With the recent controversies over the Astros and Red Sox titles, a lot of noise has started again about granting Pete Rose eligibility into the Hall of Fame.
First off, I do believe that Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.......just not yet.
Let me explain.
As I understand it, Pete Rose agreed to a Life Time Ban if Major League Baseball agreed not to issue a determination if he bet on baseball.
That's pretty straightforward. He agreed to it. I think we should honor that agreement. I don't think in his lifetime, he should be able to have the status of a Hall of Famer.
Does he deserve to be in the Hall? Yes he does. So when he passes away, open up the voting and let the voters decide. When he passes away, have him entered into the voting like any player that is eligible in their first year. In order to be voted in, if he gets 75% of the voters voting for him in his 1st year, he will be voted in. But 2 things have to happen in my opinion for this to happen.
1 - He must pass away. I know that sounds morbid, but he agreed to the Lifetime ban. Once he passes away, he will have the ability to be voted in.
2 - Before the voting opens up for him, the voting needs to be opened up for the members of the 1919 White Sox. Allow them to be voted on much like any player in their first year of eligibility. I agree that the White Sox throwing the World Series is a black mark. Those players have all passed on, they are not going to reap any benefits of being voted in. I still don't think Joe Jackson should be held out of the Hall of Fame voting and don't think he was throwing the Series.
Career stats - Joe Jackson
Avg - .356
At Bats per Home Run - 92.24
At Bats per Triple - 29.64
At Bats per Double - 16.22
At Bats per RBI - 6.29
At Bats per Run - 5.71
1919 World Series Stats
Avg - .375
At Bats per Home Run - 32.00
At Bats per Triple - 0.00 (he didn't record a triple in the Series)
At Bats per Double - 10.67
At Bats per RBI - 5.33
At Bats per Run - 6.4
His line in the Series
.375 Avg with 5 Runs, 12 Hits, 3 2B's, 1 HR, 0 Errors.
Not seeing that he was throwing the Series.
Keep in mind, he was removed from Baseball after the 1920 season at the age of 33, so he could have had 4-5 more productive years.
Reference
https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Banning_of_Pete_Rose
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Friday, January 24, 2020
NBA Draft Resolution
The NBA is going to have a PR Nightmare at the end of the season. Ok, maybe not a nightmare but something that should cause the NBA to restructure the Draft Lottery.
If you have not checked the standings in the NBA, you should. The Golden State Warriors are sitting in last place in the entire NBA. They have only won 10 games. That is in large part to Klay Thompson being out the whole year and Stephen Curry only having played in 4 games. I guarantee if they were both healthy the record of that team would be much different.
So if you are the Warrriors Coach or GM, what do you do. There is no reason to bring those players back early. Let them rest up. It means more to the franchise if they stay near the bottom. They have a 14% chance of winning the top pick in the draft if they finish with the worst record in the league. Do they really need the top pick in the draft. No - they are a Title Contender with Curry and Thompson on the court, why should they have the possibility of getting the top pick in the draft.
If you think this scenario as it is playing out seems familiar, you are right. It happened when the Spurs David Robinson was out most of the year in 1996-1997 with back problems. (he did play in 6 games that year). The team struggles, became a lottery team and ended up drafting Tim Duncan. Several titles later, that move played out for the Spurs.
The league needs to change the lottery. One small suggestion to make the system work better.
Instead of the draft being based merely on the prior years standings, how about we base it off the prior 3 years standings. Makes sense to me.
In the instance of the Spurs, this was the draft order and the record of each team the year that Tim Duncan was drafted (1997):
1 San Antonio Spurs 20-62
2 Philadelphia Sixers 22-60
3 Boston Celtics 15-67
4 Vancouver Grizzlies 14-68
5 Denver Nuggets 21-61
6 Boston Celtics 15-67
7 New Jersey Nets 26-56
8 Golden State Warriors 30-52
9 Toronto Raptors 30-52
10 Milwaukee Bucks 33-49
11 Sacramento Kings 34-48
12 Indiana Pacers 39-43
13 Cleveland Cavaliers 42-40
Had the league based the draft lottery on the worst record of the prior 3 years, here would be the list of teams: (records below do not include Toronto or Vancouver whose first season was 1995-1996)
1 Philadelphia 64 182
2 LA Clippers 82 164
3 Boston 83 163
4 NJ Nets 86 160
5 Dallas 86 160
6 Minnesota 87 159
7 Milwaukee 92 154
8 Golden State 92 154
9 Denver 97 149
10 Washington 104 142
11 Sacramento 112 134
12 Detroit 128 118
13 Cleveland 132 114
If you have not checked the standings in the NBA, you should. The Golden State Warriors are sitting in last place in the entire NBA. They have only won 10 games. That is in large part to Klay Thompson being out the whole year and Stephen Curry only having played in 4 games. I guarantee if they were both healthy the record of that team would be much different.
