Give that man a cigar!

It's Thanksgiving today. Most people will spend part of the day expressing their thankfulness for their family, maybe their home, their children. I'm certainly thankful for those things, but one thing I'm also thankful for are sports.

I have known lots of people who have thought my love of sports to be something of an excuse to whittle away the days perched on a couch in front of a TV. Indeed, I'll certainly watch some basketball and football at some point today–even go to the park and maybe throw the football around a bit. But when a job listing claims to want team-players that are dedicated, focused, success-oriented and goal-driven, where do you learn all of that stuff? In Advanced Business? Micro Economics? I learned it by being involved in sports.

And since we're on the subject of sports and thankfulness, I'm thankful for the news I read today. For the first time since Communists took over, Cuba has lifted their ban on allowing their players to play professionally overseas. As a baseball fan, this is an amazing piece of news. While I might not like Yasiel Puig–for being a Dodger, as a Giants fan–I will admit to his obvious talent level. Players like Yoenis Cespedes with the A's and Aroldis Chapman with the Reds are further proof there are few mediocre Cubans already in the MLB. I have to imagine there are dozens more players just like them stranded in Cuba–until now. And the thought that every team could have a player like Cespedes? Holy smokes.

And that's just baseball. Cuban fighters could breathe some much (much) needed life into the sport of boxing. Boxing has, uh, taken it on the chin a bit with the advancing popularity of MMA. But as there are loads of talented baseball players in Cuba, baseball isn't the country's top sport in terms of talent. Boxing sorely needs an introduction of Cuban talent. Certainly other sports will benefit in the long run as well.

And when hundreds of new Cuban millionaires return to their native country and help enrich their communities, as many other players have, that can only make Cuba stronger in the future. Hopefully all of this will one day strengthen diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Cuba. Just as the collapse of Soviet oppression helped major sports around the world, this new move by Cuba will do the same. But that's not the most important thing. In my lifetime, the Berlin Wall was toppled, this ban from Cuba was lifted and we started diplomatic discussions with Iran of all places. If that's the trend in world politics as my life continues and the only thing we have to fight about is whether or not a batted ball was fair or foul...that's the thing I'm most of all thankful for. 

No news is good news

I spent most of my professional life as a journalist. At one point in history, that might have meant something important. Sports writers, like me, vote on inductees to various halls of fame because, in the days before YouTube and SportsCenter, they were often the only ones who had seen most every big league player perform and could compare them to one another.

That's not true anymore. I don't need a beat writer to explain who the better Heisman candidate is. I've seen Jordan Lynch play. I've seen Marcus Mariota and Johnny Manziel and Jameis Winston. I can formulate my own opinion. Same with politics. Same with crime and punishment. And war correspondents? It used to be you'd believe Edward R Murrow because he was the one being bombed nightly in the blitz, not you. But now you can watch war on TV. Our correspondents are the actual weapons themselves. Want an up-close look at the enemy compound? Strap a camera to a missile and away we go.

So it's no wonder fewer and fewer people are turning to newspapers for the news. That situation is spilling over into TV, as well. TV audiences, with the growth of Hulu, Netflix and other streaming video services, are dwindling. But the TV news isn't helping its own cause.

It's bad enough the local paper can't run a sports story without using the word 'romp' or run a series of briefs with a photo unrelated to any of them, now the TV news is getting into the 'what the hell does that have to do with anything' act.

TV is visual, so TV news casts tend to favor strongly visual stories. Oops, I mean 'stories.' Look, a brush fire. Wow, check out this flood ten states away from here. Man, look at the snow–at this ski area, of all places. It's not a story, it's just something to look at. The news isn't just stuff that's happening, there should be some sort of impact on your audience. Why does a bush fire in the Australian Outback matter to us? Sure, a disaster like Typhoon Haiyan is significant enough that there might be locals impacted or that we might all want to donate to help people far away, but 'holy smokes, it's snowing in the winter time' isn't news. Why not have a 'this just in, the sun rises this morning' segment?

