Sports Rapport

World Wide WednesdayWorld Wide WednesdayThoughts on Clay Matthews’ Extension With The Packers

March 22, 2013

These AT&T Commercials With The Dumb Kids Grind My Gears

March Madness is happening right now, and that’s almost entirely a good thing. Basketball’s on all day. It’s still cold in Chicago, but the sun is shining, birds are chirping, and there are signs that the weather will improve in the coming days. It’s the end of that six-week stretch between the Super Bowl and now, the most miserable time of the year.

There are really only two bad elements of March Madness:

1) If you put any legitimate thought and analysis into filling out your bracket, it’s a fact of science that it will be busted by Sunday. Whatever. It happens.

2) Certain commercials will rub you the wrong way. You will see them 742 times over the course of four days. They will consume your entire existence.

For me, this year’s title belongs to the “It’s Not Complicated” AT&T commercials. This series has been going on for a couple months and I hated it right away. I’m honestly not even sure if this is the one they’re showing on repeat during the tournament. But if it’s not, it doesn’t really matter because they’re essentially all the same:

What really bothers me is the idea that we should be on AT&T because these stupid kids say so confidently. Have you ever spent time around kids? They’re self-assured and WRONG all the time. Immediately, the little girl starts talking about the importance of being fast to avoid being bitten by a werewolf. Such faulty logic. Everybody knows speed won’t save you in a werewolf revolution. You’re not getting out of there just by outrunning everyone. There’s physicality involved. Who do you think is more likely to survive a werewolf takeover, Usain Bolt or The Rock? Definitely The Rock. Now, The Rock’s not exactly slow, but he’s not one of the fastest people in the world either. Somewhere in this rant, a metaphor for cell phone plan exists.

What do a bunch of dumb kids know about picking the best mobile service plan? Have they scouted other companies’ rates? Will their insatiable desire to stream Max and Ruby MURDER their parents in data overage charges? What about a family sharing plan? Does AT&T really have the best service in their locale? If so, none of them are growing up anywhere that I’ve ever lived.

We all know that children are stupid. That’s why they have parents that micromanage every second of their lives. If not, they’d kill themselves and/or each other. If permitted, they’d eat candy and ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day. They’d never go to school and they’d spend every waking second playing video games. They’d never shower or change their clothes and would end up with rashes from head to toe.

Forgive me if I don’t trust a bunch of dumb kids to properly pick the right cell phone plan.


March 20, 2013

World Wide Wednesday

Deep Routes

At The Classical, Jack Moore praises Bo Ryan and his system:

In a way, Wisconsin’s story is the Moneyball of college basketball. Wisconsin hasn’t been good enough for long enough to match up with the truly storied programs in terms of recruiting resource; the program arguably became relevant nationally in 2000, when Dick Bennett helmed the squad to the Final Four two seasons before Ryan took over. For much of his career, Bo Ryan simply wasn’t going to convince the star guard, the muscular center or the hyper-athletic slasher to come play basketball at Wisconsin.

Instead, Ryan had to find talents hidden beneath the scoring-centric and NBA-centric scouting world that defined the national recruiting scene. He had to find big men with jump shots. He had to find small forwards who could defend the post. He had to find guards who could rebound. Even top-tier recruits like Joe Krabbenhoft, a five-star forward out of North Dakota, earned reputations as bangers and scrappers, reputations reserved for the untalented.

For Salon, Patrick Wensink talks about how much he ultimately got paid for writing a novel that became an Amazon bestseller:

I was reminded of a single page in “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius”; specifically, the section where Dave Eggers breaks down his $100,000 advance on sales from his publisher. He then lists all his expenses. In the end the author banked a little less than half. It wasn’t bad money — just not the “I bet Dave Eggers totally owns a Jaguar”-type of income I expected. I mean, his name was on the cover of a book! He must be rich.

That honesty was refreshing and voyeuristic. I always said if I ever had a chance, I’d make a similar gesture. As a person learning about writing and publishing, there was something helpful about Eggers’ transparency. So here is my stab at similar honesty: the sugar bowls full of cocaine, bathtubs full of whiskey, semi-nude bookstore employees scattered throughout my bedroom tale of bestseller riches.

This is what it’s like, financially, to have the indie book publicity story of the year and be near the top of the bestseller list.

Drum roll.

$12,000.

Hi-hat crash.

Continue reading World Wide Wednesday


March 19, 2013

Would The Cubs ACTUALLY Move From Wrigley To Rosemont?

Almost assuredly not, but that won’t stop the team from using Rosemont mayor Brad Stephens’ offer as leverage against local businesses, citizens, and government officials who are standing in the way of the franchise’s inalienable right to print money. At CSN Chicago, David Kaplan reports:

Stephens told me this morning in a CSN Chicago exclusive that he is willing to give the Cubs and the Ricketts family a 25-acre parcel of land in the village that is a prime piece of real estate large enough to accommodate a new ballpark as well as parking and anything else the Ricketts family would desire to have as a part of the new complex.

