Delayed Hot Takes

As with everything else, the MLB season has been delayed because of the COVID pandemic.  We were so close to getting into the regular season too.  At the very least, we got to see some live current baseball.  One of the few positives to come out of this pandemic, from a sports perspective, is that classic games are being broadcasted on television in lieu live current games.  I was able to watch three games from the 1984 World Series.  I've seen Gibson's home run in game five so many times it feels like I watched it live, but I have never seen any of the other games.  I mean, I was two years old at the time.  Two games of the 1968 World Series have even been shown.  So that's cool I guess.

Typically, I have taken some time right before the season started to have a little fun making a list of hot takes but everything went sideways.  As we get closer and closer to the season happening (maybe June?  Maybe July?) I can't help but think of making a list again.  It's fun and the Tigers really aren't right now.  The light at the end of the tunnel isn't getting closer unfortunately in this rebuild, but when it is done we might have something resembling a decent major league baseball team to cheer for.  It'll be tough to throw out some numbers because they'll play about half of a season, but lets give it a whirl.  Anyway, here's a fun list of hot takes for the Detroit Tigers 2020 shortened season:

• Niko Goodrum will finish in the top 5 in Gold Glove voting at the shortstop position
• C.J. Cron, Jonathan Schoop, and Miguel Cabrera will combine to hit 55 home runs
• JaCoby Jones will be traded during the season (is there going to be a trade deadline?) and Victor Reyes will be the everyday center fielder
• Dawel Lugo is going to surpass Jeimer Candelario in the depth chart at third base
• Cron and Austin Romine will get contract extensions at the end of the year 
• Goodrum, Reyes, and Cameron Maybin will combine for 40 stolen bases

And now for the pitching side of things:

• Jordan Zimmermann gets DFAd at some point in the season
• Buck Farmer will finish the season with more saves than Joe Jimenez
• At least four different pitchers will record a save for the team
• Casey Mize makes at least one start at the major league level 
• Matthew Boyd will be traded (this makes me sad)
• Matt Manning will get a cup of coffee with the team
• Michael Fulmer will return this year not as a starter, but in the bullpen
• Daniel Norris and Tyler Alexander will combine for 12 wins

Just some random stuff:

• Riley Greene and Kody Clemens will end the year in Toledo
• The Tigers will end the year ahead of four other teams (Baltimore, Miami, Pittsburgh, and Seattle)
• The Tigers will draft batters with their first two picks in the draft
• Ron Gardenhire will sign a new contract after the season

Tank Games

As we watch the Detroit Tigers struggle to reach the finish of the season, there are plenty of people that believe that the team should go out of their way to lose games.  The thought is that the more games they lose the higher the draft pick they will get in next year's draft.  The higher the draft pick, allegedly, the better the talent.  The better the talent, the better your team gets.  Pretty straight forward thinking.  I see a few problems with this strategy, as do plenty of others.

The first problem I see with this idea is that with baseball prospects, even the guys that are coming out of college, are still several years away from playing in the MLB.  By all accounts, the major leagues are on a much higher level than even the minor leagues so if a fanbase thinks that a number one or two pick is going to have an immediate impact on their team they don't really pay attention.  There are once in a generation type players that can have an immediate impact, but there doesn't appear to be any player like that in the upcoming draft.  They'll settle for a top five draft pick for next year's draft and the front office that the Tigers have will most certainly do an excellent job selecting their next player.

The MLB draft seems like a crap shoot when it comes to comparison of the other major sports.  A lot of that hinges on players getting drafted so young.  There are plenty that get drafted right out of high school, and yes they can decline to sign with the team that drafts them and pursue a college career.  You see that quite a bit that a player will get drafted out of high school, not sign with the team, and then several years later get drafted much higher because they have developed.  Even those generational players that get drafted spend some time in the minors before getting called up.

It takes time.  It always takes time.  With all the holes that are in the Tigers roster, it's a good thing for them to take their time developing their young players.  Al Avila traded away five veteran players and got nine players back.  There have been a couple that have played in the Major League with other teams and have even seen some time with the Tigers this year.  The majority of the players are in double A or lower.  There are players that they have drafted that are about the same level.  So the next crop of talent is going to come up soon, and they are going to come up together.  That is how you seemingly come out of nowhere and start winning plenty of games.  Look at the Royals in 2014 and 2015.  Look at the Cubs the past couple of years.  The Astros.  All of them were terrible for so long.  They drafted talent, developed the talent, and then were seemingly relevant.

I feel like I have written several posts like this, and part of it might be trying to convince myself that this is for the best.  This is how the Tigers are going to get good again.  Gone are the days of winning now.  In five and six years they'll have the win now mentality, but for now it's going to be terrible baseball to watch.  Just keep an eye on the minor league teams if you want to get excited about baseball.  That's what will keep you going. 

Managerial Leash

'The head coach tells us what to do and we follow his orders.' -Peyton Manning 

If there is one thing that truly irritates me, it has to be a fan base wanting a manager axed just because the team struggles a bit.  Every team in every sport in every country I'm sure has had a call for a manager to be fired.  Coaches should be allowed at least five years to be in charge of a team before a major decision regarding their tenure is addressed.  Unless something major comes up that endangers or otherwise compromises a team or players, why can't they be given a certain time frame to institute their style on the organization?  The one thing that can help stabilize a team/organization is leadership.  Not the leadership that players provide, but the leadership management provides.  If an organization has the same manager for a sustained period of time, I believe they will inherently get better.  You wouldn't have a different leadership style every couple of years.  You wouldn't

Two coaches in Detroit, Brad Ausmus and Jeff Blashill, have been under quite a bit of scrutiny as of late because of the struggles of their teams.  While both coach for recently successful organizations, the fans don't seem to want to give them any slack or compassion.  The Red Wings are going to miss the post season for the first time in 25 years this season.  They have been awful this year, no doubt about it.  They are transitioning to a younger team.  Their veterans are on the verge of retiring and their young players are coming up.  There is going to be a learning curve for these young guys.  Their two plus decades of success have caught up with them as they have had very few high first round draft picks.  Yes, they have drafted and found talent, but players getting drafted in the top ten are there for a reason and the Wings haven't been able to capitalize with those high draft picks.  The Tigers are on the verge of getting 'younger and leaner' in the next few years.  They need to rebuild their farm system and in order to do so, they are going to have to draft and trade their way to do that.  In the next few years, Ausmus is going to grow as a manager or he will be fired.  There is no doubt about that.

I have faith that both managers will succeed.  Both have a good head on their shoulders, but more than that, they have an organization that is not rash in their moves.  At what point, however, does the ownership step in and cut the manager loose?  The leash on these managers seem to be pretty long.  The organizations seem to be letting them work through a lot of issues without stepping in.  I feel like that is a good sign.  With that said, the organizations do have to be ready to cut ties if that is what is best.  The past couple of years the Tigers have been signing Ausmus to a year to year contract.  That is a smart idea.  That way they aren't on the hook for an extended period of time if they do not see eye to eye with Ausmus or if Ausmus loses the team's confidence as manager.  It's smart, but at the same time can keep the team in flux.  Especially if the team has a bad year and Ausmus gets fired.  Then they are back to square one with a new manager and new voice. 

