Soccer to me

As an American, I have to admit to only a passing interest in soccer. Like most Americans, my interest peaks during the World Cup and wanes greatly thereafter. However, my American-ness means I am also greatly interested in freedom, liberty and the like. Global events, like the World Cup and the Olympics, allow me to express my love for sports and my passion for the aforementioned American ideals. I am certain I am not alone in this. Americans, as a whole, like to cheer for our teams, be they soccer, hockey, gymnastics or any of various other sports we care about greatly every four years (kinda like our feelings towards elections). We also like to cheer for countries like Iraq, places tormented by war, oppression, terror and whatever else yet resilient enough to place a team on a global stage. These countries, huddled masses expressing their yearning to be free, always seem to hit a soft spot in our hearts.
Consider then, fellow Americans, the venues for the next two Wold Cup tournaments. The 2018 tournament will be held in Russia and the 2022 tournament will be held in Qatar.
First, let's understand the situation in Russia. Russia recently hosted the Olympics. Not long after, they either invaded (depending on whose story you listen to) or greatly assisted with the occupation of a portion of Ukraine.
Unless my global history is incorrect, the only other country to pull off the rare "host the Olympics, invade a neighboring country" feat was Germany in the 1930s...and I understand things went downhill pretty quickly thereafter.
Think about that for a second. The last and only country to do what Russia has recently done was Germany under Hitler. That's like throwing your name right up there with Charles Manson. And what happened to Russia as a result? They get to host the world's largest sporting event. Boy, that's teach them a lesson they'll not soon forget.
Now, FIFA awarded the event to Russia prior to said invasion, but let us not forget that Hitler earned a nomination for the Nobel Prize for Peace, which, in retrospect, seems like a reasonably poor choice.
Still, the situation with Russia is nothing compared to the circumstances surrounding Qatar.
Let's never mind for a minute that half of the eligible FIFA voters selected Qatar as their top choice despite the fact Qatar didn't have, at the time of the vote, so much as a single soccer stadium. Had the Cup been played immediately in Qatar, the event would have come off like a youth soccer event, with games being played whilst fans cheered from their nearby lawn chairs.
Qatar has since made some construction progress, which is where the issues concerning Americans come in. While Russia's freedom and liberty issues are more ambiguous and muddled by geo-political concerns, the freedom issues in Qatar are more literal. Like, literally literal. See, by a number of different accounts, Qatar is making headway towards building a sufficient number of stadiums to host the Cup in 2022 largely through the use of slave labor.
Certainly Egypt established the benefits of using slave labor to pull off large-scale construction projects, but that was several thousand years and an uncertain number of divinely concocted plagues ago. Even the United States changed its tune on slavery some time back.
The allegations of corruption and labor irregularities have been enough to prompt Germany to threaten a boycott of the event. It's a pretty big statement of how bad things are when the current world champions are threatening to boycott an event taking place eight years from now!
Perhaps the Germans have simply gotten wind of the fact that Qatar also plans to ban alcohol consumption. I might guess that Budweiser, one of the Cup's biggest sponsors, would object when the day draws closer. Others might object that Qatar has also suggested that gays will not be tolerated at the event, either--which is where they reach a common ground with Russia, so hey, that's something.
To summarize, for Qatar it's gays not ok, beer not ok, slavery and corruption, just fine.
That said, we as Americans, with our love of sports and liberty, should not stand idle as these injustices to freedom and sport are allowed to carry on unopposed. In this country, you're either for us or you're a'gin us...and if we're not a'gin the Cup being in Russia and Qatar, then we're for their policies of oppression and intimidation. And to me, that's un-American.

Designed to Kill

I used to experience something as a sports writer that I've experienced again following the recent World Series victory by the San Francisco Giants.
Often in the world of sports, it's bothersome to people when one team wins so many titles in a short period of time. It's understandable. Everyone wants to win but when one team is doing the lion's share of winning, it becomes annoying for others.
But the experience I'm talking about isn't rooted in that. In fact, I'm not really sure what it's rooted in because I don't understand the logic behind it. That's probably because there is no logic behind it. The idea I'm talking about is one that has been expressed by some in baseball and by a few sports writers around the country, which is the notion that the best team didn't win the World Series this year. Sometimes I'd hear fans express the same thing at games I covered. The best team didn't win. Further, the idea, as it relates specifically to the World Series this season, doesn't apply to the San Francisco Giants alone. The reason this idea has gained any traction at all is people seem to think it's true even if the Royals had won the World Series. The Giants and Royals, after all, were wild card teams and, thus, barely got into the playoffs to begin with.
So is it true? Did the best team win the World Series? The simple answer is yes. And here's how I know: the best team always wins the World Series...or the Super Bowl or any other game in question. Figuring out which team is better is 100% of the reason games are played. People can throw all the "yeah, but..." scenarios they want to at the question, the answer remains the same. The best team always wins.
But look at the ERA or the batting average, but what about the home runs or the...
It's meaningless. Statistics only tell you what has happened, not what will happen. Fantasy sports are just that, a fantasy. Who has the best this, that or anything else is irrelevant in the real world. The Giants faced more "no team has done (X) since..." scenarios than I can remember. But they did it this year. The only stat that matters and the only one that ever, ever matters is the final score. Oh, but think of all the breaks, the lucky bounces, the bloopers, the walks, the errors by the other team. OK. Think about it. And think about fumbles and penalties and injuries and technical fouls and muscle cramps. Think about all of it, because it's all part of the game and it all counts. The Royals were nearly eliminated in the wild card game. Nearly...but they weren't.
And that's the whole point. Championships aren't the ascension of the great over mediocrity through the will, desire and effort of individual components. Championships are now, have always been and always will be about perseverance and survival.
The regular season is about reaching the playoffs. Once a team gets to the playoffs, they are destined to lose their final game of the year. Only one team will win their final game of the season. Only one team survives the injuries, the mistakes, the success of the other team, bad calls, bad weather, bad breaks. Only one team survives it all. How in the world could you not consider any team that lives through a process designed to kill all anything other than a champion?
Every team starts in the same spot. They all follow their own path throughout the season. Most fail. Some reach the playoffs and the one that do earned it, whether they are a wild card, went 7-9 in a weak division or stumbled backwards into the post season, some how, some way, they earned their spot. From there, the champion obeys the one and only rule: don't die. And when there is one and only one survivor left, what is the point of measuring how they were able to live? They won. That's how they lived. Everything else is meaningless.

5 More Sports Things That Need to Change

I've had an aggravating week in sports and I've compiled a short list of things that would ease that aggravation if they went away.

1. Seeing Red: Like many people, I watched the Notre Dame/Florida State football game this weekend. Like so few things in life, it promised one thing and then actually delivered on that thing. Of course, I couldn't help but notice the Florida State fans and their incessant "Chop" chant. The Atlanta Braves fans do the same thing and each group swears the other stole it. I have just a small issue with the "Chop" (as pictured):

As a self-described "White Man," I find it painful, on behalf of Native Americans, to watch a crowd of mostly white folks swing their arms, or better yet, foam Tomahawks, whilst some decidedly inauthentic "Native" music plays in an effort to conjure some unjustified help from Cree or something to that effect. The "white people got a lotta nerve" element isn't what bothers me most about the Chop. What bothers me most is that there is an outrage over the name Washington Redskins whilst the Chop gets a free ride. Can we either decide that none of this stuff proper and stop doing all of it or stop pretending that we have some sort of moral compass that guides our interactions with Native peoples, concede that we have no respect for them as people, their traditions and cultures and move on?
By the by, as a person of Irish decent, I said nothing about Notre Dame being "the Irish"or the multitude of other Irish-related mascots of other schools. So if we're having the discussion, let's not leave groups out, OK?

2. Running Interference: Will the NFL finally just come out and admit that nobody associated with the league knows what pass interference is? Normally, I might be upset that the call was made against my team in some way. My point here, however, is the rule doesn't seem to be enforced consistently. Different officiating crews seem to have ranging interpretations of the rule. I suspect this is because pass interference is unbelievably vague. Good rules are unambiguous. If the ball hits on this side of the line, it's foul; it it hits the line or on that side, it's fair. Brilliant rule. With pass interference we go from "well, he did make contact" to "that's just two guys playing football right there" from play to play. Here's a challenge: find 10 people working in the NFL-coach, player, official, league admin.-and have them define, in as much detail as possible, what pass interference is. My guarantee is you get 10 different answers. That is the very definition of a horrible rule. Yet, how can a rule that has such an affect on the outcomes of games be one of the worst rules in your sport?

3. Zoning Out: This next thing isn't a problem in the same way the previous two are, it's just something that drives me crazy when I see it. Football teams can play two types of pass defense-zone and man-to-man. Man-to-man is easy to understand. This specific guy right here is the guy you are responsible for. You follow him everywhere and don't let him catch the ball. Zone, as the name implies, divides the field up into defensible areas, with each player responsible for a different zone. But please tell the defensive coaches in your life to coach defense the following way, as doing so will prevent me from wanting to throw a book through my TV scree: Think of a zone defense like a house. Each defender is responsible for a different room. One guy takes the living room, the other the kitchen, another the bedroom. Simple to understand. However, the message on the next step isn't getting through, as evidenced by the awful pass defense being played around this country in high school, college and the NFL. While you might be responsible for, say, the kitchen, your job as a defender isn't to guard the kitchen. Your job is to play man-to-man against anyone in the kitchen. You don't defend the sink, you defend the dude near the fridge. If he moves from the kitchen to the living room, he's not your man anymore and you let him go. IF there is nobody in the kitchen nor likely to be anyone in the kitchen BUT there is someone in the unguarded, adjoining dining room, THEN DEFEND THAT GUY! A zone has never caught a pass in the history of football. Air is the worst receiver in the last 100 years of the game. Receivers catch passes. Receivers need to be defended. Standing three yards away from a guy isn't defense, it's spectating. Here's some basic math: There are 11 dudes on offense or defense. Most teams have four guys rush the passer, maybe five. That leaves six pass defenders. The offense has five linemen and a quarterback. They can have a MAXIMUM of five receivers on any given play. So right now, as you're asking "but what if one zone has two guys in it," understand the math. One zone has two guys, one is empty. Empty zone guy, go help out. Pass defenders defend receivers, zone or not. Poached and scrambled aren't two different things, they different types of the same thing. It's not these "potent, high-powered" offenses that are taking over, it's shoddy defense.

