Don't be Fooled, Trump is a Racist

The Spike Lee directed film called, The Blackkklansman, should be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. It is essentially not only the greatest “catfish” in the history of “catfishing,” but it should also be noted as the first ever “catfish.” For those that are not aware, “catfishing” occurs most often in online dating in which one, or both, of the courters is not who they purport to be on their “dating profile.” So, in other words, a male suitor may think he is courting a beautiful model, but in reality, the woman may be 300lbs or possibly not a woman at all. The sensation of “catfishing” has become so entertaining, to primarily high school students, that MTV decided to make a reality TV series entitled, Catfish.  This show basically follows around couples who have never seen one another in person, but only communicate to each other via some sort of electronic communication – dating app, Facebook, etc.

So now that the term “catfishing” has been thoroughly described, it is time to discuss how The Blackklansman could be so memorable, if it was essentially nothing more than an episode of MTV’s Catfish on steroids. It comes down to three parts: the objective of the “catfishing,” the technique that was used to execute the “catfishing,” and lastly, the significance that this “catfishing” still has, or should have, on every American.

The objective of the “catfishing” is pretty easy to comprehend – a black Colorado Springs police officer called, “Ron Stallworth” (played by John David Washington), is attempting to infiltrate and gather information on the local KKK chapter and prevent them from committing any crimes (which they eventually do). His technique to infiltrate the KKK was also quite simple, yet extremely difficult to execute. Stallworth simply called his local KKK chapter and spoke with the leader, whom Stallworth convinced to bring him in for a KKK meeting. In turn, Stallworth enlisted a white undercover police officer, named “Flip Zimmerman” who was ironically Jewish, (played by Adam Driver) to act as Stallworth, but in person with the KKK. Eventually Stallworth so well “catfished” the local KKK chapter he was eventually talking to the KKK’s National Director, David Duke, on a regular basis. At one-point David Duke told Stallworth, over the phone, that he knew Stallworth couldn’t be black because he can recognize a black voice (obviously David Duke thought too highly of himself).

One of the most moving scenes is when Stallworth is talking to his sergeant, who is the head of the police department’s intelligence unit, from a vacant stairwell in police headquarters.  The sergeant briefs Stallworth on how David Duke is changing the Klan’s motif. He insists that Duke wants to move away from a “violent based” organization to a political based organization. In other words, Duke wants to be able to nominate persons to political office who will pass “covert” legislation that would instill the KKK’s values. Stallworth replies by saying, “America wouldn’t let that happen.” Then the sergeant replies that Stallworth is too naïve.

The importance of this scene is that the KKK has successfully gotten their ideal candidate, not in state or local government, but into the highest office in the world. Let me be clear, as I do not want there to be any mistake, I am unequivocally calling the United States President, Donald J. Trump, a racist and a white supremacist. More importantly, Donald Trump has used the strategy that David Duke foresaw and which Lee Atwater, a Republican political strategist and adviser, for both the Reagan and H.W. Bush presidential campaigns, entitled as “the southern strategy.” However, Donald Trump essentially used this “southern strategy” not just on the South, but on the entire nation. Below is a 1981 excerpt from a Lee Atwater interview, which summarizes the southern strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. . . But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this.” is much more abstract then even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”  (Lee, Atwater. The Two-Party South Alexander P Lamis. 8 July 1981. Document).

What is ironic is that Atwater explicitly states that simply being “openly” racists will “backfire” against the candidate. However, Trump has shot that assertion into the wind. Trump has routinely and openly chosen not to express disdain and disgust towards the white nationalist, who not only rioted and protested in Charlottesville, but that also murdered a counter protester in Charlottesville. Further, Trump has taken it upon himself to ensure that NFL players (who are predominantly black), who are protesting police brutality by kneeling during the National Anthem, are demonized as un-American. Trump wants to cut affirmative-action programs, for no other logical reason but to pursue his racist agenda. Finally, what is the biggest slap to America’s face is the fact that this narrow-minded, bigoted, babbling buffoon was elected after America had one of the brightest presidents to hold that office – Barack Obama. This shows that it is not ironic that a racist president, who’s only agenda item is to effectively erase every accomplishment his highly intelligent black predecessor was able to pass, was elected.

