Category Archives: Sports

Hunter Osborn and the Penis that Traumatized Everyone

Posted on by

hunter-osborn-penis

**UPDATE – All charges have been dropped**

Really? A felony for exposing your penis in a group photo of the football team?

Yep, that’s what it’s come to in this great country of ours. Hunter Osborn pulled down his football pants just enough to expose his penis in the team picture. The prank went unnoticed and the picture was placed in the school yearbook.

Osborn is now being charged with sixty-nine (yes, ha ha) counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure, one each for his clearly traumatized teammates, and a felony count of furnishing harmful items to minors, presumably other students who purchased the yearbook.

Smart move by Osborn? Probably not, but good grief, have we no sense of humor? First off his sixty-nine teammates share a locker room with him. I strongly suspect they’ve seen his penis before. I suspect they’ve seen quite a number of them over the years. I played sports, I was in locker rooms, boys have penises, is that the right word? What is the plural of penis? Do I care? No. Penises it is.

Does anyone actually think this image was harmful to minors?

Have the police in Mesa, Arizona not heard of the internet? Pictures of penises abound, and breasts as well, you might, if you look hard, even find a vagina, ahhh! Run, hide the children! They must not see a penis, breast, or vagina lest they be emotionally scarred.

It was a silly prank but let’s face reality, no one was hurt. There was a time when the football coach would have made Osborn clean the locker room for a week the whole time snickering away and remembering some of his own youthful indiscretions.

And poor Osborn is saying things like he was disgusted by his behavior? Is that the kind of adults we want to raise? Disgusted by showing his penis in a football picture? It’s stupid but, frankly, kind of a funny.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Princeton could use a guy like Joel.

Tom Liberman

Life Ain’t Fair – Just ask Hikaru Nakamura

Posted on by

gary-kasparovI wrote a blog post about a chess player named Hikaru Nakamura who was penalized for breaking a rule in chess a few weeks back and something happened yesterday that painfully illustrates the old adage that life just ain’t fair.

In that case Nakamura moved his piece, took his hand off of it, and then tried to further move it. His opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called this a violation and Nakamura was forced to put his piece on the original square. This cost him the game.

Tough but fair. Them’s the rules. Or are they?

Nakamura just finished playing in the United States Chess Championship where he finished in a tie for second place. After the match the tournament scheduled a special Blitz Chess match between the top three players in the tournament and legendary chess player Gary Kasparov.

Kasparov is 53 years old and has been largely retired from chess competitions for the last ten years. He is considered one of the greatest players in the history of the game and some consider him the clear best. That, of course, is debatable.

Well, why today’s blog? Because in a Blitz matchup against Nakamura; Kasparov did exactly the same thing as Nakamura did in his match against Aronian. Nakamura saw him do it and a wry expression came across his face. Why? Because he was totally screwed.

If Nakamura called the legendary Kasparov for the rules violation, everyone is going to consider Nakamura a bad guy. While there is a fairly large amount of money available to the winner of the Blitz tournament, it is largely an exhibition for fans to watch one of the all time greats take on some of the best United States players of today. If Nakamura doesn’t call Kasparov then he is throwing away an important advantage.

Well, Hikaru, I don’t have to tell you, life ain’t fair.

That is today’s lesson people. Sometimes you have to give life a wry smile and move on. I feel for you Hikaru. At least this one blogger thinks you made the right call, however, if it happens again, throw down the hammer!!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Is it Okay to Root for Nazi?

Posted on by
Nazi-Paikidze

Nazi Paikidze, that is.

The annual United States Chess Championships, both men’s and women’s divisions, are being held at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center in St. Louis for the next few days and the aforementioned woman is a leading contender for the title.

Let’s all admit it, when we see the word Nazi certain things come to mind. We cannot deny this bias against the word. It has a meaning far beyond her name. When I heard her name at last year’s championship the first thought I had was: She would be wise to change it. I’m not proud of that thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that she should use her name proudly. She has nothing to do with the definition we generally associate with that word. She is a young woman who is an excellent chess player and, by all accounts, a great role-model for young girls everywhere.

It does get me to thinking about the unconscious biases we have in our daily lives. If I was robbed by a person who wore a red shirt then when I see someone in a same colored shirt I become slightly afraid. If I was in a car accident caused by a someone driving a particular make and model of car then when I see a similar car I immediately become more alert. It’s certainly not fair to the person in the red shirt or the driver of the other car but it is unquestionably true, much as we might like to pretend it is not.

We cannot avoid such biases for we are human and we have lived. Things have happened to us. Events and people harmed us and we associate said events with what the person was wearing, the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, and any myriad of other things.

The reality is that we must judge people by their actions, not the color of their shirts, their names, or any other superficial feature. Such a world is the one we Libertarians yearn to live upon and yet I am as susceptible to such biases as anyone else.

My point? I’m not sure. I guess I’m saying that I’ll be trying to overcome such thoughts and I hope you will as well.

P.S. Go Nazi!

