One year ago today, I finally decided to take to the blogosphere to share my insight and beliefs on the world of sports. It was a big change in the sense that for the first time ever anyone who wanted to could look at my take on sports events and issues, but really, it's no different than what I've done throughout my life. Over the last 16 years, I've been consumed by sports and have been willing to share my thoughts with anyone and everyone at any given opportunity. The difference now is that I am able to broadcast my thoughts to a much wider audience, which I am thankful for.
It's been a fun and interesting year with many ups and downs. I received a lot of positive feedback immediately with my World Cup posts, some of which remain the most viewed posts to date. Since then, it's been up and down in terms of how much I've been writing, and how much feedback things have gotten. But in the end, I'm just happy to have this creative outlet.
The first year has definitely been about experimenting. I've done previews, predictions, reviews, recaps, columns, podcasts, and have even tried out a couple series of posts. Additionally, I've written about over a dozen different sports, and over 100 posts overall. I've learned to be flexible in the different things I can write, and have also been developing my own personal writing style.
Year two promises to be even better than year one. The goals for year two are to continue writing like I did the first year, but on a more scheduled basis (three posts in four days and then nothing for two weeks and repeat isn't a great strategy for building an audience), do more podcasts and Youtube videos, and finally to do a better job of spreading the word and getting interaction on the website and social media.
To celebrate the one-year anniversary, I've decided to create a list of ten of my favorite and best posts and share them, so newer people to the blog can have a look at the posts that I've enjoyed writing most, and I believe are the most relevant and strongest overall. In chronological order, here's the best of year one.
#1- Stop Saying Sports are Rigged by Referees! Original post date: 6/12/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/06/stop-saying-sports-are-rigged-by.html
This was just my third ever post, and tomorrow will mark its one-year anniversary. Written in response to allegations that Brazil's opening game of the World Cup was rigged in favor of Brazil, I talk about how referees are humans which sometimes make mistakes, how I believe that there is still some integrity left in professional sports, and defend a profession which far too often faces criticism.
#2- The 6 Biggest Problems with the MLS Original post date: 7/22/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-6-biggest-problems-with-mls.html
Sure, the MLS is a quickly growing league in terms of both player quality and popularity, but it still has its fair share of issues. Here I breakdown the changes, mostly structural, which I would like to see be made to the MLS, the majority of which would be conforming to the norms of top European soccer leagues, the most successful leagues in the world.
#3- Why the "One and Done" Rule Needs to Go Original post date: 8/14/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-one-and-done-rule-needs-to-go.html
I've long had a problem with the "one and done" rule, because of how it weakens the college game by loading up the same few teams every year just to have all the best players immediately leave for the NBA, and how it rushes players into the league before they are mature enough. I expand upon those arguments and list other reasons for opposing the rule in this post.
#4- Women's Professional Sports Popularity Issues Original post date: 9/10/14
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/09/womens-professional-sports-popularity.html
The reception to this post genuinely amazed me. Excluding podcasts, this post has been read more times than any other I've ever written. It's not close either. This one almost doubles second place, which is also on this list. I talk about the reasons why women's sports aren't as popular as men's and what needs to be done to fix the problem.
#5- Pete Rose Should be in the Hall of Fame! Original post date: 11/7/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/11/pete-rose-should-be-in-hall-of-fame.html
Here's the second most read post the blog has seen through one year. Here I remind readers of Pete Rose's career statistics and accomplishments, as well as give an overview of the gambling scandal that caused him to be given a lifetime ban from professional baseball. I then argue why I believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and why sports betting shouldn't be illegal anyways.
#6- The Issue With Hockey's Scoring System Original post date: 1/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-issue-with-hockeys-scoring-system.html
When I first created the blog, this was one of my first ideas for things I wanted to write about. I explain why the hockey scoring system incentivizes teams to play for overtime rather than actually winning games. By awarding an extra point for the team who wins in overtime, more points are available to be won by simply going to OT.
#7- Why College Basketball is my Favorite Sport Original post date: 2/4/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-college-basketball-is-my-favorite.html
This post is pretty self-explanatory. I explain all of the reasons why college basketball is my favorite sport, including how there's always a game on, all the cinderella stories, and of course, March Madness.
#8- Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq? Original post date: 4/28/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/04/eliminate-hack-shaq.html
After watching the series between the Rockets and Clippers, and seeing all the hate Hack-a-Shaq was getting, when in reality it is a viable strategy, I decided to do a full analysis of the technique hated by so many for slowing down the game. I even used my calculator and AP Statistics to help construct a probability chart for this one. It's probably the post which took me the longest to write, and definitely a personal favorite.
#9- NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid Original post date: 5/23/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/nba-coaches-are-going-to-get-paid.html
When news broke of Billy Donovan's five year, $30 million contract with the Thunder despite no prior NBA coaching experience, I realized something. New coaches in the league for the first time such as Brad Stevens and Steve Kerr are shaking up the league, and it could lead to a serious salary boost for the league's best coaches.
#10- Gripes with Sports Fans: Wishing for Injuries Original post date: 5/31/15
http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2015/05/gripes-with-sports-fans-wishing-for.html
This is the first entry in my new series, Gripes with Sports Fans, detailing the things that annoy me the most about other fans. Here I take a strong stance against wishing for players to get injured and being happy when they do, on moral grounds that it just isn't right, or even human, to be happy seeing another person in serious pain.
Hopefully I'll be able to write more posts like these in the coming year. But until then, Happy Birthday, Toplevelsports! My baby has turned 1!
