A rant on basketball officiating

Okay, so there's more on the Sean Taylor incident that I would love to cover today, but I feel like if I stayed on the same story for a 3rd straight day, I'd have to award myself my own prize for overblown coverage of a story. Not that Taylor's death is a non-story, but I'm a simple, one post a day kind of a guy, so sitting on one and only one topic for 3 days in a row would be overdoing it, especially given the lack of real developments since my last post. So we're taking a break, though I reserve the right to come back to it as there are new developments.

Anyhow, I was back over at the alma mater last night, taking in the Lady Falcons basketball team and their game with traditional regional and national power Scranton. Messiah is fielding what, in my opinion, is probably their best team ever this year, and entered the game sporting a perfect 3-0 record and ranked 3rd in the nation. The Lady Falcons also came with an 0-9 all-time record against the Monarchs of Scranton, so by any measure this was a pretty big game for Messiah. To make a long story short, Messiah was led by 27 points from returning D-III First Team All-American guard Nikki Lobach and defeated Scranton 61-53, notching that elusive first ever win against the Lady Monarchs.

So, once again, go Falcons! However, that's not really the point of this entry, I just wanted to brag on the Falcons again before I got going. From my vantage point, the officiating in the game was absolutely atrocious. And this does not come from a place of bitterness. First of all, my team won the game, so why would I be bitter? And secondly, as is the case 99% of the time I come away critical of the referees in a given game, I felt they were equally bad to both teams. The even number of fouls and free throw attempts in the game bear that out. The referees, in my opinion, definitely impacted the game, but did not have a meaningful effect on the outcome of the game. Very early in the game, a Scranton player got pretty well decked taking a jumper right in between two refs, with no call, and that just set the stage for what was to come. Coaches, players, and fans of both teams were justifiably exasperated with the officials on numerous occasions throughout the game. Of course, coaches, players and fans of both teams were also unjustifiably exasperated with the officials on numerous occasions throughout the game as well, but that's to be expected because we aren't exactly dealing with neutral observers here.

Now, admittedly, this was a D-III women's game, so you aren't expecting an all-star officiating crew. But this game was a textbook example of the kind of poor officiating that I think has become epidemic at virtually all levels of basketball. I could go on a long diatribe about the refs themselves, but I think it would be misguided, because I don't really put most of the blame on the actual officials. I think the rules of basketball have been allowed to evolve to a point that the game has become virtually impossible to call consistently and fairly.

I'm not terribly old, so I don't have a ton of basketball history to look back on, but my understanding, and recollection from the earliest games I watched, is that basketball used to be a fully non-contact sport. So, if you were defending someone and you bumped them, pushed them, or whatever, you were whistled for a foul. A referee simply had to determine if contact was made on a play, nothing more. Obviously there were questions of offensive fouls, who had position, and the like, but these were not inherently judgement calls. If you saw the play accurately, the right call was clear. Over time, the rules of basketball have evolved to allow for contact, as long as that contact does not create an advantage for the person initiating the contact. Now, I tend to be fairly progressive when it comes to sports - I'm all for change if it makes the game better. This change has clearly not done so in my opinion, because now you are asking officials to not only determine if contact was made, but if that contact created an advantage. What constitutes an advantage is highly subjective, and thus you have referees being asked to make a lot more split second judgment calls. This is not a good idea, from my perspective, and I think the end result on the floor in most games supports my opinion. Re-simplify the task of officiating, and you'll get better officiating.

I'm a realist, and I know we aren't going back anytime soon, but every so often I just need to rant about this sort of thing. Thank you for bearing with me in that effort.

Not innocent enough?

Okay, so yesterday I sounded off my disgust at the media for the lack of coverage being given to the death of Sean Taylor, relative to the kind of wall to wall coverage of Michael Vick's legal troubles back in August. A couple of our loyal readers chimed in with their comments, both with interesting points, one of which really got me processing the issue again. I've come to some new conclusions, so I figured that rather than burying them in a long comment to yesterday's post, I'd lay them out with a follow-up post today.

You can go check the comments in full out for yourself, but what got me started was Mr. Stevens' suggestion - in summary, that the primary cause of the disparity in the coverage was the disparity in the relative fame of the two men. He suggested that Vick's death would be an enormous story, presumably similar to his legal troubles. I think there's some truth there. I think Vick's dying under similar circumstances would dominate the media more so than Taylor's death has to date. However, something told me it wasn't quite that simple, that there was more to it. As I thought this through, and simultaneously listened to Day 2 of the coverage, it occurred to me that, in my opinion, Vick's death would not be the kind of story that his legal troubles were. In order to have that kind of story, I think you'd need to see someone like Peyton Manning or Tom Brady murdered. Now, in order to avoid getting this discussion pulled off the tracks by a conclusion that last statement might lead you to, you could replace Manning and Brady with, say Tim Duncan, or Tiger Woods.

Why do I believe that to be the case? Well, when I think about the criminal cases that have dominated the national attention span over my lifetime, I find at least one of 3 things to be true - either the alleged perpetrator is particularly famous/noteworthy (Vick, OJ Simpson), the criminal act itself is particularly heinous or out of the ordinary (Vick again, the DC snipers), or the victim is perceived as particularly sympathetic/innocent (pick any one of many child abductions/murders). Perhaps there are other aspects of crimes that capture our attention, but it seems to me that these are the 3 dominant ones. The reason Sean Taylor's death has not been the kind of drop everything media circus that Vick's legal troubles were is, in my opinion, because none of these 3 things are true in this case. It's not because Sean Taylor isn't famous enough, it's because he's not perceived to be innocent enough.

Let me lay out what I'm looking at here. First, let's look at the facts that we have that precede Taylor's murder. Fact number one is that Sean Taylor does have a criminal past. He's had brushes with the law, had his car shot up during his first year in the NFL, and was currently on probation as a result of guilty plea after being charged with armed assault in the summer of 2005. A second fact, one that has gotten significantly less attention from the media, is that prior to Monday's events, those closest to Taylor believed that, since the birth of his daughter 18 months ago, he had made a break from that past and was very clearly moving in the right direction. That doesn't make it fact that this was the case, but it does mean that either those closest to him were particularly naive, or there had been some noticeable change. A third significant fact here is that apparently Taylor's home had been broken into a week prior to his shooting, with nothing being taken, and a knife left on his bed.

