As I write this, on April 22nd, the NHL and NBA playoffs have gotten underway, and we are about a month through the Major League Baseball season. Three of our major four sports are in the spotlight, and this is really their time to shine. While the baseball season is still young, its presence still brings about daily viewing pleasure to people throughout the country. The NBA playoffs (despite the seemingly unending length) are at the forefront, and the NHL playoffs are also in full swing, and this is one of the few times that the NHL gets continual national media coverage.
Since our sports world has become one that is clearly dominated by football, this is a time that football should take a back seat to the rest of our sports. However, in some places, that just simply is not the case. If we thought that we could go more than a week without seeing any football in our national news, then we were wrong. I love the game of football, and most of the country does as well, but the fact of the matter is, this is not football season. The NFL Draft is still a month away, and then the preseason doesn't begin for three months. It is time to focus on our other sports. Yet, it just seems that we are unable to do so.
Collegiate football teams begin their offseason activities before NFL teams, and sadly, these offseason activities are more important in some places than anything else going on in the sports world. Just over the past week, the "spring games" of teams like Auburn, Oklahoma, Alabama, and others were televised, and their results were broadcast to a national audience. For those who don't understand what spring games are, I will give you a quick synopsis. They are basically glorified scrimmages that hold the attention of millions of people throughout the country.
Right now, the Oklahoma City Thunder are in the midst of a playoff run that might eventually lead them to an NBA championship. Yet, it seems like the majority of Oklahoma is more invested in the spring game of the Oklahoma Sooners than they are in the playoff run of the Thunder. In Ohio, the Columbus Blue Jackets will have a chance to even their series at two with the highly ranked Pittsburgh Penguins, but the focus is still on the spring game of the Ohio State Buckeyes. In my opinion, this is absolutely ludicrous. This is the height of the season for the Thunder. This is the height of the season for the Blue Jackets. The height of the season for the Sooners and Buckeyes is months away. Why should we place focus on scrimmages more than playoff games? If you ask me, I would be unable to come up with an answer.
Down south, I understand that things are different. In Alabama, the only thing that they have is college football. There are no major sports teams in Alabama, and therefore, college football rules. The rivalry between Auburn and Alabama dates back to long before I was born, and its flame still burns as much today as it did decades ago. Therefore, I will afford fans of the Tigers and the Crimson Tide a bit more leeway than I do for other schools, but I still cannot help but feel like these spring games are blown exponentially out of proportion.
What these games are, is basically an intrasquad scrimmage. Sometimes it is "offense vs. defense," sometimes it is "red vs. white," but no matter what, these games have zero bearing on the upcoming college season. If you thought spring training statistics meant nothing when predicting a baseball season, then multiply that belief by ten and attach it to the results of a college football spring game. The fact that tens of thousands of fans attend these games make it even more laughable. Is there really nothing better to do in Alabama than watch what is basically a team practice? Sure, it might be interesting to some to see who will replace A.J. McCarron at quarterback for the Crimson Tide. But do we need to turn out in droves to witness a portion of the battle for that position? No.
It is April right now. As sports fans, we should be focused on the NBA and NHL playoffs, as well as the MLB regular season. This is one of the few times each year that football takes a back seat, and broadcasting these spring games across the country is in complete contrast to that. We are all at fault for glorifying football to the point of sainthood, but can we please forget about it for a little while? There is a reason we have four major sports in this country, and it is time to give those "other three" sports the respect that they deserve.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers head to Philadelphia tonight after splitting the first two games of the series at Madison Square Garden. Winning at least one of the next two games is absolutely essential if the Rangers want to move on to the second round, so what better way to start than winning tonight?
Daily Nets Update: After taking Game One away from the Raptors on the road, the Nets are in a great position right now. At worst, the Nets will return to Brooklyn with the series tied at one game apiece. However, since the playoffs are officially underway, it is time for our veterans to step up, and Paul Pierce led the way in Game 1. A win tonight would be enormous, but even if the Nets lose, they should still be in good shape heading back to the Barclays Center.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: I'm not sure if hitting rock bottom is possible in April, but if it is, then the Diamondbacks are there. At 5-17, Arizona is clearly the worst team in baseball, and it is hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. The offense has been at least serviceable, but the pitching, from top to bottom, has been absolutely horrendous. Arizona is already 8 games out in the division, and the promising signs are few and far between. I was close to writing a piece about how bad this team has been, but I figured that no one would really be interested in it. Either way, the DBacks face the Cubs in about two hours, and I really have no expectation aside from not getting blown out.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Monday, April 14, 2014
A tradition unlike any other
There are many sports fans who feel like Opening Day is the unofficial beginning of summer, and while it does not actually begin during summer, I do believe that it at least signals that summer is not far away. The Major League Baseball season is about two weeks old, and I have been very interested in the young season so far.
Then, there are many other sports fans who feel like the unofficial beginning of summer is The Masters. After the cold winter months, seeing all of the best golfers in the world gather in Augusta, Georgia on the sprawling green course is another indication that the summer is soon to come. While I am certainly not a big fan of golf by any stretch of the imagination, I do usually at least watch the four major tournaments in parts, and The Masters is one of those tournaments. However, this past weekend, I just had hardly any interest at all in watching, and I was not the only one.
There are a lot of things that I do not like about the Augusta National Golf Club. The club only admitted its first black member after another professional golf club in Alabama (Shoal Creek) denied entry to black players, and in doing so, almost lost its chance to host the PGA Championship. Fearing similar repercussions, Augusta accepted black males into its club before they faced any significant protests from the outside world.
Augusta was however, at the middle of controversy in 2002 when their exclusion of females was brought to the forefront of the sports media world. It was not until 2012 that females were actually allowed entry into the club. I have heard many people say that the south is "behind the times," but not allowing females membership to the club until 2012 is really pathetic. I understand that these clubs have their own policies, and technically, they can run their establishments however they please. I also understand that golf is not exactly a sport that is shrouded in modernity. Many would say that golf is a game played by, and for, old white males. Therefore, combine that with the fact that we are talking about golf in Georgia, and it makes it a bit easier to see why they have such antiquated policies. The Augusta National Golf Club is different though, and there are multiple reasons for that.
There are four major PGA tournaments played each year. The Masters, The U.S. Open, The British Open, and The PGA Championship. The latter three are played in different locales each year. The only one played in the same spot every year is The Masters, and that is why Augusta is different from every other golf club in the country. Having racist and/or sexist policies might not be newsworthy, and might not really matter, for a little known golf club somewhere in middle America, but when a golf club is at the center of the PGA world for one week each year, they need to loosen up.
Despite all of these things I dislike about the club, I still usually tune in to watch at least some of The Masters, but this year I just didn't feel any compulsion to at all, and according to television ratings, there were many people around the country who felt the same way. The ratings were down by at least one million viewers per day, and this in turn caused ticket prices to drop, meaning that The Masters did not generate nearly as much money for Augusta National Golf Club as it did last year. People may try to deny the reason for this, but in my opinion, there is one main reason, and that is the absence of Tiger Woods.
I don't need to document the history of Woods' impact on the game of golf, because we all know it has been tremendous. As he has gotten older, his level of play has declined, but unlike most other professional sports, in golf, you can play well into your 40's and 50's. So, in actuality, Woods is not going anywhere, but the longer the game needs to rely on him to be the main attraction at each tournament, the worse it is for the PGA Tour.
In my opinion, Woods' best years are well behind him. He will still win tournaments in the future, but the chances of him winning any more majors seem to be shrinking by the minute. All of the sports we watch can usually be marked by some kind of esoteric era. These eras are not set concretely in terms of beginning, ending, structure, or length, but ardent sports fans can pretty much identify them in each sport.
In the NBA, we had the era of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. After that, the power shifted to the west, as we saw the Spurs and Lakers dominate for long stretches of time. And now, despite the futile denials of his detractors, we are squarely in the middle of the era of LeBron James.
In the NFL, the mid to late 1980's were dominated by the 49ers. The Cowboys followed that with a stretch of dominance, and soon after that, Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and the New England Patriots had a stranglehold on the league. Now, while there is no real singularly dominant team (I know, yes, my Giants have won two of the last seven Super Bowls, but their down years in between cannot really support anyone calling them a dynasty), I think many would say that we are in the middle of the era of the quarterback. Quarterbacks are getting paid the most money, they are winning Super Bowl MVP's, they are breaking records left and right, and they are the face of the league right now.
In Major League Baseball, the game was known so long as one that was best able to support "dynasties." Teams like the Cardinals, Giants, Dodgers, and Reds experienced long stretches of success, and then of course, there is the Yankees. The Yankees seemed to own the 1990's into the turn of the century, and after that "Yankee era" ended, we saw the steroid era. Home runs were flying out of ballparks on an inning-by-inning basis, and long-standing records were being shattered. What we are in right now may not be an era marked by a singular team, but in comparison to what we were used to seeing in baseball, you might be able to call it an era of parity, with recent years possibly becoming a new era of pitching.
There have been numerous World Series champions since the steroid era ended, and that is why it might be called an era of parity. The Red Sox, Cardinals, Giants, Rays, Yankees, Phillies, Rangers, and Tigers, among a few other teams, have enjoyed long runs of success recently, and most teams have enjoyed at least some success in terms of playoff participation over the past decade. Pitching has also thrived as of late, with a seemingly inane number of perfect games, no hitters, and general dominance.
However, the game of golf has been immersed in the era of Tiger Woods now for far too long. Woods won his first major (The Masters) in 1997. Since then, all of the sports I just mentioned have seen eras come and go, but golf still is clinging to the era of Tiger Woods. It is like the game is waiting for a new face to step forward and lead it, but no one has been able to do so. Have we seen flashes? Sure. Phil Mickelson is certainly a big draw, and the fact that he failed to make the cut at The Masters this year definitely did not help the television ratings. However, he just doesn't quite have the flair of Woods. Bubba Watson just won his second Masters, and he seems to be approaching the prime of his career, but the fact that I am only just mentioning his name now and he won the tournament makes it seem as though his name is inconsequential. Adam Scott? Rickie Fowler? They just don't seem to do it.
In my opinion, the closest the golf world has come to replacing Tiger Woods is Rory McIlroy. McIlroy is young and talented, and he seems to have a personality that is at least somewhat able to handle the bright lights. He has two major wins to his credit, and he has won numerous other tournaments as well. However, at this point in his career, McIlroy is still known by some more for his collapse at the 2011 Masters more than anything else. McIlroy went into the final day at the top of the leaderboard, but went on to shoot an 80 and drop into a tie for 15th place. I remember it being painful to watch on television as he struggled so badly. Two major wins are certainly great, and more than most PGA players will ever have, but no one remembers Tiger Woods for cracking under the pressure, and McIlroy still has not done enough to make us completely forget about the time he did fold when the cameras were squarely on him.
So, to sum it all up, I have to say that our society in America, as far as sports goes, is one craving the spectacular. We loved seeing baseball players hit balls farther than we could ever imagine, and pitchers throwing perfect games. We love Johnny Manziel winning the Heisman Trophy and then going out and being photographed with a bottle of champagne in each hand and a girl under each arm. We love seeing NBA players winning titles and then partying with celebrity actors and musicians. We love seeing NFL players winning the Super Bowl and then declaring "I'm going to Disney World!" Right after Bubba Watson won The Masters this year, where did he go? Disney World? A celebrity-laden party? To the front of a parade of heroes? No. He went to a waffle house. I'm sorry, but that just is not what we want to see.
So then, what is the golf world to do? Honestly, I cannot answer that question. The guys we see winning tournaments right now might be great golfers, but they are not attention grabbers. The next great, attention grabbing golfer might be right under our nose and ready to break out, or he might be a 12-year old on a public municipal golf course somewhere in South Dakota. So, maybe it is fitting that golf is a sport that is beloved and played by older men, because at this point, the game seems to be clinging to an era that has passed. The game needs someone to step up and begin a new era, and as of April 14, 2014, that has not happened. If you don't believe me, just ask ESPN, CBS, and Augusta National Golf Club. Their wallets will prove me right.
