made it to the NCAA Finals. Should it matter at all to them what some cranky old radio host whom they've never heard of makes fun of them? Not at all.

What Imus thinks of the Rutgers team is completely irrelevant and in no way diminishes their accomplishment. His words should have no effect on them. And they wouldn't, were it not for this whole conflagration which is giving such power to Imus's comments. The Lady Knights had never heard of and didn't care about Don Imus a week ago--now it seems like everyone is expecting them to be the anguished, suffering victims of his words. Imus shouldn't have that power, and those players shouldn't be told to be victims--they're so much better than that!

Meanwhile, let Imus continue to make edgy comments and lame jokes. Unless he or anyone else is saying stuff that actually causes harm to their target, we should be very careful in declaring anything too "sensitive" for discussion or humor. While the intent may be to protect people, we instead wind up making a big deal out of things that aren't so.

UPDATE 4/14
I'm terribly disappointed that Imus has been fired from his radio show. I'm disappointed because of how much people read into and extrapolate from what was just a bad joke. That joke was conflated to be an example of the depth of Imus's shocking racist views, something I don't believe. Anyone with any familiarity with comedy, especially the commonplace edgy comedy of our times, knows that joke ≠ personal belief.

But nonetheless, since Imus's joke was viewed as his actual belief, I'm more disappointed at what this episode demonstrates about our tolerance for letting people air their opinions. Free speech isn't just an esoteric concept you can defend only at cherry-picked times or from cherry-picked voices. Let people make up their own minds and ignore/counter disagreeable or detestable speech on its own merits. That is much preferable to using censorship and making a sacred cow of some topic.

Pat Buchanan, of all people, had an interesting column on this subject where he raised a couple of salient points about the hypocrisy involved in this situation:

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

...

If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community? Why would black politicians hobnob with them? Why are there no boycotts of the advertisers of the radio stations that play their degrading music?

I think even people who generally agree that this incident has been blown out of proportion are reluctant to defend Don Imus because of his forked tongue and checkered history of verbal offenses. But that's precisely the problem.

Pretty or not, we have to refrain from taking the easy solution (in this case mass condemnation, censorship). Confront the problem in a constructive manner (rational refutation of his remarks, and then moving on)--that's what's in the best interest of all parties involved.

Final words
A former head of Martin Luther King's SCLC asks us to "Drop the Race Card."

Dungy to Rest of NFL: Zeus Smites You

This post is imported from my group sports blog, Da Sports Authority."

Does God hate the Chicago Bears? I can't seem to find the big fella's cellphone number to call and ask Him, so my best guess as to how He feels comes from statements from the Indianapolis Colts' camp.

After the Colts' Sunday victory in the Super Bowl, coach Tony Dungy attributed their success to "showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way." His comments echoed Colts' owner Jim Irsay, who said "we're giving it all to God again because that's what got us here."

People in the sports world invoking God is not news--it's done on a routine basis. But I always find it amusing that these athletes or coaches or whoever are presumptuous enough to assume that, if there is a higher being, God or Allah or Christina or whoever has a rooting interest in the outcome. Even if the Almighty deigned to choose a favorite squadron, it's probably not yours--that whole "meek shall inherit the earth" thing sounds a lot like it came from an Arizona Cardinals fan.

I'm fine with an athlete saying that his inspiration is due to his relationship with God--how you find motivation and balance in life is up to you. but it should stop there. Despite what Dallas Cowboys' fans might think, there is no such thing as "God's Team," and religion should be dealt with on an individual basis, not applied to a team as a whole.

Just in case I'm wrong though, I have no problem with Joe Gibbs' monthly tradition of sacrificing six goats and a virgin if it will help the Redskins back to glory next year.

Sick of Fantasy Football

This post was imported from my group sports blog, "Da Sports Authority."

This is going to sound sacrilegious, but take it from an "old timer": this country suffers from a serious Fantasy Football overload. How widespread is the epidemic? The USA Today reports "An estimated nine million Americans will play fantasy football this season...[and] will generate a $3 billion to $4 billion economic impact across the sports industry." (Emphasis added.) You know it's that time of the year when the sports magazine covers have headlines like Fantasy Preview and columnists are already weighing in on Fantasy Draft Day dilemmas.