To make this story even sadder is the fact that racist behavior only persists if the institutions that govern the people are naturally racist. America boasts that because it is a democracy, its people hold the power.  Therefore, it is the people’s choice on how the institutions are run. In turn, racist institutions only persist if the people are complacent. Here in 2018 the citizens of the United States, and the finger should be squarely pointed at the Republican party, are complacent to racism against minorities. By electing a highly racist president, and then continually nominating, and in some cases electing, racist lower level politicians, Americans are providing their verdict that they are OK with racist government institutions.

So, for those Americans who voted for Trump, or any “Trumpian” lower level candidate, and then claim they aren’t racist and/or who believes the candidate of their choice isn’t a racist, you are being “catfished” worse than David Duke was “catfished” by Ron Stallworth in The Blackkklansman. Congratulations.

Although Refs May Dress Like Zebras, They Are Still Dumber

This article goes out to all the athletes who thought they were wronged by an official.  This article is dedicated to the frat boys who dress up as “blind” referees for Halloween.  It also goes out to every coach who has gone hoarse due to yelling into an incompetent and bungling referee’s ear, because this article goes in depth into how even the Ohio High School Athletic Association’s own officials have no idea how to instruct aspiring high school football officials.

The class into which I recently and regrettably enrolled was to be a “condensed” version of the “traditional” six to eight week long high school officiating course. This condensed version was to be a total of two days and one and a half hours of officiating. This course is required to be completed in order to become a high school football referee in Ohio.  There are three main requirements to becoming an Ohio high school football referee (1) pass the three written tests; (2) earn the required classroom hours, and (3) earn the required “field” time.

Now that the “background” has been provided to the reader, I will begin my rant in a manner akin to that annoying girl in high school who always had to tell the substitute teacher during roll call that her name is Sara with an “h.” In other words, consider this an apology beforehand.

The main issue with this “condensed “class was the fact that it was run by five grown men, who, combined, had the equivalent mental capacity of Old Yeller, once Old Yeller received a bullet to the head. Actually, John Steinbeck’s famous novel, Of Mice and Men, is possibly the only piece in the English written language that correctly resembles how frustrating this class was.

Of Mice and Men revolved around the relationship between two friends - the sane George and the annoying Lenny. In this officiating class I was “George” and the instructors were a bunch of “Lenny’s.”  So for example, because it was a condensed class a reasonable person would presume that the class had to be extremely structured so that the paying pupils could master the skills to become a competent football official. However, in reality the first two hours and forty-five minutes consisted of each of the instructors babbling on about how by the end of the training none of the students will still know what they are doing.  Then they would discuss some off-topic incident about when they had to kick a fan out of the stands. This went on for 165 minutes.

So just like how Lenny kept repeating to George about how he just wants to “pet the bunnies” and starts naming all the different color bunnies, the instructors were literally discussing each time they had to kick someone out of a game. In all honesty, the first four stories were actually interesting, but then the stories became stale.  Like how at first everyone feels sorry for a bully because it turns out he lost his dad, but then the masses realize that the bully’s loss was not the reason he was a constant and complete ass, but really “the loss” just gave the bully an excuse to continue being an ass without any reprimand.

Unfortunately, neither I nor any of my classmates were in a position to shut up this babbling batch of numb nuts, so we had to sit and listen to every imaginable ejection story. Finally, the stories ended and I eagerly opened my notebook to take notes on the various things to watch while officiating. However, I must have been far too eager to learn the elements of offensive pass interference because the instructors decided to discuss the name of the class.

The class was titled, “Are You a Duck…..?” Although this name resembled the same title as a children’s book, I intentionally disregarded the statement. However, the instructors, or in this case the most annoying instructor, (for identity purposes I will refer to him as the “Lead Idiot 1”). The Lead Idiot 1 went on to say that the reason this class is called, “Are You a Duck…?” is because “just like when people see a duck, they know it’s a duck, and so when people see a ref, they believe it’s a ref.” I mean not even Jason Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen had this depth of mind numbing lines and concepts. However, the worst part was not only that Lead Idiot 1 took seriously what he said, but the pupils did too. It honestly felt as though I was in some sort of Nazi Brown Shirt rally, in which I was the only participant refusing to salute.