Connor
Subscribe To Top Level Sports
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
I Hate Tanking in Sports
If I had to pick one idea in sports that I hate above all others, it very well might be tanking. For the uninformed, tanking is when a sports team intentionally loses games, usually in an effort to receive a higher pick in the upcoming draft, but also on occasion to set up more favorable playoff matchups. It's an epidemic that has spread across the sports world, already poisoning all four major North American sports leagues, but perhaps being most notable in the NFL and especially NBA.
The reasons for the employment of the practice are pretty clear, and make a decent amount of sense. If a team with very little chance of making the playoffs simply decides to lose all the games they play, then they can draft the next superstar and hopefully be a great team in a few years. Many of sports' all time greats have been drafted early in the first round of their drafts, so why not take a chance to snag one? Because it's not a morally right thing to do.
I don't understand how any person could feel okay with tanking. When losing becomes the objective of games instead of winning, then some purity is definitely taken out of the game. I want sports where teams and players play with integrity, and actually have pride in themselves. As a fan, I would be infuriated if my team decided to lose intentionally. If my team is going to be horrible, I at least want them to try their hardest. Any team that considers tanking in the first place is going to receive a high draft pick anyway. Intentionally losing is giving up on a season. It's quitting. Any player that believes that's okay doesn't deserve to be playing sports professionally. Where's the competitive spirit?
It also completely ruins the fan experience for an entire year. What's the point of watching your hometown team on TV, or getting tickets to see games live if you know that the team isn't actually planning on winning the game anyway? They'd rather be the laughing stock of the league than actually playing their hearts out and giving a decent effort during the games. Just the idea of that makes a game practically unwatchable. It's cheating the fans and cheating the league. It's boring, and it's poor sportsmanship. It's almost sickening to think that a whole team could come together and just decide to give up. But teams do it all the time.
In the NBA, the draft order is dependent on the lottery system, where even the worst team in the league only has a 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick. Why lose dozens of games just to earn a few percentage points? In the long run the odds aren't substantially different. And even if a team manages to get the #1 pick, the chances of that person becoming a star are definitely not 100%. Just in the 21st century, there have been several busts from the #1 spot. 2007's top pick Greg Oden has had a notoriously horrible, injury-ridden career which has seen him play in only 114 career games, not even one and a half full seasons, and only average eight points per game. Anthony Bennett, the Cavaliers' surprise top draft selection in 2013, has done just about nothing in his two league seasons, suffering from many problems including asthma, sleep apnea, and fitness issues. He's been nothing more than a sub-par role player through two seasons. Other #1 picks such as Kwame Brown and Michael Olowokandi have also been nothing short of underwhelming.
The NFL especially suffers from one particular consequence of tanking. In the NFL, the season is very short by the standards of other leagues, with each team playing just 16 games. A tanking team is basically giving every other team in their division a free two wins, which can easily make all the difference between a team making and missing the playoffs. If a mediocre team gets two free victories, they can easily go from being a 8-6 team in the middle of the wild card race to a 10-6 team which will likely make the playoffs. The unfortunate fact is that their opponents in the wild card race don't get this two win advantage, and might not even play the tanking team once. Giving away free victories could easily ruin the system, turning making the playoffs into a game of schedule luck instead of actually playing skill.
There is a strategy that calls for making trades in order to accumulate draft picks, and I'm okay with that. If you want to move a few pieces around to have more picks come Draft Day and more cap space in free agency, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. Just make sure you actually still give a decent effort to win. The New York Knicks forgot about that last part this season. By trading away nearly every decent player on the team besides Carmelo Anthony, the Knicks put up a blatant display of tanking. Undrafted rookie Langston Galloway was signed to a 10-day contract in the middle of the season and within a week became a starter on the team, and held the position for over 40 games. A straight-up walk on instantly became one of the best players on the Knicks. This is how bad they were. Undrafted rookie Travis Wear got solid minutes after being signed to a 10-day contract, and Lance Thomas also became a starter out of nowhere. I'm convinced I would've had a decent chance at making the Knicks roster.
It wasn't just the Knicks, however. The year seemed like a huge losing contest between the Knicks, 76ers, Timberwolves, and Lakers, with the T-Wolves taking the crown at the end. It was an absolute joke to see any of those teams play. And they call themselves professionals? Their whole mindset as teams were to be contestants in the Karl-Anthony Towns and Jahlil Okafor sweepstakes.
That's a huge problem with tanking. When star talents are being hyped so strongly, the emphasis of the entire sport can sometimes shift away from the actual good teams and onto the fight for last. I remember the entire 2011 NFL season was referred to as the "Race for Luck". Sometimes it seemed to take precedence over all other news in the sport. It was interesting in a pathetic way to see who wanted to suck more. Hey! The Colts lost again! Oh, but the Redskins really got crushed! Don't count out the Browns! They're on their third-string quarterback! It's unbelievable.
Tanking has even begun to plague non-professional sports, such as high school basketball. Earlier this year a story came out about how two girls basketball teams were both eliminated from the playoffs after intentionally trying to lose to avoid playing the defending state champs. The game included blatantly missed free throws, backcourt violations, and even players asking to be called for three seconds in the paint. Now typically tanking teams at least make it look like their playing to win, and putting up a decent fight. This was just taken to a whole new level. A line is crossed when a team attempts to score in the other team's basket.
How much of it is strategy? In this situation, the actions kind of make sense. I mean, in my fantasy football league there were talks about intentionally benching entire lineups just to get to play a team perceived as weaker. It never actually happened, but you bet it was considered. In the end, I think it's just unprofessional. Coaches shouldn't advocate the strategy. At the end of the season, their jobs are at stake. Players should listen to the famous words of Herm Edwards when he said, "You play to win the game!" It's shows a lack of heart and integrity to not try, and especially for people being paid to play, it's sickening, and fundamentally wrong. I know no other way of describing it than just saying that it makes of mockery of the game.