4. Design flaw: OK, look...I'm all for being progressive and pushing things forward. But, uh...that's quite enough from the uniform designers for college football teams. It's one thing to have a different set of uniforms for each game, never wearing the same pattern of colors for two games in a row. There comes a point, however, when a thing gets taken too far. It's been taken too far. We gotta reel it back in.
For starters, chrome isn't a friggin' color. Unless you're designing a hot rod, chrome isn't for you.

A lot of teams have this type of helmet now and it looks...what's the word I'm looking for here...ridiculous? Stupid? Like you pulled up to the game on a bus with spinning rims?

More significantly than that is this, uniform designers: generally, highlighter is used to draw attention to text, not as a color on your palette. What in the world about these uniforms made you think, yeah, that's what I bring to the table...

And football is supposed to be an exercise in toughness, grit, determination and sheer, old-fashioned manliness. Highlighters? These guys don't look like football players, they look like their trying to get home to see Miami Vice. 

5. Two and oh no! Finally, I think it should be mandatory to immediately cut baseball players and ban them from the game for life for swinging at 2-0 pitches and not getting a hit. It has happened throughout my life but there seems to be a flat out epidemic going on in MLB right now. A 2-0 count is the first time in an at-bat when a hitter needs fewer balls to walk than he needs strikes to get out. Why does the 3-0 mentality seem to be, "hmm, one more ball and I walk, lemme take this one and see what happens," whereas the mentality in a 2-0 count is, "hmm, it's a hitter's count, I'm a hitter, better swing at this one!" Sure. Swing at it, if it's the exact, perfect pitch you want and not, say, a slider away, a curve ball in the dirt or a fastball across the shoulders. See, here's a baseball secret: if you take a 2-0 pitch and it's called a strike...you're STILL ahead in the count!! If you want to be a great hitter, you have to hit pitches that aren't where the pitcher wants them to be, i.e., a mistake. If you get a 2-0 mistake, swing. If not, don't. Worst case, you fall to 2-1 and you have at least two more chances for a mistake to come your way. Or maybe hitters should just start wearing chrome batting helmets to blind the pitchers. Either tactic will be successful, I think. 

Pink Pander

I've been noticing a lot of football teams wearing pink this month. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the pink-clad football players are just a piece of the pink tidal wave spilling across the country. I've known far more women who have been stricken by breast cancer than I'd like to, so any effort to raise awareness about breast cancer, early detection and fund research is appreciated.
But all this pink is troubling. If we cared as much about breast cancer as the abundance of pink products would suggest, breast cancer would have been eradicated ten times over years ago. But it hasn't been and the amount of products with  pink ribbons on them increases year after year.
That leads me to a concept initiated by Breast Cancer Action they dubbed, "pink washing." Perhaps you've heard of white washing as it relates to Tom Sawyer? Pink washing is the same idea, splashing pink on products during October for the purposes of...well, that's just it. The purposes aren't always clear. Breast Cancer Action's "Think Before You Pink" campaign attempts to drive this point across.
The NFL, for instance, sells many of the pink-laced items online and donates the money to breast cancer research. Most of these pink-laden products promise the same and certainly money is raised and donated. Most people, like me and my family, like to do what we can to support breast cancer advocacy. Research in the past, after all, helped save the lives of some people we love. We'd like to think we're helping, in some small way, save the lives of many others in years to come. I have to believe we're not alone in that thought. And so we happily buy these pink products. And, in kind, companies donate some of the revenue to breast cancer research and advocacy groups. But how much? Some. Like roughly? A portion.
If I broke off a tiny crumb of a chocolate chip cookie and gave you the bulk of the cookie, that's a portion. But so is just a single chocolate chip. I can imagine which portion you might prefer.
Sure, every little bit helps, but does it seem appropriate that companies put these pink ribbons on their products, encourage consumers to buy them to support breast cancer causes and then take the bulk of the cookie and leave advocacy groups with mere crumbs?
So where does that leave consumers? Unfortunately, if consumers are serious about their desire to help eradicate breast cancer, they have to do a little work. Responsible companies--and there are some--will be able to easily answer some basic questions. First and most obvious is, what is the exact portion of the "portion of proceeds" that goes towards the breast cancer fight? A company that donates crumbs instead of cookies probably isn't worth your time. Next is which organizations get these proceeds and what do they do with the money once they get it? It's important to be certain your consumer dollars are being put towards maximum affect. New office chairs don't do a lot to save lives for cancer victims. Lastly, is there a cap on the funds available. This is mind-boggling for some people to even think about but it's a pretty common practice for corporate "philanthropy." There is a program with a local baseball team, for instance, where a credit card company donates a certain amount of money to a selected cause for each home run the team hits. If you read the fine print, the really, really, really fine print, they say their maximum donation is $50,000. That's still a nice sum of money. However, while there is still a benefit and motivation for a team to hit more than 50 grand-worth of home runs, money spent on pink products once a cap has been reached is literally doing cancer patients no good. Further, there is frequently no means (or effort) to inform the public once a predetermined cap has been reached. There are no drum rolls and tote board numbers tumbling once consumers have bought a million bucks-worth of yogurt.
There are other things you can do as a consumer to ensure your purchases are having the impact you intend, but these three simple questions are a good place to start.
I'm grateful my loved ones who survived breast cancer are still here to enjoy life. The money raised in the past and the research that resulted is something I'm endlessly thankful for. And for whatever small benefit seeing my favorite football team dressed in pink has, I'm happy for that, as well.
Equally, I'm thankful and hopeful for future generations of people who can tell their own survival stories or, better yet, won't develop those stories to begin with. It's just a shame, amid all of these pink products, if the only thing a glut of yogurt purchases gets me is improved calcium levels and nothing else.

Moral Arguments

I've been following the discussion about domestic violence and the NFL lately, as if anyone remotely interested in the NFL could avoid the discussion. As someone who spent a lot of my professional career reporting on various types of crises, it's always interesting for me to see the variations in preparedness different organizations have. Some organizations are well-prepared and do an excellent job facing questions from reporters like me. Others come across a bit more like a flustered Ralph Kramden...homina homina homina <twiddles fingers>.
I'd have to say the NFL has come off a bit more like the latter. I'm ready any moment for someone at a press conference to yell, "Goodell, you are a men'le case!"
To be brief, any organization should have a well-thought out crisis communication plan. This plan should clearly outline who in your organization talks about what and in what very specific ways. If a very old water main breaks in your town and, say, floods the UCLA campus, your director of public works, city manager and possibly mayor should all make a pre-arranged set of comments to the media and, therefore, public.
The crisis plan should cover things that could and possibly will happen, like a water main break, in the event you are a city; things that could but probably wouldn't happen, like your CEO is caught with 10 pounds of cocaine in his trunk; and things that almost certainly won't happen but, ehh, you never know, like an employee hops the White House fence and attempts to gain entry into the Presidential residence.
Once this plan is in place, it should be practiced regularly until, as Louis Gossett Jr. said in Iron Eagle, "it is au-to-ma-tic!"
Some crisis communications experts will further urge organizations to run on a solid set of values. Analysts said the NFL needs to lead through its moral compass, for instance. I wouldn't say any of those things, however. I'd advise, instead, to incentivize the types of outcomes you want. People, and therefore organizations, don't operate on a moral compass, values or anything else that looks nice on a motivational poster. Human behavior is driven by incentive (not an original thought, by the way). Though you might have a strong work ethic, it is your wish to earn a paycheck, make your rent payment and retain your home that provides the incentive to get up and go to work. Your crappy boss and difficult work environment periodically provides incentive to call in sick and go see a ballgame instead. Whatever your personal incentive is to skip a donut or a cupcake, that's what prevents you from having one, not your strong belief that gluttony is a sin. OR...when you don't give in to temptations you find sinful, that makes you feel good, ethically or morally superior even. It is the feeling, not the value that drives your behavior.
Think of it like this: If you leave food out and find you have an infestation of ants, is it enough to spray pesticide? You might spray the ants but you'll almost certainly remove the food and not likely leave food out again. It's OK to kill the ants that are present, but without taking away the motivation to infest your home, they'll just come back.
And so the NFL doesn't need a moral compass or a strong set of values. They need to develop a set of incentives that builds the type of league they want. Sometimes those incentives can be negative. There are negative incentives, for instance, dissuading violence towards women and children--in society, that is. These negative incentives are not enough for some, obviously.
The NFL needs to find their own incentives. Suspensions without pay or penalties against all the players on specific teams, the Ravens, for example, could curtail some of these actions. The league and its partners could agree on other incentives, like no endorsement deals for players with NFL business partners--no Bud Light ads, no Nike deals, no cell phone commercials. But the league must--not should, must--build incentives for teams and executives. For instance, if a situation like Ray Rice's arises in the future, the team pays a stiff penalty, loses draft picks, has their salary cap lowered--whatever the case is. As a result, teams will take far fewer risks on the Pac Man Jones' of the world and look to build their teams with more players like JJ Watt. Once the NFL does this, the affect will be felt soon throughout college and high school. When the NFL stops taking risks on players with questionable backgrounds, the incentive will be in place for young players to avoid risky behavior. Left with which incentive is stronger, lashing out at my girlfriend or jeopardizing a possible NFL career, it's not too difficult to understand the thing upon which most people would place a higher value.

