The Limbaugh Edition Celebrity Ownership Debate – Don’t Be So Quick To Dismiss

October 15, 2009

Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that Rush Limbaugh would not be a good addition to the NFL as an owner.

The mere thought of Rush Limbaugh becoming a part owner of the St. Louis Rams sent shock waves throughout the country. It seems that everyone has an opinion on it. Other owners have an opinion. Other players have an opinion. NFL Commisioner Roger Goodell has an opinion. Our friends from the NAACP, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, have an opinion (and we know they always do). We all know what OPINION is on all of this. Quite frankly, I am disappointed it has gotten all of this attention.

First Limbaugh has been dropped by the group that is interested in purchasing the Rams, as Bleacher Fan stated in the intro. However, should Rush ever express any interest in becoming part of another group to purchase the Rams or any other team, I, as a fan of the NFL… and even if I was a die-hard fan of that particular team, would not be opposed to it.

I am not condoning any of Rush’s past comments about Donavan McNabb, the NBA, or anything else controversial he has stated. I am not saying I believe everything Rush says, either. I really cannot say either way because I am not an avid Rush Limbaugh listener. None of that matters in this situation, though. Who cares if he is a conservative? It has absolutely nothing to do with him being an owner. His political views would in no way impact whether or not he thinks his team should sign a player. Love him or hate him, Rush has built himself a rather large radio empire, and he did not do that by making unsound business decisions.

I know he has officially been dropped from the group interested in the Rams, but in case you have not noticed, the St. Louis Rams need a change. They need some spice. They need something to draw attention. As I stated in a previous debate, the Rams are not your older brother’s Rams. They are no longer “The Greatest Show on Turf.” In fact, you can make a legitimate argument that are one of – if not THE – worst team in the league. Gone are the days of Warner, Fault, Bruce, and Holt. Why not bring in someone like Rush to charge up the franchise?

I find it funny that people think he was going to be the SOLE owner. He was not. He was not going to be a Jerry Jones or a Daniel Snyder type. He was a part of a group. He was not even going to be a MAJORITY owner. He was going to own only a portion. How much was never specified, but it is reasonable to assume it was not a very big amount. It is just like the situation with the Dolphins, where Marc Anthony, Gloria Estefan, Venus Williams, and Serena Williams own a portion of the team. They are not making day-to-day decisions. Their stakes are not enough to earn that right. I think it is safe to say they have  given the organization a lift, and the value of the franchise will rise because of it.

It looks as if it will not work out with the Rams. But, if Rush shows interest in being a part of another group to purchase another team, then why not? Let him go for it!!! As long as he has the capital to invest, I see absolutely no problem with it.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Rush Limbaugh Ownership Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Limbaugh Edition Celebrity Ownership Debate – Limbaugh’s Style, Substance Bad For the NFL

October 15, 2009

Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that Rush Limbaugh should have no problem joining the ranks of NFL owners.

It is hard to imagine a more polarizing political figure than conservative radio talk show host and commentator Rush Limbaugh. It seems most folks are either big fans, or strongly dislike him. Limbaugh’s mercilessly communicated opinions and knack for drumming up controversy fly in the face of any moderate opinion attempting to toe the line. Either a person agrees with Limbaugh, or they do not. There simply is no middle ground.

When recently announcing his role in a prospective ownership group assimilating to put a bid in on the St. Louis Rams NFL football franchise, Limbaugh showed how easily the political divide can translate into the world of sports. Two well known and respected NFL players – New York Giants defensive lineman Mathias Kiwanuka and New York Jets linebacker Bart Scott – each publically announced their refusal to play for a franchise owned, even in part, by Rush Limbaugh. Kiwanuka told the New York Daily News, “I mean, I don’t want anything to do with a team that [Limbaugh] has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if he goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play.” Kiwanuka is a good football player, the kind of football player a team needs to be successful. His former defensive coach Steve Spagnuolo is now the head coach of the Rams, the team Limbaugh was originally in the bid to purchase. Despite the opportunity for a possible reunion, Kiwanuka still emphatically slammed the door on playing for the Rams due to Limbaugh’s presence – an action that is both powerful and a sign of things to come.