Entering his fourth season, Ausmus has managed the Tigers to a 250-234 (.517) record.  That's about 83 wins per season.  Not bad for a guy who hasn't had any MLB managing experience.  Granted, he was given a team with a strong track record of winning the majority of it's games.  Jeff Blashill was 41-30-11 in his first season as the head coach of the Red Wings and everyone thought it was going to be easy sailing as the team transitioned.  Not so much.  He and the team have struggled this year and many question whether or not he has the gumption to be an NHL coach.  He needs time to learn and grow.  The players know him from his and their time in the AHL.  

Blashill has some growing into the role to do, but Ausmus's learning curve is coming to an end.  The one thing that is really holding Ausmus back is his bullpen management.  Of course, if he had a bullpen with solidified roles, it would be much easier.  Blashill might not make it very long as the Red Wings head coach.  This organization is use to being a power house and relevant that he might be the fall guy as the team learns how to lose again.  The organization leadership hopefully sees him as the guy to lead the learning curve for the young players and keep him around.  Whether they do or not has yet to be seen, but I feel like he won't last very long.    

Annual Wrong Pick

'Baseball is fathers and sons.  Football is brothers beating each other up in the backyard.' -Donald Hall

It's Super Bowl time again.  Now, I think that football is overrated and people get way to invested in it, but I'll still watch it occasionally during the season.  Usually when the Lions are on.  I don't find myself up on a Sunday morning tuning into a Chargers/Raiders game.  But this country is just over the moon about football.  From high school (or younger) through the NFL.  Leading the charge is ESPN with their hundreds of football analysts and televised high school games.  Tomorrow is the Super Bowl.  Then there will be at least a week's worth of coverage about what happened at the game and whether or not Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the history of the NFL.

Because the Lions will never make it to the Super Bowl, I will never have a vested interest in the game.  Sure, it's nice to cheer for a team that has never won or won twenty years ago or something like that.  Or to cheer for a team a relative or a friend cheers for because you like to see them happy.  Those are the teams I have a tendency to root for if they make it to the Super Bowl.  Yes, it would be nice to see Brady win another one because he played at Michigan and that's the big name college team I follow, but Matt Ryan has never won one.  This could be his only chance in his entire career whereas Brady and the Patriots seem to make it once every two or three years.

Based on my rooting for teams that are playing in the Super Bowl for the very first time or for the first time in a long time, I have a tendency to root for the team that loses.  I am very bad at sports sometimes.  I think over the last five or six years, I have wanted the team that ended up losing the game to win at least half of them.  I think if you took a national poll, you would find that most people would like to see the Falcons win.  The Patriots are like the Yankees of football.  They seem to always be winning.  The public doesn't like the manager or most of the players.  That's what happens with success in sports.  If you're successful over a period of time, people start to resent you.  I don't resent them for winning constantly.  It's that I just like to see others win.  Sure, if the Lions were the team that was winning twelve games a year and reaching the Super Bowl half a dozen times in a ten year span, you wouldn't hear any complaints from me.  You wouldn't see me cheering for a team playing the Lions, because that's my team I root for.  When you don't have an allegiance to either team, you want to see the underdog come up and win.  That's what is great about sports.

Above all else, above wanting to see the underdog win, above wanting to see if Brady can win another Super Bowl, I want to see a good game.  I want it to be entertaining.  I don't want a blow out like we saw when Seattle beat Denver several years ago.  Seriously, I watched maybe half a quarter of that game.  We want to see a game that comes down to the last play.  Like when St. Louis beat Tennessee back in the late 90s.  Those are the great games.  With all that said, I want to see Atlanta win the game tomorrow.  The organization has never won a championship.  I'm not talking just the Super Bowl, I'm talking the championship.  Before the Super Bowl, there was just the championship.  Hell, even the Lions won one of those (well, four to be exact).  I hope it's a close game, I hope it's an exciting game.  No one likes to see a 10-7 defensive game.  Those are boring. 

Atlanta-28
New England-17

Diversified Baseball

After the Kansas City Royals were eliminated from playoff contention in late September, it was guaranteed that the sport would have it's fifteen different champion in as many years. To me, that is a great thing.  Whether or not the team you routinely cheer for has made it into the post season, if you're a fan of the sport, you should enjoy this fact.  It's good for the sport because it brings in fans from cities and states that might not always be watching baseball in October.  Or watching it at all. 

With all that said, that does not mean that all the teams that are in the post season this year aren't there all the time, or on a consistent basis.  What it means is that you don't see repeat winners.  The closest the sport has had to back to back champions are the Royals who won it all last year and lost to San Fransisco the year before.  It's great to see teams like the Cubs and Indians make it to the playoffs because for some of the players, it's their first trip.  They get really excited about it.  Even if it is just for one series, even if they don't get to the World Series.  It gives them that experience they dreamt about as kids.  Anyone that played baseball as a kid had that dream about hitting a game winning home run in the playoffs or World Series.  This diversity that we see with all kinds of different teams making it to the playoffs let them relive that dream.  Kind of. 

Watching a team repeat as champions is the worst for fans of the game that are fans of the team.  Whenever the team that I root for, regardless of the sport, doesn't make it to the playoffs, I like to find the team that shouldn't be there.  The team that has had a surprising season or a team that has struggled for so long that you feel great for them just for making it to the playoffs.  It's like when a low seeded basketball team makes a deep run in the college basketball tournament.  You find yourself wanting them to knock off the big time teams.  It's the same with baseball.  You don't like seeing teams year after year winning the World Series (unless you root for them).  I like to see diversified post seasons.  Granted, it would be nice to see the Tigers in it every year, but with them out it does make it less stressful to watch. 

If a team makes it to the post season year after year, that does not always guarantee that they'll have a successful run.  One year they could be eliminated in the wild card game only to come back the following year and win it all.  And yes, it's nice to see that.  But I like seeing different teams win it every year.  It makes it that much more exciting.  If you think back to the late 90s and early 2000s, the Yankees were winning seemingly every year.  And weren't we all rooting for the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001?  Let's all be honest.  And it wasn't all because it was the Yankees (okay, maybe it was), but wasn't it because we all wanted to see a different team win?  If it had been the Pittsburgh Pirates that were winning year after year, wouldn't you want to see someone else win?

Call it Like it Is

During the last seven game losing streak, I saw plenty of 'what's wrong with the Detroit Tigers?'  They have enough talent to avoid a losing streak like that.  Unless, of course, they are facing a few teams that are better.  They were feeling good after sweeping the Twins.  The eight win and infinity lose Twins of 2016.  They got swept by Cleveland and Texas right after that.  So what's wrong with the Tigers?  Nothing.  They just aren't as good as they were four or five years ago. And that's okay.  

It's okay that they aren't winning their division because the talent is coming. The right moves were made to restock the farm system.  After they traded away Price, Cespedes, and Soria, they sent a message that they are in the process of rebuilding. I initially thought that it would be a reboot and they'd be back in playoff races the next season or the season after that.  However, I've watched a few games and against good to great teams, the Tigers aren't on the same level.  And we all need to come to grips with reality:  the Tigers aren't that good anymore.

