The NCAAF Over Signing Recruits Debate… Dirty, Unfair Business Targets Naïve Student Athletes

August 5, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

When I was a young Loyal Homer, and didn’t understand the nuances of recruiting as well as I do now, I often wondered to myself how so many players were able to fit with one university? The numbers just didn’t add up to me. How could schools consistently have top-five recruiting classes on a yearly basis by signing 25-30 players every year and still manage to stay under the scholarship limit of 85 posed by the NCAA? That’s where over signing enters the picture.

According to the very cool oversigning.com Web site I located while researching this argument (one Babe Ruthless found also), over signing, by definition, is the act of accepting more signed letters of intent on National Signing Day than a program has room for under the 85 scholarship limit. To get under the limit, schools have players that leave for various. And sometimes mysterious reasons. They become academically ineligible or perhaps they “gray shirt,” which has always been a unique term for me because there sure seems to be a lot of gray areas with this problem. And believe me, it’s a problem.

Let’s look at a recent incident at LSU. This past year LSU signed 27 players on signing day, knowing only 25 scholarship spots were available on the roster. Unfortunately for Les Miles, all 27 of those players qualified academically (which is actually quite rare these days) and decided to make the journey to the Bayou. That left Miles in quite a pickle. He knew he had to get down to the imposed 85 limit by dropping two of the players somehow, so he went to Elliot Porter and asked him to take a gray shirt. Porter was highly recruited out of high school and when talking about Tiger Stadium, he was quoting as saying, “You’re going to see me playing there.” Well, Elliot, no we’re not. Unless you are a member of the opposing team.

Porter moved out of his dorm and moved back home with his future suddenly looking gloomy. Miles simply told him there was no room at the inn for him. This is quite a lot for a teenager to handle. He’s quite perturbed, and I imagine his family and folks like his high school football coach, are as well. He’s been granted a release from LSU, obviously, and has to win an appeal in order to gain immediate eligibility at another school, which shouldn’t be a problem. But let’s be real. It’s August 5. Where can he go in this short of time and have an immediate impact? He’s a teenager. It’s going to be hard enough for a guy like Jeremiah Masoli to walk on at Ole Miss this close to this season. There’s no way a guy like Porter can do this. They’re screwed. It’s as simple as that. You know it. I know it. Babe Ruthless knows it, also.

The NCAA needs to close this loophole in the system that allows coaches wiggle room with the scholarship limit. Student athletes are expected to stick to their word once they sign on National Signing Day. The coaches should be stuck with the same commitment. I’m not exactly sure what the answer is, but I know what the answer isn’t – telling guys like Elliot Porter to pack up and leave… and come back next year wearing a “gray shirt.” Why should he do that? What reason does he have to believe that a gray shirt will even be there for him then?

Let’s say you just got a new job and you’re all excited about what this means for your future. You show up for your first day and before you even have time to take your coat off, your boss meets you at your desk and says, “Son, I hate to say this, but payroll has informed me we don’t have enough money to hire anyone else after all. But hey, check back this time next year and you can have this job.” Yeah, okay, sure boss!! What are you supposed to do for the next 12 months?

Something needs to be done. This is unfair, as the talents and inexperience of the student athletes are being taken advantage of. The naïve kids are walking into the lion’s den of a college campus assuming their scholarship is taken care of and that they can start practicing football, preparing for class, and meeting girls (and not necessarily in that order). What they don’t know is that their scholarship is NEVER guaranteed and they have absolutely no control of it.

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

The NCAAF Over Signing Recruits Debate… Dirty, Unfair Business Targets Naïve Student Athletes

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Over Signing Recruits Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Most Hated Team Ever Debate… Broadening the Meaning of Bully

August 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

For most teams, throughout the history of all sports, it is a singular trait that can be used to define them.
The Chicago Bulls of the 1990s were “great.” The Seattle Supersonics of the 1990s were “mean.” Those are two quick examples, but the prevailing logic has staying power. Usually a team was either great, or mean. Rarely was a combination possible. One trait would steal focus from the other. But when the two distinctive marks became conjoined few fans, players, coaches, and owners remained neutral.

The moniker of The Most Hated Team Ever is not easily earned. It takes outrageous acts of greatness and brutality. Only one team was able to effectively, and consistently, combine sports’ most lasting brands to earn the dubious title.

The Broad Street Bullies were sports history’s rare amalgam. Fans, media, and opposing teams simultaneously revered, feared, hated, were frustrated by, and lamented arguably one of the most successful sports teams ever, the 1974-1975 Philadelphia Flyers.

The entire team played mean. There was no one player on the team that opposing coaches and players would not worry about. In fact, in many ways, the team defined an entirely new description of a hockey roster position – the enforcer. The only problem with the enforcer on the Broad Street Bullies is that no one player owned the title. It was a badge of honor each player sought, and one the coach, Fred Shero, encouraged each player to embody. A famous Shero quote encourages brutality. He urged his players to, “…take the shortest route to the puck carrier and arrive in ill humor.” The philosophy is borderline eloquent on paper, and downright brutal on the ice.

