Tag Archives: sports

Cardinals: Jets Drama or the Steelers Stability?

Posted on by
Jets Drama

I’ve been watching the New York Jets drama with interest for a few weeks now. Maybe I, like everyone else, just likes a trainwreck. It’s a mess. The team is a gigantic failure and hasn’t made the playoffs in fourteen years. It’s actually thirteen but I’m going out on a limb and saying the current 3-8 team ain’t gonna get it done this season.

In the midst of watching the Jets drama I came across a comment that really struck me. A fellow mentioned it was nice to have the stability of the Pittsburgh Steelers organization under the guidance of the Rooney family.

It took me a day or so to realize why I was so struck by the comment but now I shall explain.

I’m a St. Louis Cardinals Fan

Born and bred right here in St. Louis and still living here. Yes, embarrassing but I don’t mind. I love my town and I love my team. The Cardinals have long been associated with stability, much like the Steelers. Our ownership went from August Busch to Bill Dewitt but both men clearly love the team and they love stability.

In 1980 the team hired Whitey Herzog to be the manager and we’ve largely kept managers for lengthy periods since then. Eleven years for Herzog, six years for Joe Torre, a single season for Mike Jorgensen, sixteen years for Tony LaRussa, seven years for Mike Matheny. Then we hired Mike Schildt and he lasted only four years.

Now there is intense pressure to fire Oliver Marmol. We are drifting away from the Steelers model and toward the Jets drama.

Stability is a Good Thing

To paraphrase the famous military quote. Stability has a quality all its own. If the players coming up in an organization know from day one the organizational goals, it helps them maximize their potential as players.

While the Cardinals certainly didn’t win the World Series every year, they did make it to the playoffs more often than not, and generally were an above average team. They gave an effort that fans were glad to see and filled the stadium year after year to do so. A bad season here or there didn’t change the organization philosophy.

The Cardinal Way

The organizational philosophy can be summed up with the annoying The Cardinals Way phrase. Annoying because it worked and other teams and fans hated us for consistent winning. Mike Schildt was a big believer in the Cardinal Way and it is largely what got him fired. Upper management wanted analytics-based teams and that is not the Cardinal Way.

The Cardinal Way is based on pitching to contact with a strong defensive team in the field and manufacturing runs with walks, base hits, and minimizing strikeouts. Modern analytics want strike outs and home runs. We got a team of fence swingers and fireballers. We started losing and now Marmol is in danger of being fired.

Jets Drama or Steelers Stability?

Sure, the Pittsburgh Steelers haven’t won a Super Bowl since 2008. That being said they make the playoffs far more often than they don’t. They put out a competitive team for the fans to watch week after week. They don’t stink and they don’t have a lot of drama.

The Jets? Well, the less said the better. They are terrible and, to my way of thinking, that has a lot to do with instability. An instability inspired by their owner, Woody Johnson, that trickles down to all aspects of the team.

Which do we want? I suspect I’ve made my preference clear.

Tom Liberman

The Fake Fight Hype Tyson versus Paul

Posted on by
Tyson versus Paul

I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve got scam fatigue and the fake fight of Tyson versus Paul is just another yawn for me. Tyson versus Paul is a nonsense event dreamed up by people who want your money and will provide some sort of product.

If you want to pour your hard-earned dollars into this silliness, that’s your business. If you want to enrich Tyson, Paul, and their various backers, have at it. I don’t like it, I’m not watching it, and I’m going to explain why.

The Endless Scam

Crypto, NFT, boxing matches, romance, pig butchering, whatever. Mr. Beast, Logan Paul, Liz Friesen, just from today’s headlines. It’s endless. It goes on and on. Caveat Emptor. My old-man memory told me the first celebrity boxing matches was Danny Bonaduce versus Barry Williams, but Wikipedia reminded me way back in 1979 we had Muhammad Ali versus Lyle Alzado.

Why You Shouldn’t Pay to Watch Tyson versus Paul

If people want to watch Tyson versus Paul, they can do so. I’m not saying you can’t watch. That the government should sanction this event, but I am saying by paying money for this you are enriching people who are borderline evil. They don’t care about anything other than taking your money and providing as little product as possible.

Sure, there will be a boxing match. They will fight. There is no doubt in my mind they’ve already spoken to the lawyers and they’ll stay behind the legal line of a scam.

This doesn’t make it ethically right and I think it would be awesome of everyone who promoted this sort of nonsense went bankrupt instead of making tens of millions of dollars. Windmill Tilting Tom, they call me. It’s not the first time I’ve taken on such a hopeless cause, and I suspect it won’t be the last.

This idiocrasy we’re living in is perhaps the ultimate and inevitable result of intelligence in evolution. We love the spectacle. We allow the worst people who laugh all the way to the bank after taking our money to lead us.

It’s your money, do with it as you please. Don’t come bitching to me after the fight.

Tom Liberman

Tampering in the NFL is Outrageous

Posted on by
Tampering

The NFL has a rule called tampering. Basically, it’s against the rules for any team employee to speak with an agent or player on another team except during a short two-day period. It’s largely against the rules even for players who know each other but are on opposing teams.

Basically, if you play for one team in the league, you cannot discuss moving to another team with anyone from another team except for those two-days during the off-season. Recently two moves involving Saquon Barkley and Kirk Cousins triggered the NFL into an investigation. There are reports both were approached by their new team outside the window. Tampering.

Tampering is totally Outrageous

Outrageous! How dare an employee at one place of work even discuss moving to another place of work outside a forty-eight-hour window? Would we tolerate such behavior in any other walk of life? Obviously, at your job, you cannot even so much as speak to someone in management at another company without severe repercussions.

Even if you’re just shooting the breeze with one of your buddies over at Company X but he may have mentioned you’d be a good fit to management a year earlier, against the rules! Scofflaw! Villain! Criminal! What is this world coming to? How can employees betray their employers with such brazen disloyalty?

Imagine discussing your salary concerns with a potential employer while you’re still at your old job. What kind of monster are you?

Why do we have Tampering Rules?

That’s a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. To give the current employer an enormous advantage. No one else can negotiate with the player in question before that short window. Players like Barkley and Cousins, or their agents, can’t get a feel for their value in the open market.

Would the judicial system support such a scheme in any other line of business? Another rhetorical question. It’s completely and totally outrageous.

It’s possible a player might be negotiating with another team during the course of the season and it might affect their play although this is highly suspect. Players want to increase their value and are generally playing their best. That’s beside the point. If you’re working a job, you can negotiate for another position with another company at any time. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Madness, I tell you, Madness

Seriously, how can anyone listen to the NFL spout off about tampering rules? Can you imagine getting a job at another company with better pay and working conditions but an industry representative says, “Nope, sorry buddy. Tampering. Go back to your original company at the original salary.”