Rational fans will tell you that the moves they made last year were the right moves. Irrational fans still think the Tigers have a legit shot at the playoffs or even the World Series. That's not to say they aren't in the top half of MLB, it's just that they've been surpassed by other teams.  I think that part of it is because of Mike Illitch.  To be fair, he is key to the Tigers being relevant again, but his win now mentality has hurt the current state of the Tigers.  Their window to win the World Series closed when they were swept by the Giants.  It's been a slow and steady decline and I don't think they have hit bottom yet.

As much as we fans don't want to hear it, if the Tigers really want to be relevant in the next six or seven years, they have to bottom out. Maybe they build around J.D. Martinez and Nick Castellanos. They can't move their big contract players like Miguel Cabrera or Victor Martinez, but maybe they can move guys like Jose Iglesias and get some prospects in return.  I shouldn't say they can't move Cabrera, I should say they won't.  If they wanted to give up on the next four years they could trade him away.  They would be able to restock the farm system for sure if they did.

32>64

March Madness is here!  Fill out your bracket, research college basketball programs you have no idea where they're from!  Non-basketball fans head for the hills!  I don't get too excited about it because I am not big on basketball, but I do fill out a bracket every year.  Just because it's fun to do.  I've done it a few times for money, won once and lost another time.  Nothing major, I think I won thirty or forty dollars in the pool.  I watched close to no basketball this year, so it was fun to go just by the numbers.  I picked Kansas over Michigan State to win the tournament.  I usually do not do well in picking, but like I said, I do it for fun. 

It seems like each year when the bracket is announced, there's grumblings and rumblings about teams that didn't get in or teams that aren't seeded where they think they should be.  The teams that complain about not making it aren't even going to win a game in the tournament, so I have never really understood the anger.  I mean, the teams that don't make it would have a better shot in the NIT as opposed to the national tournament.  It's the whole big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big lake argument.  Which do you want to be?  And it's always teams that would be ranked 15 or 16 and wouldn't win a game anyway.  Would you rather win a game or two in a lower tournament or get blown out by one of the top teams in the country?  On national television.  It'd be an embarrassment.  In fact, the lowest seed to ever win the whole tournament was Villanova in 1985.  They were an eight seed.  Now, I know we all love it when a Cinderella team wins a game or two.  If anything, the team probably broke your bracket so you're hoping that they continue to win so it does the same to others.  And while it's awesome to see thirteen and twelve seed teams win, it's not good for the tournament.  The tournament needs to move from 64 teams down to 32.  And it would flourish. 

Think about the first round games each year.  You have blow out games.  The 1/16, the 2/15, and traditionally, the 3/14 games aren't even watchable because the lower seed teams are just lucky to be there.  More often than not, the game is over by half time.  I mean, who in their right minds think that Austin Peay has a shot against Kansas?  Or what are the chances that Holy Cross doesn't lose by fifteen points or more against Oregon?  The 7/10 and 8/9 games are always fun and great to watch because the teams are so evenly matched.  The games, as a whole, do not start to get good until the second round, and that's if the majority of the higher seeds move on to the next round.  If you shrank the tournament from 64 to 32, you would have more competitive games from start to finish.  The lowest seeded teams would be an eight seed. 

Look at the four eight seeds in the tournament this year:  Colorado, Saint Joe's, USC, and Texas Tech.  While they are not traditional basketball powerhouses, they are (Saint Joe's notwithstanding) big name schools.  And with big name schools comes larger viewing audiences.  And with larger viewing audiences comes more revenue.  So you have big name schools near the top of the tournament seeding, but outside of their fan base, who is going to watch a game that is over by halftime?  There are 32 college conferences and each team that wins their conference tournament, gets in to the national tournament.  If the idea was to have the top 32 teams in the country in the national tournament, you would have to do away with these automatic bids.  The runner up of the ACC or Big East tournament is more often than not better than, say, winner of the Patriot League.  If you went just with the automatic bids making it into the tournament, you still aren't making it more watchable.  You could have a team with a losing regular season record go on a hot streak and win a conference tournament and get in, but a team that lost eight games all season and lost a quarter final game would be out?  No, that wouldn't work. 

What they would have to do in order to make a 32 team national tournament work is to get rid of automatic conference tournament winning bids and go with overall record.  Just take the top 32 teams in the country based on record.  Regular season record.  You would have the best of the country playing.  The low seeded teams would have a legit shot at winning games and making deep runs into the tournament.  I think that the one major thing that the NCAA would have to take into consideration is scheduling.  Especially the non-conference scheduling.  Just like with college football, basketball teams schedule some easy games at the beginning of the season, it's almost like preseason for professional sports.  You know, if you have a Big 12 school schedule a few Pac 12 or Big East teams in the early part of the season, there's nothing wrong with that.  Those conferences are on the same level.  However, if they start scheduling the bottom feeders of the MEAC conference, then you have to take a look and put a stop to it.  I don't argue against big schools scheduling one or two games against in state smaller schools.  It helps out the smaller schools because of the money that is involved, just like in football.  But you can't pad your record, that's just not cool.

Will this ever happen?  Hell no.  Why not?  Because, despite the fact that half of the first weekend games are nearly unwatchable, they're still on television.  They are still people taking time off of work (seriously) to try and watch as much as possible.  So why mess with a good thing?  My argument is that it really isn't a good thing, because most games aren't interesting.  You may see that a really low seed has a shot near the end of a game and you might turn the channel to watch it, but you haven't been watching the whole game.  Because who thinks a fourteen seed is going to beat a three seed?  Delusional fans, that's who.    

Soccer Takeaway

I got up early this morning to watch a soccer game.  Like super early.  Well, kind of.  6:00 is early to get up and watch a game isn't it?  Over the past couple of years, I have started to take an interest in soccer.  The reason I was up so early is because the team that I have started to root for, Tottenham Hotspurs, was playing against their rivals, Arsenal.  The North London derby is their big rivalry game.  I don't know how I came to like them, I just watched a handful of games and liked the style of play and that's how it came to be.  Living here in the states, you just kind of pick a team and go for it I suppose.  As I was watching the game, I thought of a few things that would make the four major sports better here in the states.  

A running clock is a great thing.  You know that each half is going to be about forty five minutes.  I say about because there is always stoppage time, but it's only ever between one and five minutes.  Including half time, you know that the game will be over in two hours.  Now take a look at sports here in the states.  You have football games that go for three and a half hours.  Baseball is about three hours.  Same goes for hockey.  I'm not sure about basketball because I don't watch it.  I'll guess three hours again.  And with the exception of hockey, the pace of play is slow.  Hockey is always moving, and the rest of the sports have periods of slow to no action.  Obviously there is no clock in baseball, but they have been toying with a pitch clock as well as keeping batters in the batter's box to speed things along.  I love baseball, so I don't notice the slow pace, but apparently that is a common complaint.  The games are no longer than football games.  A running clock in the slower sports like football and basketball would be great.  I know that there are substitutions, but you can do that without stopping play.  Look at hockey.  Line changes happen on the fly and basketball could do that.  There's enough time in between plays in football where guys can run off the field.  Maybe at a certain point in the game, if the score differential is so large, you just don't stop the clock. 