I think the worst example of all at showing how the idea of tanking is harming sports comes from a game between the Lakers and 76ers, two of the league's worst teams, from earlier this season. The Lakers won the game in overtime off a last-second shot from one of the team's few bright spots, Jordan Clarkson. And then the fans booed. The situation had become so horrible that defeating a pathetic team was viewed as a missed opportunity to close the gap between fourth and third-worst team in the league. The fans' actions, while understandable, are nothing short of sad. The team won, and yet they couldn't please the fans too caught up with visions of the future to remember the actual purpose of playing and watching sports: competition and winning.
So yes, while there is a decent argument that can be made for tanking to exist, I really hope we can find a way to prevent it. Take soccer leagues like the Barclays Premier League, for example. In the BPL, the three worst teams at the end of the season are relegated from the league, and are replaced by the three best teams from the league under it. While a system like that in the NBA, for example, where D-League teams replace NBA teams is unrealistic, a change should be found in the future, for the love of the game. After all, it shouldn't be this difficult to get teams to want to win.
The reasons for the employment of the practice are pretty clear, and make a decent amount of sense. If a team with very little chance of making the playoffs simply decides to lose all the games they play, then they can draft the next superstar and hopefully be a great team in a few years. Many of sports' all time greats have been drafted early in the first round of their drafts, so why not take a chance to snag one? Because it's not a morally right thing to do.
I don't understand how any person could feel okay with tanking. When losing becomes the objective of games instead of winning, then some purity is definitely taken out of the game. I want sports where teams and players play with integrity, and actually have pride in themselves. As a fan, I would be infuriated if my team decided to lose intentionally. If my team is going to be horrible, I at least want them to try their hardest. Any team that considers tanking in the first place is going to receive a high draft pick anyway. Intentionally losing is giving up on a season. It's quitting. Any player that believes that's okay doesn't deserve to be playing sports professionally. Where's the competitive spirit?
It also completely ruins the fan experience for an entire year. What's the point of watching your hometown team on TV, or getting tickets to see games live if you know that the team isn't actually planning on winning the game anyway? They'd rather be the laughing stock of the league than actually playing their hearts out and giving a decent effort during the games. Just the idea of that makes a game practically unwatchable. It's cheating the fans and cheating the league. It's boring, and it's poor sportsmanship. It's almost sickening to think that a whole team could come together and just decide to give up. But teams do it all the time.
In the NBA, the draft order is dependent on the lottery system, where even the worst team in the league only has a 25% chance of receiving the #1 pick. Why lose dozens of games just to earn a few percentage points? In the long run the odds aren't substantially different. And even if a team manages to get the #1 pick, the chances of that person becoming a star are definitely not 100%. Just in the 21st century, there have been several busts from the #1 spot. 2007's top pick Greg Oden has had a notoriously horrible, injury-ridden career which has seen him play in only 114 career games, not even one and a half full seasons, and only average eight points per game. Anthony Bennett, the Cavaliers' surprise top draft selection in 2013, has done just about nothing in his two league seasons, suffering from many problems including asthma, sleep apnea, and fitness issues. He's been nothing more than a sub-par role player through two seasons. Other #1 picks such as Kwame Brown and Michael Olowokandi have also been nothing short of underwhelming.
The NFL especially suffers from one particular consequence of tanking. In the NFL, the season is very short by the standards of other leagues, with each team playing just 16 games. A tanking team is basically giving every other team in their division a free two wins, which can easily make all the difference between a team making and missing the playoffs. If a mediocre team gets two free victories, they can easily go from being a 8-6 team in the middle of the wild card race to a 10-6 team which will likely make the playoffs. The unfortunate fact is that their opponents in the wild card race don't get this two win advantage, and might not even play the tanking team once. Giving away free victories could easily ruin the system, turning making the playoffs into a game of schedule luck instead of actually playing skill.
There is a strategy that calls for making trades in order to accumulate draft picks, and I'm okay with that. If you want to move a few pieces around to have more picks come Draft Day and more cap space in free agency, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. Just make sure you actually still give a decent effort to win. The New York Knicks forgot about that last part this season. By trading away nearly every decent player on the team besides Carmelo Anthony, the Knicks put up a blatant display of tanking. Undrafted rookie Langston Galloway was signed to a 10-day contract in the middle of the season and within a week became a starter on the team, and held the position for over 40 games. A straight-up walk on instantly became one of the best players on the Knicks. This is how bad they were. Undrafted rookie Travis Wear got solid minutes after being signed to a 10-day contract, and Lance Thomas also became a starter out of nowhere. I'm convinced I would've had a decent chance at making the Knicks roster.
It wasn't just the Knicks, however. The year seemed like a huge losing contest between the Knicks, 76ers, Timberwolves, and Lakers, with the T-Wolves taking the crown at the end. It was an absolute joke to see any of those teams play. And they call themselves professionals? Their whole mindset as teams were to be contestants in the Karl-Anthony Towns and Jahlil Okafor sweepstakes.
That's a huge problem with tanking. When star talents are being hyped so strongly, the emphasis of the entire sport can sometimes shift away from the actual good teams and onto the fight for last. I remember the entire 2011 NFL season was referred to as the "Race for Luck". Sometimes it seemed to take precedence over all other news in the sport. It was interesting in a pathetic way to see who wanted to suck more. Hey! The Colts lost again! Oh, but the Redskins really got crushed! Don't count out the Browns! They're on their third-string quarterback! It's unbelievable.