After Lead Idiot 1 was finished giving his psychological thesis on what happens when a competent human being notices a duck, Lead Idiot 2 then decided to discuss the difference between a “pretender” and a “contender” official. As you’ll notice, just like the Republican party was sold on an irrational and futile slogan – “repeal and replace” – my instructors also loved meaningless phrases. In this case Lead Idiot 2 discussed how “pretender” officials were only officiating because they wanted the money. Let’s be clear, football officials at the high school level and below make between $50-75 a game. Further, that amount is seasonal and, lastly, you could make more working at McDonald’s.  But I’m quite positive these instructors would have trouble staying employed at McDonald’s.

Finally the phrases and filibusters ended. The class was then instructed to go to the gym. Here at the gym a new instructor showed up. The Lead Idiots praised this instructor and made us give him a standing ovation …. twice! At this point I felt as though I was rushing for a fraternity, and we were clapping for the senior fraternity bro because he could chug the most “brewskies” without needing his stomach pumped! The “honorary instructor” then taught us how to throw a flag, a bean bag, and blow a whistle. He then ordered us to give certain dead ball signals. He must have naively presumed the class was actually taught something for the 165 minutes prior to his arrival.  He soon discovered no one fluently knew most of the signals, that he was asking us to give. At one point, I thought about wrapping the whistle lanyard around my throat so tight that I would simply pass out.

After giving the “honorary instructor” another standing ovation, the pupils were dismissed for lunch. This was my favorite part because I had the possibility of “running off.” However, I returned, regrettably, to the classroom. Lead Idiot 1 discussed how each of us should purchase insurance to protect us in case we are sued by a parent whose kid breaks his neck on the field. Lead Idiot 1 then stated that he has a multi-million-dollar policy to protect him against being sued for alleged discrimination (side note, Lead Idiot 1 is also an Assignor. This means he is in charge of assigning games to each official for a district) by officials who were not getting enough games. At one point he said that an official threatened to sue him for alleged discrimination, and Lead Idiot 1 replied to the official by saying, “Bring it!” The Lead Idiot 1 then said since he was “covered” he had nothing to worry about. By that logic Lead Idiot 1 must also believe that he can crash his car into any one and anything, simply because he is “covered” under his auto insurance.

This is the point where I determined I no longer wanted to be a football referee, and, more importantly, just wanted to get out of the classroom, as I was afraid that if I lost any more brain cells I would have the same IQ as Lead Idiot 1.

In the last hour of class, we learned from Lead Idiot 3 about penalty enforcement. Finally! This is the only time in which I learned anything meaningful. However, this also consisted of a lot of chanting. For instance Lead Idiot 3 would constantly ask, “There are two types of plays – loose ball plays and running plays. What are these plays called?” The class would then say, “Loose ball plays and running plays.” Lead Idiot 3 would then ask again what two types of plays were permissible in football. This went on for fifteen minutes.

I am getting worn out just reliving the experience with these lunatics and so there are just a few more points I would like to highlight. One, Lead Idiot 1 reminded me of this guy at my local bar who always stumbled over his words and sounded like he always needed to sneeze. The only difference is my bar guy spoke like this because he had one too many whiskey sours. I must think Lead Idiot 1 spoke this way because he had one too many hits to the head. Also, I did not show up to the next day’s class (my brain was still recovering) and so did not get licensed, but I did take the three online tests and passed with flying colors. The best part was that these instructors, like a lead frat guy heartbroken because a pledge quits after realizing how douchy frat guys are, contacted me twice, asking why I was not present for class. In turn, I responded to them by telling them what I am telling you …  just more politely.

In short, this class taught me nothing about football officiating, but I did come to realize why George killed Lenny in the end of Of Mice and Men (sorry if I spoiled the novel for you).

Meyer's Mistake

Columbus, Ohio is my home. I love it: the atmosphere, the people, the relatively flat roads, and the culture that The Ohio State University infuses into, not only the city, but the state too. That is why the news that broke this week was, at the very least, embarrassing and, at the very most, a black mark on Columbus.

Most of the headlines read, “Urban Meyer Fires Wide Receiver Coach, Zach Smith, After Smith Received Restraining Order.” My initial reaction was that of amazement because a high profile college football coach actually took proactive measures in dismissing an obvious distraction to the team and an even larger danger to society. Unfortunately that was my “initial” reaction.

In less than a few hours new reports were being released that Zach Smith, the Ohio State wide receivers coach, had an apparent history of run ins with the police, spurring from domestic violence allegations. It was even more disturbing to learn that Smith’s disturbances each occurred while he was working for Meyer.