There are other facts in play, but these are the ones I see as most prominent. The facts in the case have led to some assumptions, and that is where things get dangerous in my view. Significant assumption #1 is based on my third fact, and that is the assumption that this wasn't a random burglary or act of violence, and that Taylor was specifically being targeted, though perhaps not for murder. That, I think is a fair assumption, but it is still just an assumption, and I would really prefer to see the media dealing in facts rather than assumptions. However, that particular assumption by itself doesn't really color the issue to a large degree. Where the case does pick up color is when you take that assumption and combine it with my first fact, Taylor's criminal past, to get to major assumption #2 - that something Taylor was involved with in his unsavory past (or perhaps even the present) resulted in him being targeted.

Let me be clear, I don't think anyone believes at this point that he deserved to be killed, but I get a strong sense that, even in the absence of anything resembling a concrete fact, most people believe that he was targeted as a result of a poor choice he made at some point, and thus he bears some responsibility for what happened. That, if true, would make him considerably less sympathetic than someone like Manning, Brady, Duncan, or Woods, who at least publicly have no connection to the kind of criminal element that Taylor ran with in his early life and for at least his first year or so in the NFL. They would likely be presumed to as totally innocent victims if they died under similar circumstances. Michael Vick might have fallen into a similar category prior to his legal dealings, but I'm not sure that would have been the case. While he had personally kept his record clean, it was known that he was still running with the pretty rough crowd that he grew up around.

So, going back, is the second assumption fair? Well, let's just say I wouldn't be shocked to find out that it's accurate. But the simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing concrete to substantiate it as of yet, and so I have a problem with the extent to which I see the assumption coloring media and public reaction. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't have make a bad decision to find yourself as a target of evil. And even were I to concede that this was linked to something in his unsavory past, those kinds of elements could easily decide to target him as a result of him trying to turn things around and break away from that life.

So that's where I sit. Taylor has been branded as unsympathetic and somewhat responsible for his situation before the facts of the case have even begun to come in, and that's coloring the extent to which the media and the public view his death as a tragedy. Only one of the 3 radio hosts I listen to on a daily basis made Taylor's story the dominant theme of their show today, and that was Jim Rome. Not so coincidentally, he's the one host who has been adamant about refusing to speculate and jump to conclusions before we get a better picture of what actually happened.

Can I really blame the public for branding Taylor as an unsavory character whose own actions led to this ugly situation? Honestly, I can't. That is what happens when you make poor choices and have some very public falls. It's an image Taylor would have had a hard time shedding now matter how much longer he had lived. However, I hold the media to a higher standard, and would like to see a larger part of it showing some responsibility by letting the facts, not assumptions, define the story.

Where's the perspective?

Okay, right now, I'm disgusted, appalled, pissed, and any other other synonymous word you want to throw in there. I've had harsh words for the media, and the sports media specifically, on a number of occasions, but the events of the last 24-36 hours take the cake, as far as I'm concerned.

Allow me to give you some background before I jump into my beef with the sports media. I started listening to sports talk radio again after a lengthy hiatus back in August, as the events of the Michael Vick dogfighting case were coming to a head, culminating with his guilty plea. My daily listening routine involves all/parts of 3 different sports talk shows, and I listened as each one of those shows stayed on the Vick story for days on end, literally only going elsewhere for a few minutes every hour. There might have been one development a day, if that, and yet you had the constant parade of calls, guests, etc all going over everything, speculating, and wearing out my ears. August is admittedly a rather slow month for sports, but you had things going on like preseason football and baseball heating up for the playoff run. As much as I thought the coverage was overblown, I had to concede that it was the biggest story going, and I comforted myself with the idea that a story of similar gravity would get the same kind of treatment.

So, with that in mind, when I heard the news yesterday that Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor was in critical condition and fighting for his life after being shot in his home early Monday morning, I tuned in to my normal shows, expecting to get wall to wall coverage of the situation. A couple of the shows gave it a passing mention, one didn't touch on it all. I was surprised, but kept moving. Then, this morning, when I heard that Taylor had passed away, I thought "Okay, now we'll get the wall to wall." While it was obviously discussed in a significant way, it was nowhere near the dominant topic. On two of the shows, it was probably outdone in terms of time spent on a topic by last night's terrible Monday night football game. To add to my frustration, when one of the shows discussed it, they felt the need to bring up some of the unsavory details of Taylor's past, as if they somehow made a 24 year old man being gunned down in his own home only feet away from his infant child any less tragic.

Am I completely off base in being concerned and frustrated that our media believes (and I'm honestly not sure they are wrong) that our attention as a nation is more easily captivated by a professional athlete getting caught up in a dogfighting ring than it is by a professional athlete being tragically murdered? Look, I don't think any story deserves the kind of 24 hour coverage that the Vick story got, but if you're going to go that route, how does the Sean Taylor news not completely trump it? Now, I've heard the arguments before that we're desensitized to human violence by other things, but that doesn't wash with me. High-profile murder cases command national attention all the time. Perhaps as more details unfold, things will change, but I'm really doubting that it will ever become the kind of dominant story that Vick and other story before him were. Perhaps, as a media, and as a culture, we all need a little perspective shift here.

Giving Thanks

I suppose it would be rather cliche to write a blog entry about what I'm thankful for at Thanksgiving. Luckily for me, it's not Thanksgiving, it's the Monday after, and I've never been above cliche anyhow. So, here are a few of my reflections.

First of all, I'm thankful for my family. The holiday season is a very stressful time for many people due to family gatherings and the various turmoil and issues that come out of that. I am truly blessed in this area. Unlike some I know who try to get the family stuff over as quickly as possible, I generally make my holiday plans so as to maximize the time I get to spend at home with the folks and other family. That is a special gift that I do not take for granted. And, while I have always enjoyed my family, I'm thankful for somethings that God has been doing in my life and in their that have made those bonds even closer over the last several years.

