Huskies Tamed?

The National Collegiate Athletic Association, commonly known as the NCAA, has found 8 "major" rule infractions done by the University of Connecticut's men's basketball staff. These infractions include improper communication through texts and calls, giving recruits improper benefits, and giving high school coaches and others free tickets. The accusations are centered around a recruit that never played a game for the Huskies, Nathan Miles. Miles was expelled from UCONN for violating a restraining against a women she said he assaulted. Even though Miles is the core recruit cited in the infractions, other recruits were also named as the NCAA said the violations occurred from June 05 to February 09. It will be interesting to see what UCONN teams will be after the NCAA gives the school its punishment. The last major program to be accused of these violations was the the Hoosiers of Indiana under coach Kelvin Sampson. While the Hoosiers were not as big as they were under Bob Knight, it was still a pretty good program. The violations they committed and the punishments they took on completely derailed the program. Sampson was fired, and the team is now somewhere between obscurity and nonexistence. UCONN though is a team that recently became a major program winning all their championships within the last decade or so. The NCAA might give UCONN a lighter punishment than the Hoosiers who were slowly falling out of the limelight anyways, but then again you never know. Between the timeline of June 05 and February 09, the Huskies won 0 championships and it to only 1 Final Four, that being in 2009, so it is not like the violations led to success. I think the situation would be a lot worse if they had great success between the time period, but then again Indiana did not have any success either and the NCAA held nothing back, basically forcing the program to start from scratch. I personally think the NCAA will go harder on UCONN with its punishments. Why? Because the Huskies have become a big name program over the last decade+, and who better to teach a lesson to the rest of the programs than the Huskies who have been almost perennially atop the Big East, one of the toughest conferences in Division-I college basketball. The NCAA will make an example out of the Huskies, and I don't think you'll be seeing them much in the NCAA Tournament for years to come. I live in Connecticut and grew up loving the Huskies as well so it's not that I'm a UCONN hater, it's quite the opposite. For years I'm sure other programs scratched their heads and wondered 'How do we stop the Huskies?,' who knew that question would be answered by the Huskies. It is a sad day in UCONN Country, for the Huskies have been tamed...by themselves.

References

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5228593
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UConn_Huskies#Men.27s_Basketball

Making a (Fashion) Statement

Minor League Baseball is switching to a different batting helmet. This new helmet will be bigger and bulkier and will help prevent concussions better, as it will protect the head against a pitch as fast as 100 mph. This seems to be a great thing, less chances of a serious head injury to a player, especially a minor leaguer who is usually young and has a whole career ahead of him if he's good enough. The only problem is that the players are not fans of these new helmets. What's the problem you ask? This new helmet makes the batter look weird. Yes, you read that right. Professional baseball players don't like this new helmet simply because of it looks, according to an ESPN report. These players are the same players that will dive and get themselves dirty to make a great play or slide to increase their chances of reaching base safety. Reality check, you ain't the greatest fashion statement when you got dirt running up the side of your uniform. You have to wear your dirty uniform for the rest of the game as well, unlike a batting helmet in which you only where a handful of times per game. I find it funny that the players would be against any protective gear because of its looks. I mean the name of the game with the gear is to protect you so you can avoid injury and play the sport longer. It's job isn't to make you look cool while you're swinging your bat, which by the way doesn't look cool anyways. I'm sure to non-baseball fans you look like complete fools swinging a wooden bat a little white ball. I mean the eye black on the face to keep the sun out of the eyes is also not really a fashion statement, but plenty of players are willing to smear it all over their faces. I guess I'm just confused on why weird looking batting helmets are where these players on putting their feet down on. It doesn't really matter though, since pretty soon all professional baseball players will have to wear this new helmet, and then it will look normal. For this to make the news though is quite ridiculous. I mean these players are out competing in a sport, not a beauty pageant. Making a statement with your bat, glove, pitches, or speed is very important, no one really cares if you're making a fashion statement.

