Category: Topical Rants

Traditionally, I gather up notes that I took while watching college football games in the previous fall/winter and use them to make projections about the NFL Draft in the Spring.  Family, social and travel events this year made it impossible for me to get that done prior to the Draft, so I am going to do it differently this time around.  I will go through the draft as it actually happened and append any notes I have – – assuming I can decipher all of them.

Lest anyone is new to these sorts of things, let me lay out a bunch of disclaimers:

• This is my perception based on watching games on TV.  I do not scout; I do not go to these games; I do not talk to coaches or players; I do not watch film 100 hours a week.
• My viewing habits/preferences are skewed.  I watch a lot more games involving top teams from power conferences than I do involving lesser conferences and/or bad teams.  That is my choice because my viewing is done mainly for pleasure and not for scouting.
• I live on the East Coast meaning I get to see eastern teams and midwestern teams a lot more conveniently than I do western teams.  So, it there is a fantastic prospect at a western school in a minor conference, the odds are I have never seen him play football and that is why I have nothing to say about him.
• Because I know as I am looking at games on TV that I am not in any position to make broad comparisons among players around the country, my assessments of when and where players might be drafted will vary widely from reality.  There will be about 250 – 275 players taken in this Draft; I will have no notes on at least 200 of them – – but I will probably have a note or two on someone I liked who never got drafted at all.

With those ground rules stated, let me get to the meat for today…

Trayvon Walker DE Georgia – – Overall #1:  “Quick off the ball; lots of speed”.  “[Georgia’s] defense is stacked so probably drafted later than others.”

Aidan Hutchinson DE Michigan – – Overall #2:  “Good pass rusher and good run defender”.  “Should go first round”

Derek Stingley, Jr. CB LSU – – Overall #3: “Good man-to-man cover corner” “very quick to react to pass to his side” “sure tackler”.

Evan Neal OT Alabama – – Overall #7:  “Big man, strong man, quick on his feet”  “good pass protector”  “will go in first round”

Charles Cross OT Mississippi State – – Overall #9:  “Very good pass blocker but MSU does not run the ball enough to know if he can block on runs very well”

Garrett Wilson WR Ohio State – – Overall #10:  “Deep threat, good speed and hands”

Chris Olave WR Ohio State – – Overall #11:  Deep threat”  “think he is better than G. Wilson”.

• [Aside:  Obviously, since the Jets took Wilson instead of Olave they disagree with my assessment.  C’est la vie…]  

Jameson Williams WR Alabama – – Overall #12:  “Seems as if he is always open over the middle”  “speed burner” “first round pick for sure”

Jordan Davis DT Georgia – – Overall #13:  “Huge hominid”  “run stopper” “screen graphic says 340 lbs.; must be before breakfast”.

Kyle Hamilton DB Notre Dame – – Overall #14:  “Big, fast, good cover and good tackler”  “top ten pick???”

Jahan Dotson WR Penn State – – Overall #16:  “ Plenty of speed and good hands”  “not very big so he might slip to mid-rounds”.

Kenny Pickett QB Pitt – – Overall #20:  “Supposed to be one of the top QBs in the country.  He’s good but no “wow factor” “maybe 2^nd or 3^rd round?”

• [Aside:  Let the comparisons begin.  Dan Marino also went to Pitt and slipped to the 27^th pick in the 1983 draft…  Welcome to the NFL, Kenny Pickett.]

 Quay Walker LB Georgia – – Overall #22:  “Does everything well – cover, rush passer, tackle” “good speed for his size” “should go early”

Devin Lloyd LB Utah – – Overall #27:  “Screen graphic said 235 lbs. and he is fast!”  “good in coverage too”  “mid-round pick”.

Devonte Wyatt DT Georgia – – Overall #28:  “Best player on best defense in the country”  “lots to choose from on Ga’s defense but he would be first for me”.

• [Aside:  Of course, the Packers had to take him; they traded away their player named Devante (Adams), so they needed to replenish their supply of Devontes.]

Kenneth Walker III RB Michigan State – – Overall #41:  ‘Power runner with good speed” “fights for every yard” “mid-round pick?”

John Metchie WR Alabama – – Overall #44:  “Not as good as [Jameson] Williams but fast and sure-handed”  “mid-rounds”  ‘not very big but jumps well to get ball”.

David Ojabo LB Michigan – – Overall #45:  “Big and fast”  “Power pass rusher”  “hits hard”  “first round pick”

• [Aside:  He tore his Achilles tendon at a workout in March and still went in the middle of the second round.]

Joshua Ezeudu OT UNC – – Overall #67:  “Big strong and good pass blocker”

Nakobe Dean LB Georgia – – Overall #83:  “Not real big but really fast” “sure tackler” “vintage sideline-to-sideline guy”

• [Aside:  He was not the best player on the Georgia defense by any means, but how did he last this long in the Draft?]

DeMarvin Leal DT Texas A&M – – Overall #84:  “Small for a DT but plenty of speed and agility” “sure tackler”  “mid-round pick?”

Malik Willis QB Liberty – – Overall #86:  “Great running QB skills”  “pass accuracy is unimpressive but arm is strong”  “long-term project for the NFL”

• [Aside:  These notes come from watching some of the Senior Bowl game.  I did not see Liberty play in the regular season]

Rachaad White RB Arizona State – – Overall #91:  “Really good in open field – makes guys miss”  “good in passing game”  “late round pick”

Matt Corral QB Ole Miss – – Overall #94:  “Aggressive runner – not a good QB style in the NFL” “not a big arm but accurate throws”  “needs development”

Logan Bruss OG Wisconsin – – Overall #104: “Good run blocking – – not as good pass blocking” “late round project”

Danniel Faalele OT Minnesota – – Overall #110:  “Huge guy; can’t miss him”  “screen graphic says 6’ 9” and 380 lbs.”  “believe it or not, he is faster than a fire hydrant”  “late round pick”

Isaiah Spiller RB Texas A&M – – Overall #123:  “Good size and agility”  “runs hard”  “late rounds”

Jordan Stout K Penn State – – Overall #130:  “Booming punts that are high and long”  “kickoffs reach end zone”  “kickers/punters go in the 6th or 7^th round”

• [Aside:  Jordan Stout went in the 4^th round to the Ravens.]

Hassan Haskins RB Michigan – – Overall #131:  “Big tough bruising runner”  “very good pass blocker”  “good not great speed”

Zach Tom OT Wake Forest – – Overall #140:  “Big and quick”  “good pass blocker/ decent run blocker”  “late rounds”

Sam Howell QB UNC – – Overall # 144:  “Excellent runner in an RPO offense”  “not a big arm but good accuracy” “worth a pick mid-round”  “long slow pass release on deep throws”

Otito Ogbonnio DT UCLA – – Overall $160:  “Good size, good run defender, mediocre pass rush”  “late rounds”

Ko Kieft TE Minnesota – – Overall #218:  “Big man; not fast but good hands and can get yards after catch”  “lined up next to Faalele [see above] they block out the sun”

Tariq Castro-Fields CB Penn State – – Overall #221:  “Good speed; good cover guy”  “comes up to play the run well”  “not as tall as other DBs”  “2^nd or 3^rd round?”

Jesse Luketa LB Penn State – – Overall #256:  “Big and powerful; hard hitter”  “not super-fast but usually around the ball” “good pass rush from inside”  “3^rd round”

Now for some notes on players who I thought could be drafted but who were not.  I will list these folks alphabetically lest anyone think I am prioritizing them:

Chase Allen TE Iowa State:  “Big target and good hands”  “not lots of speed”  decent blocker”  “take late rounds”

Bubba Bolden S Miami:  “Big hitter but not good tackler”  “late rounds”

Trevon Bradford WR Oregon State:  “Small and fast”  “good jump to get high passes” “cannot or will not block”

Ellis Brooks LB Penn State:  “Not very big but always around the ball”  “good tackler” “mid-rounds”

Malachi Carter WR Georgia Tech:  “Big, tall guy with good hands”  “not a lot of speed – possession receiver”

Cameron Dicker K Texas:  “Draft him so local writer can make reference to ‘Dicker the Kicker’”

Dontario Drummond WR Ole Miss:  “Big possession receiver”  Sure hands and gains yards after being hit”  “not big enough to be a tight end”

Jerrion Ealy RB Ole Miss:  “Little guy who is both quick and fast”  “good hands – third down back?”

Jeremiah Hall RB Oklahoma:  “Big power runner”  “good hands” “decent pass blocker”  “mid rounds”

Smoke Monday CB Auburn:  “Good size and strength”  excellent run defender/tackler” “got beat deep a couple times” “love the name”

CJ Morgan DB Mississippi State:  “Good size; sure tackler”  “fast enough to play safety”

Jayden Peevy DT Texas A&M:  “Good interior pass rush”  “strong against run”  “mid-rounds”

Mike Rose LB Iowa State:  “”Big and strong”  “good run defender”  “inside pass rush” “not real fast”

Carson Strong QB Nevada:  “Lots of hype on him being this year’s Josh Allen”  “big arm like Allen but not very accurate”  “big and strong but not quick or fast”  “mid-rounds maybe?”

• [Aside: This is from watching the Senior Bowl game; I did not see Nevada play last year.]
• [Another aside:  The Eagles signed Carson Strong to a free agent contract so Jalen Hurts gets to share the QB room with another guy named “Carson”…]

Finally, since this has been all about the players taken in this year’s NFL Draft, the most appropriate closing comment comes from Mike Bianchi in the Orlando Sentinel:

“If NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had a sense of humor, he’d step up to the podium and declare: ‘With the No. 1 pick in the 2022 NFL draft, the Jacksonville Jaguars select … The Wrong Guy!’”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

The football season is not quite over and today is a Friday.  However, I have known since September when football season began that this would be a week without a Football Friday simply because I refuse to consider the Pro Bowl with any greater seriousness than I do Exhibition Games.  I originally thought the way to avoid a Football Friday while keeping a focus on football for today would be to do my annual post-mortem on those NFL predictions I made 5 months ago.  But I changed my mind; I’ll do the post-mortem next week sometime.

There is an issue in other sports that I think deserves attention far more than my football prediction retrospective.  Earlier this week, USA Swimming – the regulatory and governing body for swimming here – issued a new policy to establish eligibility criteria for transgender athletes in “elite events”.  Clearly, this action springs from the controversy created by the transgender woman swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania, Lia Thomas.  Here is my understanding as to how a transgender swimmer will need to be “certified” for elite competition in the future:

• Three “independent medical experts” will decide if the athlete’s prior physical development as a male gives her a competitive advantage over cisgender women swimmers against whom the transgender swimmer will be competing.  Please do not ask me how those folks will make such a determination – – but somehow, they will do so.  The cynic in me thinks that the demand for Ouija Boards will skyrocket…
• In addition, the athlete will have to demonstrate that the concentration of testosterone in her blood has been below a set limit (5 nanomoles per liter) continuously for 36 months prior to the time of “certification”.

