Some Perspective on Pro Athletes

Before any of you launch below, or start sending emails, let me begin this post by saying I don't condone what Ron Artest or the other Indiana players did last week in Detroit. However, I'd like to make a few points about what's going on in pro sports.

1. Yes, many of these professional athletes are millionaires, and surely some subset of these are "spoiled" or "pampered." But not all make millions per year, many have short-lived careers, and some are carrying not only their immediate but extended families on their back. (Including Artest, by the way...but read more about him in Sally Jenkins' column today.) And if you think pro sports, especially football, doesn't take a toll, consider that NFL players have lower life expectancies than their age cohorts, and that guys like Bill Walton (who played hoops, not football) can hardly stand up for more than an hour before their knees give way. They get millions because that's what the market yields for persons who are among just a few hundred that can perform in their profession at such a high level; corporate CEOs (many of whom perform much worse) make the same supply-and-demand claims to justify their salaries.

2. No, these athletes are not public role models. I agree with Charles Barkley here - if some sports figure is your kid's role model, you're doing a shitty job as a parent. I loved Bucky Dent as a kid (sorry Sox fans) because my dad grew up with his older brother, and my dad introduced me to Dent when I was eight. But I idolized my dad, not Dent, because he was the one who took me to the games and played catch with me in the yard, etc.

3. Despite the fact they shouldn't be expected to be, many athletes are role models anyway. They perform quite a bit of public service, often more than non-millionaire salt-of the-earthers from mundane professions. Coming myself from a profession where service obligations (both on and off campus) are part of mid-tenure, tenure and full-professor reviews, I have a respect for many athletes who, despite being away from home a lot to play games, still find time when they are home to do community service - and expect nothing in return. Tell you what: When drunk salesmen who scream profanities from the corporate box seats have to start performing public service as a condition of their next promotion, they can start piping in with the comments about role models, OK? (N.B.: I do recognize and applaud, of course, the many public- and private-sector workplaces that encourage and reward those who are active volunteers in their communities.)

4. Fans like this jerk John Green need a good comeuppance. Green is the shit-eatin'-grin Pistons fan who threw the cup at Artest and was later caught on film punching Artest in the head. He is now soaking up his absurd 15 minutes of infamy as if he's some sort of hero. I wanted to vomit as I watched him gloating on Larry King this week. (On a related note to #3 above, I'd also be curious as to what Mr. Green's community service record looks like; his similarly-smug lawyer should feel free to shoot me an email with Mr. Green's C.V. attached.)

5. Finally, keep in mind that, by definition, some of these non-role model millionaires will always be on losing teams. Indeed, here's a prediction I can make with absolute certainty: The overall, regular-season winning percentage of the combined teams in the NBA this year (and last year, and next year) is the same as it will be for teams in the NFL, MLB, and NHL: .500. That's because every game has one winner, and one loser. Except for the NHL's ludicrous playoff system, about two-thirds of the teams (including some with winning records) will fail to make the playoffs. And that means that, as an unavoidable artifact of professional sports, tens of millions of fans from dozens of cities will be complaining about the underperformance of "overpaid" millionaires for their home teams.

It's been an ugly week for sports, but some of the ugliness derives from overzealous fans who have ridiculous, unfair and imbalanced expectations for professional athletes.

•  Anti-Union Propaganda

  Does anyone else worry that maybe the 'overpaid babies whining' stereotype in sports is just Conservative propaganda to make us all anti-union where it really counts?

  by danthrax on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 06:53:34 AM PDT

  •  no

    Pittsburgh is a pretty pro union town and I here the "whiny crybaby" rant all the time. I think it has to do more with the fact the the vocal minority of atheltes are actualy whiny crybabies. A good example is Latrelle Spreewell's cry of not being sure he should go all out until he gets a new contract. He rejected 9 million dollar contract extension because he "has a family to feed." That's the kinda stuff that pisses fans off.

    by bluestateLIBertarian on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:29:14 AM PDT

    •  Point taken

      I wasn't sure. Just that sometimes I hear people talk about teacher unions the same way they talk about MLB -- "these crybabies need MORE money? so do I. shut the ** up."

      by danthrax on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:44:44 AM PDT

      •  Oh yeah

        And let's not forget that teachers should be grateful because "they don't have to work all year round." (Never mind that you usually have to spend a couple of weeks before the school year getting ready, a couple afterwards debriefing, and do some inservice over the summer break)

        by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:39:18 AM PDT

        •  Another Teacher Issue

          In most districts, unless you restructure your contract with the district, you'll only get paid during the school year.  If you forget to check the right box and fill out the right forms, your weekly paycheck will be a smidgen bigger, but those two months off will be UNPAID.
          That said, if get into a good district, teaching can be very nice job indeed, but you're going to have to bust your hump in shitty districts for several years before you even get a shot in one of the good ones.  The teachers there like their jobs and aren't in any hurry to leave.

          by Geeno on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:47:29 AM PDT

          •  Another Teacher Complaint...

            Don't forget the attitude of some parents that either the teacher has the entire responsibility to educate the child, that their child couldn't possibly misbehave, or that their child needs to get an A in every class to get into (insert selective college here).

            Teachers are underpaid for the amount of responsibility they take, and for the amount of flak they take from parents and the citizenry at large.  They should be paid the same as police and firefighters - extensively trained civil servants who take on significant responsibility every day.

            by varro on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:21:58 AM PDT

  •  A Supporting Fact

    An aspect of this I never see discussed is how much bank the OWNERS make.  The salary of professional athletes is a tiny fraction of the revenue of a pro sports franchise from T.V. and radio rights, gate, concessions, appreciation, etc.  The fact that I pay 8.00 for a Budweiser at SBC Park or Monster Park (I forgot to mention naming rights) is driven not so much by athletes' salaries as the owners' bottom lines.  Yet, we never see the owners pay a price for this greed.

    by RWC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:31:31 AM PDT

    •  That's an important look at the issue...

      Because the players are in front of the camera, they're the face of the team. They're where the money goes.

      If the owners were on camera, I'm sure the attitude would be more balanced. (And by balanced, I mean the players and the owners would both be attacked.)

      by danthrax on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:45:59 AM PDT

    •  Amen

      As George Will, certainly one not often quoted favorably here, said re baseball: "The players don't deserve all that money. But the owners deserve it even less."

      Consider how many of them are often mediocre businessmen at best (Leonard Tose, whose trucking business was largely built up because the Teamsters called a ruinous strike against one of his main competitors, is no longer with us nor owning the Eagles, but he's a prime example. Don't even start on Robert Irsay or ... a certain former owner of the Texas Rangers) whose teams succeed on the field often because they're so starstruck by the reflected glory of owning the team that they just defer to letting the trained and experienced professionals make the critical decisions.

      Of course, remember where all this money comes from to begin with. As I always tell people when they gripe about pro athletes griping about their pay: who pays all that ridiculous money for the Starter jackets? The season-ticket packages? The $5 hot dogs? The satellite/cable TV packages? No one makes you buy those things.

      by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:53:19 AM PDT

    •  It's not a "tiny" fraction

      In Major League Baseball, the players get between 53% and 57% of all baseball-related revenues.  The salaries of players will continue to increase as long as the owners can extract more revenue from higher ticket prices, concession sales, etc.  Once that revenue stream starts to flatline, player salaries will also flatten out. When fans stop paying $80 for a ticket and $10 for a beer, the $20 million/year contracts will stop being handed out.