On a simpler note, I'm also thankful for my dog, Chaser. I'm reminded of this because he is at present licking the bottom of my shoe, for reasons I can't begin to comprehend, and likely would rather not know anyhow. Chaser is a handful and at times can be very frustrating to deal with, but overall is a source of tremendous joy for me, and he has taught me many object lessons about the relationship between myself and God.

I'm very thankful for my friends. This past year has had it's struggles and challenges, but for the first time in a long time I really feel like I'm starting to find a group of people I can count on, to hold me accountable and to walk along with me. I have been blessed in very unexpected ways through relationships that I never would have pursued on my own, but that God has put in my path recently. This year, I'm especially thankful that I've had the opportunity to reconnect with a few very special friends that I had lost touch with over the last few years. Since I'm guessing all of you will read this at some point, I just want to say that I love you guys, and I'm not sure you'll ever know what it means to me to have a connection with you again.

I'm thankful for my past, both the good and the bad, and that I serve a God who is able to heal the hurts and pain of years gone by. I'm thankful for the gifts and talents He has given me, and that He is working with me daily to mold me into the person He designed me to be.

I'm thankful for my job, which God blessed me with almost exactly two years ago. It's been a challenge to maintain that level of thanks, as it's been so easy at times to grumble about the boredom of the job, and to gravitate to simply doing the minimum I need to do to get by, rather than giving my best effort on a daily basis. If I were to have to choose one area in my life that I want to see the most growth in from this Thanksgiving until next, it would be this one - that I would go to work every day with an attitude that honors God and reflects a heart of gratitude for His provision. I don't want to do this forever, but I do believe that it is God's desire for me to grow in this area before I move on.

There are many, many other things I could list, but I think these few reflections give a picture of where my head and heart are at right now, as we draw near to the Christmas season. It's my prayer for all of you who might read these words that you would find yourself so blessed, in your own way, as this year begins to draw to conclusion.

Back

Once again, just checking in to let everyone know that I'm not dead, merely taking the long holiday weekend to be with the family.

I'm back now, and will be checking back in tomorrow with another installment of my fabolous insight and wit. I'm sure the 2 of you that visited over the last couple days are on the edge of your seats, wet with anticipation.

The Jesus I Never Knew

Yesterday, I finished reading The Jesus I Never Knew, by Philip Yancey. That means that in the last month, I've completed more books (2) than I had in at least a year prior to that. I'm quite proud of myself, and want to keep rolling with this new trend. If you notice, the next book I'm starting is another Yancey book, Prayer, which is his most recent work. You might deduce from this that I really like Yancey's work, and you would be correct.

The Jesus I Never Knew is the 3rd Yancey book I've finished (along with Reaching for the Invisible God and What's So Amazing About Grace?) and I have yet to be disappointed by one of his books. I really enjoy his work for a number of reasons. First of all, he's not afraid to wrestle with some of the really tough questions of the faith, and he doesn't give pat, Sunday school type answers to these questions. He's readily admitted on several occasions that often he writes a book to work through his own questions on his subject matter, rather than to simply offer help to anyone who would read them. Secondly, as an aspiring journalist myself, I appreciate his journalistic background and what it that brings to his investigation of his book subjects. Lastly, I feel like he and I share a similar approach to God and faith. While he certainly has offered me some new and different insights, I often find myself feeling like he's gotten into my head and written down what I've been thinking about a particular issue, only in a much more clear and eloquent way than I've ever been able to. He's help me crystallize much of what I think about God and how He interacts with us and the rest of His creation. So, while I definitely intend to start branching out and reading different authors and taking in different view points, I figured if I was going to get serious about reading again, it would probably be a good idea to make sure I really enjoyed my first few books.

The Jesus I Never Knew was a real winner for me, and an example of Yancey at his journalistic best, in my opinion. I think one of the hardest things for someone like me, who grew up in the church, to do is to really look at the life of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels without my "church eyes". If you grow up in church and in Sunday school, you are generally presented with a particular view of Jesus. Now, there's a lot of truth in that view, but Yancey's contention is that we often miss a lot, and we end up reading Scripture through the lens of our preconceived view of Jesus, rather than allowing the Gospels themselves to shape and form that view. I resonate with that thought. He also makes the point that it living on the other side of the resurrection can cloud our understanding of the events in Jesus' life prior to Easter Sunday. So he basically takes a slow walk through Jesus' life as seen in the Gospels, looking at what is really there, and what it all means. Some of it wasn't really earth shattering for me, but I will say there were many things he brought to light that I had never really considered before.

This book has been around for a while, so if you're a Yancey fan, or just an avid Christian reader, you've probably read it long before me. But if not, I definitely recommend it. You'll come away with a more holistic view of just who Jesus was and what his time on earth was all about.

Spotting a Non-Story Posing as a Real Story - Lesson 1

Okay, I need your help on this one. The following headline appeared on a FoxSports.com article late yesterday/early today: NFL investigating Packers bounty payments. Now, I'll give you a link to the actual story in a second, but first, I want you to see if you can come up with a good idea of what you expect this particular story to be about. Take a few seconds before you move on.

Done? Okay, here's the story: NFL investigating Packers bounty payments. Assuming this was the first you've heard about this story, is that what you expected to read about? I would guess you expected to read about Packers players being paid for injuring an opponent, or something a bit more heinous than simply holding a team or a player under 100 rushing yards in a given game, something that in football terms could simply be referred to playing good defense. While the definition of bounty can technically include the kind of simple incentives for good play being referenced in this article, clearly it is a word that has more provocative and sinister connotations. It evokes images of bounty hunters, of putting a price on someone's head, and the like. The average human being would call this sort of payment a bonus, or an incentive, or possibly even a reward, and stop at that, without the word bounty ever entering their mind. The use of the word becomes even more provocative when you know that one of the opposing players who was the subject of one of these so called "bounties" was injured while playing the Packers.

This story has not (yet, anyway) made front page news on any major sports site, nor have I heard it mentioned on multiple sports radio shows, so it's not currently eligible for the Overblown Non-Story of the Week award. It is, however, clearly a non-story. While the Packers may have technically broken an NFL rule that prohibits rewarding specific performances, it's a minor infraction that will likely involve at most a slap on the wrist.

