I feel like a kid trying to go to sleep on Christmas Eve! We are just a few short days away from the opening of NFL Training Camps, and while the old adage that ‘every team is undefeated’ may hold true for now, there are several coaches in the league who already find themselves on the “hot-seat.”
Loyal Homer will argue that Wade Phillips of the Dallas Cowboys is the man with the target on his back, and Sports Geek will argue that it is Brad Childress whose head is first on the chopping block.
As for Bleacher Fan, I believe it is Marvin Lewis of the Cincinnati Bengals whose number has finally come up!
The fact that he’s been able to avoid speculation this long is astonishing to me. Let’s be honest, it’s not like the Bengals were a well regarded team when he took over the reigns from Dick LeBeau in 2003, but to say that the team has actually REGRESSED under Lewis’ tenure is a dubious honor that I’m sure he won’t be writing home about any time soon!
Sure, his first three seasons with Cincinnati showed promise. He took the team from a 2-14 record in 2002 and turned in records of 8-8, 8-8, and then 11-5 respectively. The 2005 season also marked the first division championship AND playoff appearance for the Bengals in 15 years. Things were looking promising for Lewis.
Something changed, though, following the knee injury to Carson Palmer in the 2005 Wild-Card game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Bengals came into the 2006 season full of promise, but that promise never materialized into success.
Their records for the following three years plummeted, dropping from 8-8 in 2006 to 7-9 in 2007, before finally bottoming out at 4-11-1 last year. All told, in six seasons as the Bengals head coach, Marvin Lewis has only turned in one season with a winning record, and his career record in Cincinnati is 46-49-1 (.486).
Accompanying that severe decline in performance came a string of legal charges against players within the Bengals organization that made Lewis look like the NFL’s real life version of Nate Scarborough. Then came the icing on the cake – Chad Johnson (I refuse to call him by his “new” name). I will give the man his due, he is a top-tier receiver, but he has turned his existence in the NFL into a media circus that has created far more controversy than it has touchdowns. Between the off-field drama around Johnson’s “happiness” with the organization, and his antics on the field, he has become more of a distraction than anything else.
So where does that leave Marvin Lewis? When you consider the personnel issues, compounded by the lack of success on the field DESPITE having players like Carson Palmer, Chad Johnson, and T.J. Houshmandzadeh (who isn’t even a Bengal anymore), it gives off the appearance that Lewis has zero control over the players within his organization. He comes off as a hapless victim, rather than the leader of a professional football team.
Fast forward to the 2009 season, and this year’s training camp… what is Lewis’ solution to these problems? He welcomes even greater public scrutiny by allowing his Bengals to be the focal point of the HBO mini-series Hard Knocks. That means that every decision he makes in the preseason, and every incident that occurs during training camp, will not only be scrutinized by Bengals fans, beat-reporters, and the Bengals organization, but will actually be scrutinized by a national television audience!
How has that worked out in the past? During the return of the series in 2007, the show watched Herm Edwards as he led the Kansas City Chiefs to a record of 4-12 (Edwards was subsequently fired in early 2009). In 2008, the series travelled to Dallas, where they witnessed the preseason hype around the Dallas Cowboys, preseason favorites to be NFC Champions, and who subsequently melted down mid-season and missed the playoffs altogether. Cowboys head coach Wade Phillips barely escaped the season with his job, and his job-security is still very tenuous, as Loyal Homer points out in his argument today.
Between the increased public scrutiny over his every move in this pre-season, the inability to maintain control over the players within his organization, and the abysmal performances turned in on the field over the past three seasons, Marvin Lewis will need to come out of the gates with guns blazing if he wishes to stay employed in the Queen City much longer.
Read Sports Geek and Loyal Homer’s arguments on whether or not the Philadelphia Phillies made a wise decision in signing Pedro Martinez.
What do the Phillies really have to lose by signing Pedro Martinez?
That was the one question that I kept asking myself as I read the arguments presented by Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.
As Sports Geek pointed out, Martinez has been plagued with injuries for the past several years, and was even placed on the DL the day he signed his newest deal with Philadelphia. Sports Geek also raises some valid questions about whether or not Martinez has the opportunity to be successful, even if healthy. It’s clear that 2008 was a year that Martinez would love to forget, as statistically it was the worst of his career, and additionally, Martinez has never had success pitching at Citizens Bank Ballpark, an undeniable “hitter’s” park.
