Why the best college football player in the country should choose a different career

Over the last two days, a whole lot of teams, both at the collegiate and professional level, ended their football seasons. With the final day of the NFL regular season concluding yesterday, and the college football semifinals being played the day before, the offseason began for a lot of players. One of those players was Oklahoma Sooners quarterback, and reigning Heisman Trophy winner, Kyler Murray.

The Sooners lost to Alabama in the semifinals by a score of 45-34. While it was a disappointing end to Oklahoma's season, I do think that the team will look back on 2018 as an overall success, and Murray surely will, and he will have a Heisman Trophy to prove it. The focus for Murray now shifts to the offseason, and it is definitely going to be an interesting one. He could probably enter the NFL Draft and have a good chance to go into next season with at least a shot at being a starting quarterback for some team in the league. The only problem with that is, he has already been drafted by another team in another sport.

The Oakland Athletics drafted Murray in the first round this past summer and signed him to a $5 million contract to be a future star for them. The A's organization did so knowing that Murray would be playing football at Oklahoma this season. Both he and the team knew that it might be somewhat risky to play a year at quarterback, but they showed faith in him by signing him anyway. I'm sure Murray knew he could be a successful football player going into this season, but I'm not sure that he planned on winning the award as the best college football player in the country. Now that he has won the Heisman Trophy, it seems like he could actually have a better shot at getting a job in the NFL than anyone originally planned, and many people are starting to wonder if he should take that chance and throw his name into the mix for the upcoming NFL draft a few months from now.

With the NFL game continuing to evolve and ever so slightly become more and more similar to the college game, could Murray actually have a successful career as a pro quarterback? I think the answer to that right now is, yes, that could possibly happen. With that being said though, I don't think that means it is the best career path for him. There are a number of reasons for that, and I think when you factor them all into the equation, the best path to a successful athletic career for Murray is on the baseball diamond.

We do have examples through history of athletes playing multiple sports with success. Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson are the first ones to come to mind, but I'm not sure that Murray fits into that category. Murray is extremely athletic and gifted like both of those men, but he is only (listed at) 5'11" tall and 195 pounds. In reality he is probably a few inches shorter and a few pounds lighter than both of those numbers. Deion Sanders was listed at 6'1" and 195 pounds coming out of college, while Bo Jackson was listed at 6'1" and 230 pounds. So right off the bat, Murray is smaller than both of them.

We also need to take into account the position that the three men played, or in Murray's case, play. Sanders was a cornerback, Jackson was a running back, and Murray is a quarterback. So, let's take a look at the sizes of some of the best players to ever play those positions.

Running back

Barry Sanders - 5'8" 200 pounds
Emmitt Smith - 5'9" 210 pounds
Curtis Martin - 5'11" 210 pounds

Cornerback

Rod Woodson - 6'0" 205 pounds
Charles Woodson - 6'1" 210 pounds
Darrell Green - 5'8" 185 pounds

Quarterback

Tom Brady - 6'4" 225 pounds
Joe Montana - 6'2" 205 pounds
Drew Brees - 6'0" 210 pounds

So, in the case of Jackson, he was actually very big compared to those all-time great running backs. Sanders was about average. Murray however, is smaller in terms of both height and weight than all of those quarterbacks. If Murray were to enter the NFL right now, he would be the smallest quarterback in the league, and when it comes to that position, size certainly does matter. People trying to downplay size at the position point to Drew Brees and Russell Wilson (who also was drafted by a baseball team), yet Murray is still even smaller than both of them. Also, aside from Brees and Wilson, the examples of successful NFL quarterbacks that small is pretty much zero.

On the other hand, let's take a look at his size compared to some of the best Major League shortstops, both current and former.

Francisco Lindor - 5'11" 190 pounds
Carlos Correa - 6'4" 215 pounds
Ozzie Smith - 5'11" 150 pounds
Barry Larkin - 6'0" 185 pounds

The point of this is that Murray is built much more like a professional shortstop than a professional quarterback. And I haven't even mentioned the financial differences between the two sports, and how much more secure Murray could be if he played baseball as opposed to football.

Right now, Murray is projected to be at best, a late first round pick in the NFL, but is probably more likely to be drafted in the second or third round. Lamar Jackson, a quarterback who was considered somewhat small, at least based upon strength and weight, was the 32nd pick of the first round this past year, and he is due to make about $5.4 million. That means the top salary that Murray could probably expect in his first season in the NFL is not too much different from the salary he could make playing baseball.

So maybe football isn't such a bad decision then, right? After all, Murray's football stock will likely never be as high as it is right now, and with NFL teams constantly looking for quarterbacks, and often over-drafting them, maybe Murray could find a team that fell in love with him and make more money than he will make in his first year as a football player than he could in his first year as a baseball player. The biggest problem with that though, is that is what he could make in his first year. That doesn't mean he will be making that for his entire career, and the chances are very low that a career as a quarterback will last as long as a career as a shortstop.

According to the NFL Player's Association, the average career for an NFL player is just over three years long. The league claims it is six years long, so let's put it in the middle since both of those groups have somewhat conflicting interests, and say that the average NFL career is about 4.5 years long. Studies on Major League Baseball careers show that the average career in that sport lasts about 5.5 years.

So that means as the 32nd overall pick in the NFL draft (which is probably as good as it will get for Murray), he could make about $24 million. With the salary he is currently signed to in Major League Baseball, he would make about $25 million. So, if the difference is only $1 million, maybe the choice to play football isn't such a bad one.

Next though, we have to look at the contract structures of both sports, and the simplest way to do that is to look at guaranteed money. This past offseason, Kirk Cousins signed a groundbreaking deal with the Minnesota Vikings, as he became the first player in the history of the NFL to sign a contract with all of the money fully guaranteed. Aside from Cousins, every player in the history of the NFL has signed a contract in which all of the money has not been guaranteed. On the other hand, the contract that Murray signed with the A's is already fully guaranteed, and he has not even played a single game for the team. So in a sport like baseball, where the injury risk is far less than football, the benefits truly begin to show.

Football at any level is a violent game, and despite recent rules changes to make the game safer, it is inherently violent, and that is not going to change. Former players walk away from the NFL with serious medical problems. And that is not something that is a rare occurrence. It happens a lot. That rarely happens with baseball players, and even if it does, they still are much more likely to have more money, and better health benefits from the league to cover their medical expenses.

Does that seem fair? No, it doesn't. In fact, it actually seems to make no sense at all. The guys playing the sport that is clearly more violent and a much bigger risk to your health, are getting paid less. So you could point to the chances of success Murray might have playing football as lower than his chances of success playing baseball, but coupled with the health risks of the two sports, it is pretty clear to me that he should choose to pursue a career in baseball.

Murray is free to choose whatever he wants to do with his future going forward. He can strike while the iron is hot, enter the NFL draft, and as a Heisman Trophy winner, possibly go on to a very successful career as a pro football player. Or, he can play baseball, be at a much smaller risk of injury, and be guaranteed to at least make more money as a rookie. If he were to sign a second contract in baseball, he could be set financially for life. If he were to do that in football, he could be set for life, but he could also walk around with some sort of serious injury for the rest of his life, and have less money to show for it as well. It might be pointing out the extreme to try to make a case, but if you listen to other former athletes, even including professional football players, it seems that the consensus is he should play baseball.

Murray has already reached historic heights in football that only a select few have reached by winning the Heisman Trophy. The allure of being an NFL quarterback might never be bigger for him than it is right now. However, being a professional athlete, no matter the sport, is often about using a very small window for a career to earn enough money to last a lifetime. Five years from now, Murray could be a baseball player who is guaranteed to make $5 million, or he could be a football player, who is most likely going to have made less money, and more likely to have suffered at least some sort of injury that hinders his ability to be healthy for the rest of his life. As I said, he is free to choose whatever he wants, but if I were giving him advice, I would tell him that the choice should be pretty easy. Hang the shoulder pads up, pick up your mitt and bat, and become a superstar shortstop.

Daily Giants Update: While it might not be the case for players and coaches who have jobs on the line, as a fan, I think there can be moral victories in football. Some of the worse teams in the league put up little to no fight in their Week 17 games and ended the season on a very poor note, but despite a 5-11 record, the Giants were not one of those teams. They lost to the Cowboys 36-35 yesterday, but put up a valiant effort in a very exciting game. The focus now becomes the draft and free agency, and I think there will be changes to the roster, and maybe some significant ones, but I am glad the team ended the year in the fashion they did, and I am looking forward to the offseason.

Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers got a very nice win on the road against a good Nashville Predators team two nights ago, and currently are on the outside looking in at the playoffs as we close in on the halfway point of the season. Next up is a game in St. Louis tonight against a Blues team that has struggled this season.

Daily NBA Update: The Magic won on a buzzer beater by Evan Fournier last night, and the Raptors continued to roll as well. One team I have been pretty impressed by is the Dallas Mavericks, who are being led by superstar rookie Luka Doncic. I think they are still a year or two away from real contention, but the arrow is definitely pointing up.

To expand or not to expand?

Yesterday, I spoke about college football players making personal decisions on how to end their playing careers. Some leave before their senior season. Some play their senior season but then skip the postseason. Some play out every game, no matter how their season ends. Since college football went to its current playoff system five years ago, this matter has become more and more popular to talk about, and Alabama head coach Nick Saban weighed in on it earlier this week.

First, let's remember that Saban is looking at this from the perspective of a coach who has had his team in the playoffs every year, so his point of view is certainly different from a lot of other coaches. However, he does deserve a whole lot of credit for leading his team to the playoffs every year, so maybe you could say that his point of view is actually the one that should be most respected in this discussion.

