The January 2011 Hottest Team in the NBA Debate… Same Old Steady Spurs

January 13, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Babe Ruthless.

Every Wednesday on The Sports Fix on WNER 1410, Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek make an appearance with Matt McClusky to discuss our website and talk about hot topics in the world of sports. Two days ago they broke down this weekend’s NFL divisional playoff games. In the breakdowns, Sports Geek referered to the Atlanta Falcons as “solid,” “steady,” and “not spectacular.” Truth be told, it’s kind of hard to argue with those adjectives (Editor’s Note: Duh.). But in context, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

We segue to today’s NBA debate on the hottest NBA team. Now, who gets all the headlines in the NBA? That’s obvious. It’s the Lakers, the Celtics, the Heat, the Magic… blah blah blah. Yes, those teams have all the flash. The pizzazz… or as Sports Geek likes to say, “the flair.” But I challenge you, loyal readers, to take a look at the NBA standings. Which team currently has the best record in the NBA? Not Showtime! Not Beantown! Not South Beach! Not even the home of Disney World, where dreams come true! The best record belongs to a team that resides in the Alamo City!!! How exciting!!!

The San Antonio Spurs currently lead the league, rather comfortably, actually, with an overall record of 33-6. The team is bouncing back from a couple of seasons where, and there’s really no delicate way to put this, many observers believed the players looked old. This is despite the fact that they have won at least 50 games every FULL season (the shortened 1998-1999 season notwithstanding) since 1996-1997, which was pre-Tim Duncan. That’s pretty “solid” and “steady.”

This season the Spurs have been pretty spectacular as we near the halfway point of the season. They are on pace for close to 70 wins. That’s mid-1990’s Bulls territory!

Except, no one’s talking about.

I’d venture to say that the most we’ve heard out of the Spurs this season has revolved around the personal life of point guard Tony Parker. It’s unfortunate that we’ve been caught up in Twitter (see Lebron) and coach/player dispute (see Heat and Lakers) when all along we’ve had the same old steady Spurs.

And yes, it’s still the same old Spurs. Other teams really don’t want to play them. Tim Duncan, who surprisingly is averaging career lows in points, rebounds, and minutes, is still the same guy who needs one more ring to have a hand full, and will still use that backboard to bank a 12 footer. Manu Ginobili is leading the team in scoring as he is averaging a career high in minutes. Of course Parker is still there running the offense. Richard Jefferson brings experience and versatility to the forward position. And DeJuan Blair fills out the starting five. All five of these guys have started the first 39 games, and boy are they on some kind of roll.

I really like the Spurs bench, too. The team has ELEVEN guys on the bench that average at least ten minutes a game. That’s a weapon you know coach Gregg Popovich is glad to have, and hasn’t always had in years past. Some of these guys, like George Hill and Gary Neal, have youth on their side, so they can spell some of the aging veterans. It’s a solid mixture of experience and youth and it’s going to be really tough to beat the boys from the Alamo City. Who cares if maybe they are a little boring?

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

Leave a Comment » | The January 2011 Hottest Team in the NBA Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The January 2011 Hottest Team in the NBA Debate… The Heat Is On

January 13, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.

You can call them the Super Friends, Miami Thrice, or even The Heatles, but no matter what you call the Miami Heat, you are referring to THE hottest team in the NBA.

Despite all the naysayers and pre-season speculation that claimed “LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh just could not coexist in South Beach,” they have done exactly that. This season, the three have formed the nucleus of one of the most unbeatable and feared teams in the NBA today. The threesome has risen above the heap and led the Heat to the top spot in the Southeastern Division and second place in the Eastern Conference with a commanding 30-10 record. Despite all the hate, King James is making believers out of everyone.