This is not the first time Limbaugh has stirred up controversy in connection with the NFL. In 2003 Limbaugh was hired to be a studio commentator for ESPN’s popular Sunday Morning Countdown show. His role was supposed to be a question asker, a glorified fan who desired to explore the depth of social issues inherent in the NFL’s framework. What ESPN got instead was a lightning rod for controversy they were forced to fire. Limbaugh said on the show that the media loved Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, and consequently made the player overrated, not because he was a talented quarterback but because they wanted to see a black quarterback have success in the NFL. Limbaugh was fired from the show shortly after the live incident, and then arrested on allegations of prescription drug possession, a habit he eventually went through rehab to kick.

Every person has made mistakes. But, not every person deserves to own part of an NFL franchise. Certain actions or statements we all make in life have consequences. Sometimes those consequences involve opening doors to new opportunities, sometimes they close doors. Limbaugh’s history and inflammatory opinions have closed this NFL door of opportunity.

Whether a person agrees with what the players are saying about Limbaugh’s ownership or not, the comments do reflect perception. We all know the saying… “Perception is nine tenths of the law.” Whether Limbaugh’s ambition is to own an NFL team now – though not with the Rams thanks to last night’s report that Limbaugh got the boot from the prospective ownership team – or later, the lesson is clear: If the NFL welcomes Rush Limbaugh into the ownership fold it is asking for public relations drama and a string of players that refuse to play for the team he owns.

What Mark Cuban is to the NBA, Rush Limbaugh would be to the NFL… times a hundred. Limbaugh did not get to this point in his career by always playing diplomat. He ascended by being controversial, and that attitude cannot be turned off indefinitely for the purposes of a business investment. And the current group of NFL owners agrees.

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay went as far as publically announcing that he would not support Limbaugh’s bid to own a share of an NFL franchise. He told the Associated Press, “When there are comments that have been made that are inappropriate, incendiary, and insensitive… our words do damage, [Limbaugh’s inclusion as an NFL owner] is something that we don’t need.”

Then, despite Irsay’s words and a strongly worded warning from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, Limbaugh kicked the controversy machine into overdrive and declared he would not be backing out of the bid for ownership. That comment is exactly opposite what owners were hoping for. So, the ownership group did the RIGHT thing by the NFL and removed Limbaugh from the picture to strengthen their bid and endear themselves to the other owners.

Rush Limbaugh likely has a legitimate love affair with the NFL. But he has burned far too many bridges to be an effective owner. Part of the responsibility of an owner is to cultivate an environment that employees are willing to not just work hard for, but walk through walls for. Whether that employee is a coach, a player, a cook, or a kick off tee retriever, every member of the organization must BELIEVE, and those cues ultimately come from the ownership.

Could Limbaugh field a viable NFL organization with the difficulties he has already created for himself? It is highly doubtful. It is hard enough to build a winning professional football franchise when financial resources are unlimited. Imagine trying to build a consistently successful franchise when a faction of players simply refuse to play on the team.

Limbaugh can learn a lesson here, if he is open to learning moments in his life. His radio and commentary career is brilliant, no matter if a person agrees with his politics or not. He is extremely wealthy and has the fame he seems to relish. But taking the principles that helped construct his currently successful career path into the NFL is beyond unwise, it is impossible. And, it is bad business.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The Rush Limbaugh Ownership Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Limbaugh Edition Celebrity Ownership Debate – What’s Next? Howard Stern as the MLB Commissioner?!

October 15, 2009

Read Sports Geek’s argument and Loyal Homer’s argument about whether or not Rush Limbaugh would make a good addition to the ownership ranks of the NFL.

He has been referred to as the “Most Dangerous Man in America,” the “Doctor of Democracy,” and is the most listened to voice in talk radio… but an NFL Owner?! Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh recently partnered with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts, to put together a bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams.