We’ve got the NFL draft coming up as well. Go read my rant about that. Ranty, rant, rant!

Tom Liberman

Court Storming is Already Banned the Question is Enforcement

Posted on by
Court Storming

There’s a lot of buzz on all the sports channels about banning Court Storming thanks to a couple of incidents involving high-profile players. Basically, a team wins a game and the fans storm onto the court to celebrate. This often leaves the players on the losing side in a dangerous situation as they attempt to dodge the excited, and often inebriated fans.

The sports pundits are all talking about banning court storming and wagging their fingers at the dangerous situation. It’s bad. It should stop. Golly gee, aren’t they all Dr. Einstein. Thanks for the heads-up on the situation.

Court Storming is Largely Banned

Almost every professional sports league has rules against storming the field or court. Most college conference implement heavy fines on schools where court storming takes place. The ACC is the only exception.

There are generally dividers to keep fans from doing it although these are easily bypassed. Almost every school has security officials stationed at the game to prevent court storming.

It continues to happen on a regular basis all across the country. Let’s not even talk about the celebrations that happen on the streets which are even more dangerous.

How to Stop Court Storming

The question is not if court storming is dangerous, it’s how to stop it. I’ve watched and read the pundits complain about it during almost every sports show and article I’ve read in the last few weeks. Rarely do I find anyone talking about the enforcement issue. How do we stop court storming? If thousands of people want to rush onto the court, it’s not easy stop.

Arresting people is difficult when you’ve got so many storming the court and relatively little security available to do it. You can fine people, ban them from attending, even put them in jail for a few days but that’s a big strain on the system and costs money.

Sure, you can post an army of security people, horses, dogs, and all the rest. That is moderately effective although at a football game with nearly a hundred thousand people in the stands, good luck. The problem is you cannot possibly hire that kind of security for every sports events. Some of these school make a huge amount of money from their athletic programs but many do not.

What’s the Answer?

I’m not sure there is a good answer to this problem. I think extra security, barriers, and penalties for those that do engage in court storming is a good idea. I’d like to see more security in these situations but I’m not sure you can stop a mob of people from doing what they want, often alcohol infused people.

Conclusion

My biggest problem with this entire discussion is that most people aren’t even talking about the solution. They just want to ban court storming without thinking through the process of doing so. We all understand the problem, how about we start talking in a meaningful way about how to implement it.

Tom Liberman

Wrong Scorecard for Jordan Spieth a Problem or Not

Posted on by
Wrong Scorecard

There’s a bit of a contretemps in the golf world over the fact Jordan Spieth was disqualified for signing a wrong scorecard after the second round of the Genesis Invitational. Spieth takes full responsibility for the mistake but the question being raised is should players be required to sign their scorecards at all and is the penalty too harsh?

It’s an interesting question because for a number of reasons and I think there are good arguments for all points of view. Let’s get into it.

Why is it a Rule?

The reason it’s important for a player to sign her or his scorecard stems from a time in golf when only the player herself or himself really knew the total strokes taken in the round. Back then we didn’t have cameras and automatic scoring applications to take care of everything. It came down to a matter of personal integrity. If a player wanted to cheat, the opportunity to do so was readily available. That is not the case anymore.

The argument goes: if scoring is largely automated now, why does the player even have to keep score? Even if there is a mistake, it will be readily fixed almost immediately. In addition, there is the harshness of the penalty for a wrong scorecard, disqualification. Well, it’s disqualification if the player signs for a lower score that actually achieved. If the score is higher then the larger value is entered for the round but that’s another matter and I don’t want to muddy the conversation too much.

What do I think about a Wrong Scorecard?

As a former golfer, I gave up the sport because it caused me way too much anxiety, my kneejerk reaction is the rule is a good one. It’s a tradition, it’s about integrity, but it’s also about the simple process of checking your work. In any sort of a test, you make sure you’ve written down the answer you wanted to and didn’t make some sort of a mistake. If you did so, the wrong answer is your final answer. You can’t take it back.

I cannot deny the other side of the equation has its merits. There is really almost no way for a top-tier professional golfer to cheat by putting in a lower score. Now, it can certainly happen at smaller, local events where nothing is televised or automated. The rule should serve a purpose and at the highest levels of golf, it doesn’t really do anything to ensure a correct score is applied.

On the other hand, bear with me because I’m going back and forth on this one, it’s a toughie. On the other hand, people can cheat at lower levels of the game so you’d have to keep the rule in place there. Then you’d have to decide at what level the rule is waived, what tournaments, etc. That’s an entirely new can of worms.

Still, disqualification for an honest mistake that resulted in no harm seems a bit harsh.

Of course, the professionals should be role-models for everyone else, juniors particularly. The fact that Spieth has to sign his card, and make sure it’s correct does serve some purpose.

Finally, I don’t see that the situation really needs to be fixed. It’s not like players are getting disqualified for signing a wrong scorecard every week. It’s an incredibly rare occurrence, largely because the players are in the lifelong habit of reviewing their card and signing it after doing so.

Conclusion

My final conclusion is the rule still serves as purpose and should remain on the books. I do understand the frustration of those at the Genesis Invitational who are fans of Spieth and wanted to see him play over the weekend. Perhaps the penalty might be changed to two strokes for each instance of under-reporting a score.

What do you think?

What should the penalty be for signing an incorrect scorecard?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Women’s Ballon d’Or given to Aitana Bonmati by Novak Djokovic

Posted on by

There’s a bit of a to-do regarding the awarding of the Ballon d’Or Femenin to Aitana Bonmati. Why, you ask? Because the award was presented by Novak Djokovic. What’s the problem, you ask?

It’s an interesting situation and reading comments on the story I’m reminded of the reverse standards many people have these days. It’s not really a matter of right or wrong, it’s a matter of who is complaining. If the person I agree with is aggrieved, they are right and vice-versa. Let’s get into it.

2023 Ballon d’Or

The ceremony involves passing out awards to the best and brightest in futbol, or soccer as we know it here in the United States. There are eight awards presented during the ceremony. The Ballon d’Or and the Ballon d’Or Femenin for the player of the year both men and women.

Additional awards are the Kopa for the best-performing player under 21, the Yashin for the best-performing goal-keeper, Gerd-Muller for best striker, the Socrates for most humanitarian player, and the Men’s and Women’s Club of the year trophies.

Interesting Sidenotes

I find it relatively interesting that the Kopa, Yashin, and Gerd-Muller awards do not have female equivalents. I wrote an article about gender neutral awards back in 2017 and it’s a subject of interest although I’m not going to spend much time on it today. I do think they should either include a female award or consider female candidates for the existing awards. No women were nominated for the Kopa and Yashin and the Gerd-Muller does not even consider them eligible.