Reference

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5216174

The Past is fed up with the Present

A few weeks ago Hall of Famer Gale Sayers fielded questions about his former team, the Chicago Bears. He said that he was not happy with qb Jay Cutler's performance and that of the Bears overall. He says that if they don't win Head Coach Lovie Smith's job may be on the line, and he also wondered what type of player linebacker Brian Urlacher will be after coming off wrist surgery while being in the decline of his career. Urlacher took offense to Sayers comments and ripped him for not winning any postseason games himself. He said that everyone knows the Bears have problems and that they don't need former Chicago greats criticizing them. Sayers responded by saying that he only answered the questions he was asked honestly and that he was not going to spread false hope throughout Chicago when he knew the Bears were hurting. Two more Hall of Famers jumped to Sayers defense in Mike Ditka and Dan Hampton. Ditka reiterated the point that Sayers was justing answering a question honestly and that sometimes criticism can help you. He also said that it does not matter that Sayers never won a postseason game because championships are won by great teams not great individuals. He went on to say that if Sayers played a full career he'd be the greatest 2-back/receiver ever. Hampton said simply that Urlacher can't draw offense from the criticism because he and his Bears aren't winning, and that Sayers only said what was already known. Hampton's response to Sayers, or Ditka, not winning any championships was that their rings say 'Hall of Fame' on them and that is a pretty exclusive club.

Now I understand the initial comments by Sayers, and I can also understand a frustrated Urlacher not wanting to hear criticism from a former Bear who arguably should be helping support them in this bad time. But why did Mike Ditka and Dan Hampton open their mouths? Did they realize they are only putting fuel on the fire? I mean it's great that they want to stick up for a fellow Hall of Famer, but there's a time and place for everything. This time, though, there was no time or place. This issue should have stayed between Sayer and Urlacher. Now three NFL greats, and former Bears, are all basically ripping the Bears. Did they forget that the team is made of humans who have feelings? The Bears psyche had to have taken a huge hit these past few weeks. I mean members of their own "family," as Ditka called them, are completely against them. If members of my own family were against what I was doing, you bet I'd have a hard to doing my job to my full potential. There is saying that goes through my family, and it is "you have to pick and choose your battles." Ditka and Hampton should really get acclimated with that saying. They had no business stepping in and they've only made the situation worse. Gale Sayers is just a man who honestly answered questions about the Bears. Mike Ditka and Dan Hampton are men that damaged the Bears by honestly defending Gale Sayers, the difference could prove to be catastrophic.

References

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=5204392
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=5207667

Some Can't Fall Alone

Over the years many athletes have done things they aren't proud of, with steroids atop the list. The honest athletes admit what they did and why they did it, and the fans begrudge them for a short time and then get over it. Yankees' Andy Pettite and Alex Rodriguez are in this group. They both admitted to using steroids and gave the public there reasons for doing so. I think this is the right way to go. But of course not every athlete is willing to be so noble, some decide to take others down with them. The most famous case of this is that of Jose Canseco. After the public found out he used steroids he was basically shunned from the baseball community. This angered him because he allegedly knew others doing 'roids as well, and so he wrote 2 books on the subject, accusing many players. Canseco didn't have much credibility when his books came out though nor were steroids a huge issue in sports like they are today. When they did become a major issue, Canseco got a lot of publicity because of his books. I think what Canseco did was cowardly and wrong. Even out of school, the rule of 'don't rat other people out' still applies. Now Canseco is rarely heard of, gaining attention sometimes when he does odd jobs for cash, like when he did celebrity boxing. I feel that people should have the right to control their own destiny, and so if athletes refuse to admit steroid use then let them refuse, don't let a man with a damaged reputation seeking vengeance ruin their lives.