Following the death of former Rams owner Georgia Frontiere in January of 2008, rumors began to swirl about whether or not the team, which has not finished better than 8-8 since their last playoff appearance in 2004 and has only won a total of five games since the 2007 season, was actually for sale. Limbaugh, who is a native of Missouri, had expressed an interest in purchasing the team so that he could help ensure that it remain in St. Louis, and not be moved back to Los Angeles. Although this was the first attempt by Limbaugh to acquire ownership of a professional team, it is not his first foray into the world of pro sports. He was at one time the director of promotions for the Kansas City Royals, and he also briefly worked on ESPN’s “Sunday NFL Countdown” before resigning due to controversial statements made at the time about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb.

Last night, however, Checketts formally announced that Limbaugh was dropped from the group making the bid to purchase the Rams. It seems that Limbaugh’s potential ownership did not sit well among the current ownership ranks in the league, with Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay going so far as to claim that he “couldn’t even consider voting for him.” Many of the owners, who are very familiar with Limbaugh’s ability to stir up controversy through very divisive statements, did not want to open the door to that controversy within their leagues.

What is interesting, however, is that the fans of the NFL seem to be in favor of seeing Limbaugh as the owner of an NFL team. In a poll that was posted online at foxsports.com, 55% of the more than 337,000 people who participated in the poll stated that they would actually like to see Rush as the owner of their team, because of the passion that he would bring to their organization.

Sounds like a question for The Sports Debates!

Today, I am challenging my fellow debaters with the following question: Would Rush Limbaugh be a good addition to the ranks of NFL ownership?

While owners and league officials are concerned about the many controversies stirred up by Limbaugh’s often inflammatory comments and the impact they could have on the league, the majority of fans in the NFL seem to feel differently.

Loyal Homer will take the position that Limbaugh would actually make a positive addition to the NFL as owner of a team. Although he can polarize the public on many issues, that same public seems to be supportive of his bid. Limbaugh would bring his knowledge, experience, and his very large following to the NFL, all of which are very positive additions to the league.

Sports Geek will argue to the contrary, that Limbaugh’s participation as a league owner would actually do more harm than good. He is no stranger to scandal, and his reputation for making inflammatory statements makes him too controversial a figure to welcome into the league as an owner of one of the league’s franchises.

We know what the “Ditto-heads” have to say, so now it is time to hear from The Sports Debates.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The Rush Limbaugh Ownership Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NBA Coach Under Pressure Debate – Cavs Fans May End Up “Witnessing” Brown’s Termination

October 14, 2009

Read Sports Geek’s argument and Loyal Homer’s arguments about which NBA head coach is under the most pressure to win the championship this season.

There are no more excuses allowed for Mike Brown, head coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers. The only result that will be accepted in the city of Cleveland for the 2009-2010 season is the NBA Championship – anything less is failure.

Why does Brown face such lofty expectations, with virtually no room for error? For Brown, the pressure to win a championship is the result of undeniable talent on the team combined with previous letdowns, golden promises, and a sense that time is running out.

Undeniable talent

Last season, Mike Brown was recognized as the NBA’s Coach of the Year. His star forward, LeBron James, was recognized as the NBA’s Most Valuable Player, and was named a starter for the 2008 All-Star Game. Along with James, guard Mo Williams was also named to the All Star team last season.

Under the guidance of the Coach of the Year, and with the support of the league’s MVP and a second All-Star player, the Cavaliers were able to prove over the course of the entire season that they were an elite team, going on to claim the league’s best regular season record at 66-16. Then in the offseason, general manager Danny Ferry added to the team through a “Shaq-uisition” that brought center (and future Hall of Famer) Shaquille O’Neal to the team.

The Cavaliers, a team that is already among the top teams in the NBA last season, have still managed to upgrade the team, and are definitely a favorite to win the NBA Championship in 2009.

Previous Letdowns

What if I told you that the team that claimed the Coach of the Year, the NBA’s Most Valuable Player, the league’s best record in the regular season, and home court advantage throughout the playoffs (after losing only two home games during the entire season) would not even reach the NBA Finals? Would you consider that a failure?