Trouble is, that time of year seems to come earlier and earlier each year. Keep in mind that NFL teams are just opening training camp and that the start of the season is exactly six weeks away. Depth chart battles and preseason injuries are just getting started. Meanwhile, the fantasy season is chugging ahead. It might as well be midseason considering that Yahoo opened their popular leagues as of June 1!

I first began playing fantasy football in the mid-90s, assisting my dad with his team in his office league, before the Internet popularized the game and forever changed the way it was played. In those days, making transactions weren't about sorting a database by TDs scored and clicking "Add". There was no "StatTracker" or automatic scoring; the league's commissioner would spend Monday mornings going through the box scores in the paper and tally up each team's points. And someone, I'm sure, once drafted Ryan Leaf. God forbid. (Dinosaur rant ends here.)

Anyway, after a decade of playing, I've realized in the past few years that fantasy football has lost a bit of its luster. I don't know if that's because it's too popular now, or too easy to play, or because one guy will enter into a half dozen different leagues and rely only on luck, not skill. Perhaps worst is the way it's teaching a generation of football fans to watch the game: that it's okay for your hometown WR to drop a pass in the endzone because your opponent in one of your leagues has him on his fantasy team.

I can't pinpoint any one of those reasons as being the cause of my dissatisfaction with fantasy football. Many of the same arguments could possibly be made about fantasy baseball (although that game is vastly less popular), and I've been playing that for 6-7 years and enjoy it tremendously. Though I think there the fact that it's a 162 games as opposed to 16, and the action happens every day rather than every 7, forces players to be smarter and to be more involved, and less dependent on luck.

Then again, I'm still playing fantasy football this year, so some good part of the game must still have a hold on me.

CB on Hiatus

Introducing "Da Sports Authority"...the new home for all my sports writing!



Not everyone who's noticed the protracted length since my last post is aware that I'm currently taking some time off of Citizens Band to work on another project. In late July, I created a sports blog called Da Sports Authority. Unlike the Citizens Band, which is really just a collection of occasional short essays, Da Sports Authority stays true to the actual concept of a blog, with daily posts, lots of links, and multimedia. Da Sports Authority is also a group venture; I've invited some friends who had no prior blogging experience to try their hand at sports writing on the site. Some have turned out to be great at this; others, not so much, and hence I'm still open to adding new contributors to the site.



It's actually been pretty refreshing to take a break from writing about serious topics in politics and current events and focus on sports and pop culture. That said, I intend to resume writing on Citizens Band at the frequency I did before, hopefully beginning around mid-September.

Jay's 2006 MLB All-Star Teams

It's official. The 2006 MLB All-Star Game rosters have been finalized in time for the Midsummer Classic on July 11 in Pittsburgh.

So let's get right down to the nitty gritty. I've long been critical of fan voting in these things because the same big-market stars get selected to the game every year, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. Of course, the argument here is that the All-Star game is for the fans, so they should get to pick who they see. Nonsense. It's not like the TV ratings for these games is all that high anyway, so I think fans should at least be given a reason to watch--to see the best players in the sport as determined by the players and the managers.

Anyway, this year I actually thought the selected teams were decent. There weren't too many eye-popping travesties to take note of, though the omission of the young Minnesota Twins phenom Francisco Liriano was one unfortunate example. Other than that, I think a true All-Star team should not have taken a catcher from the NL this year (none were particularly impressive), and I find it also unfortunate that there was no room for Travis Hafner on the AL team this year. I'd change that if I could.

Removing myself from the constraint of that rule that each team must have at least one player represented (sorry, Kansas City Royals!), I present below the real NL and AL all-star teams. Enjoy!

* * *
Jay's NATIONAL LEAGUE

Italicized names were not selected to the real MLB roster.



Honorable mentions: Nomar Garciaparra, 1B, LAD; Chris Capuano [July 9 replacement], SP, MIL; Aaron Harang, SP, CIN; Billy Wagner, RP, NYM; Ryan Howard, 1B, PHI

Jay's AMERICAN LEAGUE

Italicized names were not selected to the real MLB roster.

