This is neither an anti or pro abortion post. As much as is humanly possible I try to refrain from spouting off opinions and seriously discussing things that I have not ever, even remotely encountered in my (admittedly limited) life experience. Lets call this rule the "Don't sit on a soapbox and judge if you've never been to the mountaintop" rule. Why do I hold this rule sacred? Because it is very easy to sit here and say you would never do X or would definitely do Y, if all you're doing is sitting there talking about them in a vacuum and not actually doing any doing at all. If you've never been placed in the position to do never do X or definitely do Y, how could you truly know that you would never do X and would definitely do Y? You can't.
For example, it'd be easy for me to sit here and say "Oh, I'd never steal. Stealing is bad and its also a crime." Then again, I've never been truly desperate and hungry. Ever. Making such a statement in a vacuum is easy, especially when you're sitting on the sidelines. From the sidelines it's pretty easy to say things like "I'd never steal." You know what's not easy? Being desperate and/or hungry is not easy. If I was desperate, hungry and had mouths to feed there might be a lot of things I'd do that I wouldn't normally do if I weren't (including getting my Robin Hood on!). That's not to say I condone stealing or any other criminal or illegal behavior. It's just to say that I try not to judge people who steal or do any number of things that in a vacuum I might feel differently about -- because I've never walked a mile in their shoes and if I had to, well my list of "nevers" and "definitelys" might "evolve." The point is if you're looking for pros and cons to pro-life and pro-choice keep it moving.
Now on to the news and the outcry to have CBS not air the Tebow's "pro-family" ad during the superbowl. First, why the uproar over a superbowl ad that hasn't even aired yet?! I can't imagine the hoopla after the commercial is actually aired. SMH. Oh, there will be blood. This guy Tim Tebow can certainly create a stir. It goes without saying, Tim Tebow and the media's constant fawning over him and how great he is at football and life is one of the most controversial topics in America (unless of course you're a member of Gator nation and then you love it). Abortion? Needless to say its pretty high up there on the controvery scale. So I guess fireworks from combining the two is to be expected.
But still...I don't understand. As explained above the only people who should be spouting off either way in the contentious abortion debate are people who have been to the mountaintop. The Tebow's, by all accounts, have been to the mountaintop and have "wrastled" (Tebow for wrestled) with this immensely tough decision. Since they've been there and done that I don't find myself bothered that they want to share their story publicly. Obviously there story won't be for everyone. But that's the beauty of America...you can hear divergent opinions and make your own choices. No one holds a gun to your head either way when it comes to these types things (unless of course you're in the Wizards locker room, where apparently this might be a real concern...but that's a post for another day). So clearly, the Tebow's are entitled to their opinion and are entitled to share their opinion.
The question then is are they entitled to share their opinion publicly on TV? Obviously, and resoundingly yes. Not even the critics of the ad doubt that Focus on the Family has the right to purchase air time and run an ad on TV espousing "family values." Hence, the real question and what has critics most upset is that the ad will run on CBS during the Super Bowl...when you know a whole lot of people will be watching TV! Peculiarly mostly feminist and women's rights groups are urging CBS to abort the ad (no pun intended). Personally, I was unaware that such a large population of women was tuning in to watch some football (even for the Super Bowl), but am definitely happy about this development for sure!! At any rate its clear that anyone can buy an ad and try to get a station to run the ad for public consumption.
So CBS is under fire for allowing Focus on the Family to do just that. On the one hand if CBS had changed up its "advocacy ad" policy midstream to accomodate this ONE commercial (which wouldn't be surprising given that it is Tim Tebow and all) then I could see a legitimate beef. You can't just go changing network policies to accomodate one particular view point or one particular person or organization. That however, does not appear to be the case. Rather CBS has given every indication that it has changed its policy concerning advocacy ads over the last 5 years and according to a CBS spokesperson "most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time." CBS further stated that they will "continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV."
Now here is where I really don't understand all the criticism. I guess it is typical of a society that likes to talk a big talk, but invariably fails to walk a big walk. Yep, I'm about to take it back to the old school..."back in the day when I was coming up as a young whipper snapper and used to have to walk to school 5 miles barefoot in the snow" we used to say things like "put your money where your mouth is." It didn't really matter what the situation was (we could be playing 1-on-1 in hoops, tetherball, UNO, whatever!), but everyone knew you might fool around for awhile and get beat, but when it came to money time?? You stop playing games and get serious. Apparently these critics have forgotten another golden rule "Money Talks." So I get it...many advocacy groups have a different opinion on abortion than Focus on the Family and the Tebow's. Again, that's part of the reason America is so great...not everyone has to think the same thing or make the same choices. So when representatives from the coalition of women's rights groups opposing the ad were asked the imminently reasonable question of whether they planned to put their money where their mouth is and shell out $2.5 million dollars to run a super bowl abortion ad in line with their own beliefs, their resounding response was "no." And what of the United Church of Christ who was rebuffed by CBS in 2004 (before the policy change) when they wanted to run an ad showing gays worshipping in church? When asked if they would be putting their money where there mouth is and running a counter ad to show the pro-choice side of things or re-submitting an ad for gay rights, the Church's pastor responded with a resounding "no." Newsflash: you can't vehemently oppose CBS's decision to take $2.5 million dollars to run an advocacy ad, while on the other hand refusing to make the same investment in your cause that Focus on the Family has. If, as the critics whine it is, it is a super big deal to run a commercial on CBS during the Super Bowl, then seize the opportunity yourself...run a counter ad. Don't just sit around crying about things being unfair if you haven't even tried to get CBS to run your ad in this year's Super Bowl.