King of the Road

The Heat have been lights out at home, posting a 15-4 record playing at American Airlines Arena. But what has made them the scariest team in the NBA is a ridiculous road record of 15-6. The 15 road wins are the most in the NBA and include a streak of 13 wins on the road (second best in franchise history). Not only are the Heat a menace at home but they continue to light up scoreboards like pinball machines on the road as well.
The team is so good, in fact, that even when the L.A. Clippers finally broke their streak the otherwise simple story made national headlines. The Heat are a force to be reckoned with, and are THE hot story in the NBA right now. Miami continues to draw sellout crowds at arena after arena on the road across the country. Whether it’s to witness the Heat’s amazing play in person or simply to boo the biggest heals in the sport, everyone wants to watch this super team in action.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

James and his team have continued to draw (you guessed it) HEAT from the fallout of his high profile free agent signing with Miami and the team’s bold five championship projections. Certainly a lot of the ill will being aimed in his direction is generated from the greater Cleveland area, fans of other teams jilted in the James free agency courtship (e.g. the Knicks and Bulls), and NBA fans who just disliked the move in general have also done their fair share to vilify King James. While hating the most dominant goliath team in a particular sport is natural and is practically a pastime in itself, it is also very dangerous as it serves as motivation to the team it is directed at. As a Yankees fan I am well aware that sometimes the worst thing you can do to a giant is boo them because you are only going to make them mad. This is no doubt pushing James and company to be the dangerous force they are, and gives them justification to trounce a trash talking team when they come to town.

The situation around the NBA has fed into the image of LeBron and the Heat as the prominent villains of the NBA (they do often wear black, after all), a role which motivates James and his Miami teammates and makes them that much more dangerous. Commenting on the issue, James stated, “It’s not like I really feel like a villain. It’s just when I go into an opposing building, it’s nothing but venom thrown at us, so you know you embrace that.”

James has vented many of his frustrations on Twitter, but that has served to only stir the pot even more. After seeming to delight in the Cavs misery when they were decimated by the Lakers recently, LeBron tweeted, “Crazy, Karma is a b****. Gets you everytime. It’s not good to wish bad on anybody. God sees everything!”

He is all but telling his former team owner, Dan Gilbert, that he is enjoying watching the man who claimed LeBron would carry a curse of betrayal with him to Miami suffer himself. While he has backpedaled about the comment since first posting it, it goes to show that he does indeed acknowledge the love loss he has with so many. But as the modern poet Kanye West proclaimed “that, that, that, that don’t kill me can only make me stronger” and I do believe these comment make for a stronger, James and in turn a more dangerous Miami Heat team.

His Airness, Michael Jordan, used to use any perceived slights to motivate him to be that much better, and I think the same thing is happening to LeBron this season. He and the Heat are starting to get into the groove they lacked at the beginning of the season and pretty soon they will be impossible to stop.

Pardon yet another temperature related pun, but the Heat are absolutely en fuego right now! They can beat you on their court, but they can also beat you on your court. Any boos or jeering will just make them that much better. The sky is the limit for this All-Star team, and the league should take them serious because the Heat are for real.

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

Leave a Comment » | The January 2011 Hottest Team in the NBA Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate Verdict

January 13, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

If ever the game of baseball found itself in a lose-lose situation, this would be it. Let me once again sarcastically thank the dirtbags who introduced steroids into the game for ruining it for EVERYONE!

Thanks to greed, egotism, and self-service over fair play and competition, an entire generation of baseball is forever sullied. And what angers me the most about the whole thing is that it was MY era that was ruined!

Ignorance Was Bliss

Our fathers got to grow up watching Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Reggie Jackson. Their fathers grew up watching Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and Walter Johnson. These were titans. They were larger-than-life baseball stars turned legends.

Yes, there were “bad guys” back then, too. Ty Cobb was no saint on the base path, and the Black Sox made sure to leave a mark on history. But the actions of those few did not destroy the luster of an entire generation. In fact, for some players (like Cobb), it actually added to their legend.

I, on the other hand, grew up watching cheaters and drug users. The players I idolized during my youth – Canseco and McGwire, Strawberry, and Gooden… and now even more recent stars like Manny and A-Rod – have one-by-one toppled from grace.

At first, it hurt. It was the death of my innocence as a boy. I used to imagine myself in the same dugout as The Bash Brothers, or The Killer B’s. Now the curtain has been pulled back on those moments of herculean accomplishment that I witnessed, and with that action, the illusion of greatness vanished.

