College Football Coaches Created a Crisis, That Only They Can Solve

As of February 5, 2019, 1,454 Division I college football players (FBS and FCS) have entered the new NCAA “Transfer Portal.” The Portal is supported by most players and verbally denounced by coaches. Ironically, although football coaches routinely express anger towards the portal in front of the press, they are the culprits to its increased use.

The Transfer Portal for football players was officially released on October 15, 2018. The opening of the Transfer Portal was accompanied by a significantly more lenient college football transfer policy. In past years a player had to ask for permission from their current school to leave and had to “demonstrate egregious behavior by a program or truly extraordinary circumstances . . ..” Now under the new policy a player must meet the following requirements in order to transfer:




1. Player must be academically and athletically eligible




2. Player must not receive any opposition from the school they are leaving




3. And “show the transfer is due to documented mitigating circumstances that are outside the student-athlete’s control and directly impact the health, safety and well-being of the student-athlete.”




It would appear that these requirements would be hard to meet, especially when considering there isn’t any precedent set for what constitutes “mitigating circumstances.” However, according to an ESPN article written by Adam Rittenberg and Tom VanHaaran, “[t]he NCAA’s most recent data points a positive picture for those who actually go through the waiver-application process . . . 79.7 percent received approvals.” The lenient policy is the first major win for the “free” labor in the multimillion dollar industry that they uphold. That being said, the millionaires who coach them are not impressed with this policy and have been claiming that this lenient policy may not only cripple college football (which is farfetched) but that it may “destroy” the future of America (if America was going to be destroyed it’s going to happen now under President Trump, not due to some 20-year-old trying to transfer to another state school to play football).

Coaches have listed three reasons, each of which is futile, for their opposition to the new transfer policy:




1. Teaching our society to be “soft”




2. We need to think of their education




3. We need to think of the high school coaches and players




The “making our kids soft” argument has been protolyzed by numerous coaches to the media. It is an interesting kind of argument because it seems to be more of a ploy of a type of “argument” rather than a substantive argument. The “it’s teaching our society to be soft” phrase is the same type of argument that is used when people hear rebel rousing Trump fanatics cry out, “I hate all the political correctness!” These arguments suggest two items: The speaker is (1) expressing how he/she misses the past; (2) because something in the past, that is now being taken away, made their lives easier.




So, as an example, when a presumably white, middle age male cries out how he voted for Trump because “society these days is becoming too politically correct,” he really is wishing that society would return to a time when society wasn’t so “politically correct.” In other words, this person wants to return to a time when his culture (again, presumably a white, adult male) did not have to watch what he said as much – this is known as “white privilege.” To ask that Americans be more cognizant and recognize other Americans’ cultures isn’t to suggest that American society is becoming “too insecure.” it’s to suggest that Americans are becoming more intellectual, and also understanding that white privilege is wrong.




Likewise, when Penn State’s head football coach, James Franklin, asks, “[h]ow do you learn to overcome adversity and fight through battles and learn to compete? I worry about that for our sport; I worry about that for kids and our country. The path of least resistance very rarely is the answer. How do you have discipline and structure and tough conversations in your program if there’s always a Plan B, an outlet with no real repercussions?” Franklin asserts this under the same veil worn by those who cry out against the horrors of “political correctness.”

What James Franklin doesn’t want to disclose is that the lenient transfer policy takes some of his absolute control and transfers it to the players. Franklin attempts to assume the role of the paternal figure, thinking in the best interest of his free labor who, ironically, is the same free labor that yielded him with a six-year contract worth $5.8M per year. Franklin, outlandishly, goes so far as to say that this transfer policy will not only destroy his sport, but America as well. Franklin’s fear mongering projects his own fear that he can no longer be the complete autocratic ruler that his past predecessors were able to be in a college football locker-rooms. In other words, like the white man acting out against “political correctness” because it forces him to relinquish power and control, Franklin is acting out against the “transfer policy” because it forces him, as a coach, to have to change his attitude towards the free labor over which he enjoyed complete control prior.




One attitude that Franklin, as well as other NCAA football coaches, will need to amend is the fact that they routinely lie to high school recruits in an effort for the coach to get them into their program. As stated in the ESPN article, “[Players] have monitored recent recruiting trends, which include prospects playing early in their careers and coaches adding multiple quarterbacks in a single class.” Two arguments are illustrated here. The first is that more prospects are playing earlier in their careers, and the second being that coaches are adding multiple players of the same position in the same recruiting class.




The latter argument is important more so for positions in which only one is required on the field at a time – quarterback. Ohio State provides a great example of this issue. Tate Martell was the second-best quarterback in the 2017 college football recruiting and the 39th ranked best player in his class. To say the least, Martell was expecting to play in his college career at Ohio State. That would not occur. The reason being is because Justin Fields, who was the top quarterback in the 2018 recruiting class, has decided to transfer from Georgia to Ohio State. Tate Martell, realizing that he was no longer slated to be the Ohio State starting quarterback, decided to transfer to a program where he would see meaningful playing time. The argument goes that Martell should have “battled” Fields for the starting position because that was “how it was done back in the day.” However, “back in the day” also provided seniority to those who were upperclassmen. A freshman or sophomore starting at quarterback was unheard of unless the upperclassmen were injured. This has changed as many freshmen have routinely beaten out their upperclassmen competition. Look no further than the reigning 2019 National Champion, Clemson Tigers. They started the season with their senior quarterback, Kelly Bryant, who was replaced, not due to any bad play or team losses, but because he was simply outplayed by phenom freshman quarterback – Trevor Lawrence. Kelly has transferred to play quarterback at the University of Missouri.