These organizations have not put their money where their mouth is and so there really is nothing to criticize. Focus on the Family and Tim Tebow broke no rules. I repeat (like it or not) the Golden Rule is money talks. Focus on the Family had some "generous donors" who felt a certain way about something and committed their generous pockets to making it happen. They didn't dig into the organizations coffers at all to pay for the commercial time. If any organization were to submit an advocacy ad for play by CBS during the Super Bowl (along with their $2.5 mil of course) and CBS flim flammed some reason for denying their ad while allowing the Tebow's? Then by all means there's a legitimate beef and critics should be criticizing. This has not happened. So until some of these critics start putting their money with their mouths are and gets rebuffed by CBS they should just pipe down and enjoy the game (and the funny commercials!).
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Dwight Shrute wants to be an All-Star too...
Once upon a time, in a land actually not too far, far away (lets call this land Legitimus All-Staronius) AI (yes, the same AI who did not start over the illustrious Mike Conley for the Grizz and the same AI who couldn't even get the Knicks to pick him up despite the Knicks starting 4 1/2 players, yeah I'm talking to you Chris Duhon), would not even be on the All-Star game ballot. In Legitimus All-Staronius 2010 T-Mac would never come precipitously close to starting an All-Star game and would never end up as the 2nd leading vote getter for Western Conference guards (ahead of Chris Paul!) by putting up such incredible season averages of 3.2 pts and 1 assist in 7 minutes of play in 6 games. In Legitimus All-Staronius players who are really centers (yes Tim Duncan, I'm talking to you) would not masquerade on the ballot as PF's because they would not get voted in as All-Star starters with a dominate Shaq and a healthy Yao (oh wait never mind, Yao is never really healthy) on the ballot as Western Conference centers.
Ahh how I long for the days of yonder in Legitimus All-Staronius. Meanwhile, in the present day Association, chaos is afoot...the least knowledgeable people in the sport (fans of course) are 100% in control over who starts the All-Star game. Players who don't deserve to start (yes, I'm talking to you AI and yes you too KG with your 20 something games played, and I was almost talking to you too T-Mac before we were spared the embarrassment at the last minute) are taking All-Star spots away from much more deserving players. This is not shocking...again, the least knowledgeable people on the sport are wholly responsible for selecting starters with no input whatsoever from coaches, GMs, and the players themselves.
But the best part of the story?? That's easy, the NBA's patent refusal to do anything at all about these shenanigans because "the NBA is a fans game and the All-Star game and the sport are all about the fans." Lol this is classic. As a fan, I was completely unaware that the NBA cared about me at all. I mean I know they care about the fans sitting in the luxury boxes and maybe about the ones sitting courtside, but me?? God bless David Stern for thinking about me, the fan, during the All-Star game (which of course there is no shot I will likely ever be able to go to).
Lets briefly chronicle the NBA's "hey, we're all about the fans" concern shall we. First, if I want to go see an NBA game I have to pay ridiculous prices to see the game from really far away (the costs of these far away seats go up every year). At many arenas if I even want a whiff of seeing LeBron, Melo or any of the other megastars, I better be prepared to buy a package deal that includes two lame teams like the T'Wolves and Pacers cuz according to the NBA "not only are we forcing you to fork over a lot of dough to see LeBron, but he's a package deal...you get to see Roy Hibbert and Corey Brewer too!" Anyways since paying $30 for the parking lot is patently out of the question, I've trained it to the game, plopped down in my $80 "wow, LeBron looks really small from up here seat" and since I can't bring my own peanuts and cracker jacks to the game I'm now hungry. Needless to say the $50 I spend for food and drinks for two at the concessions stand could have likely been better spent at a finer eating establishment. But you know what, I have a better idea! Why not just stay home and watch the game in the comfort of my own home?! Oh wait, if I want to watch an NBA game at home on my couch I have to pay ridiculously high prices for the NBA's league pass. So it is crystal clear to the fans that the NBA is a business and there in it to win it, but much less clear is that the NBA cares about me, the fan...unless of course we're talking about voting for the All-Star game.