Dating back to 2009, while Smith was married to his wife and coaching for Meyer at the University of Florida, police were called out to Smith’s home after Smith returned home with a female co-worker. It was alleged that when Smith returned home with the female co-worker, an argument ensued between him and his wife and allegedly Smith placed his hands on his wife. The domestic violence charges were eventually dropped.

Meyer, when questioned this week about the 2009 incident, stated that he was aware of “a” 2009 incident involving Smith, but was not aware of those details stated in the police record. Meyer was sure to mention that when he became aware of the ’09 incident that he immediately went to his boss and asked how to handle. It was determined that Smith was to seek counseling.

In 2015, while Smith was working for Meyer at Ohio State, the Powell, Ohio police were called to his ex- wife’s residence on two separate occasions. The first occasion was for a domestic violence claim and the second had to do with an alleged stalking claim. On both occasions Smith’s ex-wife called the police and on both occasions the Powell Police confirmed that Smith was their main suspect. However, charges were never filed on either occasion.

Meyer, again when questioned this week about the 2015 incident, stated that he was not aware of the 2015 incidents. Finally, Meyer did acknowledge past allegations that had been publicized about Smith this week were a factor in issuing his termination.

The first question to resolve is whether Meyer is negligent? However, the question should be: “in what ways could Meyer be negligent?”

To the latter question there are two obvious ways that Meyer is negligent. The first, and the more detrimental case of negligence, is that Meyer knew about all of Smith’s claims while Smith was employed under Meyer, and yet Meyer did not perform his duty as a head football coach of a public learning institution. This claim of negligence does not seem possible. First, unlike Penn State, in which there was direct evidence at the university that crimes were being committed, here, Meyer did not have any direct evidence that Smith was committing domestic violence. In fact, in the 2009 incident, Meyer reported what he knew to his boss. A disciplinary action was then handed down to Smith. In the case of the 2015 incidents, Meyer claims to be unaware of those occasions.  Typically, this excuse of “being unaware” holds little water in college football, but Powell Police reported that because no charges were filed, they did not list Smith’s name as the suspect in their report. In turn, Meyer wouldn’t have known of Smith’s actions, especially if the police did not make any charges.

The second form of negligence, and one that is more common in prominent college athletic programs but harder to discern, is one in which the head coach failed to perform his duty to ensure a respectable level of discipline in his locker room. In other words, because the coach is so focused on winning, he is failing to ensure that players/coaches are aware of the consequences of their off the field actions. The reason why this form of negligence seems to be possible, with Meyer is because Meyer’s past programs, mainly Florida, are littered with players committing or being charged with egregious criminal acts. A 2013 New York Time article, by Greg Bishop, discussing Meyer’s Gator players and their lack of discipline stated, “[m]any of the charges were typical of college campuses . . . But other, more serious charges included aggravated stalking, domestic violence by strangulation, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and fraudulent use of credit cards, according to criminal record databases. . ..” It was further reported that in Meyer’s career at Florida (2005-2010), his players were arrested 31 times. At one point a former player of Meyer’s, Janoris Jeinkins, who was dismissed from Florida by Meyer’s successor, stated that, “[i]f Coach Meyer were still coaching, I’d still be playing for the Gators. Coach Meyer knows what it takes to win.”

The aforementioned examples provide evidence that either Meyer’s players show no regard for consequences, which may be right as some of them were alleged to have committed terrible acts. However, if this is the case, it would seem just as likely or prominent, that most football universities would have the same issues, or at least at a similar rate of frequency. On the other hand, it may be that these players do not fear consequences because either the internal consequences (i.e. football consequences) are not adequately communicated to them, so they are not put on notice, or the possible sanctions fail to provide a sufficient deterrence from engaging in criminal behavior. The latter version is similar to a corporation that weighs paying a fine with the potential profits from not following a rule. If the profits are more than the cost of the fine, then it would make economic sense to move forward with breaking the rule and paying the fine. The fine would be considered simply as a “cost of doing business.”

So the claim is essentially that Meyer is failing in his duty, as head football coach, to ensure that he has a reasonably respectable football program. In other words, not only does Meyer have a “duty” to win, but as a public figure for a world renowned institution of knowledge, he has an equally important, if not more important, duty to ensure players are acting correctly.  If they are not, that they are disciplined with a reasonable consequence.

