Saturday, May 8, 2010

Hall of Fames Aren't Holy


Lawrence Taylor, 51, was recently arrested for raping a 16-year-old girl in a Holiday Inn hotel room. The retired Hall of Fame American football player is a 10-time Pro Bowl selection, nine time first-team All Pro, and a two time Super Bowl Champion. Many believe he is the best linebacker to ever play the game, and his accolades make him one of the most decorated athletes of all-time.

With all of those great words typed on my screen, it has been brought to my attention that he should be kicked out of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Are you kidding me? This is the same guy who already a murky past -- loved to party, numerous run-ins with the law for drug abuse, married three times (that we know of). And now you want to lash out utterances like “This guy should be tossed from Canton, Ohio immediately.” Really?

I loathe at the people who make irrational judgements. The people who obtain these over-emotional thoughts are the ones who cannot stand people who are more successful than them.

Occurrences, like this alleged rape by Taylor, transpire periodically throughout the years; it’s almost as if it’s become of nature.

My question: Do people truly understand what the Hall of Fame is?

In any Hall of Fame there are a number of people who lie in the halls of darkness with filthy past, filled with putrid incidents and circumstances that left people scratching their head. That doesn’t mean people should over-react like a mother who cakes on the Neosporin and slaps four band-aids around their child’s finger after they fall in the gravel. Come on people your better than that.

Hall of Fames are museums, not holy communions. Don’t treat these places like they are a cathedral, filled with Jesus’s disciples who will castrate you if you don’t believe someone should be there because of their proceedings off-the field; that’s nonsense.

If ‘we’ are going to go by that criteria -- the measurement of what the athlete did off-the-field decided whether he or she stays in the HOF -- then lets boot Elvis Presleyout of the Rock and Roll HOF. Or, lets take Michael Irvin’s bust out of Canton.

When I read columns about how Lawrence should be kicked out of Canton, I almost vomit in my mouth.

Put what Taylor did off-the-field in one manila folder and file his on-the-field success in another.
Saying that he deserves to be kicked out of Canton is ludicrous and undeniably idiotic.

This goes for Major League Baseball players as well. So what if they injected illegal substances into their system. No, I don’t believe it should be allowed because many steroids, as well as other drugs, are illegal by law. But if the athlete got away with using them -- albeit, one month, one year, or 10 years -- he or she should not be punished by getting kicked out of their respective HOF’s. If you don’t like it, don’t vote for them.

However, I’d say your insane if you didn’t ...

Why can’t we let people like Barry Bonds in and why can’t we keep people like Taylor in?

The solution is simple: tag a “This person did (fill in the blank) on their plaque and be done with it. That way, when visitors, tourists, and former players and coaches walk through the venue, they understand what the person contributed to the history of their sport.

Don’t you want to walk through the HOF and say “WOW! Lawrence Taylor was incredible. It’s sad to see he had problems upstairs, though.” Or do you want Taylor -- a man so legendary to the game, the majority of people would put him into a category of his own -- to be completely erased? I’ll choose A.

Raping is an awful act that deserves a harsh punishment but tapping the delete key and removing such a key player from a place that is nothing more than a museum would be an outlandish act.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

NCAA Tournament Bracket 2010

MIDWEST

Second Round

Kansas, Northern Iowa, Michigan State, Maryland, San Diego State, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, Ohio State

Sweet 16

Kansas, Maryland, Georgetown, Ohio State

Elite 8

Kansas and Ohio State

Final 4

*KANSAS*

WEST

Second Round

Syracuse, Gonzaga, UTEP, Murray State, Xavier, Pittsburgh, Florida, Kansas State

Sweet 16

Syracuse, UTEP, Pittsburgh, Kansas State

Elite 8

Syracuse and Kansas State

Final 4

*KANSAS STATE*

EAST

Second Round

Kentucky, Texas, Cornell, Wisconsin, Washington, New Mexico, Missouri, West Virginia