These rules will only apply at “elite levels” and not at every age group and every level of competition.  Lia Thomas is competing at an “elite level” of women’s swimming; she underwent two years of testosterone reduction/hormone replacement therapy as was required by the NCAA; and to this point in the swimming season, she owns the fastest women’s time in several events.

Let me say something carefully here.  In 2022, it is extremely easy to be charged with “transphobia” if one says anything that might be even slightly critical of anyone in the transgender community.  Nevertheless, I have to proclaim my lack of medical credentials and my lack of sociology credentials while I similarly must assert what I have observed over the 78 years I have been on Planet Earth:

• In athletic events where muscular strength and/or foot speed are critical elements, there is a significant advantage for males over females at the elite levels of the sport.
• Olympic level male shot-putters can put the shot further than women at that level.
• Olympic male sprinters can run a specified distance in less time than women at that level.
• You can fill in at least another dozen or more events here where those observations are true to form in every circumstance…

The difficulty for women’s competitions arises from the disparity in performance from the best male performance to the best female performance.  That gap is large enough for the following situation to obtain:

• The male record for the marathon stands today at 2 hours 1 minute 39 seconds.
• The fastest female time recorded – it was in a mixed gender race, so it is not considered the women’s world record – is 2 hours 14 minutes 4 seconds.
• The winning male time in that mixed gender race was 2 hours 5 minutes 45 seconds.
• Ten male runners finished with faster times than did the winning female.
• Now, suppose one or two of them decided to declare themselves as transgender females.  That marathon winner – and her world record – would be out the window.
• By the way, this happens in other events besides the marathon…

My problem here is not with transgender athletes in either direction; my problem is that there is an inevitable advantage for a transgender female athlete over cisgender female athletes in specific sports.  And no amount of political correctness is going to change that.  I believe that women’s sports may be devalued – maybe even obliterated – if some of the sports do not simply declare that transgender vs. cisgender competition is fundamentally unfair to the cisgender athlete.

This is not a simple problem because I also happen to believe that every person of every gender and sexuality should have the opportunity to compete in any sport that is legal.  However, the unstated but underlying premise of any event that you can call a sport is the fact that the playing field is level.  And I believe that if a male at birth goes through puberty and develops his athletic skills and strengths post puberty, that athlete will make for unfair competition for cisgender females in certain sports.

I wish I knew how to square the circle here; I do not.  Maybe three years of testosterone levels below 5 nanomoles per liter is the answer – – but color me skeptical.  Maybe a three-person medical panel can unravel all of this – – color me a lot more skeptical.  I may not have the solution here, but I am confident that “advocates” for anything other than fair competition are not going to make the solution any the easier to find.

Finally, since this has all been about “man” and “woman” in the context of athletics, let me close with a view of man and a view of women:

“Man is a clever animal who behaves like an imbecile.”  [Albert Schweitzer]

And …

“Women should be obscene and not heard.”  [Groucho Marx]

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

Brian Flores has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the NFL and three specific teams in the NFL – – the Broncos, Giants and Dolphins.  The common thread that runs through the allegations in the suit is the existence of a hiring bias against minority head coaching applicants; but the allegations against the specific teams are more specific and in one case as serious as a heart attack.  I will try to open up the charges made here and offer commentary that comes from a position of legal ignorance but sociopolitical awareness.

The charge against the Broncos evidently involves an interview Flores had for the head coaching job there in 2019.  Flores claims it was not genuine and took place only so the Broncos could say that they had followed the letter of the “Rooney Rule”.  Flores says that John Elway – the Broncos’ GM at the time – arrived late to the meeting and was disheveled and gave the appearance that he had been “out the night before”.  Obviously, the Broncos and Elway see that event very differently.  Unless there is some other evidence to be evoked and/or testimony from others at the meeting to corroborate Flores’ allegation(s), this charge seems pretty thin to me.

The charge against the Giants is similar in the sense that Flores alleges that the Giants interviewed him only to comply with the “Rooney Rule” and that there was no intent on their part to hire him under any circumstances.  Earlier this week, I wrote that it was understandable to me that the Giants’ first-time GM would hire someone he knew well and had worked with.  I see that decision as the new GM establishing a comfort zone for himself and that should not be illegal.  However, the timing is important there.  If – as Flores alleges – he was interviewed AFTER the Giants’ new GM had made his decision and was negotiating a deal with another applicant, that puts this situation in a very different light.

The charge against the NFL is that the “Rooney Rule” is a complete sham, and that systemic racism exists in the processes by which head coaches – and to a slightly lesser extent offensive and defensive coordinators – get those jobs.  I absolutely agree that the “Rooney Rule” is a fig leaf for the NFL; it covers up – minimally – the existence of an old-boys-network that has branches incorporating owners, GMs and head coaches.  I also assert that the “Rooney Rule” is not codified anywhere in the law; so, I am not sure how or why that matter should come before a judge.

I have to pause here for a moment:

• I am  not an attorney, but I understand that, in legal proceedings, precedent(s) are most important.
• There is precedent on the books that the FBI and DoJ prosecutors found a legal theory that held up allowing them to use laws governing interstate wire fraud to try and convict folks who had violated NCAA basketball recruiting rules.
• I see a definite parallel between the NCAA rules violations and the “Rooney Rule” circumvention – – so maybe this allegation against the NFL has legs?

The three charges outlined in brief above are not pretty; in fact, they would have to be cleaned up more than a bit to earn the label “smarmy”.  The charges against the Dolphins – and Dolphins’ owner, Stephen Ross specifically – get close to “existential threat territory”.

First, Flores alleges that Ross wanted him to violate the NFL’s tempering rules to “recruit a prominent quarterback”.  Flores refused and sometime later Ross invited Flores to join him on Ross’ yacht.  Meanwhile, the “prominent quarterback” would just happen to be visiting the marina where the yacht was docked so that Flores and the quarterback could have a perfectly acceptable “chance encounter”.  Once again, Flores refused to take part in this less than proper set-up.

That charge demands an NFL investigation – – one where there is a detailed report of the investigation and findings of the investigator that are shared with the public.  Remember it is the public that provides the basis for the $15B or so that the NFL takes in every year; they have some reason to claim that the owners are playing by the rules that govern competitiveness on the field.  Some fans may not care nearly as much about the issue(s) that drove passage of the “Rooney Rule”, but every NFL fan wants the game on the field to be on the up and up.

That last statement brings me to the second allegation in the suit against the Dolphins.  Brian Flores alleges that Stephen Ross offered him $100K per game that the Dolphins would lose last  year in order to enhance their draft position.  [Aside:  Hue Jackson has not said so directly but in Tweets he has strongly intimated that he too had a similar offer from the Browns’ ownership when he was the head coach in Cleveland.]  Let me say the following as clearly as I can:

• IF THAT CHARGE TURNS OUT TO BE TRUE, the NFL must force a sale of the Miami Dolphins’ franchise immediately.

The NFL never wanted to admit that gambling on NFL games was a major factor in creating interest in the games and support for the teams – – until of course sports gambling became an industry in half the states and sportsbooks became a new revenue source for the league.  That “gambling factor” continues to exist and has been magnified in the past several  years.  The single best way for the NFL to destroy that foundation piece of its popularity is for the ”betting public” to begin to suspect that game outcomes are determined somewhere other than on the field.  That situation nudges up to “existential threat territory”.

There have been forced sales of franchises in US sports in the past.  Marge Schott and Donald Sterling were forced to sell their baseball and basketball teams respectively; Jerry Richardson may not have been forced to sell the Carolina Panthers as pointedly as Schott or Sterling, but it is fair to say that the league offered him encouragement to sell the team and made the process of the sale as streamlined as possible.  Given everything that those folks did to get on the wrong side of their leagues and their peers, none of that threatens the product that the league presents to the public as its raison d’etre.

The level to which these allegations can be shown to be true should have a significant effect on how Brian Flores “goes down in history”.  This is potentially a watershed moment for the NFL; this is lots worse than the “toxic work environment” that may have existed in the Front Office of the Washington Football Team; this is worse than “Deflategate” or “Bountygate”.  At the very least, Brian Flores must be seen as someone who was willing to damage – or even destroy – his own career as a football coach in the NFL to try to resolve a problem that he sees as very real and very wrong.

I have cited this before, but it bears repeating here.  A former colleague used to say:

• Leadership is acting with integrity on that which you know to be true.

Using that yardstick, Brian Flores should be seen now and in the future as a leader.

Finally, let me close with a completely unrelated item that involves the NFL:

• Yesterday, we saw the introduction of the Washington Commanders – the new name for the team formerly known as the Washington Football Team.
• It was nice touch for the team to name itself after President Biden’s dog.

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

In the final days of the year, many folks take a moment to reflect on the events of the past year and consider changes in their lives to make next year better than the previous one.  Here in Curmudgeon Central, there is a variant on that sort of retrospection.

A lot of time here is spent watching sporting events on television; as a consequence of that behavior, lots of ads for various products and services are foisted upon my person.  A few are humorous/entertaining; many are tolerable; and some are downright BAD.  At the end of each year, I take time to look back on the really Bad Ads from last year and naively hope that next year’s crop of ads will not contain as many bad ones as the past year did.  But of course, that hope never materializes in the New Year…

To set the tone here, allow me to begin with an observation from George Orwell”

“Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.”

Who am I to argue with George Orwell…?

If  you ever try to read the fine print contained in the latter parts of a TV ad or try to understand the sped-up speech at the conclusion of a radio ad, you may never have gotten through the process in real time.  Therefore, let me give you a generic summary of any and all of them that you can keep in mind the next time you see or hear this sort of thing:

• “Whatever you just saw/heard about the product or service represented in this advertisement is not nearly as beneficial for you as the ad may have led you to believe the product or service is.  Since that is the case, these disclaimers are here for our protection lest you try to sue us for a jillion dollars at some point down the road.”

There are companies that run dumb ad campaigns, and you can count on them every year as much as you can count on death and/or taxes.  Old Navy will always produce an ad around Holiday Time showing people clumsily dancing around in clothing that no one should be seen wearing in public; they did it again this year.  Lexus will do an ad with their cars having a large red ribbon on the roof sitting in a driveway; they did it again this year.  Mercedes Benz will try to convince you that Santa uses their vehicles to deliver presents to kids; they did it again this year.  However, all the “Bad Ads” were not in the “old reliable category”; this year we had some new nonsense added to the soup.

Have you noticed that just about everything you might consume as a dietary supplement these days comes in the form of “gummies”?  A friend pointed it out and I started noticing that you can have a laxative gummy and hair/skin supplement gummies; and an ashwagandha gummy to relieve stress.  I asked my friend what ashwagandha is and his response was that he did not know but thought it might just mean that it tastes like ass.  Good enough for me…

Speaking of foul-tasting things, Power Ade started putting numbers on their bottles because they say, “There’s power in numbers.”  I would be more highly motivated to buy Power Ade if they made that swill taste better.  Hmmm…  Are they adding ashwagandha?