Saban said that he initially was not even in favor of instituting a playoff system, and that he preferred the previous BCS format, where only two teams were chosen to play for the national championship. For decades, college football never even had a formal national championship game, and a series of polls decided who was crowned as the top team in the country. The problem with that was, since there were multiple polls that were voted on by people in different positions with different points of view, many times they did not all agree on who the best team in the country was. As recently as 2003, there were co-champions, and there were even some years with three teams declared as tied at the top. In 1919, there were actually four teams that were labeled as national champions thanks to the voting in six different polls.

The point of sports is to decide the individual or team that is the best in a fair manner. There might be ties in regular season games in some sports, but at the end of a competition or season, we want there to be one winner left standing alone. So obviously, having multiple teams declared as champions after a given season did not give anyone a true feeling of clarity. The inception of the BCS system in 1998 seemingly would give us that clarity each and every year. It did that, except for a controversial 2003 season when the team that won what was supposed to be the championship game (LSU), was still only declared as a co-champion, thanks to the AP poll at the end of the season declaring someone else (USC) as champion.

The BCS system was initially disliked by many, but eventually fans, players, and coaches all seemed to accept it more and more, and looking back on it now, I think it did a pretty good job of giving us a true champion every year. However, since much of the BCS selection process was based upon computers and not human judgements, it did receive criticism, and I think rightfully so. A computer could not take things like injuries or other abnormalities into account when ranking teams, and the football world felt like the lack of that did not fully satisfy our appetites. Also, in many cases, it seemed unfair to only select two teams to compete for a national championship. In every other sport we have, more teams are able to compete in the postseason, because usually every year more than two teams in any given sport could be given legitimate odds to win a championship. That is especially true in college football, where the fact that there are so many teams really makes it impossible to judge everyone fairly. In a sport with 130 teams, is it really even possible to choose two to play for a title when most teams only play 12 or 13 games? Obviously, the answer is no.

So, that brought us to the current playoff format we have. A committee of actual people and not a room of computers decides who they believe are the four best teams in the country. With the BCS format, it is likely that the third ranked team could have beaten one of the teams ranked ahead of them, but those games never happened. Now, that third ranked team can prove themselves on the field, and not have to worry about proving themselves to a computer. It seemed like this was an improvement, but as is the case with pretty much everything in the sports world, and the world in general, people chose to point out the negatives more than the positives.

Instead of now the third ranked team being felt as though they were unjustly denied the chance to compete for a championship they could legitimately win, now the fifth ranked team in the country can make that claim. Oklahoma was ranked fourth by the committee this year, and they will play top-ranked Alabama tonight. Alabama finished the regular season 13-0, while Oklahoma finished 12-1. However, Ohio State finished the year with an identical 12-1 record, but they were ranked sixth. The committee explained that this was the case because Oklahoma's loss to Texas, by a score of 48-45, was "better" than Ohio State's only loss, a 49-20 drubbing to Purdue.

Realistically, I agree with that decision, but then why was Ohio State ranked sixth, with a 12-1 record, behind Georgia, who had an inferior 11-2 record? This is where we begin to see and understand the flaws in the system we have. Add in the Central Florida factor here, as they have been undefeated for the past two seasons in what most would consider a weaker conference, and it seems like we have an even bigger mess than we had when the BCS was used to decide the national champion.

I spoke yesterday about Deandre Baker choosing to leave Georgia now and not play in their bowl game, and the final straw that pushed him to make that decision was most likely Georgia's ranking and their being left out of the playoffs. If the field were expanded, as many people have called for, Georgia might be playing for a chance at a national championship today, and if that were happening, I would bet that Baker would be on the field. At the same time, Heisman Trophy winner Kyler Murray might not be playing tonight if we still used the BCS format, because only Alabama and Clemson would have the chance to win the national championship.

One reason I think college football seems to always be a target for criticisms like this is the fact that they are in many ways competing with college basketball. March Madness is, in my opinion, one of the most exciting things in all of sports. 68 teams have an equal chance to win a title, and because of that, we get chaos every year, and we love it. However, when you think about it realistically, you could actually claim that college basketball decides its champion in the most inefficient and random way, and often times, the best team does not win. If you played the NCAA Tournament out in any given year two separate times, the results would likely be totally different. The single game elimination component is what makes it so exciting, but it is also what makes it so inefficient. Add in the fact that the field is so big, and the randomness and inefficiency just grows and grows.

The same can be said for the NFL playoffs. While the standards for postseason qualification in the NFL are much higher than in college basketball, the fact that it is still a single game elimination format does bring in a lot of chaos and uncertainty. In the NBA and NHL, the series factor plays a large role in helping to truly crown the team that is legitimately the best in the league. A lot of teams do make the playoffs in those sports, but because a seven-game series format is used, that usually leads to the best team prevailing in the end.

Out of all our major sports, Major League Baseball could probably be the one where the champion each year is "most legitimate" of all. Since the playoff field is so small, and they use series to decide the winners, you really usually get the truly best teams playing at the end. All of these systems can be viewed from different perspectives, and you can find faults in any of them if you really want to.

People who oppose the college football playoff format can say that with only four teams vying for a title, too many legitimate contenders are unjustly denied a chance that could rightfully be theirs. Those people would likely point to the NCAA basketball format as much more reasonable and fair.

However, supporters of the college football format as it now stands would cite the fact that the playoffs in college football actually happen every week of the regular season, and because the standards for qualification at the end of the year are so high, each team needs to play each and every game as if it were for the national championship or else you might end up like Ohio State, with one sleepy Saturday against Purdue being the reason you are not playing tonight. I tend to fall more into this corner when it comes to this, because I do like the fact that every game does matter in the college football regular season. March Madness is ultra-exciting, but because of it, most people do not even pay attention to college basketball until the tournament starts, because you could actually be a below .500 team in the regular season, win your conference tournament, and have a chance to win it all. Therefore, it seemingly completely negates everything that happened during the regular season.

To get back on subject here, I think that for the most part, football fans do like the playoff format, and it has been a success since its inception. I also do believe that we have seen some issues arise because of it, and that is going to bring about some sort of change in the future.

The biggest issue I think is that people believe a four team format is not big enough. There are usually more than four teams in any given season that could win a championship, and when you add in the Central Florida factor and a team goes undefeated in consecutive years but does not get a chance to play for a title, it will likely mean playoff expansion. Also, I think that this new tendency of players from good teams choosing not to play in their bowl games has many people believing the only way to get more kids to play out the entire year is to make every game in not just the regular season, but every game in the postseason matter as well.

Exactly 100 years ago, Harvard, Illinois, Notre Dame, and Texas A&M were somehow all national champions. Looking back on that now, it seems ludicrous. One hundred years from now, in 2119, the college football world will probably look at what we currently accept as ludicrous as well thanks to some different format that is used to crown the champion in a sport with over 100 teams.

One thing we should all be able to agree on though, is the fact that we have gotten to witness some epic and historic games over the past few years to decide our national champions, with two of the games literally being decided on the final play. I understand the gripes of some teams and fans who feel as though they have been treated unfairly. If you are a fan of Central Florida or Ohio State, you can rightfully claim that your team was robbed in one way or another.

The calls of those people were heard when we moved on from the BCS format, and they will probably be heard loud enough to bring about a playoff expansion some time within the next decade. Until that happens though, let's sit back and enjoy the games tonight and then the national championship game on January 7th, because if they end up even being half as good as what they were the past two seasons, we are going to be talking about them in 2119, even if the format we used to get there seems crazy and outdated when that year comes.

Daily Giants Update: Thanks to the NFL Red Zone channel, I will be able to watch all of the games with serious playoff implications tomorrow while also watching the Giants finish off the regular season. While I don't think this is the case, it is actually possible that tomorrow will be Eli Manning's last game ever as a New York Giant, which is sad to even think about.

Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers were off yesterday, but will be in Nashville tonight to play a very good Predators team. It will mark the beginning of a stretch of five of the next six games being on the road against Western Conference foes, and for a team from the east coast traveling across the country, that is never easy, no matter how good you are or how good the teams you are playing are.

Daily NBA Update: There were some big individual performances last night, as well as some nice wins for teams out west, including the Thunder, Clippers, and Nuggets, all of whom have been pleasant surprises near the top of the conference this season.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: I will write about the supremely disappointing offseason of this team some time before spring training begins, because I have very strong feelings about what has happened to the Diamondbacks over the past few months.

Stay in school or go pro?

Every year around this time, as we get closer and closer to the college bowl games that actually mean something, the same debate seems to arise. The only difference from year to year is who the debate is centered around. Should kids in college stay in school to finish out their careers? Or should they jump at the chance to be drafted and go to the NFL?

A trend that has grown over the past decade is kids skipping bowl games in order to focus solely on preparing for the NFL draft and their professional careers. Each individual situation is obviously unique, but it seems like, for the most part, no matter the player or team, people usually stand on one side of the argument or the other, and are not very open to changing their stance.

First, you have the fan who says that a player skipping their bowl game to focus on the draft is a bad teammate, and somehow is abandoning his team and demonstrating a fatal character flaw that he will never be able to separate himself from.

Next, you have the fan who says that each player should look out for the best interests of themselves, and playing college football is really nothing more than basically playing minor league football, and to hell with the team and school. The players aren't being paid while playing in college, and the only thing that matters is setting yourself up for a career as a professional football player.