Honorable mentions: Jim Thome, DH, CWS; Nate Robertson, SP, DET; Joe Nathan, RP, MIN; Alex Rios, OF, TOR; Vernon Wells, OF, TOR

I'd be remiss to not mention that the AL outfielders' group is spectacular this year. Names I didn't mention that are certainly deserving include Vladimir Guerrero, LAA; Magglio Ordonez, DET [July 7 injury replacement]; and Gary Matthews Jr., TEX.

* * *

Have a grievance on behalf of any of your favorite players or fantasy studs? Think I should have put Tad Iguchi or Jose Lopez at second for the AL? Am I one Tiger starting pitcher short? Was I too hard to Cincinnati sluggers with less-than-stellar batting averages? Did I insult Vlad Guerrero and Johnny Damon by not even mentioning their names? Feel free to inform me of any mistakes you think I have made.

Basketball Sabermetrics

In honor of those who are more fixated on the NBA Finals than the World Cup, I continue my spate of recent basketball-related commentary. Be sure to read The NBA's Secret Superstars, an article by David J. Berri, an economist who has brought the field of sabermetrics, traditionally associated with baseball, to basketball. Berri and his colleagues developed an algorithm which incorporates every facet of an individual player's performance as a contribution, positive or negative, toward a victory. His resulting model calculates the "wins produced" by every player in the league.

Thusly he determines a player's real value to his team, and in doing so, finds out which players he says are overrated and underrated. Furthermore, by adding up the wins produced by each player on a team, Berri has a forecast for that team's performance in the standings. His model has been validated as a pretty accurate predictor, with an average difference of only 2.3 wins (for 82-game seasons) for a team in the 10 seasons he has been doing this.

Berri's conclusions match up with empirical observations. Multi-dimensional players like Michael Jordan and LeBron James have high numbers of "wins produced" under his algorithm, while overrated shooters like Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony have low scores. Tellingly, vital role players like rebounding extraordinaire Ben Wallace also produce a high number of wins in Berri's model, proving what most fans know at heart: winning teams excel at all aspects of the game, not just scoring. Taking this a step further, Berri concludes of Game 1:

...why do I think [Dallas center Eric] Dampier and [Miami forward Antoine] Walker were vital to Thursday's outcome? Dampier scored only eight points, but he was efficient: making three of four shots and adding seven rebounds. Walker, on the other hand, scored an impressive-seeming 17 points, but he took 19 shots and turned the ball over an astounding six times in the loss.

Relatively straight-forward observations aside, I think Berri's model could be an effective way of evaluating the contributions of lesser-profile players to their teams. Maybe it's time for a Bill James-like analysis of strategy and statistics in basketball?

NBA 'Seven-Year Hangover' Over

Michael Wilbon has a great column in today's Washington Post on how this year's NBA playoffs are the best of the post-Jordan (Bulls) era. I share his sentiments, as these are the first playoffs in all those years that I have enjoyed so much, with so many good games in so many good matchups. It's a sign in and of itself that I've watched most of these games on TV, whereas in years past the only series I remember watching were Kings-Lakers or the Finals (and not even all of the latter; Lakers-Nets? Yawn!)

Even with my hometown Washington Wizards being bounced by the Cleveland Cavaliers in a heartbreaking first round loss, it has been a competitive and entertaining month and a half thus far. The first round, usually not worth your time, produced good matchups in Bulls-Heat, Wizards-Cavs, and of course Lakers-Suns. Unlike years past, Wilbon notes, the absence of big players hasn't hurt the playoffs. No Kobe, No 'Melo, No Iverson (whose team didn't even make the playoffs), no problem.

In the second round, three of the four series went to seven games and the game's newest stars--players like LeBron James, Steve Nash, and Dirk Nowitzki--demonstrated that they, like their predecessors from the NBA's golden era, can play playoff-worthy basketball. In the conference finals, good basketball was on display in both series, but when it was all over, the two best teams in the league found themselves playing in the NBA Finals, which start tomorrow.