      Besides, I don't begrudge the owners their right to turn a profit.  They took the risk by investing in professional sports (as high-risk a field as there is), they have a right to try and make money from their investment.  

      by DL on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:48:47 AM PDT

      •  Huh?

        These are the top 600 athletes in the second most popular sport in the world and they take 50-60% of the revenue.  If this were another industry, as a pro-union progressive (I'm assuming) wouldn't you instead question who gets the other half/40% and why?

        I mean, if you and 99 other people were employees in a business that brings in $10 million a year, wouldn't you cry bloody murder if the few executive collectively made $4mil a year?

        by DWCG on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:51:41 AM PDT

  •  No one else ever says this, but you're right

    I remember Andy Rooney once asking why pro athletes needed to have unions, that they were "supposed" to be for guys who wore coveralls and carried lunch buckets to work (Of course, I'm sure Andy pays his AFTRA dues on time despite making millions annually).

    Pro athletes and their labor struggles expose (or, as we'd say in lit crit these days, problematize) a myth the cheap-labor conservatives have been feeding us for the last quarter-century: that all the inherent inequities of labor relations in laissez-faire capitalism can be solved simply by making enough money, that at-will employment and lifelong physical debilitation can be assuaged by an inground pool (God, I'm starting to sound like Tom Frank!)

    Go back in sports history. You'll find out why players need unions as badly as the rest of us do. You'll see that Joe DiMaggio used to have to fight to keep his salary from being cut even after his most successful seasons. And make sure to Google on "reserve clause."

    Perhaps we secretly hate players' unions because they don't use their considerable clout and influence on behalf of the rest of us.

    (and because, granted, they have a privilege no other workers in America have, essentially the right to have their cake and eat it too, since the basics of their contracts are negotiated by the union but the extras are negotiated individually).

    by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:05:19 AM PDT

    •  Hey, thanks a lot for the interesting content

      I'm gonna read up on it now. Thanks for reinforcing my paranoia ;)

      by danthrax on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:12:40 AM PDT

    •  I reluctantly back player unions

      simply because they are a lesser evil than the management.  At the time Curt Flood fought for his freedom, I think it was a noble cause.  Today they've become too fat and happy.  

      The other thing is that players unions don't help the general union movement.

      by IhateBush on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:15:23 AM PDT

      •  They Reap What They Sow

        Players unions have a sorry history when it comes to labor solidarity. There's a long history of crossing picket lines, and of their membership employing non-union labor when building homes.

        by wystler on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:34:05 AM PDT

  •  For Example Thomal Friedman

    This is an old right wing staple. Friedman was doing it yesterday in his Times editorial.

    I want to say with a straight face that if my owner will only give me a three-year contract extension for a meager $21 million, then he's not worth working for, because "I've got my family to feed."

    Yes, I want to be Latrell Sprewell. At a time when N.B.A. games are priced beyond the reach of most American families, when half the country can't afford health care, when some reservists in Iraq are separated from their families for a year, including this Thanksgiving, I want to be like Latrell. I want to make sure everyone knows that I'm looking out for my family - and no one else's.

    My response yesterday was that this is $7 million a year to do a job that almost nobody on the planet can do, and that the athlete himself can only do for typically 5-10 years of his life.

    Since Friedman was talking about greedy individuals vs. half of their nation being unable to afford health care, why didn't he think to mention any of the individuals whose work on behalf of their families actually contributes to that disparity? For example the Waltons. For example Bill Gates who's currently worth about 5,000 years worth of Sprewell's income thanks to monopolizing huge amounts of opportunity away from smaller businesses to create products that aggravate millions of us and even damage our work.

    The work that business executives do can probably be done by hundreds of thousands of people on the planet, and they're physically able to do that work for a span of 3 generations. But we give them earnings that make their families aristocrats for life within a few months of walking in the door. And these days the work they're doing for that money is to cut the standard of living of Americans in and even beyond their employ.

    That's why conservatives have to whine about overpaid athletes. Do we have a sweatshop problem? Sure we do. It's caused by Kathy Lee. Financial fraud? You bet. Martha Stewart. Are you at risk for losing your job? Yep, the liberals want to give it to Negroes.

    I didn't like the outcome of this approach when it was used in 1930's Germany and somehow I don't think I'm going to like what it does here and now either.

    by Gooserock on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:15:27 AM PDT

    •  Step Further

      Conservatives whine because they feel put upon by athletes - our modern day gladiators - who are privileged members of the "slave" class but can successfully demand more perks than they themselves receive. Anybody who thinks the athletes are payed too much need only look at the secondary ticket markets - auctions on ebay, sites like stubhub.com, and ticket brokers - to realize that the face price of their expensive, precious season tickets are, in fact, a bargain.

      Writers like Friedman are enraged because they have been fed, and in turn feed a logical fallacy: that if only the athletes were paid at a more reasonable level, then access to events would be greater (i.e., lower ticket prices). It's a fantasy-based logic that ignores their beloved free-market forces needs to be seen for what it is.

      In other words: STFU, Tom Friedman, and watch your Knicks on TV if you think the tix are too expensive.

      by wystler on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:44:39 AM PDT

  •  It's not a new thing

    The "overpaid babies" thing has been going on for many years, I remember two instances in particular: when Babe Ruth was told that the new salary he demanded was more than the President made, he responded "Well after all I had a better year than he did!".  And Joe DiMaggio was booed roundly by Yankee fans when he held out for more money.

    There was and still is a general attitude among us working slobs that people shouldn't get so much money just for "playing a game".  Of course few of them realize how difficult it is to play on that level in any sport, and to avoid a career ending injury.  Never mind the fact that everything these people do they do under an intense microscope: how would any of us feel if a huge crowd and a television audience of millions watched and scrutinized our every move?  Even if we were paid ten times what we make now, I doubt very many of us would enjoy working under such conditions.

    And yes, fans feel that, because it's primarily their money that help pay these people's salaries that they are somehow "entitled" to something more than just watching these people play.  It's the same way with other celebrities, we feel like we "own" them and have the right to make demands on their personal lives because they live in the public eye.  And as our lives grow more and more difficult, and more and more emphasis is placed on how much money you earn, the gulf between the celebrities and the fans grows even wider.