Team captain Bobby Clarke took Shero’s words to heart. His well-earned toothless smile dotting his face, he was never afraid to stick his neck into a situation – or put his stick into a neck. Clarke was known as a free slasher opponents feared because he cared so little about the consequences of his dangerous activity.

But teammate Dave Schultz, a.k.a. “The Hammer,” made Clarke looks like a boy scout. To say that Schultz did a lot of fighting would be a complete understatement, and potentially an insult. After all, he was the first NHL player ever to wear boxing straps during fights on the ice. His effective use of them led the league to ban them. Schultz also has the record for the most penalty minutes ever in a single season with 472. Think about that. With a game lasting only 60 minutes, Schultz spent nearly eight ENTIRE games in the penalty box.

And, both Clarke and Schultz were offensive players… well, they played mostly on offense. Though I am quite certain most opponents found them offensive, too. The roster was stocked with players that believed in one system of hockey – intimidation with a dash of skill.

This team, which won back to back championships in the 1973-1974 season and the 1974-1975 season, was hated by even casual sports fans. The entire team was physical, cocky, and without remorse. The players were also incredibly talented, and the team was enormously popular. No visiting team helped sell tickets like the Broad Street Bullies did at the peak of their influence on the NHL. The team was easy to hate, and fans wished to make their opinions known in person.

But, selling tickets is not the only standard by which a team can be measured. The footprint of the team reached far beyond the NHL. On an international stage American teams are often branded as brutes with little finesse and mostly muscle. The Broad Street Bullies did much more than transform hockey physically, they defined the United States’ brand of hockey in the world. Tough, physical, bruising, relentless hockey has become the hallmark of American hockey. That may be changing with newcomers on the scene that are more finesse than brute, like Patrick Kane and Zach Parise. Like it or not, to win the NHL a team needs one or two physically imposing, brutally minded players that are willing to bend the limits of what is accepted on the ice. The mid-1970s Philadelphia Flyers began the trend that transformed the NHL.

Nevertheless, if an identity transformation were to occur for the NHL it would take years, even decades, because of the indelible mark the Broad Street Bullies left on both hockey and America’s professional sports. While many teams deserve to be hated throughout history, only one forever changed a sport and helped define America’s athletic brand – the Broad Street Bullies.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Most Hated Team Ever Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Most Hated Team Ever Debate… Boston-Based Massacre Results in the Death of Patriot Honor

August 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

For MANY years we sympathized with the laments coming from the city of Boston. Although the city’s basketball team won countless championships leading up to the mid 1980s, the baseball drought was legendary. And the Patriots of the 20th Century were among the most irrelevant teams in all of football.

But things started to change at the turn of the century.

Suddenly, Boston experienced a resurgence in its athletic prowess, all kicked off by a very exciting New England Patriots Super Bowl victory over the St. Louis Rams’ Greatest Show on Turf in January of 2002.

Then the Patriots won again in 2003. And then AGAIN in 2004.

Suddenly, the people of Boston weren’t so championship starved anymore, and the Patriots went from being “David” to becoming “Goliath.” Instead of being perceived as the feel-good underdog story, the Patriots VERY rapidly became the team with the target on its back. It won three Super Bowls in four seasons, and all signs indicated that the Patriots had become a juggernaut force to be reckoned with.

The warmth that New England basked in during January of 2002 had grown very icy by the time 2007 rolled around.

In a matter of only four years, Boston had gone from “Loserville” to “Titletown.” In 2007 it seemed like the city held a monopoly on championships. The Red Sox had “purchased” a second World Series championship of the decade in 2007, and the Celtics were in the throes of what would become an excellent run after having followed the lead of the Red Sox by acquiring The Big Three.

Taking “Woe is Me” too far

All of that would have been tolerated by the American public, except for one small fact – the city of Boston, and the New England Patriots in particular, behaved as if they were still the loveable losers that the rest of the country felt sorry for (I guess old habits die hard).

They cried foul whenever their feelings got hurt, and sobbed that they were being picked on and got no respect. Every insult to the Patriots was overblown into a national headline. Each disparaging comment against their sacred organization was treated as an injustice which had to be righted in the public eye.

When Eagles receiver Freddie Mitchell commented that he only knew the numbers (not the names) of the Patriots’ secondary, the New England defense was quick to cry foul and lament the lack of respect they felt they deserved. And when Colts kicker Mike Vanderjagt (who admittedly has let his mouth get him into trouble) stated that the Patriots were beatable on the heels of some other controversial comments he made, the Patriots actually resorted to pathetic name-calling (Rodney Harrison called Vanderjagt “Vander-jerk”).

