Stupid stuff to pass the time until the playoffs

Beginning of the end...

It would appear that Pacman Jones is beginning his final hurrah.

Sure, he might be able to dodge this bullet because no charges have been filed, but I won't be surprised if Roger Goodell throws the book at him given the fact that Goodell pretty much told him no more transgressions of any sort. Assaulting one of his security contingent employed by the Cowboys (an in turn the NFL) is not keeping out of trouble. To coin a Red-ism, "dumbass."

Best of the best...

Baseball and football are interesting beasts.

On paper, in all sports, the best team doesn't always win. It's why things like the 2001 Patriots happen. As the saying goes, "any given Sunday..." While it's unlikely, it's not unrealistic for a winless team to beat the best (or one of the best) team(s) in football. Baseball just doesn't work that way.

Sure, on any given day the worst team can beat the best team in baseball, but the scheduling, the post season system - they all favor the best team. Over a five or seven game series, the best team will invariably rise to the challenge, while the inferior team falters.

Yes, there might be a negligible difference between the teams on paper, but that's where the intangibles come in.

Just the way it is.

Nomenclature...

For roughly the last 60 years, major league franchises have either been on the move, or have searched for new identities - sometimes due to moves, sometimes without ever moving. There were a couple that were earlier than the last 60 years (the Redskins who once played in Boston come to mind), but it has happened with much higher frequency over the last six decades.

A brief list of once existing franchises (some still exist in some form, some are just gone) -

Frankford Yellow Jackets (football)
Brooklyn Dodgers (baseball)
Minneapolis Lakers (basketball)
New Orleans Jazz (basketball)
Houston Colt .45's (baseball)
Washington Bullets (basketball)
Chicago Cardinals (football)

Often the names have regional associations - the Browns were named for Paul Brown, the team's first coach. The New Orleans Jazz...well, that's obvious, and then you had the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers.

Sometimes, like in the case of the Browns, the name really should stay with the place. I mean, really, what Lakes are even close to Los Angeles? Jazz in Salt Lake City? Yeah, right.

The Dodgers I can live with - I mean, they went from dodging trolleys to dodging bullets. Right?

But there really are just times that the teams need to change what they're doing when it comes to regional marketing. Imagine, for a moment, the Oklahoma City Marlins, or the Durham Twins or even the Pensacola Packers. Doesn't work, does it? There's a reason why the Minnesota North Stars became the Dallas Stars, and the Hartford Whalers became the Carolina Hurricanes.

Cry me a river

I've been meaning to comment on this for several days now - the MLB Umpire's Union crying foul over the fact that baseball's executive offices, in the wake of the NBA ref scandal, wants the umpires to undergo background checks.

"We understand the need in light of what's taken place. But we feel we just don't need to have a knee-jerk reaction and a witch hunt,'' Lamell McMorris, spokesman for the World Umpires Association, told Sports Illustrated.

I understand that as the spokesman for the WUA, McMorris has a responsibility to his constituents to put the worst possible face on MLB's request. Unfortunately, he is giving in to severe hyperbole in describing what most of the rest of the baseball viewing public is viewing as a reasonable request.

I know I'm not alone in watching umpires with erratic strike zones and wondering how a pitch in the top half of an inning is a strike and in the bottom half a ball.

While I don't think background and credit checks are needed for all jobs, it seems to make perfect sense to me that it would and should be needed for game officials on the professional and collegiate levels.

In 2003, on-line gamblers in the US bet an estimated $6 billion and the estimated gross amount for sports wagering on-line (worldwide) was in excess of $63 billion. According to the Online Gambling Research and Markets Group, on-line gambling will reach $125 billion by 2015.

Is it really too much for a professional sports league to ask that they have every reassurance that their game officials aren't beholden to sports bookies?

What really bothers me about the WUA's stance is the last item they sent to MLB offices demanding that this be negotiated, and that the following statement was in the letter - "The safeguards that will be adopted to ensure that umpires will not be subject to disciplinary or other adverse job actions stemming from or based upon any of the information."

In essence, they are saying that if we agree to let you do these background checks, we don't want you to be able to do anything about it if you find that one of the umpires is doing something he/she shouldn't be doing.

This is all indicative of a greater problem in professional sports.

The inability of the groups to realize that, ultimately, the most important aspect of what they are doing is creating a product.

For example, in television, there is a misconception that the program is the product and that viewers are the target. The product in television is the audience, the program is the vehicle by which a television station builds product to sell to advertisers. The program is designed to capture certain types of audiences to sell to certain types of advertisers (ie: we are going to produce a news show called The View, the demographic will be stay-at-home moms, and women pushing into middle age, we are going to try to sell this advertising block to Folger's Coffee, tampon producers, and family restaurants). It is why quality programming is often ditched for poorly written pablum that appeals to the masses. Small loyal audiences don't demand the advertising dollars.

In the case of professional sports, the product is the game. Sure, there are spin-offs - jersey's, caps, bobble-heads, etc., but none of those exist without the game and the fan base for each team.