    And don't get me started on college sports, particularly football and basketball.  I think it's a disgrace that players aren't allowed to get any money, especially when you consider how much money the colleges get.  Again it's a mindset that they should be happy to be playing at all, and that the life lessons they learn and the college education they get (hah) is good enough.  Baseball and hockey recognized years ago that minor league systems are a much better way of recruiting athletes:the kids can get in right out of high school and they're professionals from the start.  The NBA and NFL get too much of a free ride by letting colleges be their farm systems, and it's unfair to a kid who helps

    And while we're on the subject, what I hate the most is sports writers and announcers bitching and whining about when kids go right from high school to the pros and skip college altogether.  If the object of going to college is to get a good-paying job, why bother to go at all if you can get one without it?  It's not like they won't be able to afford college after they finish their careers if they like.  Colleges make millions off of these kids and everyone goes apeshit if they get so much as a pair of shoes.  And the bigger colleges don't give a shit about their education, the same stuff that was going on decades ago goes on still today, I think it's time we stop the pretense and find a way to compensate the kids for the money they help earn for the schools.  There are some colleges that probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the footall or basketball teams, and the top college coaches get paid more than any professor or dean.  If it's all about "the love of the game" as some of the the professional media types say, then let's get all the money out of the college sports, period.  If it's a business them let's treat it as such.  Players who are an injury's difference between a multimillion-dollar career and a lifetime working a McJob deserve better.  And they deserve better than to be spoiled and coddled from high school on.  Anyone remember Columbine?  Anyone remember why the kids went so nuts?  It's not because the jocks bullied them, it's because the jocks were allowed to bully them by a system that values money over people.  Anyone who has ever been a victim of jocks in high school knows exactly what I mean.

    That being said, there's no excuse for a player running into the stands to go after a fan, regardless of what they have done.  That's what security is for.  The guy who threw the cup at Artest (hey Rush, it was a white guy!) ought to have been charged with some misdemeanor offense, at the very least they ought to find a way to bar him from the arena to begin with, though I don't know how that sort of thing can be enforced.  But if things are getting more intense, it's because of the gulf that exists between the players and the fans, there's less for a fan to identify with than their used to be.  Pro sports has always been a business, but it's worth a lot more now than it was fifty or so years ago.  And there was a time when sports players were greatly under-paid for what they did: the huge salaries didn't come into play until abouty 40 years ago, when the Baseball Player's Union challenged the reserve clause and baseball's anti-trust exemption.  That opened the gates for players to make what the market would bear rather than what the owners said they could make, and who they could play for.

    And in the end, everything that's happening here is just a microcosm of what's wrong with a society that values wealth and power as things unto themselves.

    by Joeve on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:45:22 AM PDT

    •  Reform college sports

      In a perfect world, colleges would follow the Division III model and not award athletic scholarships per se. Men and women would take part in sports for the enjoyment of it (which is the original definition of "amateur").

      If colleges stopped serving as de facto farm systems for the NFL and NBA, there would soon be minor leagues in those sports, similar to those in baseball and hockey. And that, in turn, would spell an end to "shamateurism" in college sports.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:59:51 AM PDT

      •  Exploitation

        I argue that the typical student athlete at a place like the University of Oklahoma is terribly exploited. Those kids, who have little hope of ever making money in sports, are "given" a scholarship. But does the university make every effort to see that they graduate? No. Meanwhile, their performance on the field rakes in millions on Saturdays for the athletic department.

        To me that's exploitation. Here at OU, they're quite proud of the football team's 40 percent 4-year graduation rate reported by the NCAA recently. It's way, way up from 33 percent last year. Wow. Academic performance is the only place in OU athletics where winning 40 percent of the time won't get you fired.

        The athletic department budget is nearly $50 million annually. Maybe they could spare a few more bucks and hire more than four counselors to oversee the educations of more than 400 student athletes. Oh, wait, the student part doesn't really matter.

        It's really an embarrassment, and there are many schools just like OU where the athletic department makes boatloads of money and student athletes eventually just flame out.

        by OK Hawkeye on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 12:16:13 PM PDT

    •  college

      If the object of going to college is to get a good-paying job, why bother to go at all if you can get one without it?

      That's not the reason for going to college...well it shouldn't be. I suppose I should resign myself to the fact that the majority of the country thinks that people should only go to college to "get a good-paying job," but it still chaps me.

      by hstokes on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 12:20:34 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Guys

    This is great information. It makes me want to learn a lot more about these kinds of disputes.

    I wonder if we can flip the propaganda on its head?

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:54:35 AM PDT

    •  Easy

      The whole brawl was the result of GOP "values".  Both the fans and the players.

      The natural result of their politics of divisiveness, lies, and aggressiveness.

      Americans urged to feel contempt for their fellow Americans.  

      Those who do heroic things painted as cowardly, whining scumbuckets.

      A doctrine of pre-emptive fighting, without concern about making sure you're going aafter the right guy.

      Politicians cussing at other politicians, and later justifying it because it felt good.

      Racial profiling.  Dismissing shameful behavior as the work of a few bad apples.

      It's all there. Republican values.  Who cares which of the involved parties was more wrong than the other? They all acted badly.

      by AdmiralNaismith on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:29:38 AM PDT

      •  Oh man, I really enjoyed that

        I'd give you a 5 if I could.

        You're totally right, it's the politics of divisiveness, competition, and pre-emptive defence in action.

        by danthrax on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 01:56:12 PM PDT

  •  Disgusted by the whole thing

    I'm disgusted by the salaries of both the owners and the players, salaries that jack up ticket prices so high that games are the province of upper middle class republicans, and for anyone less wealthy attending a game means saving up for months.  

    If we want something done about this, then we can either stop going to games, or if we do go, do not buy anything from the concessions stands.  $8 for a beer is immoral and I'm surprised anyone agrees to such fleecing - but then considering the rich audience, maybe $8 is nothing.  If enough people quit buying tickets, then pretty soon the salaries would come down along with ticket prices.  

    IMO if someone goes to sports games regularly, then they have no right to complain about salaries.  Same if they buy sports merchandise.

    Anyways I don't hold anything against the players, they're just taking the pay that the system will tolerate, it's the smart thing to do.  And if parents hold up these animals as role models for their children, then that's the stupid thing to do.

    by Subterranean on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 03:23:34 PM PDT

•  When in Rome....

  a local sportswriter here has an interesting take on what's causing some of these problems...it's well known that most hockey fans prefer a fight over a nice pass and score play, perhaps we're a lot closer to the decline of our civilization than we realize...

  http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2004/11/26/a1d_crouse_1126.html

  her earlier column:
  http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2004/11/21/a1b_crouse_1121.html

  by route66 on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 06:58:31 AM PDT

  •  what the puck?

    True and knowledgeable hockeys fans prefer great passes, sweet goals and amazing saves over fights. The fact that the NHL still markets fighting is sad and a poor reflection on their promotion skills, if they have any.

    As for the playoff format, its too long. Take the top 16 and whittle it down to a champion with 16 v. 1, 15 v. 2, ...

    The Stanley Cup playoffs are the best that sport offers in trying to attain a championship. Yes the season has too many games and the league has too many teams but the team effort required to win 16 games is a great spectacle.

    As for athletes being sports models, nope. Take the positive stories and use them to explain community service, altruism and achieving goals but there is no need to pedestal professional athletes. On the flip side, drug use, limiting one's options to a game and false hopes are issues that sport can help 'educate' the youth.

    by moeman on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:18:44 AM PDT

    •  Fights in hockey

      They are a sometimes regrettable but essential part of the game to anyone who understands hockey culture.

      A lot of cheap stuff can, and does, go on in a hockey game that everyone knows the officials can't see but both teams know about. Fights are what keeps this in line.

      I like great, spirited play on the ice as much as any real fan of the sport. But I really hate it when people look down their noses at fights.

      Yes, there was a time when it seemed like the league was practically ordering one fight a game, and fights because people expect fights are as wrong as baseball pitchers beaning one batter per game because people want to see that.