Is this kindergarten?!

Instead of looking like good guys, they came across as being petty and whiny. And as the 2007 season played out, the team, which ranks as number six on Sports Illustrated’s list of the most hated teams of all time, proved also to be hypocritical.

Hypocrisy in Action

After having bemoaned so much perceived disrespect at the hands of the greater league, the team delivered nothing BUT disrespect all season long by spitting in the faces of the league and its opponents.

On the field scores were run up to RIDICULOUS totals, as though the Pats were lobbying for a BCS rank. In one game they shut down the Redskins by a score of 52-7, and in another it was the Bills who were on the receiving end of a 56-10 performance. All told over the course of the season, the Patriots outscored opponents 582-274 (that equals to an average margin of victory of more than 19 points per game).

Off the field, though, was where the biggest sign of disrespect was felt.

Spygate

It was early in the 2007 season when it was leaked that the New England Patriots had illegally participated in the clandestine videotaping of opponents’ practices.

That’s right – the New England Patriots were CHEATERS!

The Patriots committed the most heinous crime in the world of athletic competition. They not only spit in the face of their opponents, they cheapened the entire game with dirty tactics and rule-breaking. And in the midst of the scandal that became known as “Spygate,” the Patriots continued to play football completely unhindered by the situation they created.

It was the absolute height of injustice that a team which had been CAUGHT cheating on a championship stage could continue to play as if no charges existed against them. It was insulting to fans everywhere that the Patriots, mired as they were in scandal, could still go on to turn in the NFL’s first ever 16-0 regular season performance.

And the biggest insult of all was the complete lack of contrition or remorse that team officials and players showed. It was like watching a guilty man not only walk free, but go on to win the lottery.

With so many “deserving” teams in the league, it just seemed unfathomable that the Patriots, so tarnished in the public eye, could actually go on to turn in one of the greatest regular season performances in the history of the league.

Fortunately, these things have a way of working themselves out.

So for those of you who don’t believe in Karma, watch this play. Because in the end, despite the smug, above-the-rules attitude demonstrated by the Patriots all season long, justice was ultimately served in one of the greatest Super Bowl plays of all time!

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

Leave a Comment » | The Most Hated Team Ever Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Most Hated Team Ever Debate… The Hated Hurricanes

August 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

Sports bring out true passion in many men. That’s certainly the case between the four writers here at TSD. And with that passion comes hate. Pure hate! There’s sports figures we all hate, and perhaps we’ll tackled that hatred another day.

Today we’re delving into the most hated sports teams of all time. When Sports Geek first presented this option as a debate, one team immediately came to mind for me – the 1986 Miami Hurricanes. I happened to watch the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary, “The U,” late last year. I was appalled at some of the things I saw and immediately did some research. I talked to some older friends who had vivid memories of that era. The hate spans generations. That’s why the 1986 Miami Hurricanes are the most hated sports team ever.

I believe that the word “polarizing” is often overused in sports. It’s often used to describe guys like George Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones and teams like the New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys. You either love one of them or you hate them. But I can’t imagine any sane person outside of South Beach, or maybe the state of Florida, rooted for the Miami Hurricanes back then. I really can’t. What’s to like about them?

We all know that Jimmy Johnson was the head coach of the Miami teams of that era. He took over for Howard Schnellenberger and gave the U an extra swagger. He would prove to be an excellent coach, but modest would be a word to describe Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno, not Jimmy Johnson. He was a coach who gave his players a lot of freedom. He let the players roam around like the little troublemakers they were. From a personal standpoint, is not a good thing in South Beach to have that type of freedom. It is easy to question how Johnson was so successful as a coach. If you get right down to it, he really didn’t have a lot of control of some of his players in Dallas and he was quite successful there also.

I also lump that era of the Miami Hurricanes with Michael Irvin. He was unbearably cocky and it’s a trait that definitely followed him to the NFL. He represented that Miami team to much of America. It was a team of thugs that didn’t respect the game and who had players that got caught with guns on campus. What people seem to forget about that brash 1986 team… they choked in the championship game against Penn State. Much of the country rejoiced as potty-mouthed Hurricanes were dethroned.

Looking at it some 25 years later, that team had a reputation like an Oakland Raiders team. It’d be more likely to see many of the players in a police lineup than on a football field. It’s like putting O.J. Simpson, Rae Carruth, Pacman Jones, and Donte Stallworth all on the same team and rooting for that team. Who wants to do that? Whoever wanted their child walking around wearing a Rae Carruth jersey?

I think that is what it was like to root for the Miami Hurricanes in 1986. And that’s why they are the most hated team ever.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Most Hated Team Ever Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate Verdict

August 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

There is an old marketing rule – perception is nine tenths of the law. The phrase is one of those timeless business truths. No matter what action a brand does or does not take, it is setting an expectation with its audience. Something as simple as a coupon offer for 15 percent off means a company is willing to discount its products.

