Michael Jordan should have demanded that the Bulls trade Scottie Pippen.
I say this in jest, of course, but while he called out LeBron for wanting to play with elite talent he seemed to have no problem whatsoever with sharing the court with another Hall of Famer.
With that said, the question then becomes if Pippen would have been a Hall of Famer without Jordan. We can never know for sure, but the evidence points to yes. He was on eight All-NBA Defensive First Teams and of the three times he made the All-NBA First Team, two of those times were without Jordan. Following Jordan's retirement before the '93-94 season, Pippen lead the Bulls to the second round of the Playoffs and finished third in MVP voting. In fact, they only won two fewer games than the previous season.
Of course, Pippen didn't do as well after leaving the Bulls, but his career was winding down at that point and he did have a couple good years in Portland.
So, if the two seasons Pippen spent in the prime of his career without Jordan are any indication of what the rest of his career would have been like, it seems pretty fair to say that he would have made it to the Hall of Fame. He might have never won a championship, but neither did Stockton, Malone, Barkley, Ewing, or Reggie Miller. They were all victims of the Jordan era. Or, is that the Jordan and Pippen era?
Before you accuse me of blasphemy, I'm not saying that Jordan needed Pippen to win. Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all-time and always will be. I'm just saying that the next time Jordan calls out a player for wanting to team up with another elite player (Bosh is good, but not that good) he might want to take a look at his championship team rosters. Two of the best players in the league were always on them.
Oh yeah. And Phil Jackson.
I guess it comes down to this: Scottie Pippen was drafted after Jordan's third year. He was there pretty much the entire time. If the Cavaliers had drafted a player the caliber of Scottie Pippen after LeBron's third year he'd have won at least one ring by now and would still be in Cleveland.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
OverTweeAction
Just because a guy says something doesn't mean it should be news. The coverage of James Harrison's threat to retire was laughable. How did that even make SportsCenter? It's like a little kid getting upset playing a board game, flipping the board off the table and then exclaiming, "I'm never playing this game again!" A day later, he's ready to play. Had Harrison actually retired because he can't play without trying to hurt people, good riddance.
Though Harrison's "retirement" didn't come out through Twitter (I doubt he can use Twitter because he probably can't use a computer without trying to smash the keyboard), the overreaction by other players has taught us a good lesson: just because someone tweets it doesn't mean it needs to be reported.
In terms of the league's decision to more strongly enforce existing rules, if you can't play the game without trying to hurt people, then don't play the game. It's possible to separate man from ball without trying to separate man from head. Helmets are for protection, not weapons. Hit as hard as you want below the shoulders, but no respectable coach has ever taught a player to go for the head.
The NFL isn't going to eliminate the big, legal hits that fans seem to love. They're smarter than that. They're just trying to get rid of the vicious, unnecessary hits that leave players lying motionless on the ground. They're just trying to prevent the time when one of those players never gets up.
Note: This is coming from a guy who was a 5'10" 140 pound WR in high school.
Though Harrison's "retirement" didn't come out through Twitter (I doubt he can use Twitter because he probably can't use a computer without trying to smash the keyboard), the overreaction by other players has taught us a good lesson: just because someone tweets it doesn't mean it needs to be reported.
In terms of the league's decision to more strongly enforce existing rules, if you can't play the game without trying to hurt people, then don't play the game. It's possible to separate man from ball without trying to separate man from head. Helmets are for protection, not weapons. Hit as hard as you want below the shoulders, but no respectable coach has ever taught a player to go for the head.
The NFL isn't going to eliminate the big, legal hits that fans seem to love. They're smarter than that. They're just trying to get rid of the vicious, unnecessary hits that leave players lying motionless on the ground. They're just trying to prevent the time when one of those players never gets up.
Note: This is coming from a guy who was a 5'10" 140 pound WR in high school.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Rotten Apples
When it comes to controlling highly recruited, high-profile athletes the NCAA is a joke. Those who choose to abuse the system do so without regard to future punishment because there won't be any. The NCAA has no power to punish people who are no longer a part of their system. In fact, going pro basically forces you out of their jurisdiction. As long as players are somewhat smart about it and don't attend penthouse parties in Miami hosted by sleazy sports agents, they can take all the money they want and get all the privilege they want without fear of retribution.
