That is what I think about all them folks who cover college sports. Whenever there is a scandal involving illegal payments between athletes, coaches or administrators by boosters, the media always blames the players, coaches, or administrators. Never the boosters even if he is a convicted felon. Why? Because they pay the bills to ESPN guys like Mark May even if he doesn't want to admit or Mike Golic. I'm so tired them talking about morality about student-athlete conduct and death penalty on the program. But no death penalty on the boosters. Man, oh, man.
What is about these boosters that they get a free pass? I heard the same thing on the show First Take by Jemele Hill and Michael Smith. Some may side with the athletes or coaches but they all agree on the boosters. Sam Gilbert. The man was involved with drugs before his death and yet, he was more powerful than John Wooden. I hope we hear more about Mr. Gilbert now that the Wizard of Westwood has passed on. UCLA players, Larry Farmer, "I have seen him move mountains" and Lucious Allen said "Coach Wooden as long as we were between the lines. Outside the court — Sam Gilbert" (LA Times, Jun. 8, 2010 by Chris Dufresne).
These dudes strong and tough as they are nothing but jock pansies to boosters whether they are for them or against them. For instance, Wooden by all accounts knew about Mr. Gilbert but was intimidated by his presence and business. He looked the other way concerning cash, cars, women, clothing, and housing. Likewise, Sam negotiated contracts for top UCLA players when they got to the pros for only a dollar. He was involved as a contractor who did things on the "side." Kentucky basketball did the same thing. Players, coaches, and administrators got punished but never the boosters. Now for football, Notre Dame. No good unless they cheat. This is where former ND alum, Mike Golic, annoys the crap out of me.
Dude, okay, you didn't cheat and athletes shouldn't cheat. You paid the price and you did it fair and square. Athletes don't deserve to be paid because they are students. But why do you look away when boosters give money? How come they don't get to be punished? Why do you hold them to a higher standard then a priest? Likewise, you always talk like a hidden, but bitter sexual abuse victim when you put down these athletes who take the money. "Well, circumstances have happened to me (what?) where I could have given up but I still played clean and you should too because you didn't go through what I went through. So, I'm more holier than you" attitude. Fine, but be honest about. Mark May, you played for Jackie Sherrill, enough said.
My biggest wrath is definitely the writers concerning boosters. This goes back to the 30's. Many of the writers are and were friends of these boosters some of them with shady connections with the Mafia, Ku Klux Klan and other "devil's advocate" groups. Yet, they go on blaming the shiftless athletes who don't know nothing. Maybe, you got a concerned reporter who will blame the university or the coaches, get his Pulitzer's, and his payday. But the news dies down but the scandal continues because they always "thanks" the boosters of getting them there.
In short, college sports hypocrisy at its finest with these media folks.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Run and Jump, THe Carolina Way
Japan beating U.S. in the women's World Cup is amazing enough since the average height of each Japanese player is 5'4 while the U.S. is 5'7. But, they beat Germany in the quarters, and Sweden in the semi's. Both defeated teams had the same height average as the U.S. I'm reminded of a Billy Packer story about Dean Smith when he was a player for the Kansas Jayhawks. Dean's coach, Phogg Allen, would show a film of a snake and a rodent fighting. The snake would always win because it always got down lower. That is what the Japanese women did to all three teams to win the World Cup.
Likewise, it looked like the Japanese took a page out of Dean Smith's jump switch defense with them traps. They always pinned them in a corner by using two or three players and forced them to kick from the weak side. The U.S. players didn't have enough ball-handling skills from their big strikers to be patient. Because after about two dribbles, they would kick it away or the Japanese would steal the ball or force turnovers. Maybe a 2-3 zone every time they got toward the goal with a "set piece." It seemed the Japanese just swarmed Abby Wambach with 2 or 3 players on defense.