Recently, our top-rated news station ran a three minute–I say again, a three minute– segment on the upcoming broadcast of The Voice. OK, I get that it's a directive from the network to promote prime time shows, but you spent 10 percent of your broadcast–with a "throw" to Hollywood for a live report, no less–on an upcoming broadcast of a random TV show!?! Coming up next, the weather, but first, how safe is America's power grid? Find out tonight on the hit series, Revolution. Speaking of weather, The Voice segment was longer than the weather. Yes, hundreds of thousands of people traveling for Thanksgiving. Why would the weather matter to them? What's really important is who's going to make it to top six and is Team Cee Lo still alive? Walter Cronkite's soul disintegrated a little just now.

It reminded me of a scene from The Simpsons. At a book festival, Lisa stands up to give an interpretation of the Joy Luck Club. Amy Tan's reply back to Lisa is the same one I so often get when watching the news on TV these days: "I can't believe how wrong you got it. Sit down. I'm embarrassed for both of us." Now, here's Chuck, with a look at sports. 

Not Offensive

I can't take it anymore. Can someone, anyone, teach the players in the NBA how to score? Granted, there have been a number of games this season where the losing team has scored more than 100 points, but it's not good enough.

The number of teams scoring 90 or fewer points a night is still too high. Last week, the Chicago Bulls scored 86 points in a game...and won. A few nights later, Boston scored 82 and Brooklyn scored 81. The following night, the Utah Jazz scored 73 followed by 72 from the Milwaukee Bucks–which isn't the first time in this young season the Bucks have scored in the 70s. Where's Jack Sikma when you need him?

I'm beginning to think the NBA stands for "No Baskets Allowed." And believe me, it's the poor shooting and scoring, not the splendid defense being played that is the root of the problem.

High school basketball games are three-quarters as long as NBA games. In this country, on a nightly basis, I'd bet there are 500 high school teams that score 80 or more points. Earlier this season, the Grizzlies beat the Warriors, 88-81...in overtime, for crying out loud.

Yes, but the high school players are playing against–you know what? Stop. High school kids are playing against kids of their caliber. NBA players are playing against other NBA players. NBA teams need to score just over 22 points a quarter to score 90 points. Two three-pointers, five free throws and six field goals–boom, 23 points. That's too much to ask in 12 minutes? I've supervised 40+ drop-in leagues where they can score six shots in 12 minutes.

To rearrange a famous quote from 12 Angry Men, I know it's possible, but is it probable? The Mavericks beat the Houston Rockets in a recent game, 123-120. One of the teams scored at least 30 points in each of the four quarters. How hard is that? Judging from recent scores, pretty hard I guess.  I know a jump shot is a lot harder than a lob-pass dunk, but if you just set your mind to it... believe it and achieve it. For the love of God, please achieve it.

Slow Draw McGraw

"The quick and the dead–you're either one or the other..."

I applied for a job. Not recently. A long time ago. It was 94 days ago...and counting. On the website where you apply with this particular company, you can log in and check the job status. I logged in recently. The job is still open. The place is still taking resumes, still reviewing candidates and, perhaps one day, will hire someone. Certainly, whoever the person is, will not be the best possible candidate.

How could it be? Other companies are hiring, too. Nobody applies to just one job at a time. The people applying to Job A are the same ones applying to Job B. And C. And D. And E. Yet, you wait a month, two months, three months and on and on. Why? To ensure you get the thirtieth best person for the job? This is a competitive job market for job seekers and employers. If you are waiting three or more months to hire a person for a vacancy, you are sure to have an entire staff, one day, comprised of nothing but sub-standard workers.

Why, for example, if you had the fifth pick in the draft, would you wait until the twenty-seventh pick–of the fourth round–to make your choice? Just because there are a lot of workers in the market right now doesn't mean there is a lot of talent.  Good, and even great, employees are getting snatched up by more nimble companies and you're going to get what's left over. That's how you prepare your organization for a competitive future? The other companies are taking top ten draft picks and you're signing throw away rejects. Hmm, what's going to happen when your two teams compete against one another?