Daily Rangers Update: The playoffs will be in full swing right out of the gate on Thursday with the Flyers visiting Madison Square Garden. The NHL playoffs, more so than any other sport, are usually very wide open, and a hot streak from the team could mean we still have a lot of Rangers hockey ahead of us. Hopefully, that is the case. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Nets Update: Even with only two games left to play in the regular season, Brooklyn's postseason road is far from clear. Chicago and Toronto are now tied at #3 and #4 in the Eastern Conference, and the team that ends the season at #4 will be the one to face the Nets in the first round. After that (hoping the Nets can pull off a win in that series), they will have to go up against (barring a major upset), the #1 team in the conference, and that spot is still undecided, as it could be either Indiana or Miami. No matter who they end up playing, I think if Brooklyn makes it out of the first round, they should consider it a good showing, but if that were to happen, things will be extremely tough in round two.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Things are not looking good in the desert. After taking two out of three from the Giants in San Francisco, the DBacks were swept at home by the Dodgers and now stand at 4-11. The Mets come to town to open a three-game series tonight, and Josh Collmenter will get the start against Zack Wheeler. Collmenter will be making his first start of the season, as the team has already decided to give up on Randall Delgado in the starting rotation. Collmenter has been superb in long relief over the past year and a half, but was not too great when he was used as a starter prior to that. Multiple starting pitchers have gotten off to fast starts in the minor leagues, and Archie Bradley is only one of them. Obviously, we still have a ton of games to play, but this has been anything but a promising start, and the young guys would be hard-pressed to actually pitch worse than our staff has thus far.
Daily Giants Update: Voluntary workouts begin in a week, and OTA's are still over a month away. Thus far, the team has seemingly tried to address their weaknesses through quantity and not quality, but it wouldn't be fair to judge the offseason before the draft, which is now less than a month away.
Then, there are many other sports fans who feel like the unofficial beginning of summer is The Masters. After the cold winter months, seeing all of the best golfers in the world gather in Augusta, Georgia on the sprawling green course is another indication that the summer is soon to come. While I am certainly not a big fan of golf by any stretch of the imagination, I do usually at least watch the four major tournaments in parts, and The Masters is one of those tournaments. However, this past weekend, I just had hardly any interest at all in watching, and I was not the only one.
There are a lot of things that I do not like about the Augusta National Golf Club. The club only admitted its first black member after another professional golf club in Alabama (Shoal Creek) denied entry to black players, and in doing so, almost lost its chance to host the PGA Championship. Fearing similar repercussions, Augusta accepted black males into its club before they faced any significant protests from the outside world.
Augusta was however, at the middle of controversy in 2002 when their exclusion of females was brought to the forefront of the sports media world. It was not until 2012 that females were actually allowed entry into the club. I have heard many people say that the south is "behind the times," but not allowing females membership to the club until 2012 is really pathetic. I understand that these clubs have their own policies, and technically, they can run their establishments however they please. I also understand that golf is not exactly a sport that is shrouded in modernity. Many would say that golf is a game played by, and for, old white males. Therefore, combine that with the fact that we are talking about golf in Georgia, and it makes it a bit easier to see why they have such antiquated policies. The Augusta National Golf Club is different though, and there are multiple reasons for that.
There are four major PGA tournaments played each year. The Masters, The U.S. Open, The British Open, and The PGA Championship. The latter three are played in different locales each year. The only one played in the same spot every year is The Masters, and that is why Augusta is different from every other golf club in the country. Having racist and/or sexist policies might not be newsworthy, and might not really matter, for a little known golf club somewhere in middle America, but when a golf club is at the center of the PGA world for one week each year, they need to loosen up.
Despite all of these things I dislike about the club, I still usually tune in to watch at least some of The Masters, but this year I just didn't feel any compulsion to at all, and according to television ratings, there were many people around the country who felt the same way. The ratings were down by at least one million viewers per day, and this in turn caused ticket prices to drop, meaning that The Masters did not generate nearly as much money for Augusta National Golf Club as it did last year. People may try to deny the reason for this, but in my opinion, there is one main reason, and that is the absence of Tiger Woods.
I don't need to document the history of Woods' impact on the game of golf, because we all know it has been tremendous. As he has gotten older, his level of play has declined, but unlike most other professional sports, in golf, you can play well into your 40's and 50's. So, in actuality, Woods is not going anywhere, but the longer the game needs to rely on him to be the main attraction at each tournament, the worse it is for the PGA Tour.
In my opinion, Woods' best years are well behind him. He will still win tournaments in the future, but the chances of him winning any more majors seem to be shrinking by the minute. All of the sports we watch can usually be marked by some kind of esoteric era. These eras are not set concretely in terms of beginning, ending, structure, or length, but ardent sports fans can pretty much identify them in each sport.
In the NBA, we had the era of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. After that, the power shifted to the west, as we saw the Spurs and Lakers dominate for long stretches of time. And now, despite the futile denials of his detractors, we are squarely in the middle of the era of LeBron James.
In the NFL, the mid to late 1980's were dominated by the 49ers. The Cowboys followed that with a stretch of dominance, and soon after that, Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and the New England Patriots had a stranglehold on the league. Now, while there is no real singularly dominant team (I know, yes, my Giants have won two of the last seven Super Bowls, but their down years in between cannot really support anyone calling them a dynasty), I think many would say that we are in the middle of the era of the quarterback. Quarterbacks are getting paid the most money, they are winning Super Bowl MVP's, they are breaking records left and right, and they are the face of the league right now.
In Major League Baseball, the game was known so long as one that was best able to support "dynasties." Teams like the Cardinals, Giants, Dodgers, and Reds experienced long stretches of success, and then of course, there is the Yankees. The Yankees seemed to own the 1990's into the turn of the century, and after that "Yankee era" ended, we saw the steroid era. Home runs were flying out of ballparks on an inning-by-inning basis, and long-standing records were being shattered. What we are in right now may not be an era marked by a singular team, but in comparison to what we were used to seeing in baseball, you might be able to call it an era of parity, with recent years possibly becoming a new era of pitching.
There have been numerous World Series champions since the steroid era ended, and that is why it might be called an era of parity. The Red Sox, Cardinals, Giants, Rays, Yankees, Phillies, Rangers, and Tigers, among a few other teams, have enjoyed long runs of success recently, and most teams have enjoyed at least some success in terms of playoff participation over the past decade. Pitching has also thrived as of late, with a seemingly inane number of perfect games, no hitters, and general dominance.
However, the game of golf has been immersed in the era of Tiger Woods now for far too long. Woods won his first major (The Masters) in 1997. Since then, all of the sports I just mentioned have seen eras come and go, but golf still is clinging to the era of Tiger Woods. It is like the game is waiting for a new face to step forward and lead it, but no one has been able to do so. Have we seen flashes? Sure. Phil Mickelson is certainly a big draw, and the fact that he failed to make the cut at The Masters this year definitely did not help the television ratings. However, he just doesn't quite have the flair of Woods. Bubba Watson just won his second Masters, and he seems to be approaching the prime of his career, but the fact that I am only just mentioning his name now and he won the tournament makes it seem as though his name is inconsequential. Adam Scott? Rickie Fowler? They just don't seem to do it.
In my opinion, the closest the golf world has come to replacing Tiger Woods is Rory McIlroy. McIlroy is young and talented, and he seems to have a personality that is at least somewhat able to handle the bright lights. He has two major wins to his credit, and he has won numerous other tournaments as well. However, at this point in his career, McIlroy is still known by some more for his collapse at the 2011 Masters more than anything else. McIlroy went into the final day at the top of the leaderboard, but went on to shoot an 80 and drop into a tie for 15th place. I remember it being painful to watch on television as he struggled so badly. Two major wins are certainly great, and more than most PGA players will ever have, but no one remembers Tiger Woods for cracking under the pressure, and McIlroy still has not done enough to make us completely forget about the time he did fold when the cameras were squarely on him.
So, to sum it all up, I have to say that our society in America, as far as sports goes, is one craving the spectacular. We loved seeing baseball players hit balls farther than we could ever imagine, and pitchers throwing perfect games. We love Johnny Manziel winning the Heisman Trophy and then going out and being photographed with a bottle of champagne in each hand and a girl under each arm. We love seeing NBA players winning titles and then partying with celebrity actors and musicians. We love seeing NFL players winning the Super Bowl and then declaring "I'm going to Disney World!" Right after Bubba Watson won The Masters this year, where did he go? Disney World? A celebrity-laden party? To the front of a parade of heroes? No. He went to a waffle house. I'm sorry, but that just is not what we want to see.
So then, what is the golf world to do? Honestly, I cannot answer that question. The guys we see winning tournaments right now might be great golfers, but they are not attention grabbers. The next great, attention grabbing golfer might be right under our nose and ready to break out, or he might be a 12-year old on a public municipal golf course somewhere in South Dakota. So, maybe it is fitting that golf is a sport that is beloved and played by older men, because at this point, the game seems to be clinging to an era that has passed. The game needs someone to step up and begin a new era, and as of April 14, 2014, that has not happened. If you don't believe me, just ask ESPN, CBS, and Augusta National Golf Club. Their wallets will prove me right.
Daily Rangers Update: The playoffs will be in full swing right out of the gate on Thursday with the Flyers visiting Madison Square Garden. The NHL playoffs, more so than any other sport, are usually very wide open, and a hot streak from the team could mean we still have a lot of Rangers hockey ahead of us. Hopefully, that is the case. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Nets Update: Even with only two games left to play in the regular season, Brooklyn's postseason road is far from clear. Chicago and Toronto are now tied at #3 and #4 in the Eastern Conference, and the team that ends the season at #4 will be the one to face the Nets in the first round. After that (hoping the Nets can pull off a win in that series), they will have to go up against (barring a major upset), the #1 team in the conference, and that spot is still undecided, as it could be either Indiana or Miami. No matter who they end up playing, I think if Brooklyn makes it out of the first round, they should consider it a good showing, but if that were to happen, things will be extremely tough in round two.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Things are not looking good in the desert. After taking two out of three from the Giants in San Francisco, the DBacks were swept at home by the Dodgers and now stand at 4-11. The Mets come to town to open a three-game series tonight, and Josh Collmenter will get the start against Zack Wheeler. Collmenter will be making his first start of the season, as the team has already decided to give up on Randall Delgado in the starting rotation. Collmenter has been superb in long relief over the past year and a half, but was not too great when he was used as a starter prior to that. Multiple starting pitchers have gotten off to fast starts in the minor leagues, and Archie Bradley is only one of them. Obviously, we still have a ton of games to play, but this has been anything but a promising start, and the young guys would be hard-pressed to actually pitch worse than our staff has thus far.
Daily Giants Update: Voluntary workouts begin in a week, and OTA's are still over a month away. Thus far, the team has seemingly tried to address their weaknesses through quantity and not quality, but it wouldn't be fair to judge the offseason before the draft, which is now less than a month away.
Friday, April 11, 2014
A complicated situation
With the National Hockey League regular season winding down, teams in both the Western and Eastern Conferences are fighting for their final playoff positioning. Before this season, the NHL realigned its divisions and playoff format. The divisions did not undergo a major overhaul, but one noticeable difference was the fact that both conferences did not now include 15 teams. The Eastern Conference was made up of 16 teams (after gaining Detroit and Columbus), and the Western Conference was made up of 14 teams (after losing those two, but gaining Winnipeg). The league also went to a four-division format, instead of the six divisions that it had last season. On the surface, none of this seemed to be too significant, but once we look at the new playoff format, we see the major impact of this realignment.
In all four of our major sports, playoff formats vary. The NBA's is probably the simplest to understand, as the #1 seed in each conference plays the #8 seed, the #2 seed plays the #7 seed, and so on. The only caveat is that the winner of each division (there are three in each conference) must be among the top four seeds in the conference. That still makes winning the division guarantee home court advantage in the first round, but it still allows for a second place team in a particularly strong division to gain a seed higher than the division winner of a particularly weak division. In the second round, the winner of the #1 vs. #8 matchup plays the winner of the #4 vs. #5 matchup, and the winner of the #2 vs. #7 matchup plays the winner of the #3 vs. #6 matchup. That way, the teams with the two best records in each conference would be on track to meet in the conference finals. Very fair and reasonable.