And what is the NBA's real fear if for instance when the All-Star game rolled around fans counted for 1/3 of the vote, players counted for 1/3 of the vote, and coaches/GMs counted for 1/3 of the vote?? That the fans are not going to show up to watch the All-Star game at all if Rajon Rondo or Steve Nash or Chris Paul starts and Allen Iverson and T-Mac aren't close to sniffing the team?? Never fear NBA, as I can assure you there will be no dreaded fan revolt from the horror of having to watch Steve Nash or CP3 or Rondo start the All-Star game and drop dimes and throw oops throughout. Of course fans will continue to pay to watch the All-Star game and will tune in on TV, and of course the game will still, somehow be exciting if only real All-Stars played in it. Why? Because people who know the game (coaches, players, gms, beat writers, etc.) are not going to be selecting Mighty Mbenga or J.J. Reddick (Dukie...nuff said!) for the All-Star roster. They are going to select the most deserving guys to play in the game, including the actual and wildly entertaining superstars of the league (LeBron, Kobe, Melo, D-Wade, Howard, Roy, Paul, D-Will, etc.) and not the watered down "name brand" superstars of yesteryear. I mean c'mon, what fan is seriously buying a ticket to the All-Star game in the hopes of seeing AI or T-Mac "crush it" with guys like LeBron, Kobe, Durant, D-Wade, D-Howard, CP3, Melo in the building?! What fan in their right mind is tuning in to the All-Star game thinking "I can't wait to see T-Mac take a bunch of off balanced fadeaway threes with a hand in his face in the All-Star game today, it's gonna be awesome"??!! No fan is thinking that, which makes the NBA's explanation for not doing anything at all implausible (yes, T-Mac and AI obviously got votes...a lot of them. But the point is that fans are not going to NOT watch the game if, for whatever reason, neither of them are in the game. So the NBA saying they're keeping 100% fan voting because the game is about what the fans want is nonsensical).
Why does any of this matter at the end of the day? Who cares if the AI's or T-Mac's of the world take away an All-Star spot from a more deserving player?? Well for one it matters to the players. It's actually an honor to be named to an all-star team. It means someone, anyone has recognized your accomplishment in something that you have likely dedicated your whole life to being good at. I imagine that must feel pretty special. Imagine if Michael Scott created an All-Star team at Dunder-Mifflin...does anyone in their right mind think that Dwight Shrute would not KILL himself to be on it?! Even Jim would want to be on Dunder-Mifflin's All-Star team. You'd want to be on the All-Star team at your office too because it means someone has recognized you for the great work you do. And while you might want your clients (fans?) input as to the job you did, you'd also want the input and respect from your peers and bosses because they are really the ones who know all that you contribute. In the NBA it's no different.
But this matters for more practical reasons than emotional lifetime achievement ones. It matters because fan voting is taking money out of players' pockets by giving away All-Star spots to players who do not deserve them. For example, many professional contracts contain rather lucrative bonuses, incentives and escalators that kick in when a player is named to an All-Star team. In addition, making an All-Star team is an undoutable boost to a player's credentials. This boost could be critical in contract negotations. When its time to negotiate that next big contract and secure the well-being of family being an "All-Star" can swing leverage in your favor. So yes, in a very real way All-Star "slights" are kind of a big deal.
While I have poked some fun at AI and T-Mac, it should be noted that I think AI and T-Mac are fantastic people and players. Indeed, I grew up as big fans of both guys games and still am a fan of what they bring to the court (though certainly not a fan of what they would bring to my fantasy basketball team). I just don't think the 2010 version of either player is truly worthy of All-Star consideration.
So what to do about fan voting?? For one, 100% fan voting is not the way to go. Break it into thirds and let fans, players, coaches and GMs all play a role in voting for who starts the game. Second, please stop printing the ballots before the season even starts! The game is in February for crying out loud. I bet if you let the season play itself out a little bit, printed out and distributed ballots in December and gave everyone a couple of months to vote, it would be fine...and guys like Zach Randolph who are putting up 21 pts and 11 boards and Kaman putting up 20 pts and 9 boards a night won't be omitted entirely from the ballot. You get one day to vote for the President...2.5 months should be plenty of time to figure out whose in the "deserving" ball park, make a ballot, distribute it, and have folks check "yes" to LeBron and "no" to AI (and voting is done online and through texting mostly, so don't tell me time is an issue here!). Lastly, the "China Problem." Something has to be done about the voting (patterns) in China. China I love you, but a billion votes for T-Mac just because he plays with Yao is unacceptable. What's next Carl Landry and Luis Scola for the 2011 All-Star team?! No thanks...
Anyway, no matter what happens I'm sure the game will be fun for all in Dallas, but please NBA stop the charade about how the game and the NBA is "fan"tastic. Fantastic? Yes! "Fan"tastic? No.
Ahh how I long for the days of yonder in Legitimus All-Staronius. Meanwhile, in the present day Association, chaos is afoot...the least knowledgeable people in the sport (fans of course) are 100% in control over who starts the All-Star game. Players who don't deserve to start (yes, I'm talking to you AI and yes you too KG with your 20 something games played, and I was almost talking to you too T-Mac before we were spared the embarrassment at the last minute) are taking All-Star spots away from much more deserving players. This is not shocking...again, the least knowledgeable people on the sport are wholly responsible for selecting starters with no input whatsoever from coaches, GMs, and the players themselves.
But the best part of the story?? That's easy, the NBA's patent refusal to do anything at all about these shenanigans because "the NBA is a fans game and the All-Star game and the sport are all about the fans." Lol this is classic. As a fan, I was completely unaware that the NBA cared about me at all. I mean I know they care about the fans sitting in the luxury boxes and maybe about the ones sitting courtside, but me?? God bless David Stern for thinking about me, the fan, during the All-Star game (which of course there is no shot I will likely ever be able to go to).