So this form of negligence may be transcending beyond the players to include the coaches that Meyer supervises. For instance, it is hard to conceive that the 2009 charges filed against Smith, and subsequently dropped, were somehow not accurately provided to Meyer. If Meyer was aware of the exact facts of the 2009 incident, would Smith have been dismissed then? (Please remember, although not the NCAA, the NFL had no problem giving Ezekiel Elliot a six game suspension even after no charges were even filed).

No matter what, this form of negligence will persist in football so long as coaches continue to get exorbitantly paid. In other words, the more coaches keep getting paid a lot of money, the more they win. This formula ferments pressure on coaches to win at all costs. This pressure causes internal mistakes to be made, questionable character traits not to be questioned, and blemishes to be quickly covered up or washed away. In other words, because there is such a high demand from the university for the coach to satisfy his “duty” to win, that the coach fails in his other “duty” to lead. So yes, Coach Meyer does “know what it takes to win,” but every other successful college football coach “knows what it takes to win” too. It’s a matter of whether Coach Meyer knows what it takes to lead.

Hader's Hate, and Milwaukee's Miscue

Josh Hader has come in the headlines not for his accomplishment in becoming an all-star relief pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers, but for his racist and homophobic tweets.  He published these tweets, which have come to light recently, when he was a teenager (2011 and 2012). To be clear, these tweets were wrong, horrifying and disturbing. Hader’s punishment, handed by the MLB as the Brewers will not issue a punishment, is that he must attend “sensitivity training and attend diversity initiatives.” Further, Hader has apologized publicly and privately cried to his teammates. Many of Hader’s teammates, past and present, have also come to his side, saying they never saw any sort of racist or homophobic behavior (many of these players were minorities).  Finally, in Hader’s first appearance on the mound since the racist tweets came to national attention, the Milwaukee Brewer fans (who were almost all white) gave Hader a standing ovation!

Hader’s public apology seems, from reading it, more of a long argued excuse. The following, from NBCSports’ reporter Bill Baer, is Hader’s apology, “I was 17 years old, and as a child I was immature, and obviously I said some things that were inexcusable . . . I’m ready for any consequences that happen for what happened seven years ago.”

The above apology, if it can even be considered an apology, was more along the lines of a passive aggressive apology. First, Hader should have just come out straight and said something like, “I am sorry.  The things I said were obviously inexcusable. I’m willing to accept any resulting consequences for my disgusting behavior and actions.” Please notice in my hypothetical apology for Hader, I don’t use age as a way to excuse behavior. Hader needs to understand that he should allow the court of public opinion and the media to develop his age defense, not him. By him being the one to initially offer up the age excuse is to illustrate his inability but, more importantly, his unwillingness to take full actions for his behavior (for the record, a 17 year old should know not to use racist language, or homophobic language, especially on a public domain such as Twitter).

Further, Hader already has the greatest defense in sports – he is white. There are certain rights afforded to those who are “playing while white”. In David Leonard’s book, Playing While White, he talks about how the media developed Riley Cooper’s defense/redemption when Cooper, a white former Philadelphia Eagles’ wide receiver, used the N-word while drunk at a country music concert.  As Leonard noted, “[t]o redeem Cooper was to redeem white America. No wonder redemption was a guarantee. It is fundamental to playing, living, and breathing, while white.” Cooper offered his apology, and did not use intoxication as an excuse. Then Cooper’s black teammates came to his side to speak up for him, exonerating Cooper, and, in turn, exonerating the white America. As Leonard notes, “[t]he constant depiction of Cooper as a good guy being unfairly demonized, as a man who at worst made a bad choice because of too many beers and a bad temper, who was humble enough to apologize and make amends, whose good nature could be seen in the love from his black teammates made it so Cooper didn’t need to walk the pathway toward redemption. His redemption was inevitable. #MakingMistakesWhileWhite makes that always the case.”