As of last year, Major League Baseball implemented a change in its playoff system, and while it was met with some disdain, it is, in my opinion, easy to see why the league did it. Instead of having the winners of each of the three divisions, plus the team with the next best record make up the four teams in each league, a fifth team was added to the equation. Now, the teams with the fourth and fifth best records in each league play one another in a one-game "win or go home" scenario. The winner of that game then takes on the team with the best record in each league, and the remaining two division winners play each other. After those series' end, the two remaining teams in each league play one another for a shot to go to the World Series. Those who oppose this format do so because it supposedly puts the playoff hopes of four teams (two in the American League and two in the National League) on the line in one game. However, I do like this because it makes winning your division extremely important. The difference between possibly missing out on the postseason in a one-game playoff and winning the division makes each regular season game that much more important. In my mind, it works.
Things get a bit more complicated in the National Football League. With four divisions of four teams in each conference, there are a whole lot more scenarios to figure out. The league also implements a bye-system. The two division winners in each conference with the best won-loss records get the first weekend of the playoffs off to rest and recover. In a league where injuries can strike at any moment, and can ruin seasons in doing so, getting a bye in the first round of the playoffs is a huge incentive. After that, the winners of the other two divisions play the two non-division winning teams with the best record in each conference. Again, in an effort to make winning the division of extreme importance, those remaining two division winners host a first round game against one of the wild card teams, no matter the overall record of the teams. While this seems to make sense, it sometimes proves to be controversial when the winner of a particularly weak division hosts a wild card winner that could have a better record but still be forced to play a road game. Therefore, a 9-7 team from a weak division could host an 11-5 team from a strong division.
This was of particular note in 2010, when, in a terrible NFC West, the Seattle Seahawks actually won the division with a 7-9 record. It was the first time a team with a sub .500 record had won its division, and therefore, the Seahawks hosted the 11-5, defending Super Bowl Champion, New Orleans Saints. People yelled and screamed about it being unfair, but the Seahawks ended up winning that game (remember the Marshawn Lynch earthquake-inducing run). Now, homefield advantage surely played a part in Seattle's victory, and it is undeniable that they do have quite the advantage thanks to their home fans. It also appeared unfair, because the team with the home atmosphere that is probably second best in the league is the New Orleans Saints. If the game had been played in the Superdome in New Orleans, it would likely have been a much different game. However, this case is seemingly the outlier, and for the most part, the first round of the playoffs pretty much gets it right.
Next, is the NHL, and if the new divisions and unbalanced conferences might seem a bit new and take some time to get used to, just wait until we look at the format of the playoffs. The two division winners now face-off against the #7 and #8 seeds in each conference, now referred to as wild card teams. Wild card teams can come from any division, but they can finish no higher than third in their own division. The top three teams in each division are guaranteed a playoff berth, no matter their record. After that, the wild card winners are the two teams outside the top three in their own division, and those teams can come from either division. As it stands right now, the two wild card teams in the Eastern Conference would be the Philadelphia Flyers (from the Metropolitan Division) and the Detroit Red Wings (from the Atlantic Division). However, in the Western Conference, the two wild card teams would be the Minnesota Wild and the Dallas Stars, both members of the Central Division. This follows the model of the NFL, and it allows good teams from strong divisions to be rewarded with berths in the postseason. Therefore, this means the #1 seed will still play the #8 seed, and the #2 seed will still play the #7 seed. After that, we really see the effects of the new format.
Instead of the team with the third best record in each conference playing the team with the sixth best record, the second and third place teams in each division will play one another. This actually is a disadvantage to teams who play in a strong division and do not come in first place. As it currently stands, that means the Canadiens and Lightning will play one another in the first round, and the Rangers will play the Blue Jackets, despite Montreal and Tampa Bay both having better records than New York and Columbus. Under the old format, Montreal would have home-ice advantage in the first round against Columbus, and Tampa Bay would have home-ice advantage in the first round against New York. Instead, Tampa Bay is actually being forced to go on the road in the first round, and New York is being rewarded with home-ice advantage, despite Tampa Bay's record being superior to New York's. Like the NFL, this is technically unfair, but it is not drastically unfair.
In the second round, unlike the NFL, the divisional affiliation still matters. The winners of the "wild card" matchups, in all likelihood being the division winners in each conference will then play the winner of the first round matchup from their own respective division. That means the second round is guaranteed to be a matchup of division mates, no matter their overall records in respect to their seed in the conference. The case to look at here is that of the Chicago Blackhawks. Chicago currently stands in third place in the Central Division with the fourth best record in the Western Conference. In the old format, Chicago would have home-ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs against the team with the fifth best record in the West. Therefore, they would be guaranteed home-ice advantage in at least one round thanks to a very good regular season. However, due to this new format, Chicago could actually have to play the #2 and #3 seeds in the West, and not have home-ice advantage at all.
Right now, Chicago would play on the road in Colorado in the first round, and then, were they to win that series, they would go on the road again to play St. Louis. Meanwhile, the San Jose Sharks, who have a worse record than Chicago could potentially play at home in the first round and second round (if Anaheim were to be upset by the #8 seed in round one). This seems to be much more of a disadvantage to a good team in a good division like Chicago, and it makes their road to the Stanley Cup much tougher than it should be.
If this is all a bit confusing, then I have proven my point. The NHL is clearly the #4 sport based upon popularity in the four major American sports. I wrote earlier that its Winter Classic was a major attention-grabber, and has been a unquestioned success, but the new "Stadium Series" the league implemented this season took a bit of the glamour away from the Winter Classic. It seems like the league was messing with a good thing and being a bit greedy in doing so, and I tend to think similarly about this new playoff format. To those who watch intently, the NHL playoffs are extremely competitive and always fun. However, to the more casual fan, an extremely convoluted and confusing playoff format is surely not going to bring them any closer to investing more time in the game of hockey. It is easy to point the finger at commissioner Gary Bettman here, and he surely is deserving of much of the blame, but the league in general, including the owners, have not, in my mind, changed the league for the better here. Innovation and change can be for the better sometimes, but too much tinkering with a product that is lagging behind its competition can also turn out bad as well, and I don't like what the NHL has done with postseason here.
Daily Rangers Update: With only one game left to play, the Rangers seem destined to be hosting the Columbus Blue Jackets in the first round of the playoffs. As I just mentioned, this is actually an advantage for them, as in the old format the Rangers would be going on the road against Tampa Bay and have a potential second round matchup with the top-seeded Bruins awaiting them in round two. Instead, if they win their first round matchup with Columbus, they are still guaranteed to avoid Boston in the second round.
Daily Nets Update: The Nets have four games left to play, and they seem to be locked into the #5 spot in the Eastern Conference. Who they play in the first round is still undecided, as the Raptors and Bulls are tied at #3 and #4 in the east. Chicago will be tough, and Toronto has certainly flown under the radar despite being a very respectable 46-32. Either way, the Nets will have to go on the road to open the playoffs after the regular season ends.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Coming off a series win over the San Francisco Giants, the Diamondbacks open up a series at home tonight against the Dodgers. They still find themselves at the bottom of the National League standings, and the pitching has been very poor over the first 12 games. Losing Patrick Corbin right before the start of the season was a big blow, and the rest of the rotation has not exactly picked up the slack so far. They have been piecing together a staff with guys like Oliver Perez and Randy Wolf, and Randall Delgado has struggled mightily so far after winning a spot in the rotation out of Spring Training. We might be seeing Archie Bradley a bit sooner than expected if the rotation continues to struggle like it has thus far.
Daily Giants Update: Eli Manning underwent successful surgery on his ankle today, and he should be able to run again in six weeks. The preseason is still a long way away, but with a whole lot of questions on the offensive side of the ball, it would be nice to get the man who has never missed a start in his career back ASAP so the unit can begin to gel.
In all four of our major sports, playoff formats vary. The NBA's is probably the simplest to understand, as the #1 seed in each conference plays the #8 seed, the #2 seed plays the #7 seed, and so on. The only caveat is that the winner of each division (there are three in each conference) must be among the top four seeds in the conference. That still makes winning the division guarantee home court advantage in the first round, but it still allows for a second place team in a particularly strong division to gain a seed higher than the division winner of a particularly weak division. In the second round, the winner of the #1 vs. #8 matchup plays the winner of the #4 vs. #5 matchup, and the winner of the #2 vs. #7 matchup plays the winner of the #3 vs. #6 matchup. That way, the teams with the two best records in each conference would be on track to meet in the conference finals. Very fair and reasonable.
As of last year, Major League Baseball implemented a change in its playoff system, and while it was met with some disdain, it is, in my opinion, easy to see why the league did it. Instead of having the winners of each of the three divisions, plus the team with the next best record make up the four teams in each league, a fifth team was added to the equation. Now, the teams with the fourth and fifth best records in each league play one another in a one-game "win or go home" scenario. The winner of that game then takes on the team with the best record in each league, and the remaining two division winners play each other. After those series' end, the two remaining teams in each league play one another for a shot to go to the World Series. Those who oppose this format do so because it supposedly puts the playoff hopes of four teams (two in the American League and two in the National League) on the line in one game. However, I do like this because it makes winning your division extremely important. The difference between possibly missing out on the postseason in a one-game playoff and winning the division makes each regular season game that much more important. In my mind, it works.
Things get a bit more complicated in the National Football League. With four divisions of four teams in each conference, there are a whole lot more scenarios to figure out. The league also implements a bye-system. The two division winners in each conference with the best won-loss records get the first weekend of the playoffs off to rest and recover. In a league where injuries can strike at any moment, and can ruin seasons in doing so, getting a bye in the first round of the playoffs is a huge incentive. After that, the winners of the other two divisions play the two non-division winning teams with the best record in each conference. Again, in an effort to make winning the division of extreme importance, those remaining two division winners host a first round game against one of the wild card teams, no matter the overall record of the teams. While this seems to make sense, it sometimes proves to be controversial when the winner of a particularly weak division hosts a wild card winner that could have a better record but still be forced to play a road game. Therefore, a 9-7 team from a weak division could host an 11-5 team from a strong division.
This was of particular note in 2010, when, in a terrible NFC West, the Seattle Seahawks actually won the division with a 7-9 record. It was the first time a team with a sub .500 record had won its division, and therefore, the Seahawks hosted the 11-5, defending Super Bowl Champion, New Orleans Saints. People yelled and screamed about it being unfair, but the Seahawks ended up winning that game (remember the Marshawn Lynch earthquake-inducing run). Now, homefield advantage surely played a part in Seattle's victory, and it is undeniable that they do have quite the advantage thanks to their home fans. It also appeared unfair, because the team with the home atmosphere that is probably second best in the league is the New Orleans Saints. If the game had been played in the Superdome in New Orleans, it would likely have been a much different game. However, this case is seemingly the outlier, and for the most part, the first round of the playoffs pretty much gets it right.
Next, is the NHL, and if the new divisions and unbalanced conferences might seem a bit new and take some time to get used to, just wait until we look at the format of the playoffs. The two division winners now face-off against the #7 and #8 seeds in each conference, now referred to as wild card teams. Wild card teams can come from any division, but they can finish no higher than third in their own division. The top three teams in each division are guaranteed a playoff berth, no matter their record. After that, the wild card winners are the two teams outside the top three in their own division, and those teams can come from either division. As it stands right now, the two wild card teams in the Eastern Conference would be the Philadelphia Flyers (from the Metropolitan Division) and the Detroit Red Wings (from the Atlantic Division). However, in the Western Conference, the two wild card teams would be the Minnesota Wild and the Dallas Stars, both members of the Central Division. This follows the model of the NFL, and it allows good teams from strong divisions to be rewarded with berths in the postseason. Therefore, this means the #1 seed will still play the #8 seed, and the #2 seed will still play the #7 seed. After that, we really see the effects of the new format.