Mike’s Hard Lemonade announces on each can that it is “gluten free.”  If anyone who has an actual gluten allergy needs to be told that a liquid concoction containing seltzer water, lemonade and alcohol does not have gluten, then that moron is doomed to many bouts of digestive system distress.

A competitor in this product space had an equally stupid ad campaign.  Bud Light Seltzer figured out that the Bud Light logo/name made people think it was beer, so they hired Nick Mangold to “block it out”.  Two questions here:

1. If you think it needs to be “blocked out” perhaps you should redesign and relabel the brand?
2. Do you think the people who created this ad and the people who accepted it to market their product were blockheads?

In case you were wondering, the answer to both queries above is “YES!”

• [Aside:  This is not exactly an ”ad” but I have a dictionary app on my phone and the app needs to be updated about twice a month.  Are there that many new words being added to the English language?]

There was an ad for Behr paint where the folks removed all the furniture from their house because it might detract from one’s view of the color of their paint job.  I have an important message here for the execs at Behr paint who green-lighted this ad:

• The people in this ad are buttholes; if they are your spokesthings, I will definitely look elsewhere for my paint simply because I prefer not to become a butthole.

Mattress First tried to tell me that all my problems were due to “Junk Sleep”  Whatever that is supposedly explains why some doofus left his laptop on the bus – – actually on top of the bus as portrayed in the ad.  And that is supposed to convince me that folks who work for Mattress First will give me sound advice on which mattress to buy…  Seriously?

DirecTV Streaming has ads with Serena Williams wherein she morphs with movie characters to do nonsensical things like fight off malicious tennis ball shooting robots and or play tennis against 10 opponents in “The Matrix”.  How is that supposed to get me to want to subscribe; all I would want to do is watch Serena Williams play real tennis.

Subway has an ad where Tom Brady makes a cameo appearance.  Given all I have read about Brady’s fanatic focus on his diet and nutrition, I somehow doubt that I might spot him and/or Giselle in line waiting for a 12-inch tuna sub there.

There is an ad for Applebee’s encouraging folks to use this restaurant as a date-night destination. So, I must conclude that Applebee’s has identified a target audience comprised of  eleventh graders whose dates do not like pizza?

Chipotle informs me that they make “real food” using “real ingredients” in their “real kitchens”.  Actually, I would be more impressed if they managed to make tasty food that was good for you out of imaginary ingredients in kitchens that only exist in the seventh dimension.

I will just leave you with these words and you will know immediately which advertising ne’er-do-well I am referring to:

• “We have the meats!”

Now just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, I do not care what the ad says, but there are thousands of people and places that “Out Pizza the Hut” on a daily basis.

If I counted correctly, there are 22 potential side effects to watch out for if you take the drug, Keytruda.  And after that litany, the screen says that these are not all the possible side effects.  That leaves me to imagine if it is possible that taking Keytruda might cause me to develop a second set of nostrils in the middle of my forehead…

To prove that I am not the only person who finds some ads so stupid that they need to be called out, here is a Tweet from humorist and social critic, Brad Dickson:

“It’s probably not PC to say but the commercial for the Hug Project where Cox mails you some kind of vest that you hug while Facetiming to simulate actual touch has to be the stupidest thing ever. It’s pet rock level dumb.”

Premium Plus adult diapers claim a nighttime advantage over other brands.  Premium Plus absorbs 6 cups of liquid as opposed to others that do not absorb 4 cups of liquid.  Excuse me, but if you are passing more than 4 cups of liquid at night – – 4 cups is often called a “quart” – – you may have a more serious medical condition than simply bed-wetting…

Coors Light declares itself as the official beer of no longer wearing a bra.  A woman takes a beer out of the fridge and then removes her bra without removing her top and tosses it aside.  Whatever…

Modelo tries to convince me that some guy had “fighting spirit” and that is what got him to achieve his status as a tattoo artist and graffiti creator.  I seek neither status, so I have no reason to want to try your beer that is somehow associated with that guy.

Subaru had a series of ads wherein dogs were “driving” Subaru vehicles around in various environments.  Those ads went far beyond the level of stupid/obtuse and approached the level of ludicrous/thick-headed…

The GMC Denali has a driver assisted mode that takes over driving the vehicle.  So, what does the ad for this feature show the driver and passengers doing with their now abundant “free time”?  They are rhythmically clapping to “We Will Rock You”.  At least the driver of the vehicle is not a dog…

Lincoln had an ad where a guy drives home and finds his property covered in snow from a snow-making machine on his roof.  He lives in a desert setting with palm trees.  So, the message I take away here is that if you buy a Lincoln Aviator – – which is a gas-guzzler – – it is expected that you will adopt those habits and perform environmental disasters in all walks of your life.  Sign me up…

Let me interrupt this litany to ask a simple question:

• If Red Bull gives you wings, how come I never see anyone with wings flying around overhead?

Liberty Mutual has not completely weaned itself from Limu Emu and Doug; based on some of the new “characters” they have tried to introduce, maybe that is not all bad.  The dumbest one was the guy standing in front of the Statue of Liberty dressed up as a cell phone that is set to vibrate which makes him gyrate as if afflicted by St. Vitus Dance.  Only thing it made me wonder was if  he fell into the water behind him would the phone short out and electrocute him.  I was hoping…

Progressive insurance shows exactly no interest in moving on from Flo and her colleagues who have achieved stratospheric levels of annoyance.  I can say categorically to the folks at Progressive that if I never again hear or see anything about “Flotection” it will be three weeks too soon…

When something – anything – is advertised as “new and improved”, it can only mean that the product sold previously under that label was not good enough.  And then, you need to recall that the previous not-good-enough product was advertised as being something you did not want to live your life without.  So, now you are supposed to take seriously the ads for the new and improved product…

Experian’s “BOOOST” ad with some dude and his pet cow riding a roller coaster that gets stuck upside down is about as stupid as can be.

There is an ad for the laxative Colace that I just saw for the first time last week.  The ”slogan” at the end of the ad is, “#2 should be easy to do.”   Color me disgusted…  And if anyone even suggests putting this ad in juxtaposition with the Charmin Toilet Paper bears, they should be consigned to Dante’s Seventh Level of Hell.

It took Verizon about 15 years to come up with a recurring ad character more annoying than the “Can-You-Hear-Me-Now” Guy.  However, they achieved that feat this year with the new lady pitchperson who was all dressed in red for the Holiday ads.  The  poor woman must have some sort of physical deformity because she looks as if she has a baseball bat up her butt when she walks.

Not to be outdone, T-Mobile has introduced a cast of characters in their ads who exhibit enthusiastic idiocy – – as if that is some sort of ideal state of mind…

I saved for last some ads and comments on the ad campaign for USAA.  I am not a mind-reader, but some of the decisions made by various folks involved in this ad campaign make me wonder:

• USAA is for the military community and their families.  I am not part of the “military community”, but I would certainly think that anyone who is in the service or who has been in the service knows of USAA’s existence; so, informing them of the existence of USAA as something for them seems pointless.  Moreover, telling me about USAA is equally pointless since I cannot join even if I wanted to.  So, why spend the money to produce and air those ads?
• Rob Gronkowski appears in a couple of ads for USAA where he tries to “sign up” even though he is ineligible.  Were he to be successful in his endeavors – he is not – he would be in a position where he could be charged with fraudulently obtaining benefits from the government and that is a felony.  So, my question here is very simple.  Who convinced “Gronk” that this was a good way to “advance his brand”?
• In one specific USAA ad, a member named “Martin” is happy to get rapid response and service from USAA after his home and his truck were damaged in a hailstorm.  That is a good message until you look at the scene portrayed in the ad and notice that the truck was damaged because it was parked outside the garage attached to “Martin’s” house.  Ergo, “Martin” is a moron for not putting his truck in the garage when a hailstorm was on its way…

All these horrid ads infested the airwaves this year leaving me to wonder why the Budweiser Clydesdales have been sent to Elba.  I guess those ads are considered too high class these days.  Sigh…

I began today with an observation about advertising by George Orwell.  Let me close with another observation, this time by author Stephen Leacock:

• “Advertising may be described as the science of arresting human intelligence long enough to get money from it.”

Happy New Year to all.  The past two years have been overly “eventful”; my wish for 2022 is for it to feature a modicum of “tranquility” with a side order of better advertising on my sporting events.

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

Last week saw the start of the college football season; this week, the NFL makes its entry onto the US sporting scene.  As has been customary in these parts, I try to do a bunch of predictions before things get underway for real just to demonstrate the wisdom in the adage:

• Prediction is very difficult – – particularly when it involves the future.

But I am not one who is ashamed of being wrong, so I shall continue to “give it a go” again in 2021.  In the process of forecasting the future, it is inevitable that I will be wrong about many team performances.  When I underestimate the success of a team, there are two things you must keep in mind:

1. I do not hate that team, its coach, its fans and/or the city it represents.
2. I do not owe that team, its coach, its fans and/or the city it represents an apology because all that took place is that I made an error which I will readily acknowledge after it happens.

I begin these predictive pieces with my list of eight NFL Coaches on a Hot Seat.  I do not expect all of them to be canned at the end of the year, but I do think all will come in for some pointed critiques along the way in 2021.   I will present them here in alphabetical order:

1. David Cully (Texans):  Yes, I know this will be his first season in Houston and I also know that the Texans are going to be awful this year through no fault of Coach Cully.  Nevertheless, I doubt that he will be a fan favorite there and while he will likely survive into the 2022 season, his seat starts out warm and will only increase in temperature as the season progresses.
2. Vic Fangio (Broncos):  The Broncos are 12-20 over the past two seasons with Fangio in charge.  I think a winning record and serious contention for a playoff spot – if not the playoffs themselves – will be necessary for him to be the coach in Denver in 2022.
3. Kliff Kingsbury (Cardinals):  The Cards are 13-18-1 over the past two seasons with Kingsbury in charge.  His offense led by Kyler Murray has been splashy and exciting – – at times.  However, overall success has not happened.  I think he will need a playoff appearance to survive into 2022.
4. Matt LeFleur (Packers):  I put him here not because of his record in Green Bay; it is a good one.  His problem is Aaron Rodgers and Rodgers’ “happiness” with the team.  If that relationship becomes strained – or goes in the dumper entirely – LeFleur might find his job in jeopardy.
5. Mike McCarthy (Cowboys):  The Cowboys were 6-10 last year – McCarthy’s first year in Dallas.  The team is highly regarded this year; they have plenty of offensive weapons – enough to win shoot-out games.  Can McCarthy and his staff piece together enough defense to be a playoff team?  I think that is what Jerry Jones expects…
6. Matt Nagy (Bears):  In his first season in Chicago, he led the Bears to a 12-4 record and the NFC North title.  In the next two seasons, the Bears have been 8-8.  Nagy’s seat is not nearly as hot as some others on this list – – unless things come apart at the seams and the Bears finish at something like 6-11.
7. Zac Taylor (Bengals):  I put him here even though I am confident he will be the coach in Cincy next  year.  The basis for his position here is that reports lead me to conclude that expectations for the Bengals are sky-high with the return of Joe Burrow and the maturing of the young roster – – notwithstanding a Bengals’ record of 6-25-1 over the past 2 seasons.  But the Bengals play in a very difficult division and are not going to meet sky-high expectations.  The reason Taylor will be back in Cincy in 2022 is that he has time and money left on his contract there and the Bengals notoriously do not like to pay coaches not to coach.
8. Mike Zimmer (Vikings):  He has been the Vikes’ head coach for 7 seasons now; he has been in the playoffs 3 times; his coaching record in Minnesota is 64-47-1.  I put him here because there is no positive trend to his teams’ performances, and it may be that fans and ownership in Minnesota may want to “go in a different direction.