At one time I celebrated with these legends. I carried with me what I thought were indelible images, like those of McGwire and Sosa crossing home plate during their great 1998 homerun chase, or Roger Clemens’ twenty strike-out night against the Mariners in 1986, or of rookie sensation Wally Joyner winning the 1986 homerun derby.

Those have all been replaced by images of sad and broken men, none of whom are celebrating now.

Instead of wearing baseball uniforms they are now clad in business suits, standing before Congress or the cameras. Some are making tearful apologies, others making impassioned pleas. But they are all addressing the same problem – destroyed legacies.

The Time for Debate is Over

It is time for history to officially begin passing judgment on the actions of these athletes. Accomplishments that surely would have otherwise merited immediate induction into Cooperstown are now besmirched with an ugly (albeit implied) asterisk. Like a good pair of concrete shoes, no one with an asterisk has managed to break through the barrier that is the collection of HOF voters yet. None have been able to overcome the stigma of being a cheater.

So why do I include Roger Clemens in the same ranks as McGwire, Sosa, and Joyner? He has never been PROVEN to have cheated, and he vehemently denies any and all accusations.

The problem that faces Clemens, Jeff Bagwell, and many other players who are sure to follow after them comes in the form of a very simple question – Do I believe them? My answer is “not really.”

Here is where we find that lose-lose situation. Should the voters of baseball’s Hall of Fame ignore accusations and allegations of cheating and vote players like Roger Clemens into the Hall, knowing that there is a possibility of their being proven guilty after induction? Or do they preclude anyone shrouded in suspicion from ever being inducted, knowing that there will surely be innocent players unfairly denied an honor that they truly deserved?

In defense of those players still only suspected of steroid use, Babe Ruthless calls upon a predictable, but no less valuable, defense. The insistence that a player is “innocent until proven guilty” is one that is hard to deny, and Babe Ruthless wastes no time in applying it to this situation.

As much as I hate the overuse of that adage, I cannot deny its value. While a comparison to McCarthyism or the Salem Witch Trials may be a bit extreme (we are just talking about baseball), the notion that mere accusation could bar someone an otherwise deserved honor is very unpleasant to consider.

But that is nonetheless where Loyal Homer chimes in with hi argument.

There is already a cloud of unpleasantness surrounding this infamous era, and so avoidance is an impossibility. According to Loyal Homer, it is the integrity of the hall itself, not the integrity of the athletes, that is really at stake. Fairness to a player is secondary when you consider the virtues that the Baseball Hall of Fame embodies.

Induction into the Hall is a privilege, not a right. The voters each year want to ensure that only the greatest of baseball’s ambassadors are the ones chosen for immortality.

So do you risk the integrity of the Hall, or sacrifice good faith at the expense of the individual athlete’s legacy?

Preserving the Institution

I am awarding this verdict to Loyal Homer for one reason – the Baseball Hall of Fame is the last piece of the game not yet tainted by steroids.

Records may be called into question and athletes’ resumes may be cheapened, but the Hall remains a bastion where the very best that baseball has to offer can still be respected and honored without question. As Loyal Homer states, the Hall must remain free from the cloud of suspicion.

Do I feel for the wrongfully accused? Absolutely. They are innocent victims, simply caught in the cross-fire of a witch hunt to clean up baseball. But that is not the concern of the Hall of Fame.

Cooperstown does not have to solve the problem of steroids. It does not have to pass judgment on players like Clemens or Bagwell. The only function which the Hall and its voters must perform is to honor the game’s greatest.

Unfortunately for players like Clemens, suspicion is all it takes. How can voters confidently induct him into the Hall of Fame if there are very real doubts as to the legitimacy of how he accomplished many of the things which would have made him great?

Let’s be honest, this would not be the first time that suspicion deprived someone from induction into the Hall (e.g. Shoeless Joe Jackson).

Voters for the Baseball Hall of Fame have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to preserving the purity of the game. If there is even a shred of doubt as to the validity of a players’ accomplishments, the voters cannot let him in. To do so would irresponsibly risk the legacy of the entire history of the game.