If a player does get caught taking money or committing some other infraction, so what? If they're good enough it won't matter. If they aren't good enough it didn't matter to begin with. Players who take money don't care about college, they care about getting paid.
I don't want to hear about agents who try to make it sound like they're just helping out a poor kid. If they cared about the kids they'd give a little spending money to the guy who barely got a scholarship and is there to actually get an education. I'm sure there are a couple players out there who come from tough backgrounds and have very little money, but just aren't good enough for the agents to care. Can you run a 4.2 forty? Here's a couple bucks. You're a third-stringer with 3.7 GPA? Go away.
The NFL doesn't care either. A player may move down a couple spots in the draft, but players like Dez Bryant will soon change that. He didn't take money, but he did get caught and punished for another infraction and teams that passed on him because of it won't do it the next time.
For what it's worth, the NCAA does all they can to prevent abuse of their system. The problem is that they're slow and by the time they can prove someone guilty, that player is already holding up a Super Bowl trophy and dating a reality star.
Players like Reggie Bush look at college like an obstacle to making millions. Sure, it's fun and they get all the perks, but they'd probably rather not be there and if you're stuck there, why not make the best of the situation?
The problem with the NCAA is not the NCAA. It's the players who choose to take the money and the slimy agents who offer it. We act like it's a widespread problem, but only a tiny percentage of players are given the chance to take money from agents and only a small percentage of agents even offer it.
The argument that players should be paid because of how much they make for the schools is also a joke. First of all, they already get paid. Ask anyone who has ever paid for college if playing a sport and making the school a millions dollars in exchange for a free education is worth it. Most would jump at the opportunity.
Also, for the ones who make the most money for the school the exposure of a national stage playing against the top talent in the country is worth more than any education. Even more, there are people in the business world everyday who make much more money for the company they work for than what they get paid. It's a fact of life.
Perhaps there could be a hardship stipend for those who need it, but that won't solve any problems. It'll be great for the honest players, but players who choose to abuse the system will do so anyway. Being able to see a movie on the weekend won't be enough motivation to turn down the advances of a corrupt agent.
The agents are, in fact, the root of the problem. But, they're almost like a drug. They're out there lurking in the shadows and everyone knows it. They can make you feel good, but nobody blames the drug when someone starts using it.
Even if you get rid of one, another will take its place. The supply will always be there. All we can hope is that the demand is not.
The only solution seems to be putting some sort of contractual agreement into the letters of commitment that would hold a player responsible even after he leaves college. Of course, there could be a ton of legal issues that I have no idea about, but it seems like the only solution. Until then, we'll just have to accept that a small fraction of players will make bad decisions and that the NCAA is inept when trying to stop them.
Creating a professional minor league system for players with no interest in college wouldn't work either. For one, the NFL would have no interest in creating it because they don't want to spend millions of dollars when they already have a free minor league system. And if the NFL didn't run and control the league it would soon be overrun by the same dishonest agents that mar college football because the players would not be held accountable by the organization they're trying to join.
If the players, who would all be kids just out of high school, were free to profit as they choose more talent would be squandered by excess and outright bribery than would be fostered. Plus, the agents would then infiltrate high school football. Wherever the last amateur step before going pro, the agents will be.
The problem of players taking money from dishonest agents and the NCAA's inability to control it stains what is an overall great system. For the vast majority of players the chance of going pro is almost none. They never even see an agent. For them, the payment is representing their school by playing the game they love and getting a free education in the process.
For every player that takes money and treats college like just another privilege there are a thousand who give it their all on the field, give it their all in the classroom and should make us all proud to be fans. Don't change the entire system because a few choose to abuse it. Let's, for once, not let the very few ruin it for everyone.
If a player does get caught taking money or committing some other infraction, so what? If they're good enough it won't matter. If they aren't good enough it didn't matter to begin with. Players who take money don't care about college, they care about getting paid.
I don't want to hear about agents who try to make it sound like they're just helping out a poor kid. If they cared about the kids they'd give a little spending money to the guy who barely got a scholarship and is there to actually get an education. I'm sure there are a couple players out there who come from tough backgrounds and have very little money, but just aren't good enough for the agents to care. Can you run a 4.2 forty? Here's a couple bucks. You're a third-stringer with 3.7 GPA? Go away.