Scheduling conflict

College football started last night and I was happy to see things finally kick off. Mostly, I was just happy to see regular, normal football. I spent the summer watching football from Canada or being playing inside of a basketball gym. Believe me, I was ready for some normal football.
What I was really surprised with, pleasantly so I must say, were the high number of games between competitive teams. Normally the first game of the year is between some powerhouse and some school like Western Mississippi Sewing College. Certainly its been a nice early treat to see bowl-type match-ups like LSU and Wisconsin or Georgia and Clemson, but it's also nice to see good teams take on teams that can at least provide some sort of push back, like Ohio State facing Navy or Alabama against West Virginia. Surely the Buckeyes or the Tide will win but the games won't be an utter joke as if they were playing Southwestern Oregon Bible College (which, FYI, is a real school and not one I made up).
These games generate much more interest early in the season and help better frame the late discussion over who deserves a shot at a national championship when the season draws to a close.
Of course, the games between national powerhouses and the Cleveland State College for Chronically Bad Spellers (a potential Alma Mater for many of us, surely), do serve a purpose...I guess. CSCCBS earns a large sum of money for playing a school like Oklahoma and the Sooners get a chance to see how well their hot dog vendors can operate the two-minute offense.
OK, fine. The games between a powerhouse and a schlub serve a purpose of some sort.That function is anything besides generating interest in college football. I'll watch football. Like I said, I watched football from Canada. I'll turn on Madden and watch the demo mode for crying out loud. But even I can't get excited for a game between Florida State and the Poly Tech University of Sod Farming. I guess some major programs play these games because there are rules against them playing high school JV teams.
The alternative doesn't have to be the exact opposite. Nobody is saying Auburn or Oregon should play the 49ers or Seahawks. Just be like UCLA or USC and play a team like Virginia or Fresno State, play a team that could beat you but probably won't. It's better for the game all the way around.
But an encouraging pep talk isn't enough to change the scheduling habits of some teams. That's fine. And maybe it doesn't matter for most fans in certain situations. Whether or not North Carolina plays Liberty probably isn't a big deal for most fans. The Tarheels aren't ranked high enough right now and likely won't be at any point this season to move fully into the national debate. But when Florida State is playing Oklahoma State and Alabama is playing West Virginia, it seems like that's the hallmark of a strong program much more than Oregon playing South Dakota is. If FSU and Alabama lose their opening games (which probably won't happen) would it even begin to feel right that Oregon would be #1 after a certain week one win? Oregon, as it stands right now, has games scheduled against four ranked opponents. If they remained in their current #3 position, they would certainly be part of the four national semi-finalists to play for a national title. Is that really what college football fans want? A national contender that wins four tough games? Is a fifth tough game that much to ask?
Still, maybe the coach at South Dakota has had a lifelong dream of playing Oregon in the opening week. What jerks the Ducks would be to deny that dream. Fair point. So schedule the game. I just don't want to see a team like that end up in the semi finals. A championship isn't a journey on the path of least resistance. It's an achievement of overcoming obstacles, no matter how many or how frequently they line your path.
So I have a solution. Any team wanting to be considered for the national semi-finals will need to build a schedule comprised of FBS teams only. So Cal can still play Sac State if they want to, having no real aspirations for the national championship. But if Georgia wants a crack at the final game, no fair taking it easy on yourself with a game against Furman. There are well over 100 FBS teams in the country and most teams only need 2-3 non-conference games to fill. It shouldn't be that hard for the Florida States and LSUs of the world to find a couple of teams to play that aren't FCS schools. And for teams like Penn State or Virginia Tech, teams that aren't aspiring national champions this season, Youngstown State is fair game. The little guys can get their payday, the big guys can evaluate their hot dog vendor and fans can rest easy knowing the national champion, whoever it might be, will have deserved their spot in the playoffs. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch the game between Nevada University of Furniture Refinishing and the Montana College for Advanced Salad Making. It's a bitter rivalry. Very obscure...but very, very bitter.

Jackie joiner

The Little League team from Chicago's Jackie Robinson West has advanced to the US Championship game of the Little League World Series and I'm glad to see it. The team they beat to earn their spot in the championship game, Taney Little League, had gotten a lot of attention because of Mo'Ne Davis, the first girl to record a win as a pitcher in LLWS history.
As much as the hoopla surrounding Davis was well-deserved, I'm glad people are going to be forced to talk more about the kids from Jackie Robinson. The JRW team is comprised entirely of African American kids and it's the first time in more than three decades an all-black team has made it to Williamsport.
As a sports writer who has covered high school and youth sports for many years, I have to say this is quite an accomplishment. When I was in Little League, black athletes made up 1 of every 4 Major League Baseball players, whereas blacks made up 1 of every 8 people in the country. That figure in baseball declined steadily over the years. When I began my career as a sports writer, there were strikingly few black players in MLB. Six teams had no black players at all and only three had two or more. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have actively recruited white players over the past decade or so because there simply aren't enough black high school players to recruit.
Ironically enough, it was the success of a Chicago basketball star in the late 80s that helped the decline of players of color in baseball. A number of different initiatives have helped reverse that trend recently. Fittingly, a group of players from a league named after Jackie Robinson, are helping make a statement about the value these players of color add to the game. Thankfully, as the numbers of black kids has risen in youth baseball, so too have the numbers of players they can admire, like Matt Kemp, Andrew McCutchen, Brandon Phillips and more, increased at the pro level.
This greater inclusion, this broader diversity will not only impact the game in a positive way, the presence of the kids from JRW fits nicely into a bigger discussion that is happening in this country and, frankly, needs to happen.
Just as the Jackie Robinson team is living the highest of highs in Williamsport, protests have been happening nightly in Ferguson, Mo. centered around the lowest of lows for African Americans in this country. As the JRW kids have shown, in often neglected, forgotten about or unsupported communities throughout the country, a little effort, belief and opportunity can go a long way. There are new leagues in urban areas across the country now where there weren't as little as a decade ago. Further, Jackie Robinson West has proven that not only can the kids in these areas participate, they can excel if given enough support.
Still, the truth that cannot be ignored is that the effort is far short of what can be. Violence, crime, drugs and run-ins with law enforcement that end negatively are still far too common in the lives of too many young people in this nation. Homicide and incarcerations are still much more likely outcomes in the lives of a disturbingly high number of kids. Indeed, Chicago is nothing short of an utter battleground for many young people. Having made it to Williamsport is no guarantee that the players from JRW won't one day themselves be caught up in the negative forces that destroy lives and neighborhoods.
And that's the best thing that can come from Jackie Robinson West making it to the US Championship game. Perhaps it will force people to consider these realities while simultaneously understanding the impact support in these communities can have. True, the risk of dying in a gun-related incident is a very real proposition for the kids from JRW and for kids like them in places you don't know about. Yet, with a little faith, hope and effort, the Jackie Robinson kids can become national or even world champions. So too can kids from other struggling neighborhoods become champions in baseball...or science or medicine or engineering. But that will only happen when we start to collectively see the promise in all kids the way we see it in the kids from Jackie Robinson West and stop seeing kids as a source of menace, as happened in Ferguson and in communities across the country every day.

Irish Aye Aye Ayes

Notre Dame announced this week that they've launched an investigation into academic fraud related to four players on Notre Dame's football team. While all of this is going on, every other school in the country should launch a similar investigation because this sort of thing happens on every campus in the nation.
Not us, not here, not our campus, said the idiot.
Academic fraud is as much a part of college life as the keg party and the all-nighter. And forget about it being football players or basketball players. One need not be a Division I college athlete, or even an athlete of any kind, to engage in academic fraud. In the long run, I suppose there's little harm done by a little cheating here and there...unless it's your surgeon that passed by cheating. Or your lawyer. Or accountant. Or bridge engineer. Or elected official. Actually, scratch that last one. That's the only profession where practice in fraud comes in handy. That and banking.
I guess it's good that Notre Dame uncovered the potential fraud and is being proactive and corrective. The investigation promises to damage their football program this season, which is all the more reason their proactive steps are admirable.
In addition to investigating and correcting any problems in the present, Notre Dame also vowed to forfeit any previous wins wherein potentially ineligible players participated. This is my only issue in all of this. On the surface, it seems very stand-up and chivalrous to say, hey, we don't deserve these previous wins gained through unfair circumstances.
This happens a lot in situations like this in college football. Teams are involved in some wrong-doing and ultimately give up wins from previous seasons. To that I ask: who cares? Forfeit a whole season's-worth of games if it makes you feel better--and I know how Catholics are about redeeming themselves through repentance, so knock yourselves out. But who cares? What's the point?
A game in the past that Notre Dame won, they celebrated. Bettors won money based on that win. Notre Dame improved their bowl situation because of that win, maybe sold a few extra t-shirts and hats, maybe convinced a recruit to come to South Bend...whatever. What happens to all of that? Can you forfeit that? Can they forfeit the money the school earned from appearing in a BCS bowl as the result of the win? And what of the teams they beat? What if Rice or Air Force, for instance, finished the season with five wins instead of six and was, as a result, not eligible to play in a bowl? Can they go back and get invited to the Independence Bowl, New Orleans Bowl or something similar? No. They can't play in a retro-active bowl game, they don't get any of the recruiting benefits of playing in a bowl or the appearance fees for playing in a bowl or the simple life enrichment that comes with a late-December trip to El Paso or San Francisco.
So who cares? Forfeit the game. Or don't. It won't matter.
I went to the world's greatest party. Man, it was more fun than you can imagine and I partied until I dropped. Oh, the joy and the memories. My life wasn't the same after it. Later, I found out I wasn't invited so I feel badly for even going. That's what your forfeit is. The cow is gone. It's long gone. But, OK, close the barn door if it makes you feel better.