Lets briefly chronicle the NBA's "hey, we're all about the fans" concern shall we. First, if I want to go see an NBA game I have to pay ridiculous prices to see the game from really far away (the costs of these far away seats go up every year). At many arenas if I even want a whiff of seeing LeBron, Melo or any of the other megastars, I better be prepared to buy a package deal that includes two lame teams like the T'Wolves and Pacers cuz according to the NBA "not only are we forcing you to fork over a lot of dough to see LeBron, but he's a package deal...you get to see Roy Hibbert and Corey Brewer too!" Anyways since paying $30 for the parking lot is patently out of the question, I've trained it to the game, plopped down in my $80 "wow, LeBron looks really small from up here seat" and since I can't bring my own peanuts and cracker jacks to the game I'm now hungry. Needless to say the $50 I spend for food and drinks for two at the concessions stand could have likely been better spent at a finer eating establishment. But you know what, I have a better idea! Why not just stay home and watch the game in the comfort of my own home?! Oh wait, if I want to watch an NBA game at home on my couch I have to pay ridiculously high prices for the NBA's league pass. So it is crystal clear to the fans that the NBA is a business and there in it to win it, but much less clear is that the NBA cares about me, the fan...unless of course we're talking about voting for the All-Star game.
And what is the NBA's real fear if for instance when the All-Star game rolled around fans counted for 1/3 of the vote, players counted for 1/3 of the vote, and coaches/GMs counted for 1/3 of the vote?? That the fans are not going to show up to watch the All-Star game at all if Rajon Rondo or Steve Nash or Chris Paul starts and Allen Iverson and T-Mac aren't close to sniffing the team?? Never fear NBA, as I can assure you there will be no dreaded fan revolt from the horror of having to watch Steve Nash or CP3 or Rondo start the All-Star game and drop dimes and throw oops throughout. Of course fans will continue to pay to watch the All-Star game and will tune in on TV, and of course the game will still, somehow be exciting if only real All-Stars played in it. Why? Because people who know the game (coaches, players, gms, beat writers, etc.) are not going to be selecting Mighty Mbenga or J.J. Reddick (Dukie...nuff said!) for the All-Star roster. They are going to select the most deserving guys to play in the game, including the actual and wildly entertaining superstars of the league (LeBron, Kobe, Melo, D-Wade, Howard, Roy, Paul, D-Will, etc.) and not the watered down "name brand" superstars of yesteryear. I mean c'mon, what fan is seriously buying a ticket to the All-Star game in the hopes of seeing AI or T-Mac "crush it" with guys like LeBron, Kobe, Durant, D-Wade, D-Howard, CP3, Melo in the building?! What fan in their right mind is tuning in to the All-Star game thinking "I can't wait to see T-Mac take a bunch of off balanced fadeaway threes with a hand in his face in the All-Star game today, it's gonna be awesome"??!! No fan is thinking that, which makes the NBA's explanation for not doing anything at all implausible (yes, T-Mac and AI obviously got votes...a lot of them. But the point is that fans are not going to NOT watch the game if, for whatever reason, neither of them are in the game. So the NBA saying they're keeping 100% fan voting because the game is about what the fans want is nonsensical).
Why does any of this matter at the end of the day? Who cares if the AI's or T-Mac's of the world take away an All-Star spot from a more deserving player?? Well for one it matters to the players. It's actually an honor to be named to an all-star team. It means someone, anyone has recognized your accomplishment in something that you have likely dedicated your whole life to being good at. I imagine that must feel pretty special. Imagine if Michael Scott created an All-Star team at Dunder-Mifflin...does anyone in their right mind think that Dwight Shrute would not KILL himself to be on it?! Even Jim would want to be on Dunder-Mifflin's All-Star team. You'd want to be on the All-Star team at your office too because it means someone has recognized you for the great work you do. And while you might want your clients (fans?) input as to the job you did, you'd also want the input and respect from your peers and bosses because they are really the ones who know all that you contribute. In the NBA it's no different.
But this matters for more practical reasons than emotional lifetime achievement ones. It matters because fan voting is taking money out of players' pockets by giving away All-Star spots to players who do not deserve them. For example, many professional contracts contain rather lucrative bonuses, incentives and escalators that kick in when a player is named to an All-Star team. In addition, making an All-Star team is an undoutable boost to a player's credentials. This boost could be critical in contract negotations. When its time to negotiate that next big contract and secure the well-being of family being an "All-Star" can swing leverage in your favor. So yes, in a very real way All-Star "slights" are kind of a big deal.
While I have poked some fun at AI and T-Mac, it should be noted that I think AI and T-Mac are fantastic people and players. Indeed, I grew up as big fans of both guys games and still am a fan of what they bring to the court (though certainly not a fan of what they would bring to my fantasy basketball team). I just don't think the 2010 version of either player is truly worthy of All-Star consideration.
So what to do about fan voting?? For one, 100% fan voting is not the way to go. Break it into thirds and let fans, players, coaches and GMs all play a role in voting for who starts the game. Second, please stop printing the ballots before the season even starts! The game is in February for crying out loud. I bet if you let the season play itself out a little bit, printed out and distributed ballots in December and gave everyone a couple of months to vote, it would be fine...and guys like Zach Randolph who are putting up 21 pts and 11 boards and Kaman putting up 20 pts and 9 boards a night won't be omitted entirely from the ballot. You get one day to vote for the President...2.5 months should be plenty of time to figure out whose in the "deserving" ball park, make a ballot, distribute it, and have folks check "yes" to LeBron and "no" to AI (and voting is done online and through texting mostly, so don't tell me time is an issue here!). Lastly, the "China Problem." Something has to be done about the voting (patterns) in China. China I love you, but a billion votes for T-Mac just because he plays with Yao is unacceptable. What's next Carl Landry and Luis Scola for the 2011 All-Star team?! No thanks...