A great example of a running clock scenario:  I just stopped on ESPN and West Virginia and Baylor are playing right now.  There's 1:06 left in the game, West Virginia is up by 12.  They have stopped play to review if the ball went out of bounds and who touched it last.  This game is already over.  Teams can't score twelve points in a minute.  Let the clock run, if a team is up by fifteen or more with five minutes left in the game.  Baylor is continually fouling West Virginia players so they have to shoot free throws and Baylor will get the ball back.  Another option is if a team is down by fifteen and continually fouls the other team to get the ball back, the team that is winning gets to keep the ball after shooting the free throws.  The game has now ended and that last 1:06 of play time lasted about six minutes.  It shouldn't take that long.  That is the glory of the running clock.  

Relegation is wonderful.  Instead of having every team at the same level, you have two leagues and two championships.  Although, would it be a good thing to be the best of the worse league?  I'm not sure, but at least you've won something?  You have division one which has the best teams and division two which has teams that are not as good.  At the end of each year, the worst teams from the top division are relegated to the lesser division and the best of the worst are transferred up.  Make sense?  That's the basic concept of it.  I think that one thing that it would help is teams wouldn't tank as often.  You see teams tanking to get higher draft picks, but if you are trying not to get relegated to the lower division, you would have something to play for.  The teams that are in the lower division would then get higher draft picks and could continue to develop their team and talent.  All the while, the top teams could continue to win and keep their fans happy.  Think about how boring it is to watch the best teams continue to beat up on the worst teams because they are in the same division.  Now, imagine if just the best of the best of your favorite sport played each other more each year.  The competition would be better.  The games would be more exciting.  It's not really fun to watch a weekend baseball series when a team playing for the playoffs goes up against a team that was out of contention at the end of July.  Relegation would make games more meaningful throughout the course of the season, not just once or twice because the team in second place comes into town against the top team and it's the last series of the regular season.  Professional athletes are egotistical, and I doubt anyone would want to be relegated to a lesser league.  

Those are just two thoughts I had while watching the game today.  It would add some intrigue to our favorite sports.  The sports that have hit a rut and from time to time, as much as we love them, can bore us.  I don't even watch basketball and even I know that the Golden State Warriors have a 98% chance of winning the NBA championship.  We all know that in the NFL, the Super Bowl is going to come down to about three or four teams.  Baseball is the same.  The Royals, the Nationals, the Giants are all safe bets when it comes to the World Series.  Hockey is a little bit more of a crap shoot, but you can't go wrong thinking the Blackhawks, Capitals, or Rangers have the best chance of winning the Stanley Cup.  I know that pace of play is a big topic among fans of sports right now, but one could make an argument that talent and competition are an even bigger topic that should be explored.  Another topic for another day is contracting teams to make the sport better.  But that's a whole other post. 

Rivalries Needed. Apply Within.

One thing that seems to be missing in most sports right now is rivalries.  Not just rivalries, but heated rivalries.  Rivalries filled with so much hate and anger that it carries over from one game to the next, one season to the next.  Heated rivalries makes the stadium or arena buzz with both excitement and anxiety.  Each play can add to the hatred. 

The last GREAT heated rivalry that lasted for years has to be the Red Wings and Avalanche.  Each time the teams took the ice after Claude Lemieux boarded Kris Draper, you never knew what was going to happen.  It had everything.  Players calling each other out in the media.  Full on brawls.  Goalie fights.  GOALIE FIGHTS!  At center ice.  It made you hate another team.  It made them the enemy.  It was the game you could circle on the schedule and look forward to an intense game.  Sure, the fights took away from the game itself, but if you could get players like Peter Forsberg and Igor Larionov to drop the gloves, you know it was a hatred that was on the next level.  

It's nice to have a respectable rivalry like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, but there's no real drama that stems from the rivalry.  They shake hands at the end, say good game, and go to the locker room.  How much better would it be if one of them stepped up to the microphone and said 'I hate that guy' or 'I hate that team because they play dirty.'  It is nice to have rivalries where each team holds the other in high regard, it shows that the players are human after all and not just there for our entertainment.  But wouldn't it be nice to have Brady say something like 'look at the head to head record, not much of a rivalry if you ask me.'? 

You see heated rivalries pop up every now and then.  Think Pistons/Pacers after the Malice at the Palace.  The hatred was there but wasn't sustained.  The rivalry lasted all of two season (I'm guessing, I'm not big into basketball).  So why wasn't this a big a rivalry as Wings/Avalanche?  One thing that sustains rivalries is players and success.  If you have the same players on the teams, they learn to hate each other.  If you have players traded or they sign with another team, part of the rivalry goes with them.  If Lemieux has been traded away or retired the same year he boarded Draper, would the rivalry been as angry as it was?  I don't think so.  If you take an element like hatred out, you might have an overall rivalry because the two teams are at or near the top of the sport, but it won't be as angry a rivalry if you keep a hated player on the roster.  You wouldn't have an enemy, you would just have competition.  

If you have two teams that go in different directions and one is successful while the other team struggles, it never seems to be much of a rivalry.  If you have a team that is doing poorly and they start to get physical with another team that is doing well, the bad team is seen as goonish.  Like they are trying to hurt the other team's players because they are succeeding.  However, if you have the two teams that are playing at a higher level, or I suppose if both teams are struggling, and they play with hatred it's seen as okay because they both risk the same thing.   

The era that sports are in right now lends to the rivalry decline.  Players, no matter what sport, sign with or get traded to, any team.  You don't see a player saying that they would retire rather than play for a team that they considered a life time rival.  The reason Jackie Robinson retired a Dodger is because he wouldn't play for the Giants (then the New York Giants) because he played for the Brooklyn Dodgers.  Or so the legend goes.  With players going to several different teams throughout their playing careers, they start to make more friends.  So when they end up on a rival team, are they going to brush the batter back off the plate?  No.  Are they going to take them harder into the corner once they passed the puck?  No.  That's because, even if they are on a traditionally rival team, they still know and might even like the guy that is their 'rival'.

Reading back on the Ruben Tejada/Chase Utley incident during last year's playoffs makes my point that heated rivalries are fading fast.  Chase Utley BROKE THE DUDE'S LEG on a dirty slide to break up a double play.  And here's a few quotes I'm pulling from an ESPN article.

"That's not a slide. That's a tackle."  Michael Cuddyer, Mets outfielder

"We're losing our starting shortstop now for the rest of the playoffs.  He's got a broken fibula. It cost us potentially this game. And we don't have anything to show for it."  Kelly Johnson, Mets second baseman

After the Wings/Avalanche series in which Draper was injured was over, Dino Ciccarelli famously said 'I can't believe I had to shake that guy's (Lemieux) hand.  That pisses me off.'  You know what's missing from the Mets players' quotes?  Anger.  Animosity.  Hatred.  I couldn't find a quote from a Mets player after that game about any sort of retaliation.  I found some slightly veiled comments from the manager and the next game's starting pitcher.    I'm not calling for injuring another player, what I'm looking at is that if this is going to be a rivalry, how are Tejada's teammates not outwardly angry?  Is it because they haven't player with Tejada for a number of years?  Is it because the Mets/Dodgers aren't much of a rivalry because they are on opposite sides of the country and for a long time the Mets have struggled to win 70 games a season?  Perhaps a mixture of those elements.  But when you have guys coming and going on teams, you don't have the history against an opponent.  And that is the one thing that makes rivalries have less of an edge to them.  