I bring it up because, in conjunction with the coveted Overblown Non-Story of the Week award, I'm planning on putting together a good list of tell-tale signs that you're dealing with a non-story. This article is a perfect example of a feature that will undoubtedly make the list. If someone felt they had to use a misleading, provocative word like bounty in the headline to get you to read about it, I'm going to estimate there's at least a 95% chance you're dealing with a non-story. And if it's not a non-story, you're probably dealing with a headline writer who should lose their job.

It would appear that, at least for the time being, this situation has been appropriately given non-story status, even with the misleading headline that appears in virtually every occurrence of the story I've found on the internet. Working together, we can spread awareness, and help to ensure that other deserving non-stories meet the same fate.

Dreaming of a White.... Thanksgiving?!

So, yesterday was November 18th, more than 30 days prior to the official beginning of winter. And yet, we had our first snow of the year here in Central PA. And I'm not talking about a little bit of snow in the air that disappears as soon as it hits the ground. We had a legit snowfall, somewhere between half an inch and an inch. Now, obviously that's not a whole lot, but it was right around the record for snow this early in the season, and it was easily the earliest I can remember the ground being legitimately snow covered in at least the last 10-15 years. And the snow, combined with the evening timing of it's arrival, was enough cause people to start driving into each other and the like.

And I'm bitter about it.

Don't get me wrong here. Winter is probably my least favorite of the 4 seasons, but I'm far from a winter hater. I typically enjoy snow, especially once it is done falling, has been cleaned up off the roads, and is just laying on the ground making things white. My problem is that, due to summer deciding to stick around an extra month or so, and now a very early arrival to winter weather, it looks like we've only wound up with about 3 weeks of fall, which is in a close race with spring for being my favorite time of the year.

I blame Al Gore.

Sport in its purest form

Over the last few weeks, I've mentioned a number of my favorite things in sports. My favorite sport to watch/follow, a few of my favorite teams, etc. Well, if you'll indulge me for a few moments, I'm going to take a few moments to brag on my absolute favorite athletes in any sport, at any level. Those would be the student-athletes from my alma mater, Messiah College. Trust me, I have a larger point that I will get to fairly quickly.

There was a lot going on in the world Falcon athletics this weekend, some of it which I watched in person. I was a rather die-hard supporter of several Messiah teams during my four years as a student, and so one of the things I enjoy most about about having stayed in the area after graduation is being able to make it to games on a fairly regular basis.

To recap:
The Messiah women's basketball team, which has become one of better programs in the NCAA Division III, opened their season by going 2-0 and winning the Messiah Invitational tip-off tournament in rather dominating fashion. I was in the stands for both of those games.

The men's basketball team, which has risen out of years of mediocrity (at best) and made the NCAA tournament each of the last two years, went 1-1 at the Gettysburg College tip-off tournament.

The women's soccer team won two games at York to advance to the Final Four of the NCAA Division III tournament for the 4th year in a row, and the 5th year in the last 6. The Lady Falcons were the 2005 national champions, and were runners up in 2002.

And finally, the men's soccer team, which is the premiere Division III program, won two games at Messiah to advance to the Final Four of the NCAA tournament for the 4th year in a row, and the 7th time in the last 8 years. The Falcons are the 3 time defending national champions, and they have won 5 of the last 7 championships overall. I was at Saturday's game, a dominating 6-0 victory over Rochester.

So, first of all, go Falcons! As a proud alumnus, it's a lot of fun for me to be able to see Messiah teams performing at such a high level. I also like being able to use the word "we" when talking about Messiah teams and their success. One of my silly pet peeves is when fans of professional teams or major college teams that they have no actual ties to refer to the teams as "we". The various Falcon teams are the only ones you will ever hear me discuss using the word "we", regardless of how passionate I get about my other favorite teams.

Secondly, due to the high level that several of the Messiah teams have reached over the years since I first set foot on the Messiah campus (which is now almost a decade ago, which is really hard for me to believe), I've gotten to witness a lot of very high level NCAA Division III competition in several sports. I must say, that as a fan of sports in general, there are few things I enjoy more than NCAA-level Division III competition, whether Messiah is playing or not.

You might wonder why that is. Clearly, the best D-III teams don't come anywhere close to replicating the skill/talent of professional teams, or even the major college teams we see on TV from week to week. However, lower-level NCAA competition is, in my opinion, one of the view venues left in the US where you can witness grown men and women engaging in what I would call "pure" sports.

Let me expand on what I mean by that. Messiah College student-athletes, like all Division III athletes, are not on athletic scholarship. There is no national TV audience to impress. There are (with the rarest of exceptions) no future pro career to audition for. If you reach the highest levels, as a few Messiah teams have in recent years, your team might merit a 60-90 spot on a little watched hour long special that CBS runs each season to cover all the D-II and D-III championships. Do something totally extraordinary, as Messiah did in 2005 when both the men's and women's soccer teams went undefeated and won their respective championships, and you might merit a fleeting mention on ESPN.

All of that is to say that, when you watch D-III competition, you're watching players who play the game because they love the game, without much else involved. They aren't playing to support their education, or to seek an eventual pro payday. They aren't cash cows for their schools - many D-III schools, Messiah included, still don't even charge for their regular season games. They go to class like everyone else, they go through the long practices, the bus trips, the off season workouts and all of that, striving to be the best, with nothing ultimately at stake but personal and team pride. D-III athletics is one of last places where you can witness true, unspoiled athletic drama. In short, it is one one of the last venues of true amateurism in American sports, and that is very appealing to me as one who has often been very frustrated with the culture of spoiled millionaire athletes and big money college athletics.

My desire is to be a sportswriter professionally, and I will likely take any opportunity that comes along to do that. However, these are the athletes whose stories I most want to tell, and I hope that wherever I end up, I will have the opportunity to do just that. You will also likely see a lot of that in this blog, and it will likely be pretty Messiah-centric, at least for the time being.

Moving on up!

21 views yesterday, shattering the old record.

I'm coming for you Tillman.