Tom Liberman

Chess and the Internet Live Update Controvery

Posted on by

agon-limit-broadcast-chessI know the title of this blog isn’t too exciting but if you’ll put up with me for a moment I think I can show how a controversy that is roiling the chess world might well have a big impact on you.

The situation is this: A company called Agon Limited contracted with the FIDE (World Chess Federation) to have exclusive rights to develop, organize, and commercialize the World Chess Championship cycle. As part of this exclusive control they demanded that no other site publish information about ongoing games in the just concluded 2016 Candidates Tournament. In the past other chess orientated sites have broadcast such events on a move-by-move basis. They didn’t broadcast a live view of the players, just the moves those players made on an image of a chessboard that was updated regularly.

Several sites refused to accept this demand and went ahead with their broadcast. Agon is now moving forward with legal action against those sites.

At this point, if you’re still with me, you’re probably wondering how this effects you.

If Agon is successful in their efforts it means that no one can legally give information about an ongoing event without permission from the original content provider. This is an extraordinarily broad restriction. It means that sports websites like ESPN could not give you updates on the status of current events. It would mean, for example, that the only way you could learn what was going on in the currently running 2016 NCAA Basketball Championships would be to tune into the primary broadcaster. No other outlet could give you so much as an update on the score of the game.

It could be extended to non-sports events like awards shows. No entertainment outlet would be allowed to broadcast the winner of an award until the conclusion of the show.

The benefits for the original broadcaster are obvious. If the only way to get information about an event is to watch said event from the provider, it forces more people to watch the show. The drawbacks for everyone else are likewise apparent. Every other outlet that gains an audience by broadcasting information about the event is out of business. All users that cannot or do not want to watch the original broadcast are left without recourse.

One can certainly imagine if the primary broadcaster has sole rights to updates of an event, they might well find a fee-based structure in order to gain access. They have a captive audience. That also cannot be good for consumers.

Paying attention to what this about yet?

I’m hard pressed to believe the courts will support Agon in this lawsuit but it bears watching.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Without Audio who would you believe? Krzyzewski or Brooks

Posted on by

brooks-coachkIt’s March Madness and that means lots of hard fought basketball games. There was an incident after the Oregon v. Duke game that I think might give us all cause for reflection. We make many assumptions in life and, if we are honest with ourselves, sometimes these are completely incorrect.

Near the end of the game an Oregon player named Dillon Brooks took a very long shot as the clock was winding down even though his team had the game in hand. There were actually good reasons he did this including instructions from his coach. That’s not my topic for today though.

Coach Mike Krzyzewski approached Brooks after the game and said something to him. Afterwards people were wondering what was said in the exchange. Brooks responded that Krzyzewski told him, “You’re (Brooks) too good a player to be showing off at the end“.

Coach Krzyzewski, when asked, denied this and said that what he told Brooks was that he was a terrific player.

Brooks is a young man while Krzyzewski is a well-respected and older coach.

When I heard about the exchange I immediately and without much thought believed Krzyzewski. Why would a coach with such a distinguished record lie? Brooks was coming off an emotional win, perhaps he misunderstood, I thought charitably.

Then audio of the exchange was released.

Coach Krzyzewski has now apologized both for his original denial and for lecturing a player from another team.

My point is straight-forward. In a he-said/she-said situation how many times do we believe the person who appears to have more credibility. I think this is natural. The person who has more credibility has achieved that status for a reason. But the reality is far more nuanced. Sometimes the more credible person has more to lose. Sometimes the more credible person knows they can get away with a lie because the other party is less trustworthy. I think we see this situation far more often than we realize.

I’m of the opinion a lot of times the less credible person is not believed and suffers consequences, sometimes severe.

What I hope you take from this incident is while believing the person who appears to have more credibility might be natural, it’s often wrong. We should always dig a little deeper, if possible.

I’m curious. Without the conclusive audio evidence would you have believed Coach Krzyzewski? Would you have labeled Brooks a liar and lost respect for him?

Without Audio what would you have thought?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

J’adoube and Hikaru Nakamura

Posted on by

Hikaru-touch-kingThere was an absolutely fascinating incident at the 2016 Candidates Chess Tournament being held in Moscow, Russia. The top U.S. player in the world, Hikaru Nakamura, touched his king but decided against moving it.

There is a rule in chess that if you touch a particular piece you must then move that piece to another square as your next move. The rule is clear. You can adjust your piece without intending to move it, if you tell your opponent of your intention beforehand. This rule is well-known by all the players at such a prestigious tournament and was one of the first rules of chess taught to me when I was a child.

It happened at a crucial moment in the game and Nakamura touched a piece that if moved would almost certainly cause him to lose the game. He had to move another piece in order to achieve a draw.

It’s not so much the incident that I find fascinating as its immediate aftermath. Nakamura’s opponent, Levon Aronian, immediately called Nakamura on the touch. Nakamura’s reaction was just as quick. He claimed that he was adjusting the piece. Aronian didn’t believe it for a moment and called over an arbitrator who agreed with the Armenian. Nakamura then had to move the king, did so, and soon after lost the game.

