Friday, July 25, 2008

They Got Next

The WNBA has finally arrived. Not really, but at least it's getting a few more seconds on SportsCenter.

It has taken a brawl at the end of Tuesday's Los Angeles Sparks-Detroit Shock game to bring wid(er)spread media and fan attention to the league. Sportscasters and league officials have reacted to the brawl with disgust and disdain....which is a step up from the usual disgust and disdain fans react with over the level of play on display.

Is it really that much of a surprise that professional athletes have gotten into a fight while embroiled in the thick of battle? Why the disgust? Is it because they're women and should behave like ladies instead of acting like their boorish male counterparts?

Nah! That would fly in the face of true equality...which is what the league is supposed to be all about. (Yeah, right!)

We don't expect the men to behave like gentlemen while on the court, so, in the interest of equality, why should the women be expected to behave like ladies? They're egocentric pro athletes, just like the men who comprise the NBA. Aggression and rough play is something they should be used to.

Look at women's pro boxing. There are no pretenses in that sport. Fans who watch it aren't expecting ladylike behavior from the combatants.

The way I see it, a WNBA brawl is long overdue. After over a decade of existence behind the guise of gender equality, why not embrace this incident and build off of it? Fighting is, to some extent, part of the allure of the NBA. Fans of the NBA have come to expect aggression and rough play on the court. In most arenas, the fans feed off of it.

So why should it be any different in the WNBA? It surely couldn't hurt given the league's infinitesimal fan base.

Sure, NBA players are fined and suspended for violence, but how painful is it for a multi-millionaire basketball player to fork out a $10,000 fine and miss a game or two for acting aggressively? If aggression was truly not wanted, then the messages sent for fighting, in any sport, would be much stiffer than they are now.

Another thing to consider in all of this is the coaching involved. Is anyone really surprised that a Bill Laimbeer and Rick Mahorn coached player is charged with starting the WNBA's worst fight?

Detroit's Plenette Pierson, deemed the instigator of the fight, was fined $1,500 and has been suspended for four games. Not to be outdone by most participants, former Bad Boy Mahorn was fined $1,000 and received a two-game suspension for pushing L.A. star Lisa Leslie to the floor during the fight. The rest of the players involved were slapped with $500 fines.

Personally, I will be keeping a better eye on the WNBA (*sardonic grin*). If aggressive play is going to be embraced like it is in the NBA, I may change my opinion of the league and start watching. (Yeah, riiiiggght!)

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Viva la Classic!

I love to reminisce.

Perhaps this is why I love ESPN Classic so much. I like ESPN with its constant SportsCenter airings, Pardon The Interruption with Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon, Around The Horn, and Jim Rome Is Burning. While these shows are highly entertaining and informative, nothing quite compares with Classic's reairing of Game 7 of the 1984 NBA Finals or the 1983 Orange Bowl or Buster Douglas' upset win over Mike Tyson in 1990.

Shows like these work wonders for me, and apparently many others or ESPN would not keep programming like this on the air.

Like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Classic takes me back to the comfort of my youth and young adulthood. Reacting to a missed layup by Magic Johnson in 1984 takes me back to the first time I saw him miss that layup in Game 7 in Boston Garden, complete with what I was snacking on at the time (Doritos), who I was watching the game with (my buddies), and the feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Lakers will win that game this time around (not really, but it seems like it).

So, thank you, ESPN, for giving us Classic and providing us with memories of not only the games themselves, but of a a time when life was much simpler and less stressful.

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Don't Do It, Brett!

Dear Brett Favre,

I understand what it's like to be in your late 30s and see that you've lost a step or two. I also understand that in your late 30s, you want to prove that you're just as rugged and good as you were in your 20s. I also understand that mentally, you feel as sharp as you did 17 years ago...though your body is beginning to disagree with that assessment.

What I don't understand, however, is why you can't leave well enough alone. I mean, you called it quits in March because you were, "mentally tired." ESPN and the NFL Network made quite a big deal about your retirement. With all of the Brett Favre tribute programming that flooded the airwaves for several weeks, one could have assumed you had died.

Now, four months later, you're apparently ready to lace up the cleats and make a comeback. Funny thing, though...how can you make a comeback when, in actuality, you haven't even been gone yet? Is your mental tiredness all rested and ready to go now?

You told ESPN's Chris Mortensen in March that the only way it would be worth it for you to play another season was if you could win the Super Bowl. You said, "If I felt like coming back -- and [my wife] and I talked about this -- the only way for me to be successful would be to win a Super Bowl. To go to the Super Bowl and lose, would almost be worse than anything else. Anything less than a Super Bowl win would be unsuccessful."

I get it, Brett. After 17 seasons, three MVP awards, and two appearances in the Super Bowl, you understand the rigors and stress involved in "putting up or shutting up" in the NFL. Makes sense. Nobody faulted you for calling it quits in March. You should know better than to "come back", though.

Look at what Michael Jordan did. He came back twice, once from a premature retirement and once from a legitimate retirement. He came back the second time at 38, the same age you are now. In the two seasons he played in Washington, his stats were considerably lower than his career averages in every category, not to mention the damage his comeback did to his legacy.

Everyone remembers his career with fondness, but there will always be that mental asterisk in fans' minds that he played too long. When he retired in '98, his legacy would have been one that had him going out on top, an NBA champion. Instead, he traded that in for two seasons with the Wizards that etched memories in fans' minds of a slower, overweight Michael Jordan, who paled in comparison to the one who retired in '98.

Though you didn't go out on top, Brett, you did go out on a much higher note than anyone expected. You came close. You almost made it to the Super Bowl. I can understand how that might eat at you, coming oh-so-close and not making it. But listen...the odds of you making a run like that again with the Packers or any other team are pretty slim, even if they wanted you back. In case you haven't been reading the papers or watching SportsCenter, it sounds like the Packers are tired of your "I'm retired...but then again..." routine, as sports franchises tend to do when an aging superstar is reluctant to let go.

Do yourself and us a favor, Brett: stay retired. We all think highly of you and all that you accomplished during your career. The odds of you tarnishing that opinion are too great for you to risk a comeback.