That is exactly what happened to the Cavaliers last season, though. Despite a very impressive regular season performance, the Cavaliers lost in the Eastern Conference Finals to the Orlando Magic. The best team, with the best coach, the best player, and home-court advantage with nearly record-breaking home-court performance, lost in six games to the Magic (including two losses in Cleveland). The Cavaliers, during their series against Orlando, looked NOTHING like the Cavs of the regular season.

That disappointment came on the heels of the previous two seasons, which included getting swept by the San Antonio Spurs in the 2006-2007 Finals, and then losing in the second round of the playoffs against the eventual champion Boston Celtics of 2007-2008.

The resurgence of the Cavaliers in the NBA over the past few seasons has been primarily the result of adding LeBron James to the roster. James, who is arguably the best player in basketball, has been able to turn a Cavaliers team which won only 17 games in the season (and had not reached the playoffs for five years) prior to his arrival onto a team that has since reached the postseason four consecutive years (including the first Conference Championship in franchise history), and is poised to make another playoff run this season.

With the best player in the league on the court, the coaches and general managers of the Cavaliers have tried (so far in vain) to build a supporting cast around James that will help bring a title to Cleveland.

Golden promises

Last season, Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert quite literally guaranteed a championship for the Cleveland Cavaliers. Promises do not get any grander. The owner of the team VOWED to bring a title to a city that has been starved for a championship in ANY sport for nearly 50 years. Now, the fans of the Cavaliers do not just WANT a championship, they actually EXPECT it!

The implied message to Mike Brown is that the owner is willing to do whatever it takes to win that championship. If Brown cannot do it, then Gilbert will find someone else who can.

Time is running out!

In not-so-breaking news – LeBron’s contract is up soon, and he may not stay in Cleveland!

A major factor that is causing much of the panic (and subsequent pressure) in the city of Cleveland is the threat of losing LeBron. The general consensus is that LeBron will be happy to stay in Cleveland, as long as he believes he can win a championship here. With the expiration of his current contract drawing ever closer, many believe that this will be the Cavs’ last chance to prove to LeBron that they can be a championship team.

For Mike Brown, that ticking clock could very well also be counting away his remaining time as head coach of the Cavaliers. With all of the talent, support, and resources at his disposal, in conjunction with the elevated expectations (and worries) of the fans in Cleveland, anything short of a title-run by Brown and his Cavaliers this season is a failure.

How is THAT for pressure?!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The NBA Coach Under Pressure Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NBA Coach Under Pressure Debate, 2009 – Less Talent, More Expectations Equals Impossible Situation

October 14, 2009

Read Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan’s argument about which NBA head coach they believe is under the most pressure to win a championship in the 2009 season.



Vinny Del Negro is set up for failure.

After an up and down regular season as a first year head coach in the NBA – a position many questioned Del Negro’s ability to do – the rookie Chicago Bulls head coach led his team to the cusp of a first round playoff upset against the defending champion Boston Celtics. The series was incredibly entertaining with every element from extreme emotion to great coaching to exciting finishes. Despite constant improvement throughout the year and enough maneuvers to keep the team buying in to his philosophy and style, Del Negro saw some of the most talented players on his team leave the Bulls during and after his first season.

Last season’s roster was not the best in the league. However, by the end of the season Del Negro was able to use the talent available to him to create a team good enough to almost knock off the defending champs in the first round of the playoffs.

Del Negro had a mix of talented players throughout the 2008-2009 season, but many of that core, reliable player group has since moved on to new teams. The list of players from last season that Del Negro is trying to replace this season includes forward Drew Gooden, guard Ben Gordon, guard/forward Andres Nocioni, guard/forward Thabo Sefolosha, and forward Tim Thomas. That list of players contributed to depth, scoring, defense, and all around energy. Their absence creates questions Del Negro may not have time to answer.

To make matters worse, very little of the talent lost has been regained. Sure, stand out rookie Derrick Rose is excellent and back for his second complete season in the NBA. Luol Deng is back, though questions still surround his health. Kirk Hinrich is back, though it remains to be seen how often the spunky guard will play.

The point is, the Bulls’ roster got worse, but the fan expectations have increased. The Bulls were close last season to making a deep run into the playoffs. But, losing five key players – including guard Ben Gordon to division rival Detroit – is extremely difficult to recover from. Ben Gordon was more than just a tough loss in free agency, too. He was the team’s leading scorer for the last four seasons.