The Main Issue with this Year’s Ballon d’Or

The issue people have with this year’s ceremony is the choice of Novak Djokovic, a non-futbol player and a man, to give out the Feminin Ballon d’Or.

Those on one side of the issue consider this a deliberate affront while those on the other side don’t see a problem with it. I’m in between, as usual. I doubt the award’s committee even considered the question very much and didn’t make the decision as a deliberate insult.

That being said, it is insulting. In what other award’s ceremony is the person handing out the most important trophy someone who has nothing to do with the industry in question? Certainly David Beckham, who gave out the Ballon d’Or to Lionel Messi this year is a celebrity on the order of Djokovic but he’s a futbol player.

Unprepared Djokovic

Adding insult to injury is the fact that after reading Bonmati’s name as the winner, Djokovic simply walked to the side and allowed her to accept the award without handing it to her. That’s on Djokovic, not the committee. He’s a disciplined and dedicated athlete who takes his profession seriously. If he’s going to be giving out an award, he should know enough to hand it to the recipient. It’s common courtesy.

Conclusion

I don’t think this is an enormous issue nor do I think the feminists of the world need to organize protests and call for boycotts. I do think the committee of the Ballon d’Or needs to rethink their policies and an apology is not out of line. Next year I’d like to see a change.

Tom Liberman

Daisy Pearce Misleading Headline

Posted on by
Daisy Pearce

Daisy Pearce barred from second AFL club’s dressing room blares the misleading headline from the Daily Mail. AFL stands for Australian Football League. The headline seems to indicate two teams barred a woman from their dressing room leaving the impression this happened because of her gender.

This misleading headline, like most of its ilk, isn’t actually a lie. It’s just misleading. The reality is that Daisy Pearce was, in fact, barred from the dressing rooms of both Brisbane Lions and Richmond Tigers locker rooms. But why?

Because she’s a Woman?

Nope. It’s because she’s an assistant coach for an opposing team. Representatives from both clubs make it clear the reason is her dual job as a commentator for Channel Seven in Australia and her job as an assistant coach.

They fear she might gain access to information in the locker room that she can use in preparation with the Geelong Cats. It’s not an unreasonable request and several other assistant coaches filled dual roles with media outlets in the past with similar results.

Who is Daisy Pearce?

Daisy Pearce is a former Australian Football League Women’s champion player who played for the Melbourne Demons with distinction. She was named to the All-Australia team three times during her career in addition to being best and fairest on her own club three times as well.

She retired in 2022 and took up a job as a commentator for Channel Seven. This year she accepted a job as an assistant coach while continuing her duties for the television outlet.

What’s it all Mean?

Channel Seven commentated on the situation with a representative saying they expected some teams might take that rout with Daisy Pearce and her job didn’t require a presence in the locker room. In other words, it’s not really a story at all.

Conclusion

The headline draws in clicks. It did so for me. I thought, ah, a Daisy Pearce must have done something wrong to get banned. A woman in the locker room? There must be something salacious. Nope, just a plain old misleading headline. Nothing to see here. Do you think the story would be in the Daily Mail if a man in the some position received a ban?

Can Rules Fix the Shift in Baseball

Posted on by
The Shift

Baseball season is upon us and that’s good news for everyone but fans of The Shift. You see, baseball has new rules in place to prevent teams from using The Shift. Ah, the good old tried and true method of fixing of a problem by creating a complicated and almost unenforceable rule. Of course, by tried and true I mean tried and failed.

Will the new rules fix the problem or will they just create a myriad of other problems without really addressing the underlying issue? Is this, in fact, a microcosm of the overly ruled and regulated society in which we find ourselves?

What is the Shift?

In 2003 the Oakland A’s achieved success with an analytic based player analysis system. Since then, most of the other teams in the league followed along. This system heavily values power hitting, that is to say home runs and doubles. This resulted in several changes to the way baseball is generally played.

One change resulting from this is how hitters now swing. In order to get greater power numbers, players began to swing harder. This led to a great deal of what is called pull-hitting. A right-handed batter will almost exclusively hit the ball to the left and vice-versa for a left-handed player.

Teams began to clue in on this and instead of arraying their infielders in a traditional pattern, fairly evenly dispersed over the field, they began to align them heavily toward the expected position of the batted ball.

The Shift Rule

The executives in charge of Major League Baseball view the shift as too effective. The players who swing hard and get doubles and home runs were now grounding out far too often. Well, at least far too often for the league’s preference.

In order to rectify this problem, they created a new rule. Now teams are not allowed to have more than two infielders on either side of second base. The rule is a little more complex than that, but that is the gist of it.

The Response

Naturally, teams try to get around the intent of the rule. They place outfielders close in to the infield. The players crowd near to second base without quite going over the invisible line, adding to the burden of umpires who have plenty to do as it is.

I’m sure other ways to defeat the intent of the rule will be found as the season progresses. I’m sure MLB will institute tweaks to the rule in future season.

Why the Shift Rule is Stupid

The shift rule is dumb. If a team wants to play seven players on the infield near where the batter is likely to hit the ball, good for them. I doubt there are many cricket fans in my audience but those who follow the sport know that’s exactly how it works in that sport. The defensive team can position their players largely where they’re likely to succeed.

If a team thinks their hitters are grounding out too often, there’s a simple solution. Stop trying to hit a home run every time you’re at bat. Draft some players who spray the ball around the field.

The cat and mouse game that is professional sports largely polices itself. When a team has success doing something a particular way, other team follow. Then along comes a new way that defeats the old and round and round we go.

Conclusion

I’m not against rule changes categorically but I don’t think such changes should be based on a heavy-handed attempt to modify the strategy of the game.

Let game strategy police itself. You want to stop the shift, get players who pull the ball to the opposite field.

Tom Liberman

Bernie Kosar Gambled and got Fired

Posted on by
Kosar Gambled

Former quarterback Bernie Kosar gambled and got fired from his job for doing so. What’s up with that? Well, Kosar works for the Cleveland Browns, where he spent his career playing football, and is a regular guest on various programs associated with the team.

With gambling becoming legal in Ohio, Kosar gambled $19,000 on the Pittsburgh Steeler game this weekend. He bet on the Browns to win but that’s not really the cause of his firing. The NFL has strict rules about employees, in any capacity, placing bets.

Should Employees be Allowed to Gamble?

I find the situation quite interesting from a number of perspectives. Let’s dispense with any silliness right away. The league clearly has a vested interest in keeping their employees from gambling on games. This is the case for a number of reasons.

Employees who gamble might have access to inside information and tip other gamblers to a particular way to bet. Employees might well get into gambling debt and become compromised in some way or another.

Any employee gambling gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. Even betting on the team with which the person is associated doesn’t help all that much. Could the person know something about the other team? It’s a tangled web and I completely understand the various sports leagues prohibiting gambling.

