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.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Thursday, May 29, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, May 12, 2014
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?
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?
Sunday, April 27, 2014
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?
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?
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, April 7, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)