The Terrelle Pryor in the NFL Debate… Size Isn’t Everything

June 14, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

On February 6th, 2008, every high school football senior in the country with hopes of playing at the next level had to make a decision. It was National Signing Day, where those recruits commit to the college program they wish to be a part of.

Every recruit, that is, except one.

A quarterback out of Jeannette, PA, by the name of Terrelle Pryor thought he was special, and that the rules of everyone else didn’t apply to him. And so, while everyone else was announcing their intentions for the fall, Pryor decided that he would not make his announcement until more than a month later, on March 19th.

We should have seen it coming then.

Terrelle Pryor has fallen right in line with many other phenom talents who are targeted at a too-early age as the next great athletic superstar. Throughout their formative years, when most kids are learning very important life lessons about maturity, responsibility, and accountability, these teenage “superstars” are instead being told they are ‘special’. Exceptions and excuses are made on their behalf for their mistakes, and before you know it, they are shut off from the rest of the world, living within the bubble of “I am better than everyone else.”

Think about the recent antics of other children (which is exactly what they are) who were thrust far too soon into the limelight that is sports stardom – LeBron James and Bryce Harper quickly come to mind. All of these amazingly talented athletes may be physically prepared for the rigors of top-tier athletic competition, but none have shown the maturity necessary to cope with those rigors, and none have demonstrated an ounce of consideration for anyone around them, DESPITE the fact that they all play TEAM SPORTS.

Still, we hope with each new kid brought to us by ESPNU or Rivals.com as the ‘next great thing’ that THEY will be different. We continue to blindly believe the myth that age naturally brings wisdom and maturity, when so many before them prove time and again that is just not the case in sports. We believe that a kid who hasn’t even gone to prom yet can manage a multi-million dollar lifestyle, when most adults aren’t capable of it.

And with every new revelation made about the misdeeds of Pryor and his cohorts while at The Ohio State University, it becomes more evident that he has continued to behave as though the rules just did not apply to him. HE was the superstar, and everyone else should be grateful that HE is a part of their system.

So it came as a surprise to no one when he once more ducked out on accountability and consequence by running away from the NCAA.

Once again, while his so-called ‘team’ will be suffering the wrath of the NCAA, Pryor gets to just walk away, untouched by sanctions that will largely (if not entirely) be levied specifically because of his actions.

Terrelle Pryor is special, and the rules don’t apply to him.

Does that sound like someone an NFL General Manager, Head Coach, or FAN would want on their organization?

Character issues to the side now (which are more than enough to turn any NFL GM off to the prospect of Pryor as a member of their organization), there are plenty of reasons from a performance standpoint that would ALSO be reason to look the other way when Pryor and new agent Drew Rosenhaus come knocking at your team’s door.

Yes, Terrelle Pryor is a physically gifted athlete. He undeniably has the build required to play in the NFL, and is an all-around athlete. His combination of size and speed are what got him noticed in high school, and what led the Buckeyes to an amazing 33-6 record during his three-year tenure with the program.

But for Pryor, the REAL story is not in the wins, but in the losses. His poor decision making ability in many of those games led to very costly turnovers, some of which decided the outcome of games.

When Pryor is leading a juggernaut team against the bottom-feeders of the NCAA, it is easy for him to look good. The talent of the team around him, and the support of a stifling defense that was the hallmark of Ohio State football under Jim Tressel, all compensated for Pryor’s inability to make good decisions.

He extends plays far too long, creating opportunities for the defense to force turnovers, and he forces passes into areas that should not be tested. That is why his ratio of barely more than two TD passes for every interception pales in comparison to TRULY successful quarterbacks of recent years such as Cam Newton (4.3 TDs to every INT), Sam Bradford (5.5 TDs per INT), or even fellow Buckeye Troy Smith (4.2 TDs per INT).

With very few exceptions, any time that Terrelle Pryor found himself in a pressure situation with the game resting on his shoulders, he failed to deliver. Instead, he USUALLY committed a costly mistake which actually hurt his team more than if he had done nothing at all.

And to top it all off, the projection for his pro potential is not even at the position he played in college. You see, everyone knows that he can’t hack it as an NFL QB, so they are instead HOPING that his size, speed, and strength will make him a successful weapon somewhere (anywhere) on the field.

So if I were General Manager of an NFL franchise, and was presented at the supplemental draft with the opportunity to draft a low-character, poor decision making, selfish, prima donna attention-seeker who will have to learn an entirely new position because everyone already knows he cannot be successfull at the only position he has experience in, my answer is a resounding ‘NO THANK YOU!’