So if you are the Warrriors Coach or GM, what do you do. There is no reason to bring those players back early. Let them rest up. It means more to the franchise if they stay near the bottom. They have a 14% chance of winning the top pick in the draft if they finish with the worst record in the league. Do they really need the top pick in the draft. No - they are a Title Contender with Curry and Thompson on the court, why should they have the possibility of getting the top pick in the draft.
If you think this scenario as it is playing out seems familiar, you are right. It happened when the Spurs David Robinson was out most of the year in 1996-1997 with back problems. (he did play in 6 games that year). The team struggles, became a lottery team and ended up drafting Tim Duncan. Several titles later, that move played out for the Spurs.
The league needs to change the lottery. One small suggestion to make the system work better.
Instead of the draft being based merely on the prior years standings, how about we base it off the prior 3 years standings. Makes sense to me.
In the instance of the Spurs, this was the draft order and the record of each team the year that Tim Duncan was drafted (1997):
1 San Antonio Spurs 20-62
2 Philadelphia Sixers 22-60
3 Boston Celtics 15-67
4 Vancouver Grizzlies 14-68
5 Denver Nuggets 21-61
6 Boston Celtics 15-67
7 New Jersey Nets 26-56
8 Golden State Warriors 30-52
9 Toronto Raptors 30-52
10 Milwaukee Bucks 33-49
11 Sacramento Kings 34-48
12 Indiana Pacers 39-43
13 Cleveland Cavaliers 42-40
1 Philadelphia 64 182
2 LA Clippers 82 164
3 Boston 83 163
4 NJ Nets 86 160
5 Dallas 86 160
6 Minnesota 87 159
7 Milwaukee 92 154
8 Golden State 92 154
9 Denver 97 149
10 Washington 104 142
11 Sacramento 112 134
12 Detroit 128 118
13 Cleveland 132 114
If you look at these standings, San Antonio would not have been in the lottery based on the 3 year record. This would give teams that have had the worst records over the past 3 seasons the best chances to improve.
If we use the same process on this years standings - this would be the draft lottery order for this year, based on standings as of 1-24-2020
1 Golden St. 10 36
2 Atlanta 11 34
3 New York 12 33
4 Cleveland 12 33
5 Washington 15 29
6 Charlotte 15 30
7 Minnesota 15 29
8 Sacramento 15 29
9 Detroit 17 28
10 Chicago 17 29
11 New Orleans 17 28
12 Brooklyn 18 25
13 Phoenix 18 26
Again Golden State would have the best chance to win the lottery based on the current set up. If we factor in the records of the prior 3 years, here is what the order would be:
1 New York 58 141
2 Phoenix 58 150
3 Atlanta 64 145
4 Chicago 66 144
5 Memphis 75 133
6 Cleveland 81 128
7 Sacramento 81 127
8 Dallas 85 123
9 Brooklyn 88 119
10 Orlando 88 121
11 Charlotte 90 119
12 Washington 90 118
13 Detroit 97 112
Again you will notice the team with the best chance in the current format, Golden State is not even in the top 13 lottery teams. I think that the 3 year record is more indicative of allowing teams that are near the bottom to have a better chance at the top pick.
One thing I want to be clear. I don't think the Spurs were wrong in not rushing David Robinson back in 1996-1997 season and I don't think the Warriors are wrong for not rushing either Curry or Thompson back. Both players are fun to watch when they are healthy and given that they are out of playoff contention, let them heal up for next season.
One other bonus of this format is that it would lessen the likelihood of a team tanking one year to get a better chance at the top pick, since it would be based on the prior 3 seasons. The possibility of tanking is still there, but not as great as in the current process.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
College Football Playoffs
This season has been a first for me. For years, I have enjoyed watching college football but only the teams that I root for. This year however, I found myself watching a lot more games. I even watched SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and gasp even some games of the Independent teams.
I like the way that college game is set up. One thing would basically double the popularity of the game - a true college playoff.
