Last night in the nba finals there was a play where dwayne wade reacted in pain to getting hit in the face by a spurs defender and the ref responded by calling a foul. While i rip on nba refs as being the worst in any sport by a long shot this is one area that the league should step in. In the mentioned play the defender came no where near wades face but like the doucher wade is he acted like he had. While the league has taken steps to alleviate the flopping situation assessing fines of 5k and 10k and possible suspension the league needs to hurt them in the place that hurts the most, like charlie kelly says " in the dick" figuratively speaking. Heres what i mean, have an independent rep at each game whos job it is to watch video and if he deems a foul called and that player flops its a techical 2 shots and the ball. After 3 on the season its a 5 game suspension.
Kinda over this thought since the seaaons over but now i can watch a bunch of futbol floppers
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Monday, June 16, 2014
Clippers sale
Clippers sold for $2 billion. That's insane--the previous sale of a franchise, the Bucks (okay, decidedly a less appealing purchase), was for $550 million. That's a ridiculous increase in a short period of time--albeit for a team with a solid foundation, a decent facility (albeit a shared one), a prime location for attracting employees/players, and a great market (albeit a competitive one).
It's maybe a weird connection to make, but I thought about something I read recently that covered hedge funds buying fast food franchises. Yeah, really--hear me out. These are businesses with controlled labor costs (fast food employees are getting minimum wage and no benefits; the NBA has a salary structure that deals in larger amounts but implements a cap, max contracts, luxury taxes to curtail overspending, etc), and with minimal key personnel possessed of unique skills (arguably nobody but marketers in fast food, but the actual players and some coaches and scouts in the NBA). Everybody else in these organizations is replaceable, whether because their labor is relatively unskilled, because there are droves of individuals who could fill that role. Even scouts are being replaced by analytics and an emphasis on big data (sort of--I know the big lesson is that these should complement each other)--and big data analytics doesn't necessarily rely on people with expertise in the sport, but rather in broader evaluative mechanisms. Once again, this is potentially cost effective and measurable and outsource-able for owners--if you can hire an economics major at the entry level to replace the years of experience of a scout, why not do it? Cheerleaders are defined as independent contractors rather than employees; the spots on the squads are posed as entry-level, with an emphasis on the potential for upward mobility and connections elsewhere; this reminds me of the exploitation of interns a few years back, young people getting paid nothing to do tons of work because it was supposedly a foot in the door.
I don't exactly think players reap no benefits from this system, but I think the deficiencies are overlooked because of the massive salaries (dwarfed by franchise values and owners' profits, though). These are employees with limited careers, who have highly specialized skills that quickly diminish and can't really be translated easily to other fields. Essentially this is vocational training, an approach to higher education we see growing in the U.S., which may yield short-term advantages but ultimately inhibits flexibility in the long-term as those specialized vocational skills either become outdated or become interchangeable with younger, cheaper labor.
Meanwhile, the product is tightly controlled--the NBA doesn't have to face competition. There are limited quantities of quality NBA basketball and so production is limited (30 teams, 82 games each), but unlimited scale (that limited product can potentially be consumed by 8 billion people worldwide). As long as you can expand that audience via the internet, TV contracts (getting bigger because live sports are DVR-proof in comparison to other programming, so people aren't skipping those commercials), etc., you can build the audience paying to consume that product. Then, as your audience grows, you demand more for other companies to access your customer base, using your product as a vehicle for advertising (the same thing Google, cable TV, Facebook, etc do).
So now you have a product with limited production costs but potentially practically unlimited sales.
Add to that the fact that these moneymakers are publicly subsidized by the people who then turn around and pay to consume them, and this gets to be an even better deal for billionaires. Recent studies have uncovered how dependent fast-food-sector workers are on public assistance--for health care, food stamps, etc. In the NBA, it's arenas, which pose as a public good and a symbol of civic pride, pretending to generate tons of jobs (many of them of course end up being low-paying and temporary/seasonal) that will benefit the local economy while demanding millions in taxpayer money every decade or so, communities and politicians held hostage by high-profile owners/organizations.
And thus $2 billion for the Clippers. It's a lot of money, and it will be worth it. Steve Ballmer knows this--whatever you think of Microsoft, the dude who has run it for the last decade is smart and knows how to turn a profit. In other words, this isn't just a vanity purchase--it's smart business.