But Wilbon notes importantly that this year isn't just about the success of certain individual players. After all, the NBA has been desperately trying to fill the superstar void created in the late 1990s with the A.I.s, Vince Carters, and T-Macs. This year happened to be when the right stars on quality teams became ascendant. Magic Johnson comments that "we're back to what we used to have instead of saying 'Stay tuned for Allen Iverson versus..."

Now, he says, "it's back to the team, and the guys are great within the teams. It's great and I love it." As do I, Magic. The three top teams in the playoffs, Dallas, Phoenix, and Miami, were all more than just the one star player. Dallas was not just Nowitzki but Terry and Howard, if not Stackhouse closing out games. Phoenix wasn't just Nash (who I spent most of the past month maligning) but Bell and Diaw, if not Thomas hitting clutch late-game shots. And Miami is Shaq and Wade with a host of veterans, of whom most important is the coach, Pat Riley.

The best part of all this, I think, is that this is not a one year fluke. We may be entering a new era in basketball where the big stars and upper echelon teams are clearly identified and consistent, where we can see the rivalries and competition escalate yearly. Magic specifically mentions Dwyane Wade and LeBron James, and Phoenix, Dallas, and San Antonio. How about the Wizards (wishful thinking on my part?), who are just a big man away from the top. I think the LA Clippers (who ever thought this day would come?) also have solid potential in the near future, and a couple other teams also could be close to making the jump.

If we're right that the NBA is experiencing a revival, it' s cause for celebration. For five or six years my interest as a fan had been drifting away, until I gradually started coming back in the past two years. Part of this may be due to a revival in the Wizards' own fortunes, but the major factor is the improved quality of the league's product. Here's to a new era in the NBA.

P.S. - Finals pick: Dallas. I think I'm going to really enjoy this series and both teams deserve to win. Still, in Miami's case, Wade can wait (still "too young"), and Shaq and Riley have done it. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, because if they do win, they definitely earned it, but let's give this one to Dirk and Avery Johnson!

Tags Calls it Quits

The announcement today that NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue will retire this summer after serving for the past 16 years was a bit of surprise to most. "Tags", who succeeded the legendary Pete Rozelle, has been at the helm of the NFL for almost my entire life. And what a terrific job he did!

Football today is the indisputable favorite sport in America today, and none of the three other professional leagues comes close. Baseball may be the "national pastime", but casual baseball fans started deserting that sport a decade ago, and even serious fans today see a sport diluted by scandal and lack of excitement. Basketball's popularity peaked in the mid-90s, but following the retirement of the superstars of the Michael Jordan generation, went into a malaise that it is only now slowly coming out of. And hockey...haha, well that never had a chance.

I read with appreciation Dan Wetzel's remembrance of Tagliabue's contribution to the game. As we wait for the announcement of his successor, I have only one thought--sorry Condi ($), you're "under contract" till '08!

Gatorade: "Winning Formula"

What if Michael Jordan had missed "The Shot" against the Cavaliers in 1989? Or if Derek Jeter's flip to Jorge Posada in the 2001 MLB playoffs didn't get Jeremy Giambi at the plate? Or if Dwight Clark dropped "The Catch"?

Gatorade's new "Winning Formula" commercial is one of the most clever ads I have seen in a long time. In a similar vein to Burger King's amusing series of commercials featuring "the King" edited into football highlight reel plays, Gatorade has edited some of the most memorable moments in sports to show you what they would have looked like had they gone wrong. The computerized manipulation is flawless--if you've never seen the original plays, you wouldn't know the difference!

I hit rewind on my Tivo twice to watch this commercial again--it's that good. Click on the play button below to view:



I hope they turn this into a series of commercials featuring even more altered sports moments. Very cool!

Rooting Against Barry

It should have been Griffey, if anyone. That's what I've been saying to myself in recent weeks as the 2006 baseball season draws nearer. The biggest storyline going in, of course, is Barry Bonds' pursuit of the all-time home run record. It's a given that Barry, with 708 career HRs, will surpass #2 Babe Ruth (714), but true baseball fans also appear resigned to seeing Barry displace Hank Aaron (755). You'll forgive me for rooting against Barry I hope, regardless of how futile my efforts may be.