The best thing for Pryor AND for the NFL would be for him to spend a few years in either the CFL or the UFL, developing some strong character traits, and proving to the world that he is more than just hype and bad publicity.

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


The Does April Really Matter in MLB Debate

May 3, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

Here we are in early May and the MLB standings are a bit confusing. The team with the best record in baseball is not the team many predicted – it’s the Cleveland Indians of all teams. A 18-8 April does not earn any team a championship, but it is as noteworthy as the New York Yankees’ 17-8. It’s as good as the Phillies as well. Since the Yankees and the Phillies are legitimate name-brand contenders, then the Indians must be for real also, right?

Unfortunately, that question does not have a simple answer… making it a great candidate for an eternal baseball debate. Does a strong April REALLY matter for Major League Baseball teams?

Loyal Homer will argue that an excellent April is not indicative of a great season while Bleacher Fan will argue that a great April means a great season is in the works.

Who do you agree with? Check back here and find out how the judge rules later this week.

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


The Does April Really Matter in MLB Debate… Pride Goeth BEFORE the Fall, and Winning in April Goeth INTO the Fall

May 3, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.


The first month of baseball is officially in the books, and the biggest story from the month of April has been the play of the Cleveland Indians.

The upstart Tribe has just turned in the greatest start in the 110 year history of their storied franchise, finishing April tied for the best record in baseball at 18-8, and currently owning a 4.5 game lead in the AL Central.

This is a better start than any of the AL Championship teams from the 1990s ever saw, and it’s better than the World Series Champion 1948 team. In fact, even the 1954 Indians (a team that went on to win 111 games that year) would have trailed its 2011 counterparts by two games when April turned to May.

So, why is it that most people are STILL not yet ready to give the Indians (who own the best record in baseball) any respect? Many writers around the country are reluctant to do more than acknowledge that the Indians had a good start to the season. And, of all the major publications online, only CBSSports.com has the guts to put the Indians atop the Power Rankings (most still refuse to put Cleveland even in the top three).

I am not trying to make a claim that the Indians are destined for a World Series championship, but the team has clearly played as the best team in baseball so far. They swept five of their nine series, and have not lost at home in over a month. They swept the pre-season AL favorite Boston Red Sox, and just completed a thrilling sweep of the Detroit Tigers, a team many analysts’ pick to be the AL Central champions.

With the exception of a couple bumps in the road (which every team has), the rotation has been outstanding, and the bullpen has been virtually unhittable. Meanwhile, on the offensive side of the ball, the Indians are tied with the Texas Rangers for scoring the most runs in the AL, and the Indians trail only the equally surprising Kansas City Royals for the best team batting average at .272.

So, why are people still doubting the Indians? Because 30 days ago, NOBODY thought the team could be a contender this year (I even predicted a season with fewer than 72 wins). But is a prediction from 30 days ago really any reason to discount the Indians today?

Perhaps Indians outfielder Shelley Duncan sums it up the best – “Did you ever notice that people don’t want to be wrong?”

Rather than admit that they might have actually gotten a prediction wrong, analysts-turned-prognosticators like Jayson Stark would instead try to diminish a tremendous start to the season for teams like the Indians or the Royals by attempting to tag their records with an asterisk that “this is only the first month of the season… it doesn’t really MEAN anything yet.”

DOESN’T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING?!

That’s like saying that the first inning of a game doesn’t matter, because there are still eight innings left to be played.

Let’s forget the obvious fact that the first month of the season is JUST AS important as the last month of the season. The notion that games played in the month of April should not serve as an indication of what to expect through the rest of the season for a team is absolutely absurd.

Every team is now at least 25 games deep into their season. Every team has already dealt with injuries and road trips, slumps and streaks. They have played in good weather and bad, and in front of fans both friendly and hostile. If a team after 25 games can’t at least say that they have indication of what to expect in the weeks and months ahead, then their problems are greater than where they sit in the standings.

The NFL crowns their champion after only 19 games, but baseball doesn’t mean ANYTHING after playing 25 or more? Child, please.

Last year at this point in the season the AL standings had Tampa Bay, Minnesota, and Texas leading their divisions, with the Yankees sitting in the Wild Card spot, just one game behind Tampa. Guess where things stood at the end of September… the AL standings had Tampa Bay, Minnesota, and Texas leading their divisions, with the Yankees sitting in the Wild Card spot, just one game behind Tampa.