I won’t go deeply into problem gambling that is escalating across the country as I spoke about that elsewhere.

Kosar Gambled his Job and Lost

Kosar knew the rules. He stated well-ahead of time he planned to make the wager. It was almost certain the Cleveland Browns had to let him go once he placed the bet. When Kosar claims he is “shocked” by the turn of events, I find that pretty dubious. He knew what he was doing, the consequences for doing so, and chose to do it anyway.

The League is a Hypocrite

Up until now you’d think I my case open and shut. Hardly. Sports leagues don’t have a strong ethical position to enforce this ban. The leagues and individual teams profit enormously from legal gambling. They are sponsored by legal gambling website. Some of the stadiums even have areas in them associated with those websites.

Gambling fuels interest and betting information is available in any number of places associated with the various sports leagues. It’s hard to say how much money the leagues and teams make from gambling but it’s not insubstantial.

Basically, what the NFL is saying to Kosar is they can associate with gamblers all they want but he cannot. Kosar gambled and he’s out. The league takes millions from gambling sites and that’s just fine.

I do recognize that gambling itself and being paid from the profits of those bets are two different things, but the association and hypocrisy is not to my liking.

Conclusion

Kosar’s firing is completely legitimate from the point view of the league and he should not be surprised. Those in power need to take a closer look at their own behavior. Winners here? Not that I see.

Tom Liberman

Iranian Women Chess players and Subtle Misogyny

Posted on by
Iranian Women Chess players

A subtle version of misogyny is on display in news stories about Iranian Women chess players. I’ve written about the subtleties of racism previously and today I take on a similar topic. Just because something is misogynistic doesn’t mean it’s obvious or even an intentional act.

Let’s examine stories making the rounds about Iranian women chess players. Basically, Iranian women are required to wear a hijab. Recent protests in that country brought attention to the practice and a pair of Iranian women, Sara Khadem and Atousa Pourkashiyan are playing the World Rapid and Blitz championship not wearing hijabs.

What’s the subtle misogyny in that? Let me explain.

What is Misogyny

I think the first thing to understand is the idea of misogyny. The dictionary defines it as dislike of, contempt, or ingrained prejudice against women. When we see a definition like this we think of open misogyny. Someone going around telling people that women are not deserving of human rights, they are weak, stupid, worthless.

The reality is that misogyny comes in many flavors and is not always obvious. That’s where such things are insidious. We look at behavior that, at first glance, appears perfectly normal, and accept it as such. Even when it’s actually not quite so harmless.

The Case of the Iranian Women Chess Players

If you look at the picture I’ve included at the top of this article, you’ll see of the players in question. Khadem on the left and Pourkashiyan on the right. Can you guess what image the articles in question are displaying? Both women? Khadem? Pourkashiyan? I don’t even really need to ask. You know the answer already. That’s my point.

In fact, when I first read about this story, the only name I saw was Khadem. They didn’t even bother to include the fact that Pourkashiyan also chose not to wear a hijab. It was only today I realized there were two women involved in the protest, if that word can be used.

Attractive Women are more Valuable

What’s the subtle message from the fact that Khadem’s picture is plastered all over the articles and Pourkashiyan’s is not? Prettier is better. A woman’s worth is in her beauty.

It’s a little more complicated than that. The picture of an attractive woman brings more clicks to the story. The agencies publishing such articles want clicks, therefore they choose to put up the picture of Khadem.

That being said, if we boil it down to its essence, the misogyny is there. It’s subtle, it’s not easy to see. Not virulent. Not overly damaging. A shrug of the shoulders type of misogyny, still, it’s there.

If you were the brother of Pourkashiyan, what would you say?

Conclusion

Little things add up in the mind of those prone to thinking this way. The path to misogyny, and most prejudices and hatreds, is not always obvious.

It’s not always easy to be a better person and sometimes we don’t even realize what we’re doing is wrong. In this case, it’s wrong not to include pictures of both women. It is misogyny, ever so subtle.

Tom Liberman

Prime Time Sellout or Business as Usual

Posted on by
Prime Time Sellout

Is it a Prime Time Sellout for Deion Sanders to take the head coaching job at the University of Colorado or is it just business as usual in the college football world? It’s an interesting question that depends largely on how you define the word sellout.

Deion Sanders was, until recently, the head coach at Jackson State University where he compiled an excellent record and won two championships in the role. He just took the job at Colorado which as a Power Five Conference member means a big jump in salary for Prime Time.

A lot of people are angry at Deion for taking the job and consider it a Prime Time Sellout. What do I think? Let’s discuss.

What is a Prime Time Sellout?

The first question we must ask ourselves is how do we define a sellout? Is it simply someone who take a lucrative job over a lower-paying job which is perhaps a worse fit? If that’s the case then, clearly, it’s a Prime Time sellout.

If, on the other hand, a sellout is defined as someone backing away from their principles because they got offered a lot of money, then it’s a bit different. We have to figure out what it is that Sanders holds dear and whether or not he has betrayed those ideals.

What are Deion’s Principles?

The man’s nickname is Prime Time. That suggests quite a bit. It means he wants to be on the big stage and earn money for doing so. If we judge Sanders by this simple test then it’s clear he is absolutely not a sellout, in fact, he’s holding true to his principles. He has always grabbed for the spotlight with both hands and this is just another manifestation of that personality trait.

The Job at Jackson State

However, a nickname does not define a man. When Sanders left his lucrative commentary gigs to become the Head Coach at Jackson State he did so with a social agenda. Jackson State is a one of the Historically Black Colleges and University that dot the nation’s south. They exist because discriminatory policies often prevented black students from entering colleges and universities, particularly in the south.

When segregation finally came to an end and particularly when the big colleges around the country realized black athletes were the way to success, HBCUs fell on hard times athletically. The schools once proud tradition of excellence in athletic competitions began to wain as the best athletes went elsewhere.

When Sanders arrived, he pointedly addressed this problem, talking about the complete lack of funding for these schools. I’ve discussed how money makes a huge difference in athletics before and Sanders echoed my sentiments on this subject when he arrived at Jackson State.

If Sanders believed his words and his mission to elevate Jackson State along with the rest of the HCBUs, then his move to Colorado is truly a Prime Time sellout.

Conclusion

Where do I stand on the subject? I do think Deion meant what he said, or at least believed he meant it, when he took the job at Jackson State. He truly did want to elevate the school and highlight the shocking difference between athletes of wealthy Power Five Conferences and those schools with less money.

I also think the nickname Prime Time and his behavior off the field; including a reality show and a number of other appearances on television shows is indicative of a man who chases money first and foremost.