Barry Bonds is just not the guy I want to see holding what is perhaps the greatest individual accomplishment in American sports. He's a royal jerk. He admitted to a grand jury in 2003 that he took the steroids "cream" and "clear", though he says he did so "unknowingly". OK, fine, I've agreed with giving him the benefit of the doubt and calling him one of the greatest players of all time. But let's face the facts. In the first half of his career, as a home-run hitting speedster, Barry was a great player. But he became legendary through his power resurgence of the past six years, which began as he was a ripe old 35!

What's the explanation for the dominance of this second Barry? The answer might come from the upcoming book Game of Shadows by the reporters who broke the BALCO steroids scandal. The book alleges frequent, systematic use of steroids by Bonds since 1998. Read the length excerpt in Sports Illustrated here, or get the lowlights here. It's grotesque, fascinating reading, and it's virtually assured now that the primary topic of baseball conversation isn't going to be the Nats' new stadium or the exciting games being played in the World Baseball Classic.

Six or seven years ago, I anticipated seeing the home run record being broken by a star outfielder of the time. That player was Ken Griffey Jr., the greatest baseball player of the '90s. For the record, I calculated the HR totals of Griffey and Bonds at the end of the 2000 season. Bonds had 445 HRs, Griffey 438--with the former being 5 years older and having played 3 more seasons. Of course, since then injuries have derailed every one of Griffey's seasons, while Barry Bonds has (most likely) been injecting, swallowing, and rubbing. (Or, as Kornheiser puts it, "Bonds was taking all of Aisle 7 in the Rite-Aid!")

Good for Barry Bonds if he gets the record. I'll be watching, but I won't be cheering.

CB Archive:

• "Too Late to Say It Ain't So, Raffy" (August 3, 2005)
• "'Roid Rage" (February 14, 2005)
  

Borino 2006: The Winter Olympics

The cover of today's Washington Post shows the beautiful fireworks display during the Opening Ceremonies of the 20th Winter Games in Turin (Torino), Italy. The paper reports that the total cost of the games could reach $4 billion. All I can think is: what a waste.

I've been increasingly frustrated with the onslaught of coverage of boring sports and athletes taking over the airwaves. It's sad to see how desperate NBC and the Winter Games' sponsors are to find a good "angle", a way to sell this month's snoozefest to the public. Hence we get to see no-namers like Bode Miller and some guy called "The Flying Tomato" get cover stories in the paper with their asinine quotes. Ooh, they're extreme. Who cares?

I'm all for international competition. The Summer Olympics are great. I like watching the Euro Cup, World Cup, World Hockey Championships, etc, and I'm eagerly anticipating the upcoming World Baseball Classic. Matches between countries in any sport, generally speaking, are fun. But the Winter Games are a crock.

First off, at least half the world can't compete in the vast majority of the events, owing to the whole "lack of winter" or "lack of mountains" thing. Also, as a recent Sunday Outlook article pointed out, economic considerations are a big factor--the typical bobsled costs $35,000 to make, excluding the track. The Summer Olympics are much more faithful to the "Faster, Higher, Stronger" motto, and Kenyans don't have to worry about spending thousands of dollars to practice running a marathon. The Winter Games, on the other hand, are made for Scandanavians, Canadians, and Americans to compete at different ways to go down a snowy hill. Sure, a lot of these athletes are talented at doing just that, but it will never be compelling TV.

The Winter Games aren't completely bereft of any redeeming quality. Some people actually watch figure skating. And yes, I would love to see Michelle Kwan get a gold. Then there's hockey. Over two decades ago, the Winter Games produced perhaps the most scintillating game in sports history: the 1980 "Miracle on Ice". But today, with the U.S. lacking such a giant competitive foe to stake national prestige against, it's no wonder that Americans are immune to the giant corporate ad blitz thrown at them. Alas, if only al-Qaeda had a curling team...

Where's the Fan Accountability?

It's been a real busy week in the news, but as my last week of winterterm classes winds up, I haven't had much time to comment on a number of stories. Among the week's best: Nicholas Kristof on China or India? The Next Superpower, more NFL playoff action, the return of 24, the return of Osama, a showdown with Iran, Laura vs. Hillary, and phenom Alex Ovechkin's "best goal ever" (see video). An issue I do want to quickly address, however, stems from the 5-game suspension handed down to the Knicks' Antonio Davis for charging into the stands to defend his wife from a heckler last night.