      But the fights have an undeniable cathartic effect for a large segment of the fans. You don't get to see that anywhere else, and there's far too many people out there who have jobs where they'd like to drop the gloves on an annoying coworker or overbearing boss just once with no greater penalty than a five-minute major.

      by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:12:25 AM PDT

    •  right on!

      the NHL regular season is TOO LONG and then  the the playoffs are WAY TOO LONG  (go redwings!)

      by Earl from Ohio on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:33:14 AM PDT

      •  Even this year

        the NHL season is too long.  Everyone knows that properly constituted there should only be 6 teams in the NHL, and all the players should be French-Canadian.

        by Dancing Larry on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:39:36 AM PDT

  •  Funny, I always thought fights were stupid.

    I love a good hard, but legal, check. Where are the hip-checkers of this generation? A 0-0 tie can be incredibly exciting if it's the result of strong defensive play rather than inept offense.
    Occasionally, a fight is necessary to discourage the opponent's big-man from roughing up your star, or to punish a transgression the refs let slide (Eric Lindros and his amazing flying stick come to mind), but 90% of the time, they're just stupid and slow up the action.
    A fight riddled game is horrible to watch, usually it's because the refs are letting too much go, and the players feel the need to enforce the rules themselves.

    by Geeno on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:03:00 AM PDT

•  And here's my little stand

  I have no interest in professional sports.  I went to exactly one professional sports event in my entire life, sort of as a hostage to my date: a Twins/Brewers game in 1982.  Do you know what happened to it?  At the very end, the players started beating the shit out of one another.

  I was so underwhelmed.

  If I can't participate in a sport, then to hell with it.
  

  by rhubarb on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:03:44 AM PDT

  •  This is why...

    I like to skateboard.

    No rules, no teams, no uniforms, just fun.

    by Max2k on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:06:50 AM PDT

    •  We're talking about sports here

      Not hobbies.

      by DWCG on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:29:06 AM PDT

      •  Resisting urge to give a "Troll" rating

        Since when do "sports" consist solely of spectator tribal-esque team games, with dancing costumed mascots, cheerleaders in short skirts, and fistfights between players and fans? Watch the Olympics some time, either winter or summer; while skateboarding isn't represented, freestyle snowboarding is, and that's basically skating minus wheels plus snow. Get out from under your plebian bridge and turn on ESPN2.

        by jonathanjo on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:52:35 AM PDT

        •  Because the TOPIC is professional athletes!

          Especially those in the public eye.  Those are the games they play.  I used to love playing Ultimate, because all disputes were settled by the team captains - much better than any "organized" sport I ever played, but that's not what is being discussed.

          by Geeno on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:06:50 AM PDT

          •  I don't skate

            And even I can name at least one professional skateboarder.  So it's not completely outside of the pro athlete realm.  I don't know, though.  Is Tony Hawk a role model?  Do pro skateboarders get in fights?

            by sickandtired on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 02:06:10 PM PDT

            •  Pro Skateboarders

              I've never heard of a skate contest brawl. Skateboarders generally respect each other a great deal. The rules are pretty basic: let everyone have their turn, watch where you're going, and don't do anything you wouldn't want done to you.

              As far as role models go, Tony Hawk ain't bad. Most of the pro skateboarders are just like regular skateboarders.

              by Max2k on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:23:05 PM PDT

        •  Put down the skateboard...

          ...and pick up a football.

          Call me nuts, but me and a shit load of socialists believe the emergence of individualistic hobbies like video games, skateboarding, snowboarding, etc. and the decline in participation in team sports are helping produce a generation of undisciplined narcissists with horrible social skills.  (I say this as a member of that generation.)

          People need to know how it is to be tied to something bigger than themselves where they're reliant on one another and the outcome is determined through collective focus, collective effort, and collective action.  (And I say that as a progressive.)

          by DWCG on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:23:07 AM PDT

          •  Sociologist not socialist.

            LOL!

            I'm still a bit hungover from yesterday, sorry.

            by DWCG on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:24:34 AM PDT

          •  I quit team sports in grade school

            Because I never got to play and the other kids were fucking assholes. So why bother?

            The Calivin & Hobbes storyline about team sports sums it up perfectly.

            by Aexia on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 02:00:00 PM PDT

            •  Fuck yeah.

              My story excactly. After a year of little leage where I spent precisely 2 innings playing infield, I said "fuck that" and picked up a skateboard. Never looked back, and I'm better for it.

              by Max2k on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:36:04 PM PDT

          •  Real athletes?

            I guess they're not real athletes if they're not shooting up steroids, selling $250 nikes, and running around in spandex 320 days of the year. I guess the Real Athletes do it for the money and the fame, not for love of the game.

            Real athletes don't hurl themselves down a set of stairs 15 times in one afternoon. Real athletes don't build their own terrain. Real athletes don't have to worry about getting arrested for playing their sport. Real athletes pay $37,000 a year to join the country club in my town so they can play.

            Don't sit there and tell me that some 78 year old retiree wearing a sweater and playing golf is a real athlete when there are kids outside your apartment leaving blood and skin on the sidewalk skating a set of stairs and nervously waiting for the police to show up and bust them.

            When I want to work together to attain a goal, I'm not going to do it in an activity that requires me to be 6'2" and 300 pounds of steroid-pumped muscle.

            by Max2k on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:34:15 PM PDT

  •  Participate?

    All you have to do is bring stuff to throw at the players!  Hey presto, you're participating!  If you're really lucky, they might even decide to come up to your seat and participate on your head a little bit.

    Seriously, while I know the players ultimately have the responsibility not to go into the stands & beat on people (ultimately, they are still the "employee", and the fan is still the "customer"), the fans should have some responsibility to not cross the line either, and there should be some kind of toothy enforcement.  If Ron Artest can lose an entire season (and salary thereof) from reacting to some yahoo with an overgrown sense of entitlement, why can't the yahoo get some kind of serious sanction as well?  Losing season tix and being banned from the arena is okay, but does it really compare to losing your job for a year?  And more to the point, is it enough to deter future yahoos?

    by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:09:48 AM PDT

    •  john green is a chickensh*t

      you could tell the way he threw the cup.
      you could tell the way he let arteste go past him to throw down on the wrong guy.
      you could tell the way he tried to get his pitiful little punches in while arteste had his back turned & was being held.
      anybody who asks "what's wrong with today's athlete?" needs to ask the same thing about todays sport's fans. the most obnoxious groups are referred to as "great fans."
      

      by rasbobbo on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 02:19:53 PM PDT

•  Correction

  The winning percentage of the combined teams in the NHL (assuming we get a season this year at all) will not be .5, since ties are a possible outcome of regular-season games. (It's only in that "ludicrous playoff system," about which I must beg to differ with your characterization, that teams either win or lose.)

  by musing85 on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:08:10 AM PDT

  •  But...

    Aren't ties considered half a win?  Shouldn't they be a wash?  Is there really a difference between 2400-2400-0 (or whatever) and 2300-2300-100, .500ness-wise?

    by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:12:00 AM PDT

    •  No

      Under the NHL's ranking system, a team gets two points in the standings for a win, no points for a regulation loss, and one point for a tie or an overtime loss. But while the point total is the first criterion in the standings (and who gets into the playoffs), it isn't the last. If two teams have the same number of points (which is possible even if they don't have identical records), the team with the greater number of wins is ranked higher. Moreover, ties aren't considered in determining winning percentage.

      by musing85 on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

      •  Ah yes.