Read that last sentence again, but put the emphasis on the “count” part of the word “discount” this time. It reads differently, doesn’t it? Even a coupon results in creating a perception that a company does not feel as good about its product as we all may think. The company is willing to cut the price simply to sell more. A high end brand would never stoop to such depths… which is why high end brands are perceived as “high end.”

It is a simple marketing example that proves how perception matters. A one-time discount on a product now sets a brand on a course for diminished perception.

Good marketers care as much about the short term pay off from a decision as its long tail. Unfortunately for LeBron James and company, LRMR Marketing is not good at marketing. Unfortunately for this debate, that doesn’t matter.

This is a debate about whether LRMR’s approach is good for the NBA, and both arguments are worthy contenders for this debate’s crown.

Babe Ruthless is correct that some of the virulence in the media (that has been rightly directed at LRMR, at least for bad marketing) has gone a bit too far. The guys that comprise the company are not public enemy number one. After all, there are no marketing or perception police.

Babe Ruthless does, however, oversimplify LRMR and its actions as simply “a marketing agency.” First, we would have no reason for a debate if LRMR was simply a marketing agency and nothing more. Second, creating perception creates consequences. LRMR’s job is not as simple as promoting a player or buying advertising space somewhere. Therefore, the oversimplification of LRMR as a marketing agency is nearly as bad as the other extremes we see in the media.

The point that really stuck with me from this controversial but incisive argument is Babe Ruthless’ commentary about Michael Jordan. Babe Ruthless is also correct that Michael Jordan has a great brand. In many ways Michael Jordan invented the sports marketing brand. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson endorsed brands and made money, but Jordan transcended basketball, and even sports. The thing about MJ’s brand, though, is that it did not become fully developed until he won a championship.

LRMR is trying to replicate Jordan’s success for its entire client base. But, it is attempting to circumvent that pesky “championship” and get right to the vast riches. I neither condone that methodology nor believe it will work in the long run. The idea is to put the player above everything. The result is short term attention, money, and possibly championships – though I doubt the last one at this point.

Bleacher Fan offers up a very interesting analogy to boxing. ESPN writer Bill Simmons made an NBA to WWF analogy, but I believe Bleacher Fan’s effort is more suitable. While myriad other factors have diminished boxing’s shine, when a sport becomes too fixated on the players, everyone involved suffers except for a rich few who sit back and count money. Players do not control media contracts, they do not deal with the rigors of marketing and advertising, and they do not do a thing on the operations side. NBA players often act as though the owners – and even the fans – do not matter. LRMR, which acts as a boxing promoter in Bleacher Fan’s sharp analogy, perpetuates these issues by working hard to remove the focus from teams and put it solely on individual players.

Is that player-first, inherently selfish ideology pushed by LRMR good for the NBA? No, it’s not – though Babe Ruthless makes a compelling case.

The danger here is two-fold. Fans leave as a league becomes too focused on players. It’s a fact. Review any history of any lockout in any sport and that is obvious.

The other negative outcome is potentially even greater because the team-nature of the sport gets stripped the more players steal control from the league.

Bleacher Fan acutely describes the Rubicon moment for boxing, when the governing bodies allowed boxers to receive bigger paychecks by moving the sport to pay-per-view. I agree with Bleacher Fan that when money becomes the focus, selfishness gains prominence and rusts the luster off of a sport. Any ideology that marginalizes both fans and ownership is dangerous, and it is currently what is plotting a course for the demise of the NBA.

Do not assume that this verdict is a tacit nod to the supremacy and greatness of the league and its owners. It’s not. Many owners are lousy for their teams, their players, and their fans. But NBA’s union does a good enough job at giving players leverage in negotiating. LRMR, however, has found dangerous loopholes in a toothless NBA. The owners must circle the wagons to avoid significant damage to their investments and the league as a whole.

I do disagree with Bleacher Fan on one point. LRMR hasn’t cheapened ESPN. ESPN cheapened ESPN, LRMR just has aligned goals. Bleacher Fan is right that ESPN sold its soul for relationships with athletes. But LRMR brokered the deal.

Bleacher Fan wins this debate for rightly pointing out that the NBA is about competition between teams. Babe Ruthless constructed a great argument. But any actions that undermine the fundamental element of teamwork should be severely punished.

Sports easily fall victim to selfishness… especially in an age where self-promotion is simple, and consequently rampant. I was on the fence about this when I wrote the intro. Bleacher Fan has absolutely convinced me that LRMR Marketing is in the business of making individual players bigger than teams, and even the league. LRMR is setting a dangerous precedent right now, and the league is in a position to stop it with the pending labor agreement up for conversation next year. The league must do whatever it can to save itself.