Competing in the suddenly better NBA Central division does not help, either. The competition is especially difficult when considering how much smaller the Bulls have gotten. Plus, the Bulls coach, by virtue of the construction of the roster, must do more to motivate his team than many other coaches in the league. Can forward Tyrus Thomas play hard every game? Can center and attitude problem Joakim Noah contribute physically and emotionally in a positive way? Can second year point guard Derrick Rose stay healthy be the floor leader the team needs? It is Del Negro’s responsibility to answer these questions. Or else.

Many talented players are gone and questions surround the effectiveness and depth of the Chicago Bulls roster. See? Vinny Del Negro is set up to fail. The Chicago Bulls have a loyal fan base that was accustomed to winning for a long time. Last season reminded fans of how much fun it is to root for a winning team (especially with the Cubs up there on the North side). While the roster has changed, the expectations have not.

It is very possible that Vinny Del Negro is the next coach to succumb to the impossible NBA coaching carousel that has claimed so many young careers. Even though one season of on-the-job-training is not that much for Del Negro, he is expected to lead the team back to the team back to the playoffs and perform well there. No pressure.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

1 Comment | The NBA Coach Under Pressure Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The NBA Coach Under Pressure Debate – George Karl is Running Out Of Time

October 14, 2009

Read Bleacher Fan’s argument and Sports Geek’s argument for which coach they believe is under the most pressure for the upcoming 2009-2010 NBA season.



Today, we are going to look at basketball… as VERY quietly the NBA season is quickly sneaking up. I say that because the regular season will be starting soon and I am not sure how many of us realized that. The Sports Debates will discuss which coach desperately needs to win a championship this year. We are not saying these coaches will be fired if they do not win it all. But, the pressure will start to intensify. To me, it is quite obvious that Denver Nuggets head coach George Karl needs to make a run and win a championship, or the natives might begin to get a little restless in Denver.

Karl is a proven winner. He won in Seattle and, to some degree, he won in Milwaukee. Overall, he has won 933 career games coming into this season. Since the 1991-1992 season with the Seattle Supersonics, his teams have made the playoffs every year. However, he has yet to win the elusive NBA title, though he did make it to the Finals with Seattle in the 1995-1996 season (and promptly lost to the Chicago Bulls 4-2). His teams have lost in the first round of the playoffs nine times, thus resulting in his career 72-89 postseason record!

He is, however, coming off a season in Denver where the Nuggets made it to the Western Conference finals and gave the eventual champion Los Angeles Lakers all they want, before finally losing 4-2. This season, the Nuggets need to take the next step or the grumbling fans will begin to grumble very loudly.

This team is obviously built around star forward Carmelo Anthony, a player has overcome many off the court obstacles over the year. Can you believe this guy is still just 25 years old? But, there is still plenty of talent around him. Chauncey Billups brought leadership to the team last year, something that was perhaps missing when Mr. Iverson was on the team. There are other talented players on the roster, too, with Nene, Chris “Birdman” Anderson, and Kenyon Martin round out the team’s nucleus.

No one is disputing the fact that the Lakers are the team to beat in the Western Conference. But, the Nuggets, after getting a taste of success (hey, considering their history, getting out of the first round was a success), will be a disappointment if they do not build on last season. Therefore, the pressure falls directly on Karl. It is time for him to shed that “cannot take the next step” label.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The NBA Coach Under Pressure Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Monday Morning Referee Debate – Let’s Move On Folks!

October 14, 2009

Read the debate intro, Bleacher Fan’s argument, and Sport’s Geek’s argument.



As I stated in the intro, this has become a hot issue in Georgia – and in the Southeastern Conference as a whole – after the incident involving A.J. Green that was highlighted in the intro and in both arguments. I have heard both sides of the story from UGA fans, non-UGA fans, and now Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek. But, before I render my decision, here is a quick recap of the points made in both arguments.