Everyone has made the inevitable comparison to what happened in Detroit last year, when Ron Artest's response to fan behavior involved brawling in the bleachers. But while many have been quick to crucify Davis for acting irresponsibly--he did, and the penalty fits, but who wouldn't do the same in defense of his wife?--the disturbing trend of increased fan misbehavior goes largely unnoticed.

I've been attending sporting events for over a decade now, and I may be naive in saying this, but I think sportsmanship has gone down a lot from what I remembered. Support of one's team is great, of course, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Razzing a fellow wearing the wrong colors is one thing, verbally and even physically assaulting him is something entirely different, and neither infraction is defensible.

Every weekend it seems there's another story about unruly fans. That was certainly weighing on my mind when I was up in Philly a few weeks ago to cheer on the Redskins on the road. While I emerged unscathed, Clinton Portis' mom had to punch out a drunk heckler who poured beer on their group. Targeting family and friends of opposing players? No class.

Let's face the facts. If you are a fan cheering for the visiting team at a contest, you know you're in for a rough ride. These are no longer family-friendly events, if, as we're led to believe, they once were. Because it's clear that increased belligerence and unsportsmanlike behavior is not just tolerated, but perhaps even encouraged under the guise of "team loyalty", home teams need to a better job with providing more security.

Furthermore, let's see real punishments for serious offenders--starting with prosecution. People make a big fuss when they see their "spoiled, multi-millionaire athletes" rumbling in the stands. Those guys are held accountable. Fans should be accountable for their behavior, because it's not their birthright to go and act as obnoxious as they want. I want to go see a baseball/ football/ basketball/ hockey game, not a soccer riot.

Rose Bowl & the NFL Draft

There's little need in a blow-by-blow recap of last night's Rose Bowl, since pretty much everyone in the country watched it and commented it. Nonetheless, since it was a game for the history books, there are a few things worth talking about. With less than 7 minutes in the 4th quarter and a 12 point lead, the Trojans looked like their ridiculously long winning streak was going to stay intact (they hadn't lost, in fact, since squaring off against some guy named Odysseus). Then Vince happened.

Regardless of what Vince Young does for the rest of his life, his heroics in this game will be what defines him. What a magnificent individual performance--he simply willed his team to victory. He did it through the air and he did it on the ground, running for 200 tough yards against the SoCal defense, stiff arming guys, hurdling, diving, doing whatever it took. Two touchdowns in the final six minutes of the game. He simply was not going to let his team lose.

Meanwhile, the game was a letdown for Young's Heisman-winning opponents. Leinart in fact played a good game, especially in the second half, but I was disappointed with Bush. Although he had a decent game, he was overshadowed by his backup LenDale White's 3 TDs, and Bush certainly didn't make it 100% clear that he should be the #1 pick in the NFL draft, in my opinion. Hell, with less than 4 minutes in the game and USC needing to sustain a drive to hold on the win, Bush--the best player on his team--doesn't even touch the ball once? On a game-deciding 4th and 2, he's on the sidelines? Very disappointing. Bush is a terrific talent who had a great season, but he just didn't seem like a big-game player in the biggest game of his life.

So now that I've opened a can of worms, let's jump right into the NFL draft. The prevailing wisdom suggests that the Texans should take Bush #1. I don't know. The Texans desperately need a QB as well. David Carr, a former #1 himself, has had his career wrecked by starting out with the expansion Texans. He's done playing any meaningful football. Vince Young's outstanding performance, combined with his status as a Texas native, might convince Houston that he is just the facelift and fan favorite the franchise needs. Assuming Houston doesn't trade down, and they well might given their laundry list of needs, Young is the type of mobile quarterback they will need to avoid all the pressure he will be facing (and it will be a lot, no doubt). The Texans can get by with Domanick Davis, a capable running back, or draft a perfectly good one later in the draft--maybe even LenDale White.