Is Deion a Prime Time Sellout? I say no. He’s just exhibiting behavior inline with what I’d expect from him. If I believed what he said when he took the Jackson State job and invested time and effort with him to elevate the school, well, then I’d be a bit pissed and I get those who feel betrayed.

What do you think?

Is Deion Sanders a Prime Time Sellout?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Shut up and Dribble at the World Cup

Posted on by
shut up and dribble

Do you think players in the 2022 World Cup should shut up and dribble? Are you of the opinion they must speak their minds about the problematic nature of Qatar in regards to human rights? It’s an interesting question for a Libertarian like myself.

Shut up and Dribble is a phrase largely associated with the idea athletes should not speak their minds about political situations. That she or he is good at sports and should stick to that particular topic. Other people think that they must use their platform to speak out against injustices.

Naturally, I disagree with both sides in this particular issue. Let me tell you why.

The Situation in Qatar

The 2022 World Cup is being held in Qatar; awarded the right to do so not because they are a futbol loving nation but simply because the leaders of the country allegedly bribed the FIFA officials. FIFA cleared themselves in the probe but other entities performed independent investigations supporting the bribery conclusion. It is likely not the first time FIFA officials took money to vote for a particular nation to host.

The leaders of Qatar did this almost certainly for the purpose of showcasing their country to the world. They took land from indigenous people in order to build the stadiums and employed foreigners in what is not unfairly described as slave labor to build them.

Qatar is an Islamic country which uses Sharia law as their legal doctrine. Drinking alcohol is a crime. Being a homosexual is a crime. Not believing in God is a crime. Men are allowed to marry multiple women. Women are largely second-class citizens. Suffice it to say, there are plenty of reasons for people to be angry about the location of the World Cup and many players are among those who do.

Shut up and Dribble or not?

Some athletes participating in the World Cup wanted to wear armbands in protest but were threatened with punishment for doing so. Other athletes in the World Cup simply want to play the game and try to win.

Those athletes who speak up get criticized while those remaining silent face equal criticism. The people on both sides of this debate tend to be fairly vociferous and certain of their opinion.

Any player who stands up and speaks, or otherwise acts to point out the problems in Qatar, is completely out of line. They play a game and get paid to do so. They have no right to criticize the way another country runs itself.

Every player who even goes to the tournament is tacitly agreeing with the policies of Qatar. They agree all but enslaving people to build the stadiums is perfectly acceptable. A nation that makes women second-class citizens is just dandy.

Do as You Will

I’m of the opinion neither one of those attitudes toward the players is accurate. I think players must decide themselves. I fully support any player who speaks or acts out against the nation of Qatar for ethical failures. If an evangelical Christian player spoke out against the polygyny, I’d support that player. Likewise, if an African player spoke out against the labor practices that resulted in the building of the stadiums, I’d support that player.

If another player is there just to play football, or even supports the Qatari regime, it is that player’s business.

Am I a Shut and Dribble Guy?

Another question that comes to mind is what I might do in a similar situation. It’s easy to sit here at the keypad and think I’d speak out or even refuse to play. I strongly condemn the taking of land from the people, the all but enslaving of laborers, and the Sharia law legal system. I’m 58 years old now and it’s hard to remember twenty-something year old Tom and what he might do.

I’m not sure what I’d do under similar circumstances. I do know I applaud those athletes who choose to speak up. It’s their future. There are possible repercussions for doing so. I also know that I don’t blame those who choose to just shut up and dribble.

Conclusion

The group of people I do get mad at are those who harshly judge the players, one way or the other. I think they are under a huge amount of pressure in both directions. It’s the world we live in now. Social Media, news, social conscience.

In the end, the player, coach, trainer or anyone else associated with the team gets to decide on their own. Speaking out is great and I applaud those who do. Those who chose not to speak out, I don’t agree with your silence but I don’t condemn you for it.

Tom Liberman

Nick Saban and the NIL Kerfuffle

Posted on by
NIL

NIL is making news in the NCAA in a dust-up between Nick Saban, Deion Sanders, and Jimbo Fisher. NIL is an acronym for Name, Image, and Likeness. The state of California passed a law back in 2019 that allowed college athletes, so-called student-athletes, to profit from their NIL. From there a Supreme Court case followed and now the practice is legal and thriving.

Saban accused Jackson State and Texas A&M, coached by Sanders and Fisher respectively, of essentially paying players through NIL manipulation. Sanders and Fisher don’t like the accusation much and counterclaim that Saban is the one who used such methods in the past to get the best recruits.

The NIL Accusation is True

Saban claims coaches like Fisher and Sanders are going to local business leaders and getting them to offer prized recruits NIL deals worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. This in an attempt to win the recruiting battles which decide winners and losers in the NCAA. The teams that get the best high-school players win more. Full stop, end of story.

Saban is now losing out on some of the best players to Jackson State and Texas A&M. It’s important to understand Saban’s accusation is absolutely correct. Fisher and Sanders, and other coaches including Saban himself, are creating a pool of money contributed by interested business owners and offering it to the most highly sought-after recruits.

What Saban wants with NIL

Saban’s point is giving highly lucrative NIL deals to high-school recruits who have yet to play is a perversion of the system. The NIL is designed to reward the players on the team who become recognizable for their athletic performance.

Saban himself says he has no problems with players like Bryce Young making as much as they can from NIL deals. He believes they earned it with play on the field. Saban wants the NIL deals to be commiserate with the athletic ability of the players.

Saban suggests the current NCAA situation is like a professional sports league without free-agency rules and no salary cap. The team that wants the best players, gets them.

The Reality of the NIL Situation

Nicky-boy, I appreciate what you’re saying, I truly do. I think your intentions are honorable. It’s a lost cause. It’s not only the coaches engineering the payments to boost recruiting. Fit and attractive young women athletes in the NCAA are getting NIL deals at an astounding rate. I’m sure that comes as no surprise to anyone.

One wonders when the next Paige Spiranac will arise on the women’s college golf scene. Whoever she might be, she’s going to make a lot of money playing golf and good for her.

The underlying reality is if someone wants to pay someone, for whatever reason, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? If an athlete can make a ton of money, make it. They are one play away from a career ending injury. Sure, the coaches of the world might offer the crippled player a job as an assistant water-boy for a couple of years, gee thanks.

Conclusion

It’s a free market economy in college athletics, finally! With a free market comes some bad with the good. As I said, Saban is right. Fisher and Sanders are absolutely engineering NIL deals for recruits in an all-out bidding war.

The teams that pay the most are going to get the best players. But, honestly, how is that different than its been for the last fifty years in the NCAA? The power teams get the best players and win the most games. Saban should understand that better than anyone.

Now, at least, the players get something out of it as well.

Tom Liberman

Greg Norman is the US Congress

Posted on by
Greg Norman

A lot of people are angry that golfer Greg Norman is in bed with Saudi Arabia in regard to a new golf league called LIV. He glossed over the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi saying that “We all make mistakes”.