Instead of the team with the third best record in each conference playing the team with the sixth best record, the second and third place teams in each division will play one another. This actually is a disadvantage to teams who play in a strong division and do not come in first place. As it currently stands, that means the Canadiens and Lightning will play one another in the first round, and the Rangers will play the Blue Jackets, despite Montreal and Tampa Bay both having better records than New York and Columbus. Under the old format, Montreal would have home-ice advantage in the first round against Columbus, and Tampa Bay would have home-ice advantage in the first round against New York. Instead, Tampa Bay is actually being forced to go on the road in the first round, and New York is being rewarded with home-ice advantage, despite Tampa Bay's record being superior to New York's. Like the NFL, this is technically unfair, but it is not drastically unfair.
In the second round, unlike the NFL, the divisional affiliation still matters. The winners of the "wild card" matchups, in all likelihood being the division winners in each conference will then play the winner of the first round matchup from their own respective division. That means the second round is guaranteed to be a matchup of division mates, no matter their overall records in respect to their seed in the conference. The case to look at here is that of the Chicago Blackhawks. Chicago currently stands in third place in the Central Division with the fourth best record in the Western Conference. In the old format, Chicago would have home-ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs against the team with the fifth best record in the West. Therefore, they would be guaranteed home-ice advantage in at least one round thanks to a very good regular season. However, due to this new format, Chicago could actually have to play the #2 and #3 seeds in the West, and not have home-ice advantage at all.
Right now, Chicago would play on the road in Colorado in the first round, and then, were they to win that series, they would go on the road again to play St. Louis. Meanwhile, the San Jose Sharks, who have a worse record than Chicago could potentially play at home in the first round and second round (if Anaheim were to be upset by the #8 seed in round one). This seems to be much more of a disadvantage to a good team in a good division like Chicago, and it makes their road to the Stanley Cup much tougher than it should be.
If this is all a bit confusing, then I have proven my point. The NHL is clearly the #4 sport based upon popularity in the four major American sports. I wrote earlier that its Winter Classic was a major attention-grabber, and has been a unquestioned success, but the new "Stadium Series" the league implemented this season took a bit of the glamour away from the Winter Classic. It seems like the league was messing with a good thing and being a bit greedy in doing so, and I tend to think similarly about this new playoff format. To those who watch intently, the NHL playoffs are extremely competitive and always fun. However, to the more casual fan, an extremely convoluted and confusing playoff format is surely not going to bring them any closer to investing more time in the game of hockey. It is easy to point the finger at commissioner Gary Bettman here, and he surely is deserving of much of the blame, but the league in general, including the owners, have not, in my mind, changed the league for the better here. Innovation and change can be for the better sometimes, but too much tinkering with a product that is lagging behind its competition can also turn out bad as well, and I don't like what the NHL has done with postseason here.
Daily Rangers Update: With only one game left to play, the Rangers seem destined to be hosting the Columbus Blue Jackets in the first round of the playoffs. As I just mentioned, this is actually an advantage for them, as in the old format the Rangers would be going on the road against Tampa Bay and have a potential second round matchup with the top-seeded Bruins awaiting them in round two. Instead, if they win their first round matchup with Columbus, they are still guaranteed to avoid Boston in the second round.
Daily Nets Update: The Nets have four games left to play, and they seem to be locked into the #5 spot in the Eastern Conference. Who they play in the first round is still undecided, as the Raptors and Bulls are tied at #3 and #4 in the east. Chicago will be tough, and Toronto has certainly flown under the radar despite being a very respectable 46-32. Either way, the Nets will have to go on the road to open the playoffs after the regular season ends.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Coming off a series win over the San Francisco Giants, the Diamondbacks open up a series at home tonight against the Dodgers. They still find themselves at the bottom of the National League standings, and the pitching has been very poor over the first 12 games. Losing Patrick Corbin right before the start of the season was a big blow, and the rest of the rotation has not exactly picked up the slack so far. They have been piecing together a staff with guys like Oliver Perez and Randy Wolf, and Randall Delgado has struggled mightily so far after winning a spot in the rotation out of Spring Training. We might be seeing Archie Bradley a bit sooner than expected if the rotation continues to struggle like it has thus far.
Daily Giants Update: Eli Manning underwent successful surgery on his ankle today, and he should be able to run again in six weeks. The preseason is still a long way away, but with a whole lot of questions on the offensive side of the ball, it would be nice to get the man who has never missed a start in his career back ASAP so the unit can begin to gel.
Monday, April 7, 2014
The beginning of a possibly groundbreaking ruling
I have been meaning to write about this topic for some time now, and since NCAA president Mark Emmert addressed it at a news conference earlier today, I want to get my feelings out about the Northwestern University football players and their attempt to unionize. About two weeks ago, news broke that a group of current and former Northwestern football players, headlined by outgoing senior, and starting quarterback, Kain Colter had brought a case in front of the National Labor Relations Board, and the NLRB had ruled in favor of the players attempting to begin the process of college athletes becoming able to unionize. The potential ramifications of this verdict, as well as appeals and rulings that will unquestionably follow, could change collegiate athletics as we know them.
First off, let's start with the purpose of labor unions. Employee unions exist with the intention of allowing employees of any particular organization to protect themselves from unfair practices. Whether it be poor working conditions, subpar wages, or any other number of reasons, unions are essential to the workplace in the United States. Sports are no different. Since professional sports are workplaces, all of our major professional athletes are members of player's unions. We might not think about it much, but professional sports as we know them exist because of these unions.
Often times, the only time we think about player's unions is when the possibility of a lockout or a strike arises, and to the common sports fan, labor disputes between unions and owners are seen as petty and irrational. We see athletes getting paid a lot of money to play professionally, and think that labor unrest should be something that is easily avoidable, but that is surely not the case.
Work stoppages have occurred in all four of our major sports. The first took place in 1972, when Major League Baseball players went on strike in an effort to increase pension amounts. The strike began on April 1st and lasted until April 13th, and it ended with the players gaining a $500,000 pension increase. Had a player's union not existed, it would have been impossible for the players to get that result. There have been various work stoppages throughout the four major American sports. Many of them have not caused significant changes to the games that we see, but that has not always been the case.
In August of 1994, MLB players went on strike, with the main concern of avoiding a salary cap. The end of the 1994 season was not played, and it was the first time in 90 years that a World Series was not played. In 2004, the NHL became the first American professional sport to lose an entire season due to a labor dispute, and the main issue at hand was, just like MLB in 1994, a salary cap. The NBA and NFL have also gone through work stoppages, but neither of those leagues has ever missed more than a portion of its season, and neither of them have had to cancel its championship due to labor disputes. So, unions have certainly been essential to professional sports as we know them, and whether we like it or not, we have seen the power that player's unions can exert if they deem it necessary.
So, now it is time to spin all of this history forward and look at the case of Northwestern football. Debates have gone on for years and years about whether or not college athletes should be compensated (usually, that means financially compensated) for their services. Those in favor of the athletes say that the students are bringing in enormous profits to their universities, and the fact that they never see any of that money go into their own pockets is unjust. On the other hand, opponents of that theory will point out that the athletes are attending their schools due to a scholarship, and therefore they are being compensated with a free education that is due to their outstanding ability in whatever sport they might play.
I tend to agree with the latter point of view. A college education, no matter the school, is very expensive. If a student-athlete is admitted to a university and does not have the responsibility to pay the thousands of dollars most students would pay, they are already seeing a significant reward for their abilities before they even play their first game. However, I also see how one could argue for the players. The cost of admittance to a school is surely large, but depending upon the school that a student attends, as well as the sport that he or she plays, it could really be insignificant compared to the revenue that that student generates for the university.
An 18-year old who plays football for a Division III school, no matter his talent level, is not bringing in a profit that is anywhere close to a Division I school whose stadium holds upward of 100,000 people. That is just a fact. Many small, lower division football programs would be happy to generate $2 million in revenue over the course of an entire season. According to Forbes Magazine, Ohio State University generates about $3 million per game. Obviously, the difference is enormous. So then, since Division I schools are bringing in huge profits, should the players expect to receive more than just a scholarship? According to this Northwestern proposal, they should.
At first, it would clearly seem that this unionization attempt by the Northwestern football players was solely a money grab. However, at least at first glance, that does not appear to be the case. While I'm sure that financial compensation is a concern, the group initially based its case on the protection of players during their time at the university, as well as into the future. One of the main points of the movement was based around player safety and medical care. While a student athlete might be granted a free education due to his superior athletic ability, the group brought about the point that if that athlete were to incur any serious injury during his time at the university, it would be completely optional for the school to pay for medical expenses after the student graduated. Many sports; football being the most likely, can cause serious injuries that bring about life-changing injuries that players must deal with for years and years following their college graduation. As the law stands now, schools have absolutely no obligation to pay for medical disbursements while the player is at school, let alone after the player graduates. The medical coverage of retired NFL players was one of the main issues at the forefront of the negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA on the table at the expiration of the last Collective Bargaining Agreement, and this is basically an extension of that same concern.
Most collegiate athletes will not be able to become professional athletes, and the Northwestern appeal focused on them. We pay attention to the athletes who become superstars, but we do not remember the majority of the athletes who never become professionals. They have to find work in other fields, and if they might apply for a job with some sort of injury incurred when they were in college, they simply have to deal with it. They might have been bringing in a whole lot of money for the NCAA, but once they graduate, the NCAA has no obligation to continue to look out for their best interest.
The future of players; after their playing careers are over, is what the Northwestern football players were most ardent about.
What I have provided here is only a background of the significance of a player's union in collegiate athletics. The consequences of a ruling in favor of the Northwestern football team are seemingly unceasing, and it will take an entirely new topic for me to get into those. Until then, I think we have to look at the actions of the Northwestern football program as potentially groundbreaking, as well as something that could change the face of collegiate athletics as we know it within the next few years.
Daily Nets Update: Brooklyn seems to be locked into the fifth spot in the Eastern Conference, and that means a likely matchup with either the Bulls or Raptors in the first round of the playoffs. I have said this before, but I still realistically think that the best this team can hope for is at least a berth into the second round of the playoffs.
Daily Rangers Update: Just like the Nets, it seems like the Rangers are destined to finish either fourth or fifth in the Eastern Conference, and right now that would mean a matchup of them and the Tampa Bay Lightning in the first round of the playoffs. As Ryan Callahan is now a member of the Lightning, I would honestly like to avoid cheering against him in the postseason, thanks to his time as a Ranger, it seems like that is becoming more and more of a possibility. However, the name on the front of the jersey is always more important than the name on the back, and in the NHL playoffs, anything is possible. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The season has surely not gotten off to a very good start, as the team stands at 2-7. With 153 games left to play, obviously, there is still a whole lot of game to play. However, the pitching has gotten off to a terrible start. The offense has been pretty good, but without improvement from both the starting rotation and the bullpen, the Diamondbacks will be hard pressed to compete in 2014.
First off, let's start with the purpose of labor unions. Employee unions exist with the intention of allowing employees of any particular organization to protect themselves from unfair practices. Whether it be poor working conditions, subpar wages, or any other number of reasons, unions are essential to the workplace in the United States. Sports are no different. Since professional sports are workplaces, all of our major professional athletes are members of player's unions. We might not think about it much, but professional sports as we know them exist because of these unions.
Often times, the only time we think about player's unions is when the possibility of a lockout or a strike arises, and to the common sports fan, labor disputes between unions and owners are seen as petty and irrational. We see athletes getting paid a lot of money to play professionally, and think that labor unrest should be something that is easily avoidable, but that is surely not the case.
Work stoppages have occurred in all four of our major sports. The first took place in 1972, when Major League Baseball players went on strike in an effort to increase pension amounts. The strike began on April 1st and lasted until April 13th, and it ended with the players gaining a $500,000 pension increase. Had a player's union not existed, it would have been impossible for the players to get that result. There have been various work stoppages throughout the four major American sports. Many of them have not caused significant changes to the games that we see, but that has not always been the case.
