This post is about things that happened that just don't fit to have their own post:
-Roger Goodell is leaning on the Fords, owners of the Detroit Lions, for guidance through the labor issues in the NFL. These are the same people that kept Matt Millen as President and CEO of the Lions from 2001 to 2008. The lockout is going to last until 2015 now.
-Tim Tebow finally joined his Denver Broncos teammates at their informal workout. He threw a few tight spirals to Britt Davis, did some wind sprints, and stretched. But more importantly, his presence ensures that those Broncos in attendance will be Raptured later on today.
-'Macho Man' Randy Savage died yesterday. What was not overly known about him is that he started his athletic career as a catcher in the Cardinals and Reds organizations. Strange that a guy who played four minor league seasons and did not get above 'A' ball may be one of the top five best known former members of either team to the non-sports watching populous.
-Derek Boogaard's death was ruled accidental, due to a mixture of alcohol and oxycodone in his system. While it is never a good thing to see someone die in the prime of their career, it is good to see that the concussions he suffered did not have a part in this. His brain was donated to medicine however, and I am still curious to see if the beginnings of CTE were developing.
-Why was Claude Julien not playing Tyler Seguin before this series? What did he have against the kid? Did Seguin accidentally kick Julien's dog? How could he not realize how useful that Seguin is? Yet somehow, Julien has the Bruins two wins from the Stanley Cup. Guess even the blind squirrel finds an acorn occasionally.
-The Atlanta Thrashers may be moving to Winnipeg. Nothing official has been announced yet, but this leads to the question of which team will move to the Eastern Conference in the NHL. More on this story will be posted if the move occurs.
-Yao Ming is recovering from yet another foot issue, and hopes to remain with the Rockets. Maybe, just maybe, Yao should listen to the warnings that his body is giving him, and hang up the oversized jersey. His feet just cannot take playing basketball any longer.
That's all for today. Regular sized posts will resume tomorrow.
Showing posts with label Roger Goodell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Goodell. Show all posts
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thoughts From Round One
Before getting into the three best and worst moves from the draft, some observations:
-Before the Carolina Panthers pick, the section that shows the clock on the ESPN coverage said 'error'. Fitting beginning to the Cam Newton era, in my opinion.
-During the Denver Broncos pick, did Roger Goodell forget what year it was?
-Speaking of Goodell, I give him credit for acknowledging the cascade of boos he received. He still may not care about the fans, but at least he won't ignore the reception he gets.
-Julio Jones, good choice with the bowtie.
-Blaine Gabbert doesn't feel like an NFL quarterback after watching his interviews.
-I get the explanation given by Baltimore as to how they let the clock run out, but seriously, was Mike Tice running their draft? They couldn't have had someone on a piece of paper just in case?
-Is Jonathon Baldwin the final Baldwin brother?
-New England made their inevitable trade. I was starting to get worried that it wouldn't happen.
Now to the moves. Three best:
1. Cleveland trading with Atlanta: Yes, they could have used Julio Jones, but the Browns have a ton of holes. One pick was not going to cure that. Instead, they literally got an offer they couldn't refuse for that pick. Even when they traded up, they are still up three picks from that move.
2. Baltimore drafting Jimmy Smith: They very well could have gotten screwed by not turning in a name before time ran out, but Kansas City took a receiver. Smith will give them a shutdown corner, and will allow Baltimore to do the one thing that they couldn't last year - blitz. Even with the questions surrounding his off the field issues, he's going into a locker room where Ray Lewis and company will not tolerate that. Perfect fit.
3. New England trading pick 28: They had pick 33, so whatever they draft there is not going to have that big of a dropoff. With the pieces that the Patriots need (offensive line, pass rushing defense) in abundance in this year's draft, they will still get what they need. The Saints may not be as good as people think they will be next year, as they have a tough schedule. That pick they got from New Orleans could well be in the 15 to 20 range, which is better than the Patriots are expected to draft.
Now, the three worst moves of the first round:
1. Cam Newton first overall: If you are Carolina, what is the value of this pick? Newton is a developmental quarterback who needs a couple of years to learn the NFL game. Also, the Panthers now admit they wasted a second round draft choice last year when they took Jimmy Clausen. Marcell Dareus or A.J. Green would have been better fits for the Panthers. Now, this is nothing against Newton, and I would like him if he went in the second round to a team like Philadelphia, where he could learn from Mike Vick and Andy Reid. Instead, he will get pushed out onto the field too early, and go down as a bust.