Like the quote from Shawshank Redemption, you either get busy living, or you get busy dying–except in the case of business, you get busy hiring or get busy dying. Filling your staff with C+ workers is a sure path to demise.

But being slow on the draw isn't an HR department's only flaw. They also hamper themselves by checking things like a credit report. Really? That's you as a GM of a sports team: Hey, we have a chance to sign LeBron James...yeah, but have seen his credit score?

Not to worry. If you can't sign LeBron James, I'm sure you can wait and sign Reggie Evans in 3-4 months. NBA title, here we come!

Uniform Code

I gorged myself on football. I started yesterday with a game between Nebraska and Penn State and topped it off with the Washington-Oregon State game, with as many games sandwiched in between as I could find.

This isn't a shocking piece of news in terms of my tolerance. In fact, I'm about to watch a little more football today and even more on Monday. It's been a while since I've had the time to just sit and watch games all day, so it was kind of nice. Now that the college season is winding down, I've started thinking about what's in store next year–players leaving early, new coaches, teams switching conferences, incoming recruits, perhaps a rule change or two.

Watching college football this season has made me think of one other change I'd like to see. Is it too much trouble to pick a set of uniforms and stick with them? Chrome? Really? The gold-inlaid, mirror finished, diamond-played helmets are pretty ridiculous. And black. Every damn team has a black version of their uniform–even schools whose school colors are white and off white have a black version. And Oregon, with the 47 shades of yellow, 29 shades of green, black, gray, white–what's next, take the field with numbers painted on their backs for their "clear" uniforms. Hmm, shouldn't have given the Nike designers any ideas.

More and more teams have started dressing in bizarre alternative jerseys, except I hesitate to call them alternative because so many teams have some many variations I don't even know what the standard uniform is. That's the whole idea of a uniform. There's a certain element of, I don't know, uniformity to it. It's not enough to look like each other. There's a level of consistency involved. Thank God for that Nebraska-Penn State game. The same uniforms as last week, the week before and the last 40 years.

I get it, though. The uniform variations are an expression of team values, of the school's mission, which is to get every last dollar out of their supporters as possible. I mean, Nebraska fans don't buy the Mauve or Lavender or Maize or Stainless Steel uniform tops because they don't exist. But if you love the Oregon Ducks and don't have all 914 uniform tops they wear, how can you really call yourself a fan? Poser! You make me sick.

And forget about the benefits to the student body. Division I college football teams have 85 scholarship players–multiplied by $500 (on the cheap), multiplied by four alternate looks equals about $170,000. Over the course of a four-year college career, that's more than a half a million dollars. At least the rest of the student-body has to pay higher tuition fees, though. Fair enough. I mean, the most any University of Oregon graduate ever did was start the largest employer in the State of Oregon that designs ridiculous uniforms for their sports teams, build a basketball arena and is one of the school's largest donors. I mean, why should everyday students reap any kind of special treatment?

But never mind all of that. Isn't it easy enough to just remind these teams they are supposedly football players and not performers in the Nutcracker? You're supposed to embody the spirit of toughness, gritty determination. You should love adversity, snow, ice, rain, mud, cuts, scrapes, bruises. The words of warfare litter the sport–the blitz, the bomb, a field general, marching troops down the field. And yet, here you are, week after week, taking the field looking like a piece of ribbon candy. Manly. Very manly.

Hip Czech

I've rediscovered my joy for hockey this year. I'm not really sure why, but I've been watching more and more games this season and I'm starting to remember everything I originally liked about the sport.

When I was younger, I got into hockey to check out this "Great Gretzky" dude. This was in the days prior to the San Jose Sharks, so there wasn't much local coverage of the sport, to say the least. Thanks to the emergence of cable TV, I was able to eventually unearth some Edmonton Oilers games. And man, were those Oiler teams amazing. There was a collection of soon-to-be Hall of Fame players on the team and the high level of play made understanding the game really easy.