In August of 1994, MLB players went on strike, with the main concern of avoiding a salary cap. The end of the 1994 season was not played, and it was the first time in 90 years that a World Series was not played. In 2004, the NHL became the first American professional sport to lose an entire season due to a labor dispute, and the main issue at hand was, just like MLB in 1994, a salary cap. The NBA and NFL have also gone through work stoppages, but neither of those leagues has ever missed more than a portion of its season, and neither of them have had to cancel its championship due to labor disputes. So, unions have certainly been essential to professional sports as we know them, and whether we like it or not, we have seen the power that player's unions can exert if they deem it necessary.
So, now it is time to spin all of this history forward and look at the case of Northwestern football. Debates have gone on for years and years about whether or not college athletes should be compensated (usually, that means financially compensated) for their services. Those in favor of the athletes say that the students are bringing in enormous profits to their universities, and the fact that they never see any of that money go into their own pockets is unjust. On the other hand, opponents of that theory will point out that the athletes are attending their schools due to a scholarship, and therefore they are being compensated with a free education that is due to their outstanding ability in whatever sport they might play.
I tend to agree with the latter point of view. A college education, no matter the school, is very expensive. If a student-athlete is admitted to a university and does not have the responsibility to pay the thousands of dollars most students would pay, they are already seeing a significant reward for their abilities before they even play their first game. However, I also see how one could argue for the players. The cost of admittance to a school is surely large, but depending upon the school that a student attends, as well as the sport that he or she plays, it could really be insignificant compared to the revenue that that student generates for the university.
An 18-year old who plays football for a Division III school, no matter his talent level, is not bringing in a profit that is anywhere close to a Division I school whose stadium holds upward of 100,000 people. That is just a fact. Many small, lower division football programs would be happy to generate $2 million in revenue over the course of an entire season. According to Forbes Magazine, Ohio State University generates about $3 million per game. Obviously, the difference is enormous. So then, since Division I schools are bringing in huge profits, should the players expect to receive more than just a scholarship? According to this Northwestern proposal, they should.
At first, it would clearly seem that this unionization attempt by the Northwestern football players was solely a money grab. However, at least at first glance, that does not appear to be the case. While I'm sure that financial compensation is a concern, the group initially based its case on the protection of players during their time at the university, as well as into the future. One of the main points of the movement was based around player safety and medical care. While a student athlete might be granted a free education due to his superior athletic ability, the group brought about the point that if that athlete were to incur any serious injury during his time at the university, it would be completely optional for the school to pay for medical expenses after the student graduated. Many sports; football being the most likely, can cause serious injuries that bring about life-changing injuries that players must deal with for years and years following their college graduation. As the law stands now, schools have absolutely no obligation to pay for medical disbursements while the player is at school, let alone after the player graduates. The medical coverage of retired NFL players was one of the main issues at the forefront of the negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA on the table at the expiration of the last Collective Bargaining Agreement, and this is basically an extension of that same concern.
Most collegiate athletes will not be able to become professional athletes, and the Northwestern appeal focused on them. We pay attention to the athletes who become superstars, but we do not remember the majority of the athletes who never become professionals. They have to find work in other fields, and if they might apply for a job with some sort of injury incurred when they were in college, they simply have to deal with it. They might have been bringing in a whole lot of money for the NCAA, but once they graduate, the NCAA has no obligation to continue to look out for their best interest.
The future of players; after their playing careers are over, is what the Northwestern football players were most ardent about.
What I have provided here is only a background of the significance of a player's union in collegiate athletics. The consequences of a ruling in favor of the Northwestern football team are seemingly unceasing, and it will take an entirely new topic for me to get into those. Until then, I think we have to look at the actions of the Northwestern football program as potentially groundbreaking, as well as something that could change the face of collegiate athletics as we know it within the next few years.
Daily Nets Update: Brooklyn seems to be locked into the fifth spot in the Eastern Conference, and that means a likely matchup with either the Bulls or Raptors in the first round of the playoffs. I have said this before, but I still realistically think that the best this team can hope for is at least a berth into the second round of the playoffs.
Daily Rangers Update: Just like the Nets, it seems like the Rangers are destined to finish either fourth or fifth in the Eastern Conference, and right now that would mean a matchup of them and the Tampa Bay Lightning in the first round of the playoffs. As Ryan Callahan is now a member of the Lightning, I would honestly like to avoid cheering against him in the postseason, thanks to his time as a Ranger, it seems like that is becoming more and more of a possibility. However, the name on the front of the jersey is always more important than the name on the back, and in the NHL playoffs, anything is possible. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The season has surely not gotten off to a very good start, as the team stands at 2-7. With 153 games left to play, obviously, there is still a whole lot of game to play. However, the pitching has gotten off to a terrible start. The offense has been pretty good, but without improvement from both the starting rotation and the bullpen, the Diamondbacks will be hard pressed to compete in 2014.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
The art of tanking in professional sports
The Philadelphia 76ers will face off tonight against the Detroit Pistons, and while the game is surely not significant in terms of playoff positioning, it will definitely get a whole lot more attention than any other game featuring two teams with a combined record of 41-103. Why is that the case? Because the 76ers will be on the verge of setting the all-time record for the longest losing streak not only in NBA history, but in the history of any of our four major professional sports. Philadelphia has lost 26 consecutive games, and right now they are tied with the 2010-2011 Cleveland Cavaliers for the longest losing streak ever. The last time the 76ers won a game was January 29th. To put that into some kind of perspective, the last time the 76ers won a basketball game was BEFORE THE SUPER BOWL, and it seems today like the Super Bowl was a long time ago.
On February 20th, after losing their ninth straight game (by 29 points), the 76ers traded away their best player, Evan Turner, and ended up with a bunch of second round draft picks spread out over the next few years. Clearly, the return for their best player was, at best, very bad. Since that trade, the 76ers have gone on to lose another 17 straight games, and they will be staring history straight in the face tonight against the Pistons. Despite the Pistons being 20 games below .500, they are still 5.5 point favorites over Philadelphia, and at this point, it seems like there is not too much hope for Philadelphia. However, history often times brings out the best in players, and in the case of the 76ers, they will be on the cusp of making history tonight, so maybe it will bring out the best in the team.
Once again though, the "team" is where the problem lies. When you look at the players the 76ers are putting on the floor on a nightly basis, it is easy to understand why they have been so putrid this year. Names like Henry Sims, Arnett Moultrie, Hollis Thompson, and Byron Mullens are near or at the top of their depth chart, and only the most ardent NBA fans would recognize those names. One could argue that the best player on the team has actually never played a game in the NBA. The 76ers drafted Nerlens Noel knowing that he would miss significant time due to a torn ACL, and at best, they can hope that he will make his NBA debut some time before the season ends, although with only 10 games remaining to play, that has to still be an unlikely scenario. The best player they are putting on the floor right now is Michael Carter-Williams, a rookie out of Syracuse. Carter-Williams was a very good player in college, but he is certainly not on the level of a team leader in the NBA, especially with this being his rookie season. In time, he could grow into a nice role player in the league, but I have a hard time believing that he has the capability to be a star. Therefore, it is actually easy to see why the 76ers have been a prime example of futility in 2014. The team they are fielding at this point in the season is nowhere close to NBA-caliber, and they are at a considerable disadvantage each and every night.
At first glance, it would be easy to blame the players for the futility of the 76ers, but I completely disagree with that notion. The players are out there each and every game giving their best effort. They just don't have the quality to compete with their opponents. It is not the fault of the players. They are victims in this case. The next in line to place the blame on would be the head coach, Brett Brown. Coaches are praised when their teams are playing well, and frowned upon when their teams are playing poorly, so it would seem easy to blame Brown for Philadelphia's historically bad streak. Again, doing so would be a mistake. This is Brown's first head coaching job in the NBA, so why would he want to fail? He is leading the team on a daily basis, and he is looking out for his players and himself, and trying his best to succeed, but he is simply not being supplied with the pieces he needs to succeed. So, in my opinion, the blame falls on the people who are supposed to be supplying him with those pieces, the management of the team. Whether it is General Manager Sam Hinkie, owners Josh Harris and David Blitzer, CEO Scott O'Neill, or, most likely, a combination of all of them; those are the men to blame. They have made a concerted effort to continually put a sub-par team on the floor, and they have been extremely successful in doing so.
I liken the situation in Philadelphia to the one in the movie "Major League." The owners were actually cheering for the team to lose. While their motivation might be, in theory, correct (a shot at drafting a potential superstar this year), I still believe that it is unfair to the players on the team, as well as the fans. The 76ers will have two of the first 11 picks in the upcoming draft, as well as four picks in the second round, so they will have a lot of chances to get multiple future building blocks when the draft comes in June. This is also a draft featuring multiple players who have the potential to be NBA stars, so Philadelphia will most likely have a shot to get multiple star prospects. However, I feel like they are still going about it the wrong way. They are clearly tanking on purpose, and it is unfair to the players, the coaches, the fans, and the league in general.
This is certainly not the first time an organization has seemingly "tanked" during the end of a season, and while it seems like a problem that may be unsolvable, I have to turn to a radio personality to find an answer. ESPN Radio's Mike Greenberg, half of the "Mike & Mike" radio duo, brought up a scenario that, in my opinion, could actually solve this problem. His proposal was to give the first overall pick in the draft to the team with the best record that did not qualify for the playoffs.
As of today, with nine games remaining to play, the Dallas Mavericks have a record of 43-30, and are a half game behind the Phoenix Suns for the eighth and final playoff spot in the Western Conference. They are fighting for their playoff lives, and the entire organization is doing its best to put a winning team on the floor. If the Mavericks do make the playoffs, even as the eighth seed in the West, they will be elated. If they miss the playoffs, they will be devastated, but feel as though they are only a piece or two away from a better season in 2014-2015. They are playing out the season to the final minute, and they should be rewarded for doing so. With a very formidable backcourt of Jose Calderon and Monta Ellis, as well as one of the top scorers in NBA history, Dirk Nowitzki, the Mavericks are certainly a good team. The biggest weakness of their team is probably at the center position, and with a young, budding star like Joel Embiid ready to be drafted, they would be able to go from "almost" to "definitely" in just a year. Therefore, they would be rewarded by playing hard for the entire season, and they would also be rewarded by having the top pick in the draft, and the ability to cross the threshold from non-playoff team to playoff team. The remaining picks in the draft would go to the non-playoff teams with the best regular season record to the teams with the worst regular season record, and then all the playoff teams would follow that. That would mean the 76ers would have the 13th pick in the draft, and not the first. They would still pick before the playoff teams, but they would not be rewarded with the first pick by tanking and trying to fail in the previous season. Doing this might bring about teams that were horrendous for years and years, but it would at least give everyone an incentive to put the best team on the floor that it could each and every game, and each and every year.
The NBA might not like Mike Greenberg's proposal, but I certainly do. We would certainly not see any more historically bad losing streaks, and would not see teams composed of unknown players. It would make each and every game of the regular season count, and not only would that bring about more attention from the organizations, but it would also bring about more attention from the players, coaches, and fans, and there is certainly no way that that could be bad for the league. The players on the 76ers are going out and giving it their all each and every game, and they should be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
Daily Nets Update: With 11 games left to play, the Nets are 2.5 games behind the Toronto Raptors in the Atlantic Division, and 1.5 games behind the Bulls for fourth in the conference. Getting home court advantage in the first round of the playoffs would be great, but no matter who they play in the first round, I think this is still a team that could at least get into the second round of the playoffs.
Daily Rangers Update: A five game winning streak ended last night in Calgary, and the Rangers remain fifth in the Eastern Conference. A first round matchup with either Tampa Bay or Montreal seems inevitable, so hopefully the Rangers can finish out the season strong and go into the playoffs with some much needed momentum.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Opening Day (in the United States) is only two days away, and the Diamondbacks will put Brandon McCarthy on the mound to face off against Madison Bumgarner and the San Francisco Giants. There has been more devastating news for the pitching staff, as David Hernandez will now need Tommy John surgery, just like Patrick Corbin, who underwent the surgery not long ago. The news of those two injuries has obviously weakened both the starting rotation and the bullpen, but it is still March, and that means every team believes it can win the World Series. Let's Go Diamondbacks!