2. Falcons trading five picks to the Browns to draft Julio Jones: I get the rationale here, as Jones should finally give Roddy White someone to draw defenders away. However, there are a lot of questions about Jones on the field. He tends to drop the easy passes, as it looks as though he is trying to turn everything into a large gain. Also, the Browns needed him as well. Why would Holmgren trade out of this spot, knowing that Atlanta was looking to take Jones? I think Holmgren saw something he really didn't like, and I'll trust his judgment here.
3. Seattle drafting James Carpenter: Yes, the Seahawks need offensive line help. Yes, Carpenter will be an immediate starter at guard for them. However, there were better players available on the offensive line. Gabe Carimi, who went 29th, would have given the Seahawks a pair of bookends for their line. Better guards would actually be available in round two, and if they liked Carpenter that much, he probably would have been available as well. This pick was an absolute reach.
Thoughts from Day 2 will be up tomorrow morning.
-Before the Carolina Panthers pick, the section that shows the clock on the ESPN coverage said 'error'. Fitting beginning to the Cam Newton era, in my opinion.
-During the Denver Broncos pick, did Roger Goodell forget what year it was?
-Speaking of Goodell, I give him credit for acknowledging the cascade of boos he received. He still may not care about the fans, but at least he won't ignore the reception he gets.
-Julio Jones, good choice with the bowtie.
-Blaine Gabbert doesn't feel like an NFL quarterback after watching his interviews.
-I get the explanation given by Baltimore as to how they let the clock run out, but seriously, was Mike Tice running their draft? They couldn't have had someone on a piece of paper just in case?
-Is Jonathon Baldwin the final Baldwin brother?
-New England made their inevitable trade. I was starting to get worried that it wouldn't happen.
Now to the moves. Three best:
1. Cleveland trading with Atlanta: Yes, they could have used Julio Jones, but the Browns have a ton of holes. One pick was not going to cure that. Instead, they literally got an offer they couldn't refuse for that pick. Even when they traded up, they are still up three picks from that move.
2. Baltimore drafting Jimmy Smith: They very well could have gotten screwed by not turning in a name before time ran out, but Kansas City took a receiver. Smith will give them a shutdown corner, and will allow Baltimore to do the one thing that they couldn't last year - blitz. Even with the questions surrounding his off the field issues, he's going into a locker room where Ray Lewis and company will not tolerate that. Perfect fit.
3. New England trading pick 28: They had pick 33, so whatever they draft there is not going to have that big of a dropoff. With the pieces that the Patriots need (offensive line, pass rushing defense) in abundance in this year's draft, they will still get what they need. The Saints may not be as good as people think they will be next year, as they have a tough schedule. That pick they got from New Orleans could well be in the 15 to 20 range, which is better than the Patriots are expected to draft.
Now, the three worst moves of the first round:
1. Cam Newton first overall: If you are Carolina, what is the value of this pick? Newton is a developmental quarterback who needs a couple of years to learn the NFL game. Also, the Panthers now admit they wasted a second round draft choice last year when they took Jimmy Clausen. Marcell Dareus or A.J. Green would have been better fits for the Panthers. Now, this is nothing against Newton, and I would like him if he went in the second round to a team like Philadelphia, where he could learn from Mike Vick and Andy Reid. Instead, he will get pushed out onto the field too early, and go down as a bust.
2. Falcons trading five picks to the Browns to draft Julio Jones: I get the rationale here, as Jones should finally give Roddy White someone to draw defenders away. However, there are a lot of questions about Jones on the field. He tends to drop the easy passes, as it looks as though he is trying to turn everything into a large gain. Also, the Browns needed him as well. Why would Holmgren trade out of this spot, knowing that Atlanta was looking to take Jones? I think Holmgren saw something he really didn't like, and I'll trust his judgment here.
3. Seattle drafting James Carpenter: Yes, the Seahawks need offensive line help. Yes, Carpenter will be an immediate starter at guard for them. However, there were better players available on the offensive line. Gabe Carimi, who went 29th, would have given the Seahawks a pair of bookends for their line. Better guards would actually be available in round two, and if they liked Carpenter that much, he probably would have been available as well. This pick was an absolute reach.
Thoughts from Day 2 will be up tomorrow morning.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Major League Baseball - Model Sports Organization???