Tanking has even begun to plague non-professional sports, such as high school basketball. Earlier this year a story came out about how two girls basketball teams were both eliminated from the playoffs after intentionally trying to lose to avoid playing the defending state champs. The game included blatantly missed free throws, backcourt violations, and even players asking to be called for three seconds in the paint. Now typically tanking teams at least make it look like their playing to win, and putting up a decent fight. This was just taken to a whole new level. A line is crossed when a team attempts to score in the other team's basket.
How much of it is strategy? In this situation, the actions kind of make sense. I mean, in my fantasy football league there were talks about intentionally benching entire lineups just to get to play a team perceived as weaker. It never actually happened, but you bet it was considered. In the end, I think it's just unprofessional. Coaches shouldn't advocate the strategy. At the end of the season, their jobs are at stake. Players should listen to the famous words of Herm Edwards when he said, "You play to win the game!" It's shows a lack of heart and integrity to not try, and especially for people being paid to play, it's sickening, and fundamentally wrong. I know no other way of describing it than just saying that it makes of mockery of the game.
I think the worst example of all at showing how the idea of tanking is harming sports comes from a game between the Lakers and 76ers, two of the league's worst teams, from earlier this season. The Lakers won the game in overtime off a last-second shot from one of the team's few bright spots, Jordan Clarkson. And then the fans booed. The situation had become so horrible that defeating a pathetic team was viewed as a missed opportunity to close the gap between fourth and third-worst team in the league. The fans' actions, while understandable, are nothing short of sad. The team won, and yet they couldn't please the fans too caught up with visions of the future to remember the actual purpose of playing and watching sports: competition and winning.
So yes, while there is a decent argument that can be made for tanking to exist, I really hope we can find a way to prevent it. Take soccer leagues like the Barclays Premier League, for example. In the BPL, the three worst teams at the end of the season are relegated from the league, and are replaced by the three best teams from the league under it. While a system like that in the NBA, for example, where D-League teams replace NBA teams is unrealistic, a change should be found in the future, for the love of the game. After all, it shouldn't be this difficult to get teams to want to win.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Gripes with Sports Fans: Wishing for Injuries
*Gripes with Sports Fans is
a new weekly series where I discuss some of my biggest problems and pet peeves
with sports fans, and attempt to explain why these issues are unreasonable or
unacceptable.
In game 4 of the NBA's Western Conference
Finals on May 25, Warriors point guard and newly-chosen MVP Stephen Curry
landed hard and awkwardly on his neck after attempting to block a shot from
Trevor Ariza and flipping when Ariza pump faked when Curry wasn't expecting him to. Curry lay head down on
the court for several minutes after the freak accident, and later described the
whole event as the scariest moment he'd ever experienced on the basketball
court. In a situation that could have resulted in severe injuries to
Curry's neck, head, shoulder, elbow, or arm, the Baby-faced Assassin was lucky
to escape with only a head contusion, and miraculously returned to the game
after missing only a quarter of action, despite initial reports that he could
have been out for the remainder of the series or longer.
Curry's situation could easily have been much worse, and millions
were relieved to see the sharpshooter returning to his old self almost
immediately. However, not all people who watched the game enjoyed seeing
the return of Curry.
In an appalling display which showed a severe lack of sportsmanship, many
took to social media sites like Twitter to share their hopes that Curry's
injury would prove too serious for him to continue playing, some even hoping
for him to be out for the rest of the playoffs or longer.
While Curry was down, the fans in the Toyota
Center were very respectful of Curry and the situation, as were the majority of
basketball fans. Unfortunately, not
everyone felt this way, and that is something that really bothers me.
I would like to give some people the
benefit of the doubt, that maybe their comments were premature and that they
actually had not seen the play when they posted, or that somehow it was a joke
in poor taste. However, this cannot be
true for everyone, as this kind of incident has happened many times before.
One famous occurrence was on October 13,
2013, when Houston Texans fans cheered after the injury of their own starting
quarterback Matt Schaub, then cheering even louder at the arrival of backup
T.J. Yates. This came during a notorious
run of pick-sixes thrown by Schaub in the preceding weeks. Sure, it was a rough patch for the veteran
starter, but the fans seemed to forget that Schaub performed consistently well
during his years starting for the team, even making two Pro-Bowls, including
one the year prior. But they were so
pleased when Schaub had to be pulled and replaced by Yates, a third-year man
who was less than stellar in his five career starts, all of which came two
years before. Yates proceeded to throw a
pick-six, adding to Houston’s misery.
But that is not the point.
Recently, there have been many players
whose injuries have been cheered on.
They include but are not limited to the Calais Campbell, Matt Cassel, Johnny
Manziel, LeBron James, Paul Pierce, Joakim Noah, and Sidney Crosby, all of
which have heard cheers after their injury in the past couple years. Philadelphia Eagles fans even cheered when
Michael Irvin suffered a career-ending injury back in 1999.
Sometimes fans are not the only ones happy
when a player goes down. In the New
Orleans Saints’ infamous Bountygate scandal, bounties were placed on several
players on opposing teams (most notably Brett Favre), and bonuses were offered
for any Saint who could successfully knock that player out of the game. The situation ended with numerous penalties,
including year-long suspensions of both head coach Sean Payton and defensive
coordinator Gregg Williams.
Being happy when players are injured is a
huge issue, and one that many people, including some of my friends, just do not
seem to understand. The reason why it is
so difficult is simple. If one’s team is
playing, and the star player on the opposing team is hurt, the person’s team
now has a much higher chance of winning the game, which is a great thing. However, for this to happen, another human
being has to be seriously hurt, which causes a moral dilemma. Do we as fans view our athletes as the actual people they are, or as people living inside our televisions whose objective is to bring us pleasure? The answer should be the first option, although the line is blurred for many.