Brazilian Whacks

In case you missed it...oops, I forgot, this is the Internet...ICYMI, Germany defeated Brazil today in the World Cup semi-final, 7-1. Go ahead and let that score soak in a minute.
Soccer (or futbol/football) fans will immediately understand that nothing about that scoreline seems to make sense. First, part of the reason the sport hasn't exploded in the United States is because Americans don't generally have much tolerance for a gritty, 1-0 final. We prefer a 3-2 game, maybe 4-3, something along those lines. A 7-1 final score, particularly in a World Cup semi final game, doesn't even make sense to American fans.
Second, the quarter-final matches leading to this point have been pretty tightly contested matches. Often, with so much on the line, teams in most sports struggle simply to stay close. Their primary obsession is to avoid turning the ball over 13 times, thus handing the Super Bowl to the Seahawks...just, you know, for example. I'm not bitter.
Once they've made it a tight, competitive game, teams will then focus on a way to pull off some late heroics for the win. Despite missing some key players, most observers still would have or should have expected the same from this match.
Lastly, it's Brazil. It's not Our Lady of Faith's JV team...it's Bra-friggin'-zil. Brazil doesn't get rolled. They certainly don't get rolled in Brazil. Just on talent alone, in the midst of chaos and utter unpreparedness, Brazil's talent alone should have made for a closer match.
And yet, here we are.
But don't let Brazil's shortfall be a downfall for you...if you are still involved in sports in some way--a Little League coach, football player, member of the Miami Heat...
Try to learn a lesson from them. The lesson is simple and enduring. What happened to Brazil exposed some very important truths that are woven throughout every sport.
Lesson one: Your mentality is all important. Whenever I coach a youth team, I tell them nobody ever reached the top of Mt. Everest without first believing they could make it. Sure, lots of people believed it and failed anyway, but nobody ever thought it was impossible and still made it to the top.
Brazil never looked like they believed it. That psyched up, focused, game-face, ready-to-play thing athletes need to succeed? You need to wake up in the morning that way. You can't throw a switch and say, whoa, Germany means business, we'd better get after it. Once the avalanche starts, all you can do is get swallowed by it unless you show up determined to fight from the outset.
Lesson two: Talent can take you down the path but it can't take you to the finish. There's no way to shortcut greatness. You have to work. Think about it as a math equation. Team one has talent equal to 85. Team two's talent equals 100. Team one outputs at 100 percent; team two at eighty percent. This is why team one wins. A hundred percent of 85 is 85; 80 percent of 100 is 80. This is why being sharpened, focused, intense and ready for a fight ahead of time is important.
Being resolved to coast on talent is a recipe for an early exit...and any exit that doesn't include a trophy at the end is an early exit.
Lesson three: You have to put in effort. In Japanese baseball, for instance, effort is the most important quality a player or team can have. Japanese fans judge you by your effort, not your results. This might be the most important of these three lessons because it's as true in life as it is in sports. Effort doesn't equate to success but lack of effort so very, very often equates to failure. If Brazil had poured 100-percent of their heart and soul into that game, Germany probably still would have won the match. But if you give up, if you resign yourself to fate...well, then you lose 7-1. God! They're gonna win...forget it. That mentality is a certain path to getting pummeled. Shellacked. Drubbed. Manhandled. Crushed. Bombed. Thrashed...we have a lot of expressions in America for getting your heads kicked in.

And one last lesson: Germany, had they set their minds to it, probably could have scored a dozen goals in this game. But they didn't. It's one thing to lift your foot off the gas too soon, but it's quite another to embarrass your opponents for the sake of trying to embarrass them. They added a couple of extra goals following their 5-0 first half start, but they didn't really see the need to try to add more. There's no need to embarrass your foes. Besides, Brazil did a stellar job of embarrassing themselves without much intervention from Germany anyway.

I don't like Phil Jackson...and you shouldn't either

As a rule, I'm pretty laid back when it comes to other people. I've been friends, for instance, with people that other friends of mine didn't like. I try not let other people influence my opinions of others, nor do I cling (often) to strong opinions of specific people, good or bad.
That being said, I've read a lot of things lately online about how awesome Phil Jackson is. Oh, the Knicks are going to be globally dominant, Phil's special brand of zen magic and how he has never lost who he really is throughout his metamorphosis from mere mortal to the fully awesome person he is now. Even Oprah is in love with Phil--and what more of an endorsement does anyone need aside from the Oprah seal of approval.
Yet, here I am...unimpressed. True enough, Phil Jackson probably doesn't want nor need my sign off on his accomplishments. Indeed, he's probably a swell guy, fun at parties and always one to send a thoughtfully crafted thank you note when the occasion warrants. I'm still unimpressed. And you shouldn't be impressed either.
But...but Phil Jackson coached teams to 11 NBA championships...and the whole, you know...the Zen Master and so forth...what about that?
What about that?!?
Here's a concept that never enters into the "Phil Jackson is the greatest thing that ever happened to the NBA" equation: Name one--and I mean ONE--time Phil Jackson won a NBA championship when the best player in the league didn't play for him.
...I'll wait.
Answer: ZERO!
Phil Jackson has coached an entire career with not less than the best player in the league at the time playing for him. Yeah, but how many did Jordan win before Phil? Jordan: Six championships, all with Jackson...Jordan left for baseball, Jackson: zero championships without Jordan. Jordan returns and the next season after, the Bulls set a record for most wins in a single season (72 wins out of 82 games, if you're keeping track). So who is the real key figure here?
Move on the Los Angeles. Phil Jackson won five more titles. This time, Jackson had not only the best player in the league, he had the two best players in the league. During that championship span with the Lakers, the only thing remarkable is they managed to somehow not win the title every year. I'll take Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal and three other dudes of your choosing, pair them with some randomly chosen high school coach and I'll still come up with a NBA championship somewhere along the line.
And why be in the front office of the Knicks now? Why not coach? Because New York's roster is awful. Carmelo Anthony (if he stays) is quality, but he's not the best player in the league. If the Knicks suddenly re-sign Carmelo and then sign LeBron James, Jackson will end his coaching retirement in two seconds flat.
What team did he build into a champion? When did he coach a team that was in last place and built it into something? He's a great coach, a Zen Master, for crying out loud, because why? He somehow managed to turn the best, most talented team in the league into a champion? Wow! That's like marveling at the money management prowess of the Sam Walton heirs.
Do this: have Phil Jackson coach the Sixers to a championship this season, or the Utah Jazz. Heck, take them to the playoffs. But Phil won't do that. He never has and won't ever. Look at this amazing sundae! Ice cream, fudge, toppings, whipped cream...yummy...so delicious.  Yeah...but what about when the guy came along and put the cherry on top? Then it really became something.
That's so Zen...

5 Rules in Sports That Need to Change

There is a saying: Rules and bones are made to be broken. Most often, this is used to rationalize the reasons a particular person need a beat down. In my case, however, I use it to explain why some of the dumbest rules in sports need to be eradicated:

1. Offsides in Soccer: With the World Cup just days away, I thought it would be nice to start with one of the dumbest rules in any sport anywhere and that's offsides. I get it. I understand the rule and I know the reason why soccer has the rule. My point is: it's just plain stupid.
It's not fair! You have to give the defense a chance! And people in other countries wonder why soccer doesn't catch on more in America? The defense does have a chance. They're on the field...excuse me, pitch...aren't they? Can't they see the guy with the ball? Isn't there one player whose sole job (goal keeper) is to prevent the other team from scoring? No fair. He went down the field ahead of time!
Isn't the grace, finesse, speed and skill of the players what attracts fans to the game in the first place? We love the artistry of Messi...as long as there are a few guys in his way...
What would basketball be without breakaway dunks? "Wade with the steal, lobs ahead for LeBron, who's all alone...of course, he has to wait for some defenders to get back in transition..." Boy. That sounds like a fun spectacle.

2. Icing in hockey: A crash course for non-hockey fans: Hockey teams play the puck into their own offensive zone, so marked with a blue line. They can try to score so long as they keep the puck on their side of the blue line. The defense can clear the puck over the blue line and the offensive team has to start the process over. The defense cannot clear the puck across three or more lines (center line, opposite blue line and end line, for example) otherwise it's icing. You can't do that in hockey. My question is: why not? Who cares? That's like saying you can't punt in football.
Here, you can have the puck back but you have to go get it way down there. Why is that a problem? It's easier for the defense to end an offensive threat, true, but you also can't score by playing that way and last I checked, you need at least one goal to win a hockey game.
When a player is falling out of bounds in basketball, coaches instruct them to save the ball towards their own basket. If the other team gets it, they have to come up the court again to set up on offense. Soccer players are told to clear the ball out of bounds to end an offensive threat. There's a punt in football. You can intentionally walk a guy in baseball.
Why can't you end an offensive threat in hockey by conceding possession in the same way as other sports. Doesn't make any sense.