Usually, these feelings are based upon a number of things. A fan of Clemson might feel as though a player is putting himself before the team if he decides to skip their bowl game and focus on the NFL. However, a fan of a team who could potentially have the first pick in the NFL draft and has their eyes set on that same player, could be totally in favor of him skipping the bowl game, and they will usually cite rare cases of players being injured during bowl games to illustrate their point about how important it is to look out for yourself before anything else.

I know it isn't as interesting to stand in the middle of any debate, but I have to say that in this case, that is exactly where I stand. You can't make one blanket statement about focusing on the NFL or playing out the season for your school and apply it to every player. Each circumstance is different, and I hate that people want to come out and criticize these kids for making the decision that the kid believes is best. To illustrate this point, I want to take a look at four different examples from this year.

Since this is the NFL, and it always seems to be about the quarterbacks, I'll start there. If Justin Herbert decided to leave school and enter the draft, he would probably have been the top quarterback taken, and the chances of him going in the top five overall were pretty good. The quarterback class this year is projected to be somewhat weak compared to what the class could possibly look like next year, so Herbert could actually be hurting his draft stock by returning to school. But, do you know who that should be most important to? Justin Herbert. Not "Joe Expert," the fan sitting on their couch critiquing Oregon highlights on YouTube who has never actually seen Herbert play or played a snap of football in his or her life.

Oregon finished the regular season with an 8-4 record, and will play Michigan State in the Redbox Bowl on New Year's Eve. The Ducks ended the season in fourth place in the Big 12 North division. They did win their final two regular season games, and could finish off a nice season with a win over Michigan State next week. Herbert could also be in line for a big senior season in 2019, and maybe even a Heisman Trophy. Why does someone want to fault him for that? Even though the quarterback class may be stronger next year, maybe another big year from Herbert will put him at the top of that class. He wants to go back to school for his senior season, so go ahead and do that. If that's what he wants, then he shouldn't get any grief for doing it.

Since Herbert is going back to school, the new top quarterback in this year's class, at least at this point, seems to be Dwayne Haskins from Ohio State. Haskins is coming off a redshirt sophomore season in which he threw for 4,580 yards and 47 touchdowns. In Ohio State's final two games, against rival Michigan, and in the Big 10 title game against Northwestern, Haskins threw 11 touchdowns and zero interceptions. It doesn't get much better than that. He has the size and arm strength of an NFL quarterback, and while he has not declared that he is entering the draft yet, it appears that will be the case, and if he does so, it also appears that he has a good chance to be the first quarterback taken. If he wants to turn pro and get his money, then he is more than welcome to do so. If a college student who is an engineering major is offered a job while still in college and decides to take it, I don't hear anyone criticizing them for doing so. Why then should Haskins be criticized for doing just that in his chosen field? The answer is, he shouldn't be criticized.

Now that we have looked at both sides of the coin on the offensive side of the ball, we have a nice example this year of the same thing on the other side of the ball as well. Deandre Baker is a cornerback out of Georgia University who won the Jim Thorpe award as the best defensive back in the country this year. Following the SEC Championship Game, which Georgia lost to Alabama, Baker originally said that he would play in the Sugar Bowl against Texas, but he has since changed his mind, and will now skip the game to prepare for the draft.

Some people will look at this decision and say that Baker is putting himself before the team, and try to turn his decision into a character flaw that will live with him for the rest of his life. If you believe that, then I'm sorry, but you sound clueless. Would Baker have decided to play in Georgia's bowl game if they had won the SEC title? He probably would have, but we can't say for sure. The point is though, it doesn't matter to the masses out there speaking about something they really know nothing about. Baker will most likely be a first round pick, and could actually end up going pretty high in the first round. With a selection that high comes a nice paycheck, and just like Haskins, Baker has every right to choose to go that route.

Finally, I want to look at Chase Winovich, a linebacker from Michigan who has decided to put off a surgery that he will need to undergo until after the Peach Bowl, the Senior Bowl, and the NFL scouting combine. While the exact nature of the surgery is unclear, he has been told that he can play through the pain for now, and have the surgery in a few months. Is this a good decision? Well, in order to answer that question, you have to look at it from his point of view.

Right now, Winovich appears to have a second or third round grade from draft gurus. Unlike Baker or Haskins, he will probably not hear his name called in the first round. Therefore, because it is not anticipated that he will be a day one pick, he likely will not be starting from the outset of training camp next summer, and might have to focus on doing things other than he did in school to earn a roster spot. Guys like that usually have to display an attitude and willingness to outplay their natural abilities, so putting off surgery for a few months might make a good impression on an NFL team and demonstrate just that personality. Then again, maybe playing while not fully healthy will prove to be a setback and hinder his chances to perform to the best of his abilities during the pre-draft process. Right now, we don't know what will happen. Winovich is willing to bet on himself and play through some pain in order for it to pay off in the long run, and we should commend him for that.

The point of all this is, fans shouldn't label kids based on the decisions they make about their futures. Everyone views the potential path to the NFL differently, and we should see that and accept it. In the end, if kids are talented enough to play professionally, that will most likely happen. The same can be said for the kid who leaves college early to begin their career as an engineer.

The NFL draft process is one of the toughest things to predict in all of sports. If you want to look back on this draft 10 years from now, it will be easy to judge Herbert or Haskins or Baker or Winovich in hindsight. You can make those same judgments on Monday morning after watching your favorite team win or lose. You can say that you would have made a different decision if you already know the outcome, but you can't put yourself into any given situation in real time and know what will end up being right or wrong.

In the eyes of some kids, the college experience might be most important. If you ask another kid, maybe playing in the NFL is what they really want. Don't stand on a soapbox and preach like you know how these kids should decide their futures, because you really don't. As is the case many times in the sports world, sometimes it is tough for people to set their fandom aside when evaluating a situation, but this is one of the most important times of the year to be able to do that. And if you can't, then I'm sure these guys won't care what you think anyway.

Daily Rangers Update: The team has had a frustrating tendency to give up late goals this year, and the same thing happened last night against Columbus. While the game did go to overtime and the Rangers salvaged a point, leaving another point on the table is not going to look good later in the season in the fight for the playoffs.

Daily Giants Update: Odell Beckham will miss another game this Sunday as the season ends against the NFC East champion Dallas Cowboys. Saquon Barkley could potentially set or equal a few rookie records with a good game, as well as clinch the offensive rookie of the year award. If any of that happens, it will at least be something nice to cap off what has been another disappointing season for the Giants.

Daily NBA Update: Christmas Day usually signals the beginning of the meat and potatoes of the NBA season, and the Sacramento Kings and Portland Trail Blazers both won exciting games last night. Portland is having a nice year so far, and the Kings are vastly improved, and seem to certainly be a team on the rise that could be fighting for the playoffs for a while now.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: ……..

Giving the power to the players

Despite claims from baseball fans who were born before the Super Bowl ever existed, the biggest sport in this country is football. If you look at television ratings, it is easy to see how popular the sport is, even though it seems like there is some sort of new controversy involving the league going into each new season. The United States is still a football-first country. However, the NBA has been steadily growing, and at this point, I think it would be fair to say that it is the second most popular league we have, obviously behind the NFL.

There are many different reasons for this rise in popularity, depending on how you want to trace the steps of its growth. Some might say that the emergence of a coast-to-coast rivalry between the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers was essential in making the NBA a nationally interesting league. Those two teams do have a rivalry dating back to the 1960's, but in my opinion, the rivalry did not truly advance the popularity of the game until the 1980's, when Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were at the forefront and were the faces of those two organizations.

You could also point to the greatness of Michael Jordan and the rise of the Chicago Bulls in the 1990's. It was then that young kids throughout the country really became interested in replicating their favorite players by wearing their jerseys or their signature shoes.

Now, as the game continues to grow, I think one of the biggest factors in allowing it to do so is the willingness of the league to allow its players, and most importantly, its superstars, to express themselves on social media and connect with the fans and with other players, all in the public spotlight. The old school mentality of guys hating their opponents, for better or worse, is really almost non-existent. There are no Denis Rodmans or Rick Mahorns anymore. While some people miss those days, I personally do not. There is nothing wrong with going out on the court and competing and fouling someone hard when they try to get to the basket, but doing so during a game does not mean that you have to meet an opposing player after the game and fight them. And for the most part, I think that present day NBA players feel the same way.

Thanks to Instagram and Twitter, and even more so, thanks to plain old cell phones and text messages, NBA players interact with one another on a daily basis, whether they are teammates or opponents. Not only is the league aware of it, but in many cases, I believe that the league encourages it. So, when LeBron James makes some comments about thinking how nice it would be to play with Anthony Davis, NBA General Managers and owners should not be surprised. However, that was apparently the case recently after James said those exact things.

While we aren't sure exactly what general managers made the claims, reports were that some small-market GM's were upset after hearing James say how he would love to play with Davis if the opportunity presented itself. The unnamed GM's claimed that James was violating the league's rules against tampering, since it seemed as though he were trying to persuade a fellow player, currently under contract with an opposing team, to join his team in Los Angeles. They claimed that what made it even worse was the fact that Davis is still under contract in New Orleans through next season, so Davis is not even an impending free agent, and in order for him to get to Los Angeles this season, a trade would have to happen. That meant that the Pelicans would be forced to make a deal they might not otherwise make if they knew that Davis really did have plans to leave the organization in the summer of 2020. And in all honesty, these claims are actually 100% accurate.