Before getting into specifics about the upcoming 2021 season, let me present an observation from Bob Molinaro in the Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot from several months ago:

“Looking back: The next NFL schedule won’t have more than three exhibition games per team. It’s incredible that before the league moved to 16 games in 1978, teams played six preseason dates. Six!”

Given the injury-phobia that is clearly exhibited by many teams/coaches around the league, try to imagine who would be on the field in six Exhibition Games in 2021.  But Molinaro is absolutely correct; there used to be 6 of those meaningless games prior to every season.  When – not if but when – the NFL and the NFLPA come to an agreement on how much more of a percentage of revenue needs to go to players to accept an 18^th regular season game with 2 Bye Weeks in the regular season schedule for each team, I hope they cut the Exhibition Game schedule to one or two games at the most.

NFL players have an adage:

• Father Time has never missed a tackle.

Before anyone leaps to inform me that Tom Brady is 44 years old and is still “going strong”, that adage is something fans and coaches need to keep in mind.   So, let me list here six players who just might feel Father Time’s presence as the season wears on.  Please note, all the players I have here are ones who have had laudatory careers; they are ones who I think might be coming close to entering the “next phase” of their lives:

1. Calais Campbell: He is 35 years old and that is pushing it for a defensive lineman and pass rusher.
2. Ezekiel Elliott:  He is not old – 26 years old to be specific.  However, he has had almost 1700 touches in his career to date; that is a lot of pounding on his body.
3. Derrick Henry:  He is not old – 27 years old to be specific.  However, he has led the NFL in rushing attempts for each of the past two seasons carrying the ball a total of 681 times in those two seasons; that is a lot of pounding on his body too.
4. AJ Green:  He is 33 years old and entering his 10^th NFL season.  He may have lost a step because in 2020 he caught 47 passes for 523 yards in 16 games.  Just two seasons ago in 2019, he caught 46 passes for 694 yards in only 9 games.
5. Ben Roethlisberger:  He is entering his 18^th NFL season at age 39.  He appeared in 15 games last year, but his yards-per-completion  were the lowest of his career by a significant margin save for an injury season in 2019.
6. Andrew Whitworth:  He will be 40 years old in early December when he and the Rams hope to be playing meaningful games.  Go to Google Images and check out a recent photo of Whitworth and you will understand why the term “gray-beard” is appropriate…

Before I leave the “Father Time” portion of this piece entirely, here is another item I found in a column by Bob Molinaro:

“Tidbit: Tom Brady is only the second quarterback to start an NFL conference championship game in three decades. The other: Johnny Unitas of the Baltimore Colts.”

Now it is time for my predictions team-by-team in the 8 NFL Divisions.  I shall start in the AFC East:

• Bills: I think they win this division handily with a 13-4 record.  As far as I can see, the only weakness I see is a mediocre running game.  Josh Allen and Stefon Diggs by themselves make for a potent pass offense; adding Emmanuel Sanders to the roster makes it even better.  The Bills’ defense played well in the final months of last season and should be strong again this year.  One cautionary note I would point out is that the Bills have an outspoken and hard-over contingent of ant-vax players.  Should that cause game difficulties, that problem might become a serious locker room issue.
• Patriots:  I think the Pats finish second in this division at 10-7.  I am not ready to anoint Mac Jones as a star QB at the NFL level – and truth be told he does not have an outstanding set of pass-catchers with him – but I do believe that he can operate in the Josh McDaniel offensive milieu.
• Dolphins:  I think the Fins come third here with a 9-8 record.  I know that others are much higher on the team than I am.  I worry about their QB situation.  The proclamation has been that Tua is their guy; then there have been persistent rumors that the team is talking with the Texans about trading for Deshaun Watson – should he ever be allowed on an NFL field again.  Those two things just do not go together, and I think the Dolphins will underperform the high expectations many folks have for this team in 2021.

[Aside:  Personally, I think Tua is not the answer at QB for an NFL team that aspires to serious playoff participation.  He just does not give me confidence when he drops back to pass.]

• Jets:  I think the Jets will finish last in the division at 3-14.  The team has had a bunch of training camp injuries and the effect of those injuries on a thin roster to begin with will prevent the Jets from showing much improvement.  Zach Wilson shows a lot of promise, and many folks think he will be a star in the NFL for a decade or so.  Even if that is completely correct, it is not going to matter much in 2021; he will see lots of pressure behind an offensive line that was damaged by an injury to Mekhi Becton.

Moving on to the AFC North – this is going to be a very strong division in 2021 and the strength of the division opponents could make some of the strong teams appear to be less successful:

• Ravens: I like the Ravens to win this division at 12-5.  The loss of RB, JK Dobbins for the season is a challenge for the Ravens’ offense, but I still think the rest of the roster is strong.  Lamar Jackson took a half-step back last year; I think he takes a full step ahead this year.  The Ravens are a balanced team being strong on offense, defense and special teams.
• Browns:  I like the Browns to finish second in the division on a tiebreaker; the Browns will also go 12-5.  The schedule-maker has an interesting angle for the Browns and Ravens in late November and early December.  The Browns play at Baltimore, then get a BYE Week, then host Baltimore.  Over the same three weeks, the Ravens host the Browns, play at the Steelers and then at the Browns.  The Browns’ defense should be improved with the return of Greedy Williams to the defensive backfield.  The Browns also acquired Jadeveon Clowney; that may or may not be a blessing.  What the Browns need most is for that defensive unit to improve from last year; the offense was fine, but the defense was just okay.  The RB tandem of Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt is as good as any in the league.
• Steelers:  I think the Steelers go 9-8.  That prediction is based on the soundness of Ben Roethlisberger’s arm/elbow.  I said above that he may be on the precipice of his career but if his arm is healthy enough to make defenses worry about a pass more than 8 or 9 yards downfield, the Steelers can be a tough out because of the Steelers’ defense.  However, if Roethlisberger is ineffective or injured again and the Steelers have to turn to Mason Rudolph and/or Dwayne Haskins, my prediction of a 9-8 record should be wildly optimistic.  Remember, the Steelers started last year with an 11-0 record and finished at 12-4 when it became obvious in December that they could not stretch the field.  The Steelers running game should be better with the addition of first round pick, Najee Harris.
• Bengals:  I think the Bengals finish at 5-12 which shows improvement but not excellence.  The schedule-maker was not kind to the Bengals back-loading the team schedule with a difficult final six weeks.  Over that stretch the Bengals host the Chargers, host the Niners, at the Broncos, host the Ravens, host the Chiefs, at the Browns.

Next up is the AFC South.  There are two good teams in this division and two pretty miserable teams too:

• Titans:  I like the Titans to win the division at 11-6.  The Titans have a tough stretch on the schedule in October/November.  In that time, the Titans play home against the Bills, home against the Chiefs, at the Colts, at the Rams, home against the Saints.  Ryan Tannehill can now seek out Julio Jones AND AJ Brown on pass plays; presumably, that will offset the free-agency losses of Jonnu Smith and Corey Davis.  If the Titans improve their passing game, it will take some of the load – and the wear and tear – off Derrick Henry.
• Colts:  I think the Colts finish second here at 9-8.  When the Colts acquired Carson Wentz to replace the retired Philip Rivers, I thought the Colts might take over this division but Wentz’ foot injury and his COVID quarantine make me wonder about his availability over a 17-game schedule.  The Colts’ defense is good; the team needs to be able to score points and to do that they need their QB to be ready and able.  The early part of the 2021 season could be “make or break” for the Colts.  Here are the first 5 weeks: host Seahawks, host Rams, at Titans, at Dolphins, at Ravens.  Ouch!
• Jags:  I think the Jags finish third in the division at 3-14.  Don’t sneer, that is three times as many games as the Jags won in 2020.  I think Trevor Lawrence will play well – so long as he can stay uninjured behind a sub-standard offensive line; he may need to run for his life to stay healthy.  I do not expect miracles from Urban Meyer, but I also did not anticipate the screw-ups that have happened already under his regime – – the Tim Tebow distraction and the outrageous hiring of the strength coach just to name a couple.  The day after Christmas, NFL fans in NYC will get the scheduling equivalent of a lump of coal in their stockings.  On the 26^th of December, the Jags travel to NYC to play the Jets.  At stake will likely be draft position for next April.
• Texans:  I think the Texans will finish dead last in the division – and in the NFL – with a record of 2-15.  I think the Texans will split with the Jags in divisional games and will win a home game against the Jets in last November.  That prediction is based on my guess that Deshaun Watson never sees the field in 2021 as his criminal and civil actions related to sexual assault wend their way through the US legal system.  Without Watson, the Texans could challenge the Jags and/or Lions for the worst offense in the league.  The defensive unit is nothing to write home about either…

[Aside:  The legal issues surrounding Deshaun Watson are not of the Texans’ doing but the new regime there did not cover itself in glory during the offseason.  This is a team that needs to overcome the giving away of DeAndre Hopkins for a bag of donut holes and the defection of JJ Watt.  So, there is how the new guys approached their roster rebuild.  They traded to acquire Shaq Lawson from the Dolphins in exchange for linebacker Bernardrick McKinney.  They revamped Lawson’s contract converting salary to signing bonus to the tune of $7M.  That was in the Spring; in the past two weeks, they sent Lawson off to the Jets in exchange for a 6^th round pick next year.  Is that how you rebuild a devastated roster?  The Texans’ Front Office reminds me of those glorious days when Danny Boy Snyder was a hands-on owner and he had Vinny Cerrato as his “consigliere”…]

Finally for the AFC, here is the AFC West:

• Chiefs:  I think the Chiefs win this division comfortably at 14-3.  The schedule starts out rough for the Chiefs.  For the first 7 weeks they host the Browns, at the Ravens, host the Chargers, at the Eagles, host the Bills, at the Football Team, at the Titans.  I think the Chiefs will be 5-2 at that part of the season and then assert themselves in the mid-season and down the stretch.  The Chiefs are potent on offense because they are fast; they have a great QB and TE and they can run the football.  The offensive line is revamped with acquisitions via trade and free agency plus the return of a lineman who opted out of the 2020 season.
• Chargers:  I think the Chargers will finish second here with a record of 10-7.  Justin Herbert is for real; it will be fun to see him go against Patrick Mahomes twice a year for the foreseeable future.  Free safety, Derwin James, was an All-Pro first team selection in his rookie year in 2018; he played 5 games in 2019 and missed all of the 2020 season.  If he is healthy, the Chargers’ defense just gets better.
• Raiders:  I see the Raiders finishing in third place here with a 7-10 record.  There is just too much drama associated with this team and with the coach and with the GM and with the owner.  The final 7 games on their schedule are not easy.  They play at the Cowboys, host the Football Team, at the Chiefs, at the Browns, host the Broncos, at the Colts host the Chargers to end the season.
• Broncos:  I think the Broncos finish last in the division with a 5-12 record.  That is going to get their coach fired.  In their continuing search for a quality starting QB – something they have been doing ever since Peyton Manning retired in 2015 – the Broncos acquired Teddy Bridgewater.  That is an improvement over the days when they were trotting folks like Paxton Lynch and/or Brock Osweiler out onto the field.  However, Teddy Bridgewater is not a franchise QB now or ever.

