Leave it to El Presidente to entertain the crap out of you, as per usual. The Academy Awards are next Sunday, and I'll definitely have some stuff to say about that later this week.
FOOTBALL
As we all know by now, the Green Bay Packers are Super Bowl XLV champions, the Dallas Cowboys stadium and facilities people did a horrible job, displacing a few hundred fans from their seats just hours before kickoff, and lawsuits/news about all of this has dominated the headlines, garnering almost as much attention as what actually happened in the game.
We all know the drill by now. About 400 fans who paid for $800 seats were admitted into the game, but were told not long before kickoff that their seats weren't up to safety standards. Stadium/league officials attempted to relocate these rightfully cheesed-off individuals (Packer puns aside) by shifting them to standing-room only areas of the stadium, or taking them down to field level where they couldn't see the live action through all of the bodies and commotion, and instead could only watch the game on TVs in their immediate area.
Now, of course, these people have a right to be pissed. However, it seems like the league did everything within reason in attempts to rectify this situation correctly. They offered the affected fans a cash value of three times the ticket's face value (in other words, $2,400), or a trip to next year's Super Bowl with seat accommodations, round trip airfare and hotel on the house. Then, the following day, they upped the ante even beyond that. The affected fans could choose to forgo both of those alternatives and instead opt for a trip to any future Super Bowl of their choosing, with the same aforementioned perks paid for by the league. At that point, what damages are you seeking through your lawsuit? Airfare and hotel are needed in association with your trip, and those will be covered by the league either through reimbursement or during a future trip. But anything you choose to spend beyond that is on you, kiddos. The league is trying to do what's right here. But what would our country be if it wasn't continuously rife with frivolous lawsuits, yes?
Anyhoos, this labor situation also seems quite grim right now. NFL owners and the NFL Players Association have to settle all of their disputes by March 4, or there will most certainly be a lockout of undetermined length. We have a higher probability of seeing Snooki become a rocket scientist, or seeing Lady Gaga make a routine stage entrance, than we do of seeing all of these disagreements worked out by the fourth day of March.
Basically, a cliff notes version of the chief financial disagreement is this: There is an approximately $9 billion total pot that must be divided up between the owners and players. Under the current agreement, the owners devote $1 billion of that $9 billion to themselves before dividing the rest of it up with the players 50/50. The owners want to re-negotiate that division of profits to guarantee themselves $2 billion before splitting the remaining $7 billion with the players. This means the players would get roughly $3.5 billion of the total $9 billion pile. Huh? Just a little over 40 percent for the guys laying their bodies on the line every year? As if most of these owners wouldn't be rich and wealthy beyond the comprehension of most of us even if they DIDN'T own an NFL franchise?
Look, I hate to choose sides over something that is undoubtedly this layered and complex, and I'm sure I don't know all of the details. But whatever those details are, it's a plain and simple fact that the owners want almost two whole thirds of the pie, with the players left to divvy up the rest. Hey owners, if it wasn't you owning these teams, you don't think there are plenty of wealthy-beyond-imagination entrepreneurs out there who might step up to the plate and gladly buy out your commodity? I'm quite sure there are. And yes, there are substitute players (i.e. scabs) who would happily fill in if the starters said "Eff you guys" and stayed on their side of the picket lines ... but of course the obvious difference in that scenario is that the overall quality of the product would be much more noticeably diluted with substitute players than it would with "wet-behind-the-ears" owners. There are a handful of starting NFL players among the best-of-the-best that inspire laughter as it is now (who wants Jay Cutler on their team? I didn't think so). Can you imagine the backups to THOSE guys getting primetime play because the Varsity Team is sitting on the sidelines trying to work out their disputes with these greedy-ass owners?
NFL Players, especially compared to a lot of big-contract NBA and MLB players, are the most modestly-paid of the 'Big 3' professional sports participants. And in most cases, they walk away from their chosen profession with the most significant degree of bodily damage. This is basically for our entertainment, folks. Yeah the players love the game, but if someone devised a way for them to make decent money, not sacrifice any of the sport's popularity but also protect them better as players from the dangers of the game, do you think they would object? Of course not! But we as fans love the violent, jarring, strength-on-strength nature and pedigree of the sport, don't we? I don't know anybody who likes the fact that quarterbacks have to be babied now more than ever in today's version of the NFL.
So we want these guys to get what they want, but we also want to see the vicious hits and punishing nature of football, chalking any disagreement with such a mentality up to a "suck it up, don't be a baby, this is what you signed up for" attitude. Meanwhile, if I or anyone else reading this piece right now attempted even the simple act of getting up from the ground about 150 times over three hours, MINUS the body-crushing hits, we'd be begging for mercy.