It's worth thinking a bit about the actual shift in ownership here, too, aside from the fact that Ballmer may just be a less contemptible human. Ballmer may not have any experience running a basketball team, but he can run a business, and if he can extend that managerial competence to the NBA--and I think he can, in part because we're talking about an industry that, as I've outlined above, doesn't necessarily rely on an organization stocked only with highly specialized skill-positions, but has to some degree deskilled much of its labor force through standardization and big data, etc. He recognized that moving MS Office to a subscription base would solve the problem Windows XP created by ensuring a constant revenue stream as users are forced continue paying after purchasing the initial subscription, and aren't season tickets much the same? TV rights? Plus there's all the ancillary benefits--concession sales, etc. And it matters less and less for owners if the costs of actually attending a game alienate fans, because those fans will still be obligated to pay to purchase TV access (and even if they choose to boycott the team/sport, their cable package costs are driven by sports channels)--and ultimately that might even appeal to some owners who would be freed from the overhead on facilities, staffing, etc.
I know that's a slippery slope argument, but it doesn't strike me as completely absurd, and I think taking the situation to its extreme just serves to reinforce how logical a $2 billion purchase price may actually be.
It's maybe a weird connection to make, but I thought about something I read recently that covered hedge funds buying fast food franchises. Yeah, really--hear me out. These are businesses with controlled labor costs (fast food employees are getting minimum wage and no benefits; the NBA has a salary structure that deals in larger amounts but implements a cap, max contracts, luxury taxes to curtail overspending, etc), and with minimal key personnel possessed of unique skills (arguably nobody but marketers in fast food, but the actual players and some coaches and scouts in the NBA). Everybody else in these organizations is replaceable, whether because their labor is relatively unskilled, because there are droves of individuals who could fill that role. Even scouts are being replaced by analytics and an emphasis on big data (sort of--I know the big lesson is that these should complement each other)--and big data analytics doesn't necessarily rely on people with expertise in the sport, but rather in broader evaluative mechanisms. Once again, this is potentially cost effective and measurable and outsource-able for owners--if you can hire an economics major at the entry level to replace the years of experience of a scout, why not do it? Cheerleaders are defined as independent contractors rather than employees; the spots on the squads are posed as entry-level, with an emphasis on the potential for upward mobility and connections elsewhere; this reminds me of the exploitation of interns a few years back, young people getting paid nothing to do tons of work because it was supposedly a foot in the door.
I don't exactly think players reap no benefits from this system, but I think the deficiencies are overlooked because of the massive salaries (dwarfed by franchise values and owners' profits, though). These are employees with limited careers, who have highly specialized skills that quickly diminish and can't really be translated easily to other fields. Essentially this is vocational training, an approach to higher education we see growing in the U.S., which may yield short-term advantages but ultimately inhibits flexibility in the long-term as those specialized vocational skills either become outdated or become interchangeable with younger, cheaper labor.
Meanwhile, the product is tightly controlled--the NBA doesn't have to face competition. There are limited quantities of quality NBA basketball and so production is limited (30 teams, 82 games each), but unlimited scale (that limited product can potentially be consumed by 8 billion people worldwide). As long as you can expand that audience via the internet, TV contracts (getting bigger because live sports are DVR-proof in comparison to other programming, so people aren't skipping those commercials), etc., you can build the audience paying to consume that product. Then, as your audience grows, you demand more for other companies to access your customer base, using your product as a vehicle for advertising (the same thing Google, cable TV, Facebook, etc do).
So now you have a product with limited production costs but potentially practically unlimited sales.
Add to that the fact that these moneymakers are publicly subsidized by the people who then turn around and pay to consume them, and this gets to be an even better deal for billionaires. Recent studies have uncovered how dependent fast-food-sector workers are on public assistance--for health care, food stamps, etc. In the NBA, it's arenas, which pose as a public good and a symbol of civic pride, pretending to generate tons of jobs (many of them of course end up being low-paying and temporary/seasonal) that will benefit the local economy while demanding millions in taxpayer money every decade or so, communities and politicians held hostage by high-profile owners/organizations.
And thus $2 billion for the Clippers. It's a lot of money, and it will be worth it. Steve Ballmer knows this--whatever you think of Microsoft, the dude who has run it for the last decade is smart and knows how to turn a profit. In other words, this isn't just a vanity purchase--it's smart business.