        I forgot about that new wrinkle.  I'll defer to you on hockey, it's my least favorite of the "Big Four" team sports, to be honest.  Although basketball is plummeting pretty quick, even before Artest (I know this is sacrilege, but dunks really do get old fast).

        by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:13:01 AM PDT

•  Slaves for our amusement...

  ...the drunken white boys who pay $100+ for a seat to watch these events feel awe at the athletic performance of the player, but also feel a smug superiority which has a lot of racism underneath.

  I wonder if Mr.Green would have heaved a beer at at white player?  There is a strong, underlying contempt for African American atheletes, coupled with a resentment for the [admitedly outrageous] huge salaries that these guys get for "playing around" while the local CPA is working 50+ hours a week in pursuit of unfetterd consumerism.

  by Timoteo on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:08:52 AM PDT

  •  Possibly.

    The racial component may be overstated.  The Royals coach who got jumped by the white (sox) trash father & son was white.  The Dodgers catcher who got his cap stolen by a Cubs fan was white, as I recall.

    Maybe Chicago fans are more color-blind than most, but I really don't think it's that.  I would guess that the colors of the victims of the fan depredations are roughly proportional to their representation in the sport.

    by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:16:08 AM PDT

    •  You should have seen ESPN.COM

      I wish you could have seen the message boards at ESPN.com in the days following the NBA brawl -- or the yahoo message boards for that matter.

      Maybe the people involved in the incidents weren't looking at it from a racist perspective but many, many, many apparently did -- and their ugliness was very evident all over those boards calling them "wild ghetto monkeys" and things like that.  it was disgusting but it goes to show what many people out there are really thinking but can only say over the Internet, anonymously.  Cowards.

      by diplomatic on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:24:20 AM PDT

      •  Unfortunately

        I think your point is very valid. I doubt there would have been much of an uproar, if the Desparate Housewives star had dropped her towel and lept into the arms of Farve, Manning or Brady.

        by JoeWPgh on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:09:28 AM PDT

    •  Its been that way

      insports for decades (maybe centuries) I remember throughout the 50's and the 60's my dad and his friends looking for boxing's "great white hope". I knew it was pure racism when they started 'hoping' for Roy "cut and shoot" Harris, not really that good.

      by johnmorris on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:36:49 AM PDT

    •  Respectfully, Not Possibly, Probably.

      Race is an issue, and fans, maybe not in Chitown, but in many other places make it known that the players are savages who just need to entertain them, keep their mouths shut, and perform. You see the good Negro-bad Negro dialogue/thinking regularly, from fans to columnists to owners.

      by Lexicon on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:22:22 AM PDT

  •  This Was An Equal Opportunity Event

    The guy who threw the cup of ice at Artest was white, but after Artest charged into the stands and jumped on the wrong guy, there was a very beefy and muscular African-American gentleman (with some kind of credentials hanging around his neck) pummelling either Artest or one of the other black Pacer players who'd also gone into the crowd.  This guy was seriously overweight, but does a lot of weightlifting from the look of him, and he was delivering his punches with a rapidity and an efficient stroke that suggested he doesn't do this on an irregular basis.

    Also, the jerk who ran onto the court and confronted Artest once that original scrum had been broken up looked to be non-Causasian, and as the Pacers made their way through the tunnel off the court, there were plenty of black fans pelting them with beer, soda, popcorn, etc.
    

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:52:11 AM PDT

    •  You're Both Right

      The event itself was a fan(atic) mechanism. Pistons fans knew no race when confronting the Pacers who were fool enough to rush into the stands. All they saw was the hated opponents.

      For those who watched it on SportsCenter, the vast majority held no alliance to either team. It's no surprise that racist elements crawled out of the woodwork to display their ugliness on message boards, radio sportstalk, and in one-to-one conversation.

      Anybody who believes there's an equal playing field in race relations in this country was ignoring the truth over the past several days.

      by wystler on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:56:08 AM PDT

    •  Ben Wallace's Brother?

      I read somewhere that the brother of Detroit player Ben Wallace got involved in the fight, I'm not sure if that is true, but if it is, that's probably the guy you're describing.

      by rik on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:11:21 AM PDT

      •  don't think so

        If I remember right, I think Ben Wallace's brother died in the days right before the fight (which could have had a lot to do with his original aggression towards Artest).  Wallace normally seems like a pretty cool, level-headed guy.

        by Samebeat on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:12:58 AM PDT

  •  The only color the fans are seeing

    is the uniform color.  It's more like gang violence than anything else if you need to liken it to something.  Wear the wrong colors and you're in trouble once things go bad.

    by Geeno on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:11:04 AM PDT

•  To examine the life of the modern athlete

  One could hardly find a better place to start than Harry Edwards, esteemed UC Berkeley Professor and cunsultant to the SF 49'ers, among others.  This is just a smidgen of his work linked here--I always found his stuff to be very, very interesting.

  I was glad to see Tom knife that lout who threw the beer from the stands.  Cretins like him ruin it for everybody.

  What do they ruin?  An irrational, semi-fantasy world of adults at play.  When you come to the park or the stands it's time to have fun and be your best, it's so easy to do when you're just watching a game.

  I hurt bad these days with sports--the Raiders are, incredibly, fading to oblivion because I can't forgive Al for not fixing a debacle of a stadium deal, and the A's are stuck in a concrete bowl with an owner I like but who's too stingy.  Long time no championships, lol.

  Anyway, I'm still sorta a fan just so I can play a little.  Fans like that drunken lout ruin it for everyone.  Can't he be banned for a year too?

  by paradox on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:10:20 AM PDT

  •  Nothing Personal, Paradox

    I'm sure you're the epitome of the sensible sports fan, but aren't your fellow Raider fans widely recognized as the most obnoxious in the NFL - and yes, I know that's saying a lot.  When I lived in the Philly media market, the sports talk radio station would warn people going to Monday night Eagles games at the Vet to be very careful, as there were hundreds of drunken louts who liked to walk up to someone and smash them in the face just for the hell of it.

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:58:10 AM PDT

    •  To Europeans, this is rather tame

      Compared to what goes on European soccer games, that's nothing. I know someone who went to matches in Ireland, and if so much as a sliver of the wrong color was showing, a fight would start.

      You want to see serious fan vs. fan violence (which we thankfully have surprisingly little of over here, at least at the pro level)? Go to a Celtic v. Rangers game in Glasgow sometime.

      by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:16:14 AM PDT

      •  In the Garden

        For some reason, I got the image of an American Celtics v. Rangers in the Garden, I suppose they swap the floor for ice halfway through the game.

        by freelunch on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:39:02 AM PDT

      •  Yep

        Back in the mid-90s in Sports Illustrated there was this picture of the stands of a stadium hosting what I think was either a European or South American soccer match.

        On one side there were the fans of one team, and on the outer seat of ever row was a cop....just a horizontal line of cops.  Then there were about four or five seats separating them and on the outer seat of every row was another cop, separating the fans of the other team.  Two horizontal lines of cops separated by four or five seats just to keep the fans from killing each other.