Imagine this - the college championship game played......the week before the Super Bowl. It would
have no competition. (for those of you thinking the Pro Bowl is competition, do me two favors, get yourself tested and whatever you do, do not procreate)
So how could you make the College Playoffs more inclusive and better.
Here is what I propose.
The college season ends roughly the last week of November So here is what the schedule would look like:
The tournament would start the 2nd week of December (conferences can still have the conference title games the week before)
Here is what the schedule would look like:
12-15-2019 - All 16 teams play
12-29-2019 - 8 Remaining teams play
1-12-2020 - Remaining 4 teams play
1-26-2020 - Championship Game
Yes - you saw it right - 16 teams. The teams would be seeded 1-16 depending on their rankings with the following criteria
I like the way that college game is set up. One thing would basically double the popularity of the game - a true college playoff.
Imagine this - the college championship game played......the week before the Super Bowl. It would
have no competition. (for those of you thinking the Pro Bowl is competition, do me two favors, get yourself tested and whatever you do, do not procreate)
So how could you make the College Playoffs more inclusive and better.
Here is what I propose.
The college season ends roughly the last week of November So here is what the schedule would look like:
The tournament would start the 2nd week of December (conferences can still have the conference title games the week before)
Here is what the schedule would look like:
12-15-2019 - All 16 teams play
12-29-2019 - 8 Remaining teams play
1-12-2020 - Remaining 4 teams play
1-26-2020 - Championship Game
Yes - you saw it right - 16 teams. The teams would be seeded 1-16 depending on their rankings with the following criteria
- ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC would have their top two teams get bids (this does not mean the teams that play in the Conference Title game automatically get in, case in point Penn State would get the nod of going to the tournament over Wisconsin because of a better record)
- American Athletic, Conference USA, Mid American, Mountain West and Sun Belt Conference Winners as well as the highest ranked Independent team.
Based on this years standings - here would be the match ups for the first week.
1 LSU - SEC 1st Team
16 Miami (Ohio) - Mid American Winner
8 Penn State - Big 10 2nd Team
9 Utah - PAC 12 2nd Team
5 Georgia - SEC 2nd Team
12 Boise State - Mountain West Winner
4 Oklahoma - Big 12 1st Team
13 Virginia - ACC 2nd Team
6 Oregon - PAC 12 1st Team
11 Memphis - American Athletic Winner
3 Clemson - ACC 1st Team
14 Appalachian State - Sun Belt Winner
7 Baylor - Big 12 2nd Team
10 Notre Dame - Independent Winner
2 Ohio State - Big 10 1st Team
15 FAU - Conf USA Winner
I would predict the next week would have the following matchups
LSU
Penn State
Georgia
Oklahoma
Oregon
Clemson
Baylor
Ohio State
The final four would be
LSU
Georgia
Clemson
Ohio State
The Final would then be:
LSU
Clemson
I know a lot of you are saying - that was the match-up we had in the final, why go through all this trouble. The reason - all teams have skin in the game. If you want to get in, you have to be the best in your conference (or for some of the BCS conference one of the top two).
This would allow that the title is decided on the field, not in the papers. This would not be a popularity contest. And this allows the smaller conferences to prove they belong.
The schedule would allow the student athletes ability to juggle books and school. The first two games are after the time when most schools finish their fall semester. Only 4 teams would be playing in the next semester. It is very manageable
Some may say adding potentially 4 more games to a teams schedule is too much. Please take a look at Hawaii. They played 15 games this year. All the NCAA has to do is restrict the non-conference schedules by one. You can also have some of the conferences reduce their conference games by one. That would more than make up for it.
One argument I can see coming is this would lessen the Conference Championship games. It may. But teams at the point will be trying to win to get a higher seed in the playoffs. Coaches will realize this, players and fans will realize this.
The amount of money that would go to for that Championship game would be much higher than it currently is. This year the Championship game was held on January 13, the same weekend as the divisional playoffs in the NFL. If you held the Championship game on 1-26 between the NFL Conference Championships and the Super Bowl - imagine the publicity. Especially if you get a dark horse team that generates more fan interest (similar to the NCAA Basketball Tourney)
Conferences would be in favor of it because the TV contracts for this would increase quite a bit. It would also mean extra home games as the first round would be at the field of the higher seed. For the second round you can have the games be hosted by bowl games that may be squeezed out of having bowl teams because of the expanded playoff.
The bowl rotation for the top 4 teams could remain the same.