Sure, as a California native who had snow fall on his head exactly twice in his life to that point, there were still some things that took time. Icing. I mean, the game is played on ice. Aren't you always icing the puck? And offsides. I don't get it. I still don't. I get the rule, but not the purpose. Dude is too far ahead of everyone else. So? Can you imagine basketball without the fastbreak?

But watching Gretzky as a 12-year old was like listening to Jimi Hendrix for the first time. There was what everyone else was doing and then "who the hell is this guy?!" Michael Jordan not withstanding, I don't think I've seen a player single-handedly dominate his sport the way Gretzky did. Game after game–sometimes shift after shift–Gretzky would make a play and I'd think, "how in the living name of Zeus did he do that?" I immediately wanted to learn more and more about the sport so I could more deeply appreciate Gretzky's incomprehensible skill.

At length, the San Jose Sharks were formed and hockey started appearing locally on TV with more frequency. I instantly felt superior as I was far ahead of the learning curve most newly christened Sharks fans were experiencing. My sports loves were baseball and football in first, then basketball, then hockey. By the time the Sharks were born, basketball and hockey were tied.

At some point, because of games falling off the ESPN map and an occasional work stoppage, my interest in hockey waned. I didn't think much of it at first. It was a star-crossed lovers thing, I thought. Hockey and a kid from California–we're not meant to be together. We're from different worlds. They don't even sell Molson or Labatt's in my grocery store.

But this year, for some reason, I've started watching hockey with more regularity. And I'm happy. I've had time to remember why I liked it in the first place. Part of that rediscovery has been the play of Sharks rookie Tomas Hertl (say it like you're trying to silence someone...Toma-shhhh). Just search YouTube for Tomas Hertl, New York Rangers and you'll see what I mean. Hertl certainly isn't the best player for the Sharks and I by no means mean to compare him to Gretzky. However, there is a bit of flair and style in his game that makes you remember the game is fun and it's played by really skilled athletes.

Here's an example: Hockey is played on a slippery surface, with guys wearing footwear that consists of a thin blade, carrying sticks and playing against people trying to knock them over. They can skate nearly as fast backwards as forwards and move as efficiently on ice and skates as the rest of us move on dry land. All the while, they engage in the activities–checking, passing and shooting–that comprise a sport that people can watch, follow and enjoy. If a drop a sweat falls on the floor in basketball, they stop the game and mop it up. That's how hard it is to play on a slick surface.

Hertl's play is fun. It's enjoyable. Like Gretzky, he periodically does something that makes you say, how the...? (Get to the YouTube video yet?) What's more important, Hertl not only makes me remember what I like about hockey, he helps me remember what I like about sports in general–that they're universal. Hertl is from the Czech Republic. He speaks next to no English. He's fluent in hockey and communicates just fine with his teammates. Czechs play hockey the same way Americans and Canadians and Russians and Swedes and everyone else does. Same with basketball. Same with soccer. Same with baseball. We don't speak the same language, have the same customs, eat the same foods, govern in the same way or have the same type of currency. But we play sports the same way. And as each day goes by and people find ways to shoot others to pieces or blow up buildings, it's hard to feel hopeful about anything. But when I imagine the rock being thrown by a Palestinian is a baseball being thrown to an Israeli soldier and the two are playing catch, it makes my hope grow just a little. And if that's all my love of sports gives me, I'll take it.

Old college try

I have a college degree. A few degrees, actually. I really enjoyed my time at campus. My time as a college student was enriching and rewarding. I learned a great many things that weren't related to schoolwork. And college is often so much more immersive. I once did a project for a class that involved acting out a scene–that I prepared for by studying with trained Shakespearean actors. I did actual geology at a rock outcropping with a hammer, magnifying glass and other tools. 