The fact that “many [coaches] cite stories of how older players fought through adversity early in their careers, stayed with the program and became stars or major contributors” seems hollow. Tate Martell as a freshman was redshirted and sat behind J.T. Barrett. Then the following year Martell backed up Dwayne Haskins. Then, when in his redshirt junior year, Martell again saw his starting quarterback dream plummet when Ohio State coaches paraded sophomore Justin Fields around campus and introduced him during halftime of an OSU men’s basketball game. I don’t think OSU could have given Martell a better sign that if he stayed he wouldn’t see the field. In turn, this example proves the coaches’ argument that “players are becoming soft” is completely false. More importantly, players are learning to look out for themselves rather than abide by loyalty to a coach or a team, especially when that coach or team assumes no loyalty towards them.




The second argument coaches make is the “student-athlete” argument. The increase in transfers under the new NCAA Transfer Policy “greatly concerns some coaches and administrators who . . . say it not only hurts teams that players are leaving but decreases the chances of graduation for those transferring without sitting.” In the old transfer system, a player who transferred for no extreme reason was forced to sit out a season. This penalty seemed frivolous because it wasn’t exactly clear what the purpose behind the need for a player to sit out a year was for. That’s one reason, it seems, the NCAA has chosen to move forward with this more lenient transfer policy. More importantly, the players who are transferring are doing so because, like Tate Martell or Justin Fields, they know they are capable of starting. Unlike what most coaches claim, these top recruits didn’t come to college to gain an education, but because it is the only route to their true dream job – playing in the NFL. Juwan Johnson, a graduate transfer from Penn State stated, “a lot of the time, people transfer because they can’t play at the school that they’re at . . . I feel like people should be playing because you only have so many years to show what you got before trying to fulfill your dream in the NFL. . . sitting out a year is tough on anybody.” Juwan’s logic should come as no surprise to rational college football fans. College football players’ first priority is to play. Education comes somewhere further down the priority list.




Coaches who use the education argument should do more to make it more convincing. Too many athletes receive worthless degrees, but colleges and coaches can state that their program rests on its players receiving an adequate education. The coaches fail to state that the degrees most players receive will help them very little in getting them a job anywhere five feet away from the gridiron. In an article written by SBNation’s Kevin Trahan called, Athletes are Getting Degrees, but Does That Actually Mean Anything?, it finds that there is a, “[f]ocus on eligibility rather than education . . . [colleges] put [players] in easy majors – and things that aren’t even majors . . . These majors allow players to get easy degrees that give them little chance of finding a job consistent with their peers, many of whom had more time and academic prowess to spend on more challenging majors or will go to graduate school.” So, coaches who claim that the new transfer policy places players in harm of not finishing their education fail to grasp the greater question – are the players even receiving a meaningful education under the current formula? The answer seems to be an unequivocal “no.”




The last futile argument that coaches make is that the new transfer policy will hurt high school football players entering college. “Penn State’s Franklin said some high school coaches are becoming concerned about their top players competing with transfers for scholarship spots.” However, Franklin, and all coaches can only blame themselves for this fear. That is because if a coach doesn’t want his current quarterback to leave, he shouldn’t be trying to entice a high school protégé to come to his program. In addition, if a coach is doing this, he should make clear to the incoming high school player that he will be sitting behind the current starter and/or back up in line. If a coach doesn’t do this then there should be no surprise that there will be an increase in the amount of transfers, especially those that are in the same position in which Clemson’s former quarterback, Kelly Bryant, was placed in. Hence, if there are fewer transfers because coaches are being honest salesman to high schoolers, then high schoolers wouldn’t have to fear having to compete with transfers.






Frankly, coaches who are against the new transfer policy have the power to end this “apocalyptic death sentence” that has been cast upon college football. It’s very simple – coaches can stop permitting transfers to their team. In turn, players could try and put themselves out there to transfer but NCAA football coaches will refuse to offer them a spot on their team. In other words, the authoritarian millionaire college football coaches can still control the labor that makes them so rich. However, this would require each of these millionaires to collectively bind together and refuse to accept transfers. That would not happen though, because what is under each of these three arguments isn’t anything moral but is the very fact that college football coaches love nothing more than winning. Coaches love winning even more than having complete control of their program. Coaches only use the “players are getting soft” argument because they are afraid that they will lose talented players and incur more losses. Coaches only use the “education” excuse because they want to sell the appearance that they are about education over winning games, when they are not. Finally, coaches could care less about high school players feelings, so long as they keep winning.




College football coaches are ruthless liars that rage against even the smallest inclination that a player may receive even an ounce of power and the coach may lose an ounce of his. And that is because, “[t]he goal is to win, and to make winning look good in the process, regardless of the reality.” Coaches have the power to stop the “lenient” transfer policy, but their fear of losing prevents that. So, coaches will continue to lash out at players transferring, while continuing to fuel the need for transfers.

Tools of The NFL: Issue 2 - The NFL Itself

The Commissioner and de facto face of the NFL, Roger Goodell, is routinely jeered by the very fans that provide life to his business. It is ironic that the most viewed sports draft (in terms of the “big three” American professional sports: MLB, NBA, and NFL) initiates with a rousing rebuke as fans drown out Goodell’s sheepishly, whimpering voice during the opening of the NFL draft. It is also ironic that the NFL season ends with the same nasty rebuke as fans jeer Goodell when he hands the Super Bowl victors with the Lombardy Trophy. Why is the man, the face of the most popular form of live entertainment, hated by the very people who prop up his lucrative enterprise? It is due to a lack of governance.