On February 20th, after losing their ninth straight game (by 29 points), the 76ers traded away their best player, Evan Turner, and ended up with a bunch of second round draft picks spread out over the next few years. Clearly, the return for their best player was, at best, very bad. Since that trade, the 76ers have gone on to lose another 17 straight games, and they will be staring history straight in the face tonight against the Pistons. Despite the Pistons being 20 games below .500, they are still 5.5 point favorites over Philadelphia, and at this point, it seems like there is not too much hope for Philadelphia. However, history often times brings out the best in players, and in the case of the 76ers, they will be on the cusp of making history tonight, so maybe it will bring out the best in the team.
Once again though, the "team" is where the problem lies. When you look at the players the 76ers are putting on the floor on a nightly basis, it is easy to understand why they have been so putrid this year. Names like Henry Sims, Arnett Moultrie, Hollis Thompson, and Byron Mullens are near or at the top of their depth chart, and only the most ardent NBA fans would recognize those names. One could argue that the best player on the team has actually never played a game in the NBA. The 76ers drafted Nerlens Noel knowing that he would miss significant time due to a torn ACL, and at best, they can hope that he will make his NBA debut some time before the season ends, although with only 10 games remaining to play, that has to still be an unlikely scenario. The best player they are putting on the floor right now is Michael Carter-Williams, a rookie out of Syracuse. Carter-Williams was a very good player in college, but he is certainly not on the level of a team leader in the NBA, especially with this being his rookie season. In time, he could grow into a nice role player in the league, but I have a hard time believing that he has the capability to be a star. Therefore, it is actually easy to see why the 76ers have been a prime example of futility in 2014. The team they are fielding at this point in the season is nowhere close to NBA-caliber, and they are at a considerable disadvantage each and every night.
At first glance, it would be easy to blame the players for the futility of the 76ers, but I completely disagree with that notion. The players are out there each and every game giving their best effort. They just don't have the quality to compete with their opponents. It is not the fault of the players. They are victims in this case. The next in line to place the blame on would be the head coach, Brett Brown. Coaches are praised when their teams are playing well, and frowned upon when their teams are playing poorly, so it would seem easy to blame Brown for Philadelphia's historically bad streak. Again, doing so would be a mistake. This is Brown's first head coaching job in the NBA, so why would he want to fail? He is leading the team on a daily basis, and he is looking out for his players and himself, and trying his best to succeed, but he is simply not being supplied with the pieces he needs to succeed. So, in my opinion, the blame falls on the people who are supposed to be supplying him with those pieces, the management of the team. Whether it is General Manager Sam Hinkie, owners Josh Harris and David Blitzer, CEO Scott O'Neill, or, most likely, a combination of all of them; those are the men to blame. They have made a concerted effort to continually put a sub-par team on the floor, and they have been extremely successful in doing so.
I liken the situation in Philadelphia to the one in the movie "Major League." The owners were actually cheering for the team to lose. While their motivation might be, in theory, correct (a shot at drafting a potential superstar this year), I still believe that it is unfair to the players on the team, as well as the fans. The 76ers will have two of the first 11 picks in the upcoming draft, as well as four picks in the second round, so they will have a lot of chances to get multiple future building blocks when the draft comes in June. This is also a draft featuring multiple players who have the potential to be NBA stars, so Philadelphia will most likely have a shot to get multiple star prospects. However, I feel like they are still going about it the wrong way. They are clearly tanking on purpose, and it is unfair to the players, the coaches, the fans, and the league in general.
This is certainly not the first time an organization has seemingly "tanked" during the end of a season, and while it seems like a problem that may be unsolvable, I have to turn to a radio personality to find an answer. ESPN Radio's Mike Greenberg, half of the "Mike & Mike" radio duo, brought up a scenario that, in my opinion, could actually solve this problem. His proposal was to give the first overall pick in the draft to the team with the best record that did not qualify for the playoffs.
As of today, with nine games remaining to play, the Dallas Mavericks have a record of 43-30, and are a half game behind the Phoenix Suns for the eighth and final playoff spot in the Western Conference. They are fighting for their playoff lives, and the entire organization is doing its best to put a winning team on the floor. If the Mavericks do make the playoffs, even as the eighth seed in the West, they will be elated. If they miss the playoffs, they will be devastated, but feel as though they are only a piece or two away from a better season in 2014-2015. They are playing out the season to the final minute, and they should be rewarded for doing so. With a very formidable backcourt of Jose Calderon and Monta Ellis, as well as one of the top scorers in NBA history, Dirk Nowitzki, the Mavericks are certainly a good team. The biggest weakness of their team is probably at the center position, and with a young, budding star like Joel Embiid ready to be drafted, they would be able to go from "almost" to "definitely" in just a year. Therefore, they would be rewarded by playing hard for the entire season, and they would also be rewarded by having the top pick in the draft, and the ability to cross the threshold from non-playoff team to playoff team. The remaining picks in the draft would go to the non-playoff teams with the best regular season record to the teams with the worst regular season record, and then all the playoff teams would follow that. That would mean the 76ers would have the 13th pick in the draft, and not the first. They would still pick before the playoff teams, but they would not be rewarded with the first pick by tanking and trying to fail in the previous season. Doing this might bring about teams that were horrendous for years and years, but it would at least give everyone an incentive to put the best team on the floor that it could each and every game, and each and every year.
The NBA might not like Mike Greenberg's proposal, but I certainly do. We would certainly not see any more historically bad losing streaks, and would not see teams composed of unknown players. It would make each and every game of the regular season count, and not only would that bring about more attention from the organizations, but it would also bring about more attention from the players, coaches, and fans, and there is certainly no way that that could be bad for the league. The players on the 76ers are going out and giving it their all each and every game, and they should be rewarded for doing so, not punished.
Daily Nets Update: With 11 games left to play, the Nets are 2.5 games behind the Toronto Raptors in the Atlantic Division, and 1.5 games behind the Bulls for fourth in the conference. Getting home court advantage in the first round of the playoffs would be great, but no matter who they play in the first round, I think this is still a team that could at least get into the second round of the playoffs.
Daily Rangers Update: A five game winning streak ended last night in Calgary, and the Rangers remain fifth in the Eastern Conference. A first round matchup with either Tampa Bay or Montreal seems inevitable, so hopefully the Rangers can finish out the season strong and go into the playoffs with some much needed momentum.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Opening Day (in the United States) is only two days away, and the Diamondbacks will put Brandon McCarthy on the mound to face off against Madison Bumgarner and the San Francisco Giants. There has been more devastating news for the pitching staff, as David Hernandez will now need Tommy John surgery, just like Patrick Corbin, who underwent the surgery not long ago. The news of those two injuries has obviously weakened both the starting rotation and the bullpen, but it is still March, and that means every team believes it can win the World Series. Let's Go Diamondbacks!
Thursday, March 13, 2014
A history lesson in honor of Opening Day
With the beginning of the Major League Baseball season now officially less than 10 days away, I think it is time to start seriously thinking about baseball. Sure, there is time for a preview still left, but before we know where we are going, we need to know where we came from, right? Baseball, more than any of our other major sports, is a game defined by numbers. Wins, strikeouts, home runs, batting average; there are plenty of ways to determine how great players are and were, and the most common way to do so is by using numbers such as these. We know what numbers constitute greatness, and we can connect plenty of famous names to plenty of famous numbers. However, we also overlook a whole lot of things when we look at baseball's past.
As I said, we need to know where we came from before we know where we are going, and in this piece, I am going to look back at some of the most neglected and forgotten names and numbers of all time.
Each and every baseball game begins with the ball in the hands of the pitcher, so let's start there. Usually the number one measure of starting pitchers is their number of wins. In the current state of the game, winning 20 games in a season is considered a gallant feat, and there is no doubt that doing so does deserve plenty of acclaim. The 300 win plateau is considered to be a true mark of greatness for pitchers. 24 pitchers have won 300 or more games during their career, but I think most current baseball fans would be hard-pressed to name even half of those 24 pitchers.
There are the men who have done it within the past decade: Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Tom Glavine. Then, there are famous names like Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, and Cy Young. After that, the names become far less common.
Cy Young won his 300th game in 1901; 113 years ago. Today, that seems like an eternity. However, he was not the first man to reach the 300 win plateau. Have you ever heard names like Kid Nichols, Pud Galvin, Charles Radbourn, Tim Keefe, or John Clarkson? Odds are, you most likely have not. All five of those men won their 300th game before Cy Young did. In fact, Cy Young debuted in the big leagues in 1890. By that time, Pud Galvin had already won 300 games. He won his 300th in 1888, and would finish his career with 365 wins.
As far as those other names, there are two in particular that I would like to look at. Most players in the last half-century have won their 300th game at, in baseball terms, a very old age. Tom Glavine was 41 years old when he won his 300th game. Roger Clemens was also 41. In terms of professional athletes, 41 years old is the equivalent of ancient. It gets even more unbelievable when we look at Phil Niekro and Randy Johnson. Both of those men were 46 years old when they won their 300th game.
With those numbers in mind, let's look back at some of those other names I mentioned, and let's start with Kid Nichols. To most fans, Kid Nichols is an unknown name. His last season as a major leaguer was 1906, and at that time, baseball was not even close to what it is today. Nichols won his 300th career game on July 7, 1900. Was he 41 like Clemens? No. Was he even older than that? 46, like Niekro? No. He wasn't even close to those ages. Nichols was only 30 years old when he won his 300th game. To put that into perspective, when Roger Clemens was 30 years old, he had won 152 games. When Tom Glavine was 30 years old, he had won 139 games. When Phil Niekro was 30 years old, he had won only 54 games. When Randy Johnson was 30 years old, he had won 88 games. The difference is unbelievable. Nichols' closest competitor, Clemens, had won just over half the amount of games at age 30 in comparison to Nichols. Despite the stunning difference, these numbers also are a prime example of another reason that baseball in the 19th century was vastly different than baseball in the 21st century.
After the age of 30, Nichols won 61 games. After age 30, Clemens won 202 games. After age 30, Glavine won 166 games. After age 30, Johnson won 215 games. After age 30, Niekro won 264 games. The difference is glaring. Why then, is there such a stark difference? It is because the game of baseball has changed tremendously over the past century and a half. Kid Nichols is a fine example of how the game has changed, but I would also be remiss without mentioning another member of the 300 win club, Charles Radbourn.
In order to keep our names in perspective here, I would like to compare Radbourn to Clemens, Glavine, Johnson, and Niekro. Clemens won his 300th game in 2003, 19 years after his big league debut. Glavine won his 300th game in 2007, 20 years after his big league debut. Johnson won his 300th game in 2009, 21 years after his big league debut. Niekro won his 300th game in 1985, also 21 years after his big league debut. When did Radbourn win his 300th game? In 1891, only 11 years after his big league debut. The difference, once again, is staggering.
Radbourn's career may have been short lived, but it was by no means obsolete. In 2013, the league leader in games started was Adam Wainwright. He started 34 games. In 1884, Charles Radbourn won 59 games. FIFTY NINE. Radbourn started 73 games that season. He had 73 complete games. In this day and age, finishing any game in which you start is considered outstanding. In 1884, finishing any game you started was considered marginal. It was not about getting a decision, it was about finishing the game (no matter how long it lasted), or coming up short.
Once again, let's put that in the perspective of our more modern day stars. The best two year wins stretch of Clemens' career? 44 games. How about Glavine? 42 games. Johnson? 45 games. Niekro? 36 games. That means over the span of one season, Radbourn won more games than any of our other 300 game winners did in two seasons.
What we see when we look at these numbers is not only an austere contrast in the game today and the game over a century ago, but we also are reminded of names that have been forgotten over the course of history. The game of baseball has grown and evolved, and we should all be grateful to have witnessed its development. However, we should also never forget the origins of the game, because if not for the forebears like Nichols and Radbourn, we would likely have no historical perspective on just how good the pitchers of our modern age have really become.