3. Charging in basketball: I hate charging calls. I hate trying to draw a charge. It's lazy and non-competitive. OK, if a guy has the ball and chucks the defender away like Marshawn Lynch running through the New Orleans Saints, sure, call a charge. That's the point of the rule. The offensive players can't just steamroll their way to the basket. And if you want to call something on the offense, call the Blake-Griffin-shoulder-in-the-chest-to-clear-space-between-me-and-the-defender move a charge.
But trying to draw a charge is so wimpy. It's such a give up play.
Hey, I stole the ball, I blocked a shot, I got a rebound, I forced a guy to alter his path to the basket and pass the ball off. What did you do to help the team win? Oh, I ran in front of someone, didn't try to steal or block a shot but I stood very still, like a statue, as if a mannequin was on the team and, despite the fact I'm 6' 9" and weigh 275, when the 5' 11" point guard brushed up against me, I fell on the ground. The ref saw me there and felt sorry for me so he called a foul. That's good defense. I played good defense, coach said so. Don't try to compete, he said to me. Don't 'D' someone up and make a play, he said. Just fall on the ground. Fall down if someone touches you, like it's time for a nap. That's good defense.

4. The 5-yard chuck in football: I know some people might not know what I mean, but in football, a defensive back can put his hands on a receiver and pretty well do whatever he wants within 5-yards of the line of scrimmage. This is another one of those "give the defense a chance" rules. You have a chance. You're on the field.
This rule is stupid to me because it's OK for one position and not OK for another. Defensive backs can grab a receiver by his shoulders and shove him every-which-way for 5-yards. Probably they aren't supposed to be allowed to grab them in such a manner but if it is a penalty, I rarely see it enforced. It's the 5-yard chuck rule, after all. You have to give the defense a chance.
But what about the offense? A guard or tackle can't make that play. If an offensive lineman touches a pass rusher in the shoulder, it's holding. If an O-lineman thinks about the word "shoulder," it's holding. But there's holding on every play! If they called everything... Yes, I've heard this argument. But what about the holding that goes on outside of the so-called "tackle box" on each play? You an O-lineman? Holding! Oh, you're a defensive back? It's OK...not too long, though, OK? Let go after a while. But before, sure, go ahead and hold all you want. Why not just give defensive backs a baseball bat? Here, you can kneecap as many receivers as you want...within five yards, of course.

5. The 10-second count in basketball: Basketball is full of needless and annoying rules. The dumbest of all of them has to be the 10-second count. Briefly explained, an offensive team has 10 seconds to advance the ball across the half court line. In the NBA, the count is shorter and in women's basketball it's non-existent, so the rule is already rife with inconsistency. The bigger question with this rule is, who cares? Why does the team have to advance the ball at all? There's a shot clock. They can only possess the ball for so long anyway. Why does it matter where they possess the ball? It's their shot clock. Let them use it however they want. Also, last I checked, you can play defense on all 4,700 sq. ft. of court space. If the defense doesn't want the offense to inbound the ball and just run the clock down, they can pressure them anywhere on the court--get a five second count against them, force a bad pass, a turnover, set a trap...there's all sorts of ways to deal with teams just sitting on the ball. This rule, for some reason or another, might have seemed necessary at one time, but it is no longer needed now for the reasons outlined.

Surely there are other rules in sports that serve no purpose (extra point in football, I'm looking at you...) but these five examples are the most glaring dumb rules I can think of. But don't take my word for it. Make up your own list.  

Self Fulfilling

It's graduation season, which means lots of photos and shared memories. And what a great day a graduation is, the validation of many years of hard work...or work...OK, just skating by. Nevertheless, it's the culmination of a lot of years, both an ending and a beginning. Naturally, people want to remember the moment with photos.
When I graduated from high school and college, my family attended and we snapped a bunch of photos. Other relatives from out of town and out of state were able to see them the next time they visited. These days, luckily, photos can be shared instantly on Facebook, Twitter and other social media outlets. Heck, you can even stream live video if you're so inclined.
Unless you're from a neighboring town near where I live. Photos, unless officially sanctioned, are off limits, especially to graduates. Two students at Elk Grove High School were denied their diplomas because they took selfies whilst walking across the stage after their names were announced.
Taking a selfie during graduation is against school policy. None of the kids, say, in the Class of 1974 took selfies, so...
The photos, which were captured on video, took all of 2 seconds to snap and caused next to no disruption in the flow of the ceremony. But rules are rules after all...even really stupid rules. The school doesn't want disruptions. Got it. The photos didn't really disrupt much, but that isn't the reason it's a dumb policy.
My real question in all of this is why can't "in charge" people understand the writing on the wall? This fight is long over. Every person in the audience over the age of four has a camera in their pocket and can snap a photo and have it posted to Facebook before the grad is finished walking across the stage.
I understand the school wants to maintain the credibility of their agreement with the official photographer, but trying to quell students from taking selfies is a lost cause in the long run.
A bigger problem, from the point of view of parents, is the students cannot get their diploma until they come to the Principal's office...with parents in tow. Yes, because parents aren't busy at all. And what is the purpose of that? To dish out one last lecture? To wag a disapproving finger? And why do parents have to be there? If you, as a school, drag me down to the school with my child, as if he's seven and not a high school graduate, I'm picking up that diploma and delivering a punch in the face.
Rather than try to enforce a stupid rule for graduation like no selfies or other equally uncontrollable things like no messages on mortar boards or no oxygen allowed, why can't they see there is nothing they can do to stand in the way of technology and set out some simple guidelines instead?
PS, "it's not allowed" isn't a guideline. Just tell the students graduation is a dignified event, selfies should take no more than 2-3 seconds, include just themselves in the main context of the photo and a few other standards related to dress code and decorum.
Or...you can simply run a school in a way that shows you relating to your students most effectively by keeping a boot across their throats.
Schools are learning institutions. So what did we learn here? Obey, unwaveringly, the people in power over you or suffer the consequences. What a great lesson to send your students as they depart high school and head into life as adults.

Hire Expectations

When news stories are on TV and radio or in the paper about the jobless totals, I count myself in that lot of people seeking a new job. The process is frustrating. A person can apply to so many jobs a day but certainly not enough to chew up the time span of a normal business day.
As such, there is time to think. Lots of time to think. So many job seekers spend time contemplating what problems are being caused on their end--not enough training in software, maybe the resume needs to be punched up. And so job seekers fix these things. And then they fix them again. They turn to one another often for support, ideas, advice.
At length, it might be that several or even many job seekers are not completely or remotely qualified for the job they apply for. It might be that their resume is poorly organized or emphasizes the wrong things. But this does not encapsulate every job seeker still being tallied among the jobless. For every unqualified job seeker with a poor resume, who is unreliable and asking too much salary for their services, there is at least one who is qualified, dependable, experienced and professional.
This is why I found it so aggravating when I read a recent newspaper article about the frustrations hiring managers are having.
The applicants, it seemed, weren't too keen on doing volumes of free work to demonstrate their skill level or stay persistent through four rounds of interviews.
All this says to me is that these frustrated hiring managers don't know what it is they are looking for, how to spot it when they see it nor do they work for a company worth working for. Let's take the first part first:
Consider hiring for a job much like scouting a player for college recruiting or being drafted into the NFL or NBA. The first thing a hiring manager needs is an understanding of the skill needed to excel in a position. I was a sports writer for many years, for example, and a colleague told me about a player being recruited by Boise State in football. I watched him play for a few minutes and could instantly see what the scouts saw--big, strong, balanced, good footwork...
Hiring managers need to be able to do the same thing and, through this process, it's clear a great many of them can't. I'm not sure what they are looking at when they have a need for a writer or editor, for instance, get resumes in from at least a half dozen quality writers (that I know of personally) only to see the job listing re-posted a month or two later.
This could be evidence of many things but mostly to me it's evidence the people doing the hiring don't know what they are doing. It might be, one HR friend of mine suggested, that they didn't get enough applicants to choose from. Mmm, good thinking. The Sacramento Kings are hiring basketball players, but the only two who applied are LeBron James and Kevin Durant...better wait for more applicants. That's just further proof you don't know what it is you're looking for and how to see it when it's in front of you as a hiring manager.
Now to the second part:
Professional people are, hmm, what's the word? Professional! Their time and skill is valuable. Why, then, would any self-respecting company on Earth try to hire someone by seeing if they will do a lot of work first for free?
Has anyone ever needed to hire a musician, say, and asked them to play a free gig at their daughter's wedding first? Hey doc, could you cure my cancer for free first, then I'll see if I'd like you as my family doctor? Hey contractor, remodel my kitchen for free and then I'll decide if I want you to remodel my whole house.
This is what hiring managers sound like when asking graphic artists, web designers and others to provide a sample of work not from a previous company or project. Why would any professional person subject themselves to that sort of subjugation? That's probably why you aren't getting enough people to apply.
Lastly, there is the issue of companies that have an opening and simply will not fill it. I applied for a local company some time ago and had a phone interview. The hiring agent asked me a range of questions related to the position. I understood, I assured her, the subject matter of the company, the nature of the position and answered in the affirmative when asked if I possessed each certain skill related to the position. Months have passed. I clearly didn't get the job, but someone certainly must have, I rationalized. They either haven't hired anyone or haven't hired anyone with the specified skills. Their website, the updating of which is the responsibility of the person in this position, still shows the position vacant.
And it's not just me and that one job. I know of dozens of jobs that have been vacant for months--and I don't mean a month or two, I mean seven, eight, nine months. And what are the job seekers left to do? Apply to the job again? And again? And again?
Surely there is something to be said about the number and quality of those seeking jobs. A major problem, from my perspective continues to be the hiring process itself. No hiring manager should need to see excessive work samples, ask for free work to be done or interview a pool of candidates four or five times.
More problematic still is the number of jobs listed on various sites and the number of people being hired over the due course of time is not equivalent. If a company gets 100 perfect candidates, it doesn't do anything to the jobless tally if those companies decide, at long last, to hire nobody.
Now where is the news article discussing this notion?