The Commissioner receives his power from Article VIII, Section 8.1 of the NFL’s Constitution and Bylaws. Section 8.1 states:

“The League shall select and employ a person of unquestionable integrity to serve as Commissioner of the League and shall determine the period and fix the compensation of his employment. All voting requirements and procedures for the selection of or successor to the office of Commissioner shall be determined by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds or 18, whichever is greater, of the members of the League.”

In short, the Commissioner receives his power from the franchise owners. Furthermore, these owners also determine whether his term will be renewed or not. Assuming the Commissioner has the same self-serving, greedy instincts as his bosses (the franchise owners) then Goodell will make sure he does all in his power to please at least 22 owners (two-thirds), thus extending his term as commissioner.

This form of power and authority has a democratic semblance because a “vote” occurs. Unlike in a political democracy, in which the people elect a political figure to govern over them with limited authority, “corporate democracy” (which goes along with “jumbo shrimp” and “business ethics” as examples of oxymorons) has an oligarchy choose the leader who does not need to answer to the governed.  For the most part this is because a corporate CEO must be responsive to the shareholders, who elect the directors who then elect the CEO. This corporate governance, though, poses an issue when the shareholders are absent from the equation – like in the NFL.

The NFL is a private entity in which its power is derived from 32 billionaires who each own a distinct franchise within the league. As stated earlier, two-thirds of these billionaires must elect a “person with unquestionable integrity” (whatever that means) to be Commissioner of the league. The Commissioner is then provided with vast jurisdiction to resolve disputes between any combination of players, officials, team employees, owners, and coaches of the NFL. Furthermore, under Article VIII Section 8.3:

“The Commissioner shall have full, complete and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate: any dispute involving a member or members in the League or any players or employees . . .of the League . . . that in the opinion of the Commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interest of the League or professional football.”

So essentially the Commissioner has complete judicial authority over the league, yet also has a vested interest to remain in good favor with the owners, or in laymen terms, his bosses. More importantly, if there was a dispute between a player and an owner, Goodell is in charge of remedying the situation. That hardly seems like a fair form of mediation, considering Goodell receives his paycheck from the owners. There is a real-life example of this very situation happening – Ray Rice.

Most people have a good understanding of the Ray Rice situation in which he knocked out his then fiancé in an Atlantic City hotel elevator and was caught on video committing said act. The NFL, Goodell at first, issued Rice a two-game suspension. This punishment quickly shifted after the public received video of the actual punch. The NFL claimed they had not seen the video prior to it being released to the public. This fact is disputed and, according to an ESPN article written by Don Van Natta Jr. and Van Valkenburg, “When evidence of it [the elevator video] surfaced anyway, the NFL and the Ravens quickly shifted gears and simultaneously attempted to pin the blame on Rice and his alleged lack of truthfulness with Goodell about what had happened in the elevator.” The NFL, in an attempt to look as though they never saw the elevator video prior, which seems laughable considering the NFL is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and also the very fact that TMZ (who was the entity who released the elevator video) was able to obtain a copy of the video by, according to one of its journalist, “in one phone call.” Furthermore, as referenced in the ESPN article, there is ample evidence that the NFL had news of the video’s existence from the day after the event occurred.  It stated the Raven’s Director of Security reported such a video to a team executive in Baltimore. More importantly, the Ravens’ President, Dick Cass, was told by Rice’s defense attorney, Michael J. Diamondstein, how horrible the video was. “Cass did not request a copy of the video from Diamondstein but instead began urging Rice’s legal team to get Rice accepted into a pretrial intervention program after being told some of the program’s benefits . . . Among them: It would keep the inside-the elevator footage from becoming public.”

This example is not to defend Ray Rice’s actions but to illustrate how arbitrarily Goodell is able to issue punishment without following any sort of equitable justice.   Despite how the NFL spun it, it does not appear that Rice lied to the NFL, but rather the Ravens desperately did not want their most marketable (and lucrative) player to be released. With Goodell’s help, the Ravens attempted to conceal the video, enabling Goodell to issue a two-game suspension without the worry of public backlash because the public would have trouble comprehending the gruesomeness of Rice’s actions. However, when that plan came to a crashing halt, Goodell had to choose – does he side with the player, who claims he told the complete truth of what happened or does he side with the owner who unethically tried to conceal the facts from reaching the media? For Goodell, the issue was easy – throw the player under the bus and side with the owner who holds power over Goodell’s wallet.

Therefore, to ensure equitable justice in the NFL it is necessary that the method in which the Commissioner is elected is amended. Rather than the owners having the sole power to elect the commissioner, they should be limited. This limitation should be done in such a way that affords the NFL’s assets – its players – a say in who the Commissioner should be. In turn, the NFL players (via through their union representatives) should have the right to nominate three candidates to be the NFL commissioner. From the three candidates nominated by the players, the Owners shall choose, by a two-third vote, one of these candidates to be the next commissioner. The commissioner shall have a five-year term.  At the end of the five-year term the nomination/election process should commence again. No commissioner may serve more than two five year terms.