Farewell Tours are Bullshit

Retirement is part of life.  You have a nice little party and celebrate your work accomplishments.  And that's it.  You pick a date to retire, tell your boss, and then move on.  You don't make a big spectacle about it.  You don't tell everyone and their brother a year ahead of time and then expect to be lavished with gifts, do you?  I don't know.  I'm thirty years away from it.

In the past few years, I have seen baseball players announce their retirement before the season starts.  Kind of a 'this will be my last year' type of thing.  The problem is, I think that they do it in order to get more attention and praised throughout the year in each city that they visit.  Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter set the stage for selfish ball players to create a distraction for their team as they go to a new city.  I can see doing a little ceremony and a thank you video for transcendent talent like Mariano Rivera.  I mean, the dude threw one pitch.  And dominated.  Jeter, on the other hand, was just good.  He came up in clutch moments, but he didn't dominate the way Rivera did.  Plus, there are better shortstops out there.  These retirement farewell tours are absolute bullshit.  They go to different cities and teams grovel at their feet with presents and hugs and kisses.  Was it just because they were Yankees?    

So it'll be interesting to see what will happen with David Ortiz.  Although it's safe to say that we, as fans of the game, will be force fed farewell tour hype and stories for a player that is not that important.  And we'll see our favorite teams bring him presents.  And it'll be terrible.  I can see making a big deal about it for a transcendent, once in a generation type player.  But Ortiz isn't the only guy to bulk up and hit 35-40 home runs a year and drive in 100+ runs.  Is he good at what he does?  Yes.  Is he a World Series winning player?  Yes.  But then again, so is Quintin Berry.  Does he deserve all the praise he will get this upcoming year?  No.  And I know that most people seem to love Big Papi, but he has always bugged me.  Maybe it's the whole taking steroids (allegedly, but we all know.  We all know) and not suffering any consequences.  Maybe it's because he plays in Boston and his career benefited from having such a short, low right field fence. 

Do you want to know the right way to do this retirement thing?  Hold a press conference, announce your retirement, and bask in the praises.  Do it at or near the end of the year.  Don't be a distraction for your team.  Paul Konerko and Torii Hunter are two recent players that have retired.  At or near the end of the year, they announced their retirement and did not make a big ordeal about it.  

Find the Real Cause

We all know the important awareness cause is in the month of October, don't we?  Yes, we all do.  Let's say it together on three.  Ready?  1...2...3...domestic violence!  Okay, I know there should not be an exclamation point after that, but you know how it goes when you get everyone shouting at once.  Wait.  That wasn't the cause you were thinking of?  Why not?  Oh, right.  Because it is also breast cancer awareness month.  Which is much.  More.  Marketable.  Before you get your pink ribbons in a bunch, yes, breast cancer awareness is very important.  Extremely important.  No one will ever argue that.  If they do, punch them in the throat.  What I want to discuss is the NFL and the opportunity they are missing to clean up their image. 

Since 2000, there have been 87 arrests involving 80 players involved in domestic violence.  More information here from an article published in 2014.  There are three well known players that were suspended last year.  Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, and Adrian Peterson.  Hardy and Peterson, served their suspension and are playing this year.  Rice, by all accounts was past his prime, and is not playing this year.  And by all accounts, he's done.  Peterson and Hardy, on the other hand, are still considered stars in the league and that is why they are playing this year.  Plus, Rice's act of violence was caught on camera, the others were not.

*Side note*

Even after the horrific video surfaces of Rice attacking is fiancee, beloved Tony Dungy thought Rice should have another shot at the NFL and wouldn't be a distraction to a team.  This is the same man that thought Michael Sam WOULD be a distraction to a team.  Sam, the first openly gay man drafted by an NFL team, never made an opening day roster.

*Side note over*

For all the efforts the NFL put into denouncing domestic violence, you would think that they would stand firm and blacklist these stars and set an example to the rest of the players of the league.  But oh no, they can't do that.  This is not to say that the other major sports do not have their problems, because they do.  But, I don't think they have as much pageantry that the NFL does when it comes to honoring cancer survivors and remembering those that people have lost to the disease.  Do I want the NFL to stop breast cancer awareness?  Absolutely not.  I just feel that they have a responsibility to acknowledge the domestic violence issue that the league has and maybe use their public platform to bring awareness to it.  And, I don't know, use said platform to raise money or supplies to donate.   

So they ignore an important cause in the month of October because they want to draw some attention to it, but not so much attention that they have to put forth any kind of effort in the eyes of the public.  So they stick to having their players, and coaches, and referees, and announcers wear little pink ribbons, and wrist bands, and socks, and gloves, and they make sure that everyone remembers, that one cause (which cannot be controlled) is more important to them because saving everyone from cancer is more important than saving people from others.  

Transitional Seasons

Mid way through the NHL season, the Detroit Red Wings were in dire straits.  Their superstar players were injured.  Their off season acquisitions which were suppose to support the superstars were injured or nowhere near where the team or fans thought that they would be.  Their roster was full of kids from the AHL affiliate.  Yet, through it all, they find themselves in another Stanley Cup playoff.  Twenty three years and counting.  So how has this happened?  When you hear about the big name players going down with injuries, no matter what sport, the team's season (and post season) is in jeopardy.  I don't expect great things from the team once the playoffs start.  In fact, they could be done in the first round.  But that is okay.  Because they made it to the playoffs.  And that's what matters...and not the Stanley Cup....riiiiiiight.

The Red Wings are reaping the benefits of having great teams in the late 90s and early 2000s.  When they were winning their Stanley Cups and getting late round draft picks, they were finding the talent.  They did not have to try and find the next great player to step up right away and play at a level they were not ready for.  You do have your exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, it seems that the eighteen and nineteen year old players that are getting drafted at the beginning of the first round are never ready.  And unfortunately, they are sent to the NHL to learn as they go.  Look at Edmonton.  They have been bad for so long, and have had top draft picks, but they have faltered because they do not have time to mature.  They are thrown to the wolves and eaten alive. 

The talent has had time to mature in Grand Rapids for the Wings.  The scouting team has done an excellent job finding the skilled players that will fit the organizations style of play and the coaching staff has done an excellent job working with them and making them NHL ready.  They have benefited from playing on the same line in Grand Rapids as they do in Detroit, so they know each other and their tendencies.  The younger players bring a new kind of energy to the team.  You have the veteran players that have been on the team for seven or eight year, so making the playoffs and scoring goals is nothing new.  To the younger players, this is an exciting time.

I do not expect a deep run into the playoffs especially with their first round being against Boston.  But you never know.  In a few years, if all these players are still around, deep playoff runs and Stanley Cup contention will be the expectation.  Until then, I hope they enjoy the ride.

Fun fact:  Reily Sheahan, who scored the game tying goal that gave the Red Wings a playoff berth, was not born when the streak of twenty three straight years of making the playoffs started.