If just one Hall of Famer is found to have cheated AFTER the fact of his induction, the integrity of the entire Hall is lost forever.

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

2 Comments | The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate

January 11, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

Boy is it nice to be back! (A huge thanks to everyone here at TSD for picking up the slack while I was gone!)

What better way to get back into the swing of things than to tackle a debate that has probably been a long time coming – steroids and the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Although it feels like we have been talking about steroids in baseball for ever, the issue of steroids in the Hall of Fame is really a problem that is still in its infancy. We are just now at a point where players from the notorious “Steroid Era” such as Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro are eligible for Hall of Fame candidacy.

With each year of voting, it becomes clearer – steroids are a black mark that simply cannot be erased from an athlete’s resume. Voters are sending a message loud and clear that they will not reward any steroid-tainted player with baseball’s highest honor.

I think it is safe to assume that most people are in agreement with those voters when it comes to an athlete who has either admitted to steroid use, or some other form of proof has been provided to definitively confirm that fact.

But what about players who are only SUSPECTED or ACCUSED of steroid use? Should a player who has never admitted to using or been a proven user of steroids be shunned from the Hall of Fame by voters?

The cloud of suspicion around steroids can itself be a powerful influence in how the public perceives an athlete. Loyal Homer believes that suspicion alone should be enough to justify banishment for HOF voters while Babe Ruthless feels that mere suspicion should have no bearing whatsoever on a HOF vote.

How will history look back on the Steroid Era? It’s time to find out…

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

Leave a Comment » | The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate… The Steroid Era: Innocence Abandoned

January 11, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Steroids are dangerous, self-destructive, and unethical. Society has become well aware of these facts, and has thoroughly – and appropriately – vilified known steroid users. While professional sports as whole have been slow to deal with the issue of how to punish steroids users, at the urging of society and Congress leagues have taken active steps over the past half decade to address the problem. But America’s great steroid purge has also created new problems of its own.

The purge has transformed an entire generation of fans into skeptics, doubting Thomas-es that scrutinize and distrust any and every above average athlete out of fear that success might be the result of a bottle and not hard work. The MLB Hall of Fame has mirrored fan skepticism, essentially locking the door to anyone who was even accused of using steroids. While I understand the HOF’s need to make wise decisions in order to protect its integrity and validity, banning every player with even a modicum of unsubstantiated accusation against them is simply an act of unabashed paranoia. The MLB Hall of Fame should allow in worthy players who have not been proven guilty.

Everyone is a Suspect

In the wake of the Steroid Era EVERYONE is a suspect. I’m sure some readers are trying to qualify that last statement thinking, “He can’t really mean everyone is a suspect,” but that is indeed actually what I meant. Every single MLB player that was in the majors from the 1990s through the mid 2000s can uniformly be lumped into the Steroid Era, and is thus viewed through a lens of doubt that opens them to accusations of guilt. Isn’t this doubt an accusation in and of itself?

Sure not every player is mentioned by name in the Mitchell Report or by informant testimony, but what if they were? Suppose in Jose Conseco’s next tell all book he boldly claims that no one in baseball is clean (after all, Jose has been right about a lot of guys in the past – McGwire, A-Rod, and more). Would that be cause enough to ban the entire player universe during this dark age for baseball?

My opposition in today’s debate, Loyal Homer, would say “Yes!” He would believes that anyone who is accused of steroid use should be banned from enshrinement in the Hall of Fame, regardless of evidence or credibility of the testimony. Banned, remind you, not because of an admission of guilt or proof, but because of an allegation. I don’t know about you, but I find something patently un-American about finding someone guilty until proven innocent.

Loyal Homer’s steadfast rule of zero tolerance for the accused would not just target the usual suspects like the big and bulky Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. It also accuses the slim and nimble players, too. We know that designer PEDs exist that help players build lean muscle, the way A-Rod did, so even small guys like Ichiro Suzuki, Dustin Pedroia, and Derek Jeter could have used them (although I HIGHLY doubt it). But Loyal Homer’s zero tolerance policy would ban these guys solely based off of accusations. Even if they vehemently deny the charge and there is no hard evidence to prove otherwise, Loyal Homer would exclude guys who revolutionized the sport simply because they playing in baseball’s darkest hours.

