I'm mostly a Washington sports fan. I root my ass off for the Capitals, I'm lamentably a Redskins fan, and the first sports ticket I ever bought was to a Bullets game. We didn't have a baseball team in the DC area when I was younger, so I took on the Baltimore Orioles, and I was totally stoked for this postseason.
That said, being a fan of my teams has been trying over the years. I became an official baseball fan in 1988, the year the Orioles set the all-time AL record for losing streaks when they opened the season 0-21. The game I went to, they actually won, which I didn't realize was a rarity that season. After the Jeffrey Maier bullcrap in 1997, my O's suffered 14 straight losing seasons. This season has already been a success, but things aren't looking great for a title run.
When the Redskins won the Super Bowl after the 1991 season, I was too young to realize it wasn't the kind of thing that happens all the time. And I don't remember watching any football games in between that Super Bowl and the previous Super Bowl, so obviously I wasn't much into sports. I think I was all about Nintendo at that point in my life (and 90% of all moments in my life since then). Since then, and particularly since Daniel Snyder purchased the team, Washington has been a black hole for football.
As I said, I liked the Bullets a lot when I was younger. I went to a few games, and was stoked when they acquired Chris Webber. I figured the combination of he and Juwan Howard was so successful in college, how could it not bring them deep into the NBA playoffs? Of course, I was wrong, but I've kept tuned in, and I'm hoping to reap the benefits of some solid seasons with John Wall, Bradley Beal, and the lot. I watch almost every NBA draft, even though I don't really know anything about college basketball anymore, just because it's a tightly packed blast of offseason roster updates.
The Capitals were a regular participant in the wide-open NHL playoffs by the time I started paying attention to hockey at all. I remember my friends Mike and Sergio assigning me teams every few days, usually in the form of, "Joe Joe Joe, what happened to your Nordiques last night?" It was enough to encourage me to catch a few games here and there. I watched each game of the Stanley Cup in 1998, which is to say I watched the Caps get pummeled by a team that was insanely, insanely better than them.
I've enjoyed their recent moments of marginal success, but the Caps' limited success seems to have brought every Penguins fan out of the woodwork. I can't wear a Caps shirt or watch a Caps game without some jag off Pens fan making some sideways (or sometimes straight-up-and-down) comment about how the Penguins are so much better. Like I'm unaware of how these teams have performed recently.
Which brings us to the meat of what I actually wanted to talk about in this post. People are fans of teams for a million different reasons. The majority of people just pick their home teams, presumably due to some combination of convenience and inborn patriotism, that desire to be proud of where you're from, and to share that feeling with friends and family. Others choose their favorite teams because of that team's success in their childhood, or a favorite player, or something as simple as an attractive uniform.
Are any of these "wrong" reasons to root for a team? Nope. Are any of these "more right" than others?
Yes.
It is more right to root for your hometown team than another team. Not insofar as you live a better life or you deserve praise, but because you're not abandoning a problem. Enduring the hardships together as a fan base gives you something to talk about with other people from your home town, and a sense of community is a good thing, even if you're a community with an experience mostly riddled with failure.
In my sports-watching adult life, I've endured as much disappointment as a fan of any city's teams, save perhaps Cleveland. While Cleveland has only three professional teams, they manage to pack a lot of despair into those three teams. And if you happen to like the Ohio hockey team (the Columbus Blue Jackets), you're not making up any ground.
Cleveland has sported a poorly run and poorly performing football team in the Browns, and since the mid-90s, the Cleveland Indians have wallowed in and around mediocrity. The Cavaliers have been to the NBA Finals, but The Decision, the departure, and the Heat winning a pair of titles have made that Finals trip ancient history. Cleveland is also noteworthy as the sporting home of "other Joe," my former partner in crime in the radio world. He's a guy who's known my pain for years and years, and while LeBron James' return means he's likely closer to ending his drought, we're mostly in the same boat.
Between Cleveland and Washington, we've got disappointment covered.
So why endure it? Obviously it's easier to pick individual teams with amazing players like the Pittsburgh Penguins or the Green Bay Packers, or a city with gobs of money and history like Boston or Chicago. You've got a better shot at a title, which means you won't have to deal with the shit that everyone else seems to enjoy throwing at people who choose to remain hometown fans. As a Capitals fan, I've not met a single Penguin fan in the DMV who resists the urge to twist the knife. And good luck finding a Cowboys fan in Maryland who doesn't exude glee whenever the Redskins falter.
Which brings us back to the question: why endure such pain? Wouldn't it be easier to just switch over to a better team, or a better city? Wouldn't you feel less disappointment?
Maybe.
But the whole idea of sticking with your team is that one day, it'll be worth it. I've ridden the Bullets/Wizards since I was a little kid. If they're ever able to win the NBA title, I'll celebrate my butt off. If the Caps are ever able to overcome history and raise the Stanley Cup, I can't even begin to imagine the relief and joy I'll feel. We stick with our teams because we have faith and hope that one day, they'll win. And we want to be around for it.
We see all these cities hosting parades and we think, "God, that would be amazing." We watch other teams raise banners and we think, "Someday that'll be us." We see guys like Trent Dilfer and Ben Roethlisberger and Tom Brady talk about their trips to Disney World, and we think, "There's no reason Robert Griffin or Kirk Cousins couldn't take that trip, right?" Some of it is delusion (the 'Skins may never win another game). Some of it is playing the odds (hockey has a great deal of parity in its playoffs; almost any team has a shot). And some of it is wishful thinking (Kevin Durant hasn't said he wouldn't come to the Wiz). And part of it is simple stubbornness. But at this point, no way am I changing sides.
The O's are still just four wins from the World Series!
Showing posts with label Fans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fans. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Friday, April 29, 2011
NFL Draft: Borrrrring
So my plan last night was to curl up with a bag of popcorn and a couple cans of Diet Mountain Dew and watch the spectacle that is the NFL draft. It's an exciting event where you get to see how teams change by adding high end talent, and you get to lament questionable picks by your favorite teams (I'm mostly talking to you, Raider fans).
But as I watched the first few picks go by, I became extraordinarily bored. At first I wasn't sure why, but after a few minutes, I realized that ESPN was utterly destroying every piece of drama in the event. Two big examples:
First, when the Denver Broncos were on the clock with the #2 pick, the camera cut to a scene of Von Miller crying backstage. Unsurprisingly, Von Miller was soon selected by the Broncos.
Later, the Cardinals were on the clock with the fifth pick, and the graphic on the screen changed to "Pick is in," indicating that the decision had been made, and we'd be going to the commissioner for the announcement. But rather than doing that, ESPN went to Colleen Dominguez in Phoenix, who "broke the story" that the Cardinals would be taking Patrick Peterson, rather than Blaine Gabbert as had been long expected.
Both of these instances were situations where ESPN found out who would be drafted before the player was actually drafted, and rushed to be the first to report it. But in doing so, they sapped all of the excitement out of the commissioner's announcements. The most exciting moments are when you're watching and you don't know what will happen next. It would be like watching a hockey game on a three minute tape delay, but with an up-to-the-second Bottom Line on the screen. "Oh, the Kings are about to score. Yep, there it is, they scored." Yawnsville.
Thankfully, as the night went on, Cleveland and Atlanta made a huge trade to spice things up, and Baltimore ran out of time to add a frantic nature to the draft. And that'll always be the case. NFL teams are under tremendous pressure to make draft night a night to remember, the night where the GM made a savvy move to set them up for years.
I just wish ESPN relaxed their mad dash to be the first to "break" news on TV, and left that up to the bloggers, and ESPN.com. Let TV stay a minute or two behind, and let's have that announcement still mean something.