It is clear from the video that Nakamura was in no way adjusting the piece. He grabbed it in order to move it and then realized his error.

His initial denial of his intentions is understandable but not to his credit. He’s having a poor tournament at a very bad time. The winner of this tournament gets to play for the World Chess Championship, and a lot of money, against Magnus Carlsen. The fact that he knew this loss was going to badly damage his chances to win the tournament certainly went into his knee-jerk denial of his intentions.

However, since that moment he has been exceptionally reasonable, fair, and completely without rancor (skip to about 1:30) toward Aronian and the arbiter. He has spoken about it with reporters openly. And I, for one, find that enormously admirable.

Nakamura could easily have carried a lot of bitterness and defended his position until the bitter end but chose a different and better path. There are many of us, I won’t hesitate to say most of us, who would not be so generously inclined. We would be bitter, angry, we would probably convince ourselves that we were actually adjusting the piece, that we had been wronged.

I get that people will find his initial reaction bothersome but I’m willing to forgive him that because of the immediacy of the situation in the heat of the moment. I find his behavior after the fact to be a far more important indicator of his character.

Good on you, Hikaru!

For full disclosure, Nakamura is a member at the St. Louis Chess club to which I belong but I don’t think that’s influencing my opinion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

To Quit or Play – Steven Bowditch

Posted on by

steven_bowditchThere was an interesting situation in last week’s World Cadillac Championship when a golfer named Steven Bowditch chose to keep playing despite the fact he was having a miserable week.

Bowditch had mathematically the worst tournament at a World Golf Championship ever. The reason I think it’s worth discussing is because he kept playing despite the fact he did not have to do so.

Normally at a golf tournament they play four rounds and anyone not in the top half after the first two rounds is “cut”. That is they don’t make any money and they don’t get to play the final two rounds.

This particular event has a limited number of players and there is no cut. By finishing in last place Bowditch earned $48,000. Had he said his stomach was upset or claimed that he hurt his wrist and withdrawn at any point he still would have earned the money. He chose not to do so.

Despite being well out of contention, he finished fourteen shots behind the second to last place finisher, he continued on for all four rounds.

Bowditch is an excellent player who has won twice on the PGA tour and earned over three million dollars last season playing golf. He suffers from severe depression and before getting desperately needed help had some rough times.

I’m of the opinion that Bowditch is to be admired for not quitting despite there being no real reason to continue on. He claims his game needed work and so he decided to keep playing but I think there is more to it than that. Perhaps, perhaps not. Only Bowditch can say.

I know I probably would have quit. Most people will say they too would have continued on despite the misery but I think that’s not the case.

Anyway, I admire Bowditch and wanted to say so. I also have a question for anyone who reads this. Do you think you would have quit?

With nothing to play for and in misery, do you think you would have continued on?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Advertisement, Outrage, or both? Terry Crouppen Superbowl Ad

Posted on by

crouppen-superbowl-angerIt’s been a few days since the Denver Broncos defeated the Carolina Panthers in the Superbowl but I wanted to take just a moment to discuss the commercial a fellow named Terry Crouppen paid to have shown during the game.

The backstory is that the owner of the Los Angeles Rams football team, Stan Kroenke, moved the team from St. Louis to Los Angeles. There was a protracted and ugly campaign between Kroenke and various interests in St. Louis on whether the team should stay or move. In the end Kroenke got his way.

The Rams football team had very little success while in St. Louis except for a short span from 1999 to 2002. They have been one of the worst teams in the league in recent years although have moved more towards the middle of the pack the last few seasons. One of the reasons Kroenke listed for moving was lack of fan support. So, obviously, there was a lot of animosity.

Crouppen’s commercial was basically him taking Kroenke to task for moving the team despite arguable good support from a fan and business base despite all the years of losing. That while Los Angeles certainly offered more revenue, Kroenke was already quite wealthy and could have kept the team in St. Louis without causing any sort of financial burden. Or was that really his point?

Now to the real reason for my blog.

I don’t doubt Crouppen’s anger at Kroenke. I’ll take him at his word. The reality of the situation is that Kroenke just doesn’t much care what Crouppen thinks and the commercial does nothing to change the fact that the team has already moved. What it does is make a lot of people in St. Louis appreciate and admire Crouppen, who is running a business. He’s a personal injury lawyer here in town who has long run advertisements on local media offering his services. Was this not really just more of the same?

He’s known, perhaps accurately or perhaps inaccurately, as an ambulance chaser. A lawyer who takes advantage of people who are desperate. A lawyer who feeds the Compensation Culture.

I do not know if these accusations are true or not but I do know it is the general perception of people here in St. Louis.

So was this attack against Kroenke a sign of moral outrage from Crouppen or merely a shrewd and, judging from the comments I’m reading, effective advertising campaign for his law firm? Or both?

You tell me!