Barry Bonds and due process

As someone with a sports-themed blog, and also a die-hard baseball fan, I would be negligent if I didn't address the story of the last 24 hours: Barry Bonds and his federal indictment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. For the last few years, I have been frustrated with the extent to which the media has obsessed over Bonds, as the focal point of the entire steroids problem in baseball. Had I been running this blog over the last 2 years, there's a pretty good chance that Bonds related stories would have received the coveted "Overblown Non-Story of the Week Award" on more than one occasion. This story, however, on it's face is highly significant. The indictment, and it's claim that the feds have evidence of Bonds testing positive for steroids, in particular, represents the first evidence of any substance to come out against Bonds in several years - various accusations, innuendo, and conjecture that have occurred in the meantime aside. So, while the indictment itself and the court proceedings to follow will likely receive ridiculously disproportionate coverage over the next weeks and months, I say right now, this is a big deal.

Before I go much further, I want to lay out where I have come down on Barry Bonds. First of all, I have to be honest, I find him to be a rather despicable human being. He comes off as extremely arrogant in his dealings with virtually everyone he deals with. He's had several incidents come to light in the last several years that cast serious doubts about his integrity and his character. He is standoffish and thoroughly unlikeable, and brings a good portion of the treatment he receives from the media and fans on himself. That being said, Bonds' career began right as I was really beginning to follow baseball, with a local rival to my Phillies, the Pittsburgh Pirates. From the beginning, his incredible talent for the game was clearly evident, and he was legitimately in the argument as to who was the best player in the game, long before the slightest hint of steroid allegations found him.

When his incredible power surge grabbed everyone's notice in 2001, when he set the major league single season record with 73 HRs, the steroid whispers were there. I defended him at the time, but began looking over his career, and scrutinizing him more carefully. In the 6+ years since then as various evidence (99% or more of it circumstantial, mind you) came to light , I've come to believe personally, like most baseball fans, that Bonds had in fact used performance enhancers, and as such was a cheater. However, absent anything concrete (most notably a failed drug test, especially from some point after 2003, when baseball finally actually outlawed steroids) I was forced to adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" stance and thus have yet to join the throngs calling for suspensions, jail, and the removal of Bonds' records from the books. When something concrete surfaces, that position is likely to change. You will never catch me defending Barry Bonds, I'm simply about affording him the same protections that I believe everyone should be entitled to, regardless of my personal feelings about him.

And that, my friends, is what I find disturbing as I reflect back over the last few years and how fans and media have treated the Bonds issue. It alarms me how quickly many people are willing to forgive questionable behavior, if it produces a result that we want. It became clear to me several years ago that there were a large portion of people who had made up their minds on Bonds (fairly or not) and that with most of those people, virtually anything fair game in order to "get" Bonds. Bonds haters for several years have been responding to those who tell them there is no concrete proof that Bonds cheated by citing Bonds' admission that he took the "cream" and the "clear", two designer steroids, not knowing what they were. That's all well and good, except that that admission came in sealed grand jury testimony that someone broke the law by letting out. Several of the other more stinging accusations have contained information that was supposed to be sealed/confidential. In the pursuit of THE "bad guy", many people haven't even batted an eye in aligning themselves with other "bad guys". I've made my opinion on Bonds clear, but the simple fact of the matter is that bad behavior never justifies more bad behavior. And you can condemn the bad behavior of those pursuing Bonds without giving Bonds a pass for his actions. Very few people have seemed interested in doing that, however.

I am very alarmed at the fact that the court of public opinion as it relates to Bonds has seemed to say "I don't like you, and so you're not entitled to any privacy or the other basic protections afforded you under the law." If Barry Bonds broke the law and there is proof, he should be punished in the legal arena. If he violated the rules of baseball, and there is proof, he should be punished by baseball. However, it's a very dangerous path to be on when as a people we decide that our personal opinions about someone should have an impact on what extent they are entitled to due process and justice.

Overblown Non-Story of the Week (Week of Nov. 17)

I'm going to take a slight departure from the norm in how I hand out the award this week. This week's award goes to the continuing saga surrounding Alex Rodriguez and his contract situation. As much as I hate to admit it, this can't be called a true "non-story". Rodriguez is clearly the best player in the game right now, so the question of what team he's going to play for in 2008 and beyond is noteworthy. Also noteworthy is the contract he will likely sign, which will likely be a record setting deal, though how much of a record seems to be in question at this point.

I'm making this story eligible for the award due to the sheer length of time for which it has dominated headlines, and the extreme extent to which it has been overblown. Speculation about whether A-Rod would opt out of the last 3 years of his already historic contract with the Yankees to seek a bigger, longer deal had been rampant throughout the season, and even as the World Series, which should be the primary focus of the baseball season, was going on, the A-Rod/Yankees obsessed media continued to dominate headlines and radio discussion. A-Rod's agent, Scott Boras, fueled this to the nth degree by announcing to the media during the final game of the World Series that A-Rod would, in fact, opt out of the deal. Boras and A-Rod were, predictably and hypocritically skewered by the media for making that announcement. While I certainly agree that it was in poor form, the simple fact of the matter is that had the media not been so clearly obsessed with the story to begin with, there wouldn't have been any reason to do so. The media was given exactly what it wanted.

Since that time, every mention of A-Rod by any team has been headline news. Team A says they aren't interested, Team B says it wouldn't make sense to sign him, Team C has a meeting with him but makes it "clear" that they aren't interested. And now today, with news that A-Rod is back in talks with the Yankees (who incidently, swore up and down that they would not negotiate with him if he opted out of his contract), the story is right at the top of the headlines again.

Look, I'm not an A-Rod hater like many are. The guy definitely has diva qualities to him, is rather thin-skinned, and has a few other notable character flaws. However, I quickly acknowledge that the bottom-line is that he is the best player in baseball right now, and would make any team better. If I thought the Phillies had the cash to get him, I'd be all for it. That being said, I really wish the media would quit shoving the guy down my throat. I think his October struggles are overexaggerated, but the simple reality is that he has yet to truly be a difference maker at any of his 3 stops. He is, after all, simply one player on a team, and his final destination is not going to significantly alter the balance of power in the baseball universe, especially if he just resigns with the Yankees.