But as I watched the first few picks go by, I became extraordinarily bored. At first I wasn't sure why, but after a few minutes, I realized that ESPN was utterly destroying every piece of drama in the event. Two big examples:
First, when the Denver Broncos were on the clock with the #2 pick, the camera cut to a scene of Von Miller crying backstage. Unsurprisingly, Von Miller was soon selected by the Broncos.
Later, the Cardinals were on the clock with the fifth pick, and the graphic on the screen changed to "Pick is in," indicating that the decision had been made, and we'd be going to the commissioner for the announcement. But rather than doing that, ESPN went to Colleen Dominguez in Phoenix, who "broke the story" that the Cardinals would be taking Patrick Peterson, rather than Blaine Gabbert as had been long expected.
Both of these instances were situations where ESPN found out who would be drafted before the player was actually drafted, and rushed to be the first to report it. But in doing so, they sapped all of the excitement out of the commissioner's announcements. The most exciting moments are when you're watching and you don't know what will happen next. It would be like watching a hockey game on a three minute tape delay, but with an up-to-the-second Bottom Line on the screen. "Oh, the Kings are about to score. Yep, there it is, they scored." Yawnsville.
Thankfully, as the night went on, Cleveland and Atlanta made a huge trade to spice things up, and Baltimore ran out of time to add a frantic nature to the draft. And that'll always be the case. NFL teams are under tremendous pressure to make draft night a night to remember, the night where the GM made a savvy move to set them up for years.
I just wish ESPN relaxed their mad dash to be the first to "break" news on TV, and left that up to the bloggers, and ESPN.com. Let TV stay a minute or two behind, and let's have that announcement still mean something.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Why I'm Siding With The Players
With the NBA and the NFL both facing labor disputes and potential work stoppages in 2011, I thought I would take a little time and outline why I'm siding with players. In fact, I'm siding with the players this time, next time and probably every time after that. Here's why:
1) The players won't propose a deal that's bad for ownership
No, you read that correctly, the players won't and can't propose a deal that is bad for ownership. A bad deal for ownership would be one in which their labor costs to the players and other operating costs are so high that they don't make an acceptable profit and consider shutting down the sport for an extended length of time. If this were to happen, the players are basically putting themselves out of business. Since the players are (at least semi) rational, they won't offer a deal that kills the golden goose. Thus, the players have no choice but to agree to a deal that keeps the owners happily in business. Sure, they'll try to push as far into the owners profits as far as possible, but ultimately the players have to present a deal that is good for both sides.
The flip side of this is that the owners don't have to present a deal that is good for both sides. In fact, they want to maximize profits by lowering operating costs as much as possible. As long as their deal would be good enough to keep the talented players from choosing other professions (probably not hard to do since the average American makes somewhere south of $40k), then the owners would be in business and raking in even more cash.
2) The players are what we want to see
The players ARE the game. Watching the world's greatest athletes play the most exciting games at the very highest level is the reason we tune in to professional sports. Want proof of this: How many WNBA games did you watch last year? How many Division III college football games did you watch? How many cricket matches did you watch? I'm guessing the sum of these three question is probably less than five. Now, how many NFL games did you watch? That number is a lot higher, isn't it?
The talent is really the reason we watch professional sports. Without extraordinarily gifted players performing remarkable physical tasks, nobody pays attention. It doesn't matter how good your marketing is, how nice the stadium is or how delicious the hot dogs are, if the players aren't highly skilled nothing else matters. This isn't to say that we don't need the business side of sports to make things operate, we do, but the players are what draw people to the game.
In addition, it's important to note how scarce talented players are. Approximately 400 guys play in the NBA every year. Maybe another 2000 guys play in the NFL each year. That's 2400 people out of roughly 300 million Americans (yes, yes, some of the NBA guys come from overseas, bear with me). That means that roughly 0.0008% of the country is talented enough to play in the NFL or NBA. I don't care what other profession you name, I'm guessing more that 0.0008% of the population can do it.
3) It's a zero sum game
I've heard it a thousand times: "The players are just a bunch of spoiled millionaires who should shut up and be thankful they are getting paid 100 times more than the average school teacher". Ok, that's true, but guess what, the owners are multimillionaires too, and in most cases billionaires. Either way somebody really, really, really rich is going to end up with the money. It makes no sense to tell the players just to be grateful when it essentially makes someone else richer. Both sides are trying to maximize their slice of the revenue, this is capitalism.
4) Ticket prices aren't going anywhere
Another favorite argument is that if the players would accept less money, the owners (who were then facing lower operating costs) would lower ticket prices. This is flat out wrong. Ticket prices are calculated based on what people are willing to pay to walk in the gate. It's based on market research and demand to see the product on the field. Do this thought experiment: If all the player's salaries dropped to $100,000 tomorrow, what would happen to ticket prices? That's right, the ticket prices would stay exactly where they currently are...and the owners would pocket the difference.
5) The owners have an investment, the players have a job
Due to the increasing popularity of American professional sports (both in America and expanding around the world), an NBA or NFL franchise is worth more today than it was ten years ago...approximately 50% more. For example, the Jacksonville Jaguars (the NFL's least valuable franchise), was worth $460 million in 2000 is now worth $725 million. The Oakland Raiders went from $315 million to $758 million over the same ten year period. Even my beloved Cleveland Browns went from $557 million to $1032 million proving that you don't need to win to make money. Even if the owners weren't making any money year to year (and believe me, they are as all but 6 franchises had profits of greater than $10 million in 2009), the act of simply owning the team is returning 50% over ten years. Obviously, past results don't guarantee future returns, but, damn.
The players are another story. The average NFL career is only a few years and when you are done, you're done. Of course there is the NFL pension plan, but that is only for players that played at least three years and you can't get full benefits until the age of 55. While this is a nice benefit that most American workers would probably kill to receive, it doesn't exactly seem to match up with the 50% return on investment the owners are seeing.
Highly skilled players, representing the only real commodity of their sport, presenting a reasonable, win/win offer to ownership that is seeing huge returns on their investments. That is why I'm supporting the players in the upcoming NBA and NFL labor disputes.
1) The players won't propose a deal that's bad for ownership
No, you read that correctly, the players won't and can't propose a deal that is bad for ownership. A bad deal for ownership would be one in which their labor costs to the players and other operating costs are so high that they don't make an acceptable profit and consider shutting down the sport for an extended length of time. If this were to happen, the players are basically putting themselves out of business. Since the players are (at least semi) rational, they won't offer a deal that kills the golden goose. Thus, the players have no choice but to agree to a deal that keeps the owners happily in business. Sure, they'll try to push as far into the owners profits as far as possible, but ultimately the players have to present a deal that is good for both sides.
The flip side of this is that the owners don't have to present a deal that is good for both sides. In fact, they want to maximize profits by lowering operating costs as much as possible. As long as their deal would be good enough to keep the talented players from choosing other professions (probably not hard to do since the average American makes somewhere south of $40k), then the owners would be in business and raking in even more cash.
2) The players are what we want to see
The players ARE the game. Watching the world's greatest athletes play the most exciting games at the very highest level is the reason we tune in to professional sports. Want proof of this: How many WNBA games did you watch last year? How many Division III college football games did you watch? How many cricket matches did you watch? I'm guessing the sum of these three question is probably less than five. Now, how many NFL games did you watch? That number is a lot higher, isn't it?
The talent is really the reason we watch professional sports. Without extraordinarily gifted players performing remarkable physical tasks, nobody pays attention. It doesn't matter how good your marketing is, how nice the stadium is or how delicious the hot dogs are, if the players aren't highly skilled nothing else matters. This isn't to say that we don't need the business side of sports to make things operate, we do, but the players are what draw people to the game.