Was Crouppen Angry, Shrewd, or Both

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Johnny Manziel and Insanity Laws

Posted on by

Johnny-ManzielAn NFL quarterback by the name of Johnny Manziel is making news these days for his erratic behavior and his father is expressing concern for his son’s safety. In another story a former NFL player named Brandon Marshall, who struggles with Borderline Personality Disorder, offered compassionate and sound advice for Manziel.

My point today isn’t to address Manziel, who clearly needs help, or Marshall who is to be admired for his acknowledgment of his own troubles and dedication to helping others, but to explain why it is so difficult to get Manziel the help he needs. Why it was so difficult to get Amanda Bynes the help she needed. Why it was so difficult to get Britney Spears the help she needed.

The picture below is a list of reasons why people could be put into insane asylums in the mid to late 19th century.

asylum-admission-reasonsIn particular women were put into such institutions simply because they behaved in a way in which male dominated society did not agree. In addition people, often women or the elderly, were put in such places simply as a way to steal their estates.

This began to change when a brave woman named Nellie Bly had herself incarcerated in an asylum and wrote a book about her experience.

After the horrors described by Bly, many states wrote laws preventing husbands from simply ridding themselves of unwanted wives both legally and without recourse.

This is the heart of my blog today. I’m a Libertarian and not an Anarchist and these sorts of laws are one of the many reasons why I feel this way. Such legal intervention from the government was absolutely necessary to protect a vulnerable group of people, in this case women and the legitimately insane who were suffering in an environment that can only be described as torture.

It is also the reason why it is so difficult to get Manziel into treatment should he not want it. He has refused such help and his father is upset that the hospital at which he most recently stayed simply allowed him to leave because he wanted to depart.

This is the both the price of freedom and the importance of minimal government oversight displayed for all to see and understand. It is vital and necessary that laws be put into place and rigorously enforced making it difficult for a person to be put into an insane asylum without their consent.

To pretend that people will not be so incarcerated without such laws is an exercise in denying human nature. Men will always want to extricate themselves from marriages without paying the price, and in this modern times, women as well. People will always want to steal the estates of their parents through such methods. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world. There are many unsavory people in this world and laws, fairly applied and with limited scope, protect us from such as they.

And yet, such protections endanger us as well. It is difficult to get someone help who is truly in need. Many obstacles must be overcome in order to get someone aid if they do not desire it. This is the price of true freedom which Libertarians and even more so, Anarchists demand. This is personal responsibility even for someone in apparent and obvious mental trouble.

I recognize that there are far too many laws with far too broad a scope. But this does not mean all governmental oversight should be abandoned.

These are difficult questions and there are no simple answers. Not for Manziel and his family or for Anarchists and Libertarians.

Thanks for reading and feel free to comment, even in dissent!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Femke Van den Driessche and Cheating at Sports

Posted on by

femke-van-den-dreisscheThere’s an absolutely fascinating sports case taking place at the World Championship Cyclo-Cross event where a woman named Femke Van den Driessche was found to have a motor in her bicycle. I’ve written in a general way about Performance Enhancing Drugs in the past and also about mechanical aid in regards to Oscar Pistorious and this latest incident is but an extension of those blogs.

It’s clear that Van den Driessche was on a bike that had a motor in it. It is clear people will cheat to get ahead at sports. This cannot be denied. What I want to talk about today is the impact such engineering is going to have on the sporting world and how we deal with it.

Soon replacement parts in humans will be able to perform more ably than their originals. Motors are being installed that cannot be spotted without a time-consuming inspections. Drugs that are undetectable enhance human performance. Someone will find away to make a shoe that allows a player to jump higher or run faster. Gloves will be created that track a ball in flight. The only end to the improvements that can be made is human imagination.

No sport and no player will be above suspicion. It is not just at the highest level of professional sports, your child might be beaten out on the local cross-country team by another kid who is using a technological advantage. All incredible performance will generate skepticism. Any improvement in skills will cause suspicion. It is endless and it is inevitable.

The recourse to all this is largely futile. For every bike inspected for a motor there will be an engineer figuring out a way to do it and avoid the inspection. For every PED test created to spot a drug there will be a method found to mask it.

Does this mean we should stop trying to ferret out those who break the rules? Should we just dispense with rules altogether and accept that such methods are a fact of sport?

I think these are good questions because I believe sport itself is important and a force of good in this world.

It’s good to encourage human achievement and sport is where this is often most visibly on display. I find few things in life more exhilarating than well-played sporting endeavors and astounding athletic achievement. It is disheartening to think such performances came about because one team or athlete used something to give them an advantage.

At work such improvement is considered a good thing but not so in sports. In work if you complete a job more quickly your receive rewards, but in sport everyone knows that a motor can propel a bicycle faster and a computer can play better than an unaided athlete. The point is to do so without such aid against your peers.

Therefore I think it’s a good idea to continue to fight against those who do not play by the rules. It is true that we cannot catch all the cheaters nor prevent all the cheating. It is true that every great performance in the future will be subject to innuendo, speculation, and outright accusations.

What else is there to do?