I remember clearly the game that took place between the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants on October 25, 2010. The Giants went into Jerry World and won the game 41-35 on Monday Night Football. However, during the game, the Giants' Michael Boley hit Tony Romo and suffered a broken clavicle, ending his season. I was ecstatic. This win gave the Giants a 5-2 record, a lead in the NFC East, and essentially took the Cowboys out of the division race. It meant the Giants would have an easier time making the playoffs, and the Cowboys were sure to crumble. Plus, I hated Tony Romo. He was a Cowboy, and that was the only reason I needed to celebrate when I knew he was done. As an 11 year-old, I couldn't see the bigger picture. I was not old enough to understand that injuries transcend sports.
When a little kid falls off his bike, or someone gets a pie to the face, we laugh. It's called schadenfreude. It's funny to see the misfortune of others, but only when it's something minor. When someone actually is seriously hurt, it's another story.
Most people just don't understand how hard it is to be an athlete. Sure, it isn't on the level of physical labor like some blue-collar jobs, or involved as much thinking and analyzing and decision-making as many white-collar jobs, but it's very difficult nonetheless. In a world where everyone is a commodity, athlete's "goods" take the form of their bodies. That's what they have to provide. If an athlete gets injured, they can no longer perform their job. And athletes work for their jobs. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in the positions they are in. All the time practicing, conditioning, working out, analyzing game film or sports-analytics, and eating right is essential to being able to give 100% peak performance every time they play. If they slack off, they don't make it. Injuries have destroyed many-a promising career. For some athletes, that's all they really have. For all athletes, that's their dream. Millions and millions of kids grow up wanting to play sports professionally, and be just like their idols on TV. Only a select few with a combination of natural ability and effort make it, and even then sometimes freak accidents can take it all away. To be pleased when an athletes gets injured is not simply wrong, it's plain inhuman, and extremely selfish.
What if the person that was injured was on your team? You feel horrible. Yet still it's probably for the wrong reasons. "What a blow to the team", you think. What we all should be thinking is "what a blow to the person". It's perfectly okay to be upset because someone's injury negatively impacts your team. Just remember that there's an actual person in pain.
I have heard that we should not feel bad for athletes because getting injured is an occupational hazard. This is one of the poorest arguments I've ever heard. Every job has some sort of risk involved. If a police officer gets shot and killed, or a firefighter dies in a burning building, what will you say then? "Should've been smarter and not become an officer/firefighter?" Anyone who thinks that has serious problems. These people risk their lives day in and day out trying to help people. While an athlete typically doesn't face death, although it has happened, the scenario isn't totally different. They are doing their jobs just like everyone else, and are trying to live their dreams and bring enjoyment to those watching at home.
I have heard that we should not feel bad for athletes getting injured because of how much money they make. First off, it's a myth that every athlete makes tons of money. Only the very best in the world, in just a few select leagues make millions. But even assuming we're talking about leagues such as the NFL and NBA, the money doesn't matter. It isn't like a player gets injured but they don't feel any pain because the pain is blocked by the sugar-coating of all the money they're making. The world doesn't work like that. Anytime anyone gets seriously hurt, doing anything, we should feel bad, just because that's the human thing to do.
If you aren't convinced yet, I'll give one more go at persuading you. What if you tear an ACL in a freak accident, and faced surgery an at least nine months of rehab and recovery? What if all your friends don't seem to care at all, and just tell you, "well, I guess you shouldn't get hurt next time"? Wouldn't you be pretty angry? Remember the Golden Rule. Treat others how you would want to be treated. Have some respect for those who are hurt, because that could easily be you.
If you still aren't convinced, I have nothing more to say to you. And if your team can only win if the opposing team is without their best players, maybe you don't deserve to win the game.
I remember clearly the game that took place between the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants on October 25, 2010. The Giants went into Jerry World and won the game 41-35 on Monday Night Football. However, during the game, the Giants' Michael Boley hit Tony Romo and suffered a broken clavicle, ending his season. I was ecstatic. This win gave the Giants a 5-2 record, a lead in the NFC East, and essentially took the Cowboys out of the division race. It meant the Giants would have an easier time making the playoffs, and the Cowboys were sure to crumble. Plus, I hated Tony Romo. He was a Cowboy, and that was the only reason I needed to celebrate when I knew he was done. As an 11 year-old, I couldn't see the bigger picture. I was not old enough to understand that injuries transcend sports.
When a little kid falls off his bike, or someone gets a pie to the face, we laugh. It's called schadenfreude. It's funny to see the misfortune of others, but only when it's something minor. When someone actually is seriously hurt, it's another story.
Most people just don't understand how hard it is to be an athlete. Sure, it isn't on the level of physical labor like some blue-collar jobs, or involved as much thinking and analyzing and decision-making as many white-collar jobs, but it's very difficult nonetheless. In a world where everyone is a commodity, athlete's "goods" take the form of their bodies. That's what they have to provide. If an athlete gets injured, they can no longer perform their job. And athletes work for their jobs. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in the positions they are in. All the time practicing, conditioning, working out, analyzing game film or sports-analytics, and eating right is essential to being able to give 100% peak performance every time they play. If they slack off, they don't make it. Injuries have destroyed many-a promising career. For some athletes, that's all they really have. For all athletes, that's their dream. Millions and millions of kids grow up wanting to play sports professionally, and be just like their idols on TV. Only a select few with a combination of natural ability and effort make it, and even then sometimes freak accidents can take it all away. To be pleased when an athletes gets injured is not simply wrong, it's plain inhuman, and extremely selfish.