Maybe Davis wants to stay in New Orleans for his entire career. They did acquire DeMarcus Cousins last season, and that seemed to show the rest of the league that they might be willing to bring in pieces to help Davis win a title. However, Cousins is now a member of the Golden State Warriors, and Davis is surrounded by a cast of players that most would consider mediocre at best.

So then, maybe Davis has plans to leave New Orleans when his contract expires, and maybe he actually wants to try to get out of there even before that happens. We have seen Kyrie Irving and Jimmy Butler make moves to get themselves traded before they hit free agency, and now both of them are playing for contending teams in a very winnable Eastern Conference. So whether it is Irving and Butler trying to get to another place, or James trying to get someone else to come to him, it seems as though what many people would consider tampering is in fact not only occurring, but it is working as well.

Now that James is a member of the Lakers, he has the perfect person to speak to when it comes to the punishments that result from tampering with players on other teams. Magic Johnson, who is currently the head of basketball operations for the Lakers, has been fined multiple times by the NBA for what the league described as tampering. The Lakers were fined over a half million dollars for engaging in such activity, and the GM's who made these recent claims were calling for more fines this time as well. Since the Lakers are one of the most prominent teams in the league in one of the most prominent markets in the league, the narrative was that they were giving themselves an unfair advantage in recruiting Davis, who is one of the best players in the NBA. Following the game between the Lakers and Pelicans, James and Davis were seen dining at a restaurant in Los Angeles, and this only added fuel to the tampering fire. And really, what was going on probably was tampering, and the team probably was attempting to get the upper hand in recruiting Davis to Los Angeles.

So then the question is, what should be done to prevent this? In what I think clearly could be described as tampering, aren't the Lakers, and James in particular, violating league rules? Yes, they probably are. However, over the past decade, as the NBA has encouraged its players to voice their thoughts publicly and engage with one another publicly, I don't think it is possible to stop this stuff from happening.

Guys work out together in the offseason. They have the same agencies represent them. They play alongside each other on the international stage. They even have dinner together after games. If you want to believe that they never talk about playing together during those interactions, then you are kidding yourself. And the general managers who claim they are at a disadvantage when this happens are kidding themselves as well.

How else do contracts get signed at 12:01 AM on the day free agency begins? How else does Kevin Durant sign with the Warriors? Is it because he just happened to choose them blindly? Or is it because about half the team went to meet with him privately before he signed the deal?

The fact remains that the Lakers likely do have an advantage in acquiring Davis, either through free agency or through a trade, and part of it surely is because of LeBron James and Magic Johnson. If I had to bet on where Davis would be playing two seasons from now, I would be much more likely to put my money on the Lakers than the Hawks or the Suns.

But then, maybe New Orleans knowing Davis wants to eventually leave is actually better for them. If they were to trade him before he became a free agent, they could get something in return, instead of losing him for only money they did not have. You can really spin this however you want depending on your point of view.

One thing I do know though, is that as the NBA has encouraged its players to speak their minds about anything and everything, and it has played a huge part in the growth of the league. However, the league may not have foreseen this alleged tampering occurring because of that, and until they crack down on it, I'm not sure they can stop it. If they want to be like the NFL, and suppress the voices of its stars, then maybe Anthony Davis will play in New Orleans for his entire career, but I'm not sure that fans of the league, or Davis himself, would like that.

If Davis does end up playing with James in Los Angeles, one thing I think we can all count on is television ratings and revenue increasing every time the Lakers play. While it will likely be at the expense of teams in smaller markets, there has always been a sizeable gap between the top and bottom of the NBA standings.

From 1990 through 1999 the Chicago Bulls were 558-230. Over that same time, the Vancouver Grizzlies were 56-240. That would place the Grizzlies 512 games behind the Bulls over that span.

From 1960 through 1969, the Celtics record was 546-260, while the 76ers/Nationals record was 314-492. That puts the Celtics 232 games ahead of the 76ers.

From 2010 through present day, the San Antonio Spurs are 511-211. The Sacramento Kings are 248-474. That puts the Spurs 263 games ahead of the Kings.

The point is, the gap between the top teams in the NBA and the bottom teams in the NBA has always been large, and it will always be large. So Anthony Davis playing for the Lakers will not drastically change the course of history in the league.

General managers and owners can claim that tampering between players goes on off the court, and they would be correct. However, they also have to accept the fact that these players are the prime reason the league has exploded in popularity, and therefore, exploded in profits. Are some teams making more money than others? Yes. But with the league arguably as big as it has ever been, I think it is impossible to prevent players from talking to one another and dreaming about playing together. It may not have been anticipated by owners a decade ago, but in the long run, I think it is better for them as a whole, and certainly better if they want their teams to continue to grow.

Daily Giants Update: The Giants season will be over this Sunday after a home game against Dallas, but there have been some positive signs during the second half of the season that can bring about some optimism heading into the offseason. It will be very interesting to see what direction the team moves in as the draft and free agency approach.

Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers are not realistically contenders to make serious noise in the postseason this year, but they have been pretty fun to watch anyway, with a roster of mostly young players who continue to improve.

Daily NBA Update: Speaking of the Lakers, they are coming off of a very impressive Christmas Day win on the road against the Warriors, but I still do expect Golden State to come out of the Western Conference by the end of the season. The East is much more wide open, and you have to believe that at least five teams can legitimately claim they have NBA Finals aspirations.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: I don't even want to talk about it.

A possibly landmark Supreme Court ruling

Gambling has long been one of the biggest threats to sports in our country. While there are certainly issues like player safety and competitive balance that are more significant, the effects that gambling could potentially have on sports is very large. It may not seem as much on the surface, but the reason we all watch sports is because it is the ultimate reality show. The Chicago Cubs breaking a World Series curse of over a century. George Mason making a shocking run to the Final Four. The Cleveland Cavaliers coming back from a 3-1 deficit in the NBA Finals. Leicester City winning the Premier League title in England. And my personal favorite, the New York Giants beating the undefeated New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42.

If sports were played on paper and based on probability alone, none of those things would have happened. However, because these games play out in real time in front of the eyes of the world, we become transfixed by them. The best teams don't always win. It is why we cheer for upsets in the NCAA Tournament. It is why we hate Kevin Durant for joining the Golden State Warriors. It is why we can't stand how the Yankees and Dodgers have more money to spend on free agents than everyone else in baseball. Reality shows don't happen in one hour, weekly increments on MTV and CBS. They happen on Sundays during football season. They are why Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith have to stay up until the wee hours of the morning to watch overtime games. The very essence of our love of sports is summed up best by what Chris Berman used to say. "That's why they play the games."

This morning, it was announced that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalized sports gambling, and all 50 states have been given the right to decide whether or not to legalize gambling on sports. In states like Nevada and New Jersey, it will certainly be allowed. Other states like Florida and Utah may be late to join the party, but in the end, I am pretty sure that sports gambling will be legalized throughout the country. Could this possibly be a bad thing? Yes, it could. However, will it end up being a bad thing? I don't think so.

As is the case with pretty much everything in the world today, this all comes down to money. While sports gambling was illegal until today, it was still a multi-billion dollar industry in the black market. Is the injury report in the NFL in any way beneficial to the league? Does the difference between a stint on the 10 day disabled list as opposed to the 60 day disabled list really matter to Major League Baseball? If you want to justify those things, then yes, they do matter. But in reality, they are more important to gambling than they are to anything involving strategy or game planning. Professional sports leagues might not have been willing to admit it, but those things are really much more beneficial to gamblers than they are to coaches, players, and general managers. It used to be something that was inferred but not mentioned. Now, these league can officially acknowledge the reason for the existence of injury reports. They are there because it matters to gamblers far more than it matters to the people actually playing the games.

People that oppose this Supreme Court decision will surely point out things like the Black Sox scandal of 1919. They will bring up Pete Rose and Tim Donaghy. And they will do so rightfully. However, the things that those people will fail to mention far outweigh what they do mention. There are outliers when trying to find a solution to any problem. However, just because outliers do exist does not mean that there is an obvious solution to the problem that is being addressed.

To prove my point, let's look at each of those cases individually, and let's start with Donaghy. Until his exposure as a game-fixing NBA official, Donaghy was unknown to almost the entire sporting public. Officials in any sport are mostly unknown, and Donaghy fell right into that category of an unknown guy wearing a grey shirt with a whistle on an NBA court. However, when it was revealed in 2007 that he was involved with people in the black market and fixing games by giving favorable calls to teams that he and others had bet on, he immediately became the most noteworthy referee in the entire league. What did he get from that? 15 months in prison and a divorce from his wife. Does that sound like something that was worth what he did? Absolutely not.

Next up is Pete Rose. While the true extent of his gambling on games is still unknown, he has admitted to gambling on games after years of denial. He says that he only wagered on his own teams, and only did so while he was a manager, but thanks to his dishonorable and slimy past, I think anyone should pause before believing anything that man says. He is the all-time hits leader. He was a great player. However, he still has not been enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and thanks to many years of baseball commissioners denying his ability to be voted in, in my opinion, he has no chance of enshrinement during his lifetime. Any professional athlete will tell you that their ultimate goal is to be enshrined into the Hall of Fame of their respective sport, and when it comes to Pete Rose, he is not going to live to see that happen. Another known gambler disgraced for a lifetime.

The last, and in my opinion, most compelling argument against the legalization of sports gambling is the Black Sox scandal during the 1919 World Series. Tim Donaghy and Pete Rose were individual men who succumbed to the vices of gambling. There are a whole lot of people throughout the country that succumb to that vice, but the only difference is the public has no idea who they are. The members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox that threw the World Series are not only a highly compelling group because of what they did, but they are even more compelling because they are evidence that if the vices of gambling can reach enough men in unison, game fixing in professional sports could be possible.