Mostly though, it reminded me of Larry Brown's transition to defense to offense. One of Japan's goals was when the U.S. was attacking them but Japan got the ball back and scored off that transition. In Larry's teams, specifically with the Cougars and Nuggets, he had great defenders who were small and quick but great dribblers with speed who could push the ball, score if need to or pass to the weak side for the open man. Japan didn't quiet have those skills on offense but they pushed the ball up field from those take aways and wore down the U.S.
I think this year's U.S. team was better than the team in 1999 which I think was overrated compared to Germany in 2003 and 2007. The 1999 team had great players but the competition wasn't that good. Their finals opponent, China wasn't great in terms of offense but good on defense. However, China couldn't switch like Japan did with the same quickness and tenacity on defense to create transitions. In short, Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. were the rodents that got snakebitten by Japan. The Carolina way.
Likewise, it looked like the Japanese took a page out of Dean Smith's jump switch defense with them traps. They always pinned them in a corner by using two or three players and forced them to kick from the weak side. The U.S. players didn't have enough ball-handling skills from their big strikers to be patient. Because after about two dribbles, they would kick it away or the Japanese would steal the ball or force turnovers. Maybe a 2-3 zone every time they got toward the goal with a "set piece." It seemed the Japanese just swarmed Abby Wambach with 2 or 3 players on defense.
Mostly though, it reminded me of Larry Brown's transition to defense to offense. One of Japan's goals was when the U.S. was attacking them but Japan got the ball back and scored off that transition. In Larry's teams, specifically with the Cougars and Nuggets, he had great defenders who were small and quick but great dribblers with speed who could push the ball, score if need to or pass to the weak side for the open man. Japan didn't quiet have those skills on offense but they pushed the ball up field from those take aways and wore down the U.S.
I think this year's U.S. team was better than the team in 1999 which I think was overrated compared to Germany in 2003 and 2007. The 1999 team had great players but the competition wasn't that good. Their finals opponent, China wasn't great in terms of offense but good on defense. However, China couldn't switch like Japan did with the same quickness and tenacity on defense to create transitions. In short, Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. were the rodents that got snakebitten by Japan. The Carolina way.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Dude? Leave Roger Alone
Roger Federer loses a match which isn't the finals or the semi's and the critics from ESPN's First Take start slamming him for being a good sport. They talk about him being afraid of Rafael Nadal so that he was happy that he lost Jo-Wilfred Tsonga. You had the mediator who tried to play devil's advocate by saying maybe he cares but in a different way but he accepts defeat. Then you have the other who says that he looked deflated and didn't have that calvary charge attitude like Earl Weaver who blew World Series's but would always say that he will be back.
I'm like whatever, dude. Roger is one of the few athletes that I don't resent for being perfect on and off the court. Why? Look at his opponents. They all play hard for him with enthusiasm even if they are getting their butts kicked by him. Because of the man and huminatarian that he is. You see Andy Roddick, Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal, and others. They have become better players because of him without the resentment and anger. The exception is Novak Djokovic and to steal Furman Bisher's line "what ever happened to David Nalbandian or Lleyton Hewitt?"
In short, Roger is the best win or lose!
I'm like whatever, dude. Roger is one of the few athletes that I don't resent for being perfect on and off the court. Why? Look at his opponents. They all play hard for him with enthusiasm even if they are getting their butts kicked by him. Because of the man and huminatarian that he is. You see Andy Roddick, Andy Murray, Rafael Nadal, and others. They have become better players because of him without the resentment and anger. The exception is Novak Djokovic and to steal Furman Bisher's line "what ever happened to David Nalbandian or Lleyton Hewitt?"
In short, Roger is the best win or lose!
Friday, January 21, 2011
Pushed by Good Ole Boys
When I see minorities or women in office, I'm a bit wary. Not of their qualifications but their associations. For this voter, I could careless of how they come across whether its liberal or conservative, color-blind or racist, and dumb or smart. As a minority living in white flight, I look for the Pat Riley or Margaret Thatcher factor with great interest.