It seems like most of the pro-leagues and their unions are forgetting about the importance of the product. What the umpires are saying to me is that they don't give a rats ass about the product as long as they can get something in exchange for what they should already be doing.

The MLB players' union long ago told me it didn't care about the product - and often still reminds me by telling their players things like, "don't cooperate with the Mitchell investigation."

The NBA has a variety of similar issues from players like "Starbury" to refs that seem to think they are the reason people come to the games.

Roger Goodell is giving a good-faith effort along with the player's union in football, but this attitude of insult over the franchise tag does the players no favors - nor do hold-outs by rookies who have yet to prove anything

I'm not even going to get into ticket prices.

My message to the umpires - shut-up and submit to the checks, or find a job like the ones the rest of us have.

Random thoughts from a random mind...

Who let the dog out...
Even with plausible deniability involved, it seems that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is seriously considering suspending Michael Vick anyway. According to a report from Don Banks at Sports Illustrated, Goodell essentially told Vick, "your house, your responsibility."

Personally, I have to admit, in my opinion - and let me stress that last word - Vick is guilty as sin in this, but will manage to avoid legal culpability. The suspension, given the fact that he has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately, I think looms as a very real possibility.

A suspension would certainly be a wake-up call for Vick. The question is, would it work?

Interesting conversation...
In light of Amanda Beard's decision to pose for Playboy, my wife and I had an interesting conversation...particularly in regards to gratuitous nudity and roll models. I won't go into the heavy details, but it lead me to an article regarding the marketability of athletes and women's athletics.

According to a poll of 65 businesses around America by Street & Smith released earlier this year, only Maria Sharapova breaks the top 10 (ninth). Other women to make the list, or be determined marketable:
Michelle Kwan (skating - retired)
Mia Hamm (soccer - retired)
Anna Kournikova (tennis - retired)
Chris Everett (tennis - retired)
Michelle Wie (golf)
Swin Cash (WNBA)
Heather Mitts (soccer)

In recent years others have made the list, such as Venus and Serena Williams, and Gabi Reece, but why such a short list? Is it tied to the lack of popularity of women's sports? Is it tied to something else?

The saying that everyone hears in regards to advertising is "sex sells," yet efforts of the WNBA to make attractive players such as Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson the faces of their franchises don't seem to help draw in the larger fan base that the WNBA has hoped to attract. Is it due to a long standing misperception that the women's locker-room is merely the jock "closet," a haven packed solely with athletic-minded lesbians and a homo-phobic United States stays away?

Is it that women's sports hasn't tried hard enough to market to a lesbian fan base that does indeed exist?

All of these are plausible explanations. But I have one other - it's the markets that women's team sports feel they need to be in. These Joanie-come-lately leagues insist on trying to compete with already established men's teams for the same dollar.

Look where the WNBA has situated their teams - New York, Seattle, Detroit, Houston, etc. Many of those teams are in markets where they are competing with Major League Baseball's longer established Yankees, Mets, Mariners, Tigers, Astros, etc, for the fan dollar. That's not a winning proposition. The reason - the NBA, the WNBA's parent corporation, wanted to be in the biggest television markets.

It might have been wiser, however, to move into the secondary markets. Pensacola, which is a top 45 television market, but has precious little in the way of professional sports, is the home town to the women's football team Pensacola Power. It is one of the few venues for that sport that regularly attracts over 4,000 in attendance for its games. By way of contrast, in their second seasons Pensacola regularly attracted several thousand fans and was covered by the local newspaper, Philadelphia, competing against the Sixers and Flyers (when the two made the playoffs), as well as the Phillies, were lucky to attract 1000.

Yes, the female athletes you see hawking products tend to be the prettiest - lord knows that Kournokova had moments, but was never at the top of the game, never won a major tournament and never ranked higher than eighth, but was at the time the most marketable face in tennis. Not just women's tennis - but tennis as a whole. Even sitting on the sidelines she continues to make millions.

Are there exceptions? Sure - Mia Hamm wasn't the prettiest of the pro-soccer players, but she's not unattractive and she was the best at what she did.

The question all this leads to is - what's the answer? How can women's sports be more marketable and draw bigger crowds? If I could answer that, I'd have a whole lot more money than I do now.

What is Clemens real impact?
Assuming Kei Igawa was still getting used to a new leagues, batters, umpires, etc., it's probably safe to project him for somewhere between eight and eleven wins over the course of the season and about a 5.00 ERA. With a maximum potential of about 23 starts and a move to a tougher league than he pitched in last season, chances are Clemens will produce between ten and fourteen wins with around a 4.00 ERA.

For an additional $26 million (figuring for luxury tax), that's really not much additional bang for the Yankee buck, if all the assumptions above are really true. Also, they can not figure that a 45 year-old pitcher who averaged six innings per game in the weaker National League is going to do the same in the American League...and isn't part of their problem right now their overtaxed bullpen?