A New McCarthyism

The worst part about this rise in skepticism is the fact that it actively encourages abandoning the American principle of innocence of the accused until proven guilty. This is not a new phenomenon, however, as we have seen it at least twice before in America – once in colonial Salem, Massachusetts and again in Congressional Red Scare of the 1950s. Each time Americans were prone to hysteria over unsubstantiated claims, and each time the lives and reputations of the innocent were ruined. It should not be allowed to happen again.

I realize that someone not completely sold on my argument will think I am haplessly appealing to patriotic rhetoric (subliminal message – USA! USA! USA! Bald Eagle, Constitution, Statue of Liberty), but we should give players the benefit of the doubt. Certainly it is not an unalienable right to play professional baseball, much less be commemorated in its holiest shrine, but it should not be so difficult of a task that even unproven accusations of guilt keep an individual out either.

Take Roger Clemens, for example. The man has already lost most popular support in the fight to clear his name, yet he maintains his innocence. If current trends continue, this seven time Cy Young winner will never see Cooperstown without buying a ticket. But his case highlights the most ludicrous aspect of this whole episode of paranoid skepticism – it has become impossible to prove a person’s innocence.

Just for argument’s sake, re-examine the Clemens saga with a fresh, unbiased perspective. A man faces 30 years in prison and a $1.5M perjury charge simply because he maintains innocence. This man could have admitted to wrong doing, if any existed, and been forgiven as he has seen former friends Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte successfully do, yet he continues to tell anyone that will listen that he did not use PEDs. Still the man’s reputation and legacy are defamed because the accusations of an admitted HGH user (Pettitte) and a guy accused of sexual assault with the date-rape drug (former trainer Brian McNamee). Does that sound fair? While Clemens specific guilt or innocence is immaterial, it highlights the greater need to give people a fair chance, which Loyal Homer’s stance does not.

Guys like Clemens should be let in, at least until they are proven to be guilty. Then, you can Reggie Bush-Heisman them all you want.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate… Remove Suspicion, Keep Integrity in The Hall of Fame

January 11, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

With last week’s results of the 2011 Baseball Hall of Fame class, it became increasingly apparently to me that anyone remotely tied to the steroid era was going to have an extremely difficult time gaining an invitation to Cooperstown. We all knew there was no reason for Mark McGwire to begin work on any type of induction speech. We were fairly certain that, despite the lasting image of seeing Rafael Palmeiro in Congress saying that he had “Never used steroids – period” he’ll never be portrayed in baseball history as anything but a steroid user, fair or not. What made last week’s results interesting, was the low vote total for Jeff Bagwell.

By all accounts, Jeff Bagwell was a stand up guy both on and off the field. He was the consummate professional. You never really heard a negative peep out of him from his playing days as a Houston Astro, at least not on a national level. He, along with Craig Biggio, helped make professional baseball relevant in Houston for over a decade. He made Larry Anderson relevant to a baseball transaction junkie like myself (he was traded from the Red Sox to the Astros for Anderson… oops, Boston!). But the fact that he played in the so-called Steroid Era is playing against him, and is likely going to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, despite his Hall of Fame worthy credentials. Well, that and the fact that you look at him and think, “How did this guy hit 449 home runs?” Keeping guys like Jeff Bagwell out of Cooperstown is unfortunate, but it’s necessary to keep the integrity of baseball’s most sacred membership.

As I type this, I have yet to read the argument written by Babe Ruthless. But if I had to guess, I’m going to step out on a pretty stable limb and say that he is going to hide behind that “innocent until proven guilty” line of reasoning. That line of defense may work in our judicial system, theoretically, and it may have worked for the likes of O.J. Simpson and his legal Dream Team back during his murder trial in the mid 1990s. But that’s just not the way it works with public perception, and it’s not the way it works in the mind of Hall of Fame voters.