LIV is basically a league funded by money from Saudi Arabia where the biggest names in golf get paid extremely well no matter how they perform. Greg Norman is willing to ignore evil in order to make some money and people don’t like the blatant greed and amorality of this.

Well, readers, I’ve got news for you. Hold on to your hat. Take a seat. Greg Norman is doing nothing worse than our Congress has done for the last fifty plus years. If he’s guilty, so to is our system of government, to its rotten core.

Past Rants

I’ve ranted in the past, sometimes virulently, about how Saudi Arabia is not our friend and yet everyone in Congress gets down on their knees and shoves her or his nose where the sun don’t shine. Did we fly Saudi Arabian royals out of the country after 911 when the rest of our nation was locked down from flying? Yep.

Are we in bed with selling them weapons when they are murdering men, women, children, both born and unborn, in a wholesale slaughter in Yemen? Check.

Were fifteen of the men who attacked the country on 911 from Saudi Arabia? Yep. Is Saudi Arabia in actuality a far bigger cash cow for terrorists than Iran? You betcha.

Do they loan the son-in-law of the former president billions of dollars? No doubt about it.

Money

It’s a sick, disgusting lack of moral and ethical conviction driven by lust for money. Our congress is corrupt to its foundation when it comes to Saudi Arabia. Sure a few members of make noise about cutting them off but it’s the whistling of a parakeet against a hurricane. The Saudi Arabians own your politicians. Own. Don’t give me any partisan nonsense you Democrats and Republicans. You claim the ends justify the means and support murderous, terrorists, whose goal is to destroy the United States of America. You vote for the miserable politicians who justify their behavior with sick logic.

Greg Norman is the Bad Guy?

Yet, despite decades of absolute corruption from your politicians, who wave the American Flag around like they just won World War II, you vote for them time and time again. Greg Norman is the bad guy here? You’re the bad person here! Your representative in Congress is the bad guy here and you voted for her or him. Judges and Justices on the Supreme Court bench are the bad guys here. Our entire system is corrupted in part by money from Saudi Arabia.

You save your outrage for Greg Norman and a golf league while holding it back for your chosen politicians, presidents.

Conclusion

Greg Norman is scum but at least he’s not destroying my country. He’s in bed with murderers and you are too. Save your outrage for the people who deserve it, the people who are making decisions about the future of this country, if it has one.

Tom Liberman

A Mess of a Winning Time Episode

Posted on by
Winning Time

Any carry over from last week’s excellent episode of Winning Time quickly dissipated with this mess of an episode. No focus, no central theme, back to unnecessary salacious content, lots of fourth wall breaking, and just a general hodgepodge of an episode.

I honestly find it difficult to believe the people who put together Pieces of a Man also released Momento Mori. Same director, largely the same writers, and yet a completely different result. I find it unfathomable.

What went wrong with this episode of Winning Time? Let’s discuss.

Lack of Central Theme

I’ve discussed before how a central theme holds an episode together and allows other, smaller stories to swirl around it with an anchor to bring them home. The theme was readily available, the catastrophic injury to Coach McKinney. The necessity for assistant coach Westhead to grab the team and take over.

The episode certainly showed us the blood covered McKinney often enough but the other story line of Magic Johnson and his endorsement deals shared the spotlight. Frankly, both made good thematic elements but by splitting the episode back and forth between them with a cursory look at dementia inflicted Momma Buss only diluted the impact of everything.

The added theme of the financial troubles for Dr. Buss took up another big section of the episode. Each vied for supremacy and nothing really emerged. We just jumped from one scene to the next along all three plot lines. It ended up being largely confusing and unimpactful.

Too Fast

The various story lines just went too quickly. Magic’s relationship with his girlfriend and father came out of the nowhere. It seemed like a vehicle for the fourth wall breaking punch line of the Nike rep at the end. I’m not a big fan of an entire storyline dedicated to setting up a zinger at the end, even if the zinger is a good one.

Coach McKinney’s injuries and the team responding to them all happened so fast. It was just a whole bunch of scenes tenuously strung together. The emergence of Michael Cooper as a premier defender is an interesting story but you’d only get what was happening if you already knew the outcome. It wasn’t cohesive storytelling.

The loan situation was really interesting as well but it came in short snippets interspersed with the other stories. Everything just raced along toward zinger conclusions. The episode completely lacked the deliberate and intense pacing of Pieces of a Man.

Fourth Wall in Winning Time

Not surprisingly, this episode of Winning Time broke the fourth wall almost continuously from beginning to end. The previous episode resorted to this tactic only once or twice and briefly at that. This time we found ourselves listening to long monologs as characters explained their motivations and plans. I found it irritating, pointless and detracted from the interesting stories.

Conclusion

It’s a real shame of an episode following the brilliance of its predecessor. The show is still largely entertaining and worth watching but I hope we get more of the good stuff and less of the mess.

Tom Liberman

Pieces of a Man Winning Time’s Statement Episode

Posted on by
Pieces of a Man

Pieces of a Man is the fifth episode of Winning Time and what an episode! Booya. If you’re wondering how to craft a story properly, watch Pieces of a Man. It showcased fantastic acting, an intense and compelling story, and passion. An episode like this is why I love entertainment; this is why people filled stadiums to watch Greek Tragedies two thousand years ago.

I know I’m waxing overly poetic here, but it’s been a while since I’ve so thoroughly enjoyed a television episode. I’d probably have to go back to the heyday of the Sopranos to remember a time when I found myself so engrossed.

Last week I mentioned what a solid understanding of character Solomon Hughes brings with his portrayal of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. If only I knew what awaited. Anyway, on with my review.

The Central Theme of Pieces of a Man

It is generally a good idea to have a central theme to focus an episode and the characters therein. In this case we leave Dr. Buss and Magic Johnson and focus on Abdul-Jabbar. We start with him as a young witness to terrible racial injustice. His father, a police officer and a devout Christian, does not see eye-to-eye with his son, Lew Alcindor.

Being a superb athlete and champion is not enough for Alcindor. This young man is a piece of what he will become but he wants more, he wants to be more. He comes to Islam and takes a new name much to his father’s chagrin but that is just another piece in the man that Abdul-Jabbar is becoming. It’s a fantastic start to the episode.

This isn’t about the Lakers, it’s about Abdul-Jabbar, but it subtly becomes about the Lakers. It becomes about Magic Johnson, Jack McKinney, and Dr. Buss. It’s a story about all of them and all the pieces of them. It’s a profound episode.

Salaciousness

I’ve complained about the unnecessary salaciousness in Winning Time. We get it here but it is part of the story. It’s part of the locker room. I’ve been in plenty of locker rooms. I played sports. The locker room scenes in movies with men in towels everywhere and overly condescending locker room talk always strikes me as fake. Not here.