This simple governance break up will (1) ensure that the players have a say in who governs their league (2) also gives the owners a say in who governs their league and (3) causes the Commissioner to appoint or create a separate department to hear and issue discipline. The third aspect is incredibly important because by altering the way in which the Commissioner is elected (both players and owners having a vote) it incentivizes the Commissioner to remain neutral between players or owners. For instance, by setting up a separate and independent disciplinary body that oversees hearings and issues sanctions, the Commissioner cannot be blamed for a team or player’s punishment. The Commissioner may propose, voted on by the Owners, certain policies that the disciplinary body is to follow over certain issues. For example, if a player is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, he should be suspended for a third of the season. Overall, this change in governance allows for fans to have better trust in the NFL and for there to be less conflict and ambiguity when a player may actually get suspended or punished.

The obvious target for this proposal is the notion that management, who presumably invested money, should have a greater say in how their business is run than the labor that is hired by the management. Furthermore, many would say that the NFL players’ union (NFLPA) is already a body that provides the players with a voice. To the latter statement the NFLPA helps provide the players with many resources, but the players are still required to have their hearing in front of “Czar” Goodell. The union provides them with a forum for defending themselves in front of the judge, jury, and executioner, but the player is hardly afforded a “fighting” chance.

The former notion about management is understandable if the NFL was, say, a manufacturing company that produced cars. Customers are directly paying for the car, not the laborer who put the wheels on the car (indirectly the customer is, yes, but the customer isn’t paying to watch the wheels get fastened onto the car). However, the NFL and all professional sports are unique in which the human capital (i.e. the players) are the very item that fans are paying for. The fans only turn to T.V. or buy a ticket for the NFL’s labor unit and nothing else. Further, the players should be provided a say in the commissioner for the simple reason in that they are in a highly limited employment field. Unlike an accountant, who can find a job at thousands of companies, an NFL running back may only be employed by a finite business – the NFL. In turn, the accountant who doesn’t like a company’s management may leave and find a new job, but an NFL player who doesn’t like management can quit, yes, but his alternatives are slim to none in finding another running back position.

The NFL is the greatest professional sports league, but it is the only league in which the fans boo at both the opener and season finale. That needs to change. 

The AFC May Collapse

By: Kris Mead

As Tom Brady makes his ninth Super Bowl appearance this Sunday, many fans (and presumably players and coaches) are hoping it isn’t just his last championship appearance, but his last NFL football game. If these fans get their wish it will be a detriment, especially to the American Football Conference (“AFC”).

The theory is something similar to Peyton Manning’s Super Bowl victory when he defeated the Carolina Panthers and road off into the sunlight hoisting the Lombardi Trophy. However, Peyton and Tom are two entirely different quarterbacks. Manning won Super Bowl L while his performance was anything, but fluent. In 2015, according to Pro Football Reference, Manning’s 2015 (his last year) performance was statistically not stellar. In 2015 Manning had the lowest QBR of any of his seventeen seasons in the NFL, had the lowest passer rating in his career, and threw the most interceptions in any one of his seasons. If it wasn’t for Denver’s great defense, it would be extremely unlikely that Denver, even with Manning, would have made it to the Super Bowl. On the other hand, if Tom Brady was not the quarterback for the Patriots, it would be unlikely that they would even be representing the AFC in this year’s Super Bowl.

The first issue with this “appeasement theory,” is the fact that Tom himself has said, explicitly that he has no intention of retiring after this season. In an interview with ESPN’s Jeff Darlington, Brady stated “there is zero chance” after the Super Bowl. However, this shouldn’t be a groundbreaking realization as Brady has previously stated that he plans to retire when he turns 45 (currently he is 41).

The second reason why the “appeasement theory” is not beneficial to the NFL, particularly the AFC, is simply because there will be an unequal balance of power. Sure, it could be said that currently the balance of power is unequal because the Patriots have been in four of the past ten super bowls, but, ironically, Peyton Manning and the Pittsburgh Steelers’ quarterback, Ben Rapistberger, have been the balance of power to prevent that number from skyrocketing. In the ten years prior to Peyton’s retirement (2016), Tom made a Super Bowl appearance only three times. One of those appearances was in a season when Peyton was out for the year with a neck injury (2011 Season). Even more alarming is that in those ten years (2007 - 2016 season) Peyton made four super bowl appearances and then Rapistberger had two of those Super Bowl appearances. Yes, New England was a dynasty because they have won more times than not when they have entered a Super Bowl, but it isn’t because they have routinely – year after year – been to the Super Bowl.

Of course, once Manning retired the balance of power in the AFC was ripped away and Brady, alongside his fellow Patriots, assumed complete control. There is nothing more indicative of this notion than the fact that the Patriots, after Sunday, will have represented the AFC in the past three consecutive Super Bowls.

If Tom Brady were to follow through with this “appeasement theory” what would happen? First, there would be a power vacuum in the AFC. That being said, many of the great quarterbacks (naturally good quarterbacks are associated with good teams) are some of the oldest quarterbacks in the league. For instance Phillip Rivers and Ben Rapistberger are both in their late thirties. Unlike Brady both of these quarterbacks have shown depreciation. Rivers, although he had a great year this year, seems to already be preparing his life to be one of the first Hall of Fame quarterbacks to not only not win a super bowl, but never appear in one either. In a January 2019 New York Times article, written by Benjamin Hoffman, it discusses how “while [Rivers] may not have as high of a profile as two other big-name quarterbacks taken in the 2004 draft — Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger — the case can be made that he was better than either of his famous peers in the regular season.” The key phrase is “regular season.” A power vacuum cannot be relegated to simply the regular season, but must be won in the playoffs.