        The picture blew my mind.

        by DWCG on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 12:08:51 PM PDT

      •  and the racism can be pretty damn unbelieveable

        at euro soccer games.  You'll have hooligans making monkey noises at black players or throwing stuff at them and trying to engage in fights with them on a regular basis.  It sucks especially to be black and play for a politically rightist aligned team like Lazio or Real Madrid, since all the fascists come out in full force for their games.

        by challah on Sat Nov 27, 2004 at 07:15:27 AM PDT

    •  That's the rep, yes

      I don't know.  I've only been to a few games at the Coliseum since they came back.

      I can't justify the expense for tickets with the new stadium pricing plans.  I can't look at my daughter and spend the money on football.

      I always dreamed of watching a whole raider season at the coliseum, I can really do it now but duty choked it off.  It's a major bummer.

      by paradox on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:50:09 AM PDT

      •  I Haven't Been To A Pro Football Game

        In 32 years.  Jets v. Dolphins, Shea Stadium, 1972 (yes, I actually saw the 17-0 Dolphins up close and personal, the seats were in the end zone at the closed end of Shea, about 5 or 6 rows from the field), but I was rooting for the Jets so it's a less pleasant memory than it might be otherwise.

        From what I've heard about what goes on at most games, I'd think twice about going, even for a freebie.  About 5 years ago, I took my son to see a college game, University of Richmond hosting William and Mary, and was shocked to hear 60+ year old men and women up from Williamsburg using language crude enough for a David Mamet play in easy earshot of children young enough to be their grandkids.  If that's what Division I-AA college fans are like, I really don't want to be with the young overpaid sociopaths who view pro football as an opportunity to get drunk and lose all self-control.
        

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:58:46 AM PDT

        •  Go if you can get someone's season seats

          Season ticket holders have to see each other game after game.  They're generally very good about maintaining order in their sections.  You DON'T want to sitting in the endzone or in the nose-bleeds with the guys who are coming this one game and decide they're going to let it all hang out.
          I've been a Buffalo Bills season ticket holder for close to 20 years now, and I can't remember the last fight in our area.
          Incidentally, Raider fans ARE the worst of all the visiting fans we get here, followed hard by Jets fans, they chirp and chirp and chirp even they lose like they're trying to provoke a fight.  We once had one of 'em run over one of the guys at our tailgate - talk about your sore losers.
          New England and Pittsburgh fans are good people, very polite and gracious even they beat you - we'll frequently merge our tailgate with some visiors at those games.  New England fans actually driving in from New England usually bring really good food too.

          by Geeno on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:23:35 AM PDT

          •  Thanks For The Tip

            And the insight into the tailgating subculture.  It's nice to know there are some fans who's idea of a good time is behaving graciously and interacting in a friendly way with the other team's fans.
            

            "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

            by JJB on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 01:28:27 PM PDT

•  I have no simpathy

  whatsoever for any of these pro athletes.  I could care less that their careers are so short.  They are are overpaid, all of them.  The asshole who threw the beer at Artest should be prosecuted to the fullest as should Artest and all of the other jack asses who were involved.  So what if their careers are short and they are supporting their extended families with their meager earnnings.  Most of pro athletes went to college and most of them went on scholarships.  They should take advantage of their good fortune and stay in school and graduate so they will have career options when they blow out their ACLs or their shoulders.
  I am a huge sports fan. But I love the GAME(s), not the players.

  by bulldog on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:11:49 AM PDT

  •  What you see is a tiny minority

    Of the very, very few athletes that make it to the pros.

    Most athletes dream the most earnest of human dreams to play, only to be discarded by the leagues for just not being good enough.  Once there the fear of sliding away to oblivian can be extreme.

    I find it very strange you profess love of sport yet at the same time be blind to the difficutlies and dramas of the humans that actually perform them.

    On an abstract level, think of the failure that inherently defines the existence of the pro baseball player.  Get a hit 2 out of ten times and never have a career--do it three out of ten times and you'll go far.

    I watch the hitters very, very closely to see how they handle all the failure.  They know a trick it would be very, very well for all of us to symapthize and learn from.

    by paradox on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:53:13 AM PDT

    •  Hitting

      I wonder if that fail-three-times-out-of-ten idea might be a little exaggerated.  If you think of it from the strict statistical perspective, yeah, but if you think of it from a pure hitting perspective it might not be so.  

      All you can really control as a hitter is having a good at-bat, getting a good pitch to hit, and making solid contact.  Sometimes that works out to a hit, sometimes it doesn't.  But I'm not sure that hitting a screaming line drive right at someone is entirely a "failure", any more than I would consider a swinging bunt a "success."  I play softball very very badly, but I know that I generally feel better about the former than the latter.

      What the actual "good-at-bat percentage" is for various players, I have no idea.  Would be interesting if someone compiled those, though (yeah, I know it's a little subjective, but I think it could be done).

      by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:22:53 AM PDT

      •  Lol

        You can wander into a baseball world of statistics that can and does consume a lifetime, I kid you not:  sabermaticians, I think they call themselves.  I think the better stat you're describing is the slugging percentage.

        You're correct on your emphasis on making contact and putting the ball in play.  Of course that's why the strikeout is the worst the batter can do.

        Still, hitting is a discipline that involves accepting a great deal a failure.  Publicly.  It would drive me bonkers (just as it did to Billy Beane, GM OAK, when he tried baseball, btw).
        

        by paradox on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:05:03 AM PDT

        •  Oh yes.

          Believe me, I've read some of the sabermetrician stuff.  It's crazy, and it's hard to say whether it has any validity or if it's just statistical masturbation.  It is pretty interesting, though.

          Slugging percentage doesn't really get at what I'm talking about, though, although the "good-at-bat percentage" could have a "hard-contact percentage" corollary that's weighted by just how hard the ball was hit (good luck implementing that).

          Actually, I would like to see a modification of slugging average based on the total bases as a percentage of total hits.  Call it "power percentage" - it would allow you to distinguish between a .330 hitter with a few doubles and a .250 hitter with a lot of pop.

          God, I miss baseball...

          by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:42:55 AM PDT

          •  There is a stat

            Actually, I would like to see a modification of slugging average based on the total bases as a percentage of total hits.  Call it "power percentage" - it would allow you to distinguish between a .330 hitter with a few doubles and a .250 hitter with a lot of pop.

            OPS - On-base percentage plus slugging.
            

            by Aexia on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 02:13:34 PM PDT

            •  Yep, I know that one too...

              OPS is a great measure of overall productivity and hitting prowess (patience + power), although it seems to me that it double-counts hits.  I would think a fairer measure would be total plate appearances divided by total bases plus walks/HBP.

              Still doesn't really tell you what proportion of their hits are for power, though.

              by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 02:21:45 PM PDT

              •  ops

                although it seems to me that it double-counts hits

                Singles put the ball in play and score runners on 2nd and 3rd. A walk doesn't score anyone unless the bases are loaded. Thus, hits are more valuable.

                Still doesn't really tell you what proportion of their hits are for power, though.

                You could just divide total bases by hits.

                by Aexia on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 03:08:16 PM PDT

                •  True, true...

                  Good point about hits being more valuable - I guess I haven't shaken "a walk's as good as a hit" out of my head from high school (I probably walked like, once, ever).