Here the players talk about cut cocks with Wood Harris, in all his glory, playing the role of Spencer Haywood. He brings it to life with a monolog that sounds like the locker room. I believe! Whether it’s a true story or not hardly matters. I believe these are real athletes in a real locker room and that’s no easy trick. Most sports movies fail miserably in this regard because it’s difficult for an actor to portray a professional athlete.

The Other Characters as Pieces of a Man

Dr. Buss plays a small role in this episode which was an incredibly brave move and it works. While Abdul-Jabbar is struggling to reconcile what he has become as compared to the youthful energy and enthusiasm of Johnson, we also see Dr. Buss struggling to put together his pieces as well. Can he step back from the edge of the cliff and admire the view?

Will Abdul-Jabbar add another piece in his journey? Can Magic Johnson become more than a fragment, a single piece of a man? Can Jack McKinney put together the final piece that he’s been striving for all his life?

The Importance of Dialog

This episode functions on many levels. The conversation between Heywood and Abdul-Jabbar in regards to young Magic is thoughtful and moves the story forward.

The disagreement between McKinney and Abdul-Jabbar where the later exactly predicts the result of his performance is profoundly interesting. McKinney realizes that Abdul-Jabbar knows what he’s talking about. It brings their relationship to a new level.

The locker room fight between Johnson and Abdul-Jabbar trying to put together their own pieces and find their place in all of this is raw and powerful.

The conversation between the financial advisor and Dr. Buss brings us a deeper understanding of his struggles to put together his own pieces. Even Jeanie finding Paula Abdul to lead the cheer squad is interesting.

Abdul-Jabbar at the mosque talking with the Imam moves the story toward its inevitable conclusion. We know what’s going to happen but it’s the journey that compels us to keep watching.

The dialog pulls the entire episode together. There is no telling in this episode, just showing. No exposition. Just actors performing, owning their characters and their lines, pulling us into their world.

Conclusion

You’ve probably figured out I liked this episode. Go watch it. Well done. Well done, indeed.

Tom Liberman

The Fourth Wall in Winning Time

Posted on by
Winning Time and the Fourth Wall

Winning Time is an HBO series telling the story of the rise of the Los Angeles Lakers in the 1980s. The actors in the show break the Fourth Wall with great frequency and that is the focus of my blog today.

The show is about Dr. Jerry Buss who purchased the Lakers in 1979 and his attempt to build a championship team around young Earvin ‘Magic’ Johnson, Jr. I’ll break any suspense by telling you I think it’s a pretty good show … at times. Then the actors break the fourth wall and it’s not so good.

What is the Fourth Wall?

The Fourth Wall is line between the stage and the audience. The actors are actors and the audience is the audience. An actor generally pretends she or he does not know the audience is out there watching. He or she performs. This means pretending to be the character in question rather than an actor portraying that character.

The purpose of the Fourth Wall is to immerse the audience in the performance. It is generally important for us to believe the person on the screen is Dr. Jerry Buss, not John C. Reilly an actor pretending to be Buss.

Why Ignore the Fourth Wall?

There are reasons to ignore the Fourth Wall and the character Deadpool from comic and movie fame is a perfect illustration. Deadpool understands he is a character and we are watching him. His jokes revolve around the idea of this self-awareness.

There is, in my opinion, no reason to do this in Winning Time.

Why Breaking the Fourth Wall hurts the Show

The show, when the actors are acting instead of mugging for the audience is quite good. The only time Reilly isn’t excellent in the role of Buss is when he’s talking to us. Rob Morgan is absolutely slaying it as Earvin Johnson, Sr. I believe every second of his performance as a caring, loving father and, not surprisingly, none of his scenes break the wall.

DeVaugn Nixon is excellent as Norm Nixon, worried about the young Johnson coming in and taking his job. Michael O’Keefe is superb as Jack Kent Cooke. Jason Clarke’s rage as Jerry West, whether accurate or not, comes across with red-hot intensity.

Largely, the only time the show doesn’t work is when the actors break the Fourth Wall. Doing this has two negative effects. First it immediately takes me away from immersion. I realize I’m watching actors and not actual events and people.

Second it is being used as exposition, to tell us something rather than showing it. A glaring example is when actor Gaby Hoffman turns to the camera and tells us she needs this job and then lets down her hair right before meeting with Buss. Why not just let down her hair? That tells us everything we need to know. I don’t want to watch Gaby Hoffman, I want to see Claire Rothman, a woman in a sea of misogyny, doing her job.

Black Culture

Getting away from the fourth wall for a moment I want to praise what appears me as a fair portrayal of black, urban culture. The family scenes with the Johnsons and the pedicure scene with Nixon rang very true to my eyes. The writers didn’t overplay these interactions to the point of parody nor did they hide the cultural norms of the community. They seemed true.

Now, I’m a white boy from the suburbs so I’m certainly not particularly well-qualified to make that judgement. I can say with utter honesty, the scenes convinced me, I was immersed.

Conclusion

It’s a good show but I wish they’d decided against going with a Fourth Wall breaking formula. The story of Buss, Johnson, and the others is fascinating on its own. That, of course, was not my decision to make and it’s not going to change.

I’ll be tuned in next week.

Tom Liberman

The Rooney Rule and Brian Flores

Posted on by
Rooney Rule

Brian Flores is the former head coach of the Miami Dolphins and former assistant coach of the New England Patriots. He is now suing the National Football League because of a sham interview he endured. There’s a lot of talk of racism and discrimination on one side of the conversation and a lot of, frankly, racism and white privilege on the other side.

What I’d like to talk about today is the Rooney Rule that engendered this entire controversy. The rule originated in 2003 after a statistical analysis of head coaches in the NFL proved that black coaches won a higher percentage of their games and yet were fired more frequently. That’s numbers talking, not anyone’s opinion.

What is the Rooney Rule?

The Rooney rule makes it mandatory for an NFL team to interview minority candidates for the head coach position. It doesn’t require a minority be hired for the job, just interviewed. There are a few exceptions but basically it just means minority coaches must be at least interviewed before a hiring decision can be made.

The object of the rule is to force teams to, at a minimum, listen to minority coaches and their plans. It’s an interesting plan with a valid idea behind it. I’ve often heard people who are generally racist, homophobic, antisemitic, or otherwise inclined defend their position with the idea they have friends in the category they despise.

The point being that if you meet someone as an individual, it becomes much more likely you will become friends with that person. Whereas, if you avoid ever meeting someone of the discriminated against class, you never get to know any of them. Not to say a person is not a racist because they know a black guy, it’s just more likely she or he become less racist.

Did the Rooney Rule Work?