We live in a time where you are often lumped together by who you “hang” with, for lack of a better term. It’s called “guilt by association.” It’s an indirect mindset that we humans deal with on a daily basis. Parents deal with it every day with rebellious teenagers. Police deal with it when investigating potential criminals and drug dealers. Translating to baseball, guys like Jeff Bagwell played during the Steroid Era during the prime of their careers. While it’s true that it was never proven that he took steroids, the dark cloud still hangs over that era, and, quite frankly, it’s an era that Major League Baseball as a whole would prefer to forget. What better way to forget than not elect anyone with any assumed guilt?

When you think Cooperstown, you think of a place to honor and respect baseball’s greatest, both past and present. You don’t think about steroids and needles and ‘roid rages. The integrity of the Hall of Fame must be preserved to help continue the “moving-on” era. To do so, all clouds and suspicions must be kept in the sky – outside the halls of Cooperstown.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Steroids in the Hall of Fame Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate Verdict

January 10, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Babe Ruthless.

Optimist Prime makes a good point. He is a Michigan State fan. I am, by virtue of my birthplace of Columbus, Ohio, an Ohio State fan. Yet, here we are dispensing advice on what the right choices are for Michigan as it searches to replace its head coach.

Optimist Prime starts off his argument with an obvious statement that cannot be overlooked. It is true that RichRod was no Michigan man.

Perhaps we could have another debate about how to define “Michigan Man.” My friend Captain Obvious tells me that being a Michigan Man isn’t that complicated – it boils down to being tough on the offensive and defensive line, preaching a penchant for taking care of the ball, and playing disciplined football with an emphasis on eliminating stupid mistakes. It was exactly what RichRod’s two predecessors embodied, and it’s also the reason he is now part of more than 13 percent employed in Michigan.

To Optimist Prime’s point, Michigan has hired the big name and it didn’t work out. Perhaps it is a lesson learned.

If we examine the other recent head coaching hired in the Big Ten it is clear that Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern, Bret Bielema at Wisconsin, Mark D’Antonio at Michigan State – and even Jim Tressel at Ohio State almost a decade ago – were not big name, splashy hires. There is a reason that theme has developed over time. Simply, it works. Finding a coach who has a strong understanding of what it means to be a part of the Big Ten is important if the athletic director is following the blueprint for success in the Big Ten. A splashy name simply does not equate to success in the Midwest.

Optimist Prime made an excellent point about Mark D’Antonio. He may not be Midwestern bred, but he understands it very well and committed to that region. And he was not a big name at the time he was hired either. I think Optimist Prime is on to something here, and that’s why he wins the debate.

Babe Ruthless really lost me when he stated that college and professional football are very similar. They are not. They are not even close. The needs of a college football program include recruiting across the country, a major understanding of politics internally within the program and externally with boosters and the respective Boards of Regents, coaching and motivating young players, hiring the right assistant coaches and managing inevitable turnover, and the list keeps going.

Babe Ruthless does made a solid point. It is true that a lesser known coach does not guarantee success. There are risks with either a lesser known name or a splashy name option. There is no guarantee that a Southern rooted coach like Les Miles can recruit in the Big Ten. There is no guarantee that a coach with little name recognition but Big Ten roots can coach his way out of a paper bag and handle all of the complex rules and responsibilities of a modern college head football coach. But, the odds are that a coach with a philosophy rooted in the conference he is going to coach in stands a better chance for success than a splashy name who is an outsider. Big Ten history proves that out.

Michigan’s coaching search is more about regionalism and roots, and less about experience. Splashy names are long on experience.

I am interested to see what Michigan does. It seems clear, though. If Ohio State and Michigan State fans are supposed to fear Michigan again, it’s best if fans are unfamiliar with the new coach’s name.

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

2 Comments | The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate

January 9, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Babe Ruthless.

It is hard to believe we’re having this debate about Michigan. Of course, it was fairly evident to any casual college football observer that Rich Rodriguez was not the long term coach for the Wolverines. But, still, it’s been Bo Schembechler and Lloyd Carr, well, FOREVER it seems.