Anyway, no matter what happens I'm sure the game will be fun for all in Dallas, but please NBA stop the charade about how the game and the NBA is "fan"tastic. Fantastic? Yes! "Fan"tastic? No.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Contracts Class and Lane Kiffin (apparently the first coach to ever leave for a better job in the whole world, ever)...
There are many things I learned while in law school. The most important of which is that Contracts is not really my bag. Seriously...it was far and away my worst grade in law school. No, I didn't panic or choke during the exam...apparently I just didn't know (at all) what the heck I was talking about.
Be that as it may, if there is ONE thing I know FOR SURE from Contracts its that contracts are made to be broken...it's their raison d'etre! I mean all the loopholes, outs, and double speak in them are mind boggling.
Thus, I am surprised to see all of this negative pub aimed at Lane Kiffin. My favorite hater quotes coming from none other than SI's Peter King who says, "The gall of Kiffin. The unmitigated, outrageous gall of this kid. Where's the decency? The maturity? The gratitude? The simple sense of even a pinch of loyalty?"
This negative pub generally falls into 2 categories of hater-ade. Category 1) "Lane Kiffin is a mediocre-terrible coach, how'd he even GET such a good job?!" Category 2) "Lane Kiffin had a contract with Tennessee and he should honor his contract, because you know 'word is bond.'"
Both criticisms are ridiculous. 1) It is irrelevant how good of a coach Lane Kiffin is (and lets be honest a 7-6 record in the SEC--only the toughest conference in college football--for a Tennessee team that was not all that talented and a sub .500 stint with the Raiders--I mean really, who wins with the Raiders?!--is not really much to judge a man's coaching talents on). The only relevant issue is whether or not USC felt like Lane Kiffin was a good enough coach to coach their team. Critics hating on Kiffin because USC thought he was talented enough to offer him the job is as ridiculous as people hating on Obama because the Nobel Peace Prize committee deemed him worthy of its highest honor. Obama didn't give himself the Nobel Peace Prize and Kiffin didn't give himself the coaching job at USC.
If pundits have any beef at all regarding Kiffin's rapid ascension to one of the cushiest coaching jobs on the college landscape, their ire seems woefully misplaced. If there's anyone to be mad at at all it's the Athletic Director at USC, not Kiffin who didn't hire himself. Hence, sitting up on soap box and saying that Kiffin's mediocre coaching record or accomplishments doesn't merit the prestigious coaching job at USC and that he is spoiled is pointless. Apparently, the people making the hiring decisions at USC felt otherwise, and that's certainly not something to get mad at Kiffin about and make him seem like some spoiled kid because he's been fortunate enough to have 3 good coaching jobs in his very young career. Obviously the man must be doing SOMETHING right...maybe he's a great interview lol. At any rate, I'm positive that someone (possibly) overvaluing the talents of a head football coach is not a new phenemenon and it certainly doesn't mean that the college football coaching world is turned upside down on its head. And any coach who questions the hiring should be ashamed of themselves. Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
2) "Contracts?! We talkin bout contracts?!" (Allen Iverson). The facts are these. Lane Kiffin is not the first coach to have a contract and is not the first coach to leave one job for a better one. Nick Saban did it, Rich Rodriguez did it, Urban Meyer did it, Brian Kelly just did it, Rick Pitino did it, Spurrier did it, John Calipari did it, Pete Carroll did it, Mack Brown did it. And the list goes on and on...coaches are constantly trying to upgrade their stance in the profession and reach that dream job. Apparently, USC was that place for Kiffin. Another pertinent fact that those making the contract argument like to lightly gloss over or don't mention at all is that Kiffin did NOT break his contract. His contract had a buyout after one year, which Kiffin exercised and paid. Apparently, it was smart of Kiffin to negotiate this clause into his contract...
So the contract argument quickly boils down to "oh, well he recruited a bunch of impressionable kids and promised he would never leave them" and "Tennessee gave him a good job after he had been fired, so he owed them more loyalty." The latter is a presposterously hilarious argument considering, Tennessee showed no loyalty whatsoever when they unceremoniously fired and bought out Phil Fulmer (who coached the team back when Petyon Manning was a Volunteer for cying out loud!). As for the impressionable teens who were promised a national championship from Kiffin and now have been left in the cold...you've got to be kidding me right?? Where is all this media compassion and spotlight for these young impressionable student-athletes when it comes to actually holding coaches and universities accountable for actually providing them with an education?? Which presumably is why student-athletes go to college...Where is all this compassion when student-athletes get suspended for obtaining calling cards by "improper means" so they can make phone calls home because while the NCAA and universities are raking in the dough off of the blood, sweat and tears of its student-athletes the players have to work at the check in desk at the rec gym for $7 an hr to get the finer things in life...like calling cards. Save the compassion for the kids speech...Lane Kiffin is not the only man in the world who can help mold fine upstanding leaders, athletes and men at UT.