28/120

Jersey Worthy

My wife asked me the other day, if I were to have a jersey with a player's name on it, who would I want.  Of course, I thought way too much into it.  One thing I thought of was the fact that jerseys with player names on them are hella expensive.  The 'authentic' jerseys run in the two hundred dollar range.  Even the replica jerseys (roughly $100) are expensive.  What the difference is, I don't know. 
One thing you can get is a personalized jersey.  Instead of picking from the top names on the team, you can choose from most of the other players.  Which is nice, but still expensive.  I was just looking on the MLB website.  I'm sure you can go around the interent and find it all for cheaper.  

You don't want to invest that type of money into a jersey if the player is only going to stick around for a couple of years (Prince Fielder anyone?).  I have more important things to spend money on.  If money were not an issue, I would have no problem buying a jersey with a current player's name on it.  There are some safe bets on the team.  If I am buying a jersey, and it has a current player's name, I want that player to stick around for a while.  Make it look like it was a good idea to buy the jersey.  Which is why, if I ever were to buy a jersey, I would go with a player that is retired.  One of the greats of Tigers lore.  Maybe look to the Tigers players of my youth (Trammel, Whitaker, Parrish, etc.) or go with Hall of Famers (Kaline, Greenberg, Gehringer, etc.).  

Until the day comes when purchasing a jersey is a good idea, I'll stick with my tee shirts with player's names on them.  They are much cheaper.  

23/120

In Defense of One and Done (sort of)

Big name college basketball programs will always thrive.  Programs like Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky are always going to be able to draw the big name recruits.  No matter how well or poorly they are doing.  They are going to draw those big name recruits because they have what it takes to play at the next level.  And good for them.  Not everyone has the skill to play a professional sport.  And for some, it is a way to get out of a bad situation.

Several years ago, in an effort to prevent high school players from skipping college and going right to the NBA, the 'one and done rule' was put into effect.  Essentially, all high school basketball players must have played one year of college basketball before entering the draft.  So, these big name college programs recruit top players even harder because they know they will have them for just that one year.  So while they thrive on having these top tier players, smaller mid-major programs are left in the dust when it comes to recruitment.  But that helps them out.  

This year, college basketball watched Wichita State University run the table.  They entered the NCAA tournament undefeated.  They lost yesterday to Kentucky.  One of those one and done top tier college basketball programs.  The slight on Wichita State was that they didn't play anyone tough.  Well, after last year's run to the Final Four, instate rivals Kansas and Kansas State wouldn't schedule them.  And why not?  Because the coaching staff has developed the players.  They have developed a group of young men to play basketball at a higher level than what is expected of them.  And while the big schools will get the better players, the smaller schools can be the better team because of maturity and cohesion.

Because these smaller schools can make names for themselves in the tournament, this is the only reason I am in favor of the one and done rule.  As historic as it would be to see the top tier schools put out back to back to back championship type seasons, it's always fun to see the small schools step into the spotlight.  Who remembers George Mason?  What about Virgina Commonwealth?  How about Florida Gulf Coast last year?  They were just kids having fun playing the game they love.  The list goes on and on.  Eventually, one of these smaller schools is going to get on a run at the right time and shock the world and win it all.  Everyone will yell and cheer.  And granted, the big name schools are still going to make it to the tournament every year, but I like the Cinderella stories that come up every March.  Even if they do destroy the brackets of every single person.  


22/120

More on Contracts

I've been thinking on what I wrote about previously on getting rid of multi-year contracts.  I know there would be no chance in hell that this idea would work.  I don't always live in the world of possibility, but I enjoy thinking about alternatives to what we have.  Nothing makes me cringe more than see these decade long contracts because everyone knows a player (more often than not) is not going to be staying around for the full length of the contract.

So why wouldn't it work?  Monetary security for one.  Players probably don't want to go season to season not knowing where they will be playing the next year or how much they will be making.  You always hear players playing at a higher level because of a 'contract year', so why wouldn't they play for their contracts?  Makes sense to me.  It could raise the level of play each and every year.  But these multi-year contracts guarantee they'll be getting paid what they think they are owed.  Who wants to go year to year and possibly make less money because of a bad year?  Not any player I can think of.  No one person I can think of either.  Who wants to make less money because you had a bad year at your job?

Who would want to pick up and move year to year?  One thing that makes me feel bad for professional athletes is the amount of time they spend traveling.  Especially the players that have families.  Every year, you see a handful of players miss one or two games because their wife/girlfriend gave birth.  The player gets there, sees the baby, and then is off again.  That would drive me nuts.  If I were in that situation, I would think having at least one week off to spend with your family would be a must.  Imagine being a kid and moving to different states once every two or three years?  But then again, it's no different than a military family is it?  But still, if given the option from moving every two years to maybe once every six or seven years?  I'm sure I would take the latter.

 From the aspect of a person who can't stand the amount of money athletes get paid, moving away from these multi-year contracts would make me really happy.  Why?  I'm not sure.  I think that it's the fact that they get so much money for what they love to do.  I love my job, why don't I get hundreds of millions of dollars?  Because I can't hit a nasty twelve to six curve?  Most likely.  It's jealousy.  I want athletes to know what it feels like living paycheck to paycheck.  From the aspect of a person who understands that athletes are actually people, I feel bad about the fact that they are away from their families for such a long period of time. 

Another solution?  Just pay everyone the same when they come into the league and raise their salary across the board once they reach career markers.  A raise at three years, five years, seven years, etc.  Imagine that.  Every player gets paid the same.  And the focus would be on trading and developing the farm system.  Interesting...

6/120

A Solution to Contracts

Big contracts are all the rage when it comes to sports.  Whether it is baseball, hockey, football, or basketball, you see athletes signing seven and eight year contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars.  Even soccer players in Europe sign multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts.  The most recent of these contracts is Clayton Kershaw of the Los Angels Dodgers who signed a seven year, two hundred fifteen million dollar contract.  That's a lot of bank.  And he's worth it.  He is one of the top pitchers in the game right now.  Big name players get big time contracts.  That's just how it works.  On the same day, Max Scherzer of the Tigers signed a one year, fifteen million dollar contract.  Most believe that Scherzer is going to test the free market once the year long contract is up.  And he'll be looking for just about the same, if not more, amount of money and length of contract.  This got me thinking about something.  What if sports moved away from the longtime contracts and went with just one year contracts for everyone?  Of course, there are pros and cons to this idea.

The first problem is contracts themselves.  Especially the contracts that are in the seven year plus range.  Unless the players are getting signed to these monster contracts in their first couple of years, as the years go on, the player gets older and production typically goes south.  Most of the money is in the beginning or middle of the contract and tapers off near the end, so that makes sense.  But there are those contracts that are seen as absolutely horrible.  A player comes off a monster two years and signs a ten year contract and then is bitten by the injury bug for the next five years.  It's considered a bust move and the team is stuck with the player and the contract because no one wants a broken down player or the money he is owed.  That doesn't always happen, but when it does, it is scrutinized by everyone.  A few names that come to mind with contracts that don't seem to be worth it are Carl Crawford (Red Sox), Veron Wells (Blue Jays/Angels), Andruw Jones (Dodgers), and Albert Pujols (Angels).
 