It seems that Rodriguez, and his chosen fast-paced offensive style of football, was not a good fit for the establishment within the Big Ten. Michigan was never able to compete with Ohio State, Wisconsin, and even Michigan State on a regular basis.

Now the Michigan program is at a crossroads. Should it once again pursue a name like Rodriguez’s? When he was hired, Rodriguez was a high profile, splashy name at an already established program, but he was a system coach. A modern day correlation to Rodriguez is the increasingly popular Brady Hoke at San Diego State who seems to be on every coach-shopping program’s short list.

Or, should Michigan hire a lesser known name, but a coach with a style that better suits Big Ten competition?

It is a classic debate of style over substance. Should Michigan shoot for a high profile, splashy name, or an understated name that has a style more befitting of Michigan?

Babe Ruthless will argue that Michigan needs a big name, splashy hire to restore the program to its once great status while Optimist Prime will argue that Michigan should go after a lesser known coach who favors hard-nosed football and toughness – the hallmarks of the Big Ten.

It’s style versus substance – and your arguments better have both!

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

Leave a Comment » | The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate… Go Big Or Go Home

January 9, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

Football teams are a lot like hot air balloons. If you cut the dead weight holding them down, there is little alternative for the team other than rising. Recently Michigan went all dirigible on head football coach Rich Rodriguez.

After three years of underwhelming performance (15-22 record) in the ultracompetitive Big Ten, Michigan’s Athletic Director Dave Brandon announced that the school and head Rodriguez were parting ways. While this may not have elicited the same celebratory high-fiving antics of ESPN reporters that the Eric Mangini firing did, it still gave many football fans reason for celebration, especially disgruntled Michigan fans. Now that the cloud of discontent that has hovered over Ann Arbor for a few seasons has lifted, the only question that remains is who will take control of the program now?

There are two schools of thought on the matter. The first suggests that the program temper its expectations of recruiting a big name and simply search for a low profile coach who will mold to the established style of the program and the Big Ten in general. The second is to recruit a big name or bust.

To me there is no real choice to be made at all… Michigan MUST make a splashy signing or risk hurting the future of the program. While I do not suggest that signing a nobody to take over the team will completely undermine the more than 100 year legacy of Michigan football, I do maintain the action would signify an immediate surrender. The move communicates that the program is rebuilding and has abandoned its win-now pursuit of Big 10 dominance and a legitimate shot at a national championship. While that may be true, the perception cannot be communicated to the public without feeling the fallout in the recruiting process.

Michigan Can’t Afford Growing Pains

No top tier recruit wants to sign with a team amidst the messy process of rebuilding. College players have an extremely limited chance to make a name for themselves, which could be completely wasted in the transition to a new coach and scheme. In general, coaches are given around three seasons to put their stamp on a program. During that time, even the best programs can lose their mojo. Former standouts can become marginalized by change. While this does not mean that Michigan would be unable to sign any premier recruits, it does mean that elite level game-changing recruits will think twice about joining the ranks of a program already waiving the white flag of defeat and surrender.

Signing an established coach like Brady Hoke from San Diego State, or the former Wolverine alum Les Miles, would offset some of these growing pains. Recruits would know that Michigan, although in transition, is committed to winning… and winning now. Even other lesser names that top Michigan’s speculative short list – such as Northwestern’s Pat Fitzgerald, Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz, or TCU’s Gary Patterson – would communicate a serious desire to win with an established guy from a respected program.

At the NFL level, the Carolina Panthers face a similar dilemma – attempt to persuade a Bill Cowher or Jon Gruden type to resurrect the team or try to start all over again from the bottom up. While the Panthers certainly aren’t most free agents’ number one target destination, they might be with a proven guy like Cowher at the helm. But if they instead go with a lesser known guy like New York Giants defensive coordinator Perry Fewell they will probably find their only source of new blood in the draft. While college and the pros are two very different things the analogy stands on a similar premise, there is indeed power in the name of a coach. Michigan would be foolish to ignore that, and may suffer the long term consequences in recruiting if it does.