Most sports fans in 2018 might vaguely know of the Black Sox scandal, but they most likely don't know anything more than it involved "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. However, it was far deeper than just that one man, and it was the only evidence we have in this country of how gambling could truly negatively impact sports as we know it. I will try to make this brief, but doing so may not be easy.

The Chicago White Sox in 1919 were fully equipped to be one of the best teams in all of baseball. The owner of the team, Charles Comiskey, was a very penurious man. Despite the greatness of multiple members of his team, he was unwilling to pay them what they felt they were worth, and what the open market suggested they were worth. Of the eight members of the team involved with the fix, none made more than $4,000 per season. All of them were unhappy with their salaries. When they were approached by black market gamblers, they were offered $100,000 to split amongst them however they saw fit. Divided evenly into eight, that means each man would get $12,500. That was over three times the salary of most of them. Joe Jackson was one of the best players in all of baseball. Eddie Cicotte and Lefty Williams were front of the line starting pitchers. It was a plan that could possibly work, and because the payoff was so high, the men accepted the offer. Why did they accept the offer? The answer is simple. Money. As I stated before, most things in this world come down to money. That is why people who do not agree with this Supreme Court ruling will argue against it. Players could possibly be baited into throwing games because of big payoffs. However, thanks to our obsession with sports, and our undying need to consume them, in my opinion the money is not enough now.

The only reason the Black Sox were willing to throw the World Series is because as a group, they were willing to take the risk because they believed they were not being compensated for their abilities on the field. It would not have worked if the lowest paid members of the team were paid off. Surely, guys that sat on the bench for the 1919 White Sox must have felt like they were not making the money they thought they deserved. However, the throwing of the series only worked (and in reality, it did not actually work in the long run) because the best players on the team were involved. In order for gamblers to truly cause something like that to happen again, the money would simply not be enough.

Kevin Durant makes $26 million per year. LeBron James makes just under $31 million per year. James Harden makes $28 million. Is it possible to buy those guys off? Maybe. Realistically though, the answer is absolutely not. Joe Jackson was paid three times his salary to throw the World Series. That means that in order to tempt Kevin Durant to throw the NBA Finals, the cost would be $78 million. And that still does not account for his teammates that are also making millions of dollars. The benefit is not even close to what the cost is. I don't care what year it is, and what kind of numbers you can present to me that involve inflation or anything else like that. There is no way that the premier players of all professional sports can be bought off in 2018. They simply make too much money. Could you possibly pay the 12th man on the bench of the Warriors to do their best to throw a game? It's possible, but unlikely. Could you possibly pay a back end of the rotation starting pitcher to throw a game in the World Series? Once again, it's possible but not probable. And even if that did happen, those guys just simply are not important enough to have an impact on the outcome of something that could be worth a payoff big enough to be worth the risk to gamblers.

Despite a whole lot of history and rambling here, my point is simple. Sports can still be susceptible to the vices of gambling. However, I think we have reached a point where the money simply does not make it possible to have any real impact. A $12 beer at AT&T Park might be excessive, but if gambling windows were situated right next to those beer stands, I could guarantee that there would be a longer line there than at the concession stand. With the possibility of professional leagues now being able to reap the rewards of yet another vice of its patrons, my only question is why it took this long for such a thing to happen. Within the next decade, I think we will see enormous profits for all sports leagues in this country thanks alone to gambling. How confident am I that such a thing will happen? Tell me the odds as of today, and I will bet a whole lot of money that my payoff will be twice as large in half as many years.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: Coming off a tough series against the Nationals, Arizona will open a series at home tonight against a Milwaukee Brewers team that has been pretty good through the first month of the season. Patrick Corbin will take the mound, and hopefully he can continue what has been a magnificent start to the season for him.

Daily Giants Update: In a bit of a surprise, the Giants cut offensive lineman Adam Bisnowaty today. I thought he would get a shot to compete for a starting job on the offensive line, so it was unexpected to see him gone before training camp even started. He wasn't anything special last year, but he still seemed worthy of a look for the upcoming season. I'm not there at the facility watching him every day though, so if he is gone, then I'm sure the team found it justified.

Daily NHL Update: The Washington Capitals finally climbed the mountain that is defeating the Pittsburgh Penguins in the playoffs, and now hold a 2-0 series lead on the Tampa Bay Lightning. If they have any chance of finally winning it all, it looks like this might be the year. Game 2 of the Western Conference Finals is tonight, as Winnipeg looks to take a commanding lead of the Golden Knights.

Daily NBA Update: The Celtics beat the Cavaliers last night to take a 1-0 lead in the Eastern Conference Finals. The Western Conference Finals begin in just over an hour, and with all due respect to the Celtics and Cavs, whoever comes out of the West will be a sure favorite to beat whoever comes out of the East and win it all.

The next LeBron James decision

The NBA trade deadline often times passes with only small moves being made, but yesterday's deadline was far different than that. There were a ton of moves made, and the team that was at the focus of many of those moves were the Cleveland Cavaliers. Cleveland has been to the NBA Finals in three consecutive years, winning the title one of those times. It was widely believed that they would return to the Finals again this year, but the team has not exactly met expectations thus far, as they are currently 7.5 games behind the Boston Celtics in the Eastern Conference.

While I was beginning to be somewhat skeptical of their chances to reach the NBA Finals, I still did believe that when the playoffs rolled around, they would legitimately be the betting favorite to win the East, despite what seemed like mounting uncertainty. However, I think that no matter who wins the East, that team will still ultimately fall to the Golden State Warriors in the Finals. The only question is how many games it will take the Warriors to win the series.

I have heard some people say that this revamped Cavs roster is improved and has a better chance to compete with Golden State, but in the end, in my opinion, Golden State is just too good. If anyone has a chance to beat them, it is the Houston Rockets, not the winner of the Eastern Conference. So that brings into question this upcoming offseason, and the possibility of the best player in the league, LeBron James, potentially being a free agent again.

When this happened the first time, a whole lot of teams thought they could possibly sign James, and it turned out that many of those potential suitors were delirious. This time around, I think there are going to be just as many teams that are kidding themselves thinking they have a shot at getting James.

To start, I do think that there is surely a possibility that James stays in Cleveland. It is his hometown team, and despite whatever sort of divide there may be between James and the owner of the Cavs, Dan Gilbert, it is a fact that Gilbert has been willing to pay a whole lot of money to players in order to support James. This is a note that can be discussed another time, but Gilbert has been ready to spend money at the drop of a hat for LeBron, and I think that is mostly overlooked.

Following the trades made yesterday, so many people want to point to the Lakers as a leading candidate in being the destination for LeBron. They cleared a ton of cap space, Magic Johnson is in charge, and James has a home in Los Angeles. LeBron James is worth almost $90 million. People with that much money have the ability to own houses in multiple places. And if you could own a second home, Los Angeles would surely be a good place for it to be. I am sure plenty of rich people own second homes in Los Angeles, so I don't know why talking heads think that matters.

Another potential suitor I have heard mentioned is the Philadelphia 76ers. With all of the young talent they have on the roster, LeBron would surely want to join that team. Is that reality though, or is that just wishful thinking?

Is the potential in Philadelphia for success there already? Yes, it is. However, are there any sort of recent results to suggest that success will occur? No. Does Magic Johnson being in control of the Lakers help their case? Yes, it does. But is it going to be the deciding factor? In my opinion, the answer to that question is absolutely not. And I will present my case for that right now, with a little help from the career of Magic Johnson.

In no particular order here, I think that when any basketball fan talks about the best players to ever play the game, they would include the following men: Kobe Bryant, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Bill Russell, Shaquille O'Neal, Larry Bird, and Michael Jordan. Not only were all of those men some of the best to ever play, but they all won multiple championships as well. If you look a little closer though, we can find a serious connection between all of those guys and LeBron James.

The last time Kobe Bryant won a championship, he was 32 years old. The last time Chamberlain won, he was 36. The last time Larry Bird won he was 30. At the time of their last championships, Russell was 35. O'Neal was 34. Jordan was 35. What really shocked me was when I looked at how old Magic Johnson was when he won his final championship. He was only 29! Magic Johnson is one of the greatest basketball players to ever play the game, but after he turned 30, he never won another title.

If you take all of those men and their ages at the time of their last title, the average age is 33. Two months ago, LeBron James celebrated his 33rd birthday. For that reason, I think you need to throw the 76ers and the Lakers out of the equation when it comes to trying to decide the next destination for James if he does end up leaving Cleveland.

The "process" is underway in Philadelphia, and they are a borderline playoff team this year. Ben Simmons seems like he will be a very good NBA player. Joel Embiid has been very good when he is on the court, but he has never played more than 50 games as a pro. Markelle Fultz was drafted first overall and has yet to play a game in the NBA. Is there potential for success in Philadelphia? Certainly. However, is there any sort of proof that they can win right now? Absolutely not. So, at this point in his career, why would James want to play with a team full of uncertainties? I highly doubt that he would.

When it comes to the Lakers, I have legitimate reason to be even more skeptical. Who is the best player on the Lakers right now? Brandon Ingram? Kyle Kuzma? Lonzo Ball? I hate to break it to LA fans, but those are not names that I would consider championship caliber. LeBron might own a house near the Staples Center, but in no way does that mean he is going to be playing there any time soon.