That first paragraph segues into the to recent news I have to talk about. Shunned American cyclist, Floyd Landis, admitted doping throughout his career after denying he ever had a positive test. He sang like a canary saying he used human growth hormone, blood transfusions, testosterone shots, and more. He said that he made the decision to use all these things on his own, without being coerced, and that he only blames himself. So far he sounds like the noble type of user who's just trying to rebuild his reputation, but I haven't told you the rest of what Mr. Landis did. He also submitted many accusations to the World Anti-Doping Agency about several other cyclists doing what he did, including cycling icon Lance Armstrong. Many of the people he accused were fellow American cyclists that were former teammates of his. He even went as far to say that the whole USA team did blood transfusions on the bus in between legs of the 2004 Tour de France. Landis then went on to say that he has no proof of anything he says and that he realizes it will be his word against theirs. So to recap, does Landis have a damaged reputation? Yep. Did he get shunned from his sport? Yup. Years after he was shunned did he come out and accuse others in his sport? Yes. Well Floyd Landis, looks to me like you pulled a Jose Canseco. You say wanted to clear your conscience and wanted to stop being part of the problem, but you could have done that without accusing others. Instead you decided to take everyone down with you, or at least try to. Since you have no legitimate proof to anything you say, I highly doubt your accusations will matter. All you are is a coward, just like Jose Canseco, afraid to fall alone.

Reference

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5203604

Exceptions to the Rule

Florida Marlins manager, Fredi Gonzales, benched star starting shortstop, Hanley Ramirez, after the 2nd inning when he failed to run hard after he accidentally kicked the ball into the outfield, two runs scored on the error. During his last at bat, Ramirez fouled a ball off his shin and was in quite a lot of pain. Now I'm not endorsing the lack of hustle some players give, but I am endorsing the fact that there should be exceptions. Hanley Ramirez is the highest paid player on the team, the star, the icon, no other Marlin even compares to him, and you do not bench him after 2 innings. He fouled a ball off his shin the half inning before he made the botch play, and if Gonzales was mad because 2 runs scored, well then I have news for him, even if Ramirez hustled to that ball those runs would have scored. Furthermore, and I can't stress this enough, he benched him after only 2 innings, not even a third of the game was completed. To make things worse, Gonzales admits that the replacement had a sprained ankle, which means he replaced his star player, after only 2 innings, with an injured backup. Where is the logic in this decision? What was Fredi Gonzales thinking? My guess was that he was trying to make a statement about a team lack of hustle and he used the star as his example, which is fine in some situations, but not this one. All Fredi Gonzales did was increase the chances of losing yesterday's game, which they did lose 5-1 to the Arizona Diamondbacks, and anger his best player. Fredi Gonzales has got a pair for doing what he did, but he went way too far. Gonzales should have looked the other way and pulled him aside after the game. If you want to win games, you're going to need your best player on the field. You also want him content, not angered. A negatively effected Ramirez will not produce like a positively effected Ramirez. The sports industry has exceptions to the rules just like in every other aspect of society. Hanley Ramirez should have been an exception on May 17, 2010.

Pointless Accusations

The Philadelphia Phillies have recently been accused of stealing signs by having their bullpen coach use binoculars. Now I have no idea why this story even came out because there is absolutely no way to prove this unless someone in the Phillies bullpen comes out and says that's what the coach was doing, which is never happen. All anybody can prove is that he was seen using binoculars. The bullpen is quite far away from the diamond so binoculars could have been used for various reasons such as he wanted to get a better view of the game or he was trying to see the signs of his own team from the bullpen. Stealing the opponent's signs is also a possibility, but again no one is going to know what the real use of the binoculars were. The opposing teams will always say they used them for an unfair advantage and the accused team will always say they didn't, whether they actually did or not. The only proof is this story is the video evidence of him using the binoculars, and that isn't going to do squat for accusations or defenses. A story like this makes you wonder if the media is having a hard time gathering stories to publish. I mean all this accusations is one says one thing and the other says the opposite; it isn't going anywhere. The MLB could investigate the matter, but are they really going to find out? Nothing. They can only find out exactly what the everyone already knows, that binoculars were used from the bullpen during a game and there's video evidence to show it. It's similar to the NFL case involving the New England Patriots stealing signs, but there was more concrete evidence in that case since the Patriots were actually filming things.