Each year, teams go to arbitration with players on the roster that have been playing for six full years in the MLB.  There are more details to it than that, but that is the basic idea behind it.  Basic idea:  player comes to the bargaining table with what they think they should be paid (say five million dollars) and the organization comes to the table with what they think the player should be paid (say three million dollars).  They then negotiate with each other.  Sometimes they reach an agreement (say four million dollars) and everyone is happy.  Other times they don't reach an agreement and have to go before a panel of three arbitrators.  Again, there is more to it than that, but that's the basic idea.  You see players come out with long contracts and players come out with one or two year contracts.  It all depends.  Players and organizations usually reach an agreement.  They look at how well the player  played over the last few years and base their offer on that.  Of course the player wants to up-sell themselves and usually send a number that is worth more.  They gots ta get paid.  As long as everyone thinks the offers are fair, then they sign it and go about their business. 

So why can't organizations do this every year for every player?  Start with your stars or upcoming players that you definitely want to keep on your team and go from there.  You have the salary cap so you know where you need to spend the money.  Plus, it keeps the organization away from those long contracts.  Players who have monster years can benefit from it, but not so much that four years later, the organization is trying to move the player to free up salary cap space.  It would make the off season that much more interesting.  Can you imagine each winter wondering how your favorite team will keep their roster together?  Or, if there is a big name player that wouldn't be resigning with their team, could you imagine the frenzy to sign him?  So how would this work?  The way I see it:  the organization has until February 1st to sign the players that they want on their team.  Let's say there are four players that underwhelmed the previous year, the organization gives them the option to either take a demotion to AAA or become a free agent.  If you have a prospect that is ready to play, you can sign him to a contract.  After February 1st, all free agents can start talking to any team that they want. 

Big name players are still going to get a ton of money because of who they are and how good they are.  But the lesser known players could also get what is due to them based on their ability.  It may not be with your favorite team, but another team might see their ability and give them a chance.  It gives a team a chance to retool each year if they want.  Plus, they could sit down with the team and discuss how they are going to go about signing their players.  And, how awesome would it be for players to stand up and say 'I'll take less money this year if it'll help sign another guy.'  Hey, I can dream can't I? 

5/120

A Big Distraction

I have a friend down in Wichita that has loved Texas A&M football as far back as he can remember.  He always had a positive outlook on their games and years, even when they were not doing very well.  He is their 12th Man in Wichita.  I would love to pick his brain about their quarterback, Johnny Manziel.  Johnny Manziel became the first freshman in college football history to win the Heisman Trophy.  He made a name for himself with his play on the field last year.  He did the same this past off season with run ins with the law, making money for signatures, and other things a nineteen or twenty year old would most likely do.  Personally, I think he is exciting to watch play football.  He is like a kid in a candy store.  Just out there having a good time.  But, being a big name in the sport comes with big responsibilities which he has not handled well.  He is not the only student athlete that has had problems, he is just in the news right now because FOOTBALL!

Looking at their record from 2001-2011, the Texas A&M football team has eight more wins than losses.  There were up years where they won eight or nine games and down years where they won four or five.  So over the last decade, they have done okay for themselves.  There were no standout seasons with only one or two losses.  The best year was just in 2010 when they finished 18th in the country with a 9-4 record.  And then there was last year.  Manziel's freshman year.  The big move to the SEC.  All of a sudden, they go 11-2, beat down Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl, and finish 5th in the country.  The Aggies and their fans are on top of the world.  All of this in his freshman year?  What can he do in the next two years before leaving for the NFL?  Is a national title in the future?  All he has done has been a distraction for the college and the football program during the off season.

So with all these distractions, why would A&M want to keep him around?  Winning is great.  They are in the conversation of the nation as they are ranked in the top ten in the preseason rankings (which don't really mean anything because it's the PRESEASON!)  Despite what any division one college says, football isn't about winning.  It's about making money.  A&M will deal with the distraction that is Johnny Manziel because he is good at playing a sport and can get people in the stadium to watch.  They can ride the roller coaster of Manziel-mania (is that a thing?) to another BCS bowl game because of the money that will come in as a result.  But what happens if he is deemed ineligible this year because of what he has done?  What happens if he is dismissed from the team?  Are they still a top ten team?  Teams are more than just a quarterback, but they do run the team on the field.  

Another reason to deal with the distractions is that A&M knows that they only have a few years of greatness before they fall back down to being a .500 team again.  They will deal with it because they are going to try and capitalize on it.  Not only with getting money for the school, but with recruits as well.  Top tier high school recruits are going to look at successful programs because they want to get to that next level.  They may say they want to go to a school with a winning program and help to carry on that tradition, but many of them have dollar signs in their eyes.  If they can get these top tier recruits, they can continue to reap the financial benefits.  The minute they start to slip down the rankings or start losing eight or nine games a year, they won't being going to those big bowl games and will start to not make as much money as they were when Johnny Manziel was playing.  

If you want to find a college that wants to talk about winning over making money for the school, go find a division two or three school.  Go find a junior college where local kids go get an education and get to carry on their local legacy as a football player.  Are there div. II and III graduates playing professional sports?  Absolutely.  At the rate of the div. I schools?  Don't kid yourself.  Or better yet, go to a division one school and go talk to a sports team that doesn't create revenue for their school.  Don't talk to the basketball program at Kentucky or Duke.  Don't talk to the football program at Alabama or Michigan.  Talk to a water polo team or a ski team.  Go talk to sports program head that don't have a professional level.  They are invested in their sport and winning.  The kids in those types of programs don't worry about making millions of dollars playing their sport.  They worry about getting an education and moving on into adulthood.  

White Guy 'Honors' Native Americans

Let's just get this fact out of the way:  Dan Snyder is a horrible human being.  He is the Dick Cheney of the sports world.  Are we all clear on that?  Good.  In a public statement, he made it very well known that he has no intentions of ever changing the name of the Washington Redskins.  NEVER.  He sees it as honoring the Native American people and culture.  He sees the name as a great tradition and he couldn't let the fan base down by changing the name.  No sir, you are wrong.  Having a team name that is a derogatory term is not an honor. 

There are professional and collegiate teams that have Native American inspired names.  The Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Cleveland Indians, Central Michigan Chippewas, North Dakota Fighting Sioux, and Chicago Blackhawks just to name a few with which I am familiar.  Just looking at those names, there is nothing that really jumps out as offensive material (their logos are a different matter).  Yes, there are some controversy with some of these organizations, but not to the scale as the Washington Redskins.  When the organization was first founded in 1932, they were the Boston Braves.  That is just fine, but I'm sure their logo was horribly racist.  There is nothing wrong with the name 'Braves' as I see it, but if you throw in some tomahawk chops we are done.  The following year their nickname was changed to the Redskins.  It has been shamefully there ever since.  In 1933, 'Redskins' was probably in the everyday vocabulary and seemed to be okay to use.  