[Aside:  I ran across this stat somewhere but did not note where I got it.  According to whomever, the Broncos’ Teddy Bridgewater will be the 11^th starting QB they have used since Manning’s retirement.  I think that is correctly referred to as a revolving door situation.]

So, here are the AFC playoff teams:

• Chiefs – #1 seed, BYE week in the playoffs, home field in the playoffs
• Bills – #2 seed
• Ravens – #3 seed
• Titans – #4 seed
• Browns – first wildcard
• Chargers – second wildcard
• Patriots – final wildcard

            And now over the NFC, where I will begin in with the NFC West.  Top to bottom, this is the best division in the NFL; the team that finishes last here would likely win the NFC East.

• Seahawks:  I think they will win the division with a 13-4 record.  The schedule-maker was kind to the Seahawks in December/January giving Seattle games against the Texans, Bears and Lions in the last five weeks.  There was far too much hyperbole and drama in the offseason abut Russell Wilson demanding to be traded.  That did not happen; I seriously doubt it was ever close to happening; he is back with the Seahawks and will lead them to the playoffs.
• Niners:  I think they finish second in the division at 10-7.  They were injury-riddled in 2020 and the “return” of players like Nick Bosa and Dee Ford should improve the defense significantly.  Deebo Samuel only played 7 games for the Niners last year and his return will be a plus for the offense.  Jimmy Garoppolo and/or Trey Lance should be good enough to provide a winning season for the team.
• Rams:  I think the Rams finish third in the division with a 10-7 record losing out on a tiebreaker to the Niners.  Matthew Stafford is a significant upgrade for the Rams at QB, but the team lost its defensive coordinator to a head coaching offer in the offseason.
• Cardinals:  I think the Cardinals finish last in this division with a 9-8 record.  The Cardinals are a good team, but they are scheduled into the toughest division in the league.  As I mentioned above, I think this season will be one where people are looking for the Cards’ offense to take a big step forward with Kyler Murray at the controls.

Moving along to the NFC South:

• Bucs:  I think the Bucs will win this division with a 14-3 record.  Somehow, the Bucs managed to win the Super Bowl last year and also to “keep the band together”. In fact, the Buds’ defense may be even better this year because they will get Vita Vey back from the injured list to play nose tackle.
• Saints:  I think the Saints will take a stop back this year with the retirement of Drew Brees but there seems to be enough residual talent for the team to have a winning season at 10-7. Jameis Winston won the starting job in New Orleans; he has weapons around him, and he has Sean Payton as the offensive guru there.  This is a time for Winston to show that he can lead a team efficiently and minimize his abundant turnovers.
• Panthers:  I see the Panthers climbing out of the division basement to finish third with a record of 6-11.  Matt Ruhle has had a couple of years to acquire “his guys” on the roster and I think that will start to pay off this year.  I am not nearly as sour on Sam Darnold as many other commentators seem to be; I think he was saddled with a mediocre roster and a goofy coaching staff in NYC.  The end of the schedule for the Panthers is not kind and gentle.  In their last 4 games they get a trip to play the Bills, home against the Bucs, away at the Saints and away at the Bucs.  Ouch!
• Falcons:  I think the Falcons finish last here with a 5-12 record.  I know Julio Jones is “old” for a WR and that he had a burdensome contract but losing him from the offense will not help the Falcons’ cause at all.  I do have a cautionary sense here, however.  Last year, the Falcons were 4-12 but their point differential for the entire season was only minus-18 points.  There were 8-8 teams with comparable or worse point differentials.  If there is going to be a surprise team in the NFC, it just might be the Falcons.

Moving onto the NFC North:

• Packers:  I like the Packers to win the division with a 13-4 record.  The Packers have won 13 games in each of the last two years; why not keep going on that sort of streak?  There was far too much offseason drama surrounding the team, its front office and Aaron Rodgers, but I think Rodgers can and will put that aside and lead the team to the division title.  An important game on the schedule is November 14 when the Seahawks come to Green Bay to play the Packers.  I think that game will have specific playoff tie-breaker significance.
• Vikes:  I think the Vikes will finish a distant second in this division at 8-9.  From Halloween through the end of November, the Vikes’ schedule is difficult.  They are home against the Cowboys, at the Ravens, at the Chargers, home against the Packers and at the Niners.
• Bears:  I think the Bears will finish third in the division at 6-11.  Then, the Bears will be looking for a new head coach in the offseason.  Maybe Justin Fields is their QB of the future, but Andy Dalton is their QB of the present and with what is around Dalton that is a ticket to mediocrity.
• Lions:  I see the Lions trailing everyone in the division – – and in the NFC – – finishing with a 3-14 record.  When I look at the Lions’ roster, I find myself not looking for stars at various position; I am looking for people who I think are average players at their position.  Dan Campbell got a 6-year contract to sign on with the Lions; he may need that long – if he survives that long – to purge this roster and build a new one from scratch.

And the final division to consider is the NFC East.  I think there are some potentially good teams here, but none are outstanding.  All four teams have serious question marks going into the season; my selection as to the order of finish represents the teams with the fewest significant question marks attached to it.

• Football Team:  I like the Football Team to win the division with a 10-7 record.  Ron Rivera has completely revamped the roster with young players who are fast and who seem to play intelligently.  That was never the case for this team more than 2 years ago.  The question mark here is the quarterback.  Is Ryan Fitzpatrick good enough at age 38 to play an entire season under center effectively?  He need not be a star; he needs only to be steady and effective.  I think he can get it done.  The Washington defense will keep them in almost any game; this is a defensive unit that could be one of the four or five best in the league this year.
• Cowboys:  I think they finish second here with a 9-8 record.  There are 2 question marks attached to the Cowboys.  Is Dak Prescott ready to resume his level of competency after a major ankle injury last year and a mysterious sore shoulder that kept him out of all the Exhibition Games?  Is the Cowboys’ defense going to be able to keep opponents out of the end zone this year?  The team has a new defensive coordinator in Dan Quinn, and he has a good track record as a defensive coach…

[Aside:  I have NO inside information here, but I do have a hunch.  I think the Cowboys had a plan all along not to play Dak Prescott in any Exhibition Games and that Prescott went along with that plan.  Then, to keep reporters from harping on his “recovery status” they manufactured the “shoulder injury” as a distraction. I will be watching for his first 50-yard pass attempt to Cee Dee Lamb on Thursday night.   As I said, just a hunch…]

• Giants:  I think the Giants finish third here with a 7-10 record.  The question marks surrounding this team involve the recovery status of Saquon Barkley, the effectiveness of the offensive line and whether Daniel Jones takes another positive step in terms of his development as a QB.  There were too many stories regarding fights among the Giants’ players at training camp.  This situation just could blow into smithereens.
• Eagles:  I think the Eagles will trail the field here and finish at 5-12.  There are plenty of question marks here including who their QB is, the game management skills of their new head coach, the corps of wide receivers and the corps of linebackers.  I am not a “Jalen Hurts-hater”, but I am not sold on his ability to be a #1 QB in the NFL.  Joe Flacco’s days as the QB of a contending NFL team are in the past.  Gardner Minshew is Jalen Hurts with a better arm and worse legs.

So, here is my projected NFC playoff structure:

• Bucs – #1 seed, BYE Week in the playoffs, home field in the playoffs
• Seahawks/Packers – #2 seed, goes to the winner of the Nov 14 game
• Seahawks/Packers – #3 seed, goes to the loser of the Nov 14 game
• Football Team – #4 seed
• Saints – first wildcard
• Niners – second wildcard
• Rams – final wildcard

            Finally, since I have foretold the outcome of the upcoming NFL season, I feel like refreshing myself with an adult beverage.  And that feeling leads me to close here with an observation by the legendary dipsomaniac, W. C. Fields:

“My illness is due to my doctor’s insistence that I drink milk, a whitish fluid they force down helpless babies.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

A few weeks ago, when the ACC, Big-10 and PAC-12 proclaimed their Alliance, I said I would wait until I had more information before commenting.  The announcement at the time referenced a “verbal agreement” so there was nothing to read/judge/interpret.  I assumed such a document would emerge soon after so that there could be meaningful analysis and questioning.  That has yet to happen.

So, let me spend some time commenting on the Alliance as I understand it now.  Clearly, this Alliance – whatever form it takes down the road – is a response to the SEC absorbing Texas and Oklahoma out of the Big-12.  Texas is a big money program; Oklahoma is a powerhouse program; what remains of the Big-12 is a shambles.  [Aside:  It is horrendously politically incorrect to make anything resembling a positive reference to former President Trump’s comment about “shithole countries,” but the football remains of the Big-12 comes close to qualifying as such.]  I think it speaks loudly and clearly that the Big-12 will fade to irrelevancy as soon as Texas and Oklahoma depart when you note that the three conferences forming the Alliance did not invite the remaining Big-12 teams to join their Alliance.

So, what might the remnants of the Big-12 do on their own.  Here is what is left of the Big-12 – in alphabetical order lest anyone think I am ranking the relevance of any of these programs:

1. Baylor
2. Iowa State
3. Kansas
4. Kansas State
5. Oklahoma State
6. TCU
7. Texas Tech
8. West Virginia

Yes, I know.  Two schools are leaving the conference and only 8 remain; yet they called themselves the Big-12.  Clearly, the conference organizers need a bit more focus on STEM.  Whatever…

If that cadre of teams is to “stick together” with any hope of football relevancy – and that is where the big money is in 2021 – they need to poach teams from other conferences.  That will not be easy because if you look at the lineup here, it is not an overly enticing group to join.  So, here are 4 possible schools the remnants of the Big-12 might court:

1. Boise State:  It seems to me that Boise State has outgrown the Mountain West Conference.  Thanks to its iconic “Smurf Turf” field, Boise State has become recognizable far beyond the borders of Idaho.
2. BYU:  They have been playing an independent schedule and may just have tired of trying to find a dozen meaningful games for every year on the calendar.
3. Cincinnati:  This has been a program on the rise in recent years, but it has been overlooked because lots of folks think they “don’t play anybody”.  The 8 teams left in the Big-12 may not be Murderer’s Row, but it is a more prestigious group than the median level of the American Athletic Conference where Cincy resides now.
4. UCF:  This may be a stretch, but UCF is a big school with a big following.  [Student body is more than 60,000 students.]  They have had about 5 years of very successful football in the American Athletic Conference and – like Cincinnati – may be looking to play a slightly more prestigious slate of opponents.