Another story that completely shocked me was the one in which Ken Griffey Jr. was sleeping in the clubhouse during a game. There was no concrete evidence that he was sleeping besides two anonymous players saying so. This evidence is worthless though since Manager Don Wakamatsu and Griffey himself denied the story. Again another story of they said something and others say the opposite. This story might as well been published by a Griffey hater because it has no legs to stand on. The only problem is it was first reported by a local newspaper; one that should marvel at Griffey, not publicly embarrass him. The newspaper recently said the story was published accidentally, but I don't buy that. How does a newspaper accidentally publish a story? I mean is it so crappy that they forgot to look through before it went to publishing? I guess that could be a possibility. I find this story to be embarrassing not only to baseball but to all sports. The media has sunk so far that they are now willing to publicly embarrass players, in this case a legendary player.

These two story based on pointless accusations are not needed in the sports world today. The sports world has enough problems already with steroids and players being irresponsible off the field. If the sports world had no other problems, then yes these stories might be published just to spice things up, but again the sports world is no wheres near perfect. Every time you turn around a player is in trouble somehow. These pointless stories doing nothing but disgrace the sports world and they need to stop. Every reporter out there needs to think more about the industry as a whole and less about finding the next big story. The big story will never come if you continue to taint the industry with stories about pointless accusations.

No Past References?

Ever since Kurt Warner retired from the Arizona Cardinals, every person in the NFL universe said the Cards won't be the same this year. The main reason is because Warner's backup, Matt Leinart, apparently just isn't good enough. Now if the year was 2005, I would have to agree. But as everybody should know, the year is now 2010 and I don't see why no one is giving Leinart a fighting chance. The man has sat behind one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL for the last three years. What other current starting qb did that? Oh yea, Aaron Rodgers and now look what he's doing. In fact, history has shown that quarterbacks who are "groomed" into the starting position do much better than those who are thrust into the position from day 1. Don't believe me? Well, a much more credible source has said the same thing, that source being ESPN with their most recent article on Charlie Whitehurst and how history shows he may be a better qb than Sam Bradford, if he ever gets a chance to start. What I don't understand is why no one is attributing this history to Matt Leinart. Steve Young, Tom Brady, Philip Rivers, and Tony Romo are four more qb's off the top of my head that sat at least one year behind a good veteran starter and ended up having great careers for themselves with Brady, Rivers, and Romo still not done yet. Whitehurst and Kevin Kolb of the Eagles also share this trait except they haven't been given the chance to start a full season. Whitehurst sat behind Phil Rivers in San Diego and now will sit behind Matt Hasselback of the Seahawks. Kolb has sat behind Donovan McNabb and now becomes the starter after the Eagles traded away McNabb. Now I don't know about you, but I never heard of Kevin Kolb or Charlie Whitehurst until recently and they have been given more positive attention than that of Matt Leinart, who everyone in the NFL universe has heard of since he entered the League. Leinart isn't exactly your classic case of a qb being groomed, but it certainly turned out that way the last three years. In fact, I would think Leinart has a greater chance of success since he has experience starting and then fell back and watched Warner from the sidelines for a few years. Of course, no one else seems to think this way, and I just don't understand why. The skill and history are on Leniart's side, why isn't the world?

Short History on qb grooming:

Steve Young --> previous Joe Montana --> result both Hall of Famers
Tom Brady --> previous Drew Bledisoe --> result Brady arguably best qb right now
Tony Romo --> previous Drew Bledisoe --> result 'Boys back on the map in the NFL
Aaron Rodgers --> previous Brett Favre --> result Favre not missed in Green Bay
Philip Rivers --> previous Drew Brees --> result SD has become dominant in the air

References:

Various player cards on espn.com
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/17772/bradford-whitehurst-and-qb-success