It is a win-win for the fans, the conferences would make more money, players would get more TV time to market their skills, and having two weeks between games would allow players to rest.
The NCAA just needs to do it - the fans, players and conferences would all benefit.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Congrats to Jeter and Walker
Congrats to both Derek Jeter and Larry Walker for being voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is a very prestigious honor. Derek made it on his first try and this was Larry's 10th year of voting. Very well deserved on both fronts.
Leading up to the voting, I was perplexed when I saw an example of one of the voters ballot and it had only one person on it - Derek Jeter. I am not disputing that vote, Derek deserved to be voted in on his first try. What I have a problem with is that this voter only voted for one person. The voters have the chance to elect up to 5 or 6 players. The catch is if players do not get a certain number of votes for a year, they drop off the ballot. While I agree that on this ballot Derek Jeter was heads and shoulders above all other players, the other players that are deserving of having the chance to continue their attempt at getting into the Hall of Fame may have been left off. As much as this was frustrating to me, this was not the biggest frustration about the ballot.
I would love to see the ballot of the one voter that did not vote for Derek Jeter. I think he/she should make their ballot public. I would be very interested in seeing who is on that persons ballot. We may even want a drug test on that voter. Serious brain fault.
Although I am a HUGE Red Sox fan, there is not a player I respect more and has meant more to the game, to his team and organization than Derek Jeter. It has been incredible to watch in back to back years Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera be voted into the Hall of Fame. Seeing them enter the Hall of Fame also means I don't have to see them on the field of play anymore.
My favorite moment of Mariano's career was a time in which he blew back to back saves against the Red Sox. The next game the Yankees were at Fenway, the fans gave him a standing ovation when he came onto the field for warm ups. He was smiling and laughing it off. Such a classic guy. I still get teary eyed when I remember in the All Star game that all the players left the field and left him on the mound alone. What a tribute.
The other classy moment in both their careers was in 2005. Opening day against the Red Sox. The Red Sox hoisted their 2004 Championship flag. If you recall, that was the year that the Red Sox rallied from 3 games down to win the series 4-3. I can only imagine how hard it was for the Yankees to watch that celebration, However, and this is a tribute to Joe Torre as well, all the Yankees players were on the dugout steps applauding.
Such class acts and despite one voter being brain dead by not including Derek on their ballot, it is a very very well deserved honor. Congrats Derek!
Leading up to the voting, I was perplexed when I saw an example of one of the voters ballot and it had only one person on it - Derek Jeter. I am not disputing that vote, Derek deserved to be voted in on his first try. What I have a problem with is that this voter only voted for one person. The voters have the chance to elect up to 5 or 6 players. The catch is if players do not get a certain number of votes for a year, they drop off the ballot. While I agree that on this ballot Derek Jeter was heads and shoulders above all other players, the other players that are deserving of having the chance to continue their attempt at getting into the Hall of Fame may have been left off. As much as this was frustrating to me, this was not the biggest frustration about the ballot.
I would love to see the ballot of the one voter that did not vote for Derek Jeter. I think he/she should make their ballot public. I would be very interested in seeing who is on that persons ballot. We may even want a drug test on that voter. Serious brain fault.
Although I am a HUGE Red Sox fan, there is not a player I respect more and has meant more to the game, to his team and organization than Derek Jeter. It has been incredible to watch in back to back years Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera be voted into the Hall of Fame. Seeing them enter the Hall of Fame also means I don't have to see them on the field of play anymore.
My favorite moment of Mariano's career was a time in which he blew back to back saves against the Red Sox. The next game the Yankees were at Fenway, the fans gave him a standing ovation when he came onto the field for warm ups. He was smiling and laughing it off. Such a classic guy. I still get teary eyed when I remember in the All Star game that all the players left the field and left him on the mound alone. What a tribute.
The other classy moment in both their careers was in 2005. Opening day against the Red Sox. The Red Sox hoisted their 2004 Championship flag. If you recall, that was the year that the Red Sox rallied from 3 games down to win the series 4-3. I can only imagine how hard it was for the Yankees to watch that celebration, However, and this is a tribute to Joe Torre as well, all the Yankees players were on the dugout steps applauding.
Such class acts and despite one voter being brain dead by not including Derek on their ballot, it is a very very well deserved honor. Congrats Derek!
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
When can a Fan become a free agent?
After each off season in football, baseball and basketball, there is a season that avid fans follow, it's called the off-season.
