Posts
What a joke.
Florida's Brandon Spikes has been suspended for the first half of Saturday's game against Vanderbilt for his actions during last Saturday's game against Georgia in which he attempted to poke his fingers into an opposing player's eyes during a pile up.
First of all, what kind of punishment is a half a game suspension? If you're going to go play the part of a coach who cares about sportsmanship and personal conduct on the field, why not give Spikes a whole game to think about his actions? Two quarters is little more than a rest for a collegiate football player.
Furthermore, how about some good old-fashioned up-downs or wind sprints thrown in with a whole game's suspension? Make it clear to Spikes that you won't tolerate that kind of behavior.
One need not look any further than John Wooden for an example of a coach who really won't stand for nonsense.
Wooden, a proponent of academics, once learned that two of his star players had skipped class the day before the undefeated UCLA Bruins basketball team put their win streak on the line against North Carolina, which was ranked not far behind the Bruins in the national polls. Wooden quickly and decisively suspended the players, regardless of the big game.
Or how about Lou Holtz? I watched him once run onto the field while he was the head coach at Notre Dame to physically grab one of his players who had gotten out of hand and earned an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Holtz kept that player out of the game and publicly reprimanded the player in a post-game interview. If memory serves, the player was also suspended the next game.
I'm not buying Meyer's concern over Spikes' actions. To lightly slap his wrist and claim that half a game's suspension is punishment enough is a joke. And what's with the SEC's acceptance of Meyer's "punishment"?
Oh, for the old days when sportsmanship and personal conduct were actually aspects of the game and not politician-like lip service.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
News flash: NBA Finals prompt renaming frenzy
It's NBA Finals time again and the Lakers are in the mix for their 15th championship in franchise history. As a Lakers fan, it never gets old seeing the boys in purple and gold advance to the Finals.
Because of this trip's opponent, there needs to be some adjustments made in Lakerdom to keep Kobe & Co. on track. The Orlando Magic, by virtue of their team name, has forced the temporary renaming of some southern California icons and other seemingly mundane things.
Ervin "Magic" Johnson: The Lakers legend will be known as "Laker" Johnson for the duration of the Finals. Indeed, Johnson's play at the helm of the Lakers' Showtime dynasty was magical, but calling him by his supernatural nickname could wear on the Lakers' psyche.
The Magic Kingdom: Disneyland is a southern California hallmark that is known the world over as the Magic Kingdom. Not during the NBA Finals, though. The Lakers Kingdom is proud to welcome you to its gates at least until June 11 and as late as June 18. After that, welcome to the Magic Kingdom again.
Magic Mountain: Another southern California theme park with the bad guys' name in it. Welcome to Laker Mountain, home of Superman The Escape, Deja Vu and Batman The Ride!
Black Magic Woman: The Santana classic rock song will for possible the next two weeks be known as Black Laker Woman. There are actually several Laker Girls that could personify the song's temporary title.
Industrial Light & Magic: George Lucas' motion picture visual effects company will operate as Industrial Light & Lakers for the next week or so.
Magic 8 Ball: Mattel's fortune-telling toy will now be known as Laker 8 Ball. Following is a quick sampling of replies given by the Laker 8 Ball when asked about this year's Finals:
1. Will the Lakers win the Larry O'Brien trophy this year?: As I see it, yes.
2. Will Orlando win a game in the Staples Center?: Ask again later.
3. Will Kobe be held to under 10 points in any of this year's NBA Finals games?: Don't count on it.
4. Will Dwight Howard be slapped with a technical foul during the NBA Finals?: You may rely on it.
5. Will Laker fans arrive late and leave early during the NBA Finals?: Outlook good.
There you have it. Let's hope the renaming of these things will help propel the Lakers to their 15th NBA Championship.
Did I miss any?
Magic Mountain: Another southern California theme park with the bad guys' name in it. Welcome to Laker Mountain, home of Superman The Escape, Deja Vu and Batman The Ride!
Black Magic Woman: The Santana classic rock song will for possible the next two weeks be known as Black Laker Woman. There are actually several Laker Girls that could personify the song's temporary title.