It's one thing for an oblivious, douche-tastic team owner to think that it is in the best interest of his team and fans to keep an offensive name, but when the commissioner comes out in a public statement saying he will not force said oblivious, douche-tastic team owner to change the name, that is something else.  That is Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL.  He does not have the decency to stand up to Snyder and tell him that what he is doing is giving not only his team but the league a black eye.  He is quick to jump at the opportunity to fine players for tweeting, or speaking bad on the NFL, but when it comes to a true issue, he goes soft.  Roger Goodell is just as guilty as Dan Snyder in this situation. 

Name changes happen in sports.  Teams move places and change their name to fit where they now are.  Or teams change their name for public relations reasons.  Even within the city of Washington D.C. there has been a sports team change their name to help disassociate themselves with controversy.  Show of hands, who remembers the Washington Bullets?  Well, back in 1996 the crime rate in D.C. was extremely high and the owner thought it was bad publicity and bad connotations to have the nickname 'Bullets'?  It took all of two second to change the name of that team to the 'Wizards'.  You see how easy that is Mr. Snyder and Mr. Goodell? 

Didn't feel like reading all of that?  That's fine, here's some white guys honoring my people: 

Sports Introvert

I was working last night and there was a couple that came into the store wearing Detroit Tigers shirts and hats.  I was super excited!  There aren't a ton of Tigers fans around the Twin Cities.  Apparently there's a professional baseball team here?  I kid, I kid...the St. Paul Saints are a great team (ohhhhh.....).  Living outside the state of Michigan, there are few Detroit sports fans around.  So any time I see someone wearing a Tigers hat or a Lions jersey (saw someone wearing a Joey Harrington jersey yesterday at work.  Weird, right?) or a Red Wings toque I get really excited on the inside.  I want to run up and start talking Detroit sports with this random person.  But then I realize I don't want to look like a crazy person so I don't.  Even when I go to a game when I see others wearing Detroit gear I usually go with the head nod.  The 'yeah, we support the same team' nod.  But it's a head nod and we move on. 

I am a bit of an introverted person.  We went to the second game of the season for the Tigers here in Minneapolis.  We were surrounded by Twins fans with a few cells of Tigers fans around our section.  The nice thing about living in Minnesota and going to a sporting event is that there are no mean people there.  Minnesota Nice is a real thing.  The game ended with a walk off double for the Twins.  The guys next to us looked over, smiled, and just said 'you're team is better than this game.'  WHAT?!  You don't expect that.  You expect smack talk.  You expect gloating and screaming and yelling about how your team sucks and it's not their year.  Anyway, with the Tigers fans around us, we didn't feel it necessary to find out where they were from.  How do you relate to some random people you'll never ever see again that are from a different part of the state you may have never heard of and in the state you haven't lived in close to a decade?  Unless you find out they're from the same hometown.  

Even last year when we went to a game we ended up behind a family of Twins fans.  The father of the family turned around after we cheered about a Tigers hit or play and asked where we were from.  We told him we lived in the Twin Cities now but we were from the U.P. originally.  He said that he was originally from the Detroit area.  Part of me thought 'who cares' while the other part of me thought 'that's cool, but now you're a Twins fan?!  TRAITOR!'  I'll never cheer against the Tigers.  So it was an awkward conversation especially when he handed us is real estate agent card.  I understand he is an independent real estate agent and tries to network whenever possible, but still.  Awkward.  This is the kind of thing my mind tells me to avoid doing.  

I am not someone who will walk up to a random stranger and just start talking about a sports team because they are wearing a hat or a shirt.  Partly because I'm scared of them saying something like 'oh, I just bought the hat because I like the Lion' or 'I love the old English D so I bought the hat'.  Which would totally send me over the edge.  I would never buy a sports team hat because I like the design of it.  Wearing a sports hat usually means that you are supporting the team.  You should be able to walk up to someone and start talking about the season a certain player is having or the chances of the team making the playoffs.  If someone buys a hat because they want to have the hats of all teams of a sport (yes, there are people like that) or because they like the design of the logo are they even sports fan?  See, I don't want to go off the rails and start yelling something like that at a total stranger.

If someone comes up to me and starts talking Detroit sports, I will engage them about the team.  I'm polite enough to do so, but I know we won't end up all buddy buddy.  So keep it quick and focused.  Don't talk about where you're from because no one cares, just keep it on the team you are both there to see.  Talk about the highs and low of the season and where you think they need to improve.  And the chances of the team making a playoff run as it nears the end of the season.  Without jinxing the team.  So maybe at sporting events is the best time to approach others wearing your team's colors.  It makes sense, I know, but you would be surprised once you live outside your state how happy you are to find other fans of your team.  Happy enough to run up to them and start talking sports?  Maybe.  But without that awkwardness?  Maybe not. 

Support and Move On

Jason Collins earlier this week became the first active male athlete in the four major sports to open up about his homosexuality.  In an article for Sports Illustrated, he put everything out in the open with the first line:

'I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.'

 Not only is this great for him, but it is great for the sports world.  He has received support from athletes in other sports, teammates, sports commissioners, even the President.  The media has covered it the right way, speaking to all the support he has received and ignoring any negative comments.  But honestly, what kind of moron would speak negatively about this?  Someone that wouldn't mind being labeled a villain the rest of their life, that's who.  Reading the article, you can tell that this is a huge relief to Collins, and he struggled with the decision to come out.  The thing is, he doesn't want this to be a big deal.  It is what it is and he just wants to play basketball next year.  He is not a star in the NBA nor is he a big contributor off the bench.  He is a guy that in a year or two probably will not have a job just because there are always better players out there and he is not one of them.  But who knows, he may have chosen this time in his life to come out to ensure that he does get a job next year.  What kind of positive publicity would a team get signing him?  It would be huge.  He could be an evil genius choosing this time to ensure he gets a paycheck next year.  Okay, not really.  

He has said he appreciates the support, but he just wants everyone to move on past his announcement.  So far, so good.  His team is out of the playoffs and the focus is on the teams still playing.  I truly hope that once the NBA season starts next year, sports commentators do not focus on him during games just because he is openly gay.  The last thing that I am sure anyone wants to hear is 'and in comes Jason Collins and everyone knows that name because he is the first openly gay male athlete...'  It is not meant to be disrespectful, but it kind of is.  Think of it in this context:  substitute 'openly gay' for 'black' or 'white'.  It just seems shallow and in poor taste.  Just be happy for the man and move on.  Continue to support his decision to come out and move on.  He does not need to be treated any differently because of who he is.

Coming out as an athlete must be difficult.  It is macho man, testosterone driven society.  Those societies are always the ones that are slow to adapt to change.  You are always going to have closed minded fuckheads like Chris Culliver.   You are always going to have people that are not comfortable with themselves and therefore are uncomfortable with things that are not the same as them.  To counter that, you have people like Chris Kluwe who absolutely decimated a Maryland state delegate last year in a letter laced with both profanity and sound reasoning because of the man's comments.  If a team is suppose to be a 'family' should they not support their 'brothers'?  Should they have their back every second of every day whether it is on the field or off? 

As our country slowly becomes more and more accepting this kind of story it will no longer be a headliner type story.  It will end up being a little blip on the five o'clock news.  People will look at it and think 'okay, but how is he going to contribute to my team this year?'  Every social movement starts with the action of one.  And that one action can cause an avalanche.  And what a great avalanche it can be.