If the “Big-Remaining-8” could pull off these annexations, it can probably survive as a stand-alone group.  If the “Big-Remaining-8” fail to do that or something nearly equivalent to that, I think they are doomed.

Back to the Alliance announcement…  It seems to me that if the three conferences are serious about doing whatever it is they perceive they need to do to “counter the SEC,” they need to figure out how they are going to do mutual out-of-conference scheduling to the point where SEC teams will not be able to find attractive games outside their conference.  There were no implications along those lines from the announcement of the Alliance nor have there been rumblings about such a thing in the intervening days.  Normally, one thinks about “alliances” as groups that work together on mutual interests, and it seems to me that the only expressed mutual interest here is this one:

• We are not the SEC and we do not like the SEC because they are going to make a lot more money than we are.

Is that enough to hold together a group of about 40 universities?  According to the Big-10 Commissioner, Kevin Warren:

“Hopefully this will bring some much-needed stability in college athletics. I also think what it will do is allow people to understand where everyone else stands.  Some of the events over the last couple of months have shaken the foundations of college athletics.”

If that sort of rhetoric brings clarity to you, I tip my hat to you.  Here are my reactions to that sort of statement:

• Two schools choosing to change conferences – – effective about 5 years from now – – “shakes the foundations of college athletics?”  Really?
• Meanwhile, three conferences of about 40 schools banding together does not shake any foundations?  Can you explain any of that?
• I have no idea where the 40 schools in the alliance stand on anything, yet you say this allows “people to understand where everyone stands.”  WTF?

One thread of analysis that runs through all this cloudiness is that somehow the Alliance will halt – or at least slow down considerably – the momentum to expand the CFP from 4 teams at present to 12 teams as has been proposed for the future.  Since I think twelve are too many teams, I hope the Alliance can achieve that end, but their logic escapes me.  The logical thread goes like this:

• If there are 12 CFP teams, the SEC might wind up with 6 of the 12 slots and other conferences would feel “left out” and/or “disrespected”.

So, explain to me how all the teams in the ACC feel when there are 4 slots currently in the CFP and the only fully-committed ACC team within hailing distance of an invitation is Clemson.  Same with the Big-10 schools other than Ohio State.  And the PAC-12 is usually left out of the picture entirely’ so, how do they benefit from keeping the number of teams at four?

At this point, I am wont to say that we need to stay tuned because there must be more information forthcoming – – but it has been a while since the conference commissioners held their rhetorical gabfest and nothing has happened yet.  About 50 years ago, Peggy Lee had a #1 hit record entitled, Is That All There Is?  Maybe someone needs to play that song for these commissioners the next time they stand in the same zip code with a microphone…

Finally, let me close with a slightly modified version of a common adage that seems appropriate here:

• If something is not worth doing, it is not worth doing it well.

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

I read a report yesterday that the NBA was going to investigate possible “tampering” in the sign-and-trade deals that involved Kyle Lowery to the Heat and Lonzo Ball to the Bulls.  You may recall that I said last week that the NBA should – but will not – investigate possible “tampering” in the deal that sent Russell Westbrook from the Wizards to the Lakers after the LA Times reported that Westbrook, LeBron James and Anthony Davis met several weeks prior to the deal.  This prompted me to look around to find out what the NBA says the tampering rules are and how they might be enforced if the league ever chose to do so.

Let me start with what the rule says:

• [From the NBA Constitution – not to be confused with the US Constitution]  An owner, general manager, coach, scout or player cannot try to persuade a person employed by another team to join the tampering team.

Well, that seems pretty clear to me – – until you begin to wonder what the phrase “try to persuade” might mean.  The arguments here – legal, philosophical and linguistic – could go on forever.  In fact, absent specificity and/or precedent involving league enforcement, there will never be agreement surrounding the facts of any given case.  For example, imagine if Kevin Durant said something along these lines:

“We have a great nucleus here with the Brooklyn Nets but if we had a shut-down defender like Joe Flabeetz (currently under contract with some other team), we would be unstoppable.”

Is Kevin Durant ”trying to persuade” Joe Flabeetz to demand a trade to the Nets?  Now suppose that Joe Flabeetz does demand a trade to the Nets a month after that statement.  Do you think the NBA would rule against Durant or Flabeetz or the Nets?

Consider the situation where Agent X represents Player A on the Washington Wizards and also represents Player B on the Boston Celtics.  If the Wizards’ GM is in conversation with Agent X about a possible extension for Player A and happens to mention how impressed he has been by Player B over the last month, is that a way of “sending a message” to Player B about the Wizards’ attraction to him?  It could be just that; it is also never going to be proven conclusively.

My point here is that it is easy to say that tampering is bad, and it goes against the primary objective of the NBA – – to assure a level playing field for all teams all the time.  But the devil is in the details and these devils are real.

The NBA would like everyone to believe they are serious about tampering because if people begin to think they are not serious there, it might lead to some fans believing conspiracy theories about favoring certain teams at the expense of other teams.  If tampering is permitted – not legitimized but merely permitted due to lack of enforcement of rules – it can call into question the commitment of the league to “fair play” and a “level playing field” and all those good and proper values associated with sports leagues.

So, to demonstrate the NBA’s commitment in this area, here are some of the punitive actions that the league can levy should they ever discover a “bulletproof” case of tampering:

• Fines can go up to $10M for teams; fines can go up to $5M for individuals.
• Draft picks can be taken from the tampering team and given without compensation to the “offended team”.
• If the “offender” is a player, the Commish can suspend him without pay for as long as the Commish thinks is appropriate in the specific case.  [Aside:  Try to imagine Adam Silver suspending LeBron James, Anthony Davis and Russell Westbrook for their meeting prior to the trade.  That will happen two days after a herd of unicorns prances onto the National Mall in Washington DC causing a rain of gold coins that will pay off the National Debt.]
• Any trade or free agent signing deemed to have involved tampering can be voided.

That sure sounds like a no-nonsense stance by the NBA; those penalties are harsh indeed – – but nothing ever seems to come of any such inquiries into how deals got done.  Again, consider the following situation:

• Sam Glotz is under contract and playing for the Knicks; his contract will expire at the end of the season.
• The Knicks can offer him the most money, but Sam has told his agent he is not happy in NYC and wants to go to another team if that other team will give him all that they can do legally under the CBA.
• The Knicks want to resign Sam Glotz and are not aware of his dissatisfaction with NYC.  So, they negotiate with the agent for several months – – unsuccessfully.
• Then, on the day free agency opens, Sam Glotz signs a “max contract” with the San Antonio Spurs.  Fans are supposed to believe that all the contract negotiations for a multi-year deal worth tens of millions of dollars were done in the few hours when they were “legal”.  Nothing took place between the Spurs’ management and Sam Glotz’ agent before that time.  Well, OK then…

I am sure a reader here will correct me on this, but I can only recall two incidents where the league has declared any actin to be tampering and imposed a penalty.  [Aside:  The penalties outlined above are recent increases in penalty levels and did not apply to the incidents described here.]

1. The Lakers’ GM, Rob Pelinka, was found to have tampered when he “negotiated” with Paul George’s agent/representative while Paul George was still under contract to the Pacers.  Pelinka was not fined but the Lakers were fined $500K.  [Aside:  The team probably paid that fine out of the petty cash drawer.]
2. The Lakers were also fined $50K when Magic Johnson – then a Lakers’ official – was so effusive in his praise for Giannis Antetokounmpo that it was defined as an attempt to get Giannis to come and play for the Lakers.  [Aside:  The team probably paid that fine out of the loose change found lying around the arena after the crowd went home after a game.]

Notwithstanding the fact that my two examples here involve the Lakers as does the report from the LA Times about the prior meeting between LeBron James, Anthony Davis and Russell Westbrook, I am not trying to pick on the Lakers.  My point is that tampering happens; the league wants fans to believe that it is firmly opposed to tampering; but in fact, the league goes out of its way to avoid anything resembling scrutiny in these sorts of situations.

To give you a sense of the sort of enforcement mechanisms that are in place in the NBA, consider this requirement levied on team officials:

• Team officials will certify in writing annually that they did not engage in tampering or engage in impermissible communications with free agents or their representatives and that the contracts they signed satisfy all applicable league requirements.

Well, there you have it.  There is the league’s ironclad enforcement mechanism in simple English.  Can there possibly be anything more for the NBA to do?

Finally, I’ll close today with a thought from H. L. Mencken that seems appropriate:

“To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble.  But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true!”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

Last week, the NFL announced that the Black National Anthem would be played at all their games in addition to the song recognized as the US National Anthem, The Star-
Spangled Banner.  In the spirit of full disclosure, until I read the report of this addition to NFL games, I did not know there was such a thing as a Black National Anthem.  It took me less than 15 seconds to find a video online thanks to Google showing Alicia Keys singing the song titled Lift Every Voice and Sing.  It is a lovely song and Ms. Keys’ rendition is moving and entertaining.

Having said that, I am not so sure this is a good move for the NFL or for US society in general.  Before anyone consigns me to a supervisory position in a white supremacy organization, please let me explain.

Five years ago, the NFL was an innocent bystander in a protest involving the US National Anthem.  When Colin Kaepernick began his protest, I said then – and I continue to believe – that his message was important and his issue of harsh police practices against Black people is one that needed to be fixed.  I agreed with the goal of his protest then and I continue to believe in it.  I also said then – and I continue to believe – that he chose a bad way to “use his platform” when he chose to kneel during the National Anthem.  By choosing that means of protest, Colin Kaepernick guaranteed that the debate would be divided between his issue and the outrage of some folks who saw his protest only as disrespect for the anthem, the flag and the country itself.

The NFL was an innocent bystander here because it did not instigate the protest; it did not encourage the protest; it did not suspend players who joined the protest.  Now, for reasons I do not pretend to understand, the NFL has chosen to put itself in the bullseye of what is certain to become a controversy.  Within hours of the announcement of this new musical policy, social media – – actually very anti-social media – – saw lots of real and exaggerated outrage over this announcement labeling it as more of the “cancel culture”.  Folks on politically conservative news networks chimed in with their faux disbelief that the NFL could have possibly done such a thing.

None of that surprised me, and I really doubt that the NFL was taken by surprise there either.  If that is all there is ever to be about this addition of the Black National Anthem to the staging of NFL games, I am sure the NFL will see this as a big win for the league in that its image as a “good citizen” would be enhanced.

