NFL's new policy

The NFL has recently told officiating crews to start ejecting players for helmet-to-helmet hits. The NFL has taken action and given power to the refs to use their discretion. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7430214. I believe that this is a great decision. I recently did a research paper about NFL disability insurance and it has enlightened me when it comes to injuries on the football field. Players are rewarded for hard hits from their coaches and owners (paycheck). The NFL by doing this has taken a step forward in protecting their players. Laron Landry just got fined a game's pay for a helmet to helmet hit on Jets quarterback Kellen Clemens. He did not argue this and I think it's because players generally agree that this policy is best for a player's overall health. NFL has been responsible for career ending, life altering injuries to players and the players understand this. Usually new policies are argued or disliked, but there has been no ill remarks and I think this is great. NFL players have to pay for their own disability insurance. This costs up to 3,000 dollars per 100,000 dollars of salary. The ejections for helmet-to-helmet collisions is a small step on the topic of safety for the players, but it's better than nothing. Roger Goodell should continue to look into safety precautions and issues surrounding the game of football and take action. Any and all safety measures taken to protect the athletes are welcomed by me and I bet that the players don't mind it either.

Brady vs. Manning

What you get when you see Brady and Manning tomorrow is the privilege to watch the two best quarterbacks in the game go at it. This rivalry has grown over the past four years with Brady getting the edge in the beginning and Manning winning of late (the last three). This brings up a simple question that has an almost impossible answer, "Who's better?" If there was a draft of the whole league and you had first pick, which one would you take? To me this is an easy answer, Tom Brady, but lets look into this. Peyton Manning came into the league with pro bowlers all around him in Harrison, Glenn, and Marshall Faulk. This made Manning's transition to the NFL almost seamless. Now Manning has Harrison, Wayne, Clark, Gonzalez, and Addai, not to mention a killer line. Lets look at Brady, he came in by taking over for a Pro bowl QB and wins the Super Bowl his rookie year with his best receiver being Troy Brown. Now he finally is surrounded by the same talent as Colts and he is flourishing. Tom and his team are on pace to shatter the single season scoring records and if they can get by the Colts tomorrow a shot at being the first undefeated team since the '72 Dolphins. Screw the controversy of running up the score and not having respect for the game. Tom Brady has been unleashed and he is showing the world that he is the best. Tom and Peyton are at the top of their games right now and I think that tomorrow's game will support my opinion that Tom Brady is and always has been better than Peyton Manning.

Franchise in Vegas

There is no planned commitments for franchise in Nevada. David Stern has yet to undergo serious talks with Las Vegas about a NBA team moving there. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/basketball/nba/specials/preview/2007/10/26/vegas.arena.ap/index.html. He did say that a NBA quality arena would enhance their chances. This is coming from a commissioner who is promoting putting teams across the oceans, but is not seriously considering a franchise in a city that would have a huge revenue flow. I think David Stern's priorities need to be reordered. Here he is pushing for six teams across in Europe when there is a one city pushing hard for a team right here in the U.S. One of the problems is that gambling is legal there so Stern is uncomfortable with the idea of putting a franchise in Las Vegas, but there is a possibility that NBA games would be taken off the betting boards. I think if this happened, along with the arena being built David Stern has too seriously consider if not fully commit to placing a team in Las Vegas. There is no question that the team would make a profit, but there is the problem of the NBA's image. I say that this is not a big deal considering the player brawls, nba ref scandals, etc. In all reality there are plenty of cities that are suitable for a NBA franchise, but none that have a guaranteed success in Las Vegas. When David Stern gets his head out of Europe he should seriously start helping Las Vegas be the next city to have a NBA team.