Tom Liberman

The Hypocrisy of Sports and Maty Mauk

Posted on by

maty-maukThere’s big news hitting the sporting world as the oft-suspended quarterback of the Missouri Tiger football team is facing more problems thanks to a video released of him using cocaine.

I think it’s hypocritical and you might find that opinion puzzling considering it’s clearly a serious violation. Maty Mauk is obviously using cocaine in the video. Sure, it could be talcum powder, sure, it could be someone who looks just like Mauk, but let’s take things at face value. It is Mauk and he is using cocaine in the video.

Cocaine is currently illegal in the United States and despite my Libertarian philosophy that all drugs should be legal, his actions are criminal in nature. The team has every right to suspend him, or at least that’s the obvious answer.

So why do I find the entire situation hypocritical?

Mauk was suspended earlier in the season. Why? Because of cocaine use. My buddies who know a lot about the situation told me as much months ago. He then returned to the team only to be suspended again after a drunken fight at a bar.

Again, you might well ask me, why are you so outraged at this latest suspension? He has a history. The video clearly shows him using cocaine.

Here’s the problem. When was the video taken? No one knows. There is no evidence that this is new. The reality is the athletic department knew he was using cocaine and suspended him earlier in the season for that reason. This video could easily be from that time period. Frankly, I’d guess it probably is, but that is pure speculation.

But suddenly, because the public gets to see what the athletic department knew all along, the suspension gets longer? Becomes indefinite? That’s garbage. If you knew he was using cocaine and decided a four game suspension was appropriate, then that’s the decision you made. You should not go back and change that decision because suddenly the public is aware of the situation.

It reminds me of the Ray Rice controversy which I wrote about in September of 2014.

If the team was aware of the allegation and decided on the punishment the court of public opinion should have no meaning. The only reason Missouri is creating this new suspension is to look good. It’s not about the transgressions Mauk made nor about the good of the team or the university. It is simply face saving and it disgusts me.

Believe me, I have no sympathy for Mauk. He made his bed and he can sleep in it. But this suspension is completely out of line with reality.

We should be judged for the crimes we commit at the time we commit them. The court of public opinion should have no say in the matter. If it did where would we all be? Examine your life. We are none of us innocents.

I’m ready to take some heat for this one but I strongly believe Mauk should be cleared to play football unless it turns out this video was taken after the original suspension.

What do you think?

Does the Video make a Difference in Mauk's Suspension?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

The Student Athlete Compared to the Student

Posted on by

student-athlete-payThere is a profound difference in the nature of a so-called student-athlete and a student and I think many people fail to realize it. Why does this come to mind? Because a fellow named Don Yee, who happens to be the agent of Tom Brady, wrote an opinion piece over the weekend suggesting, among other things, that Clemson and Alabama college football players should refuse to play in the National Championship game.

It’s an interesting piece and talks about the inequality of the financial situation between players and virtually everyone else. I wrote a blog on the same subject back in June of 2013 that echoes a number of the points Yee makes. Yee focuses on race and I largely disagree with his assessments in that regard but it’s not the topic of my blog today.

While reading the passionate comments under Yee’s post I found a common thread. The idea is that the student-athletes should be more than happy with the opportunity to attend college without cost. The students would very much like this arrangement for themselves.

People equate the student and the student-athlete to make this argument. Gosh, lots of kids go way into debt to pay for college is the common thought. The reality is that the two are virtually the opposite of one another in an economic sense.

The student is paying a fee for an education. He or she must get good grades to be allowed into the school and even then pays for the commodity of an education. The school charges this fee and then provides teachers, buildings, cleaning staff, and many other items in return. The student is the consumer and the college is the commodity.

On the other hand, the student-athlete is being paid to play football. The school is the consumer and the player is the commodity. The school’s representative all but begs the athlete to come to that school rather than sell his services to a rival. The player then provides entertainment that generates a large amount of revenue for the school, coaches, and many others. The payment the player gets is an education, exposure for a future career, and various other things.

These are fundamentally different. We cannot compare the student with the student-athlete because they are essentially opposites of one another from an economic perspective.

In the meantime, the student-athlete has noted that coaches are getting paid a lot more than they were twenty years ago. The student-athlete has noted the total amount of revenue generated from the games has gone up by a tremendous amount but their salary remains the same. They want a raise and who are we to tell them they should be “satisfied” with their current rate of pay? That they are “greedy” for wanting more? Would you tell a co-worker those things? Of course not.

Should they get a raise? That’s not my business. It’s between the schools and the student-athletes but I certainly think it’s their absolute right to ask for a raise and not perform if they don’t get. Likewise the school might fire them and give the scholarship to someone else. That’s a labor negotiation which is exactly what is happening.

On a happy note, things are actually moving toward a much more equitable state. The student-athletes in the Power Five conferences now receive a stipend of several hundred dollars a month, access to as much food as they can eat, and their families no longer have to pay out of pocket to attend Bowl Games (trips which can be quite expensive, particularly for low-income households). The horrific system where scholarships were revoked if a player got injured or failed to perform has been abolished.