Industrial Light & Magic: George Lucas' motion picture visual effects company will operate as Industrial Light & Lakers for the next week or so.
Magic 8 Ball: Mattel's fortune-telling toy will now be known as Laker 8 Ball. Following is a quick sampling of replies given by the Laker 8 Ball when asked about this year's Finals:
1. Will the Lakers win the Larry O'Brien trophy this year?: As I see it, yes.
2. Will Orlando win a game in the Staples Center?: Ask again later.
3. Will Kobe be held to under 10 points in any of this year's NBA Finals games?: Don't count on it.
4. Will Dwight Howard be slapped with a technical foul during the NBA Finals?: You may rely on it.
5. Will Laker fans arrive late and leave early during the NBA Finals?: Outlook good.
There you have it. Let's hope the renaming of these things will help propel the Lakers to their 15th NBA Championship.
Did I miss any?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Bring On The Magic!
It never gets old seeing the Los Angeles Lakers make it to the NBA Finals. For the 30th time in franchise history, my beloved Lakers will be playing in the NBA Finals.
Ideally, I would have rather seen the Lakers get a shot at revenge on the Celtics. My second choice would have been to see Kobe and LeBron face off for all the marbles. It will still be fun watching the Lakers and Magic go head-to-head for the O'Brian hardware.
My prediction: Lakers in 6.
Ideally, I would have rather seen the Lakers get a shot at revenge on the Celtics. My second choice would have been to see Kobe and LeBron face off for all the marbles. It will still be fun watching the Lakers and Magic go head-to-head for the O'Brian hardware.
My prediction: Lakers in 6.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Pac-12?
Every year about this time, there is a lot of discussion about the BCS's role in the determination of a college football national champion. Overwhelmingly, the anti-BCS voice is heard and talk of a playoff system heats up. I personally favor a playoff and think it would only boost the exposure of college football while making boatloads of cash for the NCAA and its sponsors.
Every season, there is at least one team that seems to get snubbed in the BCS process. This season, that team was Utah which did something no other NCAA FBS team did this season: win every game on its schedule.
Did Utah deserve a shot at the national title? Sure, just like every top 10 team deserved a shot. Utah's conference, the Mountain West Conference, is the reason the Utes were snubbed by the BCS. Because the MWC is not a BCS conference, the conference champion, regardless of record, will never get into the national title game.
The way I see it, there are two solutions to this.
First is a playoff. Since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, the second solution seems even more doable: apply for admission to the Pac-10.
If the top two teams in the MWC, arguably Utah and BYU, were to join the Pac-10, then both teams would get a legitimate shot at the national championship. Go undefeated in the Pac-10 and you're as likely to get into the title game as any team from the Big 10, SEC or Big 12.
If the pre-BCS poll method was still the way a national champion was chosen, then Utah likely would have had the strongest claim to the title. It's how BYU won its only national title in 1984.
Aside from football, BYU and Utah would likely be instantly competitive in the "lesser" sports in the Pac-10.
So let's get it done, gentlemen!
Every season, there is at least one team that seems to get snubbed in the BCS process. This season, that team was Utah which did something no other NCAA FBS team did this season: win every game on its schedule.
Did Utah deserve a shot at the national title? Sure, just like every top 10 team deserved a shot. Utah's conference, the Mountain West Conference, is the reason the Utes were snubbed by the BCS. Because the MWC is not a BCS conference, the conference champion, regardless of record, will never get into the national title game.
The way I see it, there are two solutions to this.
First is a playoff. Since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, the second solution seems even more doable: apply for admission to the Pac-10.
If the top two teams in the MWC, arguably Utah and BYU, were to join the Pac-10, then both teams would get a legitimate shot at the national championship. Go undefeated in the Pac-10 and you're as likely to get into the title game as any team from the Big 10, SEC or Big 12.
If the pre-BCS poll method was still the way a national champion was chosen, then Utah likely would have had the strongest claim to the title. It's how BYU won its only national title in 1984.
Aside from football, BYU and Utah would likely be instantly competitive in the "lesser" sports in the Pac-10.