Bleacher Fan cites old folksy quotes (one of which is on my refrigerator door) in trying to prove that it is not possible to change the past. Bleacher Fan writes that releasing a statement admitting the officials made a mistake in throwing a penalty flag only adds to the controversy and gets more people upset. Bad calls happen in sports and fans usually move on unless they are given a reason to recall the incident. Bleacher Fan then suggests the expansion of instant replay, which is a possible future debate.

Sports Geek, on the other hand, takes an entirely different view, suggesting that the integrity of the game is threatened if officials are not called out publicly for their mistakes. Sports Geek strongly feels that the intelligence of the fans is insulted if officials are not held accountable. It is almost as if Sports Geek is saying, “Do not insult my intelligence.”

Both sides make strong arguments. However, I am ruling in favor of Bleacher Fan.

I feel that Bleacher Fan’s case was stronger. I do not necessarily agree with Bleacher Fan’s points about having a stronger replay system, but, that is not the focus of this debate. The focus revolves around whether or not the conference/association should publicly acknowledge a mistake by the officials.

It really does not do much good to admit a wrong in this situation. Does the admittance of error change the outcome of the game? It does not. The outcome of the game is written in stone and will be able to be researched online and watched on replay for years on end. As I stated earlier, I also agree with Bleacher Fan in that admitting the mistake fanned the flames from that particular game and had Bulldog fans playing the “What if” game. If Rogers Redding had not rehashed this issue, Georgia fans would not have had to talk about something else around the water cooler that week. Instead, this topic remained a story throughout the entire week. Instead of focusing on the upcoming game, talk still centered on the incident and that is because of Redding’s need to admit a mistake. Perhaps that played a part into UGA getting spanked in Knoxville by the Tennessee Volunteers.

The possibility of human error always exists in sports. In fact, it is just impossible to avoid. But, it is what it is. The officials are human and most certainly will make mistakes. In Loyal Homer’s opinion, not addressing the situation PUBLICALLY does not impact the integrity of the game.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

3 Comments | The Monday Morning Referee Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Monday Morning Referee Debate – Be Transparent Or Sacrifice Fairness

October 13, 2009

Read the debate intro and Bleacher Fan’s argument that there is no need for college football conferences to publically acknowledge a blown call by a referee.



For fans, there are few occurrences in sports as irksome as a blown call by a referee. Fans have all of the technology during a broadcast, the instant replays, and the “expert” analysis at our disposal that aid in our evaluation of a particular play in college football. Sitting helplessly in our living room as a referee or an officiating crew blatantly blows the call on what appears to be an obvious play is downright maddening. For me, it does not even matter if a play was in my team’s favor or not. It truly bugs me if the refs get a call wrong, period – regardless of which team the blown call benefits.

The definition of “getting a call wrong” goes beyond the possibility of a ref simply calling a receiver out of bounds when they catch the ball inbounds. Getting a call wrong can mean the referee has subjectively interpreted a rule too loosely or too strictly. Consider, for example, the situation in the SEC a couple of weeks ago, and presented so concisely by Loyal Homer in the intro. Georgia standout wide receiver A.J. Green made a very impressive catch, then ran to his teammates to for the standard high fives and jumping that come with any touchdown these days. The referee decided it was time to call a penalty for “excessive celebration” – despite the fact that many agree there was nothing excessive about Green’s actions. A 15-yard penalty was called, and the penalty was enforced on the kickoff – giving LSU outstanding field position and a short field to drive to tie the game.

Now, any coach worth a salt will refuse to admit that one bad call from an official can influence the outcome of a game. Those coaches are correct. Many factors go in to determining the winner and loser of any game. However, this bad call gave LSU the opening it needed for a short field and a very manageable shot to tie the game. The fan rightfully dismisses the coach speak and correctly identifies that the call had a significant impact on the game. Thank goodness for fans.

The SEC could have easily turned a blind eye to a potentially ugly situation and hoped it would go away. It seems rational that the conference would want to stand by an official’s decision, too. The conference must protect its own employees, right? Thankfully… wrong. Instead, the conference and its leadership did the right thing. The SEC’s Director of Officials, Rogers Redding, publicly acknowledged the poor judgment exhibited by the league’s official, calling it a “teachable moment.” The move helped to quiet some of the a growing fan discontent and restored a sense of fairness to college football.