Now comes a “What if…”

What if a player or coach – of any race or ethnicity – chooses to protest the addition of the Black National Anthem by turning his/her back or taking a knee or sitting down or doing jumping jacks on the sidelines as it is being played or sung?  Remember, Colin Kaepernick remained an active NFL player for an entire season as he protested back in 2016, so what recourse might the league have here?  My guess is that the NFL would say in this sort of situation that they welcome all points of view because the goal of the NFL is to entertain everyone not merely part of the population.  But that situation would still be “a bad optic” for the league – – particularly if the putative protester here was a 350-lb offensive lineman who chose the jumping jacks protest suggested above.

• [Aside:  At least half – and probably more than half – of the writers and commentators on the scene in 2016 portrayed Colin Kaepernick positively.  I wonder if those same writers and commentators would have a similar view of my jumping jacks offensive lineman.  I suspect not.]

I cannot stop wondering how and why the NFL did not learn something from Colin Kaepernick’s protest in 2016.  In my view, he picked the wrong target (the National Anthem) and he protested in the wrong place (on the sidelines of a football stadium instead of on the steps of a local police station).  The NFL does not have a wide variety of venues to show its support of improving race relations in the US and of a more inclusive/equality-based society; so, I cannot fault them for using the presentation of their games as their vehicle here.  However, they saw how visceral the reaction was to “messing with the National Anthem” five years ago.  Why pick the same focus for this initiative?  Why flick the scab off that wound?

In previous rants here, I have sometimes referred to an imaginary organization that I call PSLTBPOAJAE – or People Spring-Loaded To Be Pissed Off At Just About Everything.  The organization is imaginary, but there are people who can be offended by things that certainly seem less than vitally important to me.  So, let me pose another “What if…” here.

What if an activist group advocating for a minority community in the US is now offended by the fact that the NFL will “show an acceptance” for a Black National Anthem but has not acknowledged that particular activist group’s own anthem?  It may not be likely to happen, but please do not tell me it cannot happen.  I have no idea if other minority communities have songs that they acknowledge as their own anthem in “hyphenated-America”, but if such things are in fact out there, we will learn of their existence sometime this autumn.  Is that a wonderful turn of events?

• [Aside:  Please note I do not have a “What if…” for fans demonstrating in some way.  That is because I will be shocked if there are no fan demonstrations of a negative character based on this musical policy.  My fundamental hope is that fan demonstrations simply follow Ron Burgundy’s   exhortation, “Stay classy…”]

And it is that last potential point of possible confrontation that concerns me the most.  What might it say about the status and the stability of US society in 2021 if there are myriad minority groups in the country that believe  they have their own “national anthem”?    Is it mandatory in the name of “inclusion” that everyone in every group accepts the validity of every other group’s hyphenated-American national anthem?

Sorry, but I do not think it says anything positive at all.  Therefore, the NFL’s choice to associate itself with one  of the “hyphenated anthems” starts us collectively down a path that may not have a desirable endpoint.  The adage that the “road to Hell is paved with good intentions” seems eerily pertinent here.  Is the NFL’s recent decision one that is inevitably “inclusive” or is it one that is more “divisive” than anyone would wish for?  Is it the goal to have lots of “hyphenated-Americas” interacting with one another or is it the goal to have a more unified America?  I adamantly prefer the latter.

Let me repeat myself.

• I like the song, Lift Every Voice and Sing.
• I take NO offense at its being played at NFL games just as I take NO offense at the US National Anthem being played at NFL games.
• At the same time, I would not care even a little bit if neither song nor both songs were part of the NFL game experience.
• I agree with and continue to support the NFL’s actions seeking to make US society more inclusive and more equal for everyone in the country.
• And with all that, I think this was a wrong decision by the NFL because I fear it will create as much division and disharmony as it produces progress.

Finally, idealism is an element of many of the NFL’s actions and efforts mentioned above.  So, let me close here with this observation by H. L. Mencken:

“An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

The US Supreme Court rarely does anything that generates a comment here.  These rants deal with matters that are beneath the level of societal import at which the Justices engage.  However, for the second time in about 3 years, the Supreme Court has ruled on a “sports case” in such a way as to pave the way for change.

Three years ago, the Court struck down PASPA and opened up sports betting opportunities in any State that wished to have such an activity and legislated its regulation.  Any sports fan who has been paying even passing attention realizes the impact of that ruling.  Last week, the Court ruled on a case known as NCAA v. Alston.  Based on the analyses I have read by people far more schooled in legal matters, Alston opens the doors for sweeping changes in the way college athletics are governed and administered in the US.  I will not pretend to know more than they do; so, let me offer up what I see as possible consequences of the ruling in NCAA v. Alston.

First off, it is important to note that the decision last week was a 9-0 decision.  Justices from across the philosophical spectrum of the Court all agreed that Alston was the winner here.  That unanimity could be important should any future case come to the Court where Alston would be a relevant precedent.  Having said that, the way I read the Court decision is that it is sharply focused.  It seems to me that the Court only said – unanimously – that the Federal anti-trust laws apply to the NCAA just as they do to business entities.  This decision does not  demand that the NCAA begin to pay college athletes starting tomorrow or anything nearly so “cataclysmic”; but it sure does seem to leave the door ajar for a challenge to the hallowed concept of “amateurism” that the NCAA clings to.

What Alston specifically will allow – because these were the bases of the original suit against the NCAA – is for collegiate athletes to receive “education-related items” as part of their “compensation” for attending a school and playing their sport.  Moreover, the value of those “education-related items” cannot be capped by the NCAA who argued that without caps there would be recruiting advantages for certain schools thereby tilting the playing fields.  [Aside:  As if such disparities do not exist now…]  The “education-related items” in this context mean things like:

• Laptops
• Paid internships – – in addition to unpaid ones
• Post-graduate employment opportunities
• Post-graduate educational opportunities

When I look at that list – and even if I mentally add a few things of similar standing to that list – I have to ask myself how and why this case was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court.  The mavens at the NCAA expended the energy and the legal fees to take a case involving internships and laptops to the Supreme Court.  That means they thought it was more important to do that than it would have been to work on meaningful reform of their rules, regulations and relationships with their “student-athletes”.  Can it be that no one in the entire organization stood up on his/her hind legs and said something equivalent to:

• What the Hell are we doing here?

There are lots of advocates out there who believe that college athletes need to be paid and that there is plenty of money to pay them handsomely.  There is plenty of momentum in that direction; intercollegiate athletics will be quite different twenty years from now.  So, let me pump the brakes here for a moment.  I want to look at college athletics in light of the decision in Alston with which I agree completely and what might happen down the road.

College athletes are already paid for their services.  Please, do not allow activists in that area to pretend they are not.  Anyone can argue that they are not paid sufficiently or proportional to the revenue they create, but please remember that they are paid for their services.  College athletes get:

• Free tuition
• Free room and board
• Free tutoring
• Enhanced medical “coverage”
• “Cost-of-attendance” stipends

The general student body does not get those things and those things are plenty valuable.  College athletes do not get the cash equivalent of those things – nor are they given the option to convert them to a cash payment – but they receive things that are of value.  Moreover, college athletes get these “benefits” which have value and pay no tax on that value.  Obviously, the total value of that sort of stuff will vary from school to school so it is difficult to come up with an estimated value; my guess is that package is worth about $125K if an average student tried to purchase it on the open market.

Those who argue that college athletes need to be paid for their services are actually arguing that they should be paid more than they are currently being paid – – but that rhetoric is not nearly as compelling or powerful than alleging that the college athletes are toiling on the fields and courts as unpaid serfs.  Balderdash…!

The issue of NIL – – athletes’ Name/Image/Likeness – is about to blow up in the face of the NCAA and the way the NCAA seems to be trying to address it is to ask Congress to give it immunity from being sued for anything past or present that relates to NIL.

• Memo to NCAA:  Be careful what you wish for.  If Congress gives you that immunity, you will necessarily have to answer to the Congress on lots of other issues and that cure could well be worse than the current disease.

Just as in the case of Alston and especially considering the decision last week in that case, the NCAA is at least a 20-1 underdog to win a case giving them authority over NIL rights should they choose once again to expend the legal costs of pursuing such a matter.  If such a matter went to court, I would characterize the NCAA as a modern-day Sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill only to have it roll back down the hill so he can try again tomorrow.  There is a fundamental flaw in my analogy here and I recognize it:

• Sisyphus was in this predicament because the gods compelled him to be there.
• The NCAA would be doing this by choice.

Ergo, my only conclusion would be that the NCAA is collectively so stupid that the following applies to everyone there:

• The only thing they can learn from past mistakes is how to make bigger and more painful mistakes in the future.

The issue of NIL will probably not be an unvarnished win for college athletes, however.  Consider that NIL rights had been available to Trevor Lawrence for all his years as the QB at Clemson when just about everyone had projected him to be the #1 pick in the NFL Draft all the way back in his freshman year.  He could have made lots of money over those three seasons licensing and monetizing his name, image and likeness.

Now consider an imaginary woman who is the star of Clemson’s lacrosse team…  [Aside: I do not know if Clemson even fields a lacrosse team; this is a metaphor.]  This woman – – call her Suzy Flabeetz, the twin sister of Joe – – is not going to get nearly the same number of opportunities to license her NIL as Trevor Lawrence would nor would Ms. Flabeetz be paid at the same licensing rate as Lawrence.  If you want to chalk that up to inherent sexism in American society, have at it.  The fact remains that fewer people are going to pay less money to the star athlete on the women’s lacrosse team than they will for the star QB on the football team.  Maybe those roles will be reversed over the next 100 years, but they are not going to be reversed next week just because college athletes can now control their name, imaging and license rights.

There are many different categories of laws.  There are laws of science that cannot be “overturned”.  Astronomers deal with Newton’s Laws and Kepler’s Laws; anyone working in fields related to electrochemistry must come to grips with Faraday’s Law; electricians have no choice but to accept Ohm’s Law.  Then there are laws that result from legislative bodies – or autocrats – which are subsequently enforced by other human beings and interpreted by courts.  That is the sort of thing that results in NCAA v. Alston and/or Brown v. Board of Education.  And then there are “Laws” that do not have similar stature or standing.

• Mention Murphy’s Law to anyone; they know it; they have seen it in action.
• Mention the Peter Principle to anyone; they know it; they have seen it in action.
• Mention Parkinson’s Law to a program manager; he/she deals with it daily.

There is the potential here for the application of The Law of Unintended Consequences.  I need not delve into the depths of that law; everyone knows it exists and how it can insert itself into various issues and conflicts.  So, how might it apply here…?