College isn't for everyone, but most everyone I can think of could stand a period of adaptation from being a student to the big boy world. Join the Navy. Go to tech school. If you don't go to a traditional college, it's helpful to have something like that where you can not only build a foundation of skills but where you can also learn how to be an adult. 

As a kid, just about all you can ever remember being is a student. You wake up everyday, drag yourself to school and grind through a school day...rinse and repeat as needed. Year after year, from before you can ride a bike until you're old enough to drive a car, it's the same routine, day after day after day. And suddenly, you're not that thing. You can go to school, but don't have to. And it's a weird adjustment. The freshman attrition rate in college is amazing. Mostly, the kids that don't stick with it are ones that are overwhelmed by the responsibility–no one makes you go to school, no one makes you do homework, no one really even cares if you're in class. 

While I look back fondly on my college years–I still smile when I see a young kid walking around with a sweatshirt from my Alma Mater–I wonder if, in this digital age, there is much value for most people in a college education. I value education as a whole. I think it's critically important. And, if you're going to be an engineer or doctor or something, by all means, college is for you. But what about kids with history degrees working in customer service or economics degrees working in telecommunications? What is the point of their degree? Well, they should have known not to pick such a useless major. That's the argument people sometimes put forth. But it's an erroneous point. College is impossible to survive if the subject matter doesn't interest you. My sister has a nursing degree. I have a zero percent chance of getting the same degree. You can't just do it because it's a sensible career path. Interest is a must. 

And degrees take time. And they're expensive. Technology has changed the pace of knowledge these days. Degrees, four or five years down the road from freshman to graduation, are like computers. You walk off the stage, paper in hand and your degree is already archaic. So you have a relatively useless education base, you've burned up four or five years (more in most cases, let's be frank) and you are $40,000 or more in debt and only slightly better off than kids graduating high school the same day you graduated college. 

Some 40 odd years ago, my dad got a job having a high school diploma, some college background and several years of service in the Navy. By all accounts, he really was over-qualified for the position. Today, having  college background for employers means you have a Master's degree or higher. A bachelor's degree is the equivalent to my dad's high school diploma. It's the very least you should have. 

All the while, companies bemoan the fact there aren't enough highly skilled employees in the work pool. When my dad entered the work force, and before, there was a thing called OJT–on the job training. In a sense, this notion goes back  well beyond feudal times. The idea was a kid would start with a company–in the mail room, say– learn a few things, work his way up the ladder and by the time he's 25 or so, has a good enough job to support a family, buy a house and complain about tax rates. So...what happened to that? Why can't that be a thing now? Companies need trained employees–so hire them at 18 and train them yourself.

Endless companies will hire unpaid interns. Why not pay them a little while they learn and then put them into positions as you need them, fully confident they know what they are doing–assuming you know what you're doing, that is. Many companies (not so much in the US) have adopted this policy. They pay young workers, train them and the kids, in turn, agree to work for a period of time–normally 3-5 years–for that company. If you are a good company, the workers will stay. If not, you have a structure to replace them built in. For the employees, skills like Social Media Marketing or Search Engine Optimization are applicable to other companies, so moving on shouldn't be a problem if that's their inclination. 

Trained workers, no college debt, more qualified young workers and college is freed up for people who will treat us when we are sick, build our roads and bridges and teach us how to do keg stands. Talk about a win–win scenario.

Working for the Weakened

I had a fellowship with the State of California right out of college. One of the projects I worked on was a streamlining of our funding process. Our division had money for groups in the state to have. We worked with these groups to come up with a system that made it an easier process.  Since we were the "government," people weren't always so helpful and trusting. It was aggravating to know all you wanted to do is help these groups secure funding–which they want and need–but there was still resistance. In our staff meetings, we discussed this fact, quoting the Jerry McGuire line, "help me, help you...help me help you...helpmehelpyou!"