On the surface it may appear as though referees are now in the doghouse and that the entire sports-loving culture thinks they are a bunch of schmucks that deserve to be hung out to dry if the slightest mistake it made. While referees may not like the new paradigm, it is essential for fans. Conference leaders must make decisions on the belief that officials are human beings. Pretending they are perfect, in the age of 15 replays per play and YouTube, is not longer acceptable.

Sports are simple to digest. They are also entertaining – but, they are also controlled. The rules are well known, and it is bothersome when they are not followed. Without delving too deeply into sports psychology, one of the many elements of sports fans love is the sense of fairness. There is a clear right, and a clear wrong. With the many factors that are difficult to control in our own lives, sports are an area where right and wrong matter – and where they are enforced. When officials blow a call in an obvious way, and the conference fails to acknowledge the blown call, the sense of fairness in sports (and life) begins to erode. A lot of erosion leads to shrinking ticket sales… all because a foundational moral of sports – and life – has been violated.

College football, perhaps more than any other sport, generates fan craziness en masse. Mix that special and inherent craziness with bad calls and a lack of fairness… and explosive, anger filled situations are created. These tenuous situations are entirely avoidable. Refs are human. They will make mistakes. Because every play is so heavily emphasized in college football, those mistakes often grow into national sports events. But, when a conference fails to at least put out a statement when a blatant bad call changes or influences the outcome of a game, fans’ collective intelligence is insulted in a potentially dangerous way – something a conference must try and avoid. Consider that if fans will turn over police cars, burn couches, etc. when their team wins… imagine what can happen when they unjustly lose?

The danger for college sports, and for sports in general, is when that formerly strong anger and outcry from the masses of fans becomes apathy. That is when ticket sales stop, programs wilt, and conferences die. For the good of college football, for the good of conferences, for the good of sports, keep acknowledging bad calls, conference leaders. What may seem very uncomfortable in the short run is in reality the best thing for conferences and fans alike.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

1 Comment | The Monday Morning Referee Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Monday Morning Referee Debate – The Milk Spilled… You DON’T Need a Press Conference to Confirm It!

October 13, 2009

Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that the NCAA should publicly acknowledge when a referee makes a bad call during a game.



It is time for another dose of some good ‘ol fashioned, folksy wisdom from Bleacher Fan.

Today, we will be considering a lesson which is drawn from Saint Francis of Assisi – Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

A much more folksy way to interpret this is with the adage – There is no use crying over spilled milk!

Those phrases exist to highlight the fact that nothing positive is gained by dwelling on events that cannot be changed. Once the milk has been spilled, for example, crying will not help to put the milk back in the glass, nor will it help clean up the mess. Instead, what you SHOULD do is take measures to either correct the situation, or to try and prevent it from occurring in the future.

With regard to officiating in college sports (or any sport in general), the reality is that referees are going to make bad calls occasionally. Sometimes it will work out in favor of your team, and other times it goes against your team. In the case of the incident during the Georgia/LSU game that was highlighted by Loyal Homer during the introduction to this debate, it seems to be very clear that wide receiver A.J. Green should not have been penalized for excessive celebration. Nobody is disputing that fact.

What I am disputing, however, is the fact that Rogers Redding, the SEC’s coordinator of officials, felt the need to publicly acknowledge and admit to the blown call. The only thing accomplished by Redding was to bring additional controversy to the game, bring increased scrutiny onto the SEC official who made the bad call, and get a lot of people upset for no reason. They cannot overturn the call, and it is not going to change the outcome of the game, so what is the point?!

As I said before, bad calls happen often in sports. Some are more prominent than others, and some may have a more direct impact on the outcome of the game, but it is foolish to assume that bad calls are unavoidable. What USUALLY happens with blown calls (even those that seem egregious) is that fans on the “losing” side will gripe and complain, then will move on (which is what they will STILL have to do in this situation, because the outcome of the game will NOT be changed). Instead of allowing that process to take place, Redding fueled the fire of those complaining with a statement that justified their concerns. While his intention may have been to appease the upset Bulldog fans, what he ACTUALLY did was further undermine the authority of the officiating crew.