And do you think there is a single person in the league – whether a player, manager, GM, or owner – who is shrugging their shoulders at their April performance because, “It doesn’t matter, anyway”? Of course not! Every single person in baseball would LOVE to have a 4.5 game division lead at this point in the season. It builds confidence for the athletes, and it sets a team that much farther ahead of the competition for the next 25 games (and more).

Obviously, there is a lot of baseball left to be played. There is a reason the playoffs are not based on season standings at the end of April. But that is the exact same reason why teams play the April games.

It is true that the Indians could blow the 4.5 game April lead over the rest of the division. But that same lead can also be blown in September. It is true that the Tigers, Twins, or White Sox could get hot, and make a stronger push for the AL Central than has been made so far. But it is also true that the season could end just as it started, with the Indians outright dominating the rest of the competition.

I’m not trying to make the case that the Indians are on course for a World Series championship. I’m not even arguing that they have the AL Central locked up. But I can guarantee you that teams like the Texas Rangers, New York Yankees, and Boston Red Sox are taking the Indians seriously, and the White Sox, Twins, Tigers and Royals are taking the Indians VERY seriously.

If the other teams in the league are putting stock in the performance of teams like the Cleveland Indians, shouldn’t that be good enough for Jayson Stark and company?

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


The Criminals in College Sports Debate Verdict

March 29, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

 

I must give my colleagues, Sports Geek and Loyal Homer, credit. After two years of working together, debating all the biggest issues in sports, they managed to bring out yet another first in TSD history!

For the first time ever, I actually disagree with BOTH arguments (well, at least partly).

The question was to debate whether or not coaches and universities should look into juvenile records before deciding which recruits to extend scholarship offers to. Both Sports Geek and Loyal Homer, although arguing for very different causes, essentially raised the same point – that character matters in sports.

According to Sports Geek, character matters in the sense that it helps people to gain experience. To Sports Geek, growth and second chances for everyone, not just athletes, to make us all better people. Past mistakes do not always serve as an indicator for future actions, though, and so Sports Geek feels that they should not be held against the children (that, after all, is what they are) who commit them.

On the other hand, Loyal Homer argues that character matters, which is precisely why college sports need to clean up their act. Too much is forgiven in sports, and it is tarnishing the reputation of what is supposed to be honest and fair play among student athletes. Instead, we hear more and more about Player ‘X’ from university ‘Y’ and their escapades that resulted in someone getting arrested, or worse, hurt.

But as I said, I disagree with both of them – Character does NOT matter in sports.

We like to SAY that character matters in sports, and realistically, it SHOULD matter in sports, but it is time for us all to stop perpetuating the lie.

We don’t care about character in our athletes at all. We want our athletes to win, and that’s it. We as a fan base may curse athletes who commit some act of moral or criminal wrongdoing. But then we conveniently turn that ire off when the player brings greater success to our team.

It is true that the Florida Gators had a plethora of criminal charges stocking their active roster for the past five football seasons. But they also have two National Championships during that stretch. What do you think Gator fans care about? Would any of them trade in even one of those two National Championships to clear the names of their beloved team’s roster? Hardly.

When Braylon Edwards and Santonio Holmes caught TD passes in the New York Jets playoff victory over the New England Patriots, were any of the Jets fans booing them?

How long did it take before Steelers fans welcomed Ben Roethlisberger back into the fold with open arms? My guess is about 20 minutes and 20 seconds into his first game back, when he completed a scoring pass to Mike Wallace.

It is time to stop pretending that we demand our athletes to live to a greater moral standard, because when push comes to shove we do not really care at all.

But now that it is time to step off of my soap box, I still need to crown a winner for this debate.

Just because I fundamentally disagree with the key message in both arguments, that does not mean I disagree with their entire arguments. And while I disagree with the principle of Sports Geek’s position, it is for that exact same reason that I am awarding him the verdict.

Because an athlete’s character does not REALLY matter to us in sports, past flaws should not be counted against recruits. As Sports Geek points out, kids make mistakes all the time. Some may be more serious than others, but that does not mean that they should be excluded from the opportunity to better themselves.

In fact, if we as fans REALLY want to see those games that we love cleaned up, then we absolutely MUST forgive the past transgressions of the kids that make childish mistakes. Those who are supposed to be “responsible” adults should assume that responsibility and actually COACH these kids. That’s right – It is the program administrators that must be held to the higher standard.