I've been looking for a new job lately. The process has changed in the last decade or so. It's changed dramatically since my professional ideal was a job at Miller's Outpost, with the occasional break across the way at Gold Mine for a quick game of Moon Patrol. A resume is the least of your concerns as a job seeker. You need to have social media skills, a LinkedIn account, probably a blog or website with links to previous works. There is far more information available to employers than your work history, educational background and the fact you can type 65 words a minute. As such, it's difficult for HR people to wade through the array of ways potential employees have to present themselves. Since it's hard to know what best to ask for, these job poster, candidate reviewers often ask for everything. It's to the point where HR people are like this: If you could meet God and ask Him one question, what would it be? HR professional answers: Our standard application form 1253 has ten mandatory questions that all candidates must answer or they cannot be considered for the position...

There are not many things I feel like I'm an "expert" at. However, as a longtime journalist, I feel like I'm an expert question-asker. I think I can help these HR people refine their employee hunt a little. The first thing to do is to list ten essential skills for the position, say for cashier at McDonalds. The candidate needs to be cheerful, honest, trustworthy, personable, helpful, service oriented, reliable, well mannered, good with money and articulate. Next, your first HR question should be, are you at least six of these things? Yes? OK, send me your resume.

Next, dispense with the questions about objectives and so forth. Everyone's objective is to get a job and earn a living. The reason they applied is you have a job open. And stop asking people what their salary expectations are.   This is the job. This is what it pays. That information will automatically filter your pool of candidates. True, the occasional sandwich artist will apply for Chief Operations Officer, but those strays are easily eliminated.

Stop asking for candidates to upload a resume and then have them fill out an online form that has the same exact information as the resume. This duplication of process is keeping qualified and desirable candidates from applying, even if only occasionally. Having hired people in the past myself, I know you can take one minute to buzz through a resume and see who is remotely qualified and who isn't. Toss the "not" ones and call the "are" ones. If the pool is small enough by then, invite them to an interview. Seeing is believing. Pro sports teams talk to loads of players–even ones they know they have no hope of drafting. They meet them. They visit. Hey coach, I only talked to 20 of the 2,341 draft-eligible kids on the phone and I know who we should draft... That conversation never happened in pro sports ever.

What is the harm? What exactly are you doing anyway? Isn't hiring a person sort of a priority? Why call, re-call, interview, re-interview and then have a panel interview? Don't you know a talented fit when you see one? If you don't, why are you screening people in the first place? Shouldn't one of the job skills for a HR person be the ability to spot a quality employee? I was a sports writer for a long time. I can watch any game in any sport and spot the kids with real talent in 20 minutes. College recruiters can do it in five. It's your industry and your job to hire quality people. You should be really good at it by now. Post a job, look at the candidates and hire someone already.

Lastly, desist with the cover letter. What does that do? Dear person, as my resume plainly outlines for anyone to see, I have the following experience and education. My applying for this position clearly expresses my interest in working for your company or, frankly, any company that pays a livable salary. Thank you for wasting two minutes of your day reading this letter rather than sifting through resumes. Sincerely, the name on the resume.

Some employers I know have said a cover letter is the first opportunity to see the prospect in action.  This is unfair. As an alive human being living on the Earth right now, chances are the candidate is a horrible writer. Judging from the mistakes I've seen in job postings, someone's writing skill is no indicator of their professional skill and prowess as a synergistic team player.

Post a job, sift through the nonsense of online forms and cover letters, interview 10 people you think will be good and pick one. The best practices process I can think of is imagining the job being done by Sheriff Buford T. Justice (of Texarkana, Texas, by the by) from the film Smokey and the Bandit.  The Sheriff, wading through resumes, cover letters, YouTube videos, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and Tumblr accounts says aloud to his future new employee, "now that all the sentimental bullshit is over, where are you, you sumbitch?!"

If the good Sheriff was in charge of HR, job vacancies would be filled like that–you, um...you have to insert the fingers snapping noise. I can't really write it like that.