Flopping

Everybody has watched a NBA game at one time, everybody has inevitably seen a player flop. Flopping is where they take a little nudge and over dramatize it by flopping to the floor trying to draw a cheap foul. I think this is a disgrace to the game. It basically steals a possession away from the opposing team. Looking at a list of the greatest floppers of all time, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neumann/070607, and I recognized two right off the bat, Anderson Varejao and Manu Ginobli. The irony here is that they were both part of the 2006-2007 NBA Finals last season. Is flopping carrying teams to through the playoffs. Lets take a look at Anderson Varejao. He is a big man that can play big so instead of blocking shots and holding his ground we see him flopping against players of all sizes. To me this isn't as bad as flopping on the offensive side of the game. That's where Manu Ginobli comes in. His flopping on drives to the hoop are so good that players around the league are half jokingly asking for acting classes from the shooting guard, http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA060505.1C.BKNspurs.ginobili.2e1a8dfd4.html. The refs have the hardest time telling if the 200 pound Ginobli got touched by the 300 pound big men guarding the hoop. Over and over the refs make the call on the offensive teams side. This needs to stop. I saw a little improvement during the playoffs with more no calls, but it is not enough. David Stern has acknowledged this as an issue and even considered letting the refs call flops as fouls. One of two things need to happen, the players need to have enough respect for the game to play it right, or the refs have to take it in their hands and no let the flopper's get their satisfaction of hearing that whistle.

Red Sox the new Yankess?

Approximately five years ago Red Sox's President Larry Lucchino labeled the Yankees, "The Evil Empire." He used the Empire's capacity for expensive folly to pin the sporting world against them. Fox Sports has followed the evolution of the Red Sox from then to present time, (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7323070), and has made a connection between the Yankees then and the Red Sox now, THEY"RE THE SAME. Since that time the Red Sox have made their fair share of expensive folly, such as Matt Clement, J.D. Drew, Dice K, Julio Lugo, Edgar Renteria, etc). The Red Sox for so many years were deemed as the underdog or the anti-yankees team. They were the cure to the "Evil" Yankees, but over time this has changed. The Red Sox fans loathe the Yankees, well the Red Sox has become what they loathe. What was used as fuel for the fans of the Red Sox is becoming null and void. The people that rooted for the Red Sox because they weren't the Yankees now have to consider this shit. With this shift of "Evil Power" being noticed by the fans of baseball will the Red Sox start being hated by the fans of the other 29 teams? Should they be? Is it fair that the financial spending of the Yankees is enough to hate them when the Red Sox are in the same boat? I think there are two options, hate both teams or give both teams a clean slate. Either way I'm okay with it, since I'm a Cubs fan, but personally I think we should wipe the slate clean between these two teams. Let them start over. Don't label either them as "Evil" or "Wrong" for trying to get a ring using money. The fact is there is no salary cap in baseball and these two teams are free to use the financial ability to attract players to achieve their goal in obtaining a ring. So let them spend their money while low budget teams like the D-Backs and Marlins foil their quests year after year.

Placing Blame

After a bad season MLB owners go overboard. They are mad about the failure of their team and look for someone to take the blame. That's where the managers come in. They place the blame on the manager and fire him. Every year we see a manager get canned for the failure of the players. For example, recently Walt Jocketty, Cardinals General Manger, was fired. This is rare that the GM takes the blame, but with the reputation of Tony La Russa the owner could hardly place the blame on him. I think that managers have the best and worst job. They get to manage a professional team and make the decisions in the clutch of the game, but they also have the worst job security. Their jobs are usually determined by a 162 game record. If it is on the side over .500 the manager gets too much credit for the success. If it is under .500 the manager gets the blame thrown at him. This needs to stop. Managers have a minimal effect on the winning or losing of a team. Finally teams are starting to realize this, starting with the New York Mets. After the collapse out of the playoffs the owner heavily considered canning Willie Randolph. It was covered by SportsCenter and discussed thoroughly. The analysts backed up my view that he should not take the blame for the teams collapse and the owner did too. Hopefully more owners catch on and stop placing blame where it doesn't belong.

A little over the top

Michael Vick is an athlete who's life is magnified right now. The media is on his every word and move, but when is it too far for the media to go? When is it a little over the top? Recently Michael Vick's apology notes sold for 10,200 dollars. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3020177). I don't know about you, but I definitely think that is over the top. I can see someone buying Barry Bonds record breaking home run, but a convicts apology note. The media is behind these purchases of famous athlete's stuff. Their over the top, very opinionated coverage sucks in its viewers to an extent where they are infatuated with the athlete. I think that the media should separate an athlete's personal life from their professional life. Even though what Michael Vick did was bad I still don't think he deserves the extreme amount of humiliation he's getting from the media. Think of how you would feel if an apology note you wrote was sold for 10,200 dollars. I'm not just referring to Vick, I'm referring to all athletes in all sports. For example, Mike Tyson and his problems. He is retired and I see no reason for the media to be covering him. I would be embarrassed and ashamed of myself. I'm not condoning bad behavior, but I don't think that every citizen deserves his privacy. That means the media knowing when the coverage is a little over the top and leaving a person's private life private.