So, when Hader took the mound, less than a week after the racist story broke, it wasn’t amazing to see a mostly white stadium give him a standing ovation. What is even worse is that Milwaukee is one of the most heavily segregated cities in America. So what this ovation illustrated was that white America desperately wanted to “redeem” itself. They wanted to quickly applaud Hader for being able to “move past and grow” from his inexcusable behavior. However, the only way this would have been a credible ovation is if the entire stadium attendees were African – American. By a mostly white crowd standing, applauding Hader, they inadvertently admit to their implied racism/bias. If America wants to claim itself to be a “post-racial” society, as many on the right claim it is, then when situations like this happen the initial and persistent reaction should be to demand accountability from the culprit. They shouldn’t have stood, they should have publicly denounced Hader, underscoring that, “at 17, in today’s society, it is not permissible to state racial slurs.” Instead, they, the white public, chose to immediately forgive Hader.

Finally, Wisconsin is a state that voted for Trump. Trump is the same man who refuses to criticize white supremacist groups, who believes in order over law, who demands that NFL players who kneel for the National Anthem be “fired.”

Trump was elected, not by a “post-racial America”, but by a seasonally dormant, yet well rooted racist society.  That racist weed emerged, for a brief moment, when that crowd stood for Hader.

 

Soccer Doesn't Suck, Penalty Kicks Do

In a moment of desperation and boredom I tuned into the World Cup. This game, or I should say, the “match” was between extremely talented Spain and extremely untalented, and host nation, Russia. The game was tied one to one when I tuned in at the 79^th minute. The game continued to be tied at the 90^th minute, which is the end of “regulation.” However, the “match” was still knotted up even after the “extra minutes” were added on (for those who may not know, “extra minutes” are determined by the amount of time, during regulation, where soccer was not being played, but the clock was running). Still, a winner was still not decided, even after “overtime” (which is two 15 minute periods of extra time). So the “match” concluded with penalty kicks, in which each team has five tries to score penalty kicks against the opposing team’s goalie. Here, Spain missed more penalty kicks than Russia and so Russia won. In the end the football match was decided in a way that was not really “football” and it felt wrong.

First it is understandable as to why the founders of soccer decided that penalty kicks must be the last alternative to how a tied match should be resolved, as the game has to end some time. Essentially Russia and Spain played most of the game without any scores occurring.  For much of the time nothing remotely competitive was going on on the field, other than Spain passing the ball to each other in the middle of the field and nowhere in the vicinity of the Russian goalie. On the other hand, Russia, it seemed, had a simple strategy – push the game to penalty kicks. In other words, Russia knew they athletically had no shot at beating Spain in the course of the traditional style of soccer.  So, Russia’s best shot at a win was by defeating Spain in penalty. In short, Russia knew it could not beat Spain at soccer, but knew it had a chance at beating Spain in a different form of competition, a form of competition not resembling soccer – penalty kicks.

My argument is that penalty kicks, to determine a victor once overtime has been exhausted, should be removed. This is because it provides an incentive for offensively inferior teams, like Russia, to put all their chips in playing only defense and no incentive to play decent offense. Further, although this was a “major” upset in soccer, it wasn’t a real upset. This is because penalty kicks remove nearly all the parameters that create the soccer identity.  Essentially penalty kicks are a different game entirely from soccer. They remove all defenses, all offense, and simply make the goalie guess which way the shooter decides to kick the ball. So while on paper it would look as though Russia bettered Spain in soccer, Russia actually played much worse than Spain in all statistical analysis of the game, except for “penalty kicks.” Penalty kicks are the equivalent to a game of “Monopoly” that has been going on for a while and both players are tied. In order to break the monopoly tie, the two real estate moguls decide to each roll one dice and whoever rolls higher wins the game. However, all reasonable minds can conclude that although rolling of the dice is a crucial part of the board game, it alone is not the game itself.

The solution is to alter the game, but keep its context still alive, so that the victor can confidently claim that they beat the other team at soccer. The most advantageous and equitable alternative would be to remove players from the field, once regulation has concluded. So there are eleven soccer players per team on the field during regulation, if the game goes to overtime, the game should be brought down to seven players on each side. Yes, this would give an advantage to the more skilled team, but the more skilled team had the same proportionate advantage as to when there were eleven players. In turn, what this does is provide those skilled players more space as to create a shot. This proposal allows the soccer game to be decided within the form and framework of soccer, rather than some other game entirely, called “penalty kicks.”  

