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.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Friday, August 29, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, July 7, 2014
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...
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...
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)