The NCAA and the colleges seem to have recognized the inequities that the system engendered and are working to fix them without going to a purely professional system wherein each player is negotiated with separately.  These are good things. A reasonable pay increase for the players without destroying the nature of the system. A win/win.

It makes an old cynic proud.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

 

And Three Say No to Ken Griffey Jr

Posted on by

ken-griffey-jrThere’s an ugly tradition in baseball regarding the Hall of Fame and I’m hardly the first person to write about it but here I go anyway, please forgive me.

No player has ever been elected into the Hall of Fame by a unanimous vote of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. The very first inductees in the Hall of Fame were Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson. Since then the likes of Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Tom Seaver, and others have joined them. Men who were elite among the elites. Giants of the game.

There is no question these players deserved the vote of every writer but tradition says no. And thus the greatest player I ever saw, Ken Griffey Jr., was supported by only 437 of the 440 writers voting.

The first vote back in 1936 was a special situation. Voters were only allowed to put ten names on the ballot and there was quite a backlog of worthy players. Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby, Micky Cochrane, and George Sisler didn’t make it that first year although later joined.

Writers who left off Ruth or Cobb were instead voting for Speaker or Hornsby. I’m willing to give them a reluctant shrug of the shoulders. That first list did have ten players fairly close in skills to that top five. It’s possible that someone could argue Ruth was the 11st best player on that list. Unlikely, I’m not buying it, but it’s not a completely unreasonable position.

The backlog continued for a while but eventually there were fewer than ten deserving candidates each year.

There are some members of the voting block who think because Cobb and the others were not unanimous, to elect anyone with 100% of the vote is insulting to those five, it somehow diminishes those five. They often submit a ballot with no names at all.

This is injustice. This is unfair. It is against the traditions of our nation.

Let’s imagine a world in which voters do not cast their ballot for the person they think best represents the qualities needed for the position. I know it is difficult to fathom but try to conjure a world in which people vote for or against a candidate not because of their abilities but because of their perceived chances of winning or losing. Imagine a nation in which people have so long voted for inferior candidates that qualified people have no desire to run for office, where the only choices are bad and worse.

Cast your important ballot for a person based upon their record. Vote for them because they are the candidate that most closely represents your views. Vote for them because it is the right thing to do. Vote for that candidate no matter their chances of winning or losing. When we vote for the most worthy candidate regardless of other factors, we make the nation strong. Anything else is a betrayal of your obligation as a voter. It destroys our country one election at a time.

Yes, I’ve finally gotten to the point. I’ve tricked you and I feel shame. Vote for Gary Johnson.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

What Paige Spiranac tells us about a Meritocracy

Posted on by

Paige-spiranacMost of you probably haven’t heard the name Paige Spiranac before but I think her story is interesting enough to discuss for a moment. Spiranac was an accomplished golfer at San Diego State University and has aspirations of joining the Ladies Professional Golfer Association tour.

Her attempt to accomplish this and the success she has attained, and failed to attain, demonstrates some of the ideas behind what is called a Meritocracy. In short, a society that is a Meritocracy vests power with those who prove most competent.

Now onto Spiranac. The normal route to joining the LPGA tour is through Qualifying School where the best golfers battle it out and the top finishers gain access to the LPGA the following season. Once on tour performance dictates how long they stay. Women who finish at the top of the leaderboard and win tournaments are given access to events for a period of time.

Spiranac chose a different path. She is an attractive young woman and leveraged her Instagram account into getting a sponsor’s exemption into a tournament in Dubai.

If you visit the website of the event there is a banner across the top that shows images of the tournament. Spiranac is in three of them while the winner of the tournament, Feng Shanshan, is nowhere to found despite absolutely dominating. Spiranac missed the cut and finished tied for 107th of the 111 total players.

In my opinion there are two lessons to be learned from this series of events.

Spiranac used her attractiveness to gain entry into a tournament that her golfing skills alone did not qualify her to enter. The tournament directors gave her the sponsor’s exemption because people are interested in looking at her and this boosted ratings for the event. The officers of the LPGA tour are likely rooting for Spiranac to improve her golf game enough to join the tour full time. She will undoubtedly gain future exemptions because her looks bring viewers and thus advertising revenue.

There is nothing wrong with any of this. Good for Spiranac. Good for the tournament.

The second lesson is that no matter how greatly people want to see Spiranac make it as a full time LPGA player, it cannot happen unless she improves at golf and starts making cuts and contending for titles.

This is also good. No matter how many people want her to do well, it should be only her actual golfing skill that keeps her on the tour.

I guess what I’m saying is her undeniable physical appeal and her golfing skills are both part of the meritorious equation. If she had neither we would not be talking about her. If she excels at both she will become a star and make a lot of money for both herself and the tour. If she is only attractive but not so great at golf then she will go onto other endeavors and likely do well.

We all have certain things going for us. Our looks, our skills, our minds, our writing ability, or anything else. If we leverage these things we make our lives and the world a better place. If we fail to do so then we leave behind a life and a world that could have been more.