As for Rapistberger, he has already flirted with the thought of retirement and made it expressly known to the world. Further, although Rapistberger just signed an extension, it does not absolve him of the fact that the Pittsburgh Steelers are the closest NFL franchise to being the equivalent of MTV’s Jersey Shore. With arguably the best running back in the NFL, Le’Veon Bell, holding out for the entire 2018 season and looking more and more like he will never play for the Steelers again, and the fact that fellow pro bowl wide receiver, Antonio Brown,  is looking like he will be traded, after not feeling “respected” in Pittsburgh, it isn’t hard to argue that the Steelers are no longer the perennial force in the AFC North, let alone a favorite to represent the AFC in the super bowl.

So then there are the younger AFC quarterbacks. First there is DeShaun Watson of the Houston Texans. However, Houston appears to be more and more like what the Cincinnati Bengals were back when Andy Dalton first arrived – one and done in the playoffs. Further, this past year Watson’s QBR took a drastic drop compared to his rookie year. The other issue is the Houston Texan’s defense is never fully healthy. When the backside is fully healthy, JJ Watt or Clowney are sidelined and vice versa, as it was this year. Then there is Andrew Luck who had an amazing season after being sidelined all of last year, but that was about all there was to say about the Colts. The Colts still seem to be riding the same strategy that they used when they had Peyton Manning – make Manning carry both the offense and the defense to victory. If anything, the only other notable player on the Colts is Luck’s wide receiver T.Y. Hilton. This is the same when Peyton played the only notable players were – Reggie Wayne or wide receiver, Marvin Harrison (of course defensive ends, Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis, were there but it still seemed that Peyton had to make up for the defense’ deficiencies most of the time).

In turn, if Tom were to leave, and this is assuming that New England would have a significant drop off, then that leaves only one AFC team to assume that power vacuum – Kansas City Chiefs. The Chiefs have everything to be the next dynasty in the AFC. They have an outstanding young quarterback in Patrick Mahomes. Even with Kareem Hunt’s departure, they have not missed a beat running the ball and their wide receivers are led by the likes of Tyreek Hill. The defense, namely their secondary, needs assistance but for the most part is sturdy. However, what makes them even better isn’t the addition of any one player but the subtraction of Brady from the NFL. For if any of the other aforementioned quarterbacks were going up against the Chiefs in this year’s AFC Championship Game, the Chiefs would have won and done so relatively easily. The Chiefs are the only hope for a balanced AFC, and although the Chiefs lost this year, they did not do so embarrassingly nor did they lose without controversy. However, Brady is the Ying to the Chiefs’ Yang. To keep Brady in check the Chiefs are necessary and to keep the Chiefs in check Brady is necessary.

Therefore, if the “appeasement theory” were to become true, the only people to be happy would be Chief fans. However, all the other NFL fans would be upset, just as they are upset now with New England. That is because the Chiefs would become an unchecked power in the AFC. Right now they are only partially checked by the Patriots, since if the Chiefs were to play the Patriots again, Kansas City would have a fair chance at beating them. Hence, what a Brady does for NFL fans is provide them with entertaining, competitive games. If Tom were to retire, it would be like the USSR crumbling in 1945. Yes America would be the world’s lone super power, but it wouldn’t nearly be as advanced as it is today. The Chiefs are the AFC’s America, and they will be the next great AFC super power.  But they will never be the greatest super power until they beat the greatest super power – New England Patriots – in the playoffs.

America's Annual Form of Public Torture: The NFL Pro Bowl

The 2019 NFL Pro Bowl isn’t even over yet and it already sucks. The NFL Pro Bowl is like a person left on life support for weeks. Even after the doctors have expressed their opinion that the patient has a zero percent chance to live, the family still keeps the plug in. There honestly is nothing more painful than watching tight end Eric Ebron pull out his smart phone while on the field and start taking a video of himself. Then again, running backs Saquan Barkley and Alvin Kamara at one point lined up as defensive ends. Remarkably, Kamara was able to beat out right tackle, Taylor Lewan, and nearly stripped the ball from quarterback DeShaun Watson. If either of those examples aren’t bad enough Amari Cooper, who was wide open, just let a would-be touchdown catch go off his helmet. In short, it’s utterly pathetic.

So pathetic that I have done several things, other than watch the NFL Pro Bowl:

1. I took a nap.

2. I watched the Cleveland Cavaliers against the Chicago Bulls (this is pathetic because between both teams they have combined for 20 wins and 79 losses. The Cavaliers have contributed only 9 of those wins).

3. Watched Netflix

 

There are two main reasons why the NFL Pro Bowl is so bad.

 

The first, and what has already been briefly discussed above, is the lack of play. When I finally switched from the Cavs game to the NFL Pro Bowl, I was amazed – there was an actual tackle. The New York Jets’ safety, Jamal Adams, tackled Chicago Bears quarterback, Mitchell Trubisky. However, it was not without, like all plays in the NFL, controversy. The first piece of controversy is the fact that, apparently, blitzes are not permitted in the Pro Bowl. Blitzes are only allowed if it is a running play. In turn, on a pass, at most, a defense is only allowed to rush four defensive linemen. Furthermore, a defense must line up in a 4-3 formation for the entire game. Luckily, Jamal Adams blitzed on a flea flicker which is initially a handoff and therefore a running play. The second issue is that in the NFL Pro Bowl safeties are not permitted to line up on the line of scrimmage. Here, Jamal Adams, was lined up on the line of scrimmage, but the refs did not notice, most likely because they are not used to calling such an anemic, and egregious style of football. However the NFC Team’s head coach, Jason Garrett, tried to challenge the play, citing that Adams was on the line of scrimmage. To this viewer’s delight, the refs confirmed that a play could not be reviewed for Garrett’s grievance, implying reviewing the play would have only prolonged this atrocious, dreadful, appalling form of football for one second too long. 