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

2 Comments | The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate

August 3, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

It is said that any publicity is good publicity. Whoever coined that phrase likely enjoyed the short view on life. The longer term vision changes that perspective.

But, LRMR Marketing – the marketing group started by LeBron James and his high school buddies – does not seem concerned with the long-term impact of its actions. And by “actions,” of course, I am referring to engineering the unification of Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, and LeBron James in Miami.

The company has now recently signed Chris Paul, after he quietly fired his agent in early July. Paul’s former agency, Octagon, did an outstanding job signing a talented but not particularly famous player to lucrative contracts with companies like Gillette. Paul followed up that action with the news that he wants out of the two years remaining on his New Orleans contract. Rumors, an LRMR specialty, now swirl about Paul’s eventual destination.

Paul is likely not the last example of LRMR’s impact on the NBA. The company is literally capitalizing on the idea of players taking complete control of the league and usurping NBA and team-contract authority.

The question to my esteemed colleagues is: Is LRMR’s approach to NBA player marketing a good thing for the NBA?

Bleacher Fan will argue that LRMR is a bad influence on the future of the NBA while Babe Ruthless will argue that greater control of the league for players is simply the new NBA reality.

With a potential lock out looming, who controls the NBA – players or the league?

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

1 Comment | The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate… A Cautionary Tale for the NBA

August 3, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

If history repeats itself, NBA Commissioner David Stern, and the owners he represents around the league, better start brushing up on Boxing History 101.

The Decline of Boxing

The sport of boxing, which was once considered one of the premier sports in the United States, has been diminished almost to the point of irrelevance. While there are many factors that have contributed to the sport’s slip into obscurity, one of the key issues that has threatened the viability of boxing is the selfish “pay-day” mentality of its athletes.

The history of boxing has been always been defined by its great fights: Ali versus Frazier, Joe Louis versus Max Schmeling, Sugar Ray Leonard versus Marvelous Marvin Hagler, The Rumble in the Jungle. These were all fights slated to determine which fighter was the best, and the sport thrived as a result. Nowadays, fighters like Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather allow contract disputes over paychecks and other trivialities to get in the way of those potentially great battles, the types of battles that would benefit EVERYONE in the boxing world.

Boxing promoters such as Don King, Bob Arum, and Lou DiBella have helped to facilitate a shift in focus for the sport, and a greater emphasis has been placed on the fighter at the expense of the event. These “super fighters” have become more important than the “super fights” by usurping the authority of the boxing sport. Now, boxing is driven by the whims of its biggest stars, not the needs of the sport.

What is important to the sport has been superseded by what is important to the athlete.

Premier bouts were moved first from network to cable broadcasts, and then from cable to pay-per-view. Why? So the fighters and promoters could draw bigger paychecks. The problem is that the move to pay-per-view has restricted the accessibility of the sport, and the general public has lost interest because it cannot easily (or affordably) view the greatest matches.

Boxing condoned a system where the athletes and promoters were allowed to be self-serving and focus on their personal benefit, rather than the benefit of the game. Selfishness and greed have completely changed the sport of boxing, and it is all bad.

Boxing’s journey is the history lesson the NBA needs.

LRMR Marketing, the brain-child of LeBron James and his high school buddies, has essentially become a boxing promoter in the NBA. It has started to shift the focus of the sport away from the most important event – the game – and onto the athletes themselves.

Celebrity over Substance

LRMR has already orchestrated countless scenarios where pre-game and pre-season activities are becoming a bigger spectacle than the games. From choreographed pre-game introductions and LeBron’s puff of baby powder to “The Decision” and the fiasco that was the 2010 free agency season, LRMR has successfully placed their premier athlete on a pedestal above the league itself.

The result of these actions? The future of the NBA (at least for the next several seasons) has been scripted through back-room deals between selfish players rather than on the court, where it SHOULD be determined. LRMR, behind the free agency of LeBron James, has staged a coup where IT (and not the competition of the league) has set the course of events for the NBA. LRMR’s machinations have also cheapened the value of ESPN, an organization that claims to be a legitimate sports NEWS source. LRMR hijacked the network and turned it into yet another tool for self-promotion.

First, a full hour was reserved… dedicated prime-time coverage (with almost no notice) so that LeBron could make a 30-second statement. This statement was not that he would be running for Congress, or that he was retiring from the game, or any other sensational news story that would normally warrant this kind of attention. No, he was just announcing the team he intended to sign a basketball contract to play for. And he took a FULL HOUR!

Then, last week, an article was published on ESPN.com that highlighted the escapades of LeBron as he threw a lavish Las Vegas party. However, the article (which portrayed LeBron James in a less than favorable light) magically vanished from the website just minutes after it was published.

Those incidents have cheapened the value of ESPN as a viable organization by giving the appearance that it is nothing more than an extension of LRMR Marketing. Rather than risk the ire of a sports celebrity and get on his bad side by remaining UNBIASED in reporting, ESPN has sold its agenda to the latest pop-culture star.