In addition, it's important to note how scarce talented players are. Approximately 400 guys play in the NBA every year. Maybe another 2000 guys play in the NFL each year. That's 2400 people out of roughly 300 million Americans (yes, yes, some of the NBA guys come from overseas, bear with me). That means that roughly 0.0008% of the country is talented enough to play in the NFL or NBA. I don't care what other profession you name, I'm guessing more that 0.0008% of the population can do it.
3) It's a zero sum game
I've heard it a thousand times: "The players are just a bunch of spoiled millionaires who should shut up and be thankful they are getting paid 100 times more than the average school teacher". Ok, that's true, but guess what, the owners are multimillionaires too, and in most cases billionaires. Either way somebody really, really, really rich is going to end up with the money. It makes no sense to tell the players just to be grateful when it essentially makes someone else richer. Both sides are trying to maximize their slice of the revenue, this is capitalism.
4) Ticket prices aren't going anywhere
Another favorite argument is that if the players would accept less money, the owners (who were then facing lower operating costs) would lower ticket prices. This is flat out wrong. Ticket prices are calculated based on what people are willing to pay to walk in the gate. It's based on market research and demand to see the product on the field. Do this thought experiment: If all the player's salaries dropped to $100,000 tomorrow, what would happen to ticket prices? That's right, the ticket prices would stay exactly where they currently are...and the owners would pocket the difference.
5) The owners have an investment, the players have a job
Due to the increasing popularity of American professional sports (both in America and expanding around the world), an NBA or NFL franchise is worth more today than it was ten years ago...approximately 50% more. For example, the Jacksonville Jaguars (the NFL's least valuable franchise), was worth $460 million in 2000 is now worth $725 million. The Oakland Raiders went from $315 million to $758 million over the same ten year period. Even my beloved Cleveland Browns went from $557 million to $1032 million proving that you don't need to win to make money. Even if the owners weren't making any money year to year (and believe me, they are as all but 6 franchises had profits of greater than $10 million in 2009), the act of simply owning the team is returning 50% over ten years. Obviously, past results don't guarantee future returns, but, damn.
The players are another story. The average NFL career is only a few years and when you are done, you're done. Of course there is the NFL pension plan, but that is only for players that played at least three years and you can't get full benefits until the age of 55. While this is a nice benefit that most American workers would probably kill to receive, it doesn't exactly seem to match up with the 50% return on investment the owners are seeing.
Highly skilled players, representing the only real commodity of their sport, presenting a reasonable, win/win offer to ownership that is seeing huge returns on their investments. That is why I'm supporting the players in the upcoming NBA and NFL labor disputes.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Back to Bullets? Not So Fast.
Ted Leonsis recently took formal control of the Washington Wizards, a move that excited many around town, myself included. I've watched the Washington Capitals benefit from the stability of Leonsis' leadership, and his willingness to put his team in the hands of hockey people. He's got two longtime basketball people in place with the Wizards in head coach Flip Saunders and general manager Ernie Grunfeld, and Leonsis has already indicated that he'll be sticking with both of them moving forward.
Leonsis has always been one of the most accessible owners in sports, and his accessibility has provided basketball fans with the opportunity to give input on their favorite team. The issue that most fans have brought to his attention is their desire to return to the old team name and colors, the Bullets. I've hinted at this as well, specifically the use of red in the uniforms to try to generate some synergy with the Capitals. The "Rock the Red" campaign for the Caps has been hugely successful, and making the transition from "hockey fan" to "basketball fan" smoother, even by just a little bit, is always a good thing.
But I don't see the team going back to the Bullets, and in fact I'd oppose such a change. I'll explain.
"Bullets" is the name that longtime Washington basketball fans associate with the town's team. And I can appreciate the history that comes along with the name. But the reason the name was changed was because of the association with gun violence that it had, and because then-owner Abe Pollin did not want his team to have any association with the epidemic of crime that was enveloping Washington, DC. Many sports fans in town thought it was unnecessary, but it was at least a noble gesture by a giant in this city.
Do we really think that Leonsis would be willing to say, "Abe Pollin was wrong. This guy, who helped build the NBA and was a custodian of this city, didn't know what he was talking about. Let's undo what he did." I just don't see it.
Moreover, I think Leonsis has a better mentality than that. Living in the past, particularly with the Wizards/Bullets who haven't been to the NBA finals in 30 years and who've won 2 championships in their 50+ year existence, doesn't offer all that much to get excited about. The idea here should be moving forward.
The name shouldn't be the Wizards, but it shouldn't be the Bullets either. There are tens of thousands of potential names; there's no reason we can't find one that isn't Bullets that still helps us feel better about our team, and gives us an opportunity to change the team colors (which I'm still in favor of). I look forward to a name change. Just not back to the Bullets.
That name ran its course. Straight into the ground.
Leonsis has always been one of the most accessible owners in sports, and his accessibility has provided basketball fans with the opportunity to give input on their favorite team. The issue that most fans have brought to his attention is their desire to return to the old team name and colors, the Bullets. I've hinted at this as well, specifically the use of red in the uniforms to try to generate some synergy with the Capitals. The "Rock the Red" campaign for the Caps has been hugely successful, and making the transition from "hockey fan" to "basketball fan" smoother, even by just a little bit, is always a good thing.
But I don't see the team going back to the Bullets, and in fact I'd oppose such a change. I'll explain.
"Bullets" is the name that longtime Washington basketball fans associate with the town's team. And I can appreciate the history that comes along with the name. But the reason the name was changed was because of the association with gun violence that it had, and because then-owner Abe Pollin did not want his team to have any association with the epidemic of crime that was enveloping Washington, DC. Many sports fans in town thought it was unnecessary, but it was at least a noble gesture by a giant in this city.
Do we really think that Leonsis would be willing to say, "Abe Pollin was wrong. This guy, who helped build the NBA and was a custodian of this city, didn't know what he was talking about. Let's undo what he did." I just don't see it.
Moreover, I think Leonsis has a better mentality than that. Living in the past, particularly with the Wizards/Bullets who haven't been to the NBA finals in 30 years and who've won 2 championships in their 50+ year existence, doesn't offer all that much to get excited about. The idea here should be moving forward.
The name shouldn't be the Wizards, but it shouldn't be the Bullets either. There are tens of thousands of potential names; there's no reason we can't find one that isn't Bullets that still helps us feel better about our team, and gives us an opportunity to change the team colors (which I'm still in favor of). I look forward to a name change. Just not back to the Bullets.
That name ran its course. Straight into the ground.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A Pair of Signings
Two moves with starkly contrasting impacts were made by Washington area sports teams yesterday.
The Washington Redskins sign DL Vonnie Holliday.
Terms were not released, but I can't imagine there was much money involved, or more than one year. This is just another in a line of moves meant to either motivate Albert Haynesworth to maximize his effort, or provide the Redskins with enough depth to withstand a potential departure by Haynesworth. Either way, the move likely only provides the 'Skins with an additional lineman to join the rotation.
The Washington Capitals sign C Nicklas Backstrom for 10 years, $67 million.
I don't think I'm overstating it when I say that this move, along with the fact that Alexander Ovechkin is signed for 10 more years, ensures that the Capitals will be at the very least a playoff caliber team for the next decade. Backstrom is unquestionably one of the top 25 players in hockey, and there were a lot of times last year when he was the best player on the Capitals. Partnering him and Ovechkin up for the long haul means all of you (us) bandwagon Caps fans won't need to find a new ride any time soon.