So in the end why begrudge Kiffin because he's achieved his dream?? Why say he's not ready or undeserved? When a once in a lifetime opportunity presents itself (and yes, the head ball coach job at USC is a once in a lifetime opportunity), you don't pass it up. You grab it! Did Barack Obama think I shouldn't run for President because I'm too young, am a Jr. Senator, haven't had enough political experience?? No! He said 'Yes we can!' because when the iron is hot...you strike. You don't wait for the chance of a lifetime to come back around, you seize the moment. That is what Lane Kiffin did. Who knows if/when the USC coaching job might have come back open? Who knows if Kiffin would have been in a position again to achieve his dream? Why take that risk? You don't. You thank Tennessee, the fans, and the players for everything, invoke your buyout clause and head for Hollywood and the beach where you can sit in the sun, sip on a daiquiri, gameplan for beating the mighty Washington Cougars (as opposed to the Tide or Gators) and read articles about how Peter King is the most upstanding man in the moral universe and would never leave his job if he signed a contract no matter what the job or how much money was thrown at him (and apparently no matter if he had a buyout clause in it).
Be that as it may, if there is ONE thing I know FOR SURE from Contracts its that contracts are made to be broken...it's their raison d'etre! I mean all the loopholes, outs, and double speak in them are mind boggling.
Thus, I am surprised to see all of this negative pub aimed at Lane Kiffin. My favorite hater quotes coming from none other than SI's Peter King who says, "The gall of Kiffin. The unmitigated, outrageous gall of this kid. Where's the decency? The maturity? The gratitude? The simple sense of even a pinch of loyalty?"
This negative pub generally falls into 2 categories of hater-ade. Category 1) "Lane Kiffin is a mediocre-terrible coach, how'd he even GET such a good job?!" Category 2) "Lane Kiffin had a contract with Tennessee and he should honor his contract, because you know 'word is bond.'"
Both criticisms are ridiculous. 1) It is irrelevant how good of a coach Lane Kiffin is (and lets be honest a 7-6 record in the SEC--only the toughest conference in college football--for a Tennessee team that was not all that talented and a sub .500 stint with the Raiders--I mean really, who wins with the Raiders?!--is not really much to judge a man's coaching talents on). The only relevant issue is whether or not USC felt like Lane Kiffin was a good enough coach to coach their team. Critics hating on Kiffin because USC thought he was talented enough to offer him the job is as ridiculous as people hating on Obama because the Nobel Peace Prize committee deemed him worthy of its highest honor. Obama didn't give himself the Nobel Peace Prize and Kiffin didn't give himself the coaching job at USC.
If pundits have any beef at all regarding Kiffin's rapid ascension to one of the cushiest coaching jobs on the college landscape, their ire seems woefully misplaced. If there's anyone to be mad at at all it's the Athletic Director at USC, not Kiffin who didn't hire himself. Hence, sitting up on soap box and saying that Kiffin's mediocre coaching record or accomplishments doesn't merit the prestigious coaching job at USC and that he is spoiled is pointless. Apparently, the people making the hiring decisions at USC felt otherwise, and that's certainly not something to get mad at Kiffin about and make him seem like some spoiled kid because he's been fortunate enough to have 3 good coaching jobs in his very young career. Obviously the man must be doing SOMETHING right...maybe he's a great interview lol. At any rate, I'm positive that someone (possibly) overvaluing the talents of a head football coach is not a new phenemenon and it certainly doesn't mean that the college football coaching world is turned upside down on its head. And any coach who questions the hiring should be ashamed of themselves. Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
2) "Contracts?! We talkin bout contracts?!" (Allen Iverson). The facts are these. Lane Kiffin is not the first coach to have a contract and is not the first coach to leave one job for a better one. Nick Saban did it, Rich Rodriguez did it, Urban Meyer did it, Brian Kelly just did it, Rick Pitino did it, Spurrier did it, John Calipari did it, Pete Carroll did it, Mack Brown did it. And the list goes on and on...coaches are constantly trying to upgrade their stance in the profession and reach that dream job. Apparently, USC was that place for Kiffin. Another pertinent fact that those making the contract argument like to lightly gloss over or don't mention at all is that Kiffin did NOT break his contract. His contract had a buyout after one year, which Kiffin exercised and paid. Apparently, it was smart of Kiffin to negotiate this clause into his contract...
So the contract argument quickly boils down to "oh, well he recruited a bunch of impressionable kids and promised he would never leave them" and "Tennessee gave him a good job after he had been fired, so he owed them more loyalty." The latter is a presposterously hilarious argument considering, Tennessee showed no loyalty whatsoever when they unceremoniously fired and bought out Phil Fulmer (who coached the team back when Petyon Manning was a Volunteer for cying out loud!). As for the impressionable teens who were promised a national championship from Kiffin and now have been left in the cold...you've got to be kidding me right?? Where is all this media compassion and spotlight for these young impressionable student-athletes when it comes to actually holding coaches and universities accountable for actually providing them with an education?? Which presumably is why student-athletes go to college...Where is all this compassion when student-athletes get suspended for obtaining calling cards by "improper means" so they can make phone calls home because while the NCAA and universities are raking in the dough off of the blood, sweat and tears of its student-athletes the players have to work at the check in desk at the rec gym for $7 an hr to get the finer things in life...like calling cards. Save the compassion for the kids speech...Lane Kiffin is not the only man in the world who can help mold fine upstanding leaders, athletes and men at UT.