 

The other issue is that the NFL is not a player’s sport, like the NBA, but is more of a team sport. In other words, fans don’t typically cheer for a team due to a specific player, but rather they cheer for a team, because the team represents something about that fan – namely the team represents that fan’s town, region, home. So when the NFL decided to copy the NBA so that pro bowl teams would be selected by captains in a fantasy draft format, it was no surprise that it wouldn’t make a difference in how miserable the play on the field was. Although their all-star game has little defense too, the NBA is more interesting in a fantasy draft format because it is a players’ league. Fans watch the NBA more so for a certain player rather than a certain team. So when Lebron and Curry select their teams, it makes it more interesting because the league’s best players will be partnered with scorers with whom they typically are never associated. In the NFL it makes little difference who Deion Sanders or Jerry Rice (the first fantasy Pro Bowl captains) selected because even on offense there is little to no effort. Thankfully in 2016 the NFL announced that the Pro Bowl would return to its old format, in which the AFC would play the NFC.

 

Aloha Stadium

The second issue about the Pro Bowl is its location. From 1980-2016, save but two years, the game was played in Aloha Stadium in Hawaii. This was actually pretty cool considering that Hawaii is a beautiful state, and so even if the game does suck (which it almost always does) at least a fan got to see cuts of the Pacific Ocean, volcanoes, nice beaches, and random scenes of people doing the Hula dance. That would all change in 2016 when the league announced that it would be taking the Pro Bowl from gorgeous Hawaii to the artificially created, swamp drained, beachless, city of hot and humid Orlando, Florida. The NFL must have forgotten that when it rains in Florida, it isn’t just a little drizzle but an epic monsoon like atmosphere that just causes the ground to steam up and become a natural sauna, like it did this year in 2019 (I’m sure the players loved those “ideal” conditions). To add insult to injury, Orlando was the best of all the poisons. The NFL was considering Orlando, Rio de Janiero, Brazil, Houston, and Honolulu.

Camping World Stadium - Orlando, FL

 



An evening walk in Rio de Janiero. Eagles fans would be used to it.

First, the best choice would have been keeping the Pro Bowl in Honolulu and to at least give the players somewhere nice to visit before having to “act” like they are playing football. Houston would have been a malign selection only because most of the players travel there either once a year or once every few years to play the Houston Texans. The Pro Bowl in Rio de Janiero just seems like the next Gerard Butler movie to fall in line with his Olympus Has Fallen series. According to the New York Times, “Brazil’s showcase city is plagued by a rise in lawlessness reminiscent of its darkest periods in the 1980s and 1990s.” In 2017 there was an 11 percent rise in murders compared to 2016. Whether the NFL decided not to move the Pro Bowl for financial or player safety reasons (I would like to believe the latter but it is most likely the former), doesn’t matter, it’s just a relief that the NFL’s greedy management wasn’t able to pull the trigger on that proposition.

 

Funny enough, it has been cited that in an effort to bring the NFL to a more international stage, the NFL is contemplating moving the Pro Bowl to Germany, Mexico or Australia. Like most of the NFL’s efforts to make the Pro Bowl relevant, this will be a monumental mistake. It’s one thing to keep the “drunk uncle” of the NFL in its home state (i.e. America), it’s another theory to parade the “drunk uncle” around and have the thought that maybe these other nations, who have repeatedly rejected American football, want to see this poor excuse of not only a sport, but entertainment. More importantly, if these foreigners do enjoy the Pro Bowl, the NFL might get the false idea that an NFL franchise could survive overseas.  The simple reason for this is the fact that like Orlando’s other attraction, Disney World, the Pro Bowl isn’t really real and even less amusing. It is a Luke warm, slow moving, half cousin of football, better kept hidden from sight.  

Diary From the Frontline: Day Cuatro



As the sun’s glaring rays break through the dismal overcast, and pierce the hard, corroded ground, like a knight’s sword sending his enemy to the abys, the soldiers awake from their slumber and so begins the fourth day of the “Cold War.” Colonel Hilda has refused to lower her barricade, nor does she allow her people to even consider reaching across to find peace with Major Bulker’s nation. For this is a war of attrition and so neither side will give an inch, even though as each day of the war goes on, the groans of the soldiers’ stomachs grow louder.






Civilians finding what little solace they can, in the nation of Major Bulker



This is a unique war in which bloodshed has not been administered at the hands of the opposing enemy’s bullets, knives, bombs, or artillery, but rather through the strategy of, siege warfare. For the goal of any siege, from the Republic of Venice’s siege of Constantinople in the 13^th century to the British Siege of Fort Ticonderoga in the 18th, is not to deliberately slaughter the enemy’s people, but for the besieged nation feel as though they have slaughtered their own people. In other words, siege warfare is to make the enemy feel as though they are the ones cutting off their own leg, and more importantly, that they are the only ones who may end their suffering. Siege warfare is nothing more than the deliberate effect to starve one’s opponent into submission. The object is to surround a foe’s city, preferably one heavily populated with an enemy’s civilians, and instigate an artificial famine upon those people. The besieged nation must decide, with what little rations they may have in the city prior to it being besieged, to either feed their military, whose job it is to defend the city from the attackers, or feed their civilians, whom they have the duty to protect. At first, usually, there is enough food to feed the whole population, but simple economics states that as supply goes down, demand goes up. As the days, months, and possibly years grow longer, the food grows shorter, and so the besieged government must decide, “do they spare their military or their people?” The former almost always takes priority. So, this then catapults exactly what the aggressor has envisioned: a trapped people, with little to no food, who may either give in to save their starving civilians, or, continue to hold out, but knowing that as the siege grows longer, their odds of succeeding, and escaping the horrific cries of their nation’s starving children, diminish.