The Snowball Effect

LeBron is not the lone stud in LRMR’s stable of celebrity talent. New Orleans Hornets point guard Chris Paul (who happens to be another buddy of LeBron’s) has joined the three-ring circus at LRMR Marketing, and cast aside the seemingly sound (and successful) advice of his previous representation to get his moment in the sun.

Following the lead of the league’s newest prima donna, Paul feels he is OWED a championship, and with the help of LRMR has attempted to force a trade so he can join his own version of an All-Star roster.

Although no charges or allegations have been made regarding specific actions, warnings have been issued across the league against tampering.

The league does not usually issue a tampering warning when a player wants an early out from their current contract, so why issue one in this case? If you read between the lines, the implication behind that warning is very straightforward – LeBron and LRMR Marketing have already proven once that they are willing to negotiate the future of the NBA in closed-door, back-room deals, and it is assumed that they will do it again.

All of these actions by LRMR Marketing, and the two athletes whom it represents, have done nothing but cheapen the value of the NBA. They have chipped away at the competitiveness of the league in an attempt to take (rather than win) a championship via the path of least resistance. They have demonstrated that player collusion (whether permitted by the rules or not) to use to manufacture an ideal situation. They have shown that their motivation is self-service, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else in the league.

I am not advocating a system where a player should have no say in their future. However, a delicate balance must be maintained between the two. In the battle between teams and players, if either side assumes “control” over the other it is bad for the league.

The NBA is a league centered around TEAM competition. The interests of the league are best served when the overall competition of the league and its TEAMS (not players) are protected. When individual players begin to chip away at the level of competition in the league, all in the pursuit of self-service, it is bad for everyone involved.

The NBA should learn from the state of boxing as it exists today. The more control that individual players have over the game, the more the viability of the league is eroded away.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate… LRMR Spells Collaborative Empowerment

August 3, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

This whole LRMR thing is getting out of hand.

The problem is people don’t know what LRMR is and what it is here to do. So please allow me to clarify. Contrary to popular belief, it is not an enemy of the state. It’s not a seedy crime syndicate. And it’s not an evil force out to destroy the world.

So now that we know what LRMR isn’t – the Taliban, the mafia, or Justin Beiber – let us try to establish what LRMR is.

It is a marketing agency, plain and simple. A marketing agency that is trying to strengthen the brand of those it represents through collaborative endorsement, not undermine basketball.

Think about the Michael Jordan brand. On his own MJ is one of the most marketable sports stars in history, but somewhere along the lines he discovered that his brand was stronger and more valuable when it was supported by a broad network of stars. Today, names like Derek Jeter, Jason Taylor, and Carmelo Anthony all represent the Jordan brand in different sports and cities, now the Jordan symbol is truly iconic and transcends basketball. That’s similar to the approach that LRMR is implementing, but it is not just limited to a player’s brand. Now players seek to establish control over their careers and where they will play by working together. This collaborative empowerment is not a threat to basketball, but is simply the next logical step in the progression of the game. LRMR is leading the way though the journey is not without its fair share of struggles.

At the very heart of the issue is the simple fact that LRMR is a marketing agency that is ironically experiencing a bit of bad publicity. The focal figure of the agency is the talented and controversial LeBron James. The company was built by, for, and around King James and his brand. That means as goes the public perception of James, so goes that of LRMR. Despite being nearly a month removed from “The Decision” there is still a significant backlash against James, and not surprisingly the negative feelings carry over to LRMR.

But what has the company actually done wrong? I say, “nothing!” LRMR has put its clients in the driver’s seat to their future. It has driven up value through collaboration with other stars. Nowhere is that more apparent than with James’ decision to join with stars and friend Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Clearly James and his agency believed that his worth as part of a super team was even greater than being the biggest fish in a small pond. The fact that it wasn’t just LeBron choosing, but James and Co. deciding where the best opportunities exist for everyone speaks volumes of this new collective player empowerment.

Some critics may attack this strategy and decry it as collusion, but that’s far from accurate. Collusion refers to a secretive agreement, which James decision to consult with other free agents certainly wasn’t. Near the end of the playoffs James seemed to be telling anyone that would listen that he felt that he and other free agent stars could reshape the NBA landscape by collaborating on where to go and how that could impact the NBA for the better.

This is somewhat of a paradigm shift for the NBA and sports in general. It demonstrates how owner’s control over players and the league is continually eroding as players demand more control. James’ decision was so shocking in part because it was one of the few times in sports where a player decided something besides money – owners’ biggest bargaining chip – was their biggest priority. Make no mistake, this was no fluke. It was a benchmark in the evolution of player empowerment.