What if the person that was injured was on your team? You feel horrible. Yet still it's probably for the wrong reasons. "What a blow to the team", you think. What we all should be thinking is "what a blow to the person". It's perfectly okay to be upset because someone's injury negatively impacts your team. Just remember that there's an actual person in pain.
I have heard that we should not feel bad for athletes because getting injured is an occupational hazard. This is one of the poorest arguments I've ever heard. Every job has some sort of risk involved. If a police officer gets shot and killed, or a firefighter dies in a burning building, what will you say then? "Should've been smarter and not become an officer/firefighter?" Anyone who thinks that has serious problems. These people risk their lives day in and day out trying to help people. While an athlete typically doesn't face death, although it has happened, the scenario isn't totally different. They are doing their jobs just like everyone else, and are trying to live their dreams and bring enjoyment to those watching at home.
I have heard that we should not feel bad for athletes getting injured because of how much money they make. First off, it's a myth that every athlete makes tons of money. Only the very best in the world, in just a few select leagues make millions. But even assuming we're talking about leagues such as the NFL and NBA, the money doesn't matter. It isn't like a player gets injured but they don't feel any pain because the pain is blocked by the sugar-coating of all the money they're making. The world doesn't work like that. Anytime anyone gets seriously hurt, doing anything, we should feel bad, just because that's the human thing to do.
If you aren't convinced yet, I'll give one more go at persuading you. What if you tear an ACL in a freak accident, and faced surgery an at least nine months of rehab and recovery? What if all your friends don't seem to care at all, and just tell you, "well, I guess you shouldn't get hurt next time"? Wouldn't you be pretty angry? Remember the Golden Rule. Treat others how you would want to be treated. Have some respect for those who are hurt, because that could easily be you.
If you still aren't convinced, I have nothing more to say to you. And if your team can only win if the opposing team is without their best players, maybe you don't deserve to win the game.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
NBA Coaches Are Going to Get Paid
On April 30, 2015, the Oklahoma City Thunder hired former Florida head coach Billy Donovan to replace Scott Brooks, who was surprisingly fired after what was by any measure an impressive seven-year stint with the team, including a .620 winning percentage, five playoffs appearances and an unsuccessful trip to the NBA Finals in the 2011-12 season. Upon his firing, Brooks was three years into a four year, $16 million dollar contract extension he received following the NBA Finals appearance. When Donovan was announced as the new coach, it became Donovan’s first ever job in the NBA, having spent the past 27 years in the NCAA, beginning as an assistant for Kentucky, then spending two years as head coach at Marshall, and ending up with a 19-year tenure at Florida, where he won two NCAA Championships. Donovan’s contract with the Thunder was for five years, $30 million, a salary of two million dollars more per season than his predecessor, who had already proven himself to be a valuable coach.
A similar situation happened with the Boston Celtics, when they hired former Butler coach Brad Stevens in the summer of 2013. Stevens also had no former coaching experience in the NBA, but an incredible college resume, leading a mid-major Butler team to two incredible runs to the NCAA Championship game. The contract offer he accepted with the Celtics was for six years and $22 million, nearly four million dollars per season. Since then, Stevens has taken the Celtics from a projected bottom-feeder to a .500 playoff team with loads of future potential.
Lastly, former NBA sharpshooter, analyst, and general manager of the Phoenix Suns Steve Kerr had no prior coaching experience when he accepted the Golden State Warriors position before this season, replacing Mark Jackson, who lost his job despite leading the Warriors to back-to-back playoff appearances for the first time since the 1990-91 and 91-92 seasons. Kerr was given expectations to make the team a title contender and was given a five year, $25 million deal. In turn, Kerr finished runner-up in Coach of the Year voting in his first year, and led the Warriors to a NBA-best 67-15 record.
I believe that what at first may seem like just a couple unrelated stories are the key to understanding a major shift in the NBA in the next few years which will see the average salary for head coaches raise significantly. But before I can explain what the future holds, let's look at the present. The average salary of an NBA head coach for the 25 teams who currently have head coaches and for which numbers are known is just under $4.4 million. However, that number may be deceiving because if the three coaches who make the most money (Gregg Popovich, Doc Rivers, and Flip Saunders [yes, the coach of the league's WORST team, that Flip Saunders]) who all make at least nine million per season currently, the number drops almost a million dollars down to 3.63 million per year. The funny thing about that number is that it is lower than the salaries for Donovan, Stevens, and Kerr.
These three men, especially Donovan, have showed a changing viewpoint of head coaches over recent years. Teams are beginning to look outside the NBA to find coaches, and are willing to pay to get the guy they want. Teams are taking chances.
Some teams are not even looking in the U.S. for their coaches, such as David Blatt, who joined the Cavaliers after many successful stints in Europe, including 2014 Euroleague and Euroleague Coach of the Year titles with Maccabi Tel Aviv.
The majority of NBA coaches have still gotten their positions the old-fashioned way, working their way up after years as assistants in the league. One of the best examples of someone who "started from the bottom" was the Heat's Erik Spoelstra, who was an employee of the Heat for 12 years before earning the head job, even starting as a video coordinator back in 1997. However, even after seven years as head coach, and two NBA titles, Spoelstra makes a below-average $3 million per season. Nearly 20 years of work has earned him less money than all four previously mentioned first-year coaches.
This trend towards going to great lengths to hire coaches with little prior experience who have the potential to be great coaches and giving them offers they can not refuse is going to shake up the league. Although college coaches and relatively inexperienced coaches have not been very successful historically, the recent influx of these coaches, along with their successes early has gotten people talking, and readying their wallets.