Two weeks ago at Fangraphs, Wendy Thurm detailed the Cubs’ plan and its impediments:

Wrigley Field is falling apart. The Ricketts family, which bought the Cubs for $845 million in 2009, has a plan to spend $300 million of their money to renovate the 98-year-old ballpark. There will be structural upgrades, improved clubhouses, new underground batting cages, upgraded luxury suites and club facilities, more and better concessions and restrooms, and a new patio area in left field to serve the new upper deck. The Cubs also want to add new LED signage and billboards in the outfield. The classic Wrigley look will remain the same: the brick, the marquee outside the ballpark, the ivy and the old scoreboard. Cubs blog Bleacher Nation has conceptual drawings, which you can view here.

The Rickettses are prepared to spend an additional $200 million to develop a hotel across the street from Wrigley, an office building and an open-air plaza to be used for neighborhood and family activities. The open-air plaza will be developed in a triangular-shaped plot just west of Wrigley on Waveland and Clark avenues.

The key point is that the Rickettses want to spend their own money in lieu of seeking public funding and tax credits. Because this is a novel concept in the parlance of professional sports, these plans are a no-brainer, right?

Wrong.

The Cubs want more night games so they can sell more beer. The local bars want more day games so they can sell more beer. The Cubs want to increase their advertising space inside and outside the stadium in a manner which may obstruct some of the surrounding rooftop bleacher views. Those business owners, who pay 17% of their gross revenue to the Cubs as part of a 20-year agreement signed in 2004, are unsurprisingly against that.

The Cubs also want more concerts and street festivals; some neighborhood citizens feel this would erode their quality of life. (This is something they did to themselves when they signed leases in Wrigleyville, a dire mistake I made when I was 23–anyone who has lived in Chicago for more than a few months, and doesn’t like skipping home through pools of vomit, should know better.)

Neighborhood alderman Tom Tunney is the most public opponent of the Cubs’ plans. Why would he be so interested in the plight of the rooftop owners? The Wall Street Journal‘s Ben Kesling reports:

In both 2004 and today, the now 16-building-strong group called the Wrigleyville Rooftop Association has counted on a powerful ally in Democratic Alderman Tom Tunney, to whom they have given more than $140,000 in campaign contributions in the past decade. Mr. Tunney declined to comment, but in a news release he pledged to protect the “quality of life for all our neighbors and local businesses in the ward.”

So there’s that, except $140,000 seems comparatively insignificant, right? Like, if I were going to publicly stand in the way of an organization worth almost $1 billion, I feel like I’d want a bigger cut. Maybe that’s just me?

At the end of the day, though, you know what the bars and rooftops want even less than more night games and partially-obstructed views? The Cubs to leave town. If it were to actually happen, those businesses would be almost entirely worthless. Wrigleyville would give way to Lakeview yuppie residential sprawl and there would be substantially less demand for cavernous, cookie cutter bars that charge $8 for a Bud Light and blast Pitbull on repeat.

So, yeah, the idea that Cubs would actually move out to Rosemont is pretty laughable at this point. The only way it would ever happen would be if the bar and rooftop owners — through their mouthpieces in city government — act in extreme and negligent self un-interest and refuse to engage the Cubs in good-faith negotiations. You’d have to believe they are smarter than that.


March 15, 2013

It’s Not The End Of The World That Greg Jennings Left, But Damn

So Greg Jennings is a Viking…

 

 

This makes me sad, but I understand.

Let’s first look at this from the Packers’ perspective. There are salary cap constraints and you have to allocate your resources toward fielding the best possible 53-man roster. With Randall Cobb, Jordy Nelson, and James Jones, is wide receiver a position of need? $18 million guaranteed is a lot for a luxury purchase, especially as the team must extend BJ Raji, Clay Matthews, and Aaron Rodgers. After that, there are much more pressing needs–the team could get stand to improve everywhere besides QB and punter.

(And I’m more than aware that Ted Thompson has not signed any of those other positions up to this point. I would like to make a ‘splash’ as much as the next guy, but do still trust this front office to do the job as well as any other in the League. It’s easier to think this way than to micromanage every single decision as if we are actually better at evaluating tape and workouts.)

But now put yourself in Greg Jennings’ shoes. You contribute mightily to an organization for seven seasons. You listen to the coaches, run precise routes, and lead by example on and off the field. You were a crucial part of an unforgettable Super Bowl run.