A Sterling Winner

Many fans, players and others affiliated with the NBA have been up in arms over some recent racist comments by LA Clippers' owner Donald Sterling. Many people in these various constituencies have mulled what to do to send a clear message that racist attitudes will not be tolerated, neither publicly nor privately, by anyone associated with the NBA.
The problem is, short of forcing Sterling to step down as the owner of the Clippers, there isn't a lot that will have Donald Sterling come away as anything but a winner when it's all said and done.
His comments are crass, his actions deplorable and his attitude inexcusable but Sterling, and others like him, won't suffer as a result.
There is, of course, one way for the players, the league and the fans to come away as winners and have Sterling be the one that pays a severe price, all while sending a clear message that racist attitudes and behaviors will not be tolerated in the NBA in any way. Of course, it's unlikely any of these parties will take that action.
What, for example, can the players and coaches do? Continue to play? Persevere through the adversity, triumph in the face of the controversy? Win an NBA championship despite the turmoil? Wow. That's a story right out of Hollywood, right? Except, what happens to Sterling in that scenario? He wins an NBA championship, too.
But what about the fans? What can they do? Not go to the game? Stay home? Keep away from Staples Center as if to say, no, we won't support a team financially--with our purchases of merchandise, concessions and other things--as long as Sterling is the owner? Of course they won't do that. They love their players and it's the playoffs. So what happens to Sterling then? People who hate his attitude prove a point by giving him money? Boy, that sends a strong message.
And the league? What can they do? Fine him? Sure, the last thing NBA owners have is a pile of money. A fine, even a big one, a really, really, really big one, will do little to show Sterling his attitude and comments can't be tolerated. He'll still own the team and still benefit from the team's success...which is perpetuated by the fans showing up to games and the team playing and winning.
So what can be done, then? Turn our shirts inside out. Yeah, that'll show him!
Try this: Don't play and don't show up.
That's the real message being sent in this situation. In fact, it's the ONLY message that can be sent. The fans, players and league, short of that, are in their own way enabling Sterling's attitude. By not playing, the players will be saying to Sterling and everyone else, our beliefs are more important than a championship. We are willing to sacrifice our shot at our ultimate goal to stand for what we believe. It's a painful and difficult decision, but certainly one that clearly demonstrates a conviction of belief.
Civil rights advocates were willing to go to jail for what they believed, and it wasn't just Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, but so-called everyday people, jailed by the hundreds. But they went to jail to prove a point and it was eventually a point well-made.
Surely NBA players and fans don't think an NBA championship is too great to make such a selfless sacrifice for.
And what happens in that scenario? The players and fans boycott until Sterling is removed and then what happens? ESPN and Turner don't have games to broadcast, the Clippers forfeit games and therefore their shot at a the title, advertisers lose out on potential ad spots during the games, the league loses out through the perpetuation and expansion of the distracting controversy...and all of these loses are spelled out easily in a language these groups can all readily understand and that's revenue.
When billion-dollar corporations have to take a major financial hit, it won't be long before they collectively pressure Sterling to step down or sell the team. Heck, I know a group in Anaheim that will buy the team. They can keep their brand, keep their fanbase, move from out of the shadow of the Lakers, be without their racist owner and still have several quality seasons ahead to make a serious title run.
But does anybody have the courage to make such a stand? I doubt it.
So come Tuesday, fans will still decide to give their money to a racist, players will still choose to work for and be paid by a racist, the networks will continue to financially support a racist and corporations will gladly buy in to the system that helps protect a racist.
And exactly what kind of message do you think that sends?

Five Things So Far

Here we are, just a few months into 2014 and I've already learned five very important lessons in the world of sports:

1. Dominance, for lack of a better term, is good...except in women's sports. Normally, a dominant program in some sport or another leaves opposing teams with two very simple choices: keep getting your heads handed to you or do what you can to improve. Whether its the NFL, NBA, NASCAR or some other sport, the presence of a team like the Miami Heat or a competitor like Jimmy Johnson forces the others to work harder. This doesn't, for some reason, seem to apply as much in women's sports. Certainly lesser women's teams are working as diligently as possible to catch up to UConn in basketball, for example. It's not really working. The women's college basketball final featured two previously undefeated teams and the result wasn't even close. Had two unbeaten men's teams played in the finals and one team defeated the other by 21 points, pundits would have called it the biggest anticlimax in the history of sports. And it's not just UConn in basketball. Penn State has won five of the last seven championships in volleyball; North Carolina has won half of the championships in soccer in the past 10 years; and with only moderate additional diversity, Pac 12 schools have won softball titles in 11 of the past 15 years. Women's sports, in that light, still have some progress to make. When Mercer beats Duke in the women's basketball tournament, then we'll know we've made progress.

2. Baseball umpires can wreck anything. The 2014 MLB season started with the lure of more conclusive and correct calls and fewer arguments with the introduction of expanded instant replay. While all parties agreed there would be some necessary tweaks over time, few thought a major flaw would be illustrated just two games into the season. During a game between the Diamondbacks and Giants, San Francisco pitcher Matt Cain tagged a runner at the plate attempting to score. The umpire ruled the runner safe. Upon further review, Cain clearly applied a tag. It was the sort of clear-cut, plain-as-day review that the process dreams about. Except...there was no further review. The Giants had previously (and unsuccessfully) challenged a play at first base and lost their challenge. The umpire couldn't review it on his own. The Giants couldn't challenge, so the plain-as-day video was meaningless.  And what is the purpose of instant replay, you ask? It's so the umpires can get the call on the field correct...except...

3. A Duke education is not worth much. Now, this is a ridiculous statement. Sure, I'm no fan of Duke basketball, but even I'm willing to concede that Duke can dispense a top-level education. Or can it? I read recently that Duke freshman Jabari Parker is "seriously contemplating returning to Duke next season..." If that's true then Duke must not be capable of imparting wisdom to its students after all. Parker is easily--and I mean easily--a top five draft pick in the upcoming draft. The purpose of college is to prepare you for the future. Mission accomplished. Only bad things can come from an extra year at Duke. Such as, you ask? A minor injury, which could raise draft questions. A major injury, which, at worst, would end his career and rob him completely of any NBA potential. A freak situation off the court--like what? Who knows? That's why it's a freak situation. Freak situation-plus NBA-equals some money. Freak situation-plus Duke-equals questionable future. Duke will also have a deeper team next season, which means either fewer chances to showcase his abilities and growth or a greater insistence to not have fewer touches, thus painting him as a selfish player who puts the team second. Any or all of these factors will cause his draft stock to fall. Very few things I can think of will cause it to rise appreciably. Either Duke cares about its players and will convince him its in his best interest to go to the NBA or Duke cares about itself and won't.

4. NASCAR is both smart and stupid. NASCAR, above all other major sports, does more to alter rules so races are more competitive and as entertaining for fans as possible. They've done a pretty good job, as well. New rules this season have motivated riskier decisions by crew chiefs and drivers, opening the door for a wider array of drivers to win races, keeping the folks dressed in M&M's shirts, Mountain Dew hats and carrying Lowe's coolers to leave the track happy. But I don't understand their race pattern. The season starts in Daytona. OK. Got it. Start with a bang at the biggest event of the year. Races in recent weeks have taken place in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Texas, Tennessee and Virginia...though not in that logical of an order. Does NASCAR simply hate the car hauler drivers? West coast, east coast, back to west, then east, now to Texas. Why not just go LA, Vegas, Phoenix, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia? The hauler drivers can't be trusted in Vegas for 2-3 days? Who can, really? I get that there's a "third Saturday in October" element to race scheduling, but surely a few minor adjustments can be made.

5. The NFL is powerful. The NFL is powerful...really, really, super powerful. Not moments after the Super Bowl, fans were looking forward to pro days, owner's meetings, free agency, the combine and everything else leading up to Draft Day. I don't mean the day when players get picked one after another, I mean the new Kevin Costner movie, Draft Day. The film was made with an unusually high amount of NFL licensing involved. How else, after all, do you make the film seem as real as possible, mimicking authentic NFL draft day war room experiences without NFL licensing and stamp of approval. But the movie had something else I, as a creative process person, had never heard of before, and that's the NFL stamp of disapproval. A scene, in which Kevin Costner is hanged in effigy--one can suspect for his work in The Postman--added to the overall authenticity of the film. A stuffed GM being hanged by the fans of a losing franchise is about as real as it gets. But the NFL cut the scene. Not the production company, the studio, the editor, the director, the focus group, or even Costner. The NFL cut the scene. Wow. The NFL didn't believe the scene was in keeping with the general image and overall tone they want to project, which is understandable. But wow, though. Hollywood is massively powerful. You know what's more powerful than that? The NFL. No Hollywood, no film about the NFL. No NFL, no film, period. And guess who got what they wanted? What's the national pastime? Entertainment? Sports? Money? Passion? The NFL owns all of it.