                  Sure, I can divide total bases by hits, which is in fact what I would do - I just find it odd that it's not an actual stat that anyone uses.  Just think what kind of numbers Dave Kingman, Rob Deer, and Mark McGwire in his low-average years would have had...

                  by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 03:15:07 PM PDT

                  •  If you ever want to play with baseball stats

                    For free, there's the Baseball archive, which comes in an MS Access version. SQL code for a query about McGwire to get you started...

                    SELECT Master.nameFirst, Master.nameLast, Batting.yearID, [H]+[2b]+[3b]*2+[HR]*3 AS [Total Bases], Format(([H]+[2b]+[3b]*2+[HR]*3)/[H],"0.000") AS Ratio, Format([H]/[AB],".000") AS [Avg], Batting.HR, Batting.G FROM Master INNER JOIN Batting ON Master.playerID = Batting.playerID WHERE (((Master.playerID)="mcgwima01"));

                    Ratio is the total bases over hits. McGwire has a ratio around 2.0 early in his career through his two injury seasons. When he came back in 1995, the ratio jumped to about 2.5 and hovered around that for the rest of his career.

                    by Aexia on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:16:42 PM PDT

                    •  Awesome!

                      I'll have to mess around with this.  Good thing I'm better at Access than I was at baseball.

                      by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:37:09 PM PDT

              •  ISO

                isoated power = slugging pct - batting average

                See here for more. Not really a "new stat," it was devised by Branch Rickey, though I remember first reading about it 15 or 20 years ago in a Bill James book.

                by The Centerfielder on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 05:34:45 PM PDT

                •  Excellent!

                  I feel somehow... vindicated.

                  I need to get out more.

                  by EliC on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 05:42:27 PM PDT

  •  Typical "Sports Fan" Bullshit

    If what you love is "the Game" so much, may I assume you pay absolutely zero attention to any "professional" sporting events whatsoever, including college sports, which is basically non-union pro sports, and stick strictly to sandlot baseball and pick-up basketball at the Y?

    This sort of crap is why I never, never, NEVER listen to sportstalk radio...

    by dave on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:10:25 AM PDT

    •  Favorite Oxymoron: NCAA Integrity

      Do other countries have colleges that field poorly paid professional athletes who are required to go to college to be allowed into the professional league?

      It's interesting that the greatest corruption in college sports is in football and basketball, the areas where the NCAA has a near monopoly on the minor leagues of the sport, while baseball and hockey have the fewest NCAA problems because minor league quality players have an alternative.

      by freelunch on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:46:31 AM PDT

    •  I don't listen to sports talk

      radio either.  I hate that crap.  I love competitions and the Game.  I have little simpathy for the athletes who complain about how they get a raw deal or how little respect they get.  Whatever.  I love sports - who the hell are you to challenge that.  I do watch pro sports. I also watch college sports and I do, in fact, enjoy going to amateur events.  Back off of the stereotyping, ok?

      by bulldog on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:52:38 AM PDT

  •  Yes, It's Sort of True

    Many pro athletes have gone to college on full athletic scholarship. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that they're all capable of critical thought, that they've learned anything, or that they've mastered learning skills necessary to succeed outside the arena. Our sports systems have become so ingrained that children under ten are being identified, recruited, socially promoted, and praised for their athletic prowess while sheltered from the "vagaries" of academic achievement.

    The NFL draft is accompanied by loads of public information. Many who make themselves eligible for the draft take a somewhat flawed intelligence test, and far too many college seniors score so low that it's fair to consider them functionally illiterate. (random guessing, in some cases, would tend to result in a higher score.)

    Don't look now, but our society has a fully-developed gladiator system, and those who cannot succeed are cast aside, left to struggle through life with awesome athletic abilities but lacking in sufficient reading skills to perform at anything other than unskilled labor (or professional wrestling).

    by wystler on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:08:26 AM PDT

  •  I'm sorry

    But as long as it takes a couple of benjamins to just take a date to a basketball game and get a cold dog and hot coke then I think the talent athletes I'm going to see should get a cut.

    I have no problem with those uber-rich aristocrats giving up a minuscule amount of their profits to poor black kids from the wrong side of the tracks.

    That said I've always liked college sports better.  The NBA finals don't have anything on the Final Four and I'll take the screwed up BCS over the parity of the NFL any day.

    by DWCG on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 10:39:46 AM PDT

•  asdf

  I think that the whole thing is Ron Artest's fault but I do get sick of people complaining about how much the Professional Athletes get paid. These people should be more upset about corporations that don't pay their taxes.

  by lightarrow on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:12:51 AM PDT

  •  Definitely Artest's fault....

    There were only 45 seconds left in the game, and the Pacers were up by an insurmountable 15 point lead when Artest hacked at Ben Wallace who had an open lay-up.

    What Artest did was ridiculously bad sportsmanship. Wallace retaliated aggressively. Then Artest went and lied down on the scorer's table.

    Why did he lie down on the scorer's table, and how long was he there for? I don't know. But again awful sportsmanship to further delay a game that was all but over.

    If I were a Detroit fan I'd have been pissed and disgusted at Artest, and rightfully so. What I'm saying is that Artest provoked the entire fiasco, and that is why neither I, nor David Stern, has any sympathy for him.

    by DeanFan84 on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 02:16:07 PM PDT

•  Sally Jenkins' Column

  Sally Jenkins' column in the Washington Post paints a very different picture of Ron Artest than the cable television shows.  It describes his early life, his relationship with his father (who drove and is going back to driving a fruit juice truck to support his family), and Ron Artest's work with his community and his support of his extended family.

  I found it singularly annoying when John Green, a fan with an extended criminal record, characterized Ron Artest as "a thug."  After reading Sally Jenkins' column, it seems more clear to me that the word "thug" better characterizes Mr. Green than Ron Artest.

  by eafredel on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:14:01 AM PDT

  •  Green Is A Thug, No Question,

    He should be prosecuted, and banned from the arena for life, as far as I'm concerned.  But Artest was a creep when he played for St. John's, and he hasn't matured with age.  This was someone who wanted to take time off from his professional basketball obligations so he could promote a CD he'd recorded.  Careful what you wish for, Ron . . .

    And with regard to extended families, as lot of these guys are short of cash because they're paying off the women they've knocked up all over the country - the ones who can force them to pay off, that is.  A few of them have to known to use some hired muscle to try to force women to back off.  Larry Johnson of the Knicks was one such.

    Actually, this whole incident is a perfect example of why I don't follow the NBA anymore.  First of all, the game was decided, Indiana up by about 15 with less than a minute left, and yet Artest and Ben Wallace, two of the most important players on their respective teams were still on the floor.  Wallace drives to the basket, Artest hits him from behind with a cheap shot foul - admittedly a mild one by the standards of today's game.  Why not let him just score, he had a clear path to the basket, they were two meaningless points, and again, neither player should have been out there, it was garbage time.  Wallace then runs at Artest and smashes into him, precipitating the whole ugly scene in which vertually everyone, players and fans, behaves like psychotic jerks.

    So blame the coaches who have their first team players on the floor at garbage time, and for insisting that every single point must be contested with a body blow no matter how trivial the circumstances.  Blame the players for engaging in gratuitous violence on the court, and blame the Neandrethal fans who go to games to stir up trouble.