The NFL doesn't care either. A player may move down a couple spots in the draft, but players like Dez Bryant will soon change that. He didn't take money, but he did get caught and punished for another infraction and teams that passed on him because of it won't do it the next time.
For what it's worth, the NCAA does all they can to prevent abuse of their system. The problem is that they're slow and by the time they can prove someone guilty, that player is already holding up a Super Bowl trophy and dating a reality star.
Players like Reggie Bush look at college like an obstacle to making millions. Sure, it's fun and they get all the perks, but they'd probably rather not be there and if you're stuck there, why not make the best of the situation?
The problem with the NCAA is not the NCAA. It's the players who choose to take the money and the slimy agents who offer it. We act like it's a widespread problem, but only a tiny percentage of players are given the chance to take money from agents and only a small percentage of agents even offer it.
The argument that players should be paid because of how much they make for the schools is also a joke. First of all, they already get paid. Ask anyone who has ever paid for college if playing a sport and making the school a millions dollars in exchange for a free education is worth it. Most would jump at the opportunity.
Also, for the ones who make the most money for the school the exposure of a national stage playing against the top talent in the country is worth more than any education. Even more, there are people in the business world everyday who make much more money for the company they work for than what they get paid. It's a fact of life.
Perhaps there could be a hardship stipend for those who need it, but that won't solve any problems. It'll be great for the honest players, but players who choose to abuse the system will do so anyway. Being able to see a movie on the weekend won't be enough motivation to turn down the advances of a corrupt agent.
The agents are, in fact, the root of the problem. But, they're almost like a drug. They're out there lurking in the shadows and everyone knows it. They can make you feel good, but nobody blames the drug when someone starts using it.
Even if you get rid of one, another will take its place. The supply will always be there. All we can hope is that the demand is not.
The only solution seems to be putting some sort of contractual agreement into the letters of commitment that would hold a player responsible even after he leaves college. Of course, there could be a ton of legal issues that I have no idea about, but it seems like the only solution. Until then, we'll just have to accept that a small fraction of players will make bad decisions and that the NCAA is inept when trying to stop them.
Creating a professional minor league system for players with no interest in college wouldn't work either. For one, the NFL would have no interest in creating it because they don't want to spend millions of dollars when they already have a free minor league system. And if the NFL didn't run and control the league it would soon be overrun by the same dishonest agents that mar college football because the players would not be held accountable by the organization they're trying to join.
If the players, who would all be kids just out of high school, were free to profit as they choose more talent would be squandered by excess and outright bribery than would be fostered. Plus, the agents would then infiltrate high school football. Wherever the last amateur step before going pro, the agents will be.
The problem of players taking money from dishonest agents and the NCAA's inability to control it stains what is an overall great system. For the vast majority of players the chance of going pro is almost none. They never even see an agent. For them, the payment is representing their school by playing the game they love and getting a free education in the process.
For every player that takes money and treats college like just another privilege there are a thousand who give it their all on the field, give it their all in the classroom and should make us all proud to be fans. Don't change the entire system because a few choose to abuse it. Let's, for once, not let the very few ruin it for everyone.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Straight Cash, Homey
Almost out of nowhere Randy Moss is once again a Minnesota Viking. The suddenness of the trade left people wondering what went wrong. What did Randy do that made the Patriots trade him so quickly? Was it because of an argument with the quarterbacks coach? Did Moss and head coach Bill Belichick have a confrontation in the locker room? The speculation flew.
Though he was lying, Belichick came out and said there were no discipline problems with Moss and it was "in the best interest of the team" to trade him. So, what were the best interests of the team? Why did the Patriots basically trade away their chances of winning the Super Bowl? It's actually simple and the words of Moss himself probably say it best: "Straight cash, homey."
It's fun to speculate and try to come up with reasons why Moss got traded, but any reason that doesn't have to do with money isn't the real one. Moss was a commodity, as all professional athletes are, and he knew that. He made it clear he wanted to get paid and the Patriots knew they weren't going to pay him.