The Washington Redskins sign DL Vonnie Holliday.
Terms were not released, but I can't imagine there was much money involved, or more than one year. This is just another in a line of moves meant to either motivate Albert Haynesworth to maximize his effort, or provide the Redskins with enough depth to withstand a potential departure by Haynesworth. Either way, the move likely only provides the 'Skins with an additional lineman to join the rotation.
The Washington Capitals sign C Nicklas Backstrom for 10 years, $67 million.
I don't think I'm overstating it when I say that this move, along with the fact that Alexander Ovechkin is signed for 10 more years, ensures that the Capitals will be at the very least a playoff caliber team for the next decade. Backstrom is unquestionably one of the top 25 players in hockey, and there were a lot of times last year when he was the best player on the Capitals. Partnering him and Ovechkin up for the long haul means all of you (us) bandwagon Caps fans won't need to find a new ride any time soon.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
What Does This Change?
The Penguins' loss to the Canadiens last night really helped to temper my disdain for Pittsburgh and its fans. Knowing that I won't have to hear about any Pittsburgh team for at least a few months is some comfort. I'm sure I'll still encounter my share of snotty Penguins fans who'll make fun of the Capitals for losing in the first round, but at least now, with the Penguins having come up short in these playoffs as well, I can feel a little more comfortable citing the Caps' regular season sweep of the Penguins as a counter-argument.
Do I still hate Pittsburgh? Probably, though it's a question I'm trying to give more thought these days. I have a couple of good friends who are fans of all things Pittsburgh, and they're pretty reasonable folks, guys I like hanging out with. I had a Facebook friend who was just horrible in his interactions with Capitals fans, but he has since been un-friended, so that's that.
There'll always be people who are nasty about their favorite sports teams, regardless of the team you're talking about. People want to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and they want to be a part of a successful venture. Some people will react to that success with grace, and others will react with venom. It all depends on the nature of the person, not the nature of the team.
I'd like to think that I'm fairly gracious in victory, though in this town, that's not a characteristic we have to worry about too much. I do feel like I can now just sit down and watch hockey, rather than being worried about how far the Penguins will go and how much shit I'm going to have to listen to if I watch a game. And that feels good.
By the way, my new rooting interest has become the San Jose Sharks (starting in round 2, after they ousted my favorite Western Conference team, the Colorado Avalanche). I like Joe Thornton a lot, but more so I like that they had a reputation for being playoff chokers, and they're shedding that reputation before our eyes.
Also, they're freaking sharks! :)
Do I still hate Pittsburgh? Probably, though it's a question I'm trying to give more thought these days. I have a couple of good friends who are fans of all things Pittsburgh, and they're pretty reasonable folks, guys I like hanging out with. I had a Facebook friend who was just horrible in his interactions with Capitals fans, but he has since been un-friended, so that's that.
There'll always be people who are nasty about their favorite sports teams, regardless of the team you're talking about. People want to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and they want to be a part of a successful venture. Some people will react to that success with grace, and others will react with venom. It all depends on the nature of the person, not the nature of the team.
I'd like to think that I'm fairly gracious in victory, though in this town, that's not a characteristic we have to worry about too much. I do feel like I can now just sit down and watch hockey, rather than being worried about how far the Penguins will go and how much shit I'm going to have to listen to if I watch a game. And that feels good.
By the way, my new rooting interest has become the San Jose Sharks (starting in round 2, after they ousted my favorite Western Conference team, the Colorado Avalanche). I like Joe Thornton a lot, but more so I like that they had a reputation for being playoff chokers, and they're shedding that reputation before our eyes.
Also, they're freaking sharks! :)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Someone Get LaVar Arrington off My Radio
I've had very little nice to say about LaVar Arrington since about three years into his tenure as a Washington Redskin. He was a disappointing high draft pick, and perhaps served as a warning to other teams regarding early linebacker picks. Their skills don't always translate to the NFL, as they rely on being faster than college running backs, and strong enough to take them down.
But I can get past a bad draft pick. He didn't work out, that's alright, it happens. I wouldn't be talking about Arrington today if that's where it stopped. But he's got his own radio show in the DC area. It's on from 2 PM - 6 PM, afternoon drive time, which means someone decided he was one of the best options they have, and whoever that is should be fired.
LaVar is awful. He comes across as naive and foolish, and he's just about the worst interviewer I've ever heard. Some commentators will offer leading questions; LaVar outright answers his own questions, then says, "Right?" He basically instructs his interviewee to use as many cliches as possible. His radio partner, Chad Dukes, has some more sense than Arrington, but he encourages LaVar enough that he's complicit in this crime. And make no mistake; what LaVar Arrington does to his radio listeners is criminal.
The worst part of it all is that I think Arrington is just not all that familiar with today's NFL. Just yesterday, the discussion focused on DeSean Jackson's comments about being happy that Donovan McNabb was out of town. That kind of discussion, a division rival talking smack about your quarterback, that's easy radio fodder. Arrington managed to make himself look like an idiot. First, he referred to McNabb's replacement as Schaub. Three times. Matt Schaub is the starting quarterback for the Houston Texans, and is fairly accomplished. Kevin Kolb is McNabb's replacement in Philadelphia.
If that were the only mistake he made, while silly, it could be chalked up to misspeaking once, then repeating the misspeak. But just a minute later, this exchange took place between LaVar and Dukes:
L: "How many teams are in the NFL? Thirty-five?"
C: "Thirty-two."
L: "Yeah, I guess there would have to be an even number."
Congratulations, LaVar Arrington. You've established yourself as the least qualified sports commentator in the Washington, DC area. Seriously, how many teams are in the NFL? I'll give you a clue, LaVar. No teams have been added to the league since you stopped playing football less than five years ago.
I mean, come on, this is the guy's job. If there's one expectation about a former NFL player when it comes to his radio show, it's that he'll be able to speak with some expertise about the NFL. I can accept that he's not a hockey expert, and doesn't know much about baseball, but he'd better know the NFL up and down.
I don't mean for this post to make you think I dislike LaVar Arrington as a person. He seems like a fine person, fairly good-natured, and while I personally don't care, he's got a history of being very charitable. But companies shouldn't (and overwhelmingly don't) employ people because they're good people. They employ people because they're good at their job. And LaVar isn't.
But I can get past a bad draft pick. He didn't work out, that's alright, it happens. I wouldn't be talking about Arrington today if that's where it stopped. But he's got his own radio show in the DC area. It's on from 2 PM - 6 PM, afternoon drive time, which means someone decided he was one of the best options they have, and whoever that is should be fired.
LaVar is awful. He comes across as naive and foolish, and he's just about the worst interviewer I've ever heard. Some commentators will offer leading questions; LaVar outright answers his own questions, then says, "Right?" He basically instructs his interviewee to use as many cliches as possible. His radio partner, Chad Dukes, has some more sense than Arrington, but he encourages LaVar enough that he's complicit in this crime. And make no mistake; what LaVar Arrington does to his radio listeners is criminal.
The worst part of it all is that I think Arrington is just not all that familiar with today's NFL. Just yesterday, the discussion focused on DeSean Jackson's comments about being happy that Donovan McNabb was out of town. That kind of discussion, a division rival talking smack about your quarterback, that's easy radio fodder. Arrington managed to make himself look like an idiot. First, he referred to McNabb's replacement as Schaub. Three times. Matt Schaub is the starting quarterback for the Houston Texans, and is fairly accomplished. Kevin Kolb is McNabb's replacement in Philadelphia.