Best of luck to you, Paige. I suspect you’ll never be good enough to make it on tour. Prove me wrong!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Let’s Get Ready to Rumble Announcers – Yawn

Posted on by

ready-to-rumbleI’m a huge sports fan and love both going to the games and watching events on television. I’m here to tell you today about a pet peeve of mine. You may disagree.

The Michael Buffer effect I call it. Let’s get ready to ruuuuuuuuumble!!!!

The long, drawn out name during introductions with emphasis everywhere it doesn’t belong. It’s all part of an attempt to work the fans into a frenzy and I’m guessing most people like it, but it annoys me.

Yes, I’m a party-pooper. Why all the fireworks? The light shows. The screaming announcers? The pounding music. It’s marketing I suppose.

It seems to me that in the old days fans knew when to cheer on their own. Frankly, I find it a both a bit insulting and counterproductive. I know when to cheer but I find increasingly that most fans do not, they wait for the music or announcer to tell them it’s time to yell. Half the time it’s not even appropriate and yet the fans start to scream like Pavlov’s dogs at the first sign of music.

So, either I’m right or I’m a grumpy old man yelling at those durned kids. Which is it?

Which am I?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Tuscaloosa Police Dept Pays $500,000 in Overtime to Police Alabama Football Games

Posted on by

alabama-police-footballThere’s an interesting story out of college football involving the Alabama Crimson Tide and the fact that the local Tuscaloosa police department pays the salaries of officers providing security at football games with no reimbursement from the University of Alabama.

On game days in Tuscaloosa the crowd in the stadium is larger than the entire town and the police department works with local Campus Police to provide security. According to records produced by the city this amounted to over half a million dollars in overtime expenses this past season.

On the whole I don’t think it makes much difference in practicality. The reason I think this is if the University pays for the service some arrangement will be made to return that revenue through tax breaks or other means.

Nevertheless, I have a strong opinion this subject.

The city is providing a service for the university for which they would otherwise have to pay. The University of Alabama would have to bolster campus police forces on game days or simply hire the police force to do the job.

The reason the city of Tuscaloosa likely provides this service is that they get far more than half a million dollars in revenue from the 100,000 people that descend on the town those seven days a year. They do it simply as a courtesy.

This situation reminds of strongly of a story in Atlas Shrugged where John Galt insists on paying Midas Mulligan a dime for the loan of his car for the day. The dime is a trivial amount and Mulligan might easily loan the car as a favor. Galt insists on the payment and I think the University of Alabama should do so as well.

The police department is providing a useful service to the university. This service comes at an expense and paying for it is an homage to capitalism.

Maybe it doesn’t make a difference in actual finances but I do think it’s an important statement to make as far as capitalism is concerned. There is nothing necessarily wrong with doing favors for friends but when somebody provides you a valuable service, pay for it. It could be as simple as buying them lunch. Doing so sets a good example for everyone.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Steve Sarkisian Claims Being a Drunk Means He can’t be Fired

Posted on by

steve-sarkisian-alcoholNon sports fans will be unaware that a fellow named Steve Sarkisian was fired from the job of head football coach at the University of Southern California earlier this year. Several drunken incidents led the athletic director of the school to the decision to fire Sarkisian.

He is now suing USC for $30 million because alcoholism is considered a disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act has rules about protecting disabled people.

To begin with the ADA doesn’t protect people with disabilities if their disability interferes with them doing their job. In the specific case of alcoholism this is spelled out quite clearly. The law states that an employer can discipline, discharge, or deny employment to an alcoholic whose drinking effects their performance. The case appears without merit from a legal standpoint. Sarkisian was sent home from at least one practice for being too drunk and there are rumors of many other incidents.

While that part is true and to my, non-lawyer, mind conclusive, it is not why Sarkisian’s lawsuit so nauseates me. This lawsuit is a slap in the face to all people with disabilities who are protected by ADA. It’s an insult to veterans who lost limbs, babies born with disabilities who must make their way through a difficult life, and anyone else who is truly disabled.

It’s as disgusting as someone faking a disability to gain the advantages laid out by ADA.

Normally I wouldn’t even be taking on a topic like this because I think almost everyone will agree with my opinions on the subject. Judging by the comments on the stories I’ve read this appears largely true.

The reason I’m writing this blog is because drug addiction is a terrible thing and can happen to anyone. Sarkisian deserves help. He needs treatment. People can and should be sympathetic to his plight. In this day and age there are precious few of us who have not been touched in some way by drug addiction. It’s a huge problem that needs to be discussed. Addicts need to be treated rather than ostracized. They should be given new opportunities if they overcome their addictions.

Sarkisian has my sympathy and to his credit has gone through treatment. I would encourage football teams to consider him for a coaching position and include monitoring for relapse behavior along with ongoing therapy.