So, while I can't fully classify this as a "non-story", I feel comfortable that it has been sufficiently overblown as to merit receiving this week's award.

A record day

Just wanted to announce that yesterday was a record day for this blog, with 12, that's right 12, views!

Do you feel me breathing down your neck yet Tillman?

The one year wonders of college basketball.

College basketball season is upon us at last. Of the "major" sports in this country (the 4 major pro sports leagues and the 2 big money college sports), college hoops is probably my second favorite. It's probably in a 1a/1b type of position with baseball, actually. I've been a die-hard Duke Blue Devil fan since I was about 8 years old, and I really can't get enough of the sport as a whole. While a number of things have left me less enthused about the NBA in recent years, my zeal for college basketball has probably increased. I enjoy the style of the game (which remains predominantly team-oriented as the NBA moves to a more one on one oriented game), and the raw passion of the players and the respective student bodies, which is something that can't really be replicated at the pro level.

One of the bigger story lines in the first days of this college basketball season has been dominant performances by freshman, such as Indiana's Eric Gordon and USC's OJ Mayo. This comes after a season in which a freshman (Kevin Durant) was the national player of the year, and another freshman (Greg Oden) was the best player on a national runner-up team, and would likely have been his primary competition for that honor had not an injury taken a significant chunk of his early season from him. The number of freshmen making an impact is clearly on the rise since the NBA instituted it's age limit, forcing players who would have in the past foregone college entirely in favor of the NBA draft to at least spend one year in college

Many have hailed this development as a highly positive thing for the college game. While I'm going to withhold judgment on that until I get a larger sample size to view, I do concede that it is quite possible that adding these players into the college mix, even for only a year, will have a positive impact on the quality of the competition and the interest the sport generates. That being said, I continue to remain opposed to the idea on principle, and no amount of stellar play and compelling story lines that freshmen generate is going to move me off of that position.

Unlike baseball and hockey, which have their own well established minor leagues, basketball and football have for years used the NCAA as their primary talent development league. By establishing their age limit, the NBA has now joined the NFL in forcing athletes who want to pursue a pro career to spend at least some time in college, whether they have any actual desire to get an education or not. It is this practice that I am strongly opposed to, as I continue to see major college sports have less and less actual connection to an actual college experience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of athletes, even ones who clearly have lucrative pro careers ahead of them, getting an education, but that's not what this rule is about. It's about the NBA believing that players coming right out of high school aren't ready for the pros, and not wanting to lay out their own money to develop them. The end result: You put kids on college campuses that have no interest in being there, wasting class space, and worst of all, taking a scholarship away from a kid who might actually use it to get an education he couldn't otherwise afford.

I've said this before in different forums, but baseball has this thing right, or as close to right as any pro sport does. They have their own development system, and you are more than welcome to turn pro upon graduation from high school. However, once you make the decision to go to college, you aren't eligible to turn pro until after your junior year. Ideally, I'd take it one step further and require a degree before you turn pro, if you go to college, but the baseball system would be good enough for me. The end result is that the kids that just want to play baseball can start their pro careers, and the kids that head to college do so knowing that they are there long term. I've often found it funny that no one ever gripes about the large number of baseball players who forgo college entirely, but we're almost constantly bombarded with gripes about the basketball players that do. It's probably one of the best proofs that there are motives for keeping basketball players in school that go beyond a commitment to their education.

Now, I'm not naive enough to think this will ever happen. Since major college athletics became cash cows, the current setup is mutually beneficial to the NBA and the NCAA. The NBA doesn't have to pay to develop players, and the NCAA rakes in money employ pro-caliber talent at amateur prices . But, if the powers that be are ever interested in giving more than just lip service to the idea that academics are a primary concern in major college athletics, they might want to put some serious thought into this kind of setup.

On the media

I spent the better part of my Sunday down in the DC area, catching up with my old college buddy Micah (who rocks, in case you weren't already aware). As you might imagine, in the course of catching up, joking, reminiscing, and any other number of things that happen when old friends get together, two blogging, thinking types like us turned our attention to some serious topics as well.

One of the topics we hit on briefly was the media. Like many people, I am fairly critical of the mainstream media for a variety of reasons. If you've read much of this blog, you know that even the sports media doesn't escape my ire. In fact, since, as an aspiring sportswriter, I get more exposure to the sports media than the regular news media, I probably am harder on the sports media, because I know it better these days. One of the things I really find beneficial about that is that I believe it brings more balance to my understanding and critique of the news media.

"Why would you believe that?", you might ask. And even if you aren't asking that, I'm going to tell you. The sports media operates within the same framework, rules, and scope as the news media. However, there are no ideologies in sports, at least when it comes to straight up reporting. Obviously there are time when sports collide with issues of race, crime, gender and the like, and certainly reporting on these kind of stories can be open to ideological influence. However, for the most part, ideology is irrelevant in sports coverage.

What does all of that mean? Well, most of the time, critiques of the mainstream news media center around bias, and ultimately go to suggesting that one outlet or the other (or even the entire industry) has a specific ideological agenda that actively tilts their presentation of the facts. Were ideological bias and agendas truly the primary source of the kind of poor reporting we often see in the news media, one would expect the sports media to be largely devoid of that sort of thing. However, that's just not the case. I've cited several examples of reporting in the sports media that is every bit as misleading and "biased" as you find in the news media, in just the few weeks that I've had this blog up and running again. And it's not like those are the only ones. I just don't have the time or the energy to chase them all down.

This discovery has confirmed in my mind what I was already leaning towards believing - that the mainstream media, as a for profit venture, only has one true alligience, and that is profit itself. That's not to say that certain news outlets don't have a clear ideological slant in one direction or the other. However, it's my belief that they are only beholden to that slant to the extent that it draws viewers, sells papers, etc. Reporting these days is often characterized by a dangerous combination of zeal and laziness: zeal in finding a story and getting it out their, laziness in a lack of effort to get the story right the first time. The whole story is often not as exciting as one particular half of it is.