If that were the only mistake he made, while silly, it could be chalked up to misspeaking once, then repeating the misspeak. But just a minute later, this exchange took place between LaVar and Dukes:
L: "How many teams are in the NFL? Thirty-five?"
C: "Thirty-two."
L: "Yeah, I guess there would have to be an even number."
Congratulations, LaVar Arrington. You've established yourself as the least qualified sports commentator in the Washington, DC area. Seriously, how many teams are in the NFL? I'll give you a clue, LaVar. No teams have been added to the league since you stopped playing football less than five years ago.
I mean, come on, this is the guy's job. If there's one expectation about a former NFL player when it comes to his radio show, it's that he'll be able to speak with some expertise about the NFL. I can accept that he's not a hockey expert, and doesn't know much about baseball, but he'd better know the NFL up and down.
I don't mean for this post to make you think I dislike LaVar Arrington as a person. He seems like a fine person, fairly good-natured, and while I personally don't care, he's got a history of being very charitable. But companies shouldn't (and overwhelmingly don't) employ people because they're good people. They employ people because they're good at their job. And LaVar isn't.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Steroids v. Rape
Mark McGwire has been demonized for having used steroids and (until recently) not admitting so. Barry Bonds continues to be shunned from baseball because the belief is that major league fans won't tolerate their team signing him, because of the assumption, most likely correct, that he used performance-enhancing substances during his career.
Lawrence Taylor is a member of the NFL Hall of Fame, despite a fairly long rap sheet. Will he be removed from it if this most recent (and most heinous) charge sticks? Is cheating at your job more horrible than rape? It can't be, right?
I'm trying not to rush to judgment, trying not to assume that Taylor is guilty before he's been given a chance to defend himself. But if he ends up being guilty of this crime, the NFL has to step up and say, "Despite his amazing on-field performances, we refuse to be associated with Lawrence Taylor any further. While his statistics will remain in our record books, he has been removed from the NFL Hall of Fame."
And the media needs to react with similar disgust. Otherwise, keeping McGwire and Bonds out of the baseball Hall of Fame is just petulant.
Lawrence Taylor is a member of the NFL Hall of Fame, despite a fairly long rap sheet. Will he be removed from it if this most recent (and most heinous) charge sticks? Is cheating at your job more horrible than rape? It can't be, right?
I'm trying not to rush to judgment, trying not to assume that Taylor is guilty before he's been given a chance to defend himself. But if he ends up being guilty of this crime, the NFL has to step up and say, "Despite his amazing on-field performances, we refuse to be associated with Lawrence Taylor any further. While his statistics will remain in our record books, he has been removed from the NFL Hall of Fame."
And the media needs to react with similar disgust. Otherwise, keeping McGwire and Bonds out of the baseball Hall of Fame is just petulant.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
NFL Draft 2010 - Rounds 2-7
First round analysis can be found here.
Picks
The Vikings traded out of the first round, but put themselves behind the Colts, Saints, and Rams, three teams who wouldn't take a quarterback. So, with Brett Favre's future in question and Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels unlikely to be long-term options, I expected/hoped that Minnesota would snag Jimmy Clausen at great value. They didn't, so hopefully Favre will be back in 2010.
Clausen meanwhile ended up with the Panthers. The Panthers, who were without a first round pick, ended up with a very appealing quarterback option with the 48th pick in the draft. I'm not sure why they took QB Armanti Edwards in the third round (though he's likely to change positions) and Tony Pike in the sixth round after grabbing Clausen, but one thing is for sure: the Panthers are committed to finding a new quarterback.
The Ravens traded out of the first round, picked up 3rd and 4th round picks, and still got a first-round talent in Sergio Kindle. Unbelievable how this team is able to constantly acquire great players at great value. If I didn't dislike them so, they'd be the kind of team I'd love to root for.
I saw mock drafts in March suggest that the Raiders might take Bruce Campbell with their first round pick because of his excellent combine performance. The fact that he was available in the fourth round makes me think two things: first, the league is cooling off on dramatically changing a player's draft stock based on a few workouts, and second, despite general opinion, the Raiders have some idea what they're doing.
Trades
The Vikings traded up to grab Toby Gerhart, an interesting player, but one who Minnesota must like a lot more than I do, because I just couldn't see giving up a third rounder to move up 11 spots to make the pick. I could be wrong, though; my brother thinks he's going to be fantastic.
The Seattle Seahawks traded down a couple picks to acquire RB LenDale White, who'll be reunited with his old coach at USC, Pete Carroll. White showed flashes of being a very good short yardage back, and he could be a nice complement to the speed and elusiveness of Justin Forsett. The Seahawks also traded their 5th round pick to the Jets for Leon Washington, giving them several options going into training camp. The backfield will give fantasy owners fits, but could be productive in the world of, you know, real football.
There were several other trades made in the later rounds, but mostly they involved teams selecting players I've never heard of, so I don't feel qualified to talk about them.
Coming up, I've got an all-Redskins article, which will evaluate the Redskins' offseason moves, with an obvious emphasis on the draft.
Drive home safely everybody.
Picks
The Vikings traded out of the first round, but put themselves behind the Colts, Saints, and Rams, three teams who wouldn't take a quarterback. So, with Brett Favre's future in question and Tarvaris Jackson and Sage Rosenfels unlikely to be long-term options, I expected/hoped that Minnesota would snag Jimmy Clausen at great value. They didn't, so hopefully Favre will be back in 2010.
Clausen meanwhile ended up with the Panthers. The Panthers, who were without a first round pick, ended up with a very appealing quarterback option with the 48th pick in the draft. I'm not sure why they took QB Armanti Edwards in the third round (though he's likely to change positions) and Tony Pike in the sixth round after grabbing Clausen, but one thing is for sure: the Panthers are committed to finding a new quarterback.
The Ravens traded out of the first round, picked up 3rd and 4th round picks, and still got a first-round talent in Sergio Kindle. Unbelievable how this team is able to constantly acquire great players at great value. If I didn't dislike them so, they'd be the kind of team I'd love to root for.
I saw mock drafts in March suggest that the Raiders might take Bruce Campbell with their first round pick because of his excellent combine performance. The fact that he was available in the fourth round makes me think two things: first, the league is cooling off on dramatically changing a player's draft stock based on a few workouts, and second, despite general opinion, the Raiders have some idea what they're doing.
Trades
The Vikings traded up to grab Toby Gerhart, an interesting player, but one who Minnesota must like a lot more than I do, because I just couldn't see giving up a third rounder to move up 11 spots to make the pick. I could be wrong, though; my brother thinks he's going to be fantastic.
The Seattle Seahawks traded down a couple picks to acquire RB LenDale White, who'll be reunited with his old coach at USC, Pete Carroll. White showed flashes of being a very good short yardage back, and he could be a nice complement to the speed and elusiveness of Justin Forsett. The Seahawks also traded their 5th round pick to the Jets for Leon Washington, giving them several options going into training camp. The backfield will give fantasy owners fits, but could be productive in the world of, you know, real football.
There were several other trades made in the later rounds, but mostly they involved teams selecting players I've never heard of, so I don't feel qualified to talk about them.
Coming up, I've got an all-Redskins article, which will evaluate the Redskins' offseason moves, with an obvious emphasis on the draft.
Drive home safely everybody.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Should Ben Stay or Should He Go?
First, let's dispense with one thing. I don't like the Pittsburgh Steelers. Some might say that I hate the Pittsburgh Steelers, and they wouldn't be completely wrong. There's certainly something that feels like hate brewing inside of me when I talk about them.
That being said, I've generally been able to be pretty objective when it comes to talking about them in Joe and Joe context, or in any analytical context, so I'm going to take a crack at the current situation with Ben Roethlisberger.