Colonel Hilda has already been showing signs of malnutrition and starvation setting in on her nation. A, what looks to be, citrus fruit, which is an abnormal food for her people, has not been touched nor peeled, for Colonel Hilda understands that the greatest strength in siege warfare is the ability to be self-disciplined. One solider of Colonel Hilda’s could be heard screaming uncontrollably for but just a small nibble of, what was, the customary breakfast food in the nation of Hilda – a McDonald’s hash brown. On the other hand, Major Bulker has vast experience in siege warfare, as she has been the victim of many previous sieges. In turn, evidenced through her drawers full of Tupperware and stashes of donuts, partially eaten birthday cakes, and cookies, stolen from previous Legal Dept. Universe events, Major Bulker is well suited for an exasperated and long holdout.

The second greatest weapon in siege warfare is the mental instability that sets in on the besieged opponent. Like starvation, as the siege prolongs, the human mind starts to lose itself, causing the victim to lose all their ability to control themselves and their actions. At one moment Colonel Hilda was found, by a peace corp. worker from the nation of Jolie, in a closed conference room painting her nails. Colonel Hilda, having trouble speaking due to her lack of adequate substance, was pleading with the nation of Jolie that, “on days like these, when there is no end in sight, one must find a quiet conference room, shut the door and paint one’s nails.” An investigation by Amnesty International is underway to determine if the actual action of nail painting, is what calmed Colonel Hilda or rather was it the inhalation of the acetone that expels from the polish, that calms Colonel Hilda’s nerves. There has been reports that soldiers on both fronts have been turning to smelling of certain odors (Sharpies, ink pens, dry erase markers and Elmer’s glue) to help put their minds at ease and hopefully find any sort of peace between each volley of artillery.

“The skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Diary From The Frontline: Day Tres

The excerpt below is summarization of a conflict between two admins at a white collar corporation. The  character's names have been fictionalized, as well as the Company, at which this true event took place. The "Bulker Radar System" is an antenna that was placed on the top of a cube divider, between both admins, by Major Bulker. Bulker was hoping by placing the small wire antenna at a higher elevation, she would be able to receive better reception. Bulker did receive better reception, but also created an uproar with her cube neighbor - the nation of Hilda. The correspondence was by a third party member of the Company, who was relaying information to other team members in order to give them a better understanding of the actual magnitude that this conflict  has evolved into.

For your enjoyment:

Actual picture of your correspondent writing, during a break in the action

As the “Cold War” enters its third day, the stakes have grown as the pressure increases. Both aggressors are on an ever thinning edge in which the slightest movement, twitch, or even flinch may instigate the gravest of consequences to the opposing side. After a failed diplomatic attempt in which quiche was used as some sort of failed bargaining chip,  Colonel Hilda has refused to lower her barricade and insists that the wall is her, and her people's, only resort in defending their valor, freedom, sanity, and extreme sensitivity from the evil and ever strengthening, yet archaic technology, called the, “Bulker Radar System.” Major Bulker, who utterly refused the quiche offering, (citing that although her people were starving, they rather eat themselves before they enslave themselves to Hilda’s ludicrous demands) and her nation of sicken children, starvation, an abundance of vitamins, Tupperware and Lyme disease are claiming that they must extend their radar system in order to overcome, what otherwise would be, a complete mental breakdown. For if the Bulker nation cannot receive word from the outside world, via through radio magnetic waves, they will not only tear themselves to bits, but devastate those innocent nations around them by speaking in uncontrollable tongues to whichever nation has the unfortunate pleasure of entering her dominion or dares to trade with her. Thus, The Bulker Radar System is in the national interest of all the other nations that make up the Company's Legal Dept. Universe, except for, of course, the delicate, yet persistent, nation of Hilda.

Is there an end in sight? Only God knows. Hold strong and remember: Igne natura renovatur integra (Through fire, nature is reborn whole)

Only In America - Government Shut Downs

By: Kris Mead

In 1862 Kaiser Wilhelm I of Prussia faced a budget impasse with the Landtag, the elected general assembly of Prussia. The opposition was over Wihelm’s request to increase the military budget so that the military may be expanded by 50,000 troops, annual recruit quotas increased, and the most controversial issue, maintain the mandatory requirement for military service at three years. In short, Prussia’s government was shut down until this impasse was resolved. More importantly, this would be Germany’s last noticeable governmental shut down.  However, America, which would advise Germany on its postwar World War II constitution, has had 20 governmental shutdowns since 1976.

So as America enters the 27^th day of its longest government shutdown, the obvious question is why does the richest, most powerful country in the world, fail, repeatedly, to pass a federal budget? There are three reasons.