I believe that this is whats happening to Sandy Springs mayor, Eva Galambos. This little tussle with Gwinnett College reinforces my view. She may be Jewish and a Phd but she can twang. Look at how many good ole Christian boys and girls she lead to the promise land with her reforms. Lets include sterilized minorities of Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu faiths as well as races who fear and hate other minorities besides their own. Likewise, racist homosexuals.
White flight minorities went in for the ride and voted her into office. However, sterilized as they maybe towards white heterosexuals, minorities and homosexuals do end up with off springs who need to go somewhere. Certainly not Sandy Springs. Eva is going to make sure of that with her good ole boy lobby of folks with questionable education. Those are the folks that helped get into office with the "I'm afraid of City of Atlanta's agenda" rhetoric since 1989. Eva woofed about their work ethic and she was going to take them on when push comes to shove. Unfortunately, the Good Ole Boys got scared when the pressure got tight and left her hanging to dry.
Eva is definitely a figure head like Bobby Jindal. I get aware of having somebody who is married within their faith or race but leads an agenda of white flight. Danielle Giffords and Nikki Haley are at least honest. But in their case, its not what religion you are but what religion you marry. Look at Barack Obama. Both women are willing to push their own constituents hard. Sometimes, though, your own group pushes you back, hard. Eva is too passive and afraid to get on her Good Ole Boys due to her Christian dependency on them. She side steps them if they want a massage parlor or liquor store across the street from the city government place.
I think of her as Miss Piggy. Yeah, she is strong and tough against individuals or folks but you can't take on a group that can roast you and eat you in a heartbeat with money to spare (Piggy started running when she saw an oven). You either marry one or avoid them. Don't vote for me as Sandy Springs mayor. She was the perfect type for lobbyists to get Sandy Springs to be a city but not the type to run it. I believe a person needs to lead and push a fraternity instead of being pushed and pulled by one like pork.
I believe that this is whats happening to Sandy Springs mayor, Eva Galambos. This little tussle with Gwinnett College reinforces my view. She may be Jewish and a Phd but she can twang. Look at how many good ole Christian boys and girls she lead to the promise land with her reforms. Lets include sterilized minorities of Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu faiths as well as races who fear and hate other minorities besides their own. Likewise, racist homosexuals.
White flight minorities went in for the ride and voted her into office. However, sterilized as they maybe towards white heterosexuals, minorities and homosexuals do end up with off springs who need to go somewhere. Certainly not Sandy Springs. Eva is going to make sure of that with her good ole boy lobby of folks with questionable education. Those are the folks that helped get into office with the "I'm afraid of City of Atlanta's agenda" rhetoric since 1989. Eva woofed about their work ethic and she was going to take them on when push comes to shove. Unfortunately, the Good Ole Boys got scared when the pressure got tight and left her hanging to dry.
Eva is definitely a figure head like Bobby Jindal. I get aware of having somebody who is married within their faith or race but leads an agenda of white flight. Danielle Giffords and Nikki Haley are at least honest. But in their case, its not what religion you are but what religion you marry. Look at Barack Obama. Both women are willing to push their own constituents hard. Sometimes, though, your own group pushes you back, hard. Eva is too passive and afraid to get on her Good Ole Boys due to her Christian dependency on them. She side steps them if they want a massage parlor or liquor store across the street from the city government place.
I think of her as Miss Piggy. Yeah, she is strong and tough against individuals or folks but you can't take on a group that can roast you and eat you in a heartbeat with money to spare (Piggy started running when she saw an oven). You either marry one or avoid them. Don't vote for me as Sandy Springs mayor. She was the perfect type for lobbyists to get Sandy Springs to be a city but not the type to run it. I believe a person needs to lead and push a fraternity instead of being pushed and pulled by one like pork.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Bill Veeck's Bastard Children
Just Geno Auriema, John Wooden, Bobby Knight, Jo Pa, and all you folks who don't put names on your jersey's so the camera can focus on you. Bill Veeck is the man and you guys are his bastard children. You can deny all you want but its true. Without him, you guys wouldn' have nothing. Look at all the TV dollars, you make from others teams names on jerseys that you play against. If all teams had no names, you would have no dollars.