Let's start with the facts. Roethlisberger faced criminal charges on sexual assault in two different circumstances. In both instances, the charges were eventually dropped, though there's still a civil suit outstanding in one case. Additionally, the Steelers have had a well-publicized and long-cultivated reputation for being intolerant of people with poor characters, parting ways with Bam Morris (marijuana), Plaxico Burress (attitude), and Cedrick Wilson (hit his girlfriend) for character issues. Additionally, just this week the Steelers traded Santonio Holmes to the New York Jets after finding out he'd be suspended the first four games of the 2010 season, for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy.
But hang on. Right around the time Cedrick Wilson was cut for hitting his girlfriend, James Harrison broke down his girlfriend's door, snapped her cell phone in half, and slapped her across the face. Harrison faced no punishment from the Steelers' front office. Why? The company line was that each instance was viewed independently, and the two situations were not the same. To Pittsburgh apologists, the difference was a closed fist versus an open hand. To everyone else, the difference was that Wilson was a fourth string wide receiver, and Harrison was arguably their best linebacker. To fans in the rest of the league, it was a message saying that the Steelers are no different than any other team; on-field performance outweighs off-field transgressions.
It should then come as no surprise that Santonio Holmes was only traded once it was determined that he would miss four games in 2010 due to suspension. Pittsburgh likely felt they could make a statement and cut someone who was going to play at most 12 games anyways, so the decision was easier.
But now, with a large public outcry, specifically from the African-American community, the Steelers are faced with the decision on what to do with Ben Roethlisberger. The commissioner's office is expected to make a ruling soon on whether or not Roethlisberger will be punished through the NFL's personal conduct policy, and a 4+ game suspension by Roger Goodell could take the Rooneys off the hook. They'd be able to say, "We agree with the commissioner's decision, and consider the matter closed." Most teams have abided this general train of thought, and suspended players' teams have not been held accountable for discipline as a result (I cite Michael Vick on the Eagles, Adam Jones on the Titans/Cowboys, and Tank Johnson on the Bears/Cowboys). The commissioner has basically agreed to play bad cop for the whole league, allowing the teams to be the good cops.
And so now we come to the real question, and the title of this post. Should the Pittsburgh Steelers actively attempt to trade Ben Roethlisberger? I've heard and read that the rumors floating around about a trade to the Rams are untrue, and generally I believe that, since franchise quarterbacks rarely get traded. But we're not here to talk about "will it happen" or "won't it happen"; that's for the experts and the insiders. I'm an opinion-speaker, and so I will state my opinion.
If there were an offer from the Rams of this year's #1 overall pick and a first round pick next year, I think that the Steelers should think long and hard before turning it down. The reasons:
See, I fall into the "anything to win" camp much more distinctly than most. I think it's silly that no team has signed Barry Bonds. I thought it was ridiculous that Terrell Owens got deactivated for the second half of the season for saying he'd rather have Brett Favre as his quarterback than Donovan McNabb. Does that mean that I buy into guys like Albert Haynesworth, who seem to care very little about their team and winning? Sometimes, yes. But it's not like Roethlisberger hasn't shown that he wants to win. He leaves it all out on the field, and his track record is impressive, even if you're accounting for him being backed up by one of the best defenses in the world.
Of course, I also say you pay Troy Polamalu whatever he asks for.
That being said, I've generally been able to be pretty objective when it comes to talking about them in Joe and Joe context, or in any analytical context, so I'm going to take a crack at the current situation with Ben Roethlisberger.
Let's start with the facts. Roethlisberger faced criminal charges on sexual assault in two different circumstances. In both instances, the charges were eventually dropped, though there's still a civil suit outstanding in one case. Additionally, the Steelers have had a well-publicized and long-cultivated reputation for being intolerant of people with poor characters, parting ways with Bam Morris (marijuana), Plaxico Burress (attitude), and Cedrick Wilson (hit his girlfriend) for character issues. Additionally, just this week the Steelers traded Santonio Holmes to the New York Jets after finding out he'd be suspended the first four games of the 2010 season, for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy.
But hang on. Right around the time Cedrick Wilson was cut for hitting his girlfriend, James Harrison broke down his girlfriend's door, snapped her cell phone in half, and slapped her across the face. Harrison faced no punishment from the Steelers' front office. Why? The company line was that each instance was viewed independently, and the two situations were not the same. To Pittsburgh apologists, the difference was a closed fist versus an open hand. To everyone else, the difference was that Wilson was a fourth string wide receiver, and Harrison was arguably their best linebacker. To fans in the rest of the league, it was a message saying that the Steelers are no different than any other team; on-field performance outweighs off-field transgressions.
It should then come as no surprise that Santonio Holmes was only traded once it was determined that he would miss four games in 2010 due to suspension. Pittsburgh likely felt they could make a statement and cut someone who was going to play at most 12 games anyways, so the decision was easier.
But now, with a large public outcry, specifically from the African-American community, the Steelers are faced with the decision on what to do with Ben Roethlisberger. The commissioner's office is expected to make a ruling soon on whether or not Roethlisberger will be punished through the NFL's personal conduct policy, and a 4+ game suspension by Roger Goodell could take the Rooneys off the hook. They'd be able to say, "We agree with the commissioner's decision, and consider the matter closed." Most teams have abided this general train of thought, and suspended players' teams have not been held accountable for discipline as a result (I cite Michael Vick on the Eagles, Adam Jones on the Titans/Cowboys, and Tank Johnson on the Bears/Cowboys). The commissioner has basically agreed to play bad cop for the whole league, allowing the teams to be the good cops.
And so now we come to the real question, and the title of this post. Should the Pittsburgh Steelers actively attempt to trade Ben Roethlisberger? I've heard and read that the rumors floating around about a trade to the Rams are untrue, and generally I believe that, since franchise quarterbacks rarely get traded. But we're not here to talk about "will it happen" or "won't it happen"; that's for the experts and the insiders. I'm an opinion-speaker, and so I will state my opinion.
If there were an offer from the Rams of this year's #1 overall pick and a first round pick next year, I think that the Steelers should think long and hard before turning it down. The reasons:
- The window on this team's potential short-term success may already be closed. The defense is getting older, Hines Ward probably will be gone in two to three years, you just traded Santonio Holmes, and Troy Polamalu, the team's most popular and most important player, has two years left on his deal, and will almost certainly command a $10 million/year contract. That means he'll likely be gone as well.
- The #1 overall pick is a great pick to have. If the team and Mike Tomlin both like Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen, you have the chance to draft a guy you believe will be your next franchise quarterback. If you're not wild about either of them, you can take Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy and have an elite defensive tackle for the next ten years. Furthermore, the opportunity to trade down always exists, and the Steelers have been fantastic at finding good talent between picks 10 and 75.
- The resulting PR would be a boon. Right now, the Steelers are in a no-man's land between "character counts" and "anything to win." Among sports analysts or more passive sports fans, these minor hypocrisies are irrelevant. To the average sports fan, though, they're unacceptable. Most Steelers fans I've met take pride in their team's "no nonsense" stance when it comes to character issues, and are either emotionally torn or uninformed regarding James Harrison's infractions. Not that Pittsburgh needs much of a boost when it comes to fanship, but you can never have too many fans.
See, I fall into the "anything to win" camp much more distinctly than most. I think it's silly that no team has signed Barry Bonds. I thought it was ridiculous that Terrell Owens got deactivated for the second half of the season for saying he'd rather have Brett Favre as his quarterback than Donovan McNabb. Does that mean that I buy into guys like Albert Haynesworth, who seem to care very little about their team and winning? Sometimes, yes. But it's not like Roethlisberger hasn't shown that he wants to win. He leaves it all out on the field, and his track record is impressive, even if you're accounting for him being backed up by one of the best defenses in the world.