I know that I began with a mention of the entirety of the early history of baseball, but what I ended up writing was only a slight glimpse into the history of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game. I promise that I will follow this up in the near future with another lengthy history of the game's most formidable hitters, because like I said before, we cannot predict where we are going without knowing where it is that we came from.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers will play in Minnesota tonight against a formidable Wild team. As has been the case for quite some time now, a win or a loss both go a long way in deciding postseason positioning. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Nets Update: The Nets beat the Miami Heat last night, their third win against Miami in three matchups this season. With 19 games to play, the Nets are in serious contention for home-court in the first round of the playoffs. Next up is a trip to Washington on Saturday. The Nets are only a 1/2 game ahead of the Wizards in the standings, so once again, this is another extremely important game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants re-signed Jon Beason, Stevie Brown, and Peyton Hillis, and also added Geoff Schwartz, Rashad Jennings, and a few others. The biggest offseason splash involving the team has probably, sadly, been the departure of Justin Tuck. The Eagles and the Cowboys have made big splashes in the free agent market, and we have some work to still do, but in the NFL, nothing matters until the games count, and we are still far away from that happening.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Archie Bradley is getting hit today, which has not been the case thus far during spring games. However, he has looked very good aside from this afternoon, and I still am impatiently waiting for his official big league debut. With only nine days until Patrick Corbin takes the mound in Australia against the Dodgers, it is seriously time to start pondering the first month of baseball. Let's Go DBacks!
As I said, we need to know where we came from before we know where we are going, and in this piece, I am going to look back at some of the most neglected and forgotten names and numbers of all time.
Each and every baseball game begins with the ball in the hands of the pitcher, so let's start there. Usually the number one measure of starting pitchers is their number of wins. In the current state of the game, winning 20 games in a season is considered a gallant feat, and there is no doubt that doing so does deserve plenty of acclaim. The 300 win plateau is considered to be a true mark of greatness for pitchers. 24 pitchers have won 300 or more games during their career, but I think most current baseball fans would be hard-pressed to name even half of those 24 pitchers.
There are the men who have done it within the past decade: Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, and Tom Glavine. Then, there are famous names like Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, and Cy Young. After that, the names become far less common.
Cy Young won his 300th game in 1901; 113 years ago. Today, that seems like an eternity. However, he was not the first man to reach the 300 win plateau. Have you ever heard names like Kid Nichols, Pud Galvin, Charles Radbourn, Tim Keefe, or John Clarkson? Odds are, you most likely have not. All five of those men won their 300th game before Cy Young did. In fact, Cy Young debuted in the big leagues in 1890. By that time, Pud Galvin had already won 300 games. He won his 300th in 1888, and would finish his career with 365 wins.
As far as those other names, there are two in particular that I would like to look at. Most players in the last half-century have won their 300th game at, in baseball terms, a very old age. Tom Glavine was 41 years old when he won his 300th game. Roger Clemens was also 41. In terms of professional athletes, 41 years old is the equivalent of ancient. It gets even more unbelievable when we look at Phil Niekro and Randy Johnson. Both of those men were 46 years old when they won their 300th game.
With those numbers in mind, let's look back at some of those other names I mentioned, and let's start with Kid Nichols. To most fans, Kid Nichols is an unknown name. His last season as a major leaguer was 1906, and at that time, baseball was not even close to what it is today. Nichols won his 300th career game on July 7, 1900. Was he 41 like Clemens? No. Was he even older than that? 46, like Niekro? No. He wasn't even close to those ages. Nichols was only 30 years old when he won his 300th game. To put that into perspective, when Roger Clemens was 30 years old, he had won 152 games. When Tom Glavine was 30 years old, he had won 139 games. When Phil Niekro was 30 years old, he had won only 54 games. When Randy Johnson was 30 years old, he had won 88 games. The difference is unbelievable. Nichols' closest competitor, Clemens, had won just over half the amount of games at age 30 in comparison to Nichols. Despite the stunning difference, these numbers also are a prime example of another reason that baseball in the 19th century was vastly different than baseball in the 21st century.
After the age of 30, Nichols won 61 games. After age 30, Clemens won 202 games. After age 30, Glavine won 166 games. After age 30, Johnson won 215 games. After age 30, Niekro won 264 games. The difference is glaring. Why then, is there such a stark difference? It is because the game of baseball has changed tremendously over the past century and a half. Kid Nichols is a fine example of how the game has changed, but I would also be remiss without mentioning another member of the 300 win club, Charles Radbourn.
In order to keep our names in perspective here, I would like to compare Radbourn to Clemens, Glavine, Johnson, and Niekro. Clemens won his 300th game in 2003, 19 years after his big league debut. Glavine won his 300th game in 2007, 20 years after his big league debut. Johnson won his 300th game in 2009, 21 years after his big league debut. Niekro won his 300th game in 1985, also 21 years after his big league debut. When did Radbourn win his 300th game? In 1891, only 11 years after his big league debut. The difference, once again, is staggering.
Radbourn's career may have been short lived, but it was by no means obsolete. In 2013, the league leader in games started was Adam Wainwright. He started 34 games. In 1884, Charles Radbourn won 59 games. FIFTY NINE. Radbourn started 73 games that season. He had 73 complete games. In this day and age, finishing any game in which you start is considered outstanding. In 1884, finishing any game you started was considered marginal. It was not about getting a decision, it was about finishing the game (no matter how long it lasted), or coming up short.
Once again, let's put that in the perspective of our more modern day stars. The best two year wins stretch of Clemens' career? 44 games. How about Glavine? 42 games. Johnson? 45 games. Niekro? 36 games. That means over the span of one season, Radbourn won more games than any of our other 300 game winners did in two seasons.
What we see when we look at these numbers is not only an austere contrast in the game today and the game over a century ago, but we also are reminded of names that have been forgotten over the course of history. The game of baseball has grown and evolved, and we should all be grateful to have witnessed its development. However, we should also never forget the origins of the game, because if not for the forebears like Nichols and Radbourn, we would likely have no historical perspective on just how good the pitchers of our modern age have really become.
I know that I began with a mention of the entirety of the early history of baseball, but what I ended up writing was only a slight glimpse into the history of the greatest pitchers in the history of the game. I promise that I will follow this up in the near future with another lengthy history of the game's most formidable hitters, because like I said before, we cannot predict where we are going without knowing where it is that we came from.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers will play in Minnesota tonight against a formidable Wild team. As has been the case for quite some time now, a win or a loss both go a long way in deciding postseason positioning. Let's Go Rangers!
Daily Nets Update: The Nets beat the Miami Heat last night, their third win against Miami in three matchups this season. With 19 games to play, the Nets are in serious contention for home-court in the first round of the playoffs. Next up is a trip to Washington on Saturday. The Nets are only a 1/2 game ahead of the Wizards in the standings, so once again, this is another extremely important game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants re-signed Jon Beason, Stevie Brown, and Peyton Hillis, and also added Geoff Schwartz, Rashad Jennings, and a few others. The biggest offseason splash involving the team has probably, sadly, been the departure of Justin Tuck. The Eagles and the Cowboys have made big splashes in the free agent market, and we have some work to still do, but in the NFL, nothing matters until the games count, and we are still far away from that happening.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: Archie Bradley is getting hit today, which has not been the case thus far during spring games. However, he has looked very good aside from this afternoon, and I still am impatiently waiting for his official big league debut. With only nine days until Patrick Corbin takes the mound in Australia against the Dodgers, it is seriously time to start pondering the first month of baseball. Let's Go DBacks!
Sunday, March 9, 2014
The case for the Shockers
Since the calendar has turned to March, that means only one thing in the world of sports: March Madness. While in my eyes, the World Cup is the most exciting tournament in the entire world, the NCAA Tournament is not far behind. The first two weekends of the tourney are full of basketball, basketball, and more basketball. Stars are born, spectacular finishes are the norm, and unpredictability abounds.
What makes the tournament so special is not just the spotlight that shines on young players across the country, but the teams that come out of obscurity to knock off the big name teams. It is guaranteed to happen, and the tournament is so special because even though we know it will happen, we are still shocked every time it does. Whether it was Richmond beating Syracuse in 1991 to become the first #15 seed to ever beat a #2 seed, Princeton beating defending national champion UCLA in 1996, or Florida Gulf Coast beating Georgetown last year, the upsets seem to come fast and furious during the first weekend of the tournament. However, while those upsets are thrilling, the team celebrating their stunning victory often times loses soon after, and fades back into obscurity to the casual college basketball fan.
In the recent past though, we have seen some of those upset-minded teams advance much further in the tournament than we ever have before. Little known George Mason University, a #11 seed, advanced all the way to the Final Four in 2006, and knocked off some big name competition along the way. Virginia Commonwealth, also a #11 seed, marched all the way to the Final Four in 2011, after their at-large selection to be in the tournament in the first place was seriously questioned by many people. 2011 was also the second consecutive year that previously little known Butler University advanced to the national championship game. They lost both times they got there, but the fact that they made it that far, especially in consecutive seasons, was a huge accomplishment. Last season, we saw the aptly named, #9 seed Wichita State Shockers advanced all the way to the Final Four, shocking many people along the way. Only about an hour ago, Wichita State won the Missouri Valley conference tournament, and by doing so, earned an automatic berth to the NCAA Tournament. However, their NCAA Tournament status in 2014 is a whole lot different than it was in 2013.
By beating Indiana State this afternoon, Wichita State moved its record to 34-0. The only other team to win its first 34 games of the season was the UNLV Runnin' Rebels in 1991, but that record included games in the NCAA Tournament. The Rebels eventually lost their 35th game to Duke in the Final Four. So that means that Wichita State will be entering the tournament with a better record than any other team has. They are certainly not flying under the radar now. With Selection Sunday now officially one week away, the question is no longer if the Shockers will be in the tournament, but it is how high they will be seeded.
Wichita State is currently ranked second in the country in both the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. Florida is #1 in both polls, and Arizona is third in both. Barring any unexpected losses (which are possible since, don't forget, it is March) in the early round of the SEC and Pac-12 tournaments, I think Florida and Arizona will be #1 seeds going into the official tourney. The ACC Tournament will likely decide the third of four #1 seeds. Duke is currently ranked fourth in the country, Virginia is ranked at #5 (although they did lose this afternoon to an unranked Maryland team), and Syracuse is ranked at #7. It is highly unlikely that all three of those teams will slip up early in the ACC Tournament, and if one of those three win the conference, I think, in all likelihood, that team will also be a #1 seed. Then, there are the Shockers.
Florida played six teams that were ranked at the time of the game, and their only two losses came against Wisconsin and UConn, both of whom are still ranked in the Top 25 right now. The fourth ranked Duke Blue Devils played seven games against ranked opponents, Virginia had five such matchups, and Syracuse had seven. The first argument against Wichita State being a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament is the fact that they played zero games against nationally ranked opponents. The Shockers won multiple games by large margins over teams like Loyola, Drake, and Emporia State. They did, however, beat Saint Louis, and while the Billikens were unranked when they played Wichita State, they are currently ranked 17th in the nation. Still, the fact remains that Wichita State's schedule was far less challenging than the schedules of Florida, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse. There is though, one team that I have not yet mentioned as far as schedule strength goes, and that is the Arizona Wildcats.
At 28-3, Arizona seems to be a near lock to secure a #1 seed in the tournament, thanks in large part to playing in a "major" conference. However, when we look at their schedule, we see a whole lot of names, but not very many numbers next to those names. How many games have the Wildcats played against ranked opponents? One. Have they beaten anyone who was unranked at the time of the game, but is ranked now? No. The ranked team they did play though, was Duke, and the Wildcats did win that game, which looks just as impressive now as it did on November 29. Arizona's three losses came against Oregon, California, and Arizona State. While at least two of those teams will probably make the field of 64, none of them are exactly juggernauts. So why is it then, that Arizona is considered by most to be a near lock to be a #1 seed? I'm not too sure, but playing in a major conference, as opposed to a mid-major conference like Wichita State does certainly plays a huge factor in it.