See in 1959, a fan friend was complaining to Bill who was then owner of the Chicago White Sox baseball team, that he couldn't recognize who the players were. Bill then came up with the idea of putting names on his team's jerseys in 1960. The first year it was on the road and the next year, it was both. Critics complained that it would take away score card sales at the ballpark but it didn't because the players were too far away and actuality it helped scorecard sales as well as increasing television coverage which brought millions.
Basketball teams like the Lakers and Duke University were using it. In football, it was Maryland in 1961 but scrapped after one year. Not all coaches were sold on it because they believed it promoted the individual. Actually, it put the focus on the team instead of the coach who loves himself like David Lee Roth. Coaches who use No-name say they are protecting the players. Really. Well, why does the camera always focus on you instead of your assistants? I mean why not put the focus on assistants like Tom Kelly did when he managed the Twins. You saw the camera on Ron Gardenhire and Wayne Terwilliger. Don't believe their hype.
It took awhile to sell the idea. The American Football League put names in August of 1960. When they merged with the NFL in 1970, they kept their's and got the NFC teamsto put theirs. The Lakers were the first in 1961 but the NBA required all teams to do so in 1971-1972 season when the no names of the Bullets and Bucks of the 1971 Finals produced a bad TV rating even though Kareem, Oscar, Wes, and the Pearl played. NHL did it in 1977-1978 but the WHA did it in 1972 when they had Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe. Baseball, the National League required every team on the road to have names in 1979 while the American League required every team on the road in 1990 except for the Yankees. In college, they leave up to each team but the money entices them to put names.
I think its great because its American and not that Taliban mystery bull. Yeah, Yeah, sacrifice committement, excellence, and all. Its all about you. Then put it on your sleeve like Air Force football did in their bowl game. They didn't put their last names but they put what they stood for, Freedom and Service. I like that. Anyway, they are Bill Veeck's children and you no-names are Bill Veeck's bastard children because you get benefits too out of his will.
See in 1959, a fan friend was complaining to Bill who was then owner of the Chicago White Sox baseball team, that he couldn't recognize who the players were. Bill then came up with the idea of putting names on his team's jerseys in 1960. The first year it was on the road and the next year, it was both. Critics complained that it would take away score card sales at the ballpark but it didn't because the players were too far away and actuality it helped scorecard sales as well as increasing television coverage which brought millions.
Basketball teams like the Lakers and Duke University were using it. In football, it was Maryland in 1961 but scrapped after one year. Not all coaches were sold on it because they believed it promoted the individual. Actually, it put the focus on the team instead of the coach who loves himself like David Lee Roth. Coaches who use No-name say they are protecting the players. Really. Well, why does the camera always focus on you instead of your assistants? I mean why not put the focus on assistants like Tom Kelly did when he managed the Twins. You saw the camera on Ron Gardenhire and Wayne Terwilliger. Don't believe their hype.
It took awhile to sell the idea. The American Football League put names in August of 1960. When they merged with the NFL in 1970, they kept their's and got the NFC teamsto put theirs. The Lakers were the first in 1961 but the NBA required all teams to do so in 1971-1972 season when the no names of the Bullets and Bucks of the 1971 Finals produced a bad TV rating even though Kareem, Oscar, Wes, and the Pearl played. NHL did it in 1977-1978 but the WHA did it in 1972 when they had Bobby Hull and Gordie Howe. Baseball, the National League required every team on the road to have names in 1979 while the American League required every team on the road in 1990 except for the Yankees. In college, they leave up to each team but the money entices them to put names.
I think its great because its American and not that Taliban mystery bull. Yeah, Yeah, sacrifice committement, excellence, and all. Its all about you. Then put it on your sleeve like Air Force football did in their bowl game. They didn't put their last names but they put what they stood for, Freedom and Service. I like that. Anyway, they are Bill Veeck's children and you no-names are Bill Veeck's bastard children because you get benefits too out of his will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)