From a statistical point of view, the Rooney Rule appears to work fairly well. The number of minority coaches in the league jumped dramatically after implementation and generally remains higher than numbers before.

That being said, what didn’t happen is impossible to prove. Perhaps more minority candidates might have been hired if the rule didn’t exist. Perhaps less. It’s impossible to say. Still, statistics bear out the idea that it works.

The Flores Situation

A situation regarding the New York Giant’s quest for a new head coach brought question to the implementation of the rule. Team officials interviewed Brian Daboll for the job and scheduled an interview with Brian Flores the next week. Apparently, they decided, after the interview with Daboll, to hire him. The rule means they cannot do so immediately, they must interview a minority candidate like Flores first.

Someone in the Giant’s organization told a mutual friend of Daboll and Flores, Bill Belichick, of their plans to hire Daboll. Belichick then sent a congratulatory message to who he thought was Daboll but was actually Flores. Flores is now suing the league for failure to implement the Rooney rule and is also personally and publicly humiliated.

My Take on the Situation

Having spent all this time explaining the Rooney Rule and the Flores situation, now I finally get to my point. The Rooney rule is written in such a way as to exempt NFL decision makers from actually having to consider a minority candidate. All they have to do is pretend to do so. And they can’t even manage that!

Just out of courtesy alone, human decency even, the Giant’s management team should not tell anyone their decision until after all interviews are completed. You never know when the next candidate is going be superior. It’s rude, it’s cruel, and I can completely understand why Flores is furious. I’d be angry also and, don’t even try to deny it, so would you.

I don’t see racism here so much as stupidity and cruelty. I’m not sure the lawsuit is going to go anywhere but hopefully NFL executives will learn to keep their yaps shut in the future.

As to the Rooney Rule itself. I actually think it’s about as well-written and implemented a minority hiring a rule as possible. There is no doubt racism in hiring exists. The problem with quotas is that they create enormous resentment, companies find a million ways to get around them, and the courts tend to narrow their implementation.

Conclusion

The Rooney Rule is fine. The NFL actually did a pretty decent job of creating an impactful rule without tying anyone’s hands, breaking any laws, or being discriminatory itself. As for the Giants? Morons.

Tom Liberman

Jon Gruden would have a Job if he was not an Average Coach

Posted on by
Jon Gruden

Overview

The head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders, Jon Gruden, resigned after the release of a number of emails in which he makes distasteful comments. There’s a lot of bleating about Cancel Culture but the reality comes down to the fact that Jon Gruden hasn’t been anything better than an average coach throughout his career.

If Jon Gruden had a coaching record significantly better than 122 wins against 116 losses we’d hear all sorts of excuses from his bosses, talk about sensitivity training, how he is a good man who made a mistake, and he’d still have a job.

What Jon Gruden Wrote

I confess that I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Jon Gruden particularly when I hear him lying in order to excuse his behavior. He insulted his ultimate boss, Roger Goodell, calling him a “clueless anti-football pussy”. He and Bruce Allen exchanged pictures of topless Washington Football Team cheerleaders, a scandal we’re not here to talk about today.

Jon Gruden described DeMaurice Smith as having lips the size of Michelin tires and then lies and claims he just meant Smith had rubber lips, which apparently, Gruden wants us to believe is a euphemism for someone who lies. It’s clearly a reference to the large lipped stereotype of black men. You know it, I know it, and Gruden knows it.

I’d have more sympathy for Gruden if he admitted that he used a stereotype. Gruden is also lying when he claims he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. That’s a lie born of Cognitive Dissonance. Of course, he has racist thoughts, misogynistic thoughts, homophobic thoughts, murderous thoughts. We all have such thoughts from time to time. It doesn’t make us racist or murderers, it makes us human.

This constant bleating that no one is more whatever than me, I don’t have a bad bone in my body is utter nonsense. You can still be a good person even if you have bad thoughts, if you make mistakes, if you do bad things, if you say wrong things. If Gruden stood up and owned up, I’d be more sympathetic to his arguments.

That being said, the bottom line is he isn’t a consistently winning football coach and that is why he was forced to resign.

Conclusion

There’s a lot of hand-wringing and complaining about Cancel Culture from one side and condemnation as racist and homophobic from the other. As usual, it’s somewhere in between but that doesn’t play well with those who only see the world as a one-way street.

Jon Gruden doesn’t have a job this morning because he’s an average coach who made some mistakes. When you’re really good at your job you’re allowed a lot of mistakes, that isn’t Jon Gruden.

Magnus Carlsen Leads by Example

Posted on by
Magnus Carlsen

Magnus Carlsen Shows Up for Consolation Match

Magnus Carlsen, the World Chess Champion, was defeated by Jan-Krzysztof Duda in a hotly contested semi-final match in the Chess World Cup that came down to tie-breaks. Because of this Carlsen found himself in the position of playing a third-place consolation match against Vladimir Fedoseev.

Not only did Carlsen show up for this match but he opened it with what some are already calling one of the most brilliant games of Carlsen’s career. I think this sort of thing speaks highly of Carlsen but also sets an important example for champions to come.

Magnus Carlsen is following the example set by the previous champion, Vishy Anand. That’s a testament to both of them.

The Contrast

For some champions this sort of loss can lead to petulant behavior. Novak Djokovic, considered the best tennis player in the world at the moment, recently lost in his bid to win an Olympic gold medal and behaved with less elan.

Djokovic threw his tennis racquet into the stands in a fit of rage. He refused to play in a scheduled doubles match with his partner, thus depriving them both of an opportunity for a gold medal. This sort of behavior is something that young players see and emulate.

Poor Behavior is Contagious

When top level golfers like Brooks Koepka and Bryson DeChambeau feud publicly, hurling nasty insults at one another, they somehow convince themselves it’s good for ratings, that people love watching such spats and unprofessional behavior.

It’s true videos of Djokovic and the two golfers make headlines and people are interested in such things. It’s also true that poor behavior of this nature is contagious. Future top-level golfers, tennis players, and others will emulate these champions. That’s not good for sports and it’s really not great for society.

What I find interesting is that while most people rightly criticize the tantrum thrown by Djokovic, and others like him, people clearly want to see more of it. That’s a shame.

It’s more than just a championship match, it’s about how to behave in your own life. We are all going to lose at something in life and it’s always going to be painful. If we fight against our despair and go back out, even for a consolation match, it makes our society a better place.

Imagine if, in a rage, Carlsen decided not to play. The chess world never gets to see today’s brilliancy.

Conclusion

The ability to handle defeat with grace is an admirable character trait. I far prefer the example Magnus Carlsen sets than that of Djokovic.

The old adage that people enjoy watching a train wreck remains. As for me, I prefer a true champion, both on the playing field and in life.

Tom Liberman