In a consenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh seemed to write that the athletes in minor sports should be able to bargain collectively over benefits that would apply to specific minor sports teams.  Collective bargaining has been around for a long time, and it has a strong standing in American jurisprudence.  However, this is where “Unintended Consequences” might tumble down:

• Business entities collectively bargain with organizations that represent employees of that business entity.  General Motors bargains with the United Auto Workers who provide GM with people to build their cars.  GM does not collectively bargain with the folks who provide and maintain the coffee machines and the vending machines in the break rooms of their factories.  The people providing that service are not GM employees.
• If the NCAA collectively bargains with some or all its “student-athletes”, they begin to take on the flavor of employees of either the NCAA or the schools represented by the NCAA.  For the purposes here, the only important point is that athletes could morph into employees.
• When employees are compensated for their labor/services, those employees pay federal, State and Local income taxes on that compensation.  Scholarships and fellowships that provide for things other than tuition and course-related expenses are supposed to be reported as income on the Federal tax return.  The instructions for Form 1040 say explicitly, “…amounts used for room, board and travel must be reported on Line 1.”
• Suddenly, athletes will need to hire tax accountants to handle their filings.  Absent that, they might run afoul of the tax laws and the NCAA will surely have an eligibility standard ready to be implemented for “tax cheats”.

The Supreme Court did sports fans a great service three years ago in throwing out PASPA and then again last week in its unanimous ruling in Alston.  My only cautionary note here is that we should not expect monumental changes in the landscape of college athletics overnight.  Change will come, and change will be significant; but now is the time for a reassessment of where we are and what various paths forward might do to the fabric of college sports.

Let me close this rant today with an observation about sports by the English writer, George Orwell:

“Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play.  It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………

 

 

I fear that this may not end well.  I suspect that some will accuse me of going over to the dark side and I know that I am going to take a position that is contrary to most of the sports columnists around the country who I like very much and who I follow.  So, I am prepared to be in the position captured by the final line in Frank Sinatra’s great song, My Way:

“Let the record shows, I took all the blows and did it my way.”

With the conclusion of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and with various athletes filing suit against the NCAA over a variety of economic situations, there has arisen a hue and cry for the NCAA to admit once and for all that its “amateur model” involving the noble and selfless “student-athlete participant” is nonsense.  There is merit in that “demand”, but I am not so sure that payments for college athletes is a good idea or a practical one.

At the core of any call – strident or nuanced – to “pay the players” is a sense of equity and fairness.  Some college athletes are part of an enterprise that brings in almost a billion dollars to the NCAA (March Madness) and when it is over and the lights go out, those athletes do not get even a minuscule piece of the action.  What is usually left unstated is that the writer or commentator thinks that lack of fairness is so outrageous that it must be fixed despite any other ancillary problems it may cause.  I have two reactions to these arguments:

1. I agree that it is unfair to a point but not so great that it needs a radical fix.
2. I think there are ancillary problems out there waiting to happen.

Let me start with the “fairness” argument.  USA Today says that Mark Emmert makes $2.7M per year; reports appear frequently about the salaries of coaches exceeding $5M per year; conference commissioners make$3-5M per year.  The money that the NCAA uses to pay Mark Emmert – – and the other moguls in NCAA HQs – – and the money that the schools and conferences use to pay those coaches and commissioners comes from the toils of two classes of college athletes:

1. College football players
2. Male college basketball players.

[Aside:  Yes, I know that a handful of women’s college basketball programs operate in the black but those are few and far between.  As a sport on the national level women’s college basketball is not a money-maker.]

Now, as soon as I recognize the fact that two sets of college athletes produce all the revenue that gets distributed, I think about “fairness” in an entirely different dimension.

• Why should those college athletes have no say in the way the revenue is split up?
• Why is it axiomatic that “their revenue” must go to support a fencing team or a synchronized swimming team neither one of which has a prayer of breaking even?
• Why are football players and male basketball players “exploited” in the current system but not in a world where they generate the revenue and then some All-Knowing Guru of Fairness distributes that revenue to other sports?

The difference in the third case above is who does the “exploiting”.  If it is the NCAA and the coaches and the conference commissioners, that is proclaimed to be evil.  If it is the other college athletes and their coaches and conference organizers, that is brushed aside as “OK”.

Another problem I have with the “lack of fairness argument” is that some college athletes “exploit themselves”.  As the NCAA reminds us every March, only 2% of college athletes will ever play professional sports.  If the system were really rigged to the utter disadvantage of college athletes, most of that other 98% would wind up in menial jobs or in a state of homelessness.  The reason would be that the athlete did not take advantage of the thing that colleges give those athletes in exchange for their play:

• Scholarships!

I am going to be using Georgetown University here in DC area as an example later so let me say here that a year of tuition, room, board, books and fees at Georgetown comes to $73K in round numbers.  So, a four-year scholarship there is “worth” almost $300K.  Many athletes on an athletic scholarship at Georgetown would not have been able to foot that bill, so it follows logically that those athletes are getting an opportunity to receive an education worth $300K; there may not be a direct “cash exchange” happening here, but the athlete is trading his prowess on a team for $300K-worth of education.  And the fact also is that some college athletes fail to take advantage of that opportunity and that failure is NOT the fault of the NCAA or the college.

I can hear the cries of “Wait a minute there” racing through the minds of readers at this point.  Some of those athletes come from disadvantaged neighborhoods and school systems and are not ready to avail themselves of a college education.  That is absolutely correct; and it has nothing to do with the “fairness” of the current system.  The situation caused by that unreadiness for college at age 18 is societal and not of the NCAA’s doing.  Moreover, the unreadiness of some athletes for a college education puts that athlete in a position where he either trades his services for something of minimal value to him or tries to go it alone in another field of endeavor.

Stop right here for another inconvenient truth (Hat tip to former VP, Al Gore):

• The athletes in question here are not children; they are adults; they can vote; they can enlist in the military; they can purchase firearms.
• Because they are adults, they are the ones making the choices here and choices made by adults have consequences.
• In this case, the consequences often mean that a college athlete spends 4 years of his life – or maybe 5 – working in a revenue generating sport for a school where he does not get much benefit in return from the educational resources there.

I also believe that “paying the players” will have unintended consequences.  Georgetown University here in DC fields teams in 24 sports – – 11 men’s sports and 13 women’s sports.  If  you do not live around here, you may not know that Georgetown has a football team in the Patriot League in Division I-AA.  In the case of that football team there are no possible accounting shenanigans to be done to show that team is “at break-even”.  There are no 8-figure TV deals; attendance at home games might exceed 1000 fans occasionally, and tickets for Georgetown football cost $10.

Since any move to “pay the players” is not likely to generate a 20-40% increase in revenues as a result of that act, schools will have to figure out how they will cover a new cost.  In the case of Georgetown, men’s basketball would be safe; it brings in almost all the revenue for the athletic department.  However, the school administrators might look at the Georgetown football team and ask – – why are we paying those guys?

Football programs at lots of small schools could easily be in jeopardy.  There are about 130 colleges that play major college football in the US; there are 350 colleges that play NCAA men’s basketball in the country.  For those 220 colleges or so where football is a large expense with no real prospect of ever leaving the realm of “large liability”, ditching football could be a real and logical choice.

I picked football as the example here because it is the other sport where the “fairness” argument is applied by proponents of “pay the players”.  However, returning to Georgetown’s Athletic Department, consider the possible vulnerability of these activities in addition to football:

• Men’s and women’s golf, lacrosse, rowing, sailing, soccer, swimming and diving, tennis, cross country, track and field.
• Baseball
• Women’s basketball, field hockey, softball, squash, volleyball.

Now for some practicality…  The current legal issue on the front burner is called “NIL” standing for Name, Image and Likeness.  People say that athletes should be able to derive some cash directly to their personal exchequer when someone uses their name, image or likeness to promote an activity or a product.  It is nigh onto impossible to take the position that a player’s NIL does not belong to him/her and if one wants to ramp up the rhetoric you can quickly get to the point where restricting a player’s ability to manage NIL is a “restraint of trade”.  OK, so let me say that I have no problem whatsoever with giving athletes total control over their NIL and I want those athletes to keep every dime they can get for the use of their NIL.

At this point some readers are thinking that I am – maybe – not so unredeemable after all.  Well, maybe not.  You see, if college athletes’ NIL were turned into a free and open marketplace, the “fairness folks” would be unhappy very quickly.

• Trevor Lawrence could bank some serious coin for his NIL to promote products, events or causes.
• Joe Flabeetz – the third string offensive guard on an 0-12 college team somewhere – and/or his fiancée, Betty Bopf – a cross country runner at the same school might have to pay someone to use their NIL for any reason.
• I would want all of the “fairness folks” to sign a waiver of their right to be outraged at this inequity before opening NIL to a free marketplace because that inequity will happen immediately.

There are also rumblings that Congress might assert itself here and do some legislating.  In the pantheon of problems to be solved in the US in 2021, college sports legislation is pretty far down on the priority list.  Moreover, the Congress has a record of dealing with sports that is less than stellar.  I will only point here to PASPA – passed in 1992 – to minimize gambling on sporting events collegiate and professional which was declared to be unconstitutional and removed from the books.  Does anyone need a repeat performance from the Congress anything like that?

Everyone – me included – decries the NCAA’s ridiculous regulations on what athletes may receive as benefits from schools in the recruiting process and in the days on campus.  Remember, the NCAA once revised the rule saying that recruits could be offered breakfasts including bagels WITH cream cheese because the rule before that denied the addition of cream cheese.  We just shake our heads at the pettiness and the ineptitude of the folks writing rules like that.  So, now think about what might emanate from the US Congress on the issue of “pay the players”.  It would not surprise me to learn that any US Government set of regulations would equal or exceed the ones in place by the NCAA and the government regulations will need to be narrowly written because the “agency” in the government responsible for oversight there will need to report to Congress at least annually.

I said above that I did not think this situation was so dire that it needed a radical remedy immediately.  However, if the Congress is bound and determined to punch this tar baby (Hat Tip to Joel Chandler Harris and Uncle Remus here), let me outline a radical proposal:

• Define into law that any collegiate sporting event that charges for admission or receives a dollar of revenue from broadcast rights, naming rights or promotional benefits shall be divorced from the college in question and put directly in the Athletic Department associated with that college.
• Then, define into law that every Athletic Department associated with a college is a business and it is separate from the college.  That business is taxable and will file business tax returns with the IRS like any other business.  Those filings will need to be audited too.
• Make it such that colleges cannot spend money on sports; only their private enterprise Athletic Departments can do that.  And then – – wait for it – – define any contribution to any Athletic Department for any purpose such that the donor cannot claim it as a charitable contribution on the donor’s tax return.  Colleges can still get donations for building libraries or laboratories but not for building field houses.  Donors to colleges would be able to take a charitable deduction; donors to Athletic Departments would not.

I really have not turned to the dark side, but I remain unconvinced that the calls for “pay the players” is much more than virtue signaling.  Let me leave you today with two observations by folks much more insightful than I:

“The only difference between a cynic and a realist is whether or not you agree with him.”  (Mark Twain)

“If my film makes one more person miserable, I have done my job.”  (Woody Allen)

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………