So in the end why begrudge Kiffin because he's achieved his dream?? Why say he's not ready or undeserved? When a once in a lifetime opportunity presents itself (and yes, the head ball coach job at USC is a once in a lifetime opportunity), you don't pass it up. You grab it! Did Barack Obama think I shouldn't run for President because I'm too young, am a Jr. Senator, haven't had enough political experience?? No! He said 'Yes we can!' because when the iron is hot...you strike. You don't wait for the chance of a lifetime to come back around, you seize the moment. That is what Lane Kiffin did. Who knows if/when the USC coaching job might have come back open? Who knows if Kiffin would have been in a position again to achieve his dream? Why take that risk? You don't. You thank Tennessee, the fans, and the players for everything, invoke your buyout clause and head for Hollywood and the beach where you can sit in the sun, sip on a daiquiri, gameplan for beating the mighty Washington Cougars (as opposed to the Tide or Gators) and read articles about how Peter King is the most upstanding man in the moral universe and would never leave his job if he signed a contract no matter what the job or how much money was thrown at him (and apparently no matter if he had a buyout clause in it).
Haiti: The Lesson, as always..."God don't make no mistakes"
Though nothing really surprises me, I never ceased to be amazed by people sometimes. I'll readily admit...I don't read or watch the news at all really. There's never really much good on there quite honestly and I have my doubts about the unbiased nature of much of what is on there.
All this to say I don't know that much about what is going on in Haiti with the earthquake. Most of what I do know comes from reading people's facebook posts and going to a "Haiti Fundraiser" last night. Yep, I contributed my donation to Yele via text msg and contributed again to the relief effort last night. I think relief efforts are great and obviously much needed right about now in Haiti.
These 2 things, however, continue to amaze me about the situation in Haiti:
1) People who say things like "Haiti didn't deserve this." I assume they are referencing the fact that Haiti is basically a destitute "3rd world country" (is that still the term we use for poor countries nowadays?!) with limited infrastructure and a poor health care system. I can't quibble with that...I haven't run the numbers, but I'm sure by any estimation Haiti is poor. But "deserve"?? Thats a strong cup of tea right there. I can't really name any countries who "deserve" to have an earthquake ravage their country and people (maybe short of Nazi Germany and even they had a lot of good, solid people as evidenced by countless movies and stories centering around sympathizers, so they probably wouldn't even make the "deserve" cut.) Earthquakes (like their distant cousins hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) are natural disasters. No country deserves to have its people die from natural disasters. Lets all agree that "deserved" is probably not the right word to use when referencing Haiti or the killing of innocent people by natural disaster anywhere, irregardless (yes, I know it is not a word but I use a lot of made up words!) of the country's economic status.
2) At last count the Haiti earthquake related death toll was over 70,000 people. That's a ridiculous amount of people. But what's even more ridiculous is society/media playing the whole "shock" and "owe the horror, people are dying in Haiti" card. Clearly, people have been dying by the tens of thousands in Haiti for decades now. Where was all this shock, horror, and grass root effort to save the country??
For example, in 2004 alone 24,000 haitians died of HIV/AIDs. Thousands of children every year are orphaned in Haiti by the epidemic. Approximately 120,000 haitians are living with AIDS today. Unless docs find a cure soon (preferably a free or cheap one!), they're probably not gonna make it either...Don't even get me started on statistics for all the other poverty related type deaths in Haiti(but think thousands of babies dying every year from innocuous things like diarrhea). The point is Haiti has been poor for years now and lots of people have been dying...
Suffice it to say that this is not new information to anyone...indeed, I particularly enjoyed this 2007 Report prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service basically screaming for help for Haiti. http://www.haitipolicy.org/images/haiti-crs-report.pdf
It says things like we should start a USAID program to "improve emergency preparedness and disaster mitigation" in Haiti. It also has lots of interesting charts demonstrating things like Haiti has roughly the same population as NY and has a landmass that is 40 times the size of NY, but yet has 4 times less police than NY.
Not shockingly, you will never see reports like these amongst all the media hysteria, in the papers or magazines, on the news, or at fundraisers. Just like it took Hurricane Katrina for America to come to the shocking revalation that a lot of brown people living in America are disturbingly destitute, apparently it takes a devastating earthquake for the world to come to the same conclusion about Haiti. Cuz you know tens of thousands of people dying every year of wholly preventable things (like AIDS, diarrhea, murder, etc.) is not quite newsworthy enough to stir up any outrage or sympahty. Nope, what we should really get all riled up about and launch grassroots save the world campaigns for is all these pesky natural disasters that we have no control over whatsoever.
Anywho, if a natural disaster is what it takes to shed light on all of the real underlying problems going on in Haiti (i.e., rampant poverty) then so be it. And while I'll remain amazed by all the earthquake hoopla (seeing as I'm almost positive there are no plans in place to move the country of Haiti off the fault line anytime soon...)lets just hope that unlike Katrina, this earthquake acutally brings some real and lasting impact and help to the people of Haiti.