Even though I know that LeBron James will never read this, I don't care. Here is my advice to him. If you do not want to re-sign with Cleveland, there is one place you should go where you will have the best chance to win another title. That place is San Antonio.

It has been proven over the past decade that one superstar cannot win a title by himself. You need at least two superstars to win it all. The San Antonio Spurs already have that in place. Kawhi Leonard is in the prime of his career. He has already won one title, and is ready to win another. Gregg Popovich is arguably one of the best coaches in the history of the game. He is the master of taking heat off his players and shutting down the media. LeBron James would be perfect on a Popovich team.

Were James to go to the Spurs, they would have two legitimate superstar players, and they would have a legitimate chance to compete for an NBA title. Do James and Leonard play similar positions? Yes, they do. However, players that good can figure out roles for one another, especially when they are being coached by an all-time great.

As I said before, if LeBron James wants to be considered one of the best players in the history of the game, the window on the prime of his career is closing right now. Kobe Bryant, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird never won a title after they turned 33, and James is already there. He should not go to a team like the 76ers or the Lakers and bank on a bunch of unproven and "potential" guys. He needs to go to a team that is in a position to win right now. Maybe Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram will hit their peaks a few years from now. When that time comes though, LeBron James will have already passed his peak.

If James is really about winning championships, then I think the best way he can do that is to sign with the San Antonio Spurs. They are already a very good team, and while they may not be able to beat the Warriors as of now, they may just be a LeBron James away from being the best team in the NBA. Not five years from now, but right now. And if I were James, I would not be focused on trying to win a title five years from now, I would be focused on winning a title right now.

Daily Rangers Update: The organization wrote a letter to the fans about how much they cared for the team while at the same time saying they might plan for the future and some of the biggest names on the roster might have to be traded for that to happen. At this point, I am just hoping I can identify whoever is out on the ice for the team for the remainder of the season.

Daily NBA Update: As I just mentioned, the trade deadline was crazy yesterday. However, despite that, the Warriors are still better than everyone else.

Daily Giants Update: Nothing too much new here. I am starting to like the thought of picking Saquon Barkley second overall because he is so talented, but I still think that the team has to take a quarterback here, because picking second overall does not happen very often, and you need to take advantage of it when it does happen.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: As the date for pitchers and catchers reporting is now a week away, this crazy offseason continues and J.D. Martinez still remains unsigned. It seems like he is souring on the offers from Boston, and I think the possibility of him returning to Arizona gets greater and greater by the day.
This will be a subject for another day, but the fact that there is a possibility of a spring training for in-signed free agents is something I have never heard of. I can get into the details of it all at another time, but for right now, maybe we can get the man who helped slug us into the playoffs last season.

When common sense is more important than the tradition of the game

It was announced yesterday that starting on Opening Day of this season, all Major League Baseball teams will be required to have protective netting at least to the far end of each dugout in order to protect fans from foul balls and/or bats that may be launched into the stands during games. In my opinion, this is something that is long overdue.

Going to see a baseball game is an experience that every fan should be able to enjoy. I still remember the first baseball game I ever witnessed in person at Shea Stadium many years ago. Walking up the stairs and into your seating section for the first time gives you an unbelievable feeling. Seeing the freshly trimmed grass and the carefully maintained infield gives young fans a feeling of awe and amazement. No matter how many games a young kid might watch on television, it in no way comes close to the feeling of seeing a game in person for the first time. Hearing the crack of the bat and the snapping of a catcher's mitt is unlike anything else when you are there for the first time. No matter where your seats are, it is something you will never forget. Being able to witness a game from only a few rows back is even better, and is an even more unforgettable experience. However, with that up close and personal experience comes some dangers that now it seems the league is finally stepping up and trying to legitimately prevent.

Forgive me for not remembering who said this, but I do recall a third base coach in recent years saying that he was more concerned with the safety of fans when it comes to hard hit foul balls than his own safety, despite the fact that he is much closer to the action than any fans are. Coaches and players alike, while on the field, are totally focused on the game. Since that is the case, there are constantly aware of what is going on, and in most cases able to escape any danger caused by line drives outside the field of play. The same cannot be said for all fans though. Once again, I apologize for not remembering who said this, but he said that he would look into the stands and see so many people not completely focused on the game that he feared far more for their safety. Whether it was people with their heads buried in their phones, or younger fans just simply with an attention span not long enough to be aware during every pitch, there are many people in the stands who are very vulnerable when it comes to errant foul balls.

Although it does not happen often, there have been some cases of fans being seriously injured by balls or bats flying into the stands. The most recent example was a young girl hit by a scorching line drive just last season. Even if fans are focused on the game, it is sometimes hard to react in time to avoid balls that can be hit at speeds of over 100 miles per hour. For that reason, I am glad that the league is mandating that all teams be required to have protective netting that extends to the far ends of both dugouts. Opponents of this idea will say that it takes away the ability to have the thrill of catching a foul ball, but I think the positives of doing this far outweigh the negatives. If one had to choose between catching a foul ball or trying to avoid a line drive hit directly at them while they may or may not be paying attention, I think any sensible person would choose the safety that the nets will now provide.

Could having front row seats at a baseball game be the thrill of a lifetime? Yes, it could be. The proximity to the players and the field is understandably exhilarating. Being able to sit that close to the field and maybe even getting the autograph of your favorite player makes the price of admission absolutely worth it. But despite that, I still cannot understand how anyone would be against this happening.

The NFL has netting that they lift up behind the goal posts any time a field goal or extra point is being attempted. When neither of those are happening, the netting is taken down, and I think if baseball could institute something like that, it would be good for everyone. That way, prior to any game, fans would still be able to experience the intimacy of being so close to their favorite players. At the same time, once the game started, they would also be protected from possibly fatal occurrences. In this age where so many people have attention spans that are seemingly infinitesimal, everyone would benefit from protective netting, and I applaud Major League Baseball for making sure that this happens in all 30 parks throughout the league.

The fan experience at a baseball game should provide many things. Entertainment and excitement are two of the most important things it should provide, but the safety of the fans should supersede everything else. Traditionalists might argue that this change is not for the better, but after a short period of time, this is something that everyone will get used to, and in the not too distant future, it will be accepted and be considered both normal and necessary. There are many things in this world that exist now but may not have initially been met with complete approval. However, many of those things are now accepted as normal, and I think this change will surely be one of those things. Soon people will stop complaining about netting causing a view that will hardly be obstructed and while it might not protect every fan during every game, I am sure that it will prevent that obscure case of a foul ball causing serious injury to a fan.

As I said before, going to a game is an experience like no other, especially if you are there for the first time. All fans should be able to be guaranteed that the experience is not only fun, but also totally safe, and I think the institution of this rule by Major League Baseball will assure that happens for every fan in the ballpark.

Daily Rangers Update: A disappointing shutout loss at home to Toronto tonight dropped the Rangers out of a playoff spot, but there are still a lot of games left to play. At this point though, my expectations are not very high for the team, even if they do make the playoffs.

Daily NBA Update: James Harden had yet another big night as the Rockets went into San Antonio and got an impressive win against a very good Spurs team. If anyone can knock off the Warriors, I think Houston might be that team.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: Alex Avila was signed with an invitation to spring training yesterday, and if nothing else he will at least provide depth at catcher, which was one of the weaker parts of the team last year. It will also be very interesting to see who wins the closer job going into the season, as I think the spot is fully up for grabs with a whole lot of potential candidates to do the job.

Daily Giants Update: Nothing too much to update here, as it is pretty much just a countdown to the draft for the team now. I did see an interview with Sam Darnold this morning, and I was impressed with how he answered the questions that were posed to him. I'm not sure if he will end up being the best quarterback in this draft class, but I initially liked Josh Rosen the best. With the second overall selection, the Giants will definitely have a shot at getting at least one of those guys, and maybe be able to choose between both of them. I expect the new front office to make the right choice, and I could see why they might be impressed by either of those kids.

Why $4.76 billion is not worth it

The climax of the NFL season is now less than a week away, and with parties being planned, game plans being drawn up, and performances being rehearsed, there is also a whole lot of bets being thrown down. According to reports, almost $5 billion will be wagered on the Super Bowl this Sunday. You can bet on simple things like which team will win the game, or you can bet on things like how long it will take Pink to sing the national anthem and what color ties Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth will be wearing.

Therefore, it seems that during this time of year the conversation always arises about whether or not the NFL, and all professional leagues, should begin to take steps to legalize gambling. Of that close to $5 billion being wagered, over 95% of it will be wagered illegally. That means that in a league like the NFL where, like pretty much every other business, money is the first priority, there is a whole lot of money to be had if gambling on the game were legalized. The NBA even recently took more steps in the direction of legalizing gambling on its product, and commissioner Adam Silver has said that he would be interested in eventually making it legal to bet on NBA games, so long as the league gets some percentage of the money that is wagered. It seems to me like Silver is praised for this stance more often than he is criticized, and with each passing day, it seems like legalized NBA gambling might actually one day happen. In a league that is already being infused with a ton of money, this would boost profits exponentially, and maybe it will happen. However, I am here to say that while it is probably tough to find fault with the stance of Silver and the NBA, this is entering territory that is full of slippery slopes.

Even though it is not officially decreed as one, Super Bowl Sunday is pretty much a national holiday in this country. Not only is it popular here, but the game will be watched throughout the entire world. Because of that attention, it seems like legalizing gambling so long as the NFL were able to take a portion of that money would make sense. Although that might make sense financially, as an ardent fan of the sport, I do not think it would make sense in my eyes. The stakes are too high, and the chance of manipulation is too much for me to ignore. I don't care how much money the players are making. Everyone in this world has a price, whether they want to admit it or not.