It has been happening for a while. From free agency to no-trade clauses, players have slowly been assuming more control over their own careers. This is yet another milestone in that journey. Just as factory workers demanding more money, better conditions, and a shorter work day was once unfathomable it became a reality through cooperation and worker unity. So, too, is the case for modern athletes. By no means am I saying they are underpaid or ill-treated, but they have discovered that they are stronger together than they are apart.

My opponent for this debate, Bleacher Fan, will no doubt point to the actions of New Orleans guard Chris Paul. Despite two years remaining on his contract with the Hornets, he has attempted to force a trade since signing with LRMR. I will concede the point that it is neither ethical nor wise for players to try to void their legal commitments with a team in order to further their worth and brand. But Paul is an extreme case which really hasn’t worked out. If anything, his attempts at forcing a trade illustrate an isolated incident of the growing pains the league faces as players attempt to test the boundaries of their new found power.

Right now LRMR may not be liked. It is certainly not like by those who stand to lose the most when players gain power – the owners. But it is just part of inevitable progress. No one is asking the owners or media to like it… just accept it. I would be foolish to think I could persuade today’s judge, Sports Geek, into thinking LRMR is the greatest thing to hit basketball since the three point shot, but it is progress. It is an undeniable example of athletes taking ownership of their career, just as any worker would want to do in their respective field. Professional athletes are some of the most handsomely rewarded workers in the world, but they are workers nonetheless. We should not be surprised that they are following a historical path to progress. The LRMR is not the enemy. It is the future.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Is LRMR Good For the NBA Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The 2010 Biggest Winner at the MLB Trade Deadline Debate… Ludwick, Tejada Legitimize Padres

August 2, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

Many teams did an excellent job of improving their October chances on the last day of July. But, one team stands out from the rest of the pack as much for what the team did not do as for what it actually accomplished. The San Diego Padres, thought to be cellar dwellers coming into the season, are traditionally sellers at the trade deadline. More to the point, the team sells or it does nothing.

But 2010 is clearly a different season for the Padres. Thought to be considering major changes at the season’s outset, like the potential trade of the team’s only offensive All-Star, Adrian Gonzalez, the team decided it was time to commit to a newfound strategy – adding pieces of a championship puzzle for a run in October.

The hallmark of a good team – and good management in both sports and business – is the ability to refuse denial. When a team is already leading its division, as the Padres are currently doing by a game and a half (at this writing), the inclination is to stand pat. The team is leading, so let’s not upset the apple cart. But the Padres refused to maintain a division leading status quo. Perhaps the hard-charging San Francisco Giants had something to do with that. The Giants have won 18 of the last 23 games, and a once comfortable gap for the Padres has slowly been shrinking.

The Padres needed to add power and experience to a still young(ish) roster. The team clearly did not need pitching, with one of MLB’s best pitching staffs and its best relievers. But, offense is always a struggle in San Diego, so the team added some pieces that will be a big help.

The first helpful piece is veteran infielder Miguel Tejada. Sure, Tejada has a murky and potentially sordid history with performance-enhancing drugs. But those transgressions appear to be behind the slugger. He is certainly not the offensive threat he once was, but he did hit .313 last season in Houston. His .269 average at third base for Baltimore was not that impressive, but getting out of the A.L. East will likely be a boost to the hitter’s bat. He is a smart, savvy player who will be able to make effective use of the gaps in San Diego. All the team had to give up was a reliever prospect named Wynn Pelzer. It is clear the team has relief prospects to spare.

What makes the Padres the winners of the trade deadline is not just the quality of the talent added, it is the ability to add talent with a minimal price tag by taking advantage of other contending teams’ desperation. The St. Louis Cardinals were in desperate need of an upgrade to the starting pitching staff. The team targeted, and got, Cleveland Indians pitcher Jake Westbrook. But, the Cards would never have been able to secure Westbrook’s services if not for the inclusion of Padres’ farmhand Corey Kluber in the deal. With all of those factors in play, the Padres managed to get a premium outfield talent to add a big right-handed bat to the lineup in Ryan Ludwick.

Ludwick is not an afterthought talent. Once believed to a top prospect in the Cleveland Indians organization, he has blossomed after getting released by the Tribe and signed by the Cardinals. In fact, Ludwick’s plate production has been consistent, routinely hitting .266 or higher, including a .299 batting average in 2008. His 2010 batting average thus far is nothing to scoff at either, with another steady .281. Ludwick can hit home runs – he hit 37 of them, driving in 113 runs a couple of seasons ago – but he probably will not hit quite as many in the expansive layout of Petco Park. The good news is that he is also a great doubles hitter, already with 20 this season, and he has a pair of triples. Ludwick can cover a lot of ground in the field, and is fast enough on the base paths. The combination of right handed power and speed will be a big help to the Padres’ lineup.