Stamp of Approval

Remember in school when they'd tell you to check your work? I did that recently. Well, someone else did it for me, that is. When the national debate began a few months back about raising the federal minimum wage from its current level to as high as $15 an hour, I set out to consider the likelihood of this possibility utilizing something very dangerous and potentially lethal to me: math.
I'm a words guy. Math isn't my friend. However, having been employed in a lowly minimum wage job once when the minimum wage was raised...by a full and hearty 75 cents, by the by, I was curious to calculate the feasibility of basically doubling the current wage.
One company bearing the brunt of the wrath about the minimum wage was Wal Mart. As such, I used Wal mart as my base example, researching the general number of wage-earners employed by Wal Mart, estimating (out of thin air, no less) what the average wage said worker earned and set about calculating the impact an increase of this size would have on a company of this magnitude.
What I came up with is a total of about $5 billion in added annual costs to Wal Mart's budget. It sounds like a lot, but when I calculated the overall impact this cost would have on consumers (because, let's face it, the Wal Mart heirs aren't going to eat a loss, not matter how big or small), it turns out the added amount for payroll would have next to no impact on a Wal Mart shopper's average total at the check out.
Of course, while I was confident in my equation, I wasn't too confident in my mathematical logic. Turns out, through some miracle of calculation, I was pretty close to accurate. This week, for some reason, a few videos have popped up on YouTube addressing this very subject. One video in particular, done by actual mathematicians and statisticians, contemplated the impact a so-called living wage would have on food stamps.
A living wage, per the video, is the amount needed to prevent people from relying on food stamps to any degree, which they suggested was just shy of $14, or a little more than a buck less than in my equation. The total cost to Wal Mart, they calculated, would be about $4.8 billion, which is close to the figure in my model. The bottom line increase for shoppers came to about 1.4%, or roughly enough to jack a 68 cent box of mac n' cheese up to about 69 cents.
The savings to taxpayers is about $300 million annually...and that's just if Wal Mart's minimum and low wage earners were given a livable wage increase. Of course, Wal Mart earns a lot of revenue from food stamps, which is a minor problem for them if a huge source of food stamp revenue disappears as a result of a living wage. Of course, their employees will have far more disposable income and will be capable of purchasing things with cash that they cannot with food stamps. The economic impact for Wal Mart, in that light, might even be a net gain. Even if the result is pure loss, if $4.8 billion added a penny to the cost of mac n' cheese, I'm sure an extra $300 million isn't going to add much more to the overall total. Consumers, I'm sure, can managed two or three extra cents in their budget if it saves them $300 million or more in taxes each year.
The real question at the end of all of this is why there isn't more political traction behind this? After all, the wage helps lift thousands out of poverty, which is a key Democratic ideal, eliminates the demand for food stamps, easing pressure on the federal deficit and creates an avenue through which taxes can be cut for millions of Americans, which is music to Republicans. It's tailor-made for bi-partisan agreement, and yet here we are.
It's something to consider the next time a member of either party approaches you for your vote.

Pay Attention

The National Labor Relations Board ruled recently in favor of a group of athletes from Northwestern University, granting them the right to form a union and, thus, demand better working conditions (read: get paid).
The Northwestern decision will certainly cascade across the country, spilling to private school campuses at first and ultimately across publicly-funded universities thereafter. The ruling opens up a whole new realm of excitement in this continuing debate. It will be fun, for instance, to see traditionally non-union folks quickly switching to pro-union views when their non-union school of choice begins getting pummeled by their pro-union rivals. It happens. Getting beaten down by rivals is the whole reason Duke University ended segregation on its campus--years after Martin Luther King was assassinated, just FYI.
But being pro or anti union isn't the real issue in this case. The real issue is whether or not college athletes are employees or students. The schools, of course, argue the players are students. They are, after all, called student-athletes, not athlete-workers.
Proponents of the schools' point of view will further point out the athletes are getting paid via room and board, tuition and a first-rate education. There is ample evidence, however, many of the athletes in college are not only not getting an education but are not in any way remotely fit to be considered college students academically. So the student argument is, at the very least, flawed.
Certainly the athletes aren't employees insomuch as the sweet lady at the counter at the Registrar's. The athletes do undoubtedly help generate revenue and esteem for the college. Kids at North Carolina, for instance, are certainly there in part because of UNC's basketball program and a possible off-chance sighting of Michael Jordan.
Florida State, for instance, has produced in the past 10 years, more football national championships than Harvard University. It has also produced more Rhodes Scholars than Harvard in that span. Which one is the reason random people across the country buy Seminoles T-shirts and hats?
A large school, a BCS school if you will, can generate $200 million in tuition each year. Any collection of 80-90 students might generate $600,000 of that. The 85 scholarship football players at Texas, LSU, Alabama and similar schools can generate between $60-80 million on their own. Yet NCAA rules are constructed in a way that people must treat the athletes and day-to-day students 100% the same. But they aren't the same. The athletes, in fact, are disadvantaged in many ways. I can buy a group of college kids a pizza or offer them a ride across campus to their next class. I can't do that with scholarship athletes. College kids can earn their own pizza or car to drive themselves across campus by working on or off campus jobs. Scholarship athletes can't. ESPN analyst Greg Anthony owned a business while a student at UNLV. The NCAA found out and gave him a choice: abandon the business or abandon his scholarship.
And then there's the argument about money corrupting college sports. First, that ship has sailed. Second, most people are arguing in favor of a stipend, not payroll. It's not unreasonable to suggest these athletes earn enough to say, buy a pizza or have some gas to put in their car, buy a plane ticket home for the holidays or similar things of that nature.
As for the corruption, there is currently no counter-balance for it, which is why it exists. I'm reminded of a scene from the old TV show Three's Company where a character, posing as a police detective, tries to assert his morality in the face of a mobster, telling the kingpin, "the law is the law..." The mobster produces a wad of cash, replying, "how does a hundred bucks sound?" The morality stance shrivels as the character snatches the cash, responding, "a lot better than what I just said." And that's what you have with cases like Reggie Bush and the so-called Cash and Carry scandal while he was at USC. On the one hand, the money for things he wants and needs. On the other, a glowing angel, urging him to do right. That's a no contest for the average 19-year old. As a result of the scandal, Bush was stripped of his Heisman, USC forfeited its National Championship (but not the money it earned as a result), future USC teams paid a price in the loss of scholarships and head coach Pete Carroll was roundly punished with a job in the NFL and a Super Bowl ring...wait...
And there's a bigger question to ask: Why are the schools resistant? ESPN routinely pays major conferences billions of dollars for TV rights to their games. Where is that money? You don't know and the schools and conferences aren't going to tell you. The highest paid public employees in states like Alabama, Kentucky or Florida are almost always college football or basketball coaches--and it's not even a closed contest, frankly. People don't know that Cal has the top school in the country for civil engineering but probably know it's where Jason Kidd or Aaron Rodgers went. South Carolina is the top college in the nation for International Business. More people know that it's where Jadeveon Clowney played. The Big House is on the campus at Michigan, which is also the nation's top school for business management. It is athletics, not academics, that is putting these schools on the map and putting students it their classrooms.
So think then, about how preposterous an idea it is for college athletes to want to unionize. They generate vast amounts of revenue, nobody is monitoring their academic aptitude to any great degree, they assume the majority of the risk and take the brunt of the discipline in the face of scandal, they create the public face of the University and provide a major reason attracting other students to the campus and people still begrudge them for trying to do something to improve their existence? If fighting to improve this situation isn't the point of having a union, I'm not really sure what unions are for. And as for the other element of unions, seems to me the athletes have more than paid their dues.  

Silver Mettle

As the NBA season this year is coming to a close, analysts are already looking forward to next season and some potential changes. One of the key changes being considered by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is whether or not the league should extend the minimum age limit to play in the NBA from 19 to 20. Another is how, if at all, the NBA D-League should be restructured.
The solution to me seems obvious. The NBA should borrow the model in place with baseball and hockey. Major League Baseball has a developed minor league system, as does the NHL. Players can  be drafted into either professional sport directly out of high school. If they are good enough to play at the major league level, they play. If not, they play in the minor league system where they develop their skills, earn a living and, with luck, eventually ascend to the major league level.
The players, of course, can also choose to play college baseball or hockey (or Juniors Hockey, which is pretty much college hockey sans the schoolwork) and enter the draft at a later date. In the case of college baseball, players aren't eligible for draft until after their junior season. This helps baseball programs with their recruiting and development and, with recent examples of Evan Longoria, Buster Posey and Max Scherzer, doesn't seem to hurt player development or draft interest--in fact, recent high-rounder Gerrit Cole was drafted in the first round as both a high schooler and college player, so...
At any rate, the NBA could rescind the age limit, expand the number of rounds in the draft, connect D-League teams more directly to NBA affiliates and allow high school players to enter the draft. The occasional Kobe or LeBron could play immediately, others with promise that want to earn a living for a year or two prior to ascending to the league could do so and the rest could commit to college for three or more seasons. This would allow coaches to develop their programs over time and we'd have far more situations with veteran-led teams, like George Mason some years back or Mercer this year, creating added excitement in March Madness.
Certainly the absence of Jabari Parker, Julius Randle or Andrew Wiggins would hurt their respective teams, but it's doubtful in any given year the loss of a half dozen players of this caliber would hurt college basketball as an institution.
In time, as has been the case with college baseball, many college basketball players would come to understand their future in professional basketball is unlikely and be more encouraged to stay a fourth or fifth year and graduate or pursue post-graduate degrees. Then we, as fans, could benefit far more over the course of time from their educations, than simply rooting for these players a few years while wearing Carolina blue.
And think of the benefit to the D-League. If the Kings, for instance, drafted Jabari Parker and felt he wasn't quite ready, think of the interest that would create for Reno's games, where he would play and develop. Seems like a win-win, plus an extra win, scenario. If Silver wants to leave his own stamp on the NBA and get out of the shadow cast by David Stern, this is a move that would certainly do it.  