The most famous sports scandal of all is, in the eyes of most, the throwing of the 1919 World Series by multiple members of the Chicago White Sox team. The names of guys like Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson and Chick Gandil will forever be associated with being bought off to lose the 1919 World Series. Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but because of his role in that scandal, he never will be. "The integrity of the game" is a phrase thrown around in many different circumstances, but what those guys did in 1919 was ignore the integrity of the game. They laid down and threw games because they were enticed by gamblers and their money. That is why I believe that any professional sports league that legalizes gambling is opening itself up to all kinds of possibilities just like those of 1919.

I know what opponents of my theory will say. The salaries paid to those players in 1919 were nothing compared to what they would be making by throwing games today. Is that true? Yes. Does it make me somewhat understand why they chose to do so in 1919? Yes. However, times have changed. Athletes now make a lot more money than they did a century ago. One thing I do know though, is that people with a lot of money usually are mainly focused on one thing; making even more money. Like I said before, everyone in this world has a price. I don't care if you are the highest paid player on the team or the last man on the roster. And that does not even take into account the possibility of people not playing in these games and their effect on the outcome. If anyone should know that, it is the NBA.

Players surely have the biggest outcome on games being played, but they are not the only people who do impact those outcomes. Tim Donaghy was an NBA official for over a decade. In 2007, he resigned from the league because of allegations that he had bet on games and officiated in such a way that affected the outcomes of the games he worked. Following his resignation, he pleaded guilty in court to multiple federal charges and served time in prison because of what he did.

The salary of NFL referees is between about $25,000 and $70,000. Let's cut that down the middle and say that refs get paid about $50,000 per year. Practice squad players in the league, who are basically what would be defined as the "worst" players in the league, make about $7,200 each week that they are on a roster. If they stay with a team and never get into a game all season, that equals over $115,000. That means that the players on the back end of any roster are making almost $50,000 more than even the highest paid officials. So that begs the question, why are there not Tim Donaghys in every professional sports league? Is it because they have not been found guilty, or is it because the money they could potentially make is not large enough yet? I think it is the latter.

It does not stop with officials though. Rob Gronkowski suffered a hit to the head in the AFC Championship game and has been in the league's concussion protocol since then. Gronkowski is one of the best players in the game. When asked about whether or not he would be playing this Sunday (we all expect that he will), he said that is what not his decision or the decision of the coaches, it was a matter that was to be decided by the doctors. So what that means is that one doctor out there somewhere in the country supposedly has the status of Gronkowski sitting in the palm of their hands. If that doctor did not allow Gronkowski to play this Sunday, it would have enormous ramifications on the outcome of the game. Is whoever that doctor is most likely paid well? Yes, I would believe so. However, is that person paid well enough to where they never need to work another day in their life? No, I guarantee that they are not. So what would prevent that doctor from placing a bet against New England and then ruling Gronkowski out for the game this Sunday if gambling on the NFL were legalized? Nothing would prevent it.

I know that some of these ideas might be outlandish, but when there is large amounts of money involved, nothing is outlandish. I love sports because it is the ultimate reality show. Reality shows don't air on MTV or VH1 or any of those other stupid channels airing those stupid shows. Sports is the ultimate reality show, because literally anything is possible. I do not want that to be changed. Although legalizing betting may not immediately lead to that change taking place, I do think that it could at least plant the seeds for it taking place some day. For that reason, I dearly hope that, despite what could be huge profits, these leagues at least can put aside thoughts of their bank accounts for just a few seconds and realize that what they are giving the fans is beautiful, and we don't want our reality television to come in the form of a bunch of drunk people fighting in some house in front of television cameras and edited for hours and hours before being shown to the world. We want our reality television to happen in real time, and that is what we get with sports.

Daily Rangers Update: The team currently sits ninth in the Eastern Conference, but with still many games to play. Everyone will be rested following the All Star break, and next up for the Rangers is the Toronto Maple Leafs tomorrow night.

Daily NBA Update: James Harden went absolutely berserk last night, recording the first 60 point triple-double in the history of the league. In a league that has existed for decades and featured stat sheet stuffers like Wilt Chamberlain, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James, what Harden did last night is really spectacular.

Daily Giants Update: Nothing much new to report here, but once the season officially ends this Sunday night, all eyes will be focused on the draft, and now that the Giants have a front office and a coaching staff in place, I assume that they will be well prepared going into draft night on April 26th.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: This does not really affect Arizona, as I think our team is pretty much set to go into Spring Training, but there are still multiple free agents who have yet to sign with new teams, and we are now only a few weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting. J.D. Martinez is still out there and available, but I never expected him back with the Diamondbacks to begin with, and despite him still being available, I still do not expect the team to pay him the exorbitant amount of money that I assume he is asking for. In any case, I like the roster going into camp, and I am excited going into 2018.

The Hall of Fame debate

The 2018 Major League Baseball Hall of Fame class was announced today, and with that, I think it would be a good time to express my thoughts on who is in the Hall, who is not in, and what I think about the most talked about members and non-members.

The elections of Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman, and Jim Thome were announced today, and Alan Trammell and Jack Morris will also be inducted this summer. Jones received the highest percentage of votes out of all of those men, with 97.2% of voters listing him on their ballots. Are all six of these men deserving of election? Certainly, they are. However, as has been the case for multiple years now, the bigger story was who was still not elected.

Roger Clemens received votes on 57.3% of ballots, and Barry Bonds received votes on 56.4% of ballots. In order to be elected into the Hall, a player must receive votes on at least 75% of all ballots. So while both of these men did garner a lot of votes, they are still seemingly quite far from gaining entrance into baseball's most hallowed museum. And I use the word museum quite literally there. It may not be the opinion of every baseball fan, but I believe that the Hall of Fame is a museum documenting the history of the sport. It is called the Hall of Fame for a reason. It isn't the Hall of Nice Guys or the Hall of Humanitarians. It is called the Hall of Fame because it represents the most famous people in the sport, and fame does not always come about through good will or good behavior.

If you look in the baseball record books, it is impossible to get very far without seeing the names of both Bonds and Clemens. One of the most sacred record in not only baseball, but all of sports, is the individual record for home runs in a career. If you are even a casual fan of the sport, you most likely know the career home run totals of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. Aaron's 715th home run, breaking Ruth's record of 714, was one of the most memorable moments in the history of the sport. And then when Bonds hit his 756th home run, it was just as historic. Bonds' single season record of 73 home runs is also nearly as historic. His name is at the top of two of the most significant lists in all of sports.

Roger Clemens won 354 games in his career and struck out 4,672 batters along the way. That ranks him 9th and 3rd respectively in both of those categories. Out of the top 14 pitchers in career strikeouts, Clemens is the only one not currently a member of the Hall of Fame. There are 24 pitchers that have won at least 300 games in their career. Out of all of them, Clemens is the only one not in the Hall of Fame. The numbers of both Bonds and Clemens are not borderline Hall of Fame numbers. They are numbers that absolutely warrant election. However, since both of these men have the dark cloud of steroids hanging over their heads, they have yet to been granted entry in the Cooperstown museum.

Do steroids give players an unfair advantage over others who do not use steroids? The answer is almost certainly yes. Are the suspensions for steroid use now extremely harsh? Yes. However, those regulations did not exist when Bonds and Clemens played, and therefore it should not be held against them that they were using performance enhancers that have been deemed illegal after their careers ended. I know what the detractors will say. These men, as well as other steroid users, knew they were gaining an unfair advantage over their competition. And they probably did know that. But if it was not against the rules when they were playing, why should these guys be punished?

All you need to do is a little bit of research and you can find multiple examples of how this argument can be used against many players who currently are in the Hall of Fame. Ask baseball fans if they have ever heard of Charles "Old Hoss" Radbourn. If they have, then they most likely can tell you that he won 59 games during the 1884 season. And, you did not read that wrong. He won FIFTY-NINE games during the 1884 season. During his entire career, he won 309 games. But, the game of baseball was much different during Radbourn's career.

The current distance from the pitching rubber to home plate is 60 feet and 6 inches. A pitcher's foot must remain on the rubber from start to finish of any given pitch. So one would assume that any pitcher throwing from a distance other than that should not be compared to pitchers who threw from that distance. In the late 19th century when Radbourn played, the concept of a "pitching mound" did not exist. Instead, there was a "pitcher's box," somewhat similar to what we now call a batter's box. The box was much larger than a modern day pitching rubber, and its distance was 45 feet from home plate, a distance that is considerably less than the current day distance. Also, unlike modern day rules that state a pitcher's foot must be on the rubber at all times during any given pitch, players in the 19th century could throw from wherever they wanted as long as they were within that pitcher's box, which was considerably larger than a pitching rubber we use in the 21st century. So does that extra 15 feet give 19th century pitchers a clear advantage over 21st century pitchers? Without question it does. Should Radbourn be denied entry into the Hall of Fame because of that? Apparently not, because he has been a member since 1939.

Next up, we have Bob Gibson. Gibson is, in the eyes of many that watched him, arguably the greatest pitcher to ever play the game. Although he had many great seasons, his best was 1968, when won 22 games and had a historically great ERA of 1.12. In the 21st century, an ERA under 3.00 is considered great, but an ERA of 1.12? That is absolutely unbelievable. It is a record that will probably never be broken. Is Gibson a Hall of Famer? He most certainly is. But was the game different in 1968? Yes, it was.