And I also don't think it's a huge stretch to say that any of the 32 NFL owners could walk away from their product tomorrow (with varying degrees of regret, of course), and not ever have another financial worry for the rest of their days. Oh and they also wouldn't be a physical trainwreck from years of abuse on the field. Most of these guys were made men before they ever even owned an NFL franchise.
I certainly hope it can all be worked out in such a way that won't cause us to miss any games in the 2011 season, but it doesn't look especially hopeful right now. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the two sides must come to an agreement on the financial details (i.e. the $9 billion total pot issue) before they can even begin to address other contentious subjects such as extending the regular season from 16 to 18 games, the structuring of rookie contracts (including the percentage of guaranteed money), and an issue that's seemingly minor but is very important before any games can actually be played, free agency concerns and which teams will be called "home" for the individual players to which this applies.
I hope some of you are fans of college football. It might get the highest ratings it's ever had this fall, at least within the first few weeks.
BASKETBALL
For anyone out there who dissents from the notion that the NBA All-Star Game is by far the most enjoyable, exciting and fun-to-watch of the four major sports leagues' all-star games, I would love nothing more than to engage in some spirited, yet civil, debate. If you can't get into the NBA All-Star game with the league's current level of ridiculous, unprecedentedly astounding talent, then you just don't give much of a hoot about pro basketball. Let's put it this way: the outcome of the game doesn't mean anything, unlike the Major League Baseball All-star game - whose winner gets home-field advantage in the World Series - yet the most exciting MLB All-Star Game I've ever seen pales in comparison to even the least memorable NBA All-Star Game that I've watched.
Sunday night's game was a tour de force. Now I realize this has much to do with the atypically electric offensive energy, and the fact that nobody is out there giving it 100 percent on defense in an All-star game. But if you watched at least five minutes of live action in that game last night, you can't tell me that those guys weren't playing hard on a general level, trying to impress and displaying an incredible level of skill and athleticism. It's the most fun brand of basketball you'll ever see. The alley-oops, the effortless-looking dunks, the crazy hustle on both ends of the floor. These guys will rarely get into spells like that during any other game, and I'm including the playoffs, unless you're lucky enough to get a finals matchup between two run-and-gun teams (which never seems to happen anymore). No, the most successful title-winning teams in recent years are the squads that play ball-control, tenacious, half-court, defense-oriented basketball (i.e. San Antonio, Boston, L.A. Lakers).
And for as awful as the Lakers have looked for the last several weeks heading into the All-Star break, Kobe Bryant silenced a lot of doubters with an eye-opening All-Star Game performance in front of the hometown crowd at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, leading the West to a 148-143 victory over the East. Regardless of your personal feelings about him (I don't even want to unravel that ball of wax), that was vintage Kobe right there (37 points, 14 rebounds), just a stone-cold assassin when it comes to scoring the ball.
And for the East, LeBron James notched a triple-double for only the second time in All-Star game history (Michael Jordan is the only other player to have done that).
It will be a fun second half to the season. The Miami Heat have gotten their legs and are now officially the second-best team in the Eastern Conference behind Boston, and have also predictably developed into the villains of the NBA by joining superstar forces in attempts to win a title (LeBron is routinely booed whenever he handles the rock in enemy territory). Meanwhile, from top to bottom, the Western Conference is about as loaded as Andy Reid's plate in a free buffet line. San Antonio looks like the best team right now, but the Lakers are still the champs, Oklahoma City is young and frighteningly good, and the Dallas Mavericks have to get back to the Finals one of these years, right?
As for the never-ending Carmelo Anthony trade talk, I really wish I'd stop hearing the daily "rumor" updates and just get the low-down one day when a trade actually happens. As for Knicks and Nets fans that are hopeful that 'Melo comes their way, sure it would be an improvement in some ways, but it's not necessarily a championship-winning maneuver, at least not right away. Especially for the Knicks, who would have to gut their roster for a guy who is a great scorer and finisher, but isn't a great defender (something the Knicks need more of) and doesn't necessarily bring a disciplined leadership role to a team comprised primarily of younger players.
As for the most exciting young player in the league right now? Far and away, Blake Griffin of the L.A. Clippers. What a phenomenon. He dunked over a car to win the slam dunk competition Saturday night. Really? Really.
Check the technique on that one, dog.
Enjoy, back for Oscar talk later this week.
No comments:
Post a Comment