Not Included

It's almost time for the biggest "who really cares" event in sports, the NIT. At one time, the NIT was a prestigious tournament, but these days people more frequently joke that NIT stands for "Not Invited Tournament" or "Not Included Tournament."
Decades ago, there would be some debate over which team was the true national champion, the winner of the NIT or the winner of the NCAA Tournament. Now, about all the NIT champion can lay claim to is to show the NCAA Selection Committee that they should have been included in the Big Dance.
Of course, I'm not so certain the NIT champion can make that claim alone. The NCAA Tournament used to only include conference champions, hence the importance of conference tournaments and the inclusion of so-called AQ or automatic qualifier teams. Too many quality teams, it was argued, were left out of the NCAA Tournament, which is what fueled the NIT/NCAA champion debate. The Tournament field was expanded several times to include 68 teams as of today. This, the argument holds, should be enough to ensure everyone who has claim to the national title is included. But as the NIT bracket plainly shows, this isn't the case. Do any of the NIT teams have any claim on the national crown? Probably not. They do, however, have more of a claim to it than teams included in the March Madness bracket.
I can't even begin to reconcile how Cal Poly, a team that was both sub-.500 overall and in Big Sky competition, deserves a berth at the Big Dance...and yet, there they are, with a 13-19 record and, as of this moment, as good a chance to win the national championship as Florida or Kansas. Except, Cal Poly has to play a so-called "play-in" game, meaning they have one extra win to compile in order to cut the nets down in Arlington after the Final Four. That seems fair. Except it isn't fair. The idea behind seeding is that top-seeded teams should, theoretically, have a somewhat easier path to the Final Four, making success in the regular season meaningful. But...then...a pair of #12 seeds and #11 seeds are also involved in "play in" games. Why should NC State or Iowa have a tougher path to the Final Four than Eastern Kentucky? Sure, EKU plays a tougher team in the opening round but they have to win fewer games to reach the Final Four.
But back to the original point about the NIT. Isn't the purpose of March Madness to crown a national champion? Ha ha, the basketball pundits claim, if only football had an awesome tournament like us. Indeed. But why not have a tournament that includes the 68 best teams in the country? Surely there will still be some snubs and debate, but some cases are not up for debate.
#15 seed American University lost to USF and St. Mary's, two teams in the NIT. #15 Wofford lost to NIT teams Georgia and Minnesota (by 20 or more in each game). Cal Poly was able to advance to Big Dance because it went 1-2 against UC Irvine. The "1" in question just happened to come in the conference tournament.
And conference tournaments are another thing. After the expansion of the field, the value of winning (and therefore even playing) a conference tournament became pointless. And yet there they are, still be contested to this day. In fact, not only do these meaningless conference tournaments still exist, conferences that never had tournaments before have since added them. And why would that be? While you think about it, I will simply say, this blog post is brought to you by Coke Zero, Hyundai and our friends at Buffalo Wild Wings. Have you figured it out yet?
I guess it really doesn't matter much one way or the other, as long as there are 68 total teams...unless you're Cal Poly...or UC Irvine...or SMU or Green Bay or Georgia or St. Mary's or...

Sermon on the Mount

It happened again. It seems to happen every year around this time. Mount St. Mary's upset their way to a conference tournament championship and earned a bid to March Madness as the automatic qualifier (AQ) from the Northeast Conference despite their 16-16 record. They are the latest in a continuous string of .500 or sub .500 teams to reach the Big Dance. 

And Mount St. Mary's isn't the only so-called AQ team in this tournament. Many of these will be the only team from their conference to advance to the NCAA Tournament. The inclusion of these Cinderella schools is part of what gives March Madness its charm. Giving a team like Mount St. Mary's a chance to take down a team like Villanova or Duke is part of what draws fans to the tournament. 

But the tournament is, at the end of the day, a process to crown a national champion, not a reward for a solid season. And even if it is a reward, many deserving teams are left out because the bracket is obligated to include these AQ teams. 

Shouldn't the tournament selection process be about including the top 68 teams in the country, without consideration of automatically qualifying? The penalty paid by a team like Cal, for instance, isn't that they didn't have a good season, it's that they didn't have that same season while playing in the Horizon League or the Patriot League. 

Take a potential bubble team, BYU. If the Cougars are excluded and Mount St. Mary's remains, it's hard to argue that the top 68 teams made it to the tournament. BYU, after all, played the Mountaineers this season and pummeled Mount St. Mary's by 32 points. 

And BYU isn't alone. Other teams wringing their hands nervously before the final selection is announced include schools like Iowa, Pittsburgh and Colorado. Each of those teams is in the top 50 in RPI ratings, which is a bit like the basketball version of BCS standings. Coastal Carolina, Eastern Kentucky and Wofford, in comparison, are all in the tournament by virtue of their AQ status. None of them are in the top 100 in the RPI. In fact, Coastal Carolina isn't even in the top 200 in the RPI. 

How do you think that would work for football? The playoffs are Florida State, Ohio State, Texas...and for kicks, Mount Union. 

Surely if Cal defeated Florida, it would still be an upset, so that aspect of the tournament's charm isn't lost. And isn't Pittsburgh vs. Arizona a far more intriguing first-round match up than Kansas vs. Stony Brook?

And so what of these Cinderella schools? If not for the AQ process, how will they make it? Play better schools and beat them...at least some of the time. Part of the reason teams like Maryland and NC State might be left out is they played an entire season's-worth of games, week in and week out, against Duke, UNC, Pitt, Clemson, Syracuse, Virginia and on and on and on. But is Cal or Iowa or Colorado better than Stony Brook or Georgia State? Probably on most nights. So what sense does it make that these better teams be left to watch the tournament while teams that aren't as good get a chance to play in it? Perhaps teams will start migrating to different conferences for other reasons. I doubt, however, anyone wants to see Boston College be the Colonial League champions for the next 23 years in a row.    

An App for that

In the process of finding a new job, I've learned a lot about the job market and how it works. Think of it this way: if you were going to break into a bank, you'd probably learn everything you could about it-when it opens and closes, its resources, the size and type of vault, the security system and the fastest route from said bank to the Cayman Island, which is apparently the preferred destination of villains throughout the world.
That's been me. I've been trying to break into the workforce. I've researched, studied, examined...I've dangled from the ceiling dressed up like Tom Cruise, all the while a stream of groovy mod music playing in the background (binka binka binkbink, binka binka binkbink, doodle doo, doodle dee, doodoot).
And here's what I've learned to date about why there are evidently so many jobs, so much political push to get people back to work and yet so very many people out of work for several months (if they are lucky) and several years in most cases: People in charge of hiring are not that bright and the application process is ridiculous.
Here's an example: A friend had a recent discussion with a living, breathing HR manager. There was an issue over what qualified as "major coursework." His logic-ahem, hem-followed that, since this friend had yet to complete a thesis, having finished every other class in a Master's program, the "major coursework" could not be considered. Yes, anyone who has ever graduated from college knows that until you graduate, you've never taken any classes. I've taken a CPR course but the guy hasn't signed my certificate yet, ergo I'm not equipped to save a life. That's HR logic.
In another example, a job was open where there were a series of automated check boxes to determine qualifications. A hundred boxes, check 99 as "yes" and one as "no" and the program came back saying, "sorry, you're not qualified."
Navy Seal job application: Military background, yes. Super human fitness levels, yes. Proficiency with various weapons systems, yes. Master marksman, yes. Completed extensive skydiving and scuba training, yes. Stealth operations expert, yes. Highly trained, highly motivated patriot willing to die for his country, yes. Been to San Diego before, no. Sorry, you don't qualify.
But what do you expect when so many jobs have so-called resume filters that seek out keywords in resumes, automatically disqualifying those without enough key buzzwords? The average employer, a career counselor explained, will spend less than one minute reviewing your resume. OK, fair enough. A recent job I applied for had a counter where you could see the total number of people who had applied for that specific job. In this case, it was 341. That's 341 minutes to review resumes. That's just under six hours. That's one whole work day, an hour for lunch and an hour of being unproductive-coffee break, bathroom break, talk to a co-worker. So your HR manager doesn't have one day to spend finding a dozen applicants to interview? That's what a resume filter is for? And with most other jobs, the number of applicants is smaller. Combine that with the fact that 99% on a test equals a failing grade and no wonder so many applicants are still out of work.
Here in Sacramento, however, there is an even more troubling problem. The largest employer in Sacramento County is the State of California. The problem with the State isn't resume filters, it's the opposite. To apply for any State job, an applicant has to fill out a paper job application. A paper job application--as if you're going to apply for a job with the State, Miller's Outpost, Kay Bee's Toys and then hit the food court later. What is the point of a resume? Everything you could possibly want to know about an employee is on the resume-experience, education, training, awards, references. Worse still, the State keeps track of how you heard about the opening. I've never not checked the "Internet" box. Two other options are "Advertised in..." as if people still pay for classified ads. The worst one is the "jobline" notice. Jobline. Really? Let me see what jobs are open: chiiick, tick tick tick, chiiiick, tick tick tick tick, (that's the sound of a rotary dial phone, just FYI). Let me call the jobline before I grab some lunch at the soup kitchen. Hopefully this New Deal idea will take hold soon. I think it might be easier to send my resume in via carrier pigeon. I don't want to overwhelm the State with a technology overload.
Finally, there's the e-mail inquiries that make no sense. An e-mail I got once noted the job in question was in a city some distance from my current home. Would you be willing to relocate, the HR woman wanted to know. No. I applied for a job in Los Angeles because I wanted to make more work for you. Ha ha, my plan worked. How about let me worry about it. Sir, we'd like you to play for the Philadelphia Eagles...hmm, but it says here you're located in California...
And that's how my career in the NFL ended.
Now then, I'm off to the City. I understand they're building a span across the Golden Gate. Hopefully my ox cart can get me there in time to fill one of the openings.