Hoke-y History Repeating Myth

There is a popular misconception that if the Wolverines were to bring in a guy like Hoke it would just be the same old story – school signs big name, big name struggles, school fires coach, school signs another big name. This really doesn’t fit with Michigan’s model because Rich Rodriguez’s failures were not because he was simply a big flashy name, but rather the weaknesses of his individual coaching ability. There is no indicator that another big name will be similarly flawed. Obviously signing any coach comes with a risk, but a lesser known coach is not the answer. In fact a lesser established coach is more of a risk.

Sometimes small fish struggle in a big pond. As a New York Yankees fan I have seen this phenomenon more times than I care to remember. Thrusting a small time coach or coordinator into of one of the most high profile jobs in the Big Ten could be a recipe for disaster. An established guy like Hoke or Miles knows how to deal with media and the expectations of an ultracompetitive program like Michigan. Who knows how a coach from a small conference would deal with the Michigan-Ohio State game, let alone a whole season of Big Ten games. Guys like Hoke are the smart bet, because the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.

Michigan is a big time football program and needs a big time coach. A coach with recruiting power. A coach that can handle the pressure of the job. And should Michigan sign a big name, and it doesn’t work out, they can always try again.

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

Leave a Comment » | The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate… Be Smart, Not Splashy

January 9, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

When I was assigned a post that would provide advice to the University of Michigan about deciding upon its new football coach, I initially had thoughts of rejecting it. Why would I – Lansing, Michigan born – want to help U of M do anything? Besides, Rich Rodriguez was my favorite Michigan football coach in quite some time given the fact that he never beat Michigan State. I wish they would have kept ole RichRod, and I certainly don’t want to help better the program.

However, I will carry out my assigned duty and explain to you why I think Michigan should avoid the big name, big money pick and find somebody less well known to be the next football coach.

One of the issues that many Michigan folks had with coach Rodriguez is that he was not a Michigan man. As such, I think a segment of the Wolverines’ fan base was against him from day one because he was not a “Michigan man,” or even a Big Ten man. Whether it was RichRod’s southern accent or his spread offense, I think he was too different for many of the Wolverine faithful. Given that, as soon as the losses started piling up the countdown on his tenure in Ann Arbor began. While the candidate list of “Michigan men” is dwindling since Harbaugh signed with the San Francisco 49ers, there is no shortage of big name coaches that I am sure U of M fans are ready to pay the big bucks. However, Michigan DID hire the big name three years ago, and came away unimpressed with their results. What should they do this time? Take a hint from up the road in East Lansing.

The more I thought about my assignment, the more I realized that coach Mark D’Antonio of Michigan State is the perfect example of the type of coach that Michigan should hire to be its next football coach (and Michigan State whipping boy, hopefully). Coach D’Antonio has spent a large portion of his coaching career in and around the Big Ten. His coaching stops have included Purdue (as a graduate assistant), Ohio State (as a graduate assistant), Michigan State (as a defensive backs coach), Ohio State (as a defensive coordinator), and Michigan State (as a head coach). In and around those stops he spent time at Ohio University, Akron, Youngstown State, and Cincinnati. Despite the fact that the he was born in El Paso, Texas, and played his college football at the University of South Carolina, he has spent time around the Big Ten. He was familiar with the traditions, the rivalries, and the attitudes of the conference and the individual schools. A coach like that will understand that he has to ingrain himself into the program rather than transform the program. Michigan football, as much as I am loathe to admit it, is an iconic program. A coach there has to understand that nobody perceives the football program as broken, and they’ll tolerate a bit of spread offense as long as they feel like the history and traditions of the program are honored.

At this point you may expect me to launch into a list of candidates that I think fit the D’Antonio mold. However, I refer you to the beginning of the article where I stated that I was born in Lansing, Michigan. While I have upheld my promise and written a post assisting Michigan in the hiring of its next football coach, nothing in my assignment indicated that I actually had to provide a list of candidates. So, you’re on your own, Dave Brandon. Good luck and Go Green!

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

Leave a Comment » | The Hiring A Michigan Coach Debate | Permalink
Posted by Optimist Prime

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.