For some fans, it is almost as exciting as the season. It involves trading, drafting and free agent signings. The off season is packed full of rumors with fans and media alike reading too much into players selling houses or making visits to teams.
For the players, they know once they sign their first contract, they will have the chance to become a free agent. It can be an exciting part of their careers when players become a free agent for the first time, as they have the choice of where they want to go, provided their ideal destination shares the interest. One thing to consider, when players become free agents for the first time, it is their first experience with freedom. Up until this point they have either been drafted or traded in most cases without their consent.
While it has become accepted that players will change teams to get a bigger payday, get closer to a championship, extend their career, or get closer to home, it has become less acceptable for fans to become free agents.
I wonder why that is. If a player chooses a team via free agency and that team implodes and is moving more towards a rebuild than a championship, fans understand if that player asks for a trade.
Why can't fans do the same thing.
For me, growing up I was a 49ers fan. My all-time favorite player was and forever will be Joe Montana. When he was traded by the 49ers, it hurt, but I understood the move. As such I had a harder time identifying or wanting to follow the 49ers once he left the team. I jumped ship. Mind you, the 49ers won a Super Bowl shortly after trading Montana, so jumping ship for me was not about leaving because things had gone bad.
So I moved on from the 49ers to the Chargers. I left a team that had 4 titles (5 if you count the one that Steve Young helped them win) for a team that had been to one Super Bowl and losing badly in it. Some would say I traded down. I was happy with the decision, I liked the direction of the Chargers.
Fast forward to today. The Chargers have moved to Los Angeles. A move that I am not fond of, and now the team may look a whole lot different next season. Phillip Rivers is a free agent and while I loved watching his career, it is time to make a change and move on. Melvin Gordon is a free agent and Austin Ekeler is a Restricted Free Agent so they could potentially have a brand-new back field.
So I have changed teams a couple of times. From 49ers to Chargers and from Cougars to Utes. When I was growing up, I was a BYU fan. Why, only because I was born in Provo and the Cougars played in Provo. I was a fan all through High School and into College. My first semester at the University of Utah in 2000 is when I changed. I had a public speaking class. I was in class the day I had paid my tuition, and I thought to myself, I have no connection to BYU, I am paying all this money to this school, there is no reason why I can’t cheer for this team. It helped that in that class were two players on the football team, it become easier for me to follow and cheer for the team. Especially since one of those players, Jordan Gross went on to play in the NFL and play in a Super Bowl.
We as fans should be able to change teams just as much as we have the right to change the store we shop in or the brand of toothpaste we use. What it does come down to is why.
I remember in 2003 when the Red Sox lost a game 7 in the Division Series to the Yankees, I had a friend that was a die-hard Red Sox fan. He said, "that's it. I am done. I am sick of losing, I am going to become a Yankee fan." It is within his right to change, I just question his motivation.
I remember wearing Red Sox apparel prior to 2004. I could go months without seeing another person wearing Red Sox apparel. Now I can go scarcely a week, without seeing someone else wearing Red Sox gear. I keep asking myself, where were you people prior to 2004?
So as a fan, do I have the right to change team? Yes I do. However, what I am unclear on is why and when can you change teams. When does it become “acceptable.”
Here are some reasons I think you should be able to trade teams. I think each of these reasons make it acceptable to trade team(s).
1 - A team changes locations - with the Raiders moving to Las Vegas and becoming closer to where you live, does that give one enough reason to trade teams. I would say yes. Also if you are say a San Diego native and your team moves away - you should be able to change teams.
2 - Your favorite player retires or changes teams. Let's say you are a big Bryce Harper fan. He leaves the Nationals for the Phillies, that would give you the right to change teams.
3 - Team undergoes new ownership.
4 - Team consistently underachieves consistently. See Cleveland Browns.
5 - Some controversy - It could be something like Bountygate with the Saints, Sign Stealing with the Astros, Black Sox scandal with the White Sox.
I guess what it really comes down to is, why are you changing teams. If the team you are jumping on is winning…..is that wrong. That’s up to you. As for me, I am taking a wait and see approach with the Chargers. I am not jumping ship but will be weighing my options. It is after all, the offseason and I as a fan am a free agent.
For some fans, it is almost as exciting as the season. It involves trading, drafting and free agent signings. The off season is packed full of rumors with fans and media alike reading too much into players selling houses or making visits to teams.