All of those issues raised by Sports Geek call into question the likelihood of whether or not Martinez will be successful in Philadelphia, but they don’t really answer the question – What do the Phillies really have to lose?
I disagree with Sports Geek’s implications that Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. has somehow been duped into buying a lemon here, or that he failed to realize the risks involved. I think that Amaro Jr. knows the potential risks, and fully understands the possible (some may say probable) issues that Martinez may have in attempting this comeback. As Loyal Homer points out, even Martinez himself is aware that he is not the pitcher of old, having been quoted as saying, “I would just like to be the backup.” He goes on to say, “…a healthy Pedro behind everyone else in case something happens. That would be a great feeling to have on a team”.
I agree with Loyal Homer that the cost the Phillies incurred for Martinez is very low. They are not trading any talent away, they are not pinning their postseason hopes on his seemingly fragile shoulders, and the financial cost to the organization is relatively small. As Loyal Homer wrote, the Phillies have very little to lose. If Martinez does not work out, then he will be not be added to the Phillies’ postseason roster and the team will be out approximately $1M, but they are essentially no worse for the wear.
If, however, Martinez does pan out the Phillies have hit the jackpot. He has shown that he does still have some gas left in the tank, and only now needs to prove whether or not he can consistently produce. If he demonstrates that he can still produce, then Amaro Jr. has found a very successful, experienced pitcher to act as an insurance policy and help the Phillies make a run for consecutive World Series titles.
I guess it’s the Las Vegas fanatic in me that screams, ‘You’ve gotta spend money to win money.’ But, after reading the arguments presented by both sides, I am awarding this debate to Loyal Homer, who convinced me that the potential reward is definitely worth the risk.
Starting pitcher Pedro Martinez, who spent the entire off-season and the entirety of the 2009 season (until last week) out of Major League Baseball, just signed a one-year contract with the Philadelphia Phillies last week. Sounds like a great move by Philadelphia Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro Jr., right? The one-year, incentive laden deal is perfect because it limits risk… right? Wrong. There are two primary risk points in this deal that Amaro Jr. either dismissed or failed to understand because he was huddled in the corner of his office with his hands over his ears trying not to hear the critics.
The first risk point is injuries. Martinez was shut down last season because of several nagging injuries, and failed to sign with any major league club before or during Spring training because of injury risk – he simply cannot be counted on at this stage of his career to perform at a high level with any consistency. Despite pitching in the World Baseball Classic and working out for several teams – teams that all passed on him – the Phillies felt this would help their ball club. Sometimes general managers must resist the urge to tinker. The Phillies are already a good team this season, and patience is the proper course. Especially when the moment the new player is officially a member of the team he has to be placed on the 15-day disabled list. That’s rarely a good sign.
The second risk point is the ballpark. In four starts at hitter-friendly Citizens Bank Ballpark (what a catchy name!) Martinez has amassed a substantial 7.85 ERA – no matter what his injury-status was – thanks in part to serving up four homers and an opponent batting average of .278. Not the stellar stats a GM is looking at when signing a new player… right?
Pedro Martinez’s performance is an unknown right now. Here’s what we do know about his recent history. The last season Martinez spent pitching in the major leagues, 2008, he started 20 games, went 5-6 and had an ERA over 5.61. For a guy who’s pitched five entire seasons with ERAs below 2.27, that’s a substantial drop off. Combine that recent history with his issues at Citizens Bank Ballpark and his injury problems and this is a very perplexing acquisition, no matter how many incentives are in the contract.
After all of these little reasons why it isn’t a good idea for the Phillies to sign Pedro Martinez, here’s the whopper: they just aren’t that desperate. Why take on the risk of a useless signing – a signing that can quickly spiral into a sideshow given the player’s stature and history – for a team that is not only defending World Series champions but also comfortably ahead in the National League East race right now? It just doesn’t make any sense. Martinez needs the Phillies more than the Phillies need Martinez.
While Martinez and his agent understood the various risk factors and limitations he has as a pitcher at this point in his career it appears that Amara Jr. did not. How do I know? Martinez was originally demanding upwards of a one-year $5M contract, but has backed off significantly and settled for the deal from the Phillies. It would appear that not even Pedro has confidence that Pedro will be effective this season.