Current Kentucky coach John Calipari has come up a lot in discussions regarding potential NBA head coaching positions over the past few years, most recently just a few days ago with the New Orleans Pelicans. Think about what it would take to bring Calipari to the NBA. Every year, Calipari successfully recruits future stars, (add stat about recruiting class rankings) coaches the stars he has, builds a successful team that in many cases is top ranked in the nation and a National Championship contender, and is basically the most popular guy in Kentucky. Additionally, he leads all NCAA D-I basketball coaches with a salary over $6 million.
For Calipari to leave the biggest program in the country to coach in the NBA, where job security is basically nonexistent (but more on that later), he would have to be paid an outrageous amount of money, becoming one of the top five highest paid coaches in the league. Even if that happened, there is still no guarantee he would leave Lexington.
For the sake of argument, I'll say that Kentucky gets to keep their beloved Calipari. It's more likely than not that he stays with the program for a while. This still leaves many other coaches who have done great things at their programs, but may be looking to snag a job in the NBA. Additionally, after seeing the contracts given to Donovan and Stevens, these coaches are now becoming more aware of their worth. The average salary of a coach whose team made March Madness this past season was about $1.5 million, but similarly to the NBA, that average drops closer to $1 million if just a few coaches are removed. The best of these coaches will be sought after by NBA teams who are now much more open to try different tactics and personnel in order to win. With all the coaches that are unsuccessful in the league, a team that thinks they may have found a great coach will not be afraid to make moves to lock them up for the future.
As for the current NBA head coaches, they must be feeling a few things. First, they can not be pleased that coaches are just jumping into the league and making more then them. But on the other, it makes sense that if the average coach's salary increases, they will be soon to follow. Teams will need to spend more because if they do not, other teams willing to pay larger amounts will steal the best available coaches. That means the coaches will have more power. However, the pool of potential coaches is growing, meaning the job is more competitive, and coaches need to keep pushing their teams forward or face being replaced.
The NBA is at a point in time where it is more popular than ever, and each year is seeing an increase in revenue. Because large new markets, especially overseas, are being exposed to the game, every team is battling for new fans. Naturally, this happens by being good. The teams that are not good are doing everything in their power to shortcut the rebuilding process, rejecting old methods of building an organization from the ground up, and instead opting towards revamping continually changing coaching staffs, luring all-stars during free agency, and even tanking, the one NBA commonplace I despise above all.
This article, http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/5/7/5690420/nba-head-coach-turnover-mark-jackson-fired-warriors, does a great job at showing just how remarkable the NBA head coach firing rate is. Popovich is the only coach who joined his team before 2008, and now there are only two other coaches remaining (Spoelstra and the Mavericks' Rick Carlisle) who were hired before 2010. Going into this season, the average NBA coach tenure without including Popovich (his 18 years is longer than the sum of the tenures of coaches from every individual division), was under two seasons. The Pacific division's five coaches began the year with just three years combined tenure at their current positions. The four coaches currently in the Conference Finals began the year with just four total years with their teams under their belts, and three of those came from the Rockets' Kevin McHale.
These numbers only confirm that teams are not afraid to switch things up. Since the standards in the league are so high, coaches that have shown their ability to succeed, whether in the NBA or elsewhere, are going to be more and more highly valued, and will be able to profit off the desperation of struggling franchises. This could lead to a system where the biggest names on the market experience a kind of free agency, where they are accept the offer of the highest bidder.
But enough about all the specifics of the state of head coaches in the league. From a strictly numerical standpoint, do they deserve to be making more money? The NBA has the highest average player salary of any sports league in the world at $4.58 million for the current season. This means that if we include the league's elite coaches, the average player makes slightly more than the average coach. First off, that should not be the case. Sure, at the end of the day, the players are the ones who perform every game, but the coach is responsible for all the training and chemistry and tactics, which can make or break a team. Regardless, how does this ratio stack up versus other leagues?
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that question. While most NBA salaries are easily found, the same can not be said for other leagues. From the salaries of half the NFL's coaches, I could make a decent guess that the average salary is around $5 million, or over double the $2.11 million average salary for players. For the MLB and NHL, almost no information is available.
Whether the increase in salary is justified or not does not really matter at the end of the day. NBA head coaches, especially the better ones, are going to get paid, so be ready for it.
This article, http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/5/7/5690420/nba-head-coach-turnover-mark-jackson-fired-warriors, does a great job at showing just how remarkable the NBA head coach firing rate is. Popovich is the only coach who joined his team before 2008, and now there are only two other coaches remaining (Spoelstra and the Mavericks' Rick Carlisle) who were hired before 2010. Going into this season, the average NBA coach tenure without including Popovich (his 18 years is longer than the sum of the tenures of coaches from every individual division), was under two seasons. The Pacific division's five coaches began the year with just three years combined tenure at their current positions. The four coaches currently in the Conference Finals began the year with just four total years with their teams under their belts, and three of those came from the Rockets' Kevin McHale.
These numbers only confirm that teams are not afraid to switch things up. Since the standards in the league are so high, coaches that have shown their ability to succeed, whether in the NBA or elsewhere, are going to be more and more highly valued, and will be able to profit off the desperation of struggling franchises. This could lead to a system where the biggest names on the market experience a kind of free agency, where they are accept the offer of the highest bidder.
But enough about all the specifics of the state of head coaches in the league. From a strictly numerical standpoint, do they deserve to be making more money? The NBA has the highest average player salary of any sports league in the world at $4.58 million for the current season. This means that if we include the league's elite coaches, the average player makes slightly more than the average coach. First off, that should not be the case. Sure, at the end of the day, the players are the ones who perform every game, but the coach is responsible for all the training and chemistry and tactics, which can make or break a team. Regardless, how does this ratio stack up versus other leagues?