    As far as I'm concerned, it's now a sport to ignore.  I tuned out the NBA completely two or three years ago, and I don't miss it.
    

    "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

    by JJB on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:14:01 AM PDT

    •  The real root of the NBA's problems

      Gregg Easterbrook, who sometimes can drive you up the wall with his political commentary, has pointed to what has happened to the quality of play in the NBA since it decided to let players declare for the draft right out of high school.

      Less maturity=less teamwork=less interesting game=declining ratings. Fans do notice.

      That's why he's urged the NFL to do whatever it takes to keep from being forced to let Maurice Clarett be drafted.

      by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:20:23 AM PDT

      •  That's Another Reason

        I find it so boring - the game today is dreadful.  Sometime in the past year, I saw the final game of the 1977 NBA Finals on EPSN Classic.  My God, the level of play was so far above what we see today you can't even make a comparison.  Even the journeymen players in that game could pass the ball and handle it much better than most of the top point guards today.  Not to mention coaches who actually knew how and when to substitute role players to give their stars a rest, or change the pace of a game that was getting away from them.

        "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

        by JJB on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:02:57 AM PDT

      •  Sorry, Misses the Mark

        Ron Artest's problem have nothing to do with his not finishing four year of St. Johns, and selfish play existed in the NBA long before high school players were drafted.

        The NBA shot itself in the foot when it promoted the league as ALL ABOUT MICHAEL. The numbers began to fade after an initial period of curiosity about who would rule the roost after Jordan.

        Easterbrook is just creating a phony argument about why some folks (i.e., wealthy NBA owners) need to be protected from the free market that he heartily endorses when it comes to your life or mine.

        Maurice Clarett's been shafted. The gladiator system that's developed here, with the myth of the student-athlete, so need to be debunked. These performers deserve the right to earn a living, just the same as we do, and false bar to entry is bad policy.

        by wystler on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:18:35 AM PDT

        •  Not

          Clarett could go to just about any division III school, play for two years, take basketweaving classes, get boosters to buy him cars, and he'd be a hot NFL pick if he stayed healthy.

          Instead he seems to want to follow Marcus Dupree's career path (remember him?)

          If it's about restoring free-market values to pro sports, Clarett (or someone) should sue both the NCAA and the NFL (for the former's policy of denying eligibility to any player who hires an agent, which as surely as the NFL's three-year rule restricts the market).

          Indeed, the NFLPA has cited the decline in quality of NBA play as a reason it opposes allowing younger players in.

          by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:57:38 AM PDT

          •  You Make My Case for Me

            Why should he be required to continue an academic charade?

            Clarett could go to just about any division III school, play for two years, take basketweaving classes, get boosters to buy him cars ...

            What part of labor and antitrust law does this satisfy? Clarett is seeking employment in the NFL. The bar to entry placed by the league is indefensible before a judge who pays attention to the law, rather than who the parties to the case are. Even the enrobed, though, fails to consider issues within only the framework of the law when dealing with the world of professional and big-time collegiate athletics.

            Indeed, college football would take a severe financial hit if they did not have a lock on young performers, but that's not properly a problem for the courts.

            by wystler on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 03:49:39 PM PDT

            •  Where does this go?

              If the NFL can't be allowed enforce a reasonable (IMO) age-based restriction, why can't the military be forced to accept, say, 13-year-olds? Why can't airlines let hotshot kids of 18 fly planes?

              Clarett doesn't want to attend college? Fine, he can spend two years working and staying in shape, maybe assistant-coaching at some high school somewhere (actually, maybe not). Hey, stacking crates at a supermarket between careers did Kurt Warner a world of good.

              And that way he won't even be risking the sort of career-ending injury Dupree suffered in the USFL.

              by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:05:07 PM PDT

              •  Age-based Bar

                I'd suggest that the age of majority - 18 - serves well.

                Career-ending injuries hit NFL rookies who've spent four years in college. And who's to say Dupree's injury would not have been suffered in college, thus denying him any paycheck (beyond what unethical perks he could have snagged under the table)?

                Tell me why it's ethical for competing interests (i.e., NFL owners) to band together to conspire to keep Clarett from contracting for employment in the NFL.

                And you don't know much about flying and commercial airlines, do you ...

                by wystler on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 11:11:30 PM PDT

                •  You still don't make sense to me

                  And you don't know much about flying and commercial airlines, do you ...
                  

                  Enough to know that I wouldn't want an 18-year old flying the seven-six I'm in.

                  Look, I agree with you that it is unfair, that basically the colleges are enforcing an outdated, classist model of amateurism on those who can least afford it. And the NCAA should be the real target of any effort to change this ... frankly we should either allow colleges to sponsor teams like gas stations sponsor softball teams, in which players would get a chance to take some classes if they wanted to but wouldn't have to.

                  If the NFL wants to guarantee a certain maturity standard to improve competition, they should be able to. People are always free to start competing leagues that do not have that rule and see what works better.

                  by Daniel Case on Sat Nov 27, 2004 at 05:54:24 AM PDT

                  •  Classic Antitrust

                    An employer has the right to hire and fire. He does not have a right to conspire with his competition to create artificial bars to entry in the labor market.

                    The 18 year old pilot is an issue of federal law and agency regulatory rule. Pilots' licensing issues have nothing to do with a private organization - the NFL - hiring entertainment labor.

                    If the above two short 'graphs still don't make sense, you're going to have to find somebody else to help you.

                    by wystler on Sat Nov 27, 2004 at 07:51:47 AM PDT

      •  I think it's got more to do with owners

        Who treat coaches like crap.

        There's no authority figure in these organizations.

        by DWCG on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 12:22:03 PM PDT

  •  Not just a thug, but a coward

    Green is worse.

    Bob Reno at badjocks.com (a great site on sports-related misbehavior at all levels; if you think this incident proves the decline of civilization the accounts of Little League fights and international soccer brawls will just reinforce that) pointed out that, on video, right after Green threw the cup and Artest barged into the stands, he can be seen calmly stepping aside as Artest picks on the shrimpier guy behind him, then takes a shot at Artest from behind.

    And, Green has a worse criminal record than Artest does, by a long shot.

    by Daniel Case on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 08:33:14 AM PDT

    •  I Hope Green Does Some Hard Time

      Even if it's only a couple of week. He deserves it.
      

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 09:04:16 AM PDT

•  sorry not interested

  anymore than in the behavior movie stars or rock stars.

  Wont cry any tears for any of these folks.  Don't even see why this should be a topic of discussion.

  Bread and circuses...

  by pitbullEmily on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 07:17:52 AM PDT

  •  Chomsky on sports

    Now there are other media too whose basic social role is quite different: it's diversion. There's the real mass media-the kinds that are aimed at, you know, Joe Six Pack -- that kind. The purpose of those media is just to dull people's brains.

    This is an oversimplification, but for the eighty percent or whatever they are, the main thing is to divert them. To get them to watch National Football League. And to worry about "Mother With Child With Six Heads," or whatever you pick up on the supermarket stands and so on. Or look at astrology. Or get involved in fundamentalist stuff or something or other. Just get them away. Get them away from things that matter. And for that it's important to reduce their capacity to think.

    Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.

    You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laugbter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But