Wouldn’t it personally bother you that this organization doesn’t view you core player? Wouldn’t you feel disrespected and undervalued? Wouldn’t you want to prove them wrong and capitalize most financially? Where you’re wanted?

It sucks for us as Packers fans–it always sucks to get stuck in the crossfire of these disputes. Obviously, this doesn’t hurt anywhere near as much as Favre as a Viking did, but I shudder to think what it would be like to lose a game where Jennings torches the Green Bay secondary. Ugh.

I feel better already though:

 

Go Pack Go.


March 13, 2013

World Wide Wednesday

Deep Routes

Spencer Hall writes about depression and the Internet:

And here’s the icky, horrid, and needlessly personal part : I am, and have, for the better part of my life in tidy five year-ish cycles, dealt with depression. Dealing is the right term. You don’t fight it, because if you are the kind of person who suffers from depression, then you know you surrender the minute it shows up, and simply send distress signals to the appropriate people. They send meds, changes of routine, and patience. Then you wait for it to blow over, and just pardon yourself for the crying jags, long walks, and repeated listens of George Harrison’s “All Things Must Pass” over your headphones.

I’m just one data point, but the internet has never, ever exacerbated any of that for me, particularly regarding depression. If anything, it helped by giving the best data set in the world on the universal crap-to-gold ratio, i.e. that 90% of everything is crap, and that the 10% worth keeping is a matter of editing and careful curation.

In Vanity Fair, Rich Cohen talks about attempting to ghostwrite billionaire Theodore Fortsmann’s autobiography:

He asked why I wanted to work on the project, or, as he put it, “What do you see of value in my story?” I got a chill from this question. It suggested pathos: he needed me to tell him that his own life had significance, was worth recording. I once dated a girl who made me tell her why I liked her. It reminded me a little of that. I said I was interested in his story because it was a great one, as grand as a scenario by Trollope, the ingenious way he made all that cash and helped create the private-equity industry, how he broke up Dr Pepper and turned around Gulfstream, but it was the family story too, his grandfather, a man who made a fortune in woolens, his father, who battled the bottle, his older brother, Tony, who stands for big brothers everywhere. Written the right way, I said, it could be the story of America itself, epic, unique, and gloriously grand. In other words, I behaved like a whore, mouthing pretty words while my real motivation was self-evident. Hey, you want me to say you’re the biggest and the best and the most amazing and that I’m in this joint because I find you irresistible? Fine, as long as it ends with me getting paid.

At SB Nation, Andrew Sharp covers the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference skeptically:

There usually isn’t a clear answer to these debates anyway, and even when there is, there’s a good chance it all changes when the games happen. Randomness, variance, anomalies, etc. A growing faction of the media uses advanced stats to write mythbusting articles to make the sports conversation smarter, but it actually just makes things more pedantic. We are not scouts. Rather than couch all of our 2013 sports arguments in data that’s not as conclusive as it seems, it’s more fun to just have an argument.

It makes you appreciate the millions of people who don’t care about any of this, because maybe they have the right idea. Look around the Sloan Analytics Conference and you see a group of thousands of over-educated smart people, most of whom are white males, congratulating each other on expertise and hitting on all the same themes, forging this echo chamber that’s supposedly rendering everyone else extinct. “This conference is the Internet,” I write on Saturday afternoon.

There’s a much bigger world out there, and thank God for that.

Continue reading World Wide Wednesday


March 12, 2013

Charles Barkley on Suggestion of Shorter NBA Season: “That’s a great point but these owners are greedy pigs”

SI media critic Richard Deitsch was in attendance for an event promoting CBS/Turner’s coverage of the NCAA tournament, which starts next week.

Charles Barkley, who will appear in one of the networks’ two studio shows, was, unsurprisingly, candid.

From Deitsch’s story, here are some of Barkley’s other interesting soundbites:

  • Can the Knicks make noise in the Playoffs? “They can’t get past the second round.”
  • How do you feel about Dwight Howard? “I wish he would tell Kobe to shut the hell up and get off [his] back”
  • Could the NBA benefit from a shorter season? “That’s a great point but these owners are greedy pigs…If we started the season around Christmas and played, say, 70 games, we would stay from football and college football. I think if we played 70 games and started later we would benefit.

Though the compressed season caused more back-to-backs, it was nice last year when the NBA started as football was winding down. Barkley’s probably right that the League would ultimately benefit, especially if you measure success in terms of quality of play, player health, and fan happiness as opposed to purely in dollars and cents. But, because of NBA owners’ propensity to focus on the latter in the short-term — something that’s clearly not lost on Barkley — he’s probably also right that it will never happen.

Via SI


March 7, 2013

Roger Goodell is the Most Powerful Man in Sports. Does the Emperor Have Clothes?