It's worth thinking a bit about the actual shift in ownership here, too, aside from the fact that Ballmer may just be a less contemptible human. Ballmer may not have any experience running a basketball team, but he can run a business, and if he can extend that managerial competence to the NBA--and I think he can, in part because we're talking about an industry that, as I've outlined above, doesn't necessarily rely on an organization stocked only with highly specialized skill-positions, but has to some degree deskilled much of its labor force through standardization and big data, etc. He recognized that moving MS Office to a subscription base would solve the problem Windows XP created by ensuring a constant revenue stream as users are forced continue paying after purchasing the initial subscription, and aren't season tickets much the same? TV rights? Plus there's all the ancillary benefits--concession sales, etc. And it matters less and less for owners if the costs of actually attending a game alienate fans, because those fans will still be obligated to pay to purchase TV access (and even if they choose to boycott the team/sport, their cable package costs are driven by sports channels)--and ultimately that might even appeal to some owners who would be freed from the overhead on facilities, staffing, etc.
I know that's a slippery slope argument, but it doesn't strike me as completely absurd, and I think taking the situation to its extreme just serves to reinforce how logical a $2 billion purchase price may actually be.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Scuffling?
Jason the English Wizard can probably let me know if I am off base on this, but I can't stand the use of the word "scuffling" to describe a baseball player in a slump. As far as I can tell, this term wasn't used until noted wordsmiths like John Kruk joined the crew. I can't think of others off the top of my head that started this "revolution" but I know that Kruk is the first guy I ever heard say it. To bolster my credentials in this case, I was an avid watcher of Baseball Tonight until about 25 years of age, which makes me a self-proclaimed expert! Or not.
The word scuffle means "struggle" or "struggle to get by." This does fit a batter who is struggling at the plate to a certain extent. However, isn't struggle just a better word? I've also heard (and used) the phrase "fighting it" to describe struggling.
With all of that said, to me a scuffle is a true fight. I can understand a bench clearing brawl as two teams scuffling. I feel like it is a stretch to call struggles with athletic performance scuffling. In fact, every time I hear this term used, I immediately shut off whatever show/radio program is using it. It just sounds wrong.
To end this rant (which I hope and pray Jason agrees with!), I recently heard the esteemed (not so much... he is an idiot) Kevin Gorg repeatedly use the word "scruffling" to describe a player struggling. Not cool, moron! This guy is a sideline reporter/beat reporter known for being a complete idiot in the Twin Cities. The question I have is: Is scruffling a fight between multiple people to pick up a cat by the scruff? If so, let's start a new sport and sell some tickets!
The word scuffle means "struggle" or "struggle to get by." This does fit a batter who is struggling at the plate to a certain extent. However, isn't struggle just a better word? I've also heard (and used) the phrase "fighting it" to describe struggling.
With all of that said, to me a scuffle is a true fight. I can understand a bench clearing brawl as two teams scuffling. I feel like it is a stretch to call struggles with athletic performance scuffling. In fact, every time I hear this term used, I immediately shut off whatever show/radio program is using it. It just sounds wrong.
To end this rant (which I hope and pray Jason agrees with!), I recently heard the esteemed (not so much... he is an idiot) Kevin Gorg repeatedly use the word "scruffling" to describe a player struggling. Not cool, moron! This guy is a sideline reporter/beat reporter known for being a complete idiot in the Twin Cities. The question I have is: Is scruffling a fight between multiple people to pick up a cat by the scruff? If so, let's start a new sport and sell some tickets!
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
The Middle Ground?
Andy Dalton thinks that the 49ers and Colin Kaepernick "found the middle ground" and got a deal done. Hmmmm. While I understand now that a lot of the guaranteed money is not actually guaranteed (soft guarantees is what experts are calling it), he is still among the top paid players in the NFL. The 49ers had a pretty poor passing attack last year, and while Kaepernick is a great athlete, let's not ignore the fact that the team was great mostly due to a great defense. I love how Dalton is trying to politic his way to a huge contract based on Kaepernick's. This is going to go down as the age of mediocre QBs getting gigantic contracts (Kaepernick is better than mediocre, and may end up great, but Dalton and Alex Smith are average and will get ridiculous money). Fun stuff.
Monday, June 9, 2014
The Anonymity of Social Media Pisses Me Off
This is really a post about LeBron James. It is also a commentary on how strange our society has become. LeBron James has a history of cramping. This is something that became widely known following Game 1 of the NBA Finals. LeBron James had to leave the game because he cramped up. He tried to come back, to no avail.