First America’s democracy is run as a republic in which the people elect both a separate executive and legislature. This governmental style causes a higher need for compromise, as both branches may decline a governmental budget proposal, without immediate detrimental political effects to themselves. In the United Kingdom, and other countries run via the Westminster-parliamentary system, a failure for parliament to pass a budget spurs a no confidence vote.  This in turn may cause the ruling party’s leader, who usually is the country’s prime minister, to lose the power. In Australia, if the government cannot pass a budget, the government must resign, and new elections are held. In effect this causes greater pressure on the ruling party and its leader to come to a budget resolution in a timely manner. Another issue is that in these Westminster style governments only require an absolute majority, over fifty percent, to pass a budget bill. In America, a super-majority (two-thirds of both houses of the legislature) is required to pass a budget bill. Therefore if a parliamentary style government can’t pass a budget bill, it would imply that the majority party is having its own squabbles.  However, in America it requires both parties to come to an agreement over the budget, which means that compromise is an absolute necessity.

Second, America’s constitution and laws have inhibited the leader of the free world from overcoming an epidemic that has become uniquely American.  In 2010 and 2011, Belgium was without a government for 589 days. However, the government was not shutdown. This is because, and in like most European countries, when a budget is unable to be agreed upon, the previous budget remains in place and so federal government employees still go to work and still receive pay. So new investments would not be funded but everything prior to the date the new budget was to be instituted would remain in place. America’s agencies, and as reported in The Economist, prior to 1980, would “often operate during funding gaps.” The federal agencies would operate under the assumption that the government did not intend to close them, but “merely had not yet gotten around to formally providing their funding.”  In 1980 that method changed as the, then attorney-general, Benjamin Civiletti wrote an opinion that “agencies could [only] avoid violating the Antideficiency Act. . .is to cease operating until Congress funds them . . ..” The Antideficiency Act, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “ [p]rohibits federal agencies from obligations or expending funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation. . ..” The law was enacted under Ulysses S. Grant in 1870 after the Naval Office spent double its appropriated budget, but was not seriously acted upon until Civiletti’s opinion was issued. That opinion would cause the U.S. government the exclusive right to essentially take hostage of the American people, with little or no consequence to the politicians who were unable to come to a compromise.

The third issue, and the most volatile, is the fact that America has elected a populist, transactional, and unfortunately, naïve, president in Donald Trump. In mid-December, Trump was planning on signing a new spending bill but he was haunted by two figures – Fox News and himself. Trump, in his 2016 presidential campaign, promised his voters that he would build a wall on the border of Mexico. Trump, like he typically does, went further and promised his supporters that Mexico would pay for the wall. Then when Trump was to pass a 2019 spending bill that did not provide funding for a border wall, he was called out by far-right wing talking heads such as, Fox News and Ann Coulter. Trump, fearing loss from his diminishing base, dug in his heels and would only pass a spending bill if it included his 5.7 billion dollars for his wall.  The Democrats, who have regained the majority in the House due to many voters concerned about Trump’s nativist policies, which includes the wall, refuse to pass any bill that would allow for 5.7 billion for a wall. In turn, Trump shut down the government, took the American government workers hostage, because he desperately wants to please his xenophobic base.

Trump’s need for a wall is groundless and his negotiation leverage has vastly diminished due to his previous acts and gambles. First, on January 19^th, Trump blinked and provided certain concessions in return for his wall funding. There were two main concessions. The first, as reported by the Washington Post, was that Trump would extend protections to certain immigrants protected under DACA, which protects immigrants who come to America illegally but came when they were children. The second concession was to extend protections for certain refugees who are in America under Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). TPS gave immigrants who fled from their home countries to America due to natural disasters, wars, or other emergencies certain protections. Trump has attempted to remove protections from these people as well. What is most notable is that Trump has tried to make both policies unlawful and both attempts have been enjoined by federal courts. In turn, the laws stay intact unless the Supreme Court would take them up and overturn the lower courts’ rulings. Ironically, the Supreme Court on Friday signaled that they most likely will not be taking up the cases during this term. In turn, Trump’s concessions are empty as the programs are both still in place due to the lower court’s injunctions.

The second is the fact that illegal immigration is not even a major issue or U.S. problem. Rather Trump has been using Mexico and Latin American immigrants to stir nativist, racist, and xenophobic fears in his base. Trump and his followers refuse to look at the facts and rather be fed lies by the right-wing news outlets such as Fox News. First, Trump argues that illegal immigration at the southwest border is a “crisis,” but that is largely false as the number of boarder apprehensions in the past year were less than a third of what they were in 2000. Second, Trump claims that a wall would “pay for itself” because it would stop the smuggling of drugs. This is again false as the vast majority of illegal drugs smuggled into the U.S. come through legal ports of entry and not through illegal means of entry. So overall the issue at the Mexican border is one of Trump’s many fear mongering tactics, rather than a substantive political issue.

The Democrats are right not to cave into Trump’s allusive “act” of compromise. This is because if Democrats were to cave to Trump, they are essentially allowing Trump to use the American people as a form of hostage for any of his baseless, useless, infeasible policy initiatives. Not only is Trump holding 800,000 Americans and their families’ hostage, but he is also holding the U.S.’s democracy hostage for his own personal and racist policy initiatives. Trump should reopen the government with the plan initially agreed upon. The wall and immigration issue may be discussed when the hostages are released and America’s government is back. Kaiser Wilhelm was able to push through his budget by appointing Otto Von Bismark as his minster, who would in turn, completely ignore the Landstag. America must let Trump know that he cannot dictate by such undiplomatic means.  Apple pie, baseball, and hot dogs are all uniquely American, but just as mass shootings have become so uniquely American, government shutdowns do not need to be the norm either.