I know that Pedro’s jersey has been flying off the shelves, and superficially this seems like a good move because it is selling merchandise. Do not be fooled. Jersey sales do not win World Championships (especially if that authentic jersey does not even make the post-season roster). If the Phillies are going to repeat as World Series Champions – something rare and special – they will not be doing it with Pedro Martinez pitching them deep into the playoffs.
Last week, a deal was finalized to bring Pedro Martinez to the Philadelphia Phillies. Depending on who you ask, the deal is a one year deal for slightly less than $1M, with up to $1.275 million worth of incentives. Bleacher Fan has asked proof as to why signing Pedro is a good move for the Philadelphia Phillies.
No one, not even Pedro, thinks that he is the same pitcher from, say, 1999 when he went 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA with 313 strikeouts. Martinez, who without question is a future Hall of Famer, has a career record of 214-99 with an ERA under three. That’s just ridiculous!
It’s an extremely low risk/high reward move for the Phillies. The Phillies are one of the few teams in today’s baseball market where adding payroll is not really an issue. They are averaging over 44,000 fans per game at hitter friendly (a huge understatement) Citizens Bank Park, so the revenue is constantly flowing.
The Phillies starting rotation, which has pitched much better in the past three weeks, still needed and possibly still needs improvement. Presumed ace Cole Hamels is not close to the pitcher he was last year. Jamie Moyer will be drawing social security soon. Joe Blanton has found out it’s a LOT tougher to pitch in Philadelphia than it is in Oakland. All three of those guys, the supposed top three starters in the rotation, have an ERA over four. Youngster J.A. Happ, who is 7-0 with a 2.68 ERA, has been a real bright spot, but he has been floated around in trade rumors (most notably involving Roy Halladay). And Rodrigo Lopez, the fifth starter, has pitched decently but he is just two years removed from Tommy John surgery. As you can tell, there is definitely more than enough room for Don Zimmer’s sparring partner. Surely, the reason Phillies management signed Martinez is because they realized that even though they have an offense loaded with talent, it will be nearly impossible to repeat as champions with the way the starting rotation has pitched to this point in the season.
Martinez pitched in a simulated game on Tuesday. He threw 64 pitches in four innings and struck out six. After the game, Pedro said that he felt “real, real good.” Now, I will agree that I wouldn’t expect him to go out and say “I felt horrible, my arm is sore, and I can’t do it.” But 64 pitches in four innings is a good start, and once that arm is stretched out, maybe he can go six innings and throw 90 pitches. That would be exceptional for the Phillies, and would make this signing an absolute bargain.
Just ask yourself… at this point, what do the Phillies have to lose? Nothing! Yet, they have everything to gain!
Read Sports Geek and Loyal Homer’s arguments on whether or not the Philadelphia Phillies made a wise decision in signing Pedro Martinez.
If this discussion were taking place 10 years ago, there would be no debate. From the late 1990’s into the early 2000’s, Pedro Martinez was one of the most dominant pitchers to ever climb on to a pitcher’s mound.
He has won three Cy Young awards, has been named to eight different All-Star teams, has a World Series ring, and was a statistical leader in numerous categories over the span of that time. His career accomplishments are no less impressive, as he ranks among the greatest pitchers of all time with 214 career wins, 3117 strikeouts, and a career ERA of 2.91.
When Martinez signed with the New York Mets in 2005, he showed every indication that he was going to continue his dominance. He finished the 2005 season very strong, and began the 2006 season in very impressive fashion before a fluke injury placed him on the disabled list, becoming the first in a series of injuries that would soon raise questions about his durability on the field.
Since then, the Pedro Martinez that everyone knew (and feared) on the mound has been absent (both literally AND figuratively). When active, Martinez has been a shell of his former self. He pitched in only five games in a 2007 season that was drastically shortened by injuries, and the 2008 season was by far his worst season statistically.
He became a free agent following that dreadful season, but after having officially earned the reputation as being an injury-prone player he was unable to sign on with any new teams, and began the 2009 season without a team to call home.
It was during the 2009 World Baseball Classic (WBC) that a new rumor began to emerge. Martinez, who would be pitching for the Dominican Republic team during the tournament, claimed that he was back to full health, and was ready to successfully compete once again in the majors. His only start (thanks to an early exit from the tournament by the Dominican team) during the WBC served as a potential indication that all might not be lost in Martinez, as he threw six scoreless innings, striking-out six batters and not giving up a single walk in the process.