I have nothing against Bush, who hails from my old hometown of San Diego and has a much better personality than Young, but I'm just not sure he's going to be the huge-impact player in the NFL that he's projected to be. NFL defenses are a lot faster and stronger than any Bush has run against, and with him being a speed runner as opposed to a power runner, that could cause problems. Splitting carries with White at USC, Bush hasn't really had to be a workhorse before, and his small size could also work against him. This is not to say, of course, that Bush won't be a success. He could in fact be a dazzling one, a player who runs like Tiki Barber has of late, but I think it's a risk and not in Houston's best interest. Especially considering that many very good running backs can be found later in the draft, as is evident by guys like Rudi Johnson, Stephen Davis, Ahman Green, and Terrell Davis.

And of course there's Matt Leinart, last year's golden boy who returned to school for another year and played very well. He's third in stature right now to Bush and Young, but I think of the three he's the least risky pick. A mature, confident pocket passer--this guy would be a great fit for many teams, and I think he will have a good pro career. He'll just wind up going after Bush and Young in the draft.

Bottom line: I'm trying to ignore the hype of Young's great game last night and keep in mind that Bush had a great season, but.... If I were the Texans and had decided to hold on to the #1, I'd be hoping that Young declares for the draft.

Damon in Pinstripes

Although I'm a dedicated baseball fan, I've not been one of those caught up in a wave of affection for the Boston Red Sox these past few years. Sure, that 2003 ALCS was scintillating, and the year after, we all rooted for the Sox against the Yankees. Good for them, they finally won a Series. But given Boston's boffo $120+ million team salary last year, I never saw them as the anti-Steinbrennerites they're made out to be.

And now it turns out that even Boston's players didn't buy into the idea. The big news in baseball this week is the defection of Boston's chief "idiot" Johnny Damon to the arch-rival Yankees for $52 million. "I know fans are upset and I'm sorry," Damon said, adding that Boston fans will forever remember his tenure with the team but "I know I'm also going to be remembered for jumping sides." Uh, yeah. Let's see how that next visit to Fenway plays out.

In the era of free agency and big money, it's hardly a surprise when players abandon teams where they are icons. Sports is a business, man. ESPN's Jim Caple writes, "This isn't 1957 anymore, when Jackie Robinson decided to retire rather than accept a trade from the Dogers to the Giants." Sometimes the player doesn't even get a say--just ask Nomar, the BoSox' former franchise icon, who was unceromoniously dumped by the team.

That said, it makes the achievements of some one-team-for-life players, like local legends Cal Ripken and Darrell Green, all the more remarkable. My old Tony Gwynn poster from my San Diego days is hanging on the wall above me as I write this, leaving me wistfully wishing that our favorite athletes today cared about their team identity as much as us fans do. I actually feel sorry for all those New Englanders who'll be dumping their old #18 jerseys!

Thrills, Spills, and Chills: Hockey's Back

After taking a year off, the NHL returned for the 2005-2006 season this past Wednesday evening. With the lockout issues over, the focus is now on the game itself--several small but significant rule changes have been instituted--and the ability to draw fans old and new into the seats.

I was in attendance at the MCI Center in D.C. to see the Capitals take on the Columbus Blue Jackets. The league and the team appeared to be making a concerted effort to mend fences with jilted fans. A pre-game street festival on F Street featured various activities and a handful of former Capitals' players signing autographs. Inside the stadium, a scrolling marquee announced that the NHL "would like to thank you, the fans, in welcoming back" the sport. Fans were handed souvenir mini-Stanley Cups at the entrance. The players were introduced to the accompaniment of an ethereal laser-and-pyrotechnic show. And during the game, explanations of basic rules and hockey terms like "power play" on the Jumbotron were evidence that the league is desperate to attract new fans.

Old fans needn't fear the changes made to the game--a more open style of play, smaller goalie pads, no red line, end-game shootouts to break ties, etc. The product on the ice was terrific, and a reminder to all hockey fans about what we've been missing. For the Caps, young sensation Alexander Ovechkin lived up to his high billing, scoring two goals and playing physical (his first hit broke a support beam on the boards) en route to picking up "first star" honors for the game.

The game aside, there were still some noticeable problems that marred an otherwise terrific night. For one, and perhaps most worrisome to owner Ted Leonsis and the NHL commissioner, there were a huge number of empty seats. While the lower level and the upper level seats were pretty full, the middle "club level" ring was practically deserted. That can't be good news for a sports so recently ruined by financial peril.