While I'm done trying to figure out why one lives and another dies in this crazy, crazy world, "God don't make no mistakes."
All this to say I don't know that much about what is going on in Haiti with the earthquake. Most of what I do know comes from reading people's facebook posts and going to a "Haiti Fundraiser" last night. Yep, I contributed my donation to Yele via text msg and contributed again to the relief effort last night. I think relief efforts are great and obviously much needed right about now in Haiti.
These 2 things, however, continue to amaze me about the situation in Haiti:
1) People who say things like "Haiti didn't deserve this." I assume they are referencing the fact that Haiti is basically a destitute "3rd world country" (is that still the term we use for poor countries nowadays?!) with limited infrastructure and a poor health care system. I can't quibble with that...I haven't run the numbers, but I'm sure by any estimation Haiti is poor. But "deserve"?? Thats a strong cup of tea right there. I can't really name any countries who "deserve" to have an earthquake ravage their country and people (maybe short of Nazi Germany and even they had a lot of good, solid people as evidenced by countless movies and stories centering around sympathizers, so they probably wouldn't even make the "deserve" cut.) Earthquakes (like their distant cousins hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) are natural disasters. No country deserves to have its people die from natural disasters. Lets all agree that "deserved" is probably not the right word to use when referencing Haiti or the killing of innocent people by natural disaster anywhere, irregardless (yes, I know it is not a word but I use a lot of made up words!) of the country's economic status.
2) At last count the Haiti earthquake related death toll was over 70,000 people. That's a ridiculous amount of people. But what's even more ridiculous is society/media playing the whole "shock" and "owe the horror, people are dying in Haiti" card. Clearly, people have been dying by the tens of thousands in Haiti for decades now. Where was all this shock, horror, and grass root effort to save the country??
For example, in 2004 alone 24,000 haitians died of HIV/AIDs. Thousands of children every year are orphaned in Haiti by the epidemic. Approximately 120,000 haitians are living with AIDS today. Unless docs find a cure soon (preferably a free or cheap one!), they're probably not gonna make it either...Don't even get me started on statistics for all the other poverty related type deaths in Haiti(but think thousands of babies dying every year from innocuous things like diarrhea). The point is Haiti has been poor for years now and lots of people have been dying...
Suffice it to say that this is not new information to anyone...indeed, I particularly enjoyed this 2007 Report prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service basically screaming for help for Haiti. http://www.haitipolicy.org/images/haiti-crs-report.pdf
It says things like we should start a USAID program to "improve emergency preparedness and disaster mitigation" in Haiti. It also has lots of interesting charts demonstrating things like Haiti has roughly the same population as NY and has a landmass that is 40 times the size of NY, but yet has 4 times less police than NY.
Not shockingly, you will never see reports like these amongst all the media hysteria, in the papers or magazines, on the news, or at fundraisers. Just like it took Hurricane Katrina for America to come to the shocking revalation that a lot of brown people living in America are disturbingly destitute, apparently it takes a devastating earthquake for the world to come to the same conclusion about Haiti. Cuz you know tens of thousands of people dying every year of wholly preventable things (like AIDS, diarrhea, murder, etc.) is not quite newsworthy enough to stir up any outrage or sympahty. Nope, what we should really get all riled up about and launch grassroots save the world campaigns for is all these pesky natural disasters that we have no control over whatsoever.
Anywho, if a natural disaster is what it takes to shed light on all of the real underlying problems going on in Haiti (i.e., rampant poverty) then so be it. And while I'll remain amazed by all the earthquake hoopla (seeing as I'm almost positive there are no plans in place to move the country of Haiti off the fault line anytime soon...)lets just hope that unlike Katrina, this earthquake acutally brings some real and lasting impact and help to the people of Haiti.
While I'm done trying to figure out why one lives and another dies in this crazy, crazy world, "God don't make no mistakes."
1st things 1st: Ground Rules
1) Lebron > Kobe. It's not even a debate anymore, just stop it please. Even the man who wrote the Book of Basketball (great read, go get it!) said it...and his word is practically the gospel. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100120&sportCat=nba
This will be the last time I will even utter the names LeBron and Kobe in the same sentence.
2) This blog was born in 2010...sadly, events B.D. (Before.Droid.) will not be covered. That means no rehashing the Tiger-Elin saga. Suffice it to say though that I knew way back when that Blu Cantrell's "Hit 'em up Style" and Jazmine Sullivan's "Bust your Windows" would inevitably lead to this day. smh.
3) Respect my conglomerate! Yes, this is a catch all provision (sort of like the "moral turpitude" clause in NBA contracts) and yes violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
This will be the last time I will even utter the names LeBron and Kobe in the same sentence.
2) This blog was born in 2010...sadly, events B.D. (Before.Droid.) will not be covered. That means no rehashing the Tiger-Elin saga. Suffice it to say though that I knew way back when that Blu Cantrell's "Hit 'em up Style" and Jazmine Sullivan's "Bust your Windows" would inevitably lead to this day. smh.
3) Respect my conglomerate! Yes, this is a catch all provision (sort of like the "moral turpitude" clause in NBA contracts) and yes violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