So let's get it done, gentlemen!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Jet Favre: Are You Color Blind?
Last summer's Brett Favre saga kept the NFL in the media spotlight during a time it is usually in the latter segments of SportsCenter.When all was said and done, Sir Favre became a Jet and the Packers moved on with Aaron Rodgers behind center. The rest, as they say, is history and neither team is playing in the postseason.
It was weird seeing Favre in the NY Jets green and white instead of the Packers green and yellow...
Wait a sec! The Jets' colors ARE green and white, but what is that Packer-yellow thing (see picture) under Favre's jersey?? Yellow's not part of the Jets' colors!
Could Brett have been sending a message to his former team? Could the Packer-yellow collar thingy be a superstitious holding on to yesteryear?
Hidden messages, superstition or whatever, the Jets and Pack are at home watching the playoffs just like the rest of us.
Pass the chips, please.
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Contradictive Wording Of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy
Adam "Pacman" Jones (Cowboys), Brandon Marshall (Broncos), Larry Johnson (Chiefs), and most recently, Plaxico Burress (Giants), are pro football players whose names have been in the news this season for having violated the National Football League's Personal Conduct Policy. What exactly is the league's Personal Conduct Policy?
The official announcement of the policy came on April 10, 2007, amidst the league's rumored desire to crack down on its players' off-field behavior. Since its inception, the policy has resulted in many NFL players being suspended for violation of the policy.
This post is not about whether the policy is good or not. In my opinion, the policy is a no-brainer and makes official the type of behavior that should be a given by any mature and responsible adult...and especially for public figures like pro football players.
Rather, I would like to take to task some of the wording of the policy.
On the surface, the policy is a good one. However, there are a couple of parts of the policy that I find problematic and I think they need to be addressed by the league.
The wording in the General Policy portion is clear and self-explanatory (except for the last paragraph):
Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator.
The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.
Safe workplace? Isn't that contradictory to the nature of a football field? Just look at the lists of injured players week in and week out in the NFL. Was the NFL providing a safe workplace for those employees on the injured reserve list? Because football is a violent game, how is it possible for the league to provide a safe workplace for its employees?
In this area, the NFL is, by nature of the game, failing at its own policy.
It gets more interesting in the Prohibited Conduct portion (note: "Covered Persons" include players, coaches, front office personnel, and all employees of the NFL and its organizations):
It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.
Again, how is it possible for the league to abide by its own policy here? Every football player knows that the "threat of physical violence" is a given every time they step onto a football field.
Sure, the wording in question says "any crime involving use or threat of physical violence to a person", but is the physical violence inherent to the legal game of football still not physically violent?
Semantics, some may say. But words should never be thrown around so carelessly as the NFL has in this instance.
I'm Kelly Martinez and I approve of this blog.
The official announcement of the policy came on April 10, 2007, amidst the league's rumored desire to crack down on its players' off-field behavior. Since its inception, the policy has resulted in many NFL players being suspended for violation of the policy.
This post is not about whether the policy is good or not. In my opinion, the policy is a no-brainer and makes official the type of behavior that should be a given by any mature and responsible adult...and especially for public figures like pro football players.
Rather, I would like to take to task some of the wording of the policy.
On the surface, the policy is a good one. However, there are a couple of parts of the policy that I find problematic and I think they need to be addressed by the league.
The wording in the General Policy portion is clear and self-explanatory (except for the last paragraph):
Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator.
The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.
Safe workplace? Isn't that contradictory to the nature of a football field? Just look at the lists of injured players week in and week out in the NFL. Was the NFL providing a safe workplace for those employees on the injured reserve list? Because football is a violent game, how is it possible for the league to provide a safe workplace for its employees?
In this area, the NFL is, by nature of the game, failing at its own policy.
It gets more interesting in the Prohibited Conduct portion (note: "Covered Persons" include players, coaches, front office personnel, and all employees of the NFL and its organizations):
It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.
Again, how is it possible for the league to abide by its own policy here? Every football player knows that the "threat of physical violence" is a given every time they step onto a football field.