It has long been a prevailing thought in baseball ownership that if the team wins, fans will attend. The ratio of wins to filled seats still is not in the team’s favor in San Diego, but it is probably too soon to judge. The good news is that the team took aggressive steps to get better at the deadline, proving to fans that this season is worth spending some money on. It is likely that fans will respond by paying for tickets, and the team will continue to win in a division thought to be lost to the Dodgers or Rockies way back in April. It is amazing what a few months – and a couple of shrewd trades – can do for the prospects of a team and its fans.

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

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 Biggest Winner at the MLB Trade Deadline Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The 2010 Biggest Winner at the MLB Trade Deadline Debate… Yanks Already Thinking October

August 2, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The City That Never Sleeps was true to its name as the MLB trade deadline neared, where the city’s most famous team made multiple deals to get into a better position to win a 28th world championship. The acquisition of Lance Berkman, Kerry Wood, and Austin Kearns gives the Yankees the key pieces needed to dominate. It would have been easy for the Yanks to sit on their laurels, especially after missing out on some big targets like Cliff Lee and Roy Oswalt. Instead the Yanks head into the stretch reloaded and ready to rumble.

The MLB trade deadline is just another opportunity for organizations and players to measure their level of resolve to win. As in every aspect of the game, there are winners and losers. A great deal of what determines the separation between the two is a team’s willingness to compete. The Bronx Bombers approached the trade deadline with the same ferocity that has kept them atop one of the most competitive divisions in baseball.

The Yankees filled one of th most pressing needs by trading for switch hitting slugger Lance Berkman. While bringing in another first baseman may seem counter intuitive considering Mark Teixeira and Nick Swisher are more than capable of covering the bag, Berkman’s bat makes him a valuable commodity. Manager Joe Girardi envisions him as “an RBI guy” and “a run producer,” something Berkman has done quite well throughout his career in Houston. Add the fact that he is a better left-handed hitter in a park where balls seem to fly out of the park and a possibly significant jump in production, similar to the numbers Johnny Damon posted in the new Yankee Stadium, could be in the offing.

But perhaps Berkman’s greatest attribute is the versatility he offers. Since losing Nick Johnson to injury the Yankees have had a gaping hole at the designated hitter position. The Yankees have tried, largely unsuccessfully, to get production from the position with everyone from Colin Curtis to Kevin Russo. Berkman will be able to contribute immediately at DH and makes for one heck of a bench player on days when he is not in the starting lineup. There may be days when he sits to allow Jorge Posada at-bats or other position players to take a break from fielding, but his simple presence on the roster is something opposing clubs have to prepare for. Certainly Berkman is not the same player he was a few years ago, and there will be days when Berkman will not start, but the Yankees are certainly a much better team with him.

New York also addressed another area of need by adding Kerry Wood to the bullpen. Wood will be called upon to help bridge the gap between Yankees’ starters and Mariano Rivera. While Wood’s numbers coming out of the pen this season are less than impressive (1-4 with a 6.30 ERA), there is no doubt that he can be an asset in relief.

Over the previous two seasons Wood has accumulated 54 saves with a 3.75 ERA. Since he won’t be forced to deal with the stress and rigors of closing in New York, acting as a capable set up man should be no problem. And with each arm the Yankees add it makes the team more flexible to bring in a pitcher for a short appearance as a left or right handed specialist. Wood fits this mold.

The only concern regarding Wood is his notorious injuries, but the best part is the Yankees will not live or die by his health. They already own a bullpen of talented hurlers and Wood serves as icing on the proverbial cake.

Much less flashy was the rather silent acquisition of veteran outfielder Austin Kearns. By adding another outfielder the Yankees solidify the bench. The Yanks face a grueling schedule down the stretch with continuous play, and it is obviously important to Joe Girardi to keep players rested going into the post-season. Kearns gives New York a trustworthy fielder that can give guys like Curtis Granderson and Nick Swisher days off. Yet one more sign that the Yankees are thinking big pitcher and aren’t pulling any punches.

While these acquisitions may not seem as grandiose as the Rangers’ trade for Cliff Lee or the Phillies’ trade for Roy Oswalt, they are no doubt important for a playoff bound team. They are also indicative of a growing change in philosophy for the Yanks – pursuing value. The Yankees could have mortgaged the farm system to get some of the bigger names on the trade block, but the team would have paid dearly to lock up the star in a long term contract. Both the Berkman and Wood deals are relatively short term and their prior clubs are shouldering a great deal of their remaining contracts. What the Bombers get in return are low cost, high upside contributors that don’t handcuff the team moving forward. The Yankees can still add the same free agents in the off-season and don’t have to offer the minor league talent to get them. Now that’s value.

The Yankees are no doubt trade deadline winners. Will it pay off? That is yet to be seen, but for a club that won with much the same roster as last season, going into free agency these additions certainly haven’t hurt the team’s chances.

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

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 Biggest Winner at the MLB Trade Deadline Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.