Immediately following the game, questions were flying around about his toughness. How could he not play through a cramp when all sorts of athletes had played through X, Y, and Z much worse injuries. Then, as if that isn't bad enough, people are posting videos "LeBronning" which is apparently limping around with a cramped leg. Really original... I hope you paid some fake royalties to the people who invented Tebowing you lame hacks.
It has become really easy for idiots to go on Twitter and talk a whole bunch of crap about famous people. I was as pissed off as anybody about "The Decision" and I think LeBron got a pretty fair dose of blowback on that and deserved a lot of it. He asked for that. That was a long time ago. LeBron James has grown up quite a bit. He is an ambassador for the game of basketball and is 2 parts Magic Johnson, 1 part Michael Jordan in a game dominated by players that don't even know who to pass the ball correctly. I actually feel bad for the guy.
The thing that is even more bewildering is that these idiots on Twitter/YouTube/other social media outlets don't seem to have ever had a cramp. Did they ever play outside? Maybe somebody should point out that that horrible pain in their thumb playing video games is a cramp and that if that kind of pain shuts down your video game session, it makes sense that it would shut down an athlete. I wish severe leg cramps on ever single one of the morons who criticized James' toughness the other day. Stop the stupidity.
Immediately following the game, questions were flying around about his toughness. How could he not play through a cramp when all sorts of athletes had played through X, Y, and Z much worse injuries. Then, as if that isn't bad enough, people are posting videos "LeBronning" which is apparently limping around with a cramped leg. Really original... I hope you paid some fake royalties to the people who invented Tebowing you lame hacks.
It has become really easy for idiots to go on Twitter and talk a whole bunch of crap about famous people. I was as pissed off as anybody about "The Decision" and I think LeBron got a pretty fair dose of blowback on that and deserved a lot of it. He asked for that. That was a long time ago. LeBron James has grown up quite a bit. He is an ambassador for the game of basketball and is 2 parts Magic Johnson, 1 part Michael Jordan in a game dominated by players that don't even know who to pass the ball correctly. I actually feel bad for the guy.
The thing that is even more bewildering is that these idiots on Twitter/YouTube/other social media outlets don't seem to have ever had a cramp. Did they ever play outside? Maybe somebody should point out that that horrible pain in their thumb playing video games is a cramp and that if that kind of pain shuts down your video game session, it makes sense that it would shut down an athlete. I wish severe leg cramps on ever single one of the morons who criticized James' toughness the other day. Stop the stupidity.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
QB salaries
There are 4 truly elite QBs in the NFL (currently). One of those guys, Peyton Manning, is likely on the way out. It was obvious in the Super Bowl that his arm strength is a problem going forward. The other three are Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers, in whichever order you prefer. Those players have gigantic salaries (Brady a little less-so) and can single-handedly win your team a title. With that said, a lot of QBs are getting exorbitant contracts that may significantly alter their abilities to keep other important players on the roster. This post was prompted by Colin Kaepernick's mega deal.
1. Matt Ryan, 5 year 103.75M extension - Matt Ryan is a nice QB. However, there is a reason that I refer to him as Matty Checkdown. He really struggles to push the ball down the field even when players are open. He has done a little better with Julio Jones on the field, but he is still not a guy that I would trust to win my team a big game by throwing the ball down the field. Matt Ryan is a guy capable of winning a title, but not with a mediocre team around him. He is currently surrounded by a mediocre team.
2. Jay Cutler, 7 years 126M - Jay Cutler has a cannon... And a propensity to throw interceptions, even to the Packers' porous defense. I like Cutler and think he got a bad rap for leaving the NFC Championship Game a few years back. His knee was in bad shape and it was the right call. However, Cutler is way too mistake-prone to warrant sacrificing your salary cap.
3. Tony Romo, 6 years 108M - Tony Romo is baffling. He does amazing things on the field. I am usually not a believer in the whole clutch thing, but Romo really makes me question this stance. He seems to come up small in most big situations. It has defined his career. It may be bad luck, but it is the worst bad luck if this is the case. If Tony Romo is playing with a trip to the Super Bowl on the line in the last 4 minutes, I'm probably lining up to bet substantial money that he will either throw a terrible INT or fumble the game away.
4. Joe Flacco, 6 Years 120.6M - I'll give credit to Flacco. His Super Bowl run was spectacular... Steve Young spectacular. He was promptly given a ginormous contract. He then proceeded to play even worse than the Joe Flacco we had all come to know and think sucked. This guy is sucking up an average of ~1/6 of the salary cap of his team. He is not very good. Enough said.