The trade was a simple financial transaction. It had nothing to do with helping the Patriots win more games this season. It had everything to do with dumping a commodity before it lost all value. The "best interest" of the team probably has a rate of about 2%.
When it comes to the NFL wins and losses matter, but profit is the bottom line. Winning isn't everything...money is.
Though he was lying, Belichick came out and said there were no discipline problems with Moss and it was "in the best interest of the team" to trade him. So, what were the best interests of the team? Why did the Patriots basically trade away their chances of winning the Super Bowl? It's actually simple and the words of Moss himself probably say it best: "Straight cash, homey."
It's fun to speculate and try to come up with reasons why Moss got traded, but any reason that doesn't have to do with money isn't the real one. Moss was a commodity, as all professional athletes are, and he knew that. He made it clear he wanted to get paid and the Patriots knew they weren't going to pay him.
The trade was a simple financial transaction. It had nothing to do with helping the Patriots win more games this season. It had everything to do with dumping a commodity before it lost all value. The "best interest" of the team probably has a rate of about 2%.
When it comes to the NFL wins and losses matter, but profit is the bottom line. Winning isn't everything...money is.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Know When to Hold 'Em
This whole LeBron and race thing started with a question from a reporter. A question she knew the answer to before it was even asked. A question so loaded that she needed a concealed handgun license to carry around her notebook.
Reporters too often show up with an agenda hidden in the form of a list of questions. They seem to show up to the press conference knowing what they want to hear and won't give up until they do.
In a sports marketing class I took the professor informed us that it's not really about getting an answer, it's more about getting a reaction. That's why reporters will ask the same mundane question over and over again or ask the same question three times, but just phrased in a different way. They don't want an answer to their question so that they can be more informed. Instead, they want something they can take to their editor and say, "I got the lead."
Sure, LeBron could have said that race played no part in the response to his decision, but that would only have been the first time it was asked. Next, he'd get, "So, you don't think race played any part, at all, in people's reaction to your decision?"
"No, I do not."
"None at all?"
"Well...maybe a little."
Whether he wanted to or not, I don't think LeBron was leaving that interview without saying that race was a factor. Maybe he jumped at the opportunity to deflect some blame, but it would have been coaxed out of him nonetheless.
That's because CNN has an agenda. An agenda that's nothing more than ratings, but when it comes to television, that's really the only agenda that matters.
Of course, there was no way that LeBron could have honestly said that race had absolutely nothing to do with it. Race always plays a part. But, in this case, it's better to ignore it. Sometimes when walking life's path, it's better not to stop and focus on every crack in the sidewalk. Otherwise, you'll never reach your destination.
So, CNN you got your wish. You asked a question you already knew the answer to and got the response you wanted. You have a new lead-in to your show and a quote you can use to promote it. You added the race card to a deck that surely didn't need it.
Reporters too often show up with an agenda hidden in the form of a list of questions. They seem to show up to the press conference knowing what they want to hear and won't give up until they do.
In a sports marketing class I took the professor informed us that it's not really about getting an answer, it's more about getting a reaction. That's why reporters will ask the same mundane question over and over again or ask the same question three times, but just phrased in a different way. They don't want an answer to their question so that they can be more informed. Instead, they want something they can take to their editor and say, "I got the lead."
Sure, LeBron could have said that race played no part in the response to his decision, but that would only have been the first time it was asked. Next, he'd get, "So, you don't think race played any part, at all, in people's reaction to your decision?"
"No, I do not."
"None at all?"
"Well...maybe a little."
Whether he wanted to or not, I don't think LeBron was leaving that interview without saying that race was a factor. Maybe he jumped at the opportunity to deflect some blame, but it would have been coaxed out of him nonetheless.
That's because CNN has an agenda. An agenda that's nothing more than ratings, but when it comes to television, that's really the only agenda that matters.
Of course, there was no way that LeBron could have honestly said that race had absolutely nothing to do with it. Race always plays a part. But, in this case, it's better to ignore it. Sometimes when walking life's path, it's better not to stop and focus on every crack in the sidewalk. Otherwise, you'll never reach your destination.
So, CNN you got your wish. You asked a question you already knew the answer to and got the response you wanted. You have a new lead-in to your show and a quote you can use to promote it. You added the race card to a deck that surely didn't need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)