Three: The number of the beast

I love basketball. I hate three-pointers. I used to love three-pointers when I was younger. The three-point line was a relatively new invention when I was a kid, so there was a novelty aspect to shooting a three-pointer. There was a never-say-die element to a three pointer, too. We're down three with two seconds left? Prior to the the three-point line, it would have been time to pack up and head home. Ah, but with the three-pointer there's still hope...the ever-lasting fuel for sports fandemonium.

The other thing I liked about three-pointers was I could shoot them. I was the youngest and smallest of all my cousins and basketball-playing kids in my neighborhood. Driving to the basket was not a real option for me. I could always dribble the ball a bit on the outside while the bigger kids took a breather and, never wanting to be outside of rebound range, the older kids often left three-point land unguarded. That left me a golden, swat-proof opportunity to get a shot off.

Now, as someone who periodically coaches and writes about basketball, I hate three-pointers. Three-pointers have become a way of life. But that's not the substance of what basketball is. I bet you can think of dozens of NBA players who have scored 40 or more points recently. How many of those were post players? There's too much effort required for a center to score 40 points. Taking free throws out of the equation, a post player has to hit 20 shots to produce what a shooter can with just 13 shots. Many college teams now have the three-pointer as the foundation of their offense. There are dozens of teams nightly across this country that shoot more three-pointers than two-pointers. Really? That's what basketball is? Hit 15 threes, 10 regular shots and 21 free throws–guess what? You just scored 86  points and probably won. That's basketball? Hitting 25 baskets and winning? Without the three-pointers and the same 21 free throws, you need to hit 33 shots. What happened in the game, a late-arriving fans asks. One team hit 32 shots and the other hit 25. Which team won, he asks. The 25 shot team.

In what other sport would this seem normal? Hooray! A grand slam! Four runs for us! Yeah, but he hit it into the upper deck–it's six runs for us! I knocked down all ten pins! That's a strike! I knocked down three pins...but I did it from way over there. That's also a strike! He shoots, he scores! Yes, but he shot the puck from outside the blue line...he shoots and scores two goals! Tiger...lining up the par put from 54 feet away–that puts him in three-point range, so if he hits this, it's and eagle! It's stupid in every other sport. Why does it make sense in basketball?

Because it makes the game more exciting! It gives underdogs a chance! Yeah–except, no... it makes the game worse. The complaints from analysts and coaches alike are the same–the players can't shoot mid-range jump shots, they can't make free throws, they don't know how to set proper screens. These are all critical fundamentals to what basketball is really about and they are eroding. And why? There's no value in it. There's no benefit to setting screens and working the ball into the paint. Why drive to the basket and get fouled to get three points? First, you have to make a basket, then you have to get hacked, then you have to hit another shot. It's easier to stand really far away and throw a shot in from the third row of the bleachers. You can't screen, you can't pass, you can't rebound, you can't dribble, you can't drive, you can't make free throws, you can't defend. You can consistently hit three-pointers. We gotta get you some time on the court! That's the game of basketball?

Just wait. Soon you'll get four points from hitting behind the half-court line. One day, there will be a circle on the the far end of the court. Hit a shot from there and your team instantly wins the game! Hey, it makes teams defend the whole court, keeps the underdog in it and makes the game more exciting.

Red Card

As a sports writer, I had to cover different sports. Sometimes, as in the case of rugby, I had to cover things I didn't know much about. As a result, I had to learn a lot about these sports in a short period of time.

One of these sports was soccer. Prior to covering games as a writer, what I knew about soccer is you couldn't use your hands and...well, that's it. I just knew you couldn't use your hands. Luckily, the local teams I covered over the years were all pretty good and it made learning the sport easy. Still, I wanted to improve my coverage, so I started watching international matches on TV. I felt a little like "Days of Thunder." I haven't done much, but I watched it a lot on ESPN.

This exposure helped me understand the game better and watching it played at the highest level helped me appreciate the game more. I soon found myself occasionally watching random matches for no good reason. The capper was watching a match between AC Milan and FC Barcelona online whilst at work.