For years, Major League Baseball has been criticized, and rightly so, for it's inability to get out of it's own way. They have had a multitude of labor stoppages over the past 40 years (8, to be exact) - the most infamous being the one in 1994 that cancelled the World Series. Baseball took the brunt of the wrath spewed forth by opportunistic congressmen when the steroids scandal erupted thanks to Jose Canseco's book. There is the enduring image highlighting the general ineptitude of baseball, with Bud Selig looking confused as the All-Star Game ended in a tie.
And yet, suddenly baseball appears to be ahead of the other sports in terms of handling their issues. Since 2002, there has been labor peace. Even though their collective bargaining agreement is up after this year, there are no threats of a lockout, unlike the NFL and the NBA. In fact, both Selig and the player's union are optimistic that a new CBA will be agreed upon in the near future.
Despite the bad rap that the MLB gets for steroids and performance enhancing drugs, the truth is that baseball not only has the strictest penalties for using such substances, but they appear to have fewer players using them. It is not uncommon to hear that a football player got suspended for PEDs, yet no one really seems to care. Meanwhile, if a baseball player gets caught, it's a travesty and an affront to everything that society holds sacred. Little bit of a double standard there, and a completely undeserved one.
And now, the MLB finds itself on the forefront of the concussion issue. Although concussions are a much bigger problem in the NFL and NHL, baseball has created a new seven day disabled list strictly for players who have gotten a concussion. This way, rather than lose a player for 15 days when they could be ready to play in a week, the team can get that player back when he is healthy. With all the talk of the NFL trying to force an 18 game schedule down the player's throats, why has this concept not been brought up in their meetings? Why has the NHL not adopted something like this, so that players that will be gone for a game or two do not take up a roster spot?
Bud Selig and Major League Baseball make for easy targets when one looks to rip a sports organization for mismanagement. However, baseball actually has it's act together. Shocking, is it not?
And yet, suddenly baseball appears to be ahead of the other sports in terms of handling their issues. Since 2002, there has been labor peace. Even though their collective bargaining agreement is up after this year, there are no threats of a lockout, unlike the NFL and the NBA. In fact, both Selig and the player's union are optimistic that a new CBA will be agreed upon in the near future.
Despite the bad rap that the MLB gets for steroids and performance enhancing drugs, the truth is that baseball not only has the strictest penalties for using such substances, but they appear to have fewer players using them. It is not uncommon to hear that a football player got suspended for PEDs, yet no one really seems to care. Meanwhile, if a baseball player gets caught, it's a travesty and an affront to everything that society holds sacred. Little bit of a double standard there, and a completely undeserved one.
And now, the MLB finds itself on the forefront of the concussion issue. Although concussions are a much bigger problem in the NFL and NHL, baseball has created a new seven day disabled list strictly for players who have gotten a concussion. This way, rather than lose a player for 15 days when they could be ready to play in a week, the team can get that player back when he is healthy. With all the talk of the NFL trying to force an 18 game schedule down the player's throats, why has this concept not been brought up in their meetings? Why has the NHL not adopted something like this, so that players that will be gone for a game or two do not take up a roster spot?
Bud Selig and Major League Baseball make for easy targets when one looks to rip a sports organization for mismanagement. However, baseball actually has it's act together. Shocking, is it not?
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Had To See This Coming
This was inevitable.
Despite word of progress being made in talks, the NFLPA decertified at 5:00 pm yesterday. As a result, the owners and Roger Goodell got exactly what they were aiming for, a lockout. Since 2008, when the owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement, this has been the plan.
This is part of the three year plan they had. Everything since the point that they opted out of the CBA has led to this. The contract they had with the television networks where they were guaranteed $4 billion, regardless of whether or not football was played, just furthers the point.
The NFL is used to being able to trample the players union, since they always had in the past. This time, the union has made their own demands, which they have not backed down on. The primary demand - for the owners to open up their financial records to prove that the teams are losing as much money as they claim. The owners are refusing to provide anything beyond profitability statements, which are essentially useless without the rest of the financial information. Just because Team A claims they only made $5 million in 2010, down from $7 in 2009, doesn't mean anything. How did they get to that number?
In the end, this is about money. This is the fruition of shortsighted greed. This is the result of demanding an 18 game schedule without any further compensation for the players. This is about the owners wanting more of a $9 billion dollar pie, and refusing to compromise whatsoever.