Despite that promising sign, it wasn’t until last week that Martinez was finally able to sign on with a MLB team, inking a deal with the Philadelphia Phillies worth about $1M, with an additional $1.5M in incentives.
So the question that I am posing today is this:
Have the Philadelphia Phillies made a wise decision in bringing Pedro Martinez into their organization?
While he spent the majority of his career as one of the most feared pitchers in baseball, he is now a 37 year-old man who has been plagued with injuries for the past four seasons, and has even begun his newest assignment on the 15-day disabled list.
Loyal Homer will argue that, despite the setbacks of the past few years, this was a wise decision by the Philadelphia Phillies. Sports Geek will argue that the Phillies made an unwise decision.
You may have noticed, as astute reader Rocketfan did in the comments, that I intentionally omitted the Oakland Raiders in my “history” of Los Angeles professional football. Tricky, eh? The plan was to see if Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan were able to pick up on the most glaring reason for why the NFL has failed to put a successful franchise in LA for the long term… without handing it them. The smart writers that they are, they each brought up the point about two football teams in LA sharing the spotlight, and some of the difficulties that come with that arrangement. So many of these real estate speculators come into LA spouting off about how LA is a football starved town. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact that Los Angeles already has great football and a loyal following for a dominant team – a team that is not subject to stupid NFL broadcast black out rules (as teachj alluded to in the comments) – is really important. Yep, I’m making a reference to the Trojans of USC, and therefore awarding today’s debate win to…
BLEACHER FAN!!!!!
Southern Cal has a huge and loyal football fan base and plenty of other competition for sports allegiance. Any “newcomer” to the LA sports dynamic will be naturally viewed as an interloper on the scene – a team that isn’t TRUE LA, with players who aren’t TRUE LA – and fans will have a difficult time giving themselves over to a new team with unfamiliar players, or an old team with lousy players (if, say, the Buffalo Bills move to LA).
Like the LA Raiders and LA Rams learned years ago, USC football is competition for an LA NFL franchise, even if they do not play on the same day. Split loyalties are hard to overcome for football fans, unless long-standing tradition is stronger. For example, the New York Jets and the New York Giants have been around forever, and the market and tradition is plenty big to handle both. But Chicago, a successful split sport city in baseball, could never support two pro football teams because of long-standing traditions. The same fact is as true in LA now as it was in the 1980s and 1990s – those conditions have not changed.
There is also a fair share of legitimate fan skepticism at this point. If the city has had four different football franchises in town since 1926, why should a fan believe it will work THIS time? Surely they can get behind this team because a team can’t leave for a fifth time, right? Wrong. If the money is right, er, rather, if the attendance is NOT right, the team will move… as is the inescapable tradition of professional football in LA.
Loyal Homer did make a couple of good points, primarily the big TV market point. But market size is only an indicator of potential, not reality. Reality (and history) dictates the NFL moving back to LA would be another mistake, and it has nothing to do with facilities or shifting demographics. Even big kitchens can have too many cooks.
The truth is, as Bleacher Fan stated, the conditions for professional football in LA have not shifted enough to create a good opportunity. And no state of the art, top-of-the-line facility by a successful real estate broker will change that.
(Editor’s note: Bleacher Fan is still on vacation. Can you tell?)
I love vacation!
As I sit out on the deck looking over the shores of Lake Michigan on this cloudless, breezy summer day, a laughable thought enters my mind – the idea that billionaire Ed Roski has put together a proposal to bring yet another professional football team into Los Angeles!
Benjamin Franklin once defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly, but expecting a different outcome. Why on earth would Roski think that it was a wise idea to do this, when the formula has already been tested and failed?!
The (current) Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams both did time in La-La Land, and both organizations were the worse for it! Consider the average attendance at games for these two organizations while in Los Angeles, which ran at a rate of more than 25% below the rest of the league average! This was a primary reason that both teams left the city back in 1995.
For the NFL to believe that a team should once again move into Los Angeles, there will have to be a general belief that circumstances will be different than in the past.
So, what has changed? Los Angeles is a market that is already saturated with professional sports teams. Between the Lakers and Clippers in the NBA, the Dodgers and Angels in MLB (though TECHNICALLY they’re in Anaheim), and the Kings in the NHL, there are already five professional franchises residing in the city, and that is before considering the up-and-coming MLS Galaxy team and the WNBA’s Sparks. With the traditional success that is seen by the Lakers, Dodgers, and Angels (sorry Clippers, Galaxy, Sparks, and Kings fans), this new NFL franchise will be competing against those teams for local support, since their seasons all overlap.