… American football can’t come soon enough…

Ocean’s Overboard and Overdone

This past Saturday I saw the newly released film called, Ocean’s 8. It held the same premise as all the former Ocean movies, but the difference was that the criminals were all female. The movie was filled with star studded actresses, such as Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, and Anne Hathaway, grabbing the headlines. Nonetheless, even with all these stars, the movie was probably the worst installment of the Ocean’s series.  Actually, what this movie resembled was the 2011 Philadelphia Eagles.

The 2011 Philadelphia Eagles were highly star studded. That year they signed 12 free agents compromised most notably of: running back Ronnie Brown, cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha, defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins and defensive end Jason Babin. However, the team finished just 8-8 and missed the playoffs.  To make matters worse, in 2011 the four newly signed players (Brown, Asomugha, Jenkins, and Babin) took up nearly a fifth of the team’s payroll. So it’s safe to say that the free agency acquisitions did not help the 2011 Philadelphia Eagles.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an interesting story in 2012 called, “NFL’s track record on building teams through free agency mixed at best: Analysis,” in which it analyzed all 32 NFL teams from 2006-2011 in terms of their free agent signings and their winning percentage. Eight teams won 60 percent or more of their games in those five years. Six of those eight teams signed fewer than fifteen free agents and three of those teams signed less than five. The teams that won over 60 percent of their games and, in turn, predominantly signed few free agents, were the dynasties of the late 2000’s. These teams consisted of the Saints (28), Patriots (22), Giants (14), Steelers (11), Ravens (10), Colts (4), Chargers (4), and Packers (3). Now the teams that were crappy during this time period tended to sign free agents more readily. For instance the Lions, who had a winning percentage of 31%, signed 35 free agents (remember this includes their 0-16 season back in 2008), the Raiders, who had a winning percentage of 37%, signed 27 free agents, the Dolphins and Redskins, who both had winning percentages of 40%, signed 26 free agents a piece, and finally the Browns, who had a winning percentage of 35%, signed 21 free agents.

There are several analyses that this data shows. First, the reason why it seems good teams signed few free agents is because those teams were not in a desperation mode. For instance, the Lions signed 35 free agents in these five years and within these five years they had one year in which they did not win a game. So it shows that the team was trying to do anything to muster some sort of respectability. In other words, the mentality is different. Whereas, in the case of the Steelers, a free agent helps to subtly improve the team, like whip cream does on a slice of pie. The pie will taste just fine without the whip cream, but the whip cream might push it to become the coveted dessert at family reunions. On the other hand, losing teams are trying to build their foundation with free agents, which is a liability for reasons that will be described next.

Typically traditional free agents have already proven themselves in the NFL. They have gained some level of respectability. However, free agents also come with some level of “baggage”. This is because the free agent was not able to come to terms with their previous team, or their previous team no longer thought that the player was in their best interest (hence why his previous team didn’t re-sign him). For instance, Terrell Owens was an excellent receiver but when he signed with the Cowboys, after being released from the Eagles, it was a gamble that the Cowboys had to evaluate thoroughly. Terrell Owens is a flamboyant and argumentative person, which led to him being released by the Eagles.  Although he played well for the Cowboys, there is some evidence that he also contributed to a lot of the team’s locker room drama. So because the free agent has proven himself, he is not as easily able to be conformed to his new team’s culture, which, as the aforementioned example explains, can cause issues within the team.

Due to the fact that free agents typically have “proven themselves,” they also hold more leverage in terms of their asking price when negotiating contracts. As stated earlier, the 2011 Eagle’s signed 12 free agents. Their four top free agents took up nearly a fifth of their cap space alone.  In turn, free agents are a financial gamble. The team must weigh whether proven performance is worth more than a high premium. That is not an easy answer because sometimes the free agent’s previous team made that player “look” better than he really was. In other words, that player is a system player, and the reason he performed well wasn’t necessarily so much a result of his natural talents, but because his natural talents fit the system that that team was running. For instance, when the Houston Texans signed quarterback Brock Osweiler to a $70M fully guaranteed contract, they were expecting a franchise quarterback. However, what the Texans got was a terrible player, who looked good in Denver because he was surrounded by great talent.

So in order for a free agent to help a team succeed two elements need to be met. First, the team who is taking in a free agent must have a well-respected and proven head coach. This is because if the team has a proven-coach they have a well-established culture. So it follows, if the team has a well-established culture then (1) they know what type of players and what system works best for their needs and (2) the entire team buys into that system.  If the coach is weak or unproven, there isn’t any cohesive culture and a free agent could cause just more internal team friction, while also wasting cap space.