If any games are lost, which is what seems the most likely outcome, the NFL will have shot itself in the foot. What league in it's right mind would stage a lockout at the apex of it's popularity? Why risk alienating a fanbase that is growing exponentially each year? And over what - an extra $137.5 million dollars, which is the amount that is being reported as the cause of the stalemate. Dumb. Just inexplicably dumb.
Hopefully the NFL remembers what happened to Major League Baseball when they had their lockout in 1994, and how long it took for the game to become popular again. But nothing about the owner's stance leads for anyone to hope that they will have learned from those who went before.
Despite word of progress being made in talks, the NFLPA decertified at 5:00 pm yesterday. As a result, the owners and Roger Goodell got exactly what they were aiming for, a lockout. Since 2008, when the owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement, this has been the plan.
This is part of the three year plan they had. Everything since the point that they opted out of the CBA has led to this. The contract they had with the television networks where they were guaranteed $4 billion, regardless of whether or not football was played, just furthers the point.
The NFL is used to being able to trample the players union, since they always had in the past. This time, the union has made their own demands, which they have not backed down on. The primary demand - for the owners to open up their financial records to prove that the teams are losing as much money as they claim. The owners are refusing to provide anything beyond profitability statements, which are essentially useless without the rest of the financial information. Just because Team A claims they only made $5 million in 2010, down from $7 in 2009, doesn't mean anything. How did they get to that number?
In the end, this is about money. This is the fruition of shortsighted greed. This is the result of demanding an 18 game schedule without any further compensation for the players. This is about the owners wanting more of a $9 billion dollar pie, and refusing to compromise whatsoever.
If any games are lost, which is what seems the most likely outcome, the NFL will have shot itself in the foot. What league in it's right mind would stage a lockout at the apex of it's popularity? Why risk alienating a fanbase that is growing exponentially each year? And over what - an extra $137.5 million dollars, which is the amount that is being reported as the cause of the stalemate. Dumb. Just inexplicably dumb.
Hopefully the NFL remembers what happened to Major League Baseball when they had their lockout in 1994, and how long it took for the game to become popular again. But nothing about the owner's stance leads for anyone to hope that they will have learned from those who went before.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Best sign yet for football in 2011
In a ruling that signaled a major blow to the NFL, US District Judge David Doty agreed with the NFLPA in regards to the NFL receiving $4billion in television revenue, regardless of whether or not football was played this upcoming season. In his decision, Doty stated that the NFL violated it's agreement with the NFLPA, stating that "The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players."
By having the television contracts set up in such a way where the NFL, and the various teams, would be paid whether or not a football game was played, the owners guaranteed that a lockout would happen, especially when they had an out clause in the previous collective bargaining agreement. After all, why would someone pay the players to perform when they can just shut the gates and turn a profit?
Lost in all of this is that the players WANT to be playing football in 2011. The biggest issues are that the owners want a bigger piece of the revenue pie, and they want 18 games so that they can 'give the fans what the fans want'. However, amongst people that identify themselves as NFL fans, only 45% are even slightly in favor of the change, and a mere 18% strongly favor it. So, in other words, 82% of NFL fans don't want it, or are lukewarm at best to the concept.
Furthermore, expanding the NFL season to 18 games will further decrease the future health, and length of career, for the players. However, this does not seem to matter to a commissioner and a league that continually talks about 'player safety'. If they are so concerned with the future health of the players, why are they trying to expand the season under a flimsy excuse to disguise their profit motives? Why do they continue to promote and market DVDs of defenseless players getting blown up? Hypocrites.
Hopefully this ruling will force the hand of the NFL and the commissioner, so that there will be a season in 2011. With the NFL being at the apex of it's popularity, why risk a disruption over a few million dollars? It's short sighted, reckless, and hazardous to a sport that has become the most watched in the nation. Should a lockout actually occur, it will be interesting to see how the league recovers - if it does at all.
By having the television contracts set up in such a way where the NFL, and the various teams, would be paid whether or not a football game was played, the owners guaranteed that a lockout would happen, especially when they had an out clause in the previous collective bargaining agreement. After all, why would someone pay the players to perform when they can just shut the gates and turn a profit?
Lost in all of this is that the players WANT to be playing football in 2011. The biggest issues are that the owners want a bigger piece of the revenue pie, and they want 18 games so that they can 'give the fans what the fans want'. However, amongst people that identify themselves as NFL fans, only 45% are even slightly in favor of the change, and a mere 18% strongly favor it. So, in other words, 82% of NFL fans don't want it, or are lukewarm at best to the concept.