When one thinks of college basketball powerhouse conferences, the Missouri Valley Conference surely is not the first one to come to mind. That is why teams from the SEC, Pac-12, and ACC will all be #1 seeds in 2014. That still does not diminish what Wichita State did this season. In my mind, people who immediately write off the Shockers based solely on their conference are foolish. It is even more foolish when we look at the roster of the Shockers. Nearly all of the players who have played significant minutes this year were on the team last year, and that team reached the Final Four. Along the way in 2013, the Shockers beat Pittsburgh (who at the time was a Big East team, but this year is a member of the ACC), Big 10 member Ohio State, and gave eventual national champion, and Big East champion Louisville, its closest game of the entire tournament in the Final Four. Louisville won that game 72-68. If a team from a major conference followed up a Final Four appearance with a 34-0 season, they would unquestionably be a #1 seed, and anyone who thought otherwise would be laughed at. However, because in this case the team is from a mid-major conference, people still feel the Shockers are unworthy of a #1 seed. In my eyes, that should be laughed at.
In 2014, Wichita State has become to college basketball what Boise State was to college football only a few seasons ago. Boise State never got a chance to play for a national championship (thanks to the bowl system, which will FINALLY be gone in the upcoming season), but the Broncos proved they could play with the big boys when they beat the Oklahoma Sooners in the Fiesta Bowl in 2007, in what was undoubtedly one of the greatest college football games to ever be played.
No matter where the Shockers end up seeded a week from today, they will go into the tournament saying all the right things, put their seed aside, and play whoever is put in front of them. Also, unlike Boise State, the Shockers do have a chance to play for the national championship. So does their seed going into the tournament really matter as much as some might think? Probably not. Nonetheless, I think that they do in fact deserve to be the first Missouri Valley Conference team to be ranked as a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament since Larry Bird's Indiana State team in 1979. The 2014 Wichita State Shockers do not have a player with the star power of Larry Bird, but 34-0 speaks for itself. Put Wichita State in the tournament with the advantages of a top seed, because their 2014 resume is thus far unblemished.
Daily Rangers Update: Henrik Lundqvist won his 300th career game this afternoon at Madison Square Garden, and the Rangers blanked the Detroit Red Wings, 3-0. Because of the extremely tight nature of the NHL standings each and every year, with 17 games left to play, the Rangers could legitimately end up anywhere from the third seed in the East to out of the playoffs entirely. Six of the team's next seven games will be on the road, with the lone home game coming against a very good San Jose Sharks team. The upcoming schedule will not do the Rangers any favors, so they need to continue to raise their level of play and consistently play well each and every night they take the ice.
Daily Nets Update: After getting their record to above .500 for the first time all season, Brooklyn dropped their last game to the Celtics, and they are currently 30-30. With under six minutes to play in the second quarter, the Nets currently have a double digit lead against a bad Sacramento Kings team. If they can keep their foot on the gas tonight, the first place Toronto Raptors will visit Barclays Center tomorrow night with the Nets having a chance to cut Toronto's lead in the division down to 2.5 games. 22 games to play, and still a whole lot of possibilities for the Nets.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The DBacks are in the ninth inning of a tie game with the San Diego Padres right now, and their season officially begins in Australia in 13 days. Brandon McCarthy has looked very good thus far on the mound, and Martin Prado has been hitting the cover off of the ball at the plate. Archie Bradley won his second start yesterday, and has still not surrendered a run in his two appearances. We still may not see him on the Opening Day roster, but if he keeps pitching as well as he has been, it will be impossible for the team to keep him out of the rotation for very long in 2014.
Daily Giants Update: Not a lot of news right now, but free agency begins this week, and the Giants will likely be pretty active. Hakeem Nicks was in the news over the past few days, and it appears he will not be back with the team for next season. That means that the Giants will need a #1 caliber outside receiver. There are some pretty nice names that will be available, but I'm not too sure that any of them will be as good as Nicks was over the course of his entire tenure with the Giants. The team has needs at multiple positions, and the upcoming week will be the first step in filling those holes.
What makes the tournament so special is not just the spotlight that shines on young players across the country, but the teams that come out of obscurity to knock off the big name teams. It is guaranteed to happen, and the tournament is so special because even though we know it will happen, we are still shocked every time it does. Whether it was Richmond beating Syracuse in 1991 to become the first #15 seed to ever beat a #2 seed, Princeton beating defending national champion UCLA in 1996, or Florida Gulf Coast beating Georgetown last year, the upsets seem to come fast and furious during the first weekend of the tournament. However, while those upsets are thrilling, the team celebrating their stunning victory often times loses soon after, and fades back into obscurity to the casual college basketball fan.
In the recent past though, we have seen some of those upset-minded teams advance much further in the tournament than we ever have before. Little known George Mason University, a #11 seed, advanced all the way to the Final Four in 2006, and knocked off some big name competition along the way. Virginia Commonwealth, also a #11 seed, marched all the way to the Final Four in 2011, after their at-large selection to be in the tournament in the first place was seriously questioned by many people. 2011 was also the second consecutive year that previously little known Butler University advanced to the national championship game. They lost both times they got there, but the fact that they made it that far, especially in consecutive seasons, was a huge accomplishment. Last season, we saw the aptly named, #9 seed Wichita State Shockers advanced all the way to the Final Four, shocking many people along the way. Only about an hour ago, Wichita State won the Missouri Valley conference tournament, and by doing so, earned an automatic berth to the NCAA Tournament. However, their NCAA Tournament status in 2014 is a whole lot different than it was in 2013.
By beating Indiana State this afternoon, Wichita State moved its record to 34-0. The only other team to win its first 34 games of the season was the UNLV Runnin' Rebels in 1991, but that record included games in the NCAA Tournament. The Rebels eventually lost their 35th game to Duke in the Final Four. So that means that Wichita State will be entering the tournament with a better record than any other team has. They are certainly not flying under the radar now. With Selection Sunday now officially one week away, the question is no longer if the Shockers will be in the tournament, but it is how high they will be seeded.
Wichita State is currently ranked second in the country in both the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. Florida is #1 in both polls, and Arizona is third in both. Barring any unexpected losses (which are possible since, don't forget, it is March) in the early round of the SEC and Pac-12 tournaments, I think Florida and Arizona will be #1 seeds going into the official tourney. The ACC Tournament will likely decide the third of four #1 seeds. Duke is currently ranked fourth in the country, Virginia is ranked at #5 (although they did lose this afternoon to an unranked Maryland team), and Syracuse is ranked at #7. It is highly unlikely that all three of those teams will slip up early in the ACC Tournament, and if one of those three win the conference, I think, in all likelihood, that team will also be a #1 seed. Then, there are the Shockers.
Florida played six teams that were ranked at the time of the game, and their only two losses came against Wisconsin and UConn, both of whom are still ranked in the Top 25 right now. The fourth ranked Duke Blue Devils played seven games against ranked opponents, Virginia had five such matchups, and Syracuse had seven. The first argument against Wichita State being a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament is the fact that they played zero games against nationally ranked opponents. The Shockers won multiple games by large margins over teams like Loyola, Drake, and Emporia State. They did, however, beat Saint Louis, and while the Billikens were unranked when they played Wichita State, they are currently ranked 17th in the nation. Still, the fact remains that Wichita State's schedule was far less challenging than the schedules of Florida, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse. There is though, one team that I have not yet mentioned as far as schedule strength goes, and that is the Arizona Wildcats.
At 28-3, Arizona seems to be a near lock to secure a #1 seed in the tournament, thanks in large part to playing in a "major" conference. However, when we look at their schedule, we see a whole lot of names, but not very many numbers next to those names. How many games have the Wildcats played against ranked opponents? One. Have they beaten anyone who was unranked at the time of the game, but is ranked now? No. The ranked team they did play though, was Duke, and the Wildcats did win that game, which looks just as impressive now as it did on November 29. Arizona's three losses came against Oregon, California, and Arizona State. While at least two of those teams will probably make the field of 64, none of them are exactly juggernauts. So why is it then, that Arizona is considered by most to be a near lock to be a #1 seed? I'm not too sure, but playing in a major conference, as opposed to a mid-major conference like Wichita State does certainly plays a huge factor in it.
When one thinks of college basketball powerhouse conferences, the Missouri Valley Conference surely is not the first one to come to mind. That is why teams from the SEC, Pac-12, and ACC will all be #1 seeds in 2014. That still does not diminish what Wichita State did this season. In my mind, people who immediately write off the Shockers based solely on their conference are foolish. It is even more foolish when we look at the roster of the Shockers. Nearly all of the players who have played significant minutes this year were on the team last year, and that team reached the Final Four. Along the way in 2013, the Shockers beat Pittsburgh (who at the time was a Big East team, but this year is a member of the ACC), Big 10 member Ohio State, and gave eventual national champion, and Big East champion Louisville, its closest game of the entire tournament in the Final Four. Louisville won that game 72-68. If a team from a major conference followed up a Final Four appearance with a 34-0 season, they would unquestionably be a #1 seed, and anyone who thought otherwise would be laughed at. However, because in this case the team is from a mid-major conference, people still feel the Shockers are unworthy of a #1 seed. In my eyes, that should be laughed at.
In 2014, Wichita State has become to college basketball what Boise State was to college football only a few seasons ago. Boise State never got a chance to play for a national championship (thanks to the bowl system, which will FINALLY be gone in the upcoming season), but the Broncos proved they could play with the big boys when they beat the Oklahoma Sooners in the Fiesta Bowl in 2007, in what was undoubtedly one of the greatest college football games to ever be played.
No matter where the Shockers end up seeded a week from today, they will go into the tournament saying all the right things, put their seed aside, and play whoever is put in front of them. Also, unlike Boise State, the Shockers do have a chance to play for the national championship. So does their seed going into the tournament really matter as much as some might think? Probably not. Nonetheless, I think that they do in fact deserve to be the first Missouri Valley Conference team to be ranked as a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament since Larry Bird's Indiana State team in 1979. The 2014 Wichita State Shockers do not have a player with the star power of Larry Bird, but 34-0 speaks for itself. Put Wichita State in the tournament with the advantages of a top seed, because their 2014 resume is thus far unblemished.
Daily Rangers Update: Henrik Lundqvist won his 300th career game this afternoon at Madison Square Garden, and the Rangers blanked the Detroit Red Wings, 3-0. Because of the extremely tight nature of the NHL standings each and every year, with 17 games left to play, the Rangers could legitimately end up anywhere from the third seed in the East to out of the playoffs entirely. Six of the team's next seven games will be on the road, with the lone home game coming against a very good San Jose Sharks team. The upcoming schedule will not do the Rangers any favors, so they need to continue to raise their level of play and consistently play well each and every night they take the ice.
Daily Nets Update: After getting their record to above .500 for the first time all season, Brooklyn dropped their last game to the Celtics, and they are currently 30-30. With under six minutes to play in the second quarter, the Nets currently have a double digit lead against a bad Sacramento Kings team. If they can keep their foot on the gas tonight, the first place Toronto Raptors will visit Barclays Center tomorrow night with the Nets having a chance to cut Toronto's lead in the division down to 2.5 games. 22 games to play, and still a whole lot of possibilities for the Nets.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The DBacks are in the ninth inning of a tie game with the San Diego Padres right now, and their season officially begins in Australia in 13 days. Brandon McCarthy has looked very good thus far on the mound, and Martin Prado has been hitting the cover off of the ball at the plate. Archie Bradley won his second start yesterday, and has still not surrendered a run in his two appearances. We still may not see him on the Opening Day roster, but if he keeps pitching as well as he has been, it will be impossible for the team to keep him out of the rotation for very long in 2014.
Daily Giants Update: Not a lot of news right now, but free agency begins this week, and the Giants will likely be pretty active. Hakeem Nicks was in the news over the past few days, and it appears he will not be back with the team for next season. That means that the Giants will need a #1 caliber outside receiver. There are some pretty nice names that will be available, but I'm not too sure that any of them will be as good as Nicks was over the course of his entire tenure with the Giants. The team has needs at multiple positions, and the upcoming week will be the first step in filling those holes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)