Sweet 16

Texas, Wisconsin, New Mexico, West Virginia

Elite 8

Wisconsin and New Mexico

Final 4

*WISCONSIN*

SOUTH

Second Round

Duke, Louisville, Texas A&M, Sienna, Notre Dame, Baylor, Richmond, Villanova

Sweet 16

Duke, Texas A&M, Baylor, Richmond

Elite 8

Duke and Baylor

Final 4

*BAYLOR*

FINAL FOUR SELECTIONS:

Kansas vs. Kansas State - Kansas

Wisconsin vs. Baylor - Wisconsin

WINNER: Kansas 88 Wisconsin 71










Sunday, February 28, 2010

NFL Overtime Format ... Just Fine


The National Football League has reportedly said they are discussing change in their current overtime format. Ultimately, this will not vastly change ratings, or the the people who follow the league (25 percent of America). But why -- repeat: WHY! -- change something that doesn't need repaired?

The statement was released earlier last night:

"Under the new format, both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown, Greg Aiello said. If the first team to get the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again."

"Under the current rules, the first team to score wins."

Personally, I prefer the current rules mainly because these guys are getting paid millions, and millions of dollars to stop the other team in the given time, or, simply, regulation time.

Furthermore, a coin toss does NOT determine the outcome of the game, ultimately. The fans sit through a three-and-a-half hour game; therefore, why not just get the game over with immediately. The format that's in place right now does just that -- lessens any chance of the fan sitting there for longer than another half hour.

Think about it: players have 60-minutes to make sure the other team does not score more points than them, three timeouts to use in cases of emergency, and multiple television timeouts to discuss more strategy. If a coach (and the players) cannot figure out how to win a football game in the alloted time, then flipping a coin should not create a tsunami of outrage to determine a football game. You had your chance. So, if you can't stop them now, you probably should not win anyway. For the love of God, we've been out here for almost four hours.

Roger Goodell -- in principle -- has been praised among many for his evolution of the National Football League. His intelligence and extrovert ego have evolved the game into a prevailing media franchise whose constant modifications are revolutionizing the game into an extraordinary powerhouse. But this idea is unwise ...


... Never tinker with a rule that truly does not take advantage of furthering the sport for the better or worse. Overtime is a minor blemish; the league does not need to infatuate themselves by trying to figure out how to fix this inconsequential conflict.


At the end of the day, it's still a debate. But so isn't Mike Vick having the chance to play again. So isn't the drug policy (players are rarely tested). So isn't the recent Dante Stallorth case (killed a man, spent 24 days in jail, and now is back to making millions of the gridiron). 'If it aint broke, don't fix it!'




Sunday, February 7, 2010

Super Bowl XLIV

One might say Super Bowl XLIV is going to be a game for the ages. A game that features two high potent offenses that will burn out the lights on the scoreboard. A game that highlights two prolific quarterbacks -- one you might know, and one you will (hopefully) be acquainted with by the end of tonight. And lastly, a game that one team has almost the entire nation on its' back.

The game: Indianapolis Colts vs. New Orleans Saints.

Obviously, you have been overwhelmed of T.M.I. (Too Much Information) by ESPN, the NFL Network, and the Internet. As always, I will formulate my pick by posting minimal statistics and few blah blah blah rants.

I start with this: All I have heard, and all the Saints have heard, is Peyton Manning this, Peyton Manning that ... I say 'WHO DAT?' All the Saints have heard is how soft their defense is due to Gregg William's (Saint defensive coordinator) schemes. And that there is no possibility of getting pressure on Manning, even though they are the second most blitzing team in the National Football League.

OK. The cat is out-of-the-bag. I am leaning Saints and there are 5 main reasons:

1) The Saints will be able to match up against the Colts offense, whether you believe it or not. I know, "But Jamie Manning is a cerebral quarterback that's not going to make any mistakes." Could not disagree more. He'll throw an interception or two. (A great prop bet for anyone out there.)