5. Colin Kaepernick 6 years 126M - Colin Kaepernick does some amazing things with his legs. He has a good arm. He kills my Packers. I hate the guy because he is always kissing his biceps after making AJ Hawk and whoever the crappy OLB opposite Matthews du jour happens to be look even slower and more unathletic than they actually are. With that said, Kaepernick is not a refined thrower. If we've learned anything through the era of the athletic QB, it's that the guys who run a ton, but are flawed as passers are equally flawed overall. On this list, Kaepernick is the guy I have the most chance to be wrong about because he could improve. However, it is going to be very hard to keep that awesome defense intact with this albatross of a contract in place.
*6/7 Russell Wilson and Alex Smith (ALEX SMITH!) are both going to get huge extensions soon. They will both hurt the abilities of their teams to keep valuable contributors on defense, resulting in a decline for the team as a whole. Both QBs are decent, but not guys who can carry a team the way the top few QBs can carry a team.
I have obviously left Brady, Brees, and Rodgers out of this list. They can and have carried their teams deep into the playoffs despite terrible defenses/offensive lines/receivers/[insert your own team deficiency here]. These guys will make the playoffs nearly every year even with bad players around them. The guys above will not (or maybe they will, and I will have to eat crow). Brennan, I know you love the 49ers, but you also know that I'm right about Kaepernick!
1. Matt Ryan, 5 year 103.75M extension - Matt Ryan is a nice QB. However, there is a reason that I refer to him as Matty Checkdown. He really struggles to push the ball down the field even when players are open. He has done a little better with Julio Jones on the field, but he is still not a guy that I would trust to win my team a big game by throwing the ball down the field. Matt Ryan is a guy capable of winning a title, but not with a mediocre team around him. He is currently surrounded by a mediocre team.
2. Jay Cutler, 7 years 126M - Jay Cutler has a cannon... And a propensity to throw interceptions, even to the Packers' porous defense. I like Cutler and think he got a bad rap for leaving the NFC Championship Game a few years back. His knee was in bad shape and it was the right call. However, Cutler is way too mistake-prone to warrant sacrificing your salary cap.
3. Tony Romo, 6 years 108M - Tony Romo is baffling. He does amazing things on the field. I am usually not a believer in the whole clutch thing, but Romo really makes me question this stance. He seems to come up small in most big situations. It has defined his career. It may be bad luck, but it is the worst bad luck if this is the case. If Tony Romo is playing with a trip to the Super Bowl on the line in the last 4 minutes, I'm probably lining up to bet substantial money that he will either throw a terrible INT or fumble the game away.
4. Joe Flacco, 6 Years 120.6M - I'll give credit to Flacco. His Super Bowl run was spectacular... Steve Young spectacular. He was promptly given a ginormous contract. He then proceeded to play even worse than the Joe Flacco we had all come to know and think sucked. This guy is sucking up an average of ~1/6 of the salary cap of his team. He is not very good. Enough said.
5. Colin Kaepernick 6 years 126M - Colin Kaepernick does some amazing things with his legs. He has a good arm. He kills my Packers. I hate the guy because he is always kissing his biceps after making AJ Hawk and whoever the crappy OLB opposite Matthews du jour happens to be look even slower and more unathletic than they actually are. With that said, Kaepernick is not a refined thrower. If we've learned anything through the era of the athletic QB, it's that the guys who run a ton, but are flawed as passers are equally flawed overall. On this list, Kaepernick is the guy I have the most chance to be wrong about because he could improve. However, it is going to be very hard to keep that awesome defense intact with this albatross of a contract in place.
*6/7 Russell Wilson and Alex Smith (ALEX SMITH!) are both going to get huge extensions soon. They will both hurt the abilities of their teams to keep valuable contributors on defense, resulting in a decline for the team as a whole. Both QBs are decent, but not guys who can carry a team the way the top few QBs can carry a team.
I have obviously left Brady, Brees, and Rodgers out of this list. They can and have carried their teams deep into the playoffs despite terrible defenses/offensive lines/receivers/[insert your own team deficiency here]. These guys will make the playoffs nearly every year even with bad players around them. The guys above will not (or maybe they will, and I will have to eat crow). Brennan, I know you love the 49ers, but you also know that I'm right about Kaepernick!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)