The Nanny State, sort of

It's fun when sports and my political leanings collide. Well, it's fun for me anyhow. You may have heard at some point earlier in the year that a minor league base coach was tragically killed when a line drive struck him in the temple. This development prompted a number of major league base coaches to choose to wear helmets for the rest of the season. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first incident of it's kind in the 100 plus years of professional baseball.

Rather predictably, word came this week that next year, MLB will require all base coaches to wear some form of head protection. The exact form of protection has yet to be determined. I have to say that I think this a gross overreaction, and that there a number of potential dangers that are more significant in baseball that have yet to be addressed, chief among them being pitchers, who are closer to the batter and in a more defenseless position at the time of contact. While I certainly support any base coach who wants to wear the head protection (I'd do it in there place), I think it's an unnecessary mandate. That being said, MLB is a business, these are team employees, and there are liability concerns, so ultimately I don't have a serious objection to the decision.

What prompts me to write this entry is the reaction I've gotten in other forums when expressing my opinion that this is an unnecessary overreaction. It deeply troubles me how many people have accepted as fact the notion that it is the government's job to save us from our own stupidity. Specifically, someone told me without blinking that "Sometimes you have to legislate common sense." "It keeps people safer, so what's the big deal?" I remember the great modern thinker, Jerry Seinfeld, was once known to describe helmet laws, for instances, as "a law whose purpose is to protect a brain that's functioning so poorly, it's not even trying to prevent the cracking of the head it's in." Nanny laws like this are anti-evolutionary. True Darwinists should support the stupid in their efforts to remove themselves from the gene pool, not pass laws to make it more difficult."

On their face, things like helmet laws, seat belt laws, and other laws designed to force me to take precautions to protect my own life seem fairly innocuous. However, they represent a dangerous cessation of our right to make our own decisions about our own life and safety. The government's job is to protect me from you, not to protect me from myself.

Making good choices

I got to put my Libertarian leaning mind on display in a live setting for the first time in quite a while last night. It was a lot of fun, for a number of reasons. First of all, I was not the only person in the room with essentially Libertarian ideals. Secondly, a number of people in the room had clearly never been in a deep discussion with someone of Libertarian ideals, or at the very least not with someone who had really thought through those ideals and could hold their own in a discussion. And finally, the group consisted of people who for the most part had pre-existing relationships and a foundation of respect, so it was a good, open, healthy exchange of ideas, devoid of personal attacks and the like. Sadly, those are rare these days.

It was a great experience for me, because it really gave me an opportunity to put my beliefs out there and see how they stood up to scrutiny, an opportunity I don't often get. I was very much sharpened in my views, and I think I also really got to the core of why I lean Libertarian. The topic of the evening was the poor, and the government's role in helping the poor. Obviously, I believe that role should be very limited/non-existant. As we went back and forth about this for a while, I finally came back to this truth. Clearly, a lot of people have been legitimately helped by government social programs. That is obviously a good thing. But a greater "evil" has come along with that. We've begun a movement towards shielding people from the consequences of poor choices. (To be absolutley clear, I'm not saying that everyone who is poor in this country is that way because they made poor choices, stuff happens.) And when you take away the negative consequences of bad choices, it becomes much more difficult for people to learn to make good choices. We've created a culture where it can be more attractive for people to stay unemployed rather than work cetain jobs. That's the fallacy of government programs that give without any expectation. Could we reform the government programs to have that level of expectation? Probably, but in my opinion, if you do that, all you do is turn the government into a lumbering, expensive middleman. Not my idea of a good time.

When sports and the courtroom collide.....

OJ Simpson was back in court today, or so I have been told. In case you haven't caught this story over the last month or so, the man who was acquitted of double murder in the "Trial of the Century" was arrested and charged with a variety of crimes, essentially amounting to armed robbery. Simpson and his cohorts allegedly broke into a hotel room in Vegas, to take back some of OJ's sports memorabilia that Simpson claims was stolen from him by a dealer. The preliminary hearing was today, and so for the first time OJ got to hear the full case against him. Let's keep in mind, this whole thing was caught on tape, and a couple of Simpson's co-defendants have already rolled on him and pled out. Why OJ has let this go so far without just pleaing out, I'm not sure.

But all of that is really beside my main point. One of my biggest pet peeves about the sports media is coverage of stories like this - high profile sports figures who get involved in legal trouble. These are not actually sports stories, but rather legal/court stories. That, of course, has never prevented the sports media from giving their best college try at covering them. I was only 14 when the first OJ trial happened, and didn't have cable or listen to sports talk radio, so I have no idea how the sports media functioned back then, but I can only assume it was similar, though perhaps on a smaller scale. From the second OJ trial, to Michael Vick, to Kobe Bryant's rape case, and so on, we've had many opportunities to watch the sports media try to tackle an arena they just aren't equipped to handle.

Fortunately (in a manner of speaking), these kind of stories are coming around frequently enough these days that the sports media is learning, albeit slowly. Mainly, they are getting help in their coverage - enlisting legal analysts and others who actually know what they are talking about. And yet, if I hear another ESPN anchor or sports talk radio host try (and fail miserably) to speak intelligently about legal proceedings, sentencings, and the like, I may have to put my foot through the TV/radio.

Overblown Non-Story of the Week (Week of Nov. 10)

This week's Overblown Non-Story of the Week award goes to former Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula's comments regarding the New England Patriots, and the subsequent fallout of those comments.

Football fans will, of course, remember the big story after Week 1 of the NFL regular season. The New England Patriots were caught video taping the NY Jets coaches on the opposing sideline during their game, in violation of NFL rules. Patriot coach Bill Belichick was fined 500,000 dollars, and the team itself was fined 250,000 dollars and will be forced to forfeit their 1st round pick in next April's draft. The incident also set off a ton of conversation about how significant this form of cheating was, and speculation about whether the Patriots, winners of 3 Super Bowls since 2001 under Belichick, had been cheating their way to the top for several years.

All the Patriots have done since then is run their record to a perfect 9-0, in one of the most dominant runs the NFL has ever seen. As always happens when a team goes deep into the season without a loss, talk of the '72 Dolphins, the only team ever to have a perfect season, arises. As such, the NY Daily News got an interview with Don Shula, the coach of that team. As you can see here, Shula indicated his belief that the "Spygate" incident at the beginning of the season would diminish the Pats' accomplishments.