Could a new NFL franchise, which is being relocated because it has already failed as an organization in its current market, really expect to steal fans away from the Dodgers and Angles in September and October, or in November and beyond when Kobe Bryant and the Lakers (LA’s most beloved franchise) are ready to take the court? Take into account that at least one of LA’s baseball teams competes annually for the postseason, the likelihood of stealing fans from them in the early part of the season is very slim. As for basketball season, nobody will steal fans away from the Lakers, who are undeniably the kings of LA sports. When considering whether or not a new NFL franchise would be able to draw a large enough fan base, history tells us that it would not.
If the new NFL team would be an unlikely draw big numbers locally, does the NFL have reason to believe that this newly relocated team could achieve national appeal? Let’s not forget that the NFL operates with a policy of revenue sharing, and under that system a team with a national fan base is just as valuable (if not more valuable) as teams with a successful local following. Let’s consider what it would take for the LA team to draw national attention – WINNING!
The NFL has made it well known that their criteria for scheduling nationally televised games is to broadcast the most compelling games of the week. Basically, those games which will have postseason implications will get the national spotlight.
That means that the new LA team (a team which failed so miserably at its last location that it was actually granted the right to move) would have to undergo an entire rebuilding process and actually become a winning organization in order to gain that national relevance required to earn those coveted national spotlight games. Take it from a Cleveland Browns fan – rebuilding is not as easy as it sounds!
When you consider all of those factors, and then look back on the previously failed experiments that were Los Angeles based NFL teams, it does not appear that enough change in business conditions has occurred to make this newest test a successful one.
(I’d like to say thank you to George, Shirley, and the entire Gemberling family for having Family Bleacher Fan up to their Lake Michigan home this week! The family very much appreciates your gracious hospitality for allowing us to stay at your BEAUTIFUL Lake Michigan home!)
I agree with Sports Geek that I really am ready for football season to get here. Baseball is great, and it appears we are going to have some excellent pennant races. But to answer Hank Williams Jr.’s question… yes I am ready for some football!
Sports Geek has asked me and Bleacher Fan to debate the merits of bringing a football back to the City of Angels. Quite honestly, it’s a slam dunk that the NFL should seriously look at bringing the NFL back to Los Angeles. Possibly Ed Roski can make it happen! Los Angeles County residents sure hope so!
Let’s break this down, look at the facts, and then you can try and tell me if you see a valid reason why LA should NOT have a professional football team.
As Sports Geek stated in his intro, Los Angeles is the number two television market in the country. Basically, there are lots of eyes and ears out there. The city of Los Angeles, according to the latest census figures, has 3.8 million people. The Greater Los Angeles Area, which includes LA, Santa Ana, Long Beach, and others, has a population of nearly 13 million people.
What Roski is proposing is a fascinating idea. The proposed new stadium will seat approximately 75,000 people. The kicker, though, is that the stadium will have luxury boxes and suites – something that the Coliseum did not have when the LA Raiders left for Oakland way back in 1994. Suites, luxury boxes, and other amenities bring in extra cash and provide a big boost to the bottom line.
Also, having only one team in the LA/Anaheim area, instead of two, would be a tremendous help. For years the area had both the Raiders and the Rams. With just one team for the media to cover and for the fans to support, it is MUCH easier to draw a crowd and create a buzz throughout southern California.
I also think that the football landscape has changed in southern California since the Rams and Raiders left in 1994. Pete Carroll has brought college football back into the limelight this decade. In the past seven years, the USC Trojans have gone an eye-popping 82-9, winning at least 11 games every year. Football fever is back in the area thanks to the success of the Trojans. Southern California is now one of the nation’s hot spots again for all high school football players across the country. This can only help any potential franchise that comes to the area!
Major League Baseball has two teams in the area with the Dodgers and the Angels. The NBA has two teams with the world champion Lakers and the “non-world champion” Clippers. It makes NO sense whatsoever to not have a professional football team in Los Angeles.
Ah, professional football. We have missed you. I mean, summer is great, baseball is fantastic, but that’s about it. Summer is about living in anticipation of America’s TRUE past time – football.