So coming back to the issue with Ocean’s 8, the movie lacked the culture and the foundation on which the previous three were built. The most glaring reason for this is the fact the previous Oceans’ were all directed (i.e. the head coach) by Steven Soderbergh; whereas Ocean’s 8 was directed by Gary Ross. So, Ocean’s 8 was, like the 2011 Eagles, – fine, but given its star quality investment, it should have been a lot better.

How The Golden State Gold Rush Dries Up

The NBA is a league in which a single star player can thrust a sub-par team to the playoffs. So a team with four all-stars and above average bench players not only thrusts a team into the playoffs, but at the very least, takes their team to the conference finals. The latter are the Golden State Warriors.

So then how does a team that seems perfect, fail? The easiest answers would be injury or retirement. However, the former typically does not destroy a dynasty, unless the injury is career ending or is chronic (for instance Derek Rose has never been the same since his knee injuries, even though he is still in the league), and retirement is usually foreseeable in professional sports. Also most dynasties occur when the team’s players are not nearing retirement (Michael Jordan retiring from the Bulls for the final time).  In turn, a dynasty, like the Mayans, fails from within.

Now the question becomes: How do the Golden State Warriors collapse from within?  In the simplest terms it comes down to the fact that good players, all-star players, want to win, but also want to be paid adequately. In 2017 Kevin Durant, the Warriors’ forward who was courted from Oklahoma City in order to stop Lebron and the Cavs, took a pay cut. Typically a player of his caliber should receive the max salary (~$35M per year), but Durant took about a ten million dollar pay cut, in which he netted $25M. Dan Feldman, from NBCsports.com, stated that Durant’s pay cut allowed for, “the Warriors to keep Andre Iguodala and Shaun Livingston.” However, Durant could have been paid $31M and the Warriors could still have kept Iguodala and Livingston. Feldman then mentions that the Warriors were able to sign the shooter Nick Young, with the cash saved from Durant’s pay cut. If the Warriors’ really needed Nick Young so badly that they asked Durant to take a pay cut, it seems like a slap in the face to Durant. It should be noted the addition of Nick Young was not crucial to the Warriors’ continued success. Nonetheless Durant’s pay cut is just the foreshadowing of the demise.

Steph Curry, the overrated point guard for the Warriors, is scheduled to receive a “super max” contract worth $201M through 2022. Then Klay Thompson, who is the best all-around player on the Warriors, will become a free agent in the summer of 2019. Thompson’s current contract is scheduled to be worth $68M, so it is likely that, due to his caliber and talent, that he will likely not only like to see a monetary raise to compensate his value, but also to be paid like a super star. Then in the summer of 2020, Draymond Green’s current contract, which is scheduled to be worth $82M, expires. Here,  Green will have the same dilemma as Thompson. Golden State’s ownership will have to decide whether they adequately compensate their players, and in doing so, the ownership will have to pay the tax for being over the soft cap. In other words, the ownership would be losing money.  The other option is that the ownership tries to have Durant, who will be a free agent in the summer of 2018, take another pay cut. This option seems unlikely as Feldman has stated that Durant has implied he does not think taking another pay cut would be smart.

There seems to be two options available. The first is that the Golden State Warriors’ ownership uses Durant’s willingness to take a pay cut as precedent for the rest of the team to do the same when their current contract terms expire. The issue with this is that players will only be getting older and so their bargaining power, after they take their initial “pay cut”, becomes lower. The other option is that Golden State trade one of these players – namely Green or Thompson – in the last year of their current contract. This is highly unlikely for Thompson; the reason for this is because he will just be 28 when his current contract expires, and will also be in his prime. The more likely scenario is Draymond Green is not resigned or is traded in his last year of his contract, if he is not willing to take a pay cut. Green would be about 30 or 31 when his contract expires. However, Green is not physically gifted like other all-stars and so when he reaches his 30’s his abilities may be dissipating, rather than improving, or at the very least staying the same.

In the end the Golden State Warriors’ dynasty may collapse due to cash, as stated above.  But if the team decides to all take pay cuts or the ownership pays the tax, there is one inevitable way the dynasty ends – time. A player’s physical talent is finite, and as a player ages, his abilities deteriorate, and with that, so does his value to his team.