For the players, they know once they sign their first contract, they will have the chance to become a free agent. It can be an exciting part of their careers when players become a free agent for the first time, as they have the choice of where they want to go, provided their ideal destination shares the interest. One thing to consider, when players become free agents for the first time, it is their first experience with freedom. Up until this point they have either been drafted or traded in most cases without their consent.
While it has become accepted that players will change teams to get a bigger payday, get closer to a championship, extend their career, or get closer to home, it has become less acceptable for fans to become free agents.
I wonder why that is. If a player chooses a team via free agency and that team implodes and is moving more towards a rebuild than a championship, fans understand if that player asks for a trade.
Why can't fans do the same thing.
For me, growing up I was a 49ers fan. My all-time favorite player was and forever will be Joe Montana. When he was traded by the 49ers, it hurt, but I understood the move. As such I had a harder time identifying or wanting to follow the 49ers once he left the team. I jumped ship. Mind you, the 49ers won a Super Bowl shortly after trading Montana, so jumping ship for me was not about leaving because things had gone bad.
So I moved on from the 49ers to the Chargers. I left a team that had 4 titles (5 if you count the one that Steve Young helped them win) for a team that had been to one Super Bowl and losing badly in it. Some would say I traded down. I was happy with the decision, I liked the direction of the Chargers.
Fast forward to today. The Chargers have moved to Los Angeles. A move that I am not fond of, and now the team may look a whole lot different next season. Phillip Rivers is a free agent and while I loved watching his career, it is time to make a change and move on. Melvin Gordon is a free agent and Austin Ekeler is a Restricted Free Agent so they could potentially have a brand-new back field.
So I have changed teams a couple of times. From 49ers to Chargers and from Cougars to Utes. When I was growing up, I was a BYU fan. Why, only because I was born in Provo and the Cougars played in Provo. I was a fan all through High School and into College. My first semester at the University of Utah in 2000 is when I changed. I had a public speaking class. I was in class the day I had paid my tuition, and I thought to myself, I have no connection to BYU, I am paying all this money to this school, there is no reason why I can’t cheer for this team. It helped that in that class were two players on the football team, it become easier for me to follow and cheer for the team. Especially since one of those players, Jordan Gross went on to play in the NFL and play in a Super Bowl.
We as fans should be able to change teams just as much as we have the right to change the store we shop in or the brand of toothpaste we use. What it does come down to is why.
I remember in 2003 when the Red Sox lost a game 7 in the Division Series to the Yankees, I had a friend that was a die-hard Red Sox fan. He said, "that's it. I am done. I am sick of losing, I am going to become a Yankee fan." It is within his right to change, I just question his motivation.
I remember wearing Red Sox apparel prior to 2004. I could go months without seeing another person wearing Red Sox apparel. Now I can go scarcely a week, without seeing someone else wearing Red Sox gear. I keep asking myself, where were you people prior to 2004?
So as a fan, do I have the right to change team? Yes I do. However, what I am unclear on is why and when can you change teams. When does it become “acceptable.”
Here are some reasons I think you should be able to trade teams. I think each of these reasons make it acceptable to trade team(s).
1 - A team changes locations - with the Raiders moving to Las Vegas and becoming closer to where you live, does that give one enough reason to trade teams. I would say yes. Also if you are say a San Diego native and your team moves away - you should be able to change teams.
2 - Your favorite player retires or changes teams. Let's say you are a big Bryce Harper fan. He leaves the Nationals for the Phillies, that would give you the right to change teams.
3 - Team undergoes new ownership.
4 - Team consistently underachieves consistently. See Cleveland Browns.
5 - Some controversy - It could be something like Bountygate with the Saints, Sign Stealing with the Astros, Black Sox scandal with the White Sox.
I guess what it really comes down to is, why are you changing teams. If the team you are jumping on is winning…..is that wrong. That’s up to you. As for me, I am taking a wait and see approach with the Chargers. I am not jumping ship but will be weighing my options. It is after all, the offseason and I as a fan am a free agent.
Friday, January 17, 2020
NFL Overtime Rules
Good luck to all 4 teams remaining this weekend. While I am not really pulling for any team this weekend, I do think that on the 100 Year Anniversary of the NFL, it would be epic if the Super Bowl included the two teams that faced each other in the very first Super Bowl (Kansas City and Green Bay). Plus I think a Rodgers-Mahomes match up would be a lot of fun to watch.