But try as I might, I just couldn't embrace the sport fully. And, to quote Twisted Sister–as one does in moments like these–I've tried, oh how I've tried. I just can't. There's something terribly, I don't know, American about me. And soccer just isn't designed with American DNA in mind.

Soccer is too, I don't know what the word is...friendly? Sportsman? Congenial? When a player is injured, soccer teams kick the ball out of bounds. When the other teams throws it back in, they give it right back to the opposing squad. When a player in soccer is offsides, it means he's farther up the field than any opposing player. The rule, a coach explained, is to give the defense a fair chance. And all this time that's what I thought the goal keeper was for.

But that's not what American sports are all about. We have the slam dunk, the long bomb and the grand slam. If a defender falls down in an American sport...well, he shouldn't have. Try not to next time. American sports fans watch their sports with an "all in" attitude. Survival of the fittest. That's who we are as American sports fans. And above all, we like winners. But soccer is fine sometimes with a job well done by all. They might not love a tie, but they'll accept it. For Americans, tying is worse than losing.

That point was fully driven home recently in a match between the United States and Scotland. I watched some of the match and later discovered it ended in a draw. Magical. Ninety minutes of watching 22 grown men kick a ball around on the grass. As Billy Joel once said, is that all you get for your money? I can be angry if my team loses or elated if they win. But nothing compares to the anger I'd feel walking away with an $85 bag of 'meh.' From now on, I'm going to stick with the excitement of American sports. Bass Pro Tour, here I come. Talk about one team losing...

Clothesline in the Brees

Player safety. When the NFL started delving into player safety, I was for it. I don't mean that to sound like I'm not for it anymore. But what once sounded to me like, "player safety...yeah, I'm down for that," in a "come on people, now, smile on your brother, everybody get together and try to love one another right now," kind of way, now hits my ear like some South African jackass waving his credentials over his head, saying "diplomatic immunity...heh, heh, heh..."

I'm reminded of this once again following the recent win by the New Orleans Saints over the San Francisco 49ers. The win was aided to a great degree by a late penalty on Ahmad Brooks for a hit against Drew Brees. A clothesline. That's what some Saints people called it after the game. Except, it wasn't. Brooks pretty clearly hit Brees in the chest, driving him backwards. The equal and opposite reaction to the hit was the Go-Go Gadget neck that uncoiled from Brees' torso, making the hit seem higher than it actually was.

The officials flagged the hit. Player safety...heh, heh, heh. The general problem with the play is twofold. First, Drew Brees is not very tall. In everyday walking around life, he's normal-sized, but in the NFL, he's short. Any hit on 28 of 30 NFL quarterbacks (aside from Russell Wilson and Brees) would just be a regular, un-flaggable hit. But Brees is short. The second problem  is he's Drew Brees. When you rough up Brees, you rough up the NFL's marketing campaign.

In Houston, about 350 miles away, Oakland and Houston started a pair of young quarterbacks. The short stature of Brees aside, if the Brooks hit had been made on Matt McGloin (Oakland's rookie), for example, there would have been no flag. Why? Because who cares if a rookie backup gets hurt? But if a star like Tom Brady gets hit and injured, the NFL is liable to change the rulebook...oh wait, that actually happened.

And that's the real core of the problem. The NFL is less concerned about player safety than it is concerned for star player safety. Injured stars don't sell video games, home owner's insurance or pizzas. I mean, who wants to buy a pizza from Case Keenum? And the end result, for the Niners in this case, is they lose the game. Sure, they could have scored a few more points or made a few more stops, but the bottom line is the play opened the door and the NFL was all-too-happy to walk through.

And just wait. Aaron Rodgers was injured on the most normal sack you can imagine. Someday soon, it won't be legal drag a quarterback to the ground or even rush the passer. Coming soon to a NFL stadium near you: seven-on-seven drills!