Comebacks and Criticism

Every few years retired players have a feeling; some call it a "mid-life crisis", and believe that they can compete at the elite level again. Most of them failed their goal of coming back the same as before they left, but there's one that stands apart from the rest. Michael Jordan's first comeback, towards the end of the 1994-1995 season, is the only comeback I can think of where the player came back at the same level. Since that day I’ve welcomed any player to try a comeback. Hell, even when Michael Jordan lost a step during his second comeback I didn’t criticize. Every time a player makes a comeback there are a growing number of critiques who don't condone it (i.e. when Reggie was mulling over a return to the game). On SportsCenter we all see the panel rip into players walking the comeback trail to the pros. The majority always puts down the idea of the return and chalks it up to missing the game. I disagree with the panelists. For example, Allan Houston is coming back this season, working out at the Knick's facility, and the analysts are putting him down. Allan was one of best shooters in his time and was forced to retire due to injury. He's healed up and wants to comeback. I think Allan and all players who want to make a comeback, in any sport, should be able to do so without the criticism. I know the criticism of retired players comeback is not a major issue or even noticed by media, but it's just a repetitive act that I feel should be hushed by the leagues.

Defending the best interest of baseball

Salaries are sky high, but one player has the potential to blast the market into space. Alex Rodriguez has the option to opt out of his record setting contract to set a new one. No player in the game today has a yearly salary in the 30 million dollar range, but A-Rod has the possibility to do that. Players continually state that they're not looking to cash in just want what they're worth, they want market value (http://epaper.tfponline.com/WebChannel/ShowStory.asp?Path=ChatTFPress/2007/02/21&ID=Ar02904). If Alex does opt out and get 30 million per year the market value will rise. Mediocre players will be adding an extra five million onto their overpriced contract. For example, Ted Lilly has a contract of four years for 40 million. He has a career record of 74-65, hardly over a .500 win percentage, and if A-Rod had gotten 30 million last year Ted Lilly probably would be looking at four years for 60 million dollar contract. One record setting contract will increase the market value, which will raise the already sky high salaries. The MLB commissioner's job is, "defending the best interests of baseball", which gives Bud Selig the power to nix any deal he thinks is out of line. I think that if A-Rod opts out of his contract and is offered a 30 million dollar deal Bud Selig should nix the deal. The MLB doesn't have a salary cap, like the NBA, NFL, and NHL, and even if it were to happen it would take a long time to take effect. For the "best interests of baseball" a salary cap needs to be implemented to stop these inflating salaries. Until then Bud Selig should continue to nix deals that will increase the market value.

NBA Refs

Now we've all heard about Tim Donaghy and his gambling scandal, but what I want to get at is about the NBA refs. According to Ric Bucher from ESPN magazine, refs have voiced their disrespect for the system and their superiors. They're scrutinized by fans, media, and their superiors. Stern has said that the Donaghy scandal was an isolated incident, but I believe that the "fixing" is still going on. Stu Jackson and Ronnie Nunn are management who have really hurt their reputation with the refs. Nunn has a show on NBA TV where he goes over tapes, in slow motion, and points out wrong or missed calls by the referees. Jackson and Nunn do this critiquing throughout the season and call the officials and say you haven't whistled a particular infraction for several games and need to pick up the slack. Which makes refs feel like traffic cops filling ticket quotas. I don't know about you, but this doesn't sit right with me. If officials are being forced to call more infractions it takes the game out of the players hands. "Flops" are being called more often because refs say it's better to be safe and make the call rather than get chewed out later by a superior. I believe the system needs a makeover. Let the game be decided by the players and not whistles trying to fill quotas. Making the refs call certain infractions for consistency is stupid. Every game is different. Some are dirty, some are clean. Don't get me wrong, officials need to be evaluated, but this system has flaws that inadvertently affect the game, and needs to be changed.

Writing, what is it good for?

My feelings about writing differ depending on the subject I'm writing about. After getting a preview of this class though I don't think I'll have a problem with interest. Writing is very enjoyable if you're free to express your own opinions. In past English classes writing was a huge chore due to the fact of lack of interest in topic. So at the moment I still loath writing, but maybe I'll come to enjoy it again.