Of course, I also say you pay Troy Polamalu whatever he asks for.
Friday, April 9, 2010
An Admission
I think I'm probably in the minority among Capitals fans when I say this, but I can't help it. My fanship of any team has always been deeply rooted in terror, so here goes:
I hope Washington doesn't have to play the Pittsburgh Penguins in the playoffs.
Despite sweeping the Penguins in the regular season, I still feel like the Capitals would face an unfavorable matchup if pitted against the Penguins. Sidney Crosby is obviously an elite talent, and he seems to play big in big games. Additionally, while Pittsburgh was hotter going into the playoffs in 2009 than they are this year, they've got much of the same personnel, including, most importantly, Marc-Andre Fleury, who was absolutely fantastic in the playoffs last season.
Do I think the Caps can beat the Penguins? Of course I do. They've already taken four out of four games thus far this season. And I know that the Caps will have to face off against at least one other opponent before a possible matchup against Pittsburgh. And, while I'm no hockey expert, I know the Capitals this year are arguably the best team in hockey. I'm just saying that, as a fan, I'm generally panicked about my favorite team's ability to succeed. And with Pittsburgh being last year's villain, I'm going to be worried about them until they're gone.
I'm looking at you, Ottawa.
I hope Washington doesn't have to play the Pittsburgh Penguins in the playoffs.
Despite sweeping the Penguins in the regular season, I still feel like the Capitals would face an unfavorable matchup if pitted against the Penguins. Sidney Crosby is obviously an elite talent, and he seems to play big in big games. Additionally, while Pittsburgh was hotter going into the playoffs in 2009 than they are this year, they've got much of the same personnel, including, most importantly, Marc-Andre Fleury, who was absolutely fantastic in the playoffs last season.
Do I think the Caps can beat the Penguins? Of course I do. They've already taken four out of four games thus far this season. And I know that the Caps will have to face off against at least one other opponent before a possible matchup against Pittsburgh. And, while I'm no hockey expert, I know the Capitals this year are arguably the best team in hockey. I'm just saying that, as a fan, I'm generally panicked about my favorite team's ability to succeed. And with Pittsburgh being last year's villain, I'm going to be worried about them until they're gone.
I'm looking at you, Ottawa.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Joe and Joe Sports Farewell
After an exciting last two years (and a fairly unexciting first two years), it is with a heavy heart that I report that Joe and Joe Sports will be closing down. I have a great opportunity to join Yahoo's fantasy sports team as a part-time assistant for Andy Behrens (yes, the Andy Behrens) on his Roto Arcade feature. Unfortunately, in order to join the Yahoo team, I have to sign a contract that stipulates that I won't compete for customers (web traffic in this instance), so I can no longer be a part of Joe and Joe Sports.
The agreement allows previously published content to remain published, so I will keep the site up for at least the duration of my contract with Google's web-hosting. I'm sure you'd all be heartbroken if you couldn't go back and see that I was dead-on about Matt Ryan being the right guy, right away for the Falcons in 2008. Heartbroken.
It's been a great run, everyone, and my work for Yahoo doesn't start until May 1st, so stick around while we clean up shop. Maybe you can take home a seat cover!
The agreement allows previously published content to remain published, so I will keep the site up for at least the duration of my contract with Google's web-hosting. I'm sure you'd all be heartbroken if you couldn't go back and see that I was dead-on about Matt Ryan being the right guy, right away for the Falcons in 2008. Heartbroken.
It's been a great run, everyone, and my work for Yahoo doesn't start until May 1st, so stick around while we clean up shop. Maybe you can take home a seat cover!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sweet 16 Bracket
Yahoo's got a Second Chance Tournament Bracket that we can use to run our Sweet 16 bracket. Click here to join.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
March Madness - Jake and Amir
Even if you're not a huge fan of March Madness, these videos are a riot.
http://www.jakeandamir.com/search/march
http://www.jakeandamir.com/search/march
Saturday, June 20, 2009
My Town Rocks!
So anyhow, I'm writing this as a rebuttal of sorts to Joe's recent post, My Town Sucks, about his sports teams and their woes as of late. Please see below as he documents his loathing for Pittsburgh because they've had some winning years as of late and his hopes to crush his friends spirits by finding joy in their favorite teams failings.
I supposed that I understand how people would dislike Pittsburgh sports teams/sports fans because they are currently on top of two sports. But I would like to point out that really, Pittsburgh is a champion for small-market cities that generally have no chance to win in sports. Let's look at the traditionally good.... no great teams in sports.
NBA - LA Lakers are World Champions, have won 14 championships all time, only 2nd to Boston, with 17 championships- most recently last year. Both are big market cities, with lots of money and every advantage to win year in and out.
MLB- Seemingly the NY Yankees have won 1/2 of the championships ever and the best team in the past 5 years has been the Boston Red Sox.
NHL - Detroit won last year, Pittsburgh this year.
NFL - Pittsburgh current champs. New York last year. New England (Boston) has been the best team overall for the recent past.
What do most of these teams have in common? They are big-market teams with flashy owners and lots of money. Seemingly players would much rather live in New York, Chicago, LA, or Boston than they would Pittsburgh, Detroit, or Green Bay- thus making the big-market teams even more attractive to top-level free agents. Big-market teams are able to buy big-named players for their squads. Small-market teams have to depend on building teams through the draft and their farm systems. Lastly, small market teams often have family-run ownership with many years of stability. Large-market can have this too (Steinbrenner) but those teams would be much more likely to be bought up by businessmen looking to make more money off of a team than teams in Baltimore, Cleveland, Kansas City or Pittsburgh.
It is reasons like these that I would think that fans of a small market team from any city should root for a Pittsburgh team (or any other small market) before they'd ever root for a big-market team. Let's take a look at this year's 2 championship teams in Pittsburgh, shall we?
1. The Pittsburgh Penguins, NHL Stanley Cup Champions - Small Market franchise. Top Players - Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Marc-Andre Fleury, Jordan Staal... each a first-round draft pick from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. They don't go after flashy free agents, their top free agent this year acquired from another team? Ruslan Fedotenko - who is 7th on the team in scoring. Head coach - Dan Bylsma - a first-time coach who started the year in the minors and never coached at any level prior to this year.
Owner? Mario Lemieux - who is the only reason that this team isn't the Kansas City Penguins. They were bankrupt 5 years ago and have the worst arena in the league. If he didn't care so much to keep the team he loved in Pittsburgh, it wouldn't be here anymore.
2. The Pittsburgh Steelers, NFL Super Bowl Champions - Small Market Franchise. Top Player- Ben Roethlisberger, Willie Parker, Hines Ward, Troy Polamalu, Santonio Holmes, and James Harrison. Each of these players were either drafted by the Steelers, or signed as an undrafted rookie free agent (both Parker and Harrison). Top Free agent signed this year? Mewelde Moore, 3rd string RB and kick-returner. Their coach - Mike Tomlin, a man with one year of coordinator experience from another small market team. Owner - Dan Rooney, generally respected as one of the best owners in sports ever.
My points here are pretty clearly spelled out. Pittsburgh franchises go about things in the right way. They are small-market teams that build their teams through the draft and spend money on players that came up with their team, not using other small market teams as their own farm system. They have stable owners who are more interested in winning and tradition than they are in making money. In my opinion, any fan of a small market team should be appreciative of these traits, root for small market teams vs big market clubs, and hope that their teams can someday follow Pittsburgh's blueprint and win their own World Championship.
I supposed that I understand how people would dislike Pittsburgh sports teams/sports fans because they are currently on top of two sports. But I would like to point out that really, Pittsburgh is a champion for small-market cities that generally have no chance to win in sports. Let's look at the traditionally good.... no great teams in sports.
NBA - LA Lakers are World Champions, have won 14 championships all time, only 2nd to Boston, with 17 championships- most recently last year. Both are big market cities, with lots of money and every advantage to win year in and out.
MLB- Seemingly the NY Yankees have won 1/2 of the championships ever and the best team in the past 5 years has been the Boston Red Sox.
NHL - Detroit won last year, Pittsburgh this year.
NFL - Pittsburgh current champs. New York last year. New England (Boston) has been the best team overall for the recent past.
What do most of these teams have in common? They are big-market teams with flashy owners and lots of money. Seemingly players would much rather live in New York, Chicago, LA, or Boston than they would Pittsburgh, Detroit, or Green Bay- thus making the big-market teams even more attractive to top-level free agents. Big-market teams are able to buy big-named players for their squads. Small-market teams have to depend on building teams through the draft and their farm systems. Lastly, small market teams often have family-run ownership with many years of stability. Large-market can have this too (Steinbrenner) but those teams would be much more likely to be bought up by businessmen looking to make more money off of a team than teams in Baltimore, Cleveland, Kansas City or Pittsburgh.
It is reasons like these that I would think that fans of a small market team from any city should root for a Pittsburgh team (or any other small market) before they'd ever root for a big-market team. Let's take a look at this year's 2 championship teams in Pittsburgh, shall we?
1. The Pittsburgh Penguins, NHL Stanley Cup Champions - Small Market franchise. Top Players - Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Marc-Andre Fleury, Jordan Staal... each a first-round draft pick from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. They don't go after flashy free agents, their top free agent this year acquired from another team? Ruslan Fedotenko - who is 7th on the team in scoring. Head coach - Dan Bylsma - a first-time coach who started the year in the minors and never coached at any level prior to this year.
Owner? Mario Lemieux - who is the only reason that this team isn't the Kansas City Penguins. They were bankrupt 5 years ago and have the worst arena in the league. If he didn't care so much to keep the team he loved in Pittsburgh, it wouldn't be here anymore.
2. The Pittsburgh Steelers, NFL Super Bowl Champions - Small Market Franchise. Top Player- Ben Roethlisberger, Willie Parker, Hines Ward, Troy Polamalu, Santonio Holmes, and James Harrison. Each of these players were either drafted by the Steelers, or signed as an undrafted rookie free agent (both Parker and Harrison). Top Free agent signed this year? Mewelde Moore, 3rd string RB and kick-returner. Their coach - Mike Tomlin, a man with one year of coordinator experience from another small market team. Owner - Dan Rooney, generally respected as one of the best owners in sports ever.
My points here are pretty clearly spelled out. Pittsburgh franchises go about things in the right way. They are small-market teams that build their teams through the draft and spend money on players that came up with their team, not using other small market teams as their own farm system. They have stable owners who are more interested in winning and tradition than they are in making money. In my opinion, any fan of a small market team should be appreciative of these traits, root for small market teams vs big market clubs, and hope that their teams can someday follow Pittsburgh's blueprint and win their own World Championship.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
My Town Sucks
Joe and I hung out last weekend, and what inevitably came up was a discussion about how much we both hate Pittsburgh sports teams, and our own laments regarding the impotence of our favorite teams. Joe, being from Ohio, is a fan of all things Cleveland, and saw his dreams dashed when the Orlando Magic upended the Cavaliers in six games. Meanwhile, my hopes for success this year ended with the Washington Capitals on the receiving end of a 6-2, game 7 shellacking at the hands of the eventual Stanley Cup champion Penguins.
Sure, the Indians are still technically alive, and the Redskins have a shiny new defensive tackle in Albert Haynesworth, but Joe and I both know that 2009 is already dead for Cleveland and Washington sports fans.
Anyways, while we were hanging out (and eating far too much Domino's pizza), I said something that I regret, but not in the way you think. It's not something I regret saying, because generally I just can't ever regret telling the truth. It's something that I regret was true. I told him, truthfully, that I was rooting against the Cavaliers against Orlando, ever so slightly, because I didn't want him to leave our little club of people whose favorite teams have been mired in failure for my entire adulthood.
The problem, of course, is that the club sucks ass. Why would I want to keep other people in it, when I want desperately to get out of it?
The explanation is partially based on the same reasons I dislike Pittsburgh sports teams: jealousy. In basketball, hockey, and football, all teams are held to the same financial limitations, so you don't have a disparity between "large-market" and "small-market" teams. Put another way, any team can win if they get the right players and system. Yet somehow, Pittsburgh has been able to field a very good football team for the past twenty years. Meanwhile, both Cleveland and Washington have failed to produce a championship caliber team for more than a decade. I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish for something like what Steeler fans have got.
The other large part of the explanation is an innate competitiveness I feel towards Joe, mostly stemming from fantasy baseball. That son of a bitch has been in first place for far too long, so I find myself rooting against everything he represents, even when it means wishing that Brian Roberts and Adam Jones will strike out, hamstringing my favorite baseball team from winning games. The irony, of course, is that Roberts and Jones have been supremely productive, yet the Orioles are among the worst teams in baseball. A slap in the face like that doesn't make me want Joe's teams to be more successful.
I'll try to have a more positive outlook on Cleveland teams going forward, but Joe, you'd better hope James Shields starts getting rocked, or it's back to the LeBron voodoo dolls for me.
Sure, the Indians are still technically alive, and the Redskins have a shiny new defensive tackle in Albert Haynesworth, but Joe and I both know that 2009 is already dead for Cleveland and Washington sports fans.
Anyways, while we were hanging out (and eating far too much Domino's pizza), I said something that I regret, but not in the way you think. It's not something I regret saying, because generally I just can't ever regret telling the truth. It's something that I regret was true. I told him, truthfully, that I was rooting against the Cavaliers against Orlando, ever so slightly, because I didn't want him to leave our little club of people whose favorite teams have been mired in failure for my entire adulthood.
The problem, of course, is that the club sucks ass. Why would I want to keep other people in it, when I want desperately to get out of it?
The explanation is partially based on the same reasons I dislike Pittsburgh sports teams: jealousy. In basketball, hockey, and football, all teams are held to the same financial limitations, so you don't have a disparity between "large-market" and "small-market" teams. Put another way, any team can win if they get the right players and system. Yet somehow, Pittsburgh has been able to field a very good football team for the past twenty years. Meanwhile, both Cleveland and Washington have failed to produce a championship caliber team for more than a decade. I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish for something like what Steeler fans have got.
The other large part of the explanation is an innate competitiveness I feel towards Joe, mostly stemming from fantasy baseball. That son of a bitch has been in first place for far too long, so I find myself rooting against everything he represents, even when it means wishing that Brian Roberts and Adam Jones will strike out, hamstringing my favorite baseball team from winning games. The irony, of course, is that Roberts and Jones have been supremely productive, yet the Orioles are among the worst teams in baseball. A slap in the face like that doesn't make me want Joe's teams to be more successful.
I'll try to have a more positive outlook on Cleveland teams going forward, but Joe, you'd better hope James Shields starts getting rocked, or it's back to the LeBron voodoo dolls for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
Games are a little tougher to judge, because frankly I play a lot of games that I don't finish, but often I don't finish them like, ...
-
We're making progress! I've got kind of a reputation for being way behind on movies and shows, a reputation well-earned. Even with t...