That being said, he deserves nothing from USC. He hid his problem. He denied his problem. He let his problem adversely effect his job performance. He deserved to be fired. He should be ashamed for even filing the lawsuit.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

 

New York Outlaws Daily Fantasy Sports

Posted on by

daily-fantasy-sports-new-york-lawDaily Fantasy Sports is a quickly growing industry wherein people pick athletes in an attempt to win cash. They are an offshoot of Rotisserie or Fantasy Sports leagues which have been around for quite some time.

The New York attorney general has now said they are illegal within that state. Eric Schneiderman draws a distinction between more traditional Fantasy Sports leagues because, in his legal opinion, the daily games are ones of chance whereas the others are games of skill. There are any number of state regulations against games of chance.

What I want to talk about today is Schneiderman’s distinction between the two as a reason to make the law. I don’t want to discuss the fact that gambling remains illegal in many places in the country.

The reason Schneiderman believes the daily games are gambling is because the average player of such games is not aware of the scope of professional involvement. Advertisements promise riches but the reality is an elite group of professional gamblers, making up about 1% of all players, wins almost all of the money involved. They do this by submitting thousands of entries into the daily game basically covering a huge number of possibilities. This means the other 99% of players who submit one or two picks for each game have virtually no chance of winning unless they are extraordinarily lucky.

Should the 99% of players realize they have no chance to win they would stop playing thus reducing the profit of the 1% which would drive them from the game.

Meanwhile, traditional Fantasy Sports take place over the course of many months and are not nearly as profitable for professional gamblers who do not dominate them in the same fashion.

I largely agree with Schneiderman’s logic. The traditional fantasy games require less luck to win than the daily games. Professionals completely dominate the daily games and the average player has almost no chance of winning.

Yet I totally disagree with Schneiderman’s position. The information about the chances of winning in the daily games is readily available. Anyone who plays the daily game and claims ignorance as to their chances of recouping money is either lazy or stupid. It’s not the state of New York’s job to protect people from being lazy and/or stupid, much though they would like it to be.

This is a classic example of what Libertarians call the Nanny state.

The bottom line is that the more the state protects the lazy and stupid, the less freedom is available to the smart and hardworking.

Thus I am opposed.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Cheerleaders Distracting Misleading Headline

Posted on by

Cheerleaders-distractingTwo of my favorite things, misleading headlines and sports, came together the other day and that makes me happy.

In a football game between Toledo and Central Michigan the referee felt the need to admonish the Central Michigan cheerleaders for distracting the Toledo team as they neared the Central Michigan end zone.

Both the headline and the article hope to heap ridicule on the referee for his declaration. Isn’t it the job of cheerleaders to be loud?

On its face the headline and article by Sam Cooper of the Dr. Saturday sports Yahoo blog seem to have a point. That is until you learn the facts of the situation.

The Central Michigan cheerleaders were chanting snap-counts loudly and in the direction of the field in order to simulate the quarterback’s calls. This is, in fact, against the rules. You can cheer loudly all you want but you’re not allowed to simulate the calls of the quarterback.

The referee was fully justified in the announcement and, in my opinion, could have assessed a penalty. He was kind enough to give them a warning first.

Not only was the referee correct, but I’m of the opinion that the Central Michigan cheerleaders were engaged in bad sportsmanship. Shame on them. Good for the referee.

Congratulations, Sam and Dr. Saturday, you win the misleading headline of the week contest!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Miami v. Duke football Game Ends with Game Changing Call

Posted on by

knee-down-miami-dukeThere was an interesting football game this weekend between the University of Miami, The U, and Duke. The final play of the game was a multiple lateral affair where the Miami players threw it back again and again and eventually scored a touchdown.

Upon reviewing that final play it was noted one Miami player touched the ground with his knee and should have been ruled down. This happened after the clock reached zero. This might have been noticed by the officials during the play but should assuredly have been noticed by replay officials after the play. Neither noticed it and Miami was declared the victor.

There was also a missed penalty on Miami for an illegal block and Miami players ran onto the field before the play was over. Penalties cannot be reviewed and even if penalized for being on the field early, the touchdown would have counted with the penalty being assessed after the play. So neither of those two things rise to the level of the first issue, the knee being down.

As rules now stand, you cannot overrule events after they have been officially declared. Let’s say the Miami player’s knee was down with one second still on the clock, who is to say that Miami wouldn’t have scored on the next play. Therefore I think it’s generally perfectly correct to refuse to overturn a bad call the next day. This was a very unusual situation in that if the call is made correctly, the Miami player is down, the game is over, and Duke wins. There is no further chance for Miami because there is no time on the clock.

The NCAA has suspended both the referees and the replay officials for two future games but they will not award Duke the victory.

I’m of the opinion the circumstances in this case are enough to overturn the win. The player’s knee was down and that would have ended the game with no chance for Miami to score.

I see the other point of view as well in that overturning a game after the fact is fairly drastic. I just don’t think doing it this time would set much of a precedent for doing it frequently. It’s such a rare thing for a game to absolutely end on a bad call. Therefore if I was King of the World, Duke would be declared the winner.

What do you think?

Should Duke be declared the winner of the game?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn