Back To The Future?

After a handful of games into the new season, and hoping to keep a star player from leaving, the Lakers decided it was time for a coaching change.  The ownership had a coach in mind, but after that choice balked, they settled on a run and gun coach who hadn't won anything in the NBA.

The year wasn't 2012, but 1981.  The Lakers had had enough of Paul Westhead, and six games into the season, fired him to appease Magic Johnson.  They attempted to bring in Jerry West as coach, but after he refused, hired Pat Riley, who took the team to 4 titles in 7 years.

Sounds familiar, right?

It remains to be seen if the newly hired Mike D'Antoni can recreate the magic that Riley brought to L.A.  But that is what the Buss family is hoping for after negotiations with Phil Jackson broke down over the weekend.

Information continues to trickle out as to what exactly happened over these crazy 3 days, and I'm sure we will never know the whole story.  Here's what we do know:  After 5 games, the Mike Brown experiment was a neon sign of failure.  The Lakers, realizing they needed to change, fired Brown early Friday and immediately began discussions with Phil Jackson to come back (again!) as head coach.  From literally every news source it wasn't an "if" but "when" Jackson would return to the sidelines.  That was until late Sunday, when after winning their third game of the season, the Lakers announced they had hired D'Antoni.

Will this hire usher in "Showtime 2.0"?

So what went wrong?

From what we're hearing Jackson's demands were more than the Lakers were willing to stomach.  He wanted his previous salary (10-15 million a year), say so in personnel decisions, the opportunity to groom his successor (paying forward the triangle offense), travel restrictions for his ailing body, and an ownership stake in the team.  Just looking at this on its face these demands seem beyond outrageous, until you realize IT'S PHIL JACKSON!!!  He is the greatest coach of all time, and last I checked, the Lakers haven't sniffed the finals without him since they magically made the finals in 1991.  Sure he was asking for a lot, but with 11 titles, 5 of those coming in L.A. over the last 12 years, he sure had leverage.  TWICE the Lakers have not only kicked him hard to the curb, but tried to erase all existence of him within the organization.  So who can blame him for wanting some job security, and security after his coaching days are over?  The Lakers willingly gave Magic Johnson a piece of the team after bringing 5 titles to Los Angeles, why not provide that to Phil after his 5 titles?

Personally, I believe the bigger problem is Jackson's relationship with the Buss family (excluding his girlfriend Jeanie, of course).  There is clearly no trust there, and why would Jackson go back to a situation that has ended horribly twice before without having security?  The Buss', not wanting to completely capitulate to Jackson, turned away and immediately hired D'Antoni, which came as a shock to everyone, including Jackson.  This isn't the way you conduct negotiations with a party you truly respect.

The other issue, and one that Los Angeles, and Lakers fans as a whole need to come to terms with, is that this is Jimmy Buss' team now.  I believe that Jerry Buss isn't doing well healthwise, and that is the reason we haven't heard from him in years.  Hearing Jerry sound off on his teams situation, gambling at Hollywood Park or Commerce Casino, or parading around town with his army of 20 year olds has become commonplace around L.A.  But that has been missing lately.  The last I heard anything relating to Jerry Buss he was experience blood clots in his legs.  And that was about 3 years ago.  It seems to me complete control has already been given to Jimmy, and the organization isn't saying anything regarding Jerry purely for public relations purposes.  The name Jerry Buss carries a lot of weight in the city, and if a decision is seen as having his blessing it usually isn't second guessed.  This allows Jimmy to ease into the ownership roll permanently without the foreseeable blowback from the public.  Jimmy doesn't get along with Phil, and the noticeable absence of Jeanie around the team speaks volumes to this.  It's a new ear in Lakerland.  It's time we accept it.

The new boss.  It remains to be seen if he'll be more Jerry Buss than Jerry Jones

But what does all of this mean for the Lakers moving forward?

Of course the main goal is to win, and win now.  But above that their main objective this season is to resign Dwight Howard.  Howard has had well documented feuds with coaches in the past, and like most players in his generation, seems entitled and wants to win right away no matter what.  He publicly endorsed bringing in Jackson, and it remains to be seen how D'Antoni and his philosophy will mesh with Howard's strengths.  D'Antoni will have to alter his run and gun style, as the Lakers don't have young legs or any semblance of a bench to achieve his "7 seconds or less" offense.  He's also not a defensive coach at all, but maybe bringing in Nate McMillan will help with that.  The wild card in this is Steve Nash.  He has a history with D'Antoni, and he will clearly be initiating the offense now that the Princeton offense has mercifully been put to bed.  Will he be able to get everyone the ball, and keep egos happy and in check?  Can he stay healthy once he returns from a broken leg?  Will D'Antoni be able to limit his minutes so he's fresh for the playoffs?

I feel that the D'Antoni decision was a knee jerk hire after walking away from the Jackson negotiations.  The Lakers wanted to appease the fans and contain blowback from failing to hire the one coach that made sense and everyone wanted.  They will try to sell the D'Antoni hire as "Showtime 2.0", waxing nostalgic of the glory days of the 80's.  And maybe they're right.  Maybe this will be a blessing in disguise.  Maybe D'Antoni will break through and have the success Pat Riley did 30 years ago.  But for a franchise starving for a title, things better turn around quick or else Jimmy Buss will be completely exposed.

Jimmy fooled us once with his Mike Brown hire.  But if bypassing the greatest coach in NBA history for another gut hire does not work out, Lakers fans will be much less forgiving.

About Time The Lakers Hit The Panic Button

After winning 1 game in almost 6 months, the Lakers (finally!) fired Mike Brown this morning.  After an 0-8 preseason, a 1-4 start to the regular season, and a mountain of criticism from fans and media alike, the Lakers felt that something needed to change. The backlash from this decision has already begun, with many questioning why the Lakers would hit the "panic" button only 5 games into the season.  With so many new players and a new system, why didn't they give Brown a chance to direct the team and allow them to mesh?  The answer is clear to anyone who has followed this team since the Brown hire.

Let me start by saying that Mike Brown should have never been hired in the first place.  His only previous head coaching stint was with Cleveland, where he became the only person who could actually stop LeBron James.  The amount of minutes he played James was a joke, and it was no wonder that after burning out James on the way to the 2007 finals, they were swept by the more experienced, and better coached, Spurs team.  He was eventually fired by Cleveland in an attempt to appease and keep James in a Cavs uniform (which we all know how that turned out).  Why would the Lakers, the greatest organization in NBA history, take a flyer on such an unimpressive, remedial coach?  We can thank Jimmy Buss for that, as Brown was hand selected by him after his interview supposedly blew Buss away.  He also never consulted the face of the franchise, Kobe Bryant.

This is a sight Lakers fans should have never been exposed to

While not exactly happy, especially with the wealth of coaching talent available, Lakers fans gave him the benefit of the doubt, and waited to see how the season would progress.  It proceeded to go right down the shitter.  The Lakers underachieved all year, failing to come together as a unit, and clearly had no respect for Brown.  Brown seemed content to run the offense and would never make adjustments at any point in a game.  They had no consistent defensive scheme, despite his reputation as a defensive coach.  This became crystal clear after Denver came back to force a game 7 in the opening round of last years playoffs after a REAL coach (George Karl) adjusted to what the Lakers where (or weren't) doing after game 4.  After barely surviving, the Lakers were embarrassed by the Thunder and sent home for the summer.

So why fire him now and not at the end of last season?

The simple reason is money.  The Lakers signed Brown to a 4 year, 18 million dollar deal.  That's a lot of dough.  And with a hall of fame starting lineup coming in with the additions of Dwight Howard and Steve Nash, the organization wanted to see what he could do with this group.  He was essentially given a stay, but was on a short leash.  And how did Brown respond?  By instituting the Princeton offense (because why would you want one of the greatest PG ever to actually run your offense?), failing to come up with a viable rotation during the preseason, and burying guys like Chris Duhon and Jody Meeks on the bench for no apparent reason.  This would be fine if they were winning, but they weren't.  The Lakers not only have lost 4 of 5, but their offense is atrocious, with guys standing around, no movement, and not running a play until 8 seconds left in the shot clock.  The poor shooting leads to break outs the other way and easy hoops, with absolutely no adjustments.  And the disrespect the players showed Brown was beyond evident.  He had completely lost this team.

But the way they've been playing so far this year is just an extension of how they finished last year; lost.  Lost on offense and defense.  Lost in who is supposed to do what.  Lost in a constantly changing rotation that added no stability to the team.  The Lakers were hoping for something different.  They got more of the same.  And since this was Brown's offense, it put even more of the blame on his shoulders.  Something clearly needed to be done.

This brings me back to the hitting the "panic" button issue.  Like I stated earlier, the Lakers are the greatest organization in NBA history.  Their goal year after year is winning.  The Lakers do not hang banners for winning their division or conference, only championships go to the rafters.  It's this commitment to excellence that has allowed them to reload for generations.  And fans have come to expect nothing less.  If a season ends without a title, that season was failure.  This is that standard the team has set, and this is the standard that us fans hold them to.

The goal each and every year.  Anything less is failure

So when the Lakers are underachieving, have clearly quit on their coach and no progress has been made at all in over a year, are they supposed to cross their fingers and hope for something to magically change?  When the head coach actually says that it'll take until the beginning of the calendar year to "get it together", are Lakers fans supposed to remain patient and content?  You can blame injuries, or new teammates, or a new system, but the same problems that plagued the team last year are still visible this year.  To salvage the season and keep the team together mentally and emotionally, a change had to be made.

Yes, the Lakers hit the "panic" button.  But in doing so they also hit the "reset" button.  And they should be applauded accordingly.

Leave The Conversion, Take The Point

Nobody's said that coaching football is easy.  There are countless stories of coaches working insane hours, sleeping in their offices, neglecting family, all to try to gain a sliver of an advantage on Saturday or Sunday.  In addition to preparation and planning, there are numerous in game decisions that can tilt an outcome.  Among these are when and if to challenge a play, and whether to use or save a timeout.  But one that seems to be glanced over seemingly on a weekly basis is the two point conversion.

The two point conversion has been used in college football since 1958, and in the NFL since 1994.  This allows the offensive team who has just scored a touchdown to bypass the extra point kick and attempt to reach the end-zone again, this time in one play from the 2 yard line.  If successful, 2 point are gained.  If not, there is no additional points.  Like most decisions, there is conventional wisdom as to when you should go for two and when taking the extra point is acceptable.  There are charts and everything to help coaches come to this decision.  But what charts don't take into account is the progress and time left in the game, as well as the fact that if unsuccessful, a coach may have harmed his team in a way that prevents victory.

Games should not rest on this chart

The two point conversion is a great addition to the game.  Honestly, it baffles me that the NFL waited until 1994 before instituting it.  It adds an extra element of strategy to the game, and in my opinion, when you can add more strategy and thinking to a game, it's a bonus.  Unfortunately coaches still have not mastered how to utilize this play to their advantage, forgoing long term strategy for a quick, short term gain.  You are trying to gain 2 yards in a 12 yard field with 22 men in that space.  Not that easy when you break it down.  The success rate of extra points last year was over 99% across the league.  The success rate of two point conversions last year was almost 35%, with 7 teams never attempting one.  It has also been argued that across the board, two point conversions have been successful over 50% of the time since it's been allowed.  However, what this fails to take into account is the specific game.  A team can lose a game because of a failed two point conversion in a close game but still finish a season with a 50% success rate if they are successful in conversions in games that they are far ahead or winning.

The prevailing wisdom in my mind, and what I've been preaching for years, is that you do not take points off the board.  There is no need to attempt a two point conversion when there is still a chance to score more points, so you take the easy extra point.  Clearly there are situations where going for two is a necessity, such as being down 8 with under 2 minutes left for example.  But it kills me week after week seeing coaches go for two in the second quarter or beginning of the 4th.  Or down by 15 late, going for two after a touchdown that has just cut the lead to 9.  Why go for two now, when if you fail, you are putting the game away by leaving a point off the board, even though you NEED another touchdown anyway?  If successful it is a great play, but the odds are that it will fail, and you have dug yourself a hole that you will be trying to dig yourself out of the rest of the game.

Yesterday's Packers-Colts game was a perfect example.  The Colts were trailing 21-13 at the end of the 3rd quarter when Andrew Luck ran for a touchdown.  Interim coach Bruce Arians decided to go for two to tie the game...and failed.  Again, the chart says that when you are down by 2, you go for 2, but this does not take into consideration there is 15 minutes left in this game in which anything can happen.  Turnovers, special teams, 3 and outs, anything.  By failing to convert, the Colts are now down 2 with the Packers getting the ball, and with a touchdown, can have a 2 possession lead.  This did not happen, and midway through the 4th the Colts kicked a field goal to put them up by 1.  When the Packers did get a touchdown with 4:30 left to make the score 27-22, they decided to go for two to make it a 7 point lead.  They failed.  Indy ended up scoring with under a minute to play and because of the earlier failed conversions, went for and converted their two point conversion attempt, winning the game by 3 when the Packers missed a last second game tying field goal attempt.  But what would have happened if Green Bay had just kicked the extra point?  They would have been up 6 with about 4 minutes to play.  Even if Indy did get a touchdown, they would have kicked the extra point (because being up 2 is the same as being up 1 in that scenario) and would have had a 1 point lead.  Then the Packers would only need a field goal to win, not tie.

The bottom line in my mind is that by going for two when it is not absolutely necessary you are not only leaving points off the board, but you are putting the overall strategy of the game in the hands of the opposing coach.  By going early for two, and failing, Arians put the strategy of the game in the hands of Mike McCarthy.  He could dictate to the Colts how they needed to score and may have either forced them into anther two point attempt, or at least put his team in a better position to win.  But when McCarthy went for two and failed, he put it right back in the hands of Arians.

Clearly there are those who will disagree with this opinion, which is expected.  But I look at scoring in football like blackjack.  If you take the points, know when to hit and know when to hold, and not take any crazy unnecessary risks, you will come out on top.  But I guess the majority of coaches are more into playing craps, as their decisions to go for two are exactly that; a roll of the dice.

A Puzzling End To A Championship Summer

After touring the southland and traveling around the world these past few months, the Stanley Cup is finally off to Montreal to get engraved, making the it official.  The Kings are Stanley Cup champions.

But this is not an easy process, at least as far as determining what names are etched into the greatest trophy in sports.  Many people have played significant rolls in this championship season, and the league allows a maximum of 52 names.  All names must be submitted to the league for approval before they are immortalized on the Cup, and the usual standard for players making it on the Cup are playing 41 regular season games (half the season) or at least one game in the Stanley Cup Finals, although this is not set in stone.

The Kings released the names of players, staff, and executives that were approved by the league, and they utilized all 52 available spots.  While looking over the list the vast majority are well deserved, a few puzzling, along with a handful of glaring omissions.

Not everyone is lucky enough to be among the chosen 52

The following are the 5 names that deserve to be on the final list of 52, and 1 that the organization should be ashamed to have forgotten.

ANDREI LOKTIONOV

Loktionov has been with the organization since 2008.  He is a bright star in the organization, and had appeared in 39 regular season games and 2 playoff games for the Kings.  He has shared time between Los Angeles and their minor league organization in Manchester over the years, but he clearly was a contributing player throughout this season.  This omission is even more puzzling when you see that Kevin Westgarth and Davis Drewiske will have their names on the Cup, despite playing in only 25 and 27 regular season games respectively, and non in the post season.  What may have something to do with this decision is one made by Loktionov himself.  Loktionov has chosen to play in the KHL (Russia's hockey league) during the lockout.  The thing is, Loktionov is not locked out.  He was assigned a few weeks ago to the minors, which is not effected by the lockout at all.  This clearly has caused some friction within the organization, and may come to a head later down the line.  But it seems the Kings may be punishing Loktionov for not being a team player and reporting to Manchester.

ED ROSKI

Most people know Roski as a driving force in getting the NFL back to Los Angeles.  But few realize that he, along with Philip Anschutz and AEG, partnered in buying the Kings out of bankruptcy in 1995.  He was even listed as an owner in this years playoff media guide.  Seems fishy that a part owner would not have his name among those on the Cup, especially since Anschutz has his wife Nancy's name on the list of 52.  But like Loktionov, this may be a form of payback.  AEG (the owners of the Kings) and Roski are competing for an NFL franchise to move to the Los Angeles area, so his omission may be another example of the vindictiveness of AEG.

TERRY MURRAY

This is a very odd omission in my opinion.  Murray coached the Kings for 4 plus season before being replaced halfway through last season.  He coached the team to the playoffs twice after missing the playoffs for almost a decade.  Throughout the playoffs and after winning the Cup, the players and executives all gushed over Murray, constantly expressing their gratitude for his services, reminding everyone who would listen that they would not be in this position if it weren't for Murray.  Maybe he was one of the last ones cut (because the owners wife obviously takes priority) and he will receive a championship ring, but for anyone who knows hockey, your name on the Cup is what lives forever.


NICK NICKSON

Nickson has been with the Kings since 1981, first doing television commentary, and when the tv/radio broadcasts were separated in 1990, he became the radio voice of the franchise.  For someone who has been a part of many people lives to be omitted from the final 52 is odd.  Sure he is a radio guy, and radio isn't what it once was, but he has been a mainstay for the franchise.  Many of us have been stuck in LA traffic or away from the tv and depend on Nickson to paint the mental picture of what is happening on the ice.  A very peculiar omission.


JIM FOX

Fox played 9 season in the NHL, all with the Kings.  When he retired in 1990 he became the team's tv color commentator, and has blossomed into the best in the game.  He is one of the most knowledgeable hockey minds around, and his ability to express what is going on objectively, not only to the hockey fan, but to the casual observer, is astounding.  He lives for the Kings.  Seeing how emotional he was after the game 6 win and even at the celebratory parade makes this omission that much more confusing.  Fox deserves to have his name on the Cup for all the years he has dedicated to the organization, both on and off the ice.


BOB MILLER

Miller has been the voice of the Kings since 1973.  He was inducted into the NHL Hall of Fame in 2000 and even has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  Miller IS the Kings and the best in the business.  Nobody has felt the ups and downs of this organization like he has.  Most fans (myself included) have been introduced to the game and have learned the intricacies from listening to Miller.  When the Kings won, the one person captain Dustin Brown was looking for to hand the Cup to was Bob Miller.  One of the biggest regrets to such a magical season was that us fans were unable to hear him call the Finals due to the NHL's contract with NBC.  But to have his name omitted is an absolute travesty.  The Kings should be ashamed of themselves.  When the video editor gets higher priority than the man who has touched EVERY Kings fan, who has brought the game into our homes for generations, there is something extremely wrong and troubling going on.

Shame on you AEG.  I hope our new owners have a sense of history and class the next time we're lucky enough to raise the Cup.

The Lakers Are Ready. But Will Los Angeles Get To See Them Play?

There is a lot to be happy about in Lakerland.  After 2 disappointing playoff exits in a row, Mitch Kupchak and the Lakers front office did what they do best; reload.  They acquired Dwight Howard and Steve Nash via trade, managed to hold on to Pau Gasol, and bolstered their God awful bench (they still have Mike Brown calling the shots, but I digress).  They have immediately gone from an old, washed up group to a title favorite.  All of this has created an anxious fan base here in Southern California that is foaming at the mouth for the season to start.  The unfortunate thing is the majority of Los Angeles residents may not get to see them play.

For years the Lakers games have been broadcasted on KCAL channel 9 and Fox Sports (or some variation of the channel as it's changed names over the years).  This was advantageous for the Lakers, as they were getting $30 million annually from Fox Sports for the rights to home games, and those fans that did not have a pay television subscription could still see their team play on KCAL.  But like what happens more and more these days, teams are leaving the good of the fans behind and following the big bucks.

As the contract with Fox Sports and KCAL expired at the end of last year, the Lakers were looking at their options.  They flirted with the idea of starting their own Lakers channel, as the Yankees have with YES, and the Dodgers have talk about creating in the past.  Instead, Time Warner Cable swooped in after the exclusive negotiation window had expired with Fox Sports and scooped up the broadcasting rights.  The figures have not been released, but it is rumored to be a 20 year contract valued at $3 billion.

When will Southern California get to see this lineup play?

So what does this mean for the common Lakers fan?

First off, if you are a Time Warner Cable subscriber, nothing will change.  Depending on your package you will get to see every Lakers game just like the past years.  It becomes tricky for the millions of Southern California residents that do not have Time Warner Cable.

For those that do not subscribe to a television provider you are out of luck.  The Lakers will no longer be broadcast on basic cable stations, unless it is a nationally televised game on ABC.  This alienates many low income residents who are no less of Lakers fans then everyone else.  They will either have to subscribe for television services, or take trips to a friends place or local bar in order to watch their team.

For those that do subscribe to a television provider, such as Directv or Dish Network, things become a little more complicated.  These providers are charged a per subscriber fee in order to carry local programing.  Regional sports networks are among the most expensive, averaging about $2.50 a month per subscriber.  These are all negotiable, but there has been no agreement between these providers and Time Warner Cable.

What this means is that unless an agreement can be reached between these providers and Time Warner Cable, Southern California residents will not be able to see their Lakers.  While this seems like a small issue, it is far from it.  Earlier this year in a negotiation standoff, Directv stopped broadcasting Viacom programming until a new agreement was reached.  That meant that Directv subscribers could not see programming from MTV, Comedy Central, BET, etc. for a few weeks (luckily this was not during South Park's season).  Dish Network still has not come to an agreement with AMC, which broadcasts such amazing shows as "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Men", denying their subscribers access to this channel.  Even if you subscribe to a package such as "full court" to try to skirt the issue all together, you will still not get to see the Lakers due to local blackout restrictions.

What complicates this even further is that since an agreement was not reached before the summer, it is likely that Time Warner Cable will be looking for a massive payday due to the amazing offseason that was just put together by the Lakers.  They are well aware of the hype, and the backlash that may come if fans are denied access to watch their team.  It is said Time Warner Cable will be looking for $3.50 or more per subscriber, an astronomical figure.  But Dish and Directv may be pushed into a corner, knowing their subscribers, which are over a million in the area, will punish them for not carrying the games, which is exactly what Time Warner is banking on.

Can't we all just get along?

There hasn't been much written about these negotiations, which is somewhat troubling.  There are just 2 months left until the start of the season, and if games begin without a deal, the blowback will be immense.  This is a Lakers town, and life revolves around our team.  If you subscribe to Directv, Dish, Charter Communications or Cox Cable, call them.  Let them know you want a deal done so you can see your Lakers once the season gets underway.

It will be an amazing season no matter what happens on the floor.  I just hope we will all be able to see it.

Is It Ever Okay To Win By Losing?

When I was younger, playing in Little League and the like, we were always taught to give it our all, leave everything on the field, and do our best to win.  These credos govern most of us as we make our way through youth sports and into adulthood.  But at a certain point we realize that giving it our all may not be good enough.  There are other factors that go into sport that influence outcomes.  Chief amongst these is strategy.  How does one team attack the others weakness?  How does one neutralize another opposing player?  And what other ways are there to achieve the main goal in any sport, winning?

These motivations came to light this week as 4 Olympic badminton teams were kicked out of the games for intentionally throwing their matches.  As puzzling as this may be to outsiders, there was logic behind these actions.  The Olympics changed formats for badminton from a single elimination tournament, to a round robin style.  What this means is that a group of teams play each other to determine where they are seeded in the medal round.  The best team from one group plays the worst in the other, and so forth.  What these teams were attempting to do was manipulate where they would be seeded in the medal round, trying to get the best possible matchup to win gold.  Since the best team had been upset, the others wanted to avoid playing them before the finals.  The only way they could accomplish this was to lose in the round robin matches.

It goes without saying what these teams did was wrong, and they deserved to be ejected from the competition and endure the humiliation from their actions.  But what has been neglected amongst the outrage by the media and officials is the fact that this same thing, although to a less blatant extent, goes on in other sports all the time.  Should athletes be expected to give their all at every opportunity?  Are teams obligated to put their best out on the field every time they play?  Are there any valid reasons why your best may not be what's best for you or the team?

An attempt to win by losing backfires

Two of the Olympics major sports, swimming and track and field, both operate under preliminary races to determine the athletes that will compete in the finals.  The majority of the time these participants do not go all out in these races, either to conserve energy or not give away anything to their opponents.  These athletes clearly aren't throwing the races, just doing enough to get to the next round.  But it could be argued that they are doing a disservice by not giving it their all every time they enter the pool or track, as would normally be expected.

Even in professional sports this tanking trend is prevalent.  Every year in basketball as the season is coming to an end, we see a rash of mysterious "injuries" to star players on teams that have no shot at making the playoffs.  These top tier players sit for an extended period of time and as a result their teams start to lose.  A lot.  Why would a professional team WANT to lose?  Well, in the NBA they have a draft lottery.  The team that finishes with the worst record has the highest percentage of winning the number one draft choice and selecting whomever they chose to play for them the following season.  The logic behind this is why continue to try to win when the playoffs are out of reach when by continuing to lose they can end up "winning" in the draft?  This has gone on for years, and as of now there is no incentive for teams to stop tanking and put their best effort on the court game in and game out.

We see this in hockey as well.  The NHL playoff format is different from other sports in that the winners of the three conference divisions are guaranteed the top three seeds in the playoffs, arranged by point totals (hockey standing are determined by points, not just wins and losses.  A win is 2 points, an overtime or shootout loss is worth 1, and a loss 0).  The remaining 5 spots are determined by points.  What this means is a team could have an awful year, but end up winning their division and earn a 3 seed.  This causes teams, instead of fighting for  a higher seed, to eye a 6 seed in order to draw this poor performing division winner.  We saw this just this year in the Eastern Conference.  The New Jersey Devils were the 6 seed and defeated the 3 seed Florida Panthers and eventually played for the Stanley Cup.  The Panthers would have been a 7 seed had rankings been determined by points alone.  This was obviously a favorable draw for the Devils, who let the other, stronger teams beat themselves up through the subsequent rounds.

Even in baseball and football we see a certain taste of not trying every game.  When teams have a playoff spot or seed wrapped up they will sit their stars, resting them for the playoffs and sheltering them from possible injuries.  This can have an effect on other playoff seeding in a major way.  If a team fighting to make the playoffs is playing these playoff bound teams, they may win games that they otherwise would not, thus helping them achieve their goal.

Is it ever OK to sit your star players when healthy?

So what determines what is out of bounds and unethical and what is legitimate and smart?  The answer is expectations, not only from media but fans as well.  When we watch the prelims at the Olympics, we don't expect these athletes to kill themselves to win a race that will just qualify them for another one.  We don't anticipate a team to play their star players when a playoff birth is already secured.  We hope a team will shut down when the playoffs are out of reach in order to secure a top draft choice and turn around a struggling franchise.  We, as paying spectators, are conscious of what these teams and athletes are doing when we get to the arenas, so when it does happen it is not a surprise.  We anticipate these activities, and accept them.  If as paying fans we expected and demanded the best every single time out, things would be different.  But we don't, and because of that these borderline unethical activities are seen as commonplace, and there is no negative ramifications that come from them.

That is the main difference with these everyday occurrences in sports and what happened with these badminton teams. People paid money to see high quality badminton (I never thought I'd utter the words "high quality badminton" in my life) and were shocked to see such blatant tanking.  This hadn't happened before in a competition, and the outrage from fans and media was fierce.  The badminton officials responded with harsh and just punishment, and with that most likely set a precedent to prevent such things from happening in the future.  But with these other sports the governing bodies go along with actions, withholding any discipline, and as the years pass we grow accustom to these actions.  They became part of the game, and legitimate strategy.  But if opinion on these tactics were to change, I have no doubt that a badminton style storm would brew causing massive change to sports in general.

Until then, we'll just have to keep rooting for our teams, in winning and in losing.

My Stanley Cup Dream Come True

After enduring months of immense anxiety, growing a playoff beard, going through the same routine every game day, refusing to acknowledge their mind blowing run and neglecting this blog for fear of jinxing them, it has yet to sink in.  Even after watching Game 6 of the finals no less than 5 times in the past week, it still doesn't seem real.  The Los Angeles Kings, MY Kings, are Stanley Cup champions.

I vividly remember my first game.  I was already a die-hard Lakers and Dodgers fan, but my father insisted on taking my brother and myself to see a Kings game.  My father, being from Detroit, was already well versed in hockey, having watched the great Red Wings teams growing up, and I recall him explaining the game to us and how the Forum would look completely different from the normal basketball set up we were used to.  Of course being a kid you are always half listening to your parents, and this was no different, as I was still unsure about this whole hockey thing.  But I will never forget walking down the tunnel, feeling the cold air from the ice meandering around the arena, and seeing the rink for the first time.  It seemed massive; taking up the entire arena.  And once the game started, I was hooked.  I couldn't get enough of the Kings.  I watched games, memorizing the yearbook of players names, birthdays, etc.  I asked for jerseys and hockey sticks for holidays, and slowly the Kings replaced my beloved Lakers and Dodgers atop my favorite teams.

Being a Los Angeles fan I was used to success.  The Lakers had won multiple titles during the "Showtime" era, and the Dodgers had come out of nowhere to win the World Series in 1988.  I admit, I was spoiled.  All I knew was success in my sporting life, and it seemed the Kings would be no different.  They won their division for the first time in 1991, and made the finals in 1993 (and should have won if not for Marty McSorley.  Yes, I'm am still bitter).  But after 1993, reality struck.  I was neglectful of the Kings past futility, but it soon became crystal clear.  They made a serious of horrible moves, and always seemed to underachieve.  They missed the playoffs year after year, and when they did, they were quickly sent home.  After enduring this for years it became expected.  Like most Kings fans, I lived by the motto "hope for the best, expect the worst".

And this year started no different.  The Kings were among the favorites to contend for the Cup, but like they always do, began their usual decent in the standings once the end of the year rolled around.  They didn't even make the playoffs until their 81st game.  But then, something magical happened, and they went on one of the most unbelievable rolls in sports, one that culminated in hoisting the greatest prize in athletics.

Still gives me goosebumps

I can get into what exactly they've accomplished.  Their 16-4 record, 10 straight road wins, starting 3-0 in every series, and giving up the same amount of goals in the entire playoffs that the cup favorite Pittsburgh Penguins gave up in the first round.  But what trumps these statistics, at least to me, is the incredible feeling you get when something you care and dream about so deeply finally becomes a reality.  You can't help but look back at all that you've endured over the years (for me, nearly 25 LONG years), and all the disappointment and heartache.  But you also remember all the memories that were made along the way, all the relationships that were built and shared around this team.  For me, after watching the Kings lift The Cup through misty eyes, my mind went back and reflected on how this team and organization has played such a major part in my life.

I thought about my dad, and all the nights we stayed up watching the Kings, and all the events we were taken to when I was young meet the players and actually experience hockey.  All the frustration we've experienced, and how this validated all the years of loyalty and love.

I thought about my brother, and the countless hours of trading and studying hockey cards, and playing hockey in the backyard, pretending to win the Cup on a last second goal or save.

I thought about one of my best friends, and I how much I miss him and wish he was still here to experience this run with me.  We had met and bonded over hockey, and he was the only other person I knew who was as rabid about the game as me.  I know if he were around there would be nobody happier for me than him.

I thought about my girlfriend, who watched every single minute of every game with me, putting up with my craziness and yelling, along with scaring the shit out of her every time the Kings scored.  The fact that I was able to share this entire experience with her is beyond special, and something I will never forget.

I thought about all the players I watched and loved over the years, and how this was some validation for all the blood, sweat and tears they put into this organization.  Because without them this would be happening.

I thought about Bob Miller and Jim Fox, the Kings broadcasting crew and hands down the greatest in the game, and how much I wished I could hear them throughout the playoffs.  They have been part of the Kings for generations, and deserved to call not just the final game, but every game.

I thought about Nick Nickson, the radio announcer for the Kings for decades, and how wonderful it was to turn on the radio in the final seconds to hear him make the call "the Kings can finally wear their crown!"  Unforgettable...

But most of all I thought about the Kings fans.  Not those walking around the last few weeks with clean, creased Kings jerseys, but the true Kings fans.  The ones who have never lost faith even when hope seemed lost.  Being a Kings fan in Los Angeles is sort of like a club.  Sharing a city with two behemoths of the sporting landscape is difficult enough, let alone being a winter sport in Southern California.  But Kings fans are the most loyal and intelligent out there.  When you meet another fan it's an instant connection, almost like a secret handshake.  Sure it was a little difficult watching everyone jump on the bandwagon, but that's life, and that's L.A.  But hopefully those who jumped on stay on, because hockey is the greatest sport in the world, and at least for right now, we have the greatest team.

It is a strange feeling once years of disappointment ends.  The next day I felt something I didn't expect:  Relief.  I had just watched my favorite team do something I never expected them to do and I felt as if a weight had been lifted.  I could take a step back and immerse myself in all that had occurred, and finally take a deep breath.

At least until next season starts...

The greatest prize in sports

Tacos > Winning

Near the end of Game 2 of the first round playoff series between the Lakers and Denver Nuggets last night a familiar chant broke out from the Staples Center faithful.  There were just a few minutes left, and the Lakers were clinging to 6 point lead.  Was the crowd shouting "DEFENSE", trying to will their team to a huge defensive stop?  Were they yelling "M-V-P" for Kobe Bryant, as he stood at the foul line trying to put the game away?  No.  Instead, they erupted with one of the most awful and embarrassing chants in sports:

"WE WANT TACOS!"

For those that are unaware, the Lakers run a promotion with Jack in the Box (a local fast food chain) that if the Lakers win at home, and hold the opponent under 100 points, every fan in attendance receives a voucher for 2 free tacos.  While this is a clever marketing strategy which admittedly adds a splash of drama to the end of games, it has taken on a life of its own.  To me, there is nothing more embarrassing then the home crowd of the greatest NBA franchise in history urging their team on for free tacos instead of a mere playoff victory.  Have these fans really lost all perspective on what is really important?  I could semi-understand if these tacos were gourmet or hard to find.  But Jack in the Box tacos?  It's a fucking fast food burger place!  Ordering tacos there would be like going to a seafood restaurant and ordering kung pao chicken.  And that's not to mention that the majority of these fans probably will never use these voucher anyway, thus avoiding a night of sitting or kneeling over the toilet.

These have now trumped a good old fashion playoff vicotry

Unfortunately this is not isolated to Los Angeles.  In Chicago they run a similar promotion where if the Bulls score 100 points at home and win, the crowd gets free Big Mac's.  Derrick Rose, the MVP and the face of the franchise, actually had to apologize to the fans back in February after missing 2 free throws with 4 seconds left that would have put the team over the century mark.  This was despite the team winning and Rose finishing with 32 points and 9 assists.

I can wrap my head around Chicago fans booing and being pissed about missing out on Big Mac's.  I mean, they haven't really had long history of success, (their first championship coming less than 20 years ago) and have had to endure some pretty terrible teams since Jordan retired.  But the Lakers have been winning championships since 1948.  That's all we strive for and that's all we care about.  Until free tacos came along that is.

I understand the concept of free stuff.  Everyone likes winning and getting something for free that they otherwise wouldn't have possessed, but come on Lakers fans.  Let's readjust our viewpoint to what really matters and put our team above shitty low grade tacos and stop with that horrendous chant.  It makes us look petty and misguided, like we're from Boston.

By the way, the Lakers won 104-100, with that 100th Nugget point coming with 2 second remaining.  I just hope that the win and a 2-0 series lead was a nice consolation to the fans missing out on their beloved tacos.

Ozzie Guillen May Be Stupid, But So Are We

"I love Fidel Castro...I respect Fidel Castro.  You know why?  A lot of people have been trying to kill Fidel Castro for the last sixty years, but that (expletive) is still here"


This quote was given to Time Magazine by Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen, which has set off a shit storm in south Florida that is still raging.  Guillen has been suspended 5 games for these remarks and numerous people and organizations are threatening to boycott the Marlins until he is fired.  Is what Guillen said stupid and unthoughtful?  Absolutely.  But the reaction to these comments says more about America and our archaic view on Cuba and Castro then Guillen himself.

To truly understand the outrage you must first look at the circumstances surrounding these comments.  Miami has a large Cuban population that drives the city and state.  Many have defected or have close relatives who have suffered under Castro's regime and rightly feel pure hatred for the man.  The Marlins, trying to tap into this community, chose to build their new stadium in the Little Havana section of Miami.  To further make inroads with the Latin population they chose to hire Guillen, a Venezuelan who is bilingual, as their manager.

Guillen is no stranger to offhanded remarks and controversy.  During his time with the Chicago White Sox he calling a reporter a homophobic slur, he's stated that Major League Baseball treats its Japanese players better then its Hispanic players, and that America couldn't survive without illegal immigrants.  Within the past few weeks he's told a radio station that he has sacrificed live animals as part of Santeria rituals, and regularly gets drunk after games.  The point is, we aren't dealing with a scholar here.  But the Marlins knew exactly what they were getting; an outspoken latin manager who makes entertaining, and sometimes off color remarks who happens to have a World Series ring (2005 with the White Sox).

When Guillen's comments were released it angered the Cuban community who immediately were up and arms, voicing their outrage and calling for the Marlins to take action.  Guillen, clearly feeling the heat, made public apology after public apology, all seemingly heartfelt.  The Marlins, knowing that something had to be done to stem the tide, chose to suspend Guillen for 5 games, to which MLB commissioner Bud Selig concurred.

Stupid, but sincere

But what did Guillen actually say?  "I love Fidel Castro" - Stupid and oblivious.  How do you say something like that when you work in LITTLE HAVANA?!?!  A lot of people have been trying to kill Fidel Castro for the last sixty years, but that (expletive) is still here" - This statement is absolutely true. Castro has survived numerous attempts on his life (many by our government) and has survived for 60 years.

Since Castro came into power our foreign policy toward Cuba, and some of our domestic policy as well, has been shaped by this group of Cuban expatriates.  But the embargo this country has against Cuba is laughable.  The Helms-Burton Act has been ignored and condemned by such hated countries as England, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, along with the EU and humanitarian groups.  Hell, we are doing business with China and Vietnam, but Cuba remains persona non grata, even though they are of no threat to us and have a leader on his deathbed.  So why can we repair relations with other countries around the world but refuse to even come to a sensible policy in regards to a small island country?

The answer can be found in the well organized, politically active Cuban community, which happens to reside in a swing state with 27 electoral votes, and is bitterly against anything Castro.  This is why it remains in every politicians best interest to continue to kowtow to their wants and needs.  But how long can this last?  The majority of people who feel this way are the older generation with first hand experiences of the atrocities perpitrated by Castro.  But as the generations pass, the younger Cuban Americans don't hold the same grudge and disdain for an old man who just refuses to die.  They seem to be moving into the present rather than being trapped in the past.

What will they "boicot" next?

Unfortunately this is how our country operates.  There are certain political taboo's that just can't be approached from any other angle than the one society approves.  Talking about Cuba or Castro in any other light other than the negative brings an outcry like no other.  It would be nice if we could have an open dialog regarding such topics as Cuba or Israel and debate them respectfully and intelligently.  But that's not the way it is in this country anymore.  People look at things in black and white, right and wrong, to which the cable news channels, in a constant hunt for ratings, are glad to perpetuate.  But this is not the way a caring and respectful country opperates.  We welcome different views.  We allow people to think and feel what they choose.  It may be incorrect and off base, but that is what makes America such a wonderful place.  We are free to express ourselves, no matter how ignorant.

What Ozzie Guillen said was stupid and insensitive, and he should have been smarter under the circumstances (however it can be argued that this is what makes Ozzie Ozzie).  The Marlins clearly saw this as a publicity nightmare and acted in order to save face (5 games out of 162 is just that).  But it has reminded us of the knee jerk reactions our country has to certain issues, and no matter the context or even the accuracy of the statement, it will be blindly vilified till the end.

Viva America!

Kentucky Wins While Basketball Loses

Last night the NCAA men's basketball season came to an end, with the Kentucky Wildcats winning their 8th national championship.  This isn't surprising to anyone who's followed college basketball, as the team Kentucky put together was truly better than any other team this year.  Nor is it surprising, in today's NCAA, that you will never see this specific team again.  That is because the Wildcats will lose 3-5 players to the NBA before graduating in what has become an annual springtime tradition like warmer weather and daylight savings.  This is not a new phenomenon, as players have been leaving early for quite some time.  But what the NCAA and NBA have created is a minor league system that masquerades as college athletics and these players as "student-athletes".  This is a ridiculous setup that belittles educational institutions, alienates fans and prevents young adults from earning a living.

There was a time when very few players chose to leave college after one year, instead choosing to stay, mature, and receive an education.  This all changed in the mid 90's when high school players started skipping college all together to go straight to the NBA.  The success of such players as Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant increased those electing to go straight to the league.  However, the majority of these players faltered greatly under the NBA spotlight, and in response the NBA instituted a rule stating that only a player who had been out of high school for one year and 19 years of age could enter the league.  It is this rule that has created the current atmosphere of college basketball.

Kentucky's coach John Calapari has mastered this "one and done" system.  He has realized that to win now with these parameters in place, it is to his benefit to recruit players who are using college as a stop over to NBA stardom.  He has always been a coach to walk right up to the line (and sometimes crossing it, as this was technically his first final four after his two previous trips, one with UMass in 1996, one with Memphis in 2008, were vacated due to rules violations) but he is honest about his recruiting strategy.  While some may see this as a coach using players to achieve his goal of a national championship, these players are also using him.  Since they can not enter the NBA they use the college forum as a way to gain notoriety and fame, boosting their draft stock and potential for a financial windfall.  While I don't like Calapari in any regard, I find it silly that this past week he has been criticized for his recruiting philosophy while the players and the league that created it get a free pass.  And let's not forget these academic institutions who make millions off of these young men, not giving them a cent, while turing a blind eye to their academics.  They are fully aware of the agreement they enter into with these athletes when they are given scholarships.  You go on the court, perform and bring us money and publicity, and we'll excuse your poor academic performance.  After all, most of these players stop going to class after the basketball season since eligibility isn't an issue, and if you were guaranteed millions in a few months, would you waste your time going to class?

Celebrating the end of college basketball as we know it

Unfortunately this isn't an isolated issue with Calapari and Kentucky, as much as the media would have you believe.  Other storied programs are dealing with this same problem and big name coaches who have been on the job for decades are forced to adjust their recruiting strategies accordingly.  Just this past week we learned that 3 players from North Carolina are leaving early, along with players from Duke, and I'm sure many more in the weeks to come.  While coaches used to recruit for the future, taking players they could develop and build a team they could mold and gel together after numerous seasons, they now have to constantly be looking for the next freshman to step in.  It makes their jobs tremendously more difficult, especially since they never know what player will decide to make the jump, and when.

There is no clearer example than what is happening at UCLA.  UCLA is one of the most storied programs in college athletics, and the most successful mens basketball program in history.  They own 11 national championships, 10 led by the legendary John Wooden, who preached togetherness and build not only strong players, but strong men over the years they played for him.  Ben Howland, the current UCLA head coach, revered Wooden, and matched his style of recruiting and coaching.  In his 8 years as coach he has taken the Bruins to the Tournament 6 times, reaching the Final Four 3 straight years from 2006-2008.  But since then he program has fallen on hard times.  A few months ago Sports Illustrated has a cover story on the problems plaguing the team under Howland.  Certain players were allowed to party, skip practice, injure teammates, and even piss on others clothing while not being held accountable by Howland.  Growing up in Los Angeles and growing up a huge Bruins fan, this clearly is not UCLA basketball.  But what this is is a microcosm of college basketball in the "one and done" era.  In order to compete Howland is forced to recruit knuckleheads like Reeves Nelson and tolerate their bullshit in order to win games.  And in college sports you keep your job by winning games.  He is not able to build a team for the future because the coaches who embrace the one and doners are running ruff-shot over everyone else.  You can't compete in the NCAA these days without recruiting the best players, and in some instances kowtowing to their wants in order to either get them to your school or keep them in your program.  It is a double edged sword; take on these players who are using you as a stepping stone and win, or reject them, try to build a strong team for years and a top notch program of student athletes and lose your job.

Coaches are now forced to recruit thugs like Reeves Nelson in order to stay competitive

The NBA is not fault free in this current situation.  Instituting this rule of being out of high school for a year is a knee jerk reaction and one that is utterly ridiculous.  Putting aside what it does to the college game, they are willfully preventing these adults, and these kids are adults at 18, from earning a living.  If an NBA team wants to take a chance on a high schooler and pay him millions they should be allowed to do so.  These athletes have every right to pursue a living with basketball if they are offered the chance, and for the NBA to prevent and essentially force them into college is absurd.  Does David Stern actually believe that these players are going to embrace the college experience and go to class to further their education?  While some might, the majority are just trying to pass the time before draft day and could care less about class other than doing the minimum to stay eligible.  If a team takes a flyer on a young player and it doesn't work out it's the teams fault.  If a player enters the draft out of high school forgoing collegiate eligibility and isn't drafted, the fault lies with them.  But for an entire league to regulate entry of adults is just wrong.

So what's the solution?  It's actually quite simple, as a system is already in place that has been working just fine, so much so that you may not even realize it exists.  In baseball a player can come right out of high school and declare for the MLB draft.  If they are selected they may have to work their way up through the minor leagues and if everything goes right eventually get to the majors.  However, if a player decides to enter college, they are making a three year commitment to that program and will not be eligible for the MLB draft until after that third year.  This not only gives these athletes the freedom to decide their future, but gives security to a college program that they will have this player to build around for at least three years.  It also gives players that are on the border time to mature and hone their skills to eventually make that jump to the majors, rather than going straight to the draft and fizzle out in the minors.  The NBA does have a minor league, the D-League, so there is really no reason why they couldn't implement the same system.  It's a win-win-win for all parties involved, however the likelihood of the NCAA and NBA coming to an agreement similar to this are next to nothing.  Money drives everything in college athletics, and the millions that are raked in by the NCAA, universities, and the NBA due to the existing system are not going to be rejected for a more logical and moral setup.

It took the likes of Kwame Brown and others to come to the NBA from high school and fail so enormously that caused the NBA to institute it's current rule.  It most likely will take a number of one and doners to fail just as grandly before this rule is altered.  Until that time we are forced to deal and adjust to what we have; a broken system that uses academic institutions as a glorified AAU league and a season long pro day.

The pyramid of success is going the route of the ancient pyramids

So congratulations Kentucky.  You not only won the national championship but have ushered in and solidified the current state of college basketball for years to come.  I'm just glad John Wooden isn't around to see it.

Farewell To A Legend

When I was a boy, you could not find bigger sports fans than my brother and I.  We would watch every game we could and obsess and analyze our baseball cards, basketball cards, even hockey cards.  With our fathers tutelage, we studied the games, learning the nuances that made them great.  I vividly remember teaching a middle aged gentleman the icing rule at a hockey game...when I was 12 years old.  The one sport I never followed as closely as the others was football.  Unlike these other sports, my parents never allowed us to play football as children due to safety concerns (with the information coming to light these past years on concussions, they were clearly ahead of their time) and I am certain that played a big role in not fostering my love for the game.  But as a devoted watcher of Sportscenter I knew the teams, the players, what was going on in a general sense, just not the real intricacies of the sport.  Adding to this disconnect was my lack of a team to follow.  Growing up in southern California we were exposed to the Rams (who were flat out terrible) and the Raiders, who, as I was taught, encompassed everything that was wrong with sports.