Sure, the wording in question says "any crime involving use or threat of physical violence to a person", but is the physical violence inherent to the legal game of football still not physically violent?
Semantics, some may say. But words should never be thrown around so carelessly as the NFL has in this instance.
I'm Kelly Martinez and I approve of this blog.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Voyeur Sport
With the first weekend of the Olympics wrapped up, I am left to wonder: why is beach volleyball part of the Olympics?
Two days into the Beijing Games, I've watched fencing, archery, rowing, gymnastics, swimming, water polo, basketball, soccer, indoor volleyball, cycling, diving, and...dare I admit it??..beach volleyball.
I used to not be a fan of volleyball. I found the game confusing and it did little to stimulate the sports fan in me. After I began working in the collegiate sports information field, where I was paid to witness all of the school's sports, I have grown to better understand the game and, to some degree, have become a fan.
I love to watch the exciting and long-lasting volleys that accompany indoor volleyball. I admire the athleticism of those who play the game. However, the beach version of the game does nothing for me as a sports fan and should not be a part of the Olympics.
I have watched beach volleyball before and have found it not to be very athletically entertaining. The volleys are VERY short lived and, with only two players per team, the game is usually about the serve and first or second volley.
I'm not really sure whether it's because there's only two players on a beach volleyball team or not, but the way the game is played is kind of a slap in the face to its indoor and much more entertaining counterpart.
On the surface (and that is probably all there is to this game), I think beach volleyball's attraction is the human body. The women are clad in bikinis and the camera angles show these women's physical attributes in all their glory with numerous and extensive close-up shots. If it weren't for these women's attractive bodies, what other reason could there be to watch?
There are other sports where the participants' physical attributes are accentuated (swimming, diving, gymnastics, etc.), but at least those are legitimate sports that have athletic value for its spectators.
As for men's beach volleyball, perhaps it's the same thing, though I doubt it because women spectators are not as visually driven as men spectators are. But, there are beach bunnies who love the sight of an attractive male in beach attire, so maybe, to some extent, that is the allure of men's beach volleyball as well.
Maybe you think this blogger's gone off his rocker, and maybe I have. All I can say is that when I'm flipping through the channels looking for my Olympic fix, I won't stop on beach volleyball because I find its athleticism entertaining.
Two days into the Beijing Games, I've watched fencing, archery, rowing, gymnastics, swimming, water polo, basketball, soccer, indoor volleyball, cycling, diving, and...dare I admit it??..beach volleyball.
I used to not be a fan of volleyball. I found the game confusing and it did little to stimulate the sports fan in me. After I began working in the collegiate sports information field, where I was paid to witness all of the school's sports, I have grown to better understand the game and, to some degree, have become a fan.
I love to watch the exciting and long-lasting volleys that accompany indoor volleyball. I admire the athleticism of those who play the game. However, the beach version of the game does nothing for me as a sports fan and should not be a part of the Olympics.
I have watched beach volleyball before and have found it not to be very athletically entertaining. The volleys are VERY short lived and, with only two players per team, the game is usually about the serve and first or second volley.
I'm not really sure whether it's because there's only two players on a beach volleyball team or not, but the way the game is played is kind of a slap in the face to its indoor and much more entertaining counterpart.
On the surface (and that is probably all there is to this game), I think beach volleyball's attraction is the human body. The women are clad in bikinis and the camera angles show these women's physical attributes in all their glory with numerous and extensive close-up shots. If it weren't for these women's attractive bodies, what other reason could there be to watch?
There are other sports where the participants' physical attributes are accentuated (swimming, diving, gymnastics, etc.), but at least those are legitimate sports that have athletic value for its spectators.
As for men's beach volleyball, perhaps it's the same thing, though I doubt it because women spectators are not as visually driven as men spectators are. But, there are beach bunnies who love the sight of an attractive male in beach attire, so maybe, to some extent, that is the allure of men's beach volleyball as well.
Maybe you think this blogger's gone off his rocker, and maybe I have. All I can say is that when I'm flipping through the channels looking for my Olympic fix, I won't stop on beach volleyball because I find its athleticism entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)