Additionally, some aspects of the stadium operation showed their rustiness. Lines in the concession stands, for example, were way too long. Frustrated customers waited half an hour, only to be told that--although there were no signs posted--no credit cards were accepted in that particular line. Which meant another 20-30 minute wait in a different line. Tensions were understandably high, and soon fans were jawing at one another and at the concession workers. I was forced to watch all 5 goals scored in this game on an overhead TV screen while waiting for a $9 chicken tenders and $5 Coke.

At the end of the night though, only two things mattered. 1) Hockey's back. 2) Final score: Capitals 3, Blue Jackets 2. Here's to the coolest game on ice!

Too Late to Say It Ain't So, Raffy

That finger-wagging moved me, I admit.

Compared to the uncomfortable, evasive performances by Mark McGwire and others in front of the Congressional committee investigating steroids back in March, Rafael Palmeiro's vehement denial of any involvement was a relief. One of baseball's most renowned "nice guys" forcefully stood up with pointed finger to clear his name. It was just the image of playing the game "the right way" that the public so badly wanted to believe in, and so we believed Palmeiro. His became the feel-good story that sustained us after we'd been shaken by the number of apparently tainted big-name stars--Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, just to name a few.

Then of course came this week's biggest story--not just on the sports page, but the front page as well: the announcement of Rafael Palmeiro's suspension for a positive steroid test. His hollow defense, that he never "intentionally" took steroids, is exactly the kind of empty excuse that has caused fans to question the integrity of a decade's worth of baseball milestones. Furthermore, if a NY Times report is correct that Palmeiro's infraction was for use of Stanozolol (the steroid that got Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson stripped of his 1988 gold medal), then Palmeiro is--it hurts me to say it--a liar.

Jose Canseco is no noble muckraker, and his word still unreliable, but what does appear to be true is his assertion that steroid use is rampant in baseball. Is this year's crackdown on steroids the reason why an aging Barry Bonds, who hasn't played a game this year, is unable to recover from a knee injury? It's not just the heavy hitters who are popping the pills, either, as the suspensions of lithe outfielder Alex Sanchez and little-known pitcher Ryan Franklin prove. Is steroid use even worth it in the first place? Jason Giambi had both his reputation and his health damaged thanks to his steroid use--and is this year, having finally overcome numerous setbacks, enjoying a resurgence at the plate. With the current frenzy of public outrage at steroid usage in sports, and testing procedures getting beefed up, it no longer makes sense to use steroids even for their competitive advantage.

While writing this post, I heard that Palmeiro has agreed to release information on his failed steroid test to Congress and will answer "each and every" question from the investigative committee. Perhaps the outcome of all this will be a vindication for him and other major leaguers who, for some reason, still take various questionable "dietary supplements" and then naively express wonder that said supplements were the cause of a failed test. You'll excuse my pessimism, however, if I doubt this story has a happy ending.

CB Archive: 'Roid Rage (February 14, 2005)

Nats Win Home Opener

Recently, my academic schedule has unfortunately kept me away from this site for far too long. But now I'm back, and bringing good news of great personal importance: The boys are back in town. Professional baseball celebrated its return to the nation's capital tonight after more than thirty years, when the Washington Nationals hosted the Arizona Diamondbacks at RFK Stadium. And I'm proud to say that, thanks to eBay, I was in attendance at this historic game.



No, nothing could have stopped me this night. Not the suffocatingly crowded Metro trains, nor the agonizingly slow security check to get in, nor the ridiculously overpriced food and merchandise. Tonight, the surprisingly successful (thus far) Nats defeated the DBacks as Livan Hernandez took a 1-hit shutout into the 9th inning. The home crowd was raucous. The environment was, in my opinion, better than what Baltimore offers. RFK, previously much-maligned, seemed to satisfy everyone I heard tonight that it was a perfectly serviceable venue.

Best of all, with a 6-4 record, these former Expos find themselves in an unfamiliar position at the top of the NL East. Time to get on the bandwagon, folks. Baseball is here in DC--and it is rockin'!