That being said, my one hope is that none of the games go into overtime. The overtime rules in the NFL are miserable and should be changed. Presently the team that wins the coin toss will get the ball (any coach would be fired on the spot if he won the coin toss and elected to kick off). If the team that wins the coin toss goes down and scores a touchdown, the game is over. However, if they go down and score a field goal, then the other team has a chance to get the ball. If they score a field goal, play moves on. If they score a touchdown, they win.If they don't score, game is over.
The best example of why I hate the overtime rules is Super Bowl LI. Atlanta goes up big in the game, New England comes back to tie it and force overtime. New England wins the toss, they go down and score a touchdown - game over.
So why is that bad. The best part of Atlanta's team, the offense did not see the field in overtime. Not one snap. Matt Ryan the league MVP did not even get on the field. While this is not diminishing the title by the Patriots, they did win the title under the current overtime rules, but the system needs to be changed.
Here is what I propose. Have the coin flip, like normal. Each team has one possession. If the score is still tied after each team has one possession, they go to the college overtime rules.Do the coin flip to decide who gets the ball first. Then each team gets a possession starting on the 25. If they score, the other team gets a chance to match it or better it, in the event the other team kicks a kick a field goal. The catch here is that both teams get a chance. Some will argue that this process will eliminate special teams. Not quite, they still have to kick extra points. (besides how many fans really go to games to see special teams) In college if both teams are still tied after the 2nd overtime, then they forgo the extra point and have to play for two, which I think the NFL should adopt as well.
Now in Super Bowl LI, if both teams had a chance of possession, and New England still wins, do you think Atlanta fans would feel jilted. Probably, but only because they were up 21-3 at half and ended up losing.But the catch is both teams would have had a chance. The current overtime rules are like going to extra innings in baseball and declaring the team that was first up the winner because they hit a home run.
The Saints fans would love this rule change as well since they had an overtime game against Minnesota in which Drew Brees did not see the field in overtime.
NFL - if the game is all about the fans, then please adopt these rules. Kick your current rules to the curb.
That being said, my one hope is that none of the games go into overtime. The overtime rules in the NFL are miserable and should be changed. Presently the team that wins the coin toss will get the ball (any coach would be fired on the spot if he won the coin toss and elected to kick off). If the team that wins the coin toss goes down and scores a touchdown, the game is over. However, if they go down and score a field goal, then the other team has a chance to get the ball. If they score a field goal, play moves on. If they score a touchdown, they win.If they don't score, game is over.
The best example of why I hate the overtime rules is Super Bowl LI. Atlanta goes up big in the game, New England comes back to tie it and force overtime. New England wins the toss, they go down and score a touchdown - game over.
So why is that bad. The best part of Atlanta's team, the offense did not see the field in overtime. Not one snap. Matt Ryan the league MVP did not even get on the field. While this is not diminishing the title by the Patriots, they did win the title under the current overtime rules, but the system needs to be changed.
Here is what I propose. Have the coin flip, like normal. Each team has one possession. If the score is still tied after each team has one possession, they go to the college overtime rules.Do the coin flip to decide who gets the ball first. Then each team gets a possession starting on the 25. If they score, the other team gets a chance to match it or better it, in the event the other team kicks a kick a field goal. The catch here is that both teams get a chance. Some will argue that this process will eliminate special teams. Not quite, they still have to kick extra points. (besides how many fans really go to games to see special teams) In college if both teams are still tied after the 2nd overtime, then they forgo the extra point and have to play for two, which I think the NFL should adopt as well.
Now in Super Bowl LI, if both teams had a chance of possession, and New England still wins, do you think Atlanta fans would feel jilted. Probably, but only because they were up 21-3 at half and ended up losing.But the catch is both teams would have had a chance. The current overtime rules are like going to extra innings in baseball and declaring the team that was first up the winner because they hit a home run.
The Saints fans would love this rule change as well since they had an overtime game against Minnesota in which Drew Brees did not see the field in overtime.
NFL - if the game is all about the fans, then please adopt these rules. Kick your current rules to the curb.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Sign Stealing
A lot of you have heard about the sign stealing that has happened, first with the Astros and then the Red Sox. Major League Baseball has issued a one year suspension for the Astros GM and Manager. The Astros then fired both the GM and Manager. Shortly thereafter, the Red Sox and their manager agreed to part ways. Now, Carlos Beltran who was hired as the manager of the Mets, stepped down as manager. He was a player on the 2017 Astros team.