Now, don't get me wrong, a Hall of Fame coach like Shula giving a take like this is noteworthy, to a point. Where this story has gone horribly wrong is that we've now reverted back to the discussions of Week 1, with the "Spygate" incident taking a significant presence on talk radio once again. We're back to debating just how significant the Patriots' transgression was, had they been cheating all along, are they still cheating, etc? All of this was a legitimate story after Week 1. Dealing with it again after Week 9 on a large scale is totally unnecessary. I particularly "enjoy" listening to "experts" tell me exactly how history will view the 2007 Patriots ten years from now or more. If I could see the future with that kind of clarity, I think I could do a little better than hosting a sports talk radio show, but that's just me. It's impossible to know in 2007 how history will view the 2007 Patriots, so making that question the focus of debate, again, for multiple days seems to me to scream "Overblown Non-Story".

Checking in...

Just wanted to toss a quick note up to say that, no, I'm not dead, and no, this blog is not on it's way back to the patterns of it's previous 2 year slumber. Very busy weekend and Monday, and tonight is going to be similar. I plan on being back with a real entry tomorrow.

Can the Colts get this thing done?

Unlike the majority of American sports fans these days, football is not my first love in sports. Don't get me wrong, I great enjoy fall Saturdays and Sundays spent watching football, but I just am not as passionate and excited about it as I am baseball. I know that makes me a throwback in today's society, and I'm perfectly fine with that. The result of that fact is that while I can speak pretty intelligently about various players and teams, I can't break down a football matchup with much detail. I can talk about the game in broad terms, but when it comes down to the serious X's and O's, I get left in the dust. And again, I'm fine with that.

So, what all of that means is that, as I go to talk about this week's big matchup between the last two undefeated teams in the NFL, the Patriots and the Colts, I can't really spend a lot of time discussing scheme's and formations, and why the Colts will or won't be able to slow down the Pats offense, and all that good stuff.

What I can tell you is that, through their first 8 games, the Pats have put on the most impressive display of football I can remember seeing in my lifetime. The closest thing I can remember might be the 49ers of the mid-80s, but in the days before the salary cap, there were other similarly great teams that were obvious rivals. If the Colts can't get job done on Sunday, or at least make a game out of it, I'll have to concede that these Patriots are peerless in today's NFL. They have a Super Bowl caliber defense, a staggering array offensive weapons, and probably the best coach out there at preparing a team for a game. The chip they have on their shoulder as a result of the "SpyGate" controversy at the beginning of the season doesn't hurt them either.

None of this is to slight the Colts. They are the defending Super Bowl champions, and in my opinion are better than they were last year. They are undoubtedly better on the defensive side of the ball. They too have been exceedingly impressive in compiling their perfect record. They've not put up the kind of blowouts that the Patriots have, but they've beaten up a significant number of very fine teams. They have finally assembled a defense to go along with an offense that, prior to the Patriots early season display, was the class of the NFL. Tony Dungy may not be Bill Belichick, but he's one fine coach in his own right.

And so I ask, can the Colts get this thing done? I believe they definitely can, but find myself far from certain that they will. The Patriots have yet to be challenged for an entire game this season, and so if the Colts can stay with them from the beginning, I believe they will plant some doubt in the Pats minds for the first time all year. The simple reality, from where I sit, is that the Colts have to find a way to make Tom Brady uncomfortable in the pocket. He's had all kinds of time back there this season, and with the arsenal of receivers he has, that's trouble for anyone. Here's to a great game, and the Colts playing well enough to keep us believing that the rest of the season isn't just a formality.

Overblown Non-Story of the Week Award

Okay folks, here it is, the first official "Overblown Non-Story of the Week Award", which will be awarded to a story that hits the national sports media despite having zero actual merits as sports news. I'm not sure I'm going to hand out this award every week, but I feel like this kind of things is going to come up often enough that I should make it at least a semi-regular feature. In order to be eligible for the award, the story must appear as a front page link on a prominent national sports website (ESPN, SI, etc), or I must hear it referenced on two different national sports radio programs in the same day (I typically listen to 3 different shows each weekday). Chances are, most recipiants will wind up satisifying both criteria.

This week's award goes to the coverage that has surrounded what happened at a Detriot Lions' team Halloween party. First, a brief summary of the events themselves. In 2006, Joe Cullen, Detriot's defensive line coach, was arrested for driving naked through a Wendy's drive-in. A week later, he was arrested on suspicion of driving drunk. There were some serious personal issues going on behind the scenes that the coach has made great progress with over the last year plus. Fast forward to earlier this week, when Lions' quarterback showed up at a team Halloween party dressed as the naked coach, with his wife dressed up as a Wendy's drive-thru worker.

The following day, Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press wrote this stinging article: What was Kitna thinking? Costume masks the more serious issue. In it, he blasted Kitna for his insensitivity in bringing this difficult incident back to the attention of the local community, and demanded an apology. As is the way of the world, the story was quickly picked up and made national news and buzzed across sports talk radio.

Notably absent from the article - any word on Coach Cullen's actual opinion about the incident. For the record, Cullen has told the team he had no problem with the costume, and Kitna has stated in his defense that when Cullen found out about it, his first question was "Did you win?" refering to the costume contest at the party. For the record, Kitna did not win, and this apparently brought some disappointment to Cullen. So, in the style of our day, Sharp was taking offense and demanding an apology on behalf of someone who did not want one. Kitna has insisted that he never would have done it if he hadn't known the coach would find it funny.

The irony of the whole situation is that Sharp, in blasting Kitna for bringing this incident back up, was actually the one who ensured that the story returned not only to local promience, but also to the national scene. Kitna has spent the better part of the last couple days apologizing, not for the incident itself, but for the commotion that has risen around it. In this writer's opinion, he owes an apology to no one, as long as Cullen doesn't want one. The people who should be apologizing are Drew Sharp and the other members of the media who made the Cullen costume incident this week's recipiant of the "Overblown Non-Story of the Week Award".