What better way to kick off (get it?) a series of NFL debates in the coming weeks than with a story that is always lurking in the shadows each NFL off-season – will the NFL ever come back to Los Angeles? Each off-season it seems there is another investor, another billionaire, another consensus builder that believes they can bring viable professional football back to the City of Angels.
Football first came to light in Los Angeles in 1926 with the Los Angeles Buccaneers. They weren’t as hapless as Tampa Bay’s version a half-century later, either, finishing their season at 6-3-1 with wins over great teams of the era like the Kansas City Cowboys and the New York Giants – despite having to play all of their games on the road. The Buccaneers were only around for a season, however.
Shortly after World War II ended, so did LA’s pro football drought. In 1946 LA welcomed the Dons of the All-American Football Conference. The team (and the conference) folded in a short four years, in part because of cross town competition from the newly relocated (and Bleacher Fan will love this) Cleveland Rams. Cleveland’s old team settled into its new city until they moved to St. Louis for the 1995 season (and promptly became a respected power and eventual Super Bowl winner ::sigh::).
Since then, the city has achieved only speculation about another professional football franchise (and enjoyed the spoils of a pretty good college team, too).
Speaking of speculation, real estate billionaire Ed Roski is the source of it now. He likely knows what he’s talking about, too, seeing how he helped build the Staples Center and all. Roski has proposed an $800M stadium project in LA that will seat approximately 75,000 fans. LA is the second largest TV market in the country with a local fan base that does love its football. So, why has pro football failed in LA so many times in the past? Is it the saturated market with three teams already in California with the San Diego Chargers, the San Francisco 49ers, and the Oakland Raiders? Is too much sun distracting would be fans from football? Or, is Roski on to something and just the guy to revive professional football in LA? It’s a good thing we all have The Sports Debates to help us sort through these questions!
Today’s question is… Should the NFL do everything in its power to ensure a professional franchise returns to Los Angeles?
Loyal Homer will argue that the NFL should bend over backwards to secure an NFL franchise in Los Angeles while Bleacher Fan will argue that the NFL should tread lightly and not risk another pro football franchise in LA, especially at the expense of the quality of the league.
Hope you loyal readers enjoyed this debate. From time to time, The Sports Debates will shed light on a situation that while interesting is off the mainstream radar, and this is one of those situations. We feel it is our duty to cover a wide variety of topics, and we hope you enjoy reading the debates as much as we enjoy researching them and arguing the sides.
Both sides presented very strong cases, because let’s face it – this REALLY is one of those situations where you can see both sides very clearly. That’s why I think this is one of the better debates we have had. Now, on to the verdict!
Bleacher Fan argued that the USGA dropped the (golf) ball on this one and took the punishment too far, citing references to John Daly and skins competition, which I did not consider as “gambling” until Bleacher Fan presented it in a new light. Point well taken.
Sports Geek argued that Dusty Schmidt violated his amateur status be presenting “The Challenge.” To Sports Geek’s credit, it is possible to show empathy toward Schmidt, too… I think we can all agree with that. By all accounts, it appears that Schmidt was on the fast track to having a successful professional golf career before suffering a heart attack.
After reviewing this case I have decided to give Sports Geek a birdie, and the victory!!!!!
Bleacher Fan, I give you a par. You definitely didn’t bogey this debate. You kept it in the fairway. But, rules exist for a reason.
Sports Geek brought up an interesting point about betting in other sports, both in professional sports and on the amateur level. It’s well documented that Pete Rose was banned from baseball for betting on the game. The shenanigans of Rick Neuheisel, as brought up by Sports Geek, are also well-documented. But the word “gamble” and “sport” is a black eye for any particular sport. The fact that gambling can potentially be tied to a particular sport is extremely damaging to that sport’s credibility, especially a sport like golf. The fact that Schmidt was an amateur is just as bad. “Amateurs” do not bet on sports. Even though his intentions seemed good, it was not a good idea. Even though it’s tough to do in golf, placing any type of bet just reeks of “fixing” that particular event.
Bleacher Fan makes light of the golf’s manner, but golf really is a gentleman’s game. Golfers pride themselves on credibility and honesty. What other sport has the athlete call a penalty on himself? This happens quite a bit on the PGA tour. Gambling, in any sense of the word, takes away that credibility.
I’m not necessarily a big fan of the USGA, but they made the right call on this one.
And we're back... Should college coaches look into criminal and juvenile records when recruiting? The verdict says YES! http://bit.ly/dZ5LF310 months ago
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