2) The Saints will be able to run the football because Saints head coach Sean Payton is not Paris Hilton; he actually has SOME brain cells. Even after he shotguns six beers before every game.

(Note: By the way, is it not obvious that Payton is at least a little buzzed before the game? I would have bet my life on it two weeks ago in the NFC Championship Game. During the National Anthem, Payton looked like he was going to fall over. Although, it might have been a combination of beer and lack of sleep. Who knows? But I guarantee one thing: Living in New Orleans, that guy can probably out-drink just about anyone.)

Speaking of Sean Payton ...

3) Sean Payton. Why? Can we start with the unlimited menu of plays he holds in his hand very week?

The last two are simple.

4) Drew Breeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

5) .................................. 'WHO DAT!'

Super Bowl XLIV Prediction:

Saints 31
Colts 27

MVP: Drew Brees

Monday, January 11, 2010

The Pros Are For The 'Real' Joes -- The Larger Picture



The decade has closed and there is a significant topic that continually -- repeat: continually -- pops into my noggin. The topic is more of a discussion piece or, in my case, a flabbergasting situation.

Under my circumstances as a sports fanatic, I have fallen out of love with college sports. I find myself liking the best of the best -- professionals. The National Basketball Association; the National Football League; the Professional Golf Association; and, from time to time, even Major League Baseball are far more interesting to me than watching a September football game that might eliminate a team for the ultimate prize -- the crystal ball. Or watching a some basketball team named Sienna (sounds like a shampoo brand) on Championship Weekend that is going to get eliminated within the first two rounds of the tournament.

The truth is this: I will watch the Final Four to it's entirety. I will watch the football National Championship to it's entirety. I might gaze at the television screen when the four-letter network is airing the College Baseball World Series. But I am mildly interested in college sports.

Nevertheless, this is not a tangent, and I am trying to express that watching all these players in college is NOT that entertaining anymore -- especially when you know, for the most part, two players that MIGHT make it in the pros -- but give me a break that it's so exciting! It's not. Whatsoever.

I watch more tennis, golf, and soccer. Why? I find myself more attached to athletes who are performing the best at what they do. These days, I will watch a replay of the 2005 Australian Open before I let my eyes stare at a non-interesting, profoundly insignificant, college basketball game in the middle of January.

(Note: I used the Australian Open example because this actually happened. Thanks to DirecTV, I am blessed with the Tennis Channel (Channel 217), albeit in High Definition, because I find it more intriguing.)

Think of it this way: eventually you will get to watch those guys who went to the Texas', Alabamas', and Notre Dames' of the nation. But why sell yourself into it so deeply when just two percent of the players will be playing their sport for a living? The whole "These guys make a salary/living off of what they do" and "These guys are close to my age (grown-ups) playing their sport" argument is captivating to me.

In a Malcolm Gladwell case, I guess I have hit my "Tipping Point." College sports are becoming like tail backs in the NFL; it's sad but true. College is a dime a dozen. I can watch all kinds of college athletics, but my opinion is too simplistic in the end. I like to have to think about what is occurring on the television set.

Specifically, I enjoy the art aspect of pro sports. The pros are just more enjoyable now, and to look in the future of this new decade, I would like to think I will be more -- if not completely -- sheltered in pro athletics on television.

As you get older, you have more perspective due to intelligence and longevity. I may have missed a lot in the 19-years have lived, but I can guarantee this: I will no longer swallow up all the college sports as I once did. Why would I? I want variety. I want to have more perspective of life. And I want interesting. By in large, we know who is good every year in college athletics. With the few exceptions, can we agree that it's actually boring when you step back and look at it from a broaden perspective?

Tell me that I am wrong by feathering away from college sports -- and I may be -- but at least I am trying something new; it's a "Tipping Point" in which I am going to explore as this new decade takes off.