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that question. While most NBA salaries are easily found, the same can not be said for other leagues. From the salaries of half the NFL's coaches, I could make a decent guess that the average salary is around $5 million, or over double the $2.11 million average salary for players. For the MLB and NHL, almost no information is available.
Whether the increase in salary is justified or not does not really matter at the end of the day. NBA head coaches, especially the better ones, are going to get paid, so be ready for it.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Madden 16 Cover Finalist Reactions
Today EA Sports revealed the four finalists to become the Madden 16 Cover Athlete. They are the Patriots' Rob Gronkowski, Steelers' Antonio Brown, Giants' Odell Beckham Jr., and Cardinals' Patrick Peterson. So how do I feel about the choices made, and who do I believe will win the vote?
My first reaction was a bit of shock that three out of the four finalists are receivers (two wideouts and a tight end), and that there was no quarterback option. Personally I would like to see no more than one player from any position if there's only going to be four slots.
Then, I realized that the two best players in the game were snubbed. The MVP of the league, Aaron Rodgers, is not in the running, and neither is defensive MVP J.J. Watt. I believe either one of these players would win the fan vote given the opportunity. Their exclusion is even more baffling to me because neither player has previously been on the cover. In fact, no player from the Texans has ever been on the cover, and the only Packer was Dorsey Levens who appeared on alternate versions of Madden 2000.
Now as for the players that did make it to the fan vote, I have mixed opinions concerning whether or not their performance has earned them a spot in the running.
First I'll start with Rob Gronkowski. The Patriots tight end is coming off one of his better seasons in the league, catching 82 balls for 1124 yards and 12 touchdowns. Gronk is a fan favorite guy and has for the last few years has easily been considering one of the best two tight ends in the NFL along with Jimmy Graham, (I consider Gronk to be the best tight end myself, but maybe that's because he was on my fantasy team). Considering the Patriots won the Super Bowl last season, it seems fitting one of their players grace the cover, and the only main options on the team are Tom Brady and Gronkowski. Because Brady is older, and more people seem to dislike him, I feel the fun-loving party animal is the correct choice. Even during the offseason Gronk has been entertaining and has frequently made the news. I have no problem with Rob Gronkowski being in contention to become the cover athlete, and I believe he has a decent chance of doing so.
Antonio Brown came off an incredible 2013 campaign and did even better in 2014, leading the league in both catches and receiving yards, solidifying his position as one of the best receivers in the league. If you had this guy on your fantasy team, chances are you ended up a winner. Despite the numbers Brown has put up, I don't feel he necessarily gets all the attention he deserves, and is not one of the most popular players in the league. Certainly being the face of Madden would chance that in an instant, so I think he deserves a chance to grace the cover of Madden 16, although I think the chances he wins are quite slim.
Odell Beckham Jr. Oh boy, where do I start with this guy? Everyone knows how much I love Odell, being a diehard Giants fan, and I have stated on numerous occasions that I feel he has the potential to be a Hall-of-Famer and one of the greatest receivers to ever live. However, I feel like giving OBJ this honor would be a year or two premature. I know he absolutely took over the league after missing time at the beginning of last season, but the fact of the matter is that he was just a rookie. This offseason, every team that plays the Giants will be looking extensively at how to stop OBJ, because he is that one-of-a-kind player that can instantly change the game. There is a good chance that Beckham will disappoint next season simply because everyone will expect him to be shattering records, which also may happen (and I hope it does). This isn't a knock on Odell at all, but I kind of find it unfair for a rookie hotshot to just swoop in and become the cover athlete after just one season where there may be others who deserve it more. Odell's time will come, I just don't think it has to be immediate. Now, despite me saying this, I'm fairly confident he will be the cover athlete because he absolutely took the league by storm, breaking tons of records in just 12 games. But it was just 12 games. Regardless, his face will sell copies, and that's what it's all about (slight sarcasm).
Now am I just saying this because I don't want the future of my team to be destroyed by the "Madden Curse?" I don't think so, because despite the alarming regularity to which players who are on the cover of Madden regress in the following season, I believe it can easily be attributed to the nature of the award. If a player on the cover was one of the best players in the league the previous season, they have unrealistically high goals set for them by the general public which are usually unattainable. But subconsciously I guess maybe the "Madden Curse" might have something to do with my thinking. Who knows.
Lastly, Patrick Peterson is the real surprise choice of the bunch, because while it's only fair to include a defensive player, why they chose Peterson is kind of puzzling. He isn't coming off a career season (3 interceptions) and from a pure stats standpoint it could actually be argued to be the worst of Peterson's four seasons. There are at least a handful of corners that were more consistent and effective last season, but even in terms of defense as a whole, the nomination clearly (in my mind) should have gone to J.J. Watt, the most impactful, well-rounded defensive player who excels in all facets of the game (even tight end). Other acceptable defensive choices could have been Luke Kuechly and Justin Houston, although Kuechly is really the only other well known star that would have had a reasonable chance. Overall, I don't get this decision, and I don't think that in a million years Peterson could win this contest, which kind of makes him a waste of a selection.
If I had to name my ideal cover nominees, and I was restricted to only four choices, I would choose these four: Aaron Rodgers, DeMarco Murray, Rob Gronkowski, J.J. Watt. However, I would also like to see Andrew Luck, LeVeon Bell, Antonio Brown, and Luke Kuechly. I believe those eight would make for an incredible vote. As for why I chose Gronkowski over Brown, it simply comes down to the Super Bowl. I feel a Super Bowl player should be in contention.
Who do you think should be on the cover and do you agree with my selections for who I believe should have made the ballot?
Thanks for reading,
Connor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)