Yesterday, Sports Illustrated unveiled its annual 50 Most Powerful People in Sports list. Roger Goodell took top billing:

As de facto CEO of the King of All Sports Leagues — more than $9 billion in annual revenue; furnisher of many (O.K., most) of the highest-rated TV programs — the NFL commissioner wields considerable influence by dint of job title alone. Goodell has consistently pushed, and sometimes trespassed, the boundaries of that authority. His overly swift and harsh dispensing of punishment in the Saints’ Bountygate scandal represents one example. But here’s another: In the same week last month that we learned of Goodell’s $29.5 million salary for 2011 (that’s $11.5 million more than Tom Brady that year), it was also reported that rookie Patriots cornerback Alfonzo Dennard had been convicted of assaulting a police officer. And though the incident occurred while Dennard was still at Nebraska, many expect that he will be suspended by Goodell. This 54-year-old commish is akin to the boxer who has more than power — he has reach too. Either you approve of him or, like 61% of NFL players in a recent USA Today poll, you disapprove of him. But like his league, his supremacy is unmistakable.

Are we really so sure that his “supremacy is unmistakable”? Events of the past year would suggest otherwise.

His “overly swift and harsh dispensing of punishment in the Saints’ Bountygate scandal” of players was overturned by his predecessor, Paul Tagliabue. On Scott Fujita, one of the four players suspended, Tagliabue found the “NFL’s contentions lacking in merit.”

Continue reading Roger Goodell is the Most Powerful…


March 6, 2013

World Wide Wednesday

Deep Routes

For ESPN the Magazine, Wright Thompson gets unbelievable access to Michael Jordan:

THE OPPOSITE OF this creeping nostalgia is the way Jordan has always collected slights, inventing them — nurturing them. He can be a breathtaking asshole: self-centered, bullying and cruel. That’s the ugly side of greatness. He’s a killer, in the Darwinian sense of the word, immediately sensing and attacking someone’s weakest spot. He’d moo like a cow when the overweight general manager of the Bulls, Jerry Krause, would get onto the team bus. When the Bulls traded for the injury-prone Bill Cartwright, Jordan teased him as Medical Bill, and he once punched Will Perdue during practice. He punched Steve Kerr too, and who knows how many other people.

This started at an early age. Jordan genuinely believed his father liked his older brother, Larry, more than he liked him, and he used that insecurity as motivation. He burned, and thought if he succeeded, he would demand an equal share of affection. His whole life has been about proving things, to the people around him, to strangers, to himself. This has been successful and spectacularly unhealthy. If the boy in those letters from Chapel Hill is gone, it is this appetite to prove — to attack and to dominate and to win — that killed him. In the many biographies written about Jordan, most notably in David Halberstam’s “Playing for Keeps,” a common word used to describe Jordan is “rage.” Jordan might have stopped playing basketball, but the rage is still there. The fire remains, which is why he searches for release, on the golf course or at a blackjack table, why he spends so much time and energy on his basketball team and why he dreams of returning to play.

At SB Nation, Paul Flannery talks about the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference and drafts a strategy for effectively communicating the message:

For every analytically inclined member of a team’s front office there are several more who aren’t interested. For every Hoopdata loving basketball writer (please come back, Hoopdata) there are crusty beat writers who don’t care nothing about fancy-boy stats. And for every enlightened fan there are hundreds more who count the ringzzzz first, last and forever.

And that’s where this whole thing breaks down in a self-congratulatory echo chamber of smugness and mistrust. The cultural divide is still strong, but it doesn’t have to be. As Kirk Goldsberry mentioned in his presentation, we need to get better at communicating what the metrics mean and that’s where the media comes into play. With a little more patience and whole lot less hubris, we can start talking with people instead of at them.

Also on SB Nation, Matt Ufford analyzes Dennis Rodman’s trip to North Korea:

1. Rodman is right: he DID make history, though he makes that boast to Stephanopoulos with more flair and import than it warrants. A garishly-dressed pawn with facial piercings is still a pawn, and Rodman will be lucky if his role in the history of American-North Korean relations falls somewhere between Mrs. O’Leary’s cow and Paul Tibbets. (Humanity will be lucky if it doesn’t.)

2. I’m less troubled by Rodman’s lack of circumspection than by his utter failure to make a simple comparison. If you’re going to compare your friend Kim Jong Un to an American president (not a recommended stance in a debate, by the way), modern American history offers no shortage of presidents with blood on their hands, from Bush’s invasion of Iraq to Obama’s use of drone attacks to the succession of Democrats and Republicans who waged war in Vietnam for two decades. Saying “Bill Clinton had sex with his secretary,” aside from being factually suspect, is not a strong comeback when you’re being asked about Kim’s prison camps.

Continue reading World Wide Wednesday


Twitter @sportsrapport

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • Meta