Let me state, least their be any confusion, I do not agree with the sign stealing. Especially when it comes to using technology to do it. Both organizations were wrong.
However, and this is a big however, it does not rank nor should be put in the same light as the White Sox scandal when players threw the World Series. Nor is it on the same level as Pete Rose betting on baseball. (again I don't care that he bet on his team to win). It might be on the same par as the Minnesota Twins from years ago, where the organization would turn up the air conditioning in the Metrodome when the Twins were at bat.
This does not mean that MLB should strip titles. That is an over reaction. Let's be honest. If a player is on second base and he sees that the catcher is calling for a fast ball, there is way he will try and let the batter know, either by yelling the players first name or last name. That stuff has been going on for year. I do have a problem with this scandal in that they were using technology to do it.
If you want to compare this to something sports related - you can compare it to the Saints Bountygate scandal. BUT ONLY from the perspective of once punishments were doled out, their Super Bowl win that happened during the time of Bountygate was not removed. In my opinion Bountygate was more egregious than the sign stealing.
Just because you steal a sign does not guarantee success. If a hitter is tipped off that a curve ball or fast ball is coming does not mean or guarantee a hit. Yes, it does help. But that knowledge does not guarantee the batter gets on base or drives a runner in. A hitter will still have to identify the location, adjust to the timing and square the bat on the ball. The hitter also has to adjust to any defensive shift. I am not being naive, I know that it helps knowing whats coming (especially if the pitcher can throw 3 or more pitches for strikes) but that knowledge alone does not translate to success.
One big omission in this whole thing is this. A GM and Managers have been held accountable. But no penalties for any of the players. (you can say that Beltran is being punished now) The players were as involved as the GM and Manager. They bought into it. Some could say, the players should receive fines at the bare minimum. However I would not suggest that as this will be far reaching and how do you determine which players participated. It would be an epic witch hunt.
The one fear I have is this - that Alex Cora, AJ Hinch and Jeff Luhnow are not able to get jobs in the future, once their suspensions are up. (still waiting to see what Cora's will be). You could also add Beltran to the list. If they continue to house a black eye for years to come then this is wrong.
The best thing MLB can do is just more on. The message has been sent. Let's all move on.
Let me state, least their be any confusion, I do not agree with the sign stealing. Especially when it comes to using technology to do it. Both organizations were wrong.
However, and this is a big however, it does not rank nor should be put in the same light as the White Sox scandal when players threw the World Series. Nor is it on the same level as Pete Rose betting on baseball. (again I don't care that he bet on his team to win). It might be on the same par as the Minnesota Twins from years ago, where the organization would turn up the air conditioning in the Metrodome when the Twins were at bat.
This does not mean that MLB should strip titles. That is an over reaction. Let's be honest. If a player is on second base and he sees that the catcher is calling for a fast ball, there is way he will try and let the batter know, either by yelling the players first name or last name. That stuff has been going on for year. I do have a problem with this scandal in that they were using technology to do it.
If you want to compare this to something sports related - you can compare it to the Saints Bountygate scandal. BUT ONLY from the perspective of once punishments were doled out, their Super Bowl win that happened during the time of Bountygate was not removed. In my opinion Bountygate was more egregious than the sign stealing.
Just because you steal a sign does not guarantee success. If a hitter is tipped off that a curve ball or fast ball is coming does not mean or guarantee a hit. Yes, it does help. But that knowledge does not guarantee the batter gets on base or drives a runner in. A hitter will still have to identify the location, adjust to the timing and square the bat on the ball. The hitter also has to adjust to any defensive shift. I am not being naive, I know that it helps knowing whats coming (especially if the pitcher can throw 3 or more pitches for strikes) but that knowledge alone does not translate to success.
One big omission in this whole thing is this. A GM and Managers have been held accountable. But no penalties for any of the players. (you can say that Beltran is being punished now) The players were as involved as the GM and Manager. They bought into it. Some could say, the players should receive fines at the bare minimum. However I would not suggest that as this will be far reaching and how do you determine which players participated. It would be an epic witch hunt.
The one fear I have is this - that Alex Cora, AJ Hinch and Jeff Luhnow are not able to get jobs in the future, once their suspensions are up. (still waiting to see what Cora's will be). You could also add Beltran to the list. If they continue to house a black eye for years to come then this is wrong.
The best thing MLB can do is just more on. The message has been sent. Let's all move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)