In lieu of that pitcher's box I spoke of with Radbourn, later years brought about another change in pitching style. Pitchers found that they could throw pitches with more force while striding downhill, and eventually, what we know today as the pitcher's mound was formed. Originally, the height guidelines stated that mounds be no more than 15 feet high, but these rules were lightly enforced, and in some stadiums, mounds were higher than that. Throwing pitches from higher elevations gave pitchers a bigger advantage over hitters, and therefore these pitchers welcomed stadiums that were notorious for mounds of increased height. However, after Gibson's historic 1968 season, the league decided that, in an effort to lessen this advantage that pitchers had, they would set new regulations that would be enforced much more strictly. The pitching mound would be 10 inches high, and there were no more excuses for every mound at every stadium being that way. Was it a coincidence that these changes happened because of Gibson's historically low ERA? Some could say no, but it surely played at least some part in it happening. Does that sound familiar? Following a power outburst that brought about an era of unprecedented home run numbers, did the league make new rules? Yes, it did. Were Bonds and Clemens subject to these new rules? Yes, they were. However, since the rules were not in place while they were both setting records, those records still correctly remained.

There is still another example of how the game has changed though that I would like to use. In 1901, a rule was adopted by the league that foul balls counted as strikes. Up until that point, strikes were only called if a batter swung and missed, or a batter took a pitch that was judged to be in the strike zone. Therefore, striking batters out was much harder for pitchers to do than it is today, since foul balls were basically the equivalent of a do-over.

Giancarlo Stanton won the National League MVP award this past season. He struck out 163 times. Willie Keeler, a member of the Hall of Fame, played 19 seasons and struck out 136 times. That's right. The 2017 MVP struck out more times in one season than Keeler did in 19 seasons. The most times Keeler struck out in a single season was 13. Omitting seasons at both the beginning and ends of his career when he played limited amounts of games, Keeler had nine seasons in which he played at least 100 games and struck out less than 10 times. In the 21st century, it is not uncommon for a player to strike out 10 times within the course of one week. Did the rules back in the late 19th and early 20th century clearly favor Keeler and all other batters? They absolutely did. Is Keeler still a member of the Hall of Fame? He certainly is.

What I mean by telling you all of this is that the game of baseball, just like any sport and any part of life in general, evolves over time. The world of 2018 is far different from the world that was lived in over a decade ago, let alone a century ago, and that evolution should not affect the standing of guys like Bonds and Clemens. Did they do things that are now considered offensive and illegal in the baseball world? Yes, they did. But, were these things illegal when they were active players? No, they were not.

The Hall of Fame is a museum depicting the history of the sport of baseball. While there are all sorts of great baseball moments that are commemorated in Cooperstown, a true museum does not just focus on the positives. It focuses on the negatives as well, so long as those negatives were significant enough to be an integral part of history. There is no denying that the careers of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are integral pieces in the story of baseball. For that reason, they absolutely deserve induction into the Hall of Fame, and even though opinions may be very slowly changing and accepting of this idea, I doubt that these men will gain induction any time soon.

Ty Cobb, considered by many to be one of, if not the greatest player of all time was a member of the first ever Hall of Fame class. Cobb used to physically fight opponents, umpires, and sometimes even spectators. Cap Anson was a known and unapologetic racist. Orlando Cepeda served almost a year in prison for a drug conviction. Countless members of the Hall of Fame, including Babe Ruth, who has an entire room in the museum dedicated solely to him, were outright and unashamed alcoholics and carousers.

What I am trying to say is, Bonds and Clemens need to be in the Hall of Fame. They may not have been the nicest of friendliest men in the world, but the Hall of Fame is full of men just as, if not more so, angry and tempestuous. Will either of these guys eventually end up members of the Hall of Fame? Only time will tell. But one thing I can say without question is that if the story of the history of baseball is being told, it is not nearly complete without Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

Daily Giants Update: James Bettcher was named today as the new defensive coordinator, while Thomas McGaughey is the new special teams coach. I'm not too familiar with either of them, but I do know that Bettcher favors a 3-4 style of defense, and I am not a fan of playing defense that way. Olivier Vernon and Jason Pierre-Paul are studs as 4-3 defensive ends, and I would hate to see them standing up and playing as outside linebackers in a 3-4 system. Also, the Giants have not had any good inside linebackers in years, so shifting to a 3-4 would not only call for one good inside linebacker, but it would call for two. Bettcher has obviously not been in charge for very long, so hopefully he isn't stubborn in his methods, because I do not think that the Giants have the personnel in place to be able to effectively run a 3-4 defense.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: No new news here, but the countdown to pitchers and catchers reporting continues.

Daily Rangers Update: The last game for the Rangers ended in a 6-3 loss to the Anaheim Ducks. Next up is a game in San Jose against the Sharks. It will end a four-game west coast trip that has thus far yielded nothing but losses for the team.

Daily NBA Update: Dan Gilbert is reportedly interested in selling the Cleveland Cavaliers, and there are a whole bunch of interesting ways to look at this that I will probably try to write about if and when this sale actually takes place. On the court, Ben Simmons posted a monstrous triple-double this past night, and he seems like an obvious choice for rookie of the year.

The definition of self-centered

On February 11th, the Cleveland Cavaliers will go to Boston to play the Celtics. It will be a battle of two of the best teams in the Eastern Conference, and possibly a preview of the Conference Finals that will take place this coming summer. However, this night will be significant for another reason as well.

Paul Pierce played the first 15 seasons of his career with Boston, and was a crucial part of the team that won a championship in 2008. Therefore, on February 11th, the Celtics are going to retire his #34 jersey, as he will join 22 other former team members to be honored in such a way.

And just as a side note here, the fact that the Celtics have 22 numbers retired is amazing and shows how great a franchise they have been for so long.

But getting back to Pierce, he recently announced that he wanted the night to belong to him. The team had scheduled a video tribute to honor Isaiah Thomas' time as a Celtic since he now plays for Cleveland, but Pierce did not agree with the decision. Even though Thomas was a beloved figure in Boston during his time there, and even though he gave his heart and soul to the team in the playoffs just days after his sister was tragically killed in a car accident, Pierce seemingly doesn't care about that.

I have seen video tributes to players by teams before. They usually last at most about two minutes. Two minutes. That means that Pierce is unwilling to have to see a two minute video praising Isaiah Thomas' time with Boston. I have four words for Paul Pierce: Are you kidding me? Is he so egotistical that he can't have his special day interrupted for 120 seconds? I cannot believe that Pierce has a problem with this.

Does Pierce deserve to have his jersey retired? He absolutely does. Are there special honors that come with having your jersey retired? Yes, there are. But the fact that Pierce will somehow be offended by a short video tribute to Isaiah Thomas comes across to me as unbelievably narcissistic. Pierce will be honored by having his jersey retired that night. But does he know that something else will happen that night as well? Apparently not. There is also going to be a basketball game between two of the best teams in the NBA. Pierce's tribute is not going to be the only thing going that night, so I don't understand how he could believe that the night should be about him and nothing else.

The Cavaliers did visit Boston in early January, but Isaiah Thomas was injured and did not play in the game. Could they have played the video tribute then even though he was hurt? Yes, they could have, but they did not because he was not playing in the game. Could the team have scheduled Pierce's jersey retirement on a different night? Yes, they could have, however it isn't like Pierce is coming out of hiding from his retirement to make one last public appearance in Boston. Pierce is employed by ESPN and his face is on television all the time. People still see him and remember him as one of the great Boston Celtics, so the fact that Pierce is self-centered enough to demand the team not play a short video tribute to Thomas during what he believes should be "his night" is ridiculous.

I'm not sure how long Pierce's jersey retirement ceremony will last, but I'm about 99% sure it won't last 48 minutes. The game is going to last 48 minutes, unless Pierce wants to attempt to call that off and focus even more on himself. Jersey retirement ceremonies are special. I understand that. But in this case Paul Pierce comes off as so egotistical and selfish that it changes my perception of him.

God, forbid someone from stealing his spotlight for a few minutes. We might as well let Pierce play the game against Cleveland by himself with no one on the floor for the Cavaliers so we can watch an entire game of him winning one last time and taking all the glory for himself. For him to demand that the spotlight shine only on him is so selfish and absurd, and even though he obviously does not recognize that right now, I hope that some day eventually he does.

Daily Rangers Update: Nothing to report here as the team is off today. Tomorrow brings a game against Buffalo, who currently own the worst record in the Eastern Conference, so it should be a game that the Rangers win.

Daily Giants Update: Now that it seems "unofficially official" that Pat Shurmur is going to be the new head coach, the focus should shift to who he hires as his assistants. Steve Spagnuolo hired Shurmur as one of his assistants during his short term as the head coach of the Rams, so it is likely that Shurmur might return the favor here and keep Spagnuolo as the defensive coordinator. There were serious issues both on and off the field with the defense this past year, and I'm not sure how much Spagnuolo had to do with those, so this may or may not be a good thing.

Daily Diamondbacks Update: Nothing new here as well since Spring Training is still far away, but the San Francisco Giants just acquired Andrew McCutchen, so it seems like the NL West is going to be one of the toughest, if not the toughest division in all of baseball in 2018.

Daily NBA Update: Yesterday was a light night in terms of the number of games, but Anthony Davis was the standout with 45 points and 16 rebounds in a Pelicans win over the Celtics (I'm terribly sorry Mr. Pierce). There are 10 games tonight though, so it will be much busier during NBA talk shows tomorrow morning.