Furthermore, expanding the NFL season to 18 games will further decrease the future health, and length of career, for the players. However, this does not seem to matter to a commissioner and a league that continually talks about 'player safety'. If they are so concerned with the future health of the players, why are they trying to expand the season under a flimsy excuse to disguise their profit motives? Why do they continue to promote and market DVDs of defenseless players getting blown up? Hypocrites.
Hopefully this ruling will force the hand of the NFL and the commissioner, so that there will be a season in 2011. With the NFL being at the apex of it's popularity, why risk a disruption over a few million dollars? It's short sighted, reckless, and hazardous to a sport that has become the most watched in the nation. Should a lockout actually occur, it will be interesting to see how the league recovers - if it does at all.
Monday, February 7, 2011
What is the worst that can happen if we put a Super Bowl in Dallas?
As part of the payoff for Jerry Jones building his grand monument to himself, his ego, and the Dallas Cowboys, a Super Bowl was promised to Dallas. Typically, the same few cities keep getting the Super Bowl, mainly due to weather and that they have proven to be able to handle the event. As such, this was Dallas's first foray into hosting the championship. What was the worst that could happen?
First, the weather all week did not cooperate. A major part of the Super Bowl is the week leading up to the game, where people wander about the city, enjoy different fan experiences, and have a good time. This year, most people were stuck indoors, and were not able to spend the type of money that typically comes into the community during these events. This helps to disguise the fact that there were severe lacks of various items available in Dallas, such as taxis and strippers.
Then, on Friday, ice and snow fell from the roof of Jerry's Monument, injuring six people. This caused the NFL to decide on Sunday to close down four of the entrances, due to concerns about falling snow. Coupled with ticket scanners not working, and a plethora of fans having no idea where they needed to go when their entrances were closed, this rapidly became a farce.
Then, 1250 fans were displaced due to the temporary seats that needed to be installed not being ready in time. Plus, as an added bonus, these seats were not able to code requirements on game day. Why open the stadium when all the seats were not installed? How could the seats not pass inspection on game day? This speaks to the short sightedness of the people running the operation.
And those fans that were affected? Well, 850 of them were moved to a club area behind the Pittsburgh bench to watch the game on television. In standing room only areas. This was not what those people purchased tickets for. And the other 400? Well, there wasn't enough room for them, so they had to leave the stadium. But, the NFL *did* offer three times the face value of the tickets to those affected. Too bad that doesn't factor in how much was spent on hotel rooms, travel to and from the Dallas area, and that these tickets were probably purchased for far more than the face value. But the NFL and Roger Goodell are concerned with what the fans want, right?
As a fitting final chapter, Roger Staubach said that the Super Bowl would be considered a success if the NFL brought the game back to Dallas. Based on what transpired leading up to game time, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
First, the weather all week did not cooperate. A major part of the Super Bowl is the week leading up to the game, where people wander about the city, enjoy different fan experiences, and have a good time. This year, most people were stuck indoors, and were not able to spend the type of money that typically comes into the community during these events. This helps to disguise the fact that there were severe lacks of various items available in Dallas, such as taxis and strippers.
Then, on Friday, ice and snow fell from the roof of Jerry's Monument, injuring six people. This caused the NFL to decide on Sunday to close down four of the entrances, due to concerns about falling snow. Coupled with ticket scanners not working, and a plethora of fans having no idea where they needed to go when their entrances were closed, this rapidly became a farce.
Then, 1250 fans were displaced due to the temporary seats that needed to be installed not being ready in time. Plus, as an added bonus, these seats were not able to code requirements on game day. Why open the stadium when all the seats were not installed? How could the seats not pass inspection on game day? This speaks to the short sightedness of the people running the operation.
And those fans that were affected? Well, 850 of them were moved to a club area behind the Pittsburgh bench to watch the game on television. In standing room only areas. This was not what those people purchased tickets for. And the other 400? Well, there wasn't enough room for them, so they had to leave the stadium. But, the NFL *did* offer three times the face value of the tickets to those affected. Too bad that doesn't factor in how much was spent on hotel rooms, travel to and from the Dallas area, and that these tickets were probably purchased for far more than the face value. But the NFL and Roger Goodell are concerned with what the fans want, right?
As a fitting final chapter, Roger Staubach said that the Super Bowl would be considered a success if the NFL brought the game back to Dallas. Based on what transpired leading up to game time, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)