This all changed my freshman year of college.  I went to school at Indiana University, which is not really a hotbed of professional sports.  Up to that point the greatest Indiana sporting moments, not NCAA related, came via Reggie Miller, "Captain Comeback", and a caravan of Mayflower trucks.  But every Sunday morning, my friends (the majority being from Indiana) would wake up and crowd around the television to watch their beloved Colts and a rookie quarterback named Peyton Manning.  Not wanting to be left out, I joined them in this ritual, and became enamored with Manning.  His command and knowledge of the game could be seen by even a casual fan like me.  Week after week I watched the Colts and Manning get better and better.  And as time passed I looked forward to Sundays, not just for the camaraderie that comes with watching a sporting event with friends, but with seeing what Manning and Colts would do.  Even though they finished 3-13 (they lost at least 5 close games and Manning set numerous rookie records) I had become a full fledged Colts fan.  I could see how special Peyton was and how the sky was the limit with him running this team.  

The start of a magical run

The rest is well documented.  7 AFC South titles, 2 AFC Championships, a Super Bowl title and MVP, 11 Pro Bowls, 4 league MVP awards, the list goes on and on.  There is no question, at least in my mind, that Manning is hands down the greatest quarterback to ever go under center.  His preparation and work ethic are legendary.  If given the opportunity, there is little doubt he could have been a successful player/coach.

But just looking at numbers and statistics are only part of the story.  Manning has been a model citizen ever since arriving in Indy.  He started the Peyback Foundation to help disadvantaged youth soon after being drafted, and a few years ago had the Children's Hospital at St. Vincent's Hospital in Indianapolis named after him.  Even the ability to parody himself and have the personality to pull of goofy commercials just adds to his appeal.  I can't even count the ads during games that he appeared in that had me doubled over.  Not to mention his classic appearance on Saturday Night Live, where he absolutely killed it.  He is not flashy or a boastful showboat like other athletes of his stature.  He is a down to earth regular guy who happens to excel at his job in a way never before seen.

All this is and more is why today's announcement that the Colts would be releasing Manning into free agency was so hard to take.  We, as Colts fans, all believed that Manning would finish his career with the Horseshoe.  How could we allow the greatest quarterback in history to walk away?  Well, as much as we try to ignore it, professional sports is a business.  And this was purely a business decision.  Coming off of 3 neck surgeries, the team in a rebuilding year, and Manning owed a $28 million signing bonus, there were only two options for owner Jim Irsay to choose from.  Either keep Manning, trade the #1 overall pick in this years draft, and use those later picks and players to rebuild, or let Manning go, draft Andrew Luck (ironically seen as the heir apparent to Manning) and use the money saved to rebuild.  Irsay chose the latter.

While no true fan can fault Irsay for his decision, there are a number of questions that arise that may have changed this outcome.  First, Irsay, in my opinion, has handled this entire situation with little class and little respect for Manning.  This decision was clearly on the horizon when it was announced Manning would be missing considerable time this past season due to his recent surgery.  Irsay could have come out then, saying that it would be a difficult decision to make regarding Manning's future, and that he would do what what was best for the team and for Manning, restructuring his contract to make it incentive based if necessary.  But if it was in the team's and Manning's best interest to let him go, that's what he would do with a heavy heart.  He did none of this, instead deflecting questions all season, then waging a media offensive against Manning, I assume to draw favor to the decision he was likely to make.  This was not the actions of a man who owes his success to Manning.  And how he believed he could win this battle with the fans is beyond me.  All he did was alienate many die hard Colts fans, not because of his decision itself, but because of the process that that decision was made.

Other questions to consider is how did the nonsensical lockout hurt Manning's recovery?  Due to league rules, Manning was not allowed to rehab with team doctors and trainers, many of which he has worked with for over a decade.  Could this have got him back on the field sooner?  With the bounty program employed by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams coming to light, how did this effect Manning, seeing that his neck problems began on a vicious hit by the Washington Redskins Phillip Daniels, who was playing under Williams?  What would have happened if the Colts didn't completely shit the bed (KB) this year and didn't end up with the #1 pick in the draft?  All valid questions that may have altered what happened today.

The hit that began it all

But the bottom line is that Manning brought so much more to the table, not just personally, but for the entire city of Indianapolis.  He legitimized the city and became the face of the state.  Sure the Pacers had some success, making the finals in 2000, but that all vanished after the "malice at the Palace" and they are just now coming back.  Indy is a Colts town.  Personally I have never seen as many blue jerseys during game day as I did in downtown Indianapolis when he Colts were playing.  The team may be playing in Los Angeles right now if Manning didn't come along, and they certainly wouldn't have a brand new stadium and have just hosted a Super Bowl if it were not for him.  The city bleeds blue.  And this is all thanks to Manning.

But watching the press conference, you could tell the toll this whole situation has taken on all involved.  But as usual, Manning handled it with grace and class.  He spoke about the relationships with the players, coaches and staff.  He spoke lovingly of the city and all of the great memories he will carry as he enters the next phase of his career.  It was classic Peyton Manning.

Saying goodbye to The Greatest

No matter what direction the team takes, I will forever be a Colts fan.  But I will also never waver from my admiration of Manning.  And with that, I owe Peyton a great deal of thanks.  Thank you for converting me into a football fan.  Thank you for the unforgettable memories, from the amazing comebacks to the magnificent Super Bowl run in 2006.  Thank you for reenforcing that you can succeed in professional sports without losing who you are, and for being the consummate role model to us all.  Thank you for the years of joy you've brought me and a city that you will always have in the palm of your hand.  But most of all, thank you for teaching us that no matter the hardships you're facing, you can handle them with dignity, class and respect.

Like most good things, you never want them to end, but they inevitably do.  So, congratulations to whichever team has the honor of signing him.  You are not only getting a star player, but a star human being, the stature of which we may not see again for a very long time.

Why We Hate LeBron

Lebron James is in the midst of one of his best statistical years to date.  He is averaging nearly a triple double this season (28-7-9), has his team among the league leaders and are a favorite to win the championship.  Despite this he remains one of the most polarizing figures in sports.  This is somewhat surprising when you consider other athletes become polarizing due to their off court issues (Michael Vick, Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant), or because of their athletic ability, or lack thereof (Tim Tebow).  So why is LeBron James so hated when he is seemingly an upstanding citizen who is putting up numbers that we haven't seen in generations?  The answer says a lot about not only who he is but who we, as a sports nation, are as well.

There has never been a more hyped athlete coming into the league quite like LeBron James.  When he was in high school his games were televised nationally by ESPN.  He graced the cover of Sports Illustrated.  He received a 9 figure endorsement deal from Nike.  All before ever being drafted. When he was finally selected by his hometown Cavaliers it seemed to play like a Hollywood script; the hometown kid taking the perennial cellar dwellers to the mountain top.  And LeBron and his posse were  well aware of this.  LeBron entered the league at a time when social media was taking off, and was aware from a young age of his image and need to cultivate that image worldwide.  He embraced the attention, making commercial after commercial, and playing up his image as the "next Jordan".  A massive banner was even erected in Cleveland of James in a Christ-like pose with the saying "we are all witnesses".  And for the most part he delivered on the hype.  Cleveland jumped to contender status immediately.  The Cavs made the finals in his third year (getting swept by the Spurs) and he won consecutive MVP awards from 2008-2010.  The team was winning, they were having fun, and the carefully structured image he had created was in top form.  People not only were enamored with his play, but truly liked him as a person. He brought joy and excitement to a city in desperate need of it.  It seemed only a matter of time before he gained the success that seemed ordained to him coming out of high school.  Even with enormous expectations, LeBron seemed to be not only embracing them, but living up to them.  But in the summer of 2010 things took a turn that LeBron and his people should have seen coming, but didn't.