In the interest of following that very important message of focusing only on things that CAN be changed, the NCAA should promote PRO-activity, rather than RE-action. Since they will not correct the situation by changing the outcome of the game, the NCAA’s only PROACTIVE option is to take measures that will help prevent these controversies from happening in the future. In doing so, the NCAA could actually promote a positive resolution to a negative situation.

Life as an official is not easy. I once served as an umpire for a charity softball game, and was assaulted by a barrage of criticism as if I had blown a call at the plate in the seventh game of the World Series. And, this was a CHARITY event! I can only imagine the pressure and scrutiny that a referee in a high-profile college football game endures.

The problem in sports today is that technology creates the opportunity to employ hindsight in scrutiny of every aspect of the game. Officials used to be perceived as infallible, and their interpretation of the facts became law. Now that we have the technology (and literally thousands of machines) dedicated to capturing every event of every game, the officiating becomes subject to increased pressure. What the NCAA SHOULD strive to do, in light of that enhanced technology, is focus solely on answering the following question – Should the officials continue to be perceived as infallible?

If the determination is made that the officials can be fallible, then the NCAA must expand Instant Replay usage to support the acknowledgement that the officials will sometimes make a mistake. In doing so, the organization would put measures in place to help further analyze situations, and rectify any bad calls that are made. If, however, the NCAA deems that the referees are infallible (which was once the assumption), then the NCAA, its conferences, programs, AND fans will have to accept that mistakes will be made, and are a natural part of the game. What they CANNOT do is continue to support a self-destructive process of allowing mistakes to take place without ANY means to correct it DURING the game… then publicly criticize the mistake AFTER the fact under the guise of a “heartfelt” mea culpa.

By taking on the practice of post-game admissions of guilt, the NCAA is essentially talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, it establishes a policy that grants absolute authority to make a call that is CLEARLY subjective on the shoulders of one person. On the other hand, it then publicly criticizes a person’s subjective interpretation without giving them ANY support to actually make an educated decision in “the heat of the moment.”

It is time to start looking forward… not behind!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The Monday Morning Referee Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Monday Morning Referee Debate – Good Call or Bad Call?

October 13, 2009

Read Bleacher Fan’s argument against organizations publicly acknowledging blown calls and Sports Geek’s argument in favor of publicly acknowledging blown calls.



After a one day break from discussing football, The Sports Debates is back to our comfort zone.

Have you ever been leaving a game and been extremely frustrated by a call from the officials that was or was not made? Perhaps you have watched your favorite team on television lose because of what you thought was an incorrect call by a member of the officiating crew? You may scream out loud, “We got hosed by the officials!!”

Yep, do not lie. You have been in that position before, and probably recently. All fans have found themselves in this situation.

Two weeks ago, the Georgia Bulldogs scored a touchdown with just over a minute to play, giving them a 13-12 lead over the LSU Tigers. After grabbing the go-ahead catch, Georgia receiver A.J. Green was flagged for excessive celebration, even though replays showed that the celebration was very “conservative” and that nothing unusual happened. The 15-yard penalty forced UGA to kick off from their own 15-yard line. LSU eventually scored and won the game. I live in the heart of Bulldog country. Here we are 10 days later, and folks are still talking about it. Folks are still outraged!

The Monday following the game, a referee supervisor with the Southeastern Conference stated that the penalty probably should NOT have been called. Do you think that made Bulldog fans feel any better? Not hardly!

That situation segues into today’s debate.

Should a collegiate governing conference or association, such as the SEC in this situation, publicly acknowledge a missed call that affected the outcome of the game?

Sports Geek will argue that such organizations should publicly acknowledge a blown call, while Bleacher Fan will argue that they should NOT publicly acknowledge a blown call.

I must warn the debaters, though. Whoever wins this debate… if you celebrate excessively… you will be held in contempt of this court and you will be punished at my discretion!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!

Leave a Comment » | The Monday Morning Referee Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.