Witnesses to untapped potential

It is well publicized that LeBron has a close knit group that he travels with.  These are not only his friends but his business associates.  They are the ones that advice him and "look out" for him and his interests.  When you are massively successful like LeBron, it is hard to take a step back and look at the big picture and see the ramifications of your actions.  You feel invincible; like everything you touch will turn to gold.  When you have close friends around you at all times advising you, it is also hard to get good, honest direction.  They tend to become "yes men", agreeing with you, scared to go against the grain for fear or being alienated.  When you factor in that all of these guys are in their mid 20's with no real business experience, it is a recipe for disaster.

When ESPN and LeBron's team put together "The Decision" it was doomed to fail.  Using a nationally televised special to announce where you would be signing as a free agent clearly rubbed people the wrong way.  It takes a massive ego to do such a thing, and while the public was aware of LeBron's ego before this, "The Decision" took it to another level.  But he and his advisors saw this as great publicity, and justified it as a charity event benefiting the Boys & Girls Club (how many even remember this?).  How LeBron could not see the perfect storm brewing is a mystery.  Only signing with one place could justify such a classless publicity stunt like this, and that would be resigning with Cleveland.  Instead, he chose Miami.  The entire nation saw Cleveland's favorite son deliver a nut punch to the city of epic proportion.  Fans couldn't understand how he could do such a thing to a city decimated by recession and unemployment in front of a nationally televised audience.  But the NBA is a business, and LeBron had every right to choose where he played.  He was not bound to Cleveland in any way, and the whole point of free agency is to weigh your options and play where you want.  But the way he went about it destroyed his image.  After the backlash of this ridiculous special, LeBron responded like a spoiled kid, playing the victim, not understanding why there was such an outcry.  The arrogance that he showed spoke volumes to the fans who had fell in love with him.  And in acting like an entitled child he pushed many more fans away.  What he didn't realize was all he had to do was apologize for the way he announced his choice, that he should have notified the Cavs prior to his announcement to give them time to rebuild, and show them the respect that they and the fans deserved by thanking them for their love and support while a Cavilier.  But for someone who had been coddled through high school and the pros he hadn't dealt with anything like this before.  He was being criticized for the first time and couldn't cope with the ramifications of his poor decision and became defensive, failing to see how he had harmed so many that believed in him as a player and a person.

Clearly LeBron's actions during his free agency alienated him from many fans.  No matter what he did on the basketball floor could rebuild what he had done in their eyes, as he was now seen as a spoiled brat with an ego as big as his potential.  "The Decision" itself was the first chink in his carefully cultivated persona, but it also transformed the spotlight shown on him into a microscope.  Everything he would do from then on both on and off the court would be scrutinized, and how he responded would shape his legacy and status with fans.

We as sports fans, when we see a specimen like LeBron, understand the potential they possess.  And with that understanding we expect them to excel.  Sometimes they meet our ridiculous expectations and have successful careers.  Others don't and fade away into obscurity or live on as a trivia question.  Whether this is fair or not it is the way sports work.  Athletes understand this, and either embrace it or run from it.  LeBron embraced this fully.  He wanted to be the next great NBA star.  He wanted the attention and to be the "King".  And America, seeing the potential and freakish nature of LeBron's ability, bought into it.  Which is why choosing to play in Miami, with his closest rival Dwayne Wade, didn't make sense to the true NBA fan.  NBA history is filled with rivalries; Russell vs. Chamberlain, Magic vs. Bird, Jordan vs. whomever he thought was slighting him.  None of these players would ever dream of playing with each other.  In fact, all they wanted to do was BEAT the shit out of the other.  Why did LeBron not want to beat Wade instead of joining him?  Wade had already lead the Heat to a title, and the Heat was clearly Wade's team.  Why would LeBron want to be second banana at the prime of his career?  Wasn't he aware that no matter how many titles they won he would never surpass Wade?  But LeBron seemed to be content to playing Robin to Wade's Batman, which baffled everyone outside of South Beach.

Again, the public hoped, and LeBron led us to believe, he was the chosen one, coming to take the NBA to new heights.  But truly great players are great when it is needed most.  They not only want the ball, they NEED the ball when the game is on the line.  They lead their team to victory any way they can, and if they don't, it kills them inside.  They want to win so badly it physically hurts them when they don't that memory drives them to be better.  There are many great players, but few elite players who live up to this status.  LeBron is a great player, one that we may never see again, but despite this massive potential he is not an elite player.  We only need to look to look to this past week as evidence of what kind of player LeBron James truly is.

During the All-Star game last Sunday LeBron was a beast.  He had a mind boggling stat line and led the East back from an enormous deficit to have a chance to win the game.  With seconds left, LeBron had the ball in his hands.  It is situations like this that make great players elite.  What did LeBron do?  He passed to Deron Williams.  When the East got the rebound and the ball made it back to LeBron with the chance at one more shot, he made an awful cross court pass that was intercepted by the West, securing the victory.  There are two things that can be taken away from this.  First off, LeBron did not want to take the shot.  Whether he was shying away from the pressure of the situation, or he was trying to do too much, he was looking to pass and not shoot.  This is not how an elite player acts.  But he has a history of shying away from the pressure, as his no-show performance in last years finals indicate.  He will dominate up until it matters most, at which time he shrinks from the moment.  But what can also be taken away from this situation is the scene of Kobe Bryant barking at LeBron for not taking the last shot.  It was assumed Kobe was talking trash to him for again shying away from taking over.  But Kobe later confirmed that the reason for him taunting LeBron was that Kobe himself, who was guarding LeBron, wanted the challenge of defending the potential game winning shot.  He knew the game was on the line and wanted to influence the outcome himself.  THIS is what an elite player does.  He wants the ball in his hands at the end of games.  He wants to guard the best player on the opposing team.  He does not back down from a challenge, but steps up, regardless of the circumstances.  It is this reason that Kobe is on a whole other level than LeBron, and why Kobe, despite his own issues in the past, is more respected by fans and peers alike for his play.

Kobe trying to teach LeBron what it means to be "elite"

Sunday's Lakers-Heat game was also very telling about LeBron's mentality.  Dwayne Wade had fouled out with 5 minutes left and the Lakers went on to win a huge nationally televised game.  This was the Heat's second consecutive loss after 9 straight wins.  When the game ended and the cameras panned the players, you could see Wade looking out onto the court, dejected, knowing he could have helped his team win had he not fouled out.  You could see this loss hurt him and it truly effected him.  In contrast, LeBron was running around the court, shaking hands and joking with players, coaches and media, with a huge smile on his face.  We want to see our elite players angry when they lose.  We want them to feed off of that and store it away for later.  We do not want to see them running around like everything is okay.  Fans, reasonably or not, take these games seriously, and allow the outcome to effect them.  A win can make an entire day great.  A loss can cause depression.  And when we see someone seemingly not taking a game seriously, we question their motives and their competitive drive.

But truthfully, this is who LeBron is.  He is not the type of player who is in the gym religiously in the offseason working on his game.  He is content with coasting on his pure unprecedented athletic ability and being the fun loving teammate.  It is a mystery as to what type of player LeBron would be if he had that killer instinct and worked on facets of his game that he doesn't have.  Watching him guard Pau Gasol on Sunday in the post was a thing of beauty.  But it brings the question, why does he refuse to develop a post game?  Is there any small forward in the league who could contain LeBron in the post?  Absolutely not.  Nor is there anyone who can stop him from getting to the basket.  Yet he refuses to take advantage of this, instead deferring to Wade and his teammates when they need him most.  It would make sense for us to just accept him for what he is, a great player with freakish ability.  But it pains us to see such potential go to waste.  LeBron has the potential to be one of the greatest to ever play the game, and the fact that he does not want to meet his full potential turns off many fans.  We can't comprehend how he doesn't possess that drive.  This may not be fair, but this is also the image that he has cultivated for the past 8 years.  And when you build yourself up as something that people believe in, and you fail, there will be a backlash.  He wanted people to believe he could be elite.  We saw that he could be elite.  But he isn't.  And that, along with the arrogance and inability to be accountable for his actions is the true reason why we root against LeBron.