Coaches like Bruce Pearl, Jim Tressel, Lane Kiffin, and countless others are the ones setting the example for these kids that it is okay to bend and break the rules as long as you win games, and THAT is where accountability should be held.

In many cases, these coaches will have a greater impact on the lives of the student athletes than anyone else ever could. They need to act as mentors, role models, and leaders for the kids they are guiding. If they can live up to a higher standard, I can GUARANTEE you that the athletes will follow suit.

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

Bookmark and Share


The Criminals in College Sports Debate

March 15, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

College football coaches are always on the lookout for the next possible gridiron superstar.

Each coach’s wish list is different, but the criteria is almost always the same – speed, smarts, and size usually rule the day.

So where does an intangible like character come into play?

Every program would love to have a guy like Tim Tebow in their locker room. He was a good player with a solid moral foundation to back it up. He was a leader on the field and off, and became the poster child for the ‘good guy’ in college football.

But while Tebow was hoisted up as the pristine face of the Florida Gators, the rest of their football program were certainly no Eagle Scouts. Since 2005, 25 different players from the Gators have been arrested, including 12 charges of felonies or violent misdemeanors.

Florida is not the only program to deal with criminal activity from its players, either.

Every year we hear more reports about college athletes who find themselves involved in illegal matters that can make Ohio State’s tattoos and Brigham Young’s honor code violations sound like a church bake sale.

As further evidence of this growing problem in college sports, a recent study has uncovered that there is an alarming number of student athletes with criminal records, specifically among the ranks of the top programs.

Because these athletes become high profile representatives of high profile schools, does it make sense for those universities to dig even further into the respective pasts of their prospective recruits?

Should Universities in the NCAA examine the juvenile records of those students they intend to recruit?

Our resident Loyal Homer believes that universities absolutely should begin examining those juvenile records, while Sports Geek feels that they should not.

Is this a viable way to clean up the game and its programs? We are about to find out…

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


The New York Influence Debate Verdict

March 9, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime.

In the debate about whether the success of New York sports teams is important to the success of professional respective leagues Loyal Homer got right to work airing his grievances against the dominance of the New York sports market in his argument. Rightfully so, he criticizes the all encompassing coverage that New York teams receive even when they are mired in the deepest slumps of mediocrity. His assertion, that this undeniable truth may be due in no small part to the proximity of New York to ESPN headquarters, holds some validity. But that is about where our agreements ended.

Loyal Homer focuses too much of his attention on attacking the weak links of the New York sports scene. Obviously the Mets haven’t met (pun unintended) the unprecedented success of the Yankees, but then again, for this debate, that is not a requirement. Both are MLB teams and though the Mets may not always reach the postseason, their cross-town rivals almost always do. While the Mets may be floundering to survive, the Yankees shoulder the burden of league leading success, which I would like to remind Loyal Homer comes at a price. At least in baseball, the unlimited spending the Yankees are able to do yields immediate benefits for the rest of the league in the form of revenue sharing.

But I digress. I simply wasn’t sold on Loyal Homers argument that New York teams aren’t necessary for professional league success.

As for Optimist Prime… while I would love to let you know you are leaving today on that all expenses paid trip to NYC you wrote about in your argument, you are just going to have to settle for a victory in today’s debate.

Optimist Prime won this debate because he was successful in convincing me that New York sports franchises are indeed important to the overall success of a league. He did so, surprisingly enough, with numbers, and not a sheer emotional appeal. Admittedly it probably would have been easy to sway me with a barrage of sentimentality over the rich history of New York franchises. I fully expected him to explain how the storied legacy of Big Apple franchises like the Rangers, Yankees, and Giants have come to transcend geographic boundaries, thus making NYC the national fan base critical for the survival of leagues. Instead he chose to take the majority of this debate down a very different path.

Optimist Prime explored the magnitude of the New York market as a whole. He explained that the 19.1 million fans (roughly 1 in every 16 Americans) in the greater NYC market are a force that quite simply cannot be ignored. Add to that the fact that New York is one of the most demanding sports markets in the world and we are talking about a fan base that must be appeased with winning. If New York teams win, the peripheral popularity and buzz is sure to trickle down to the rest of the league, Reaganomics style.

Loyal Homer tested this premise thoroughly by pointing out how the NBA survived and even grew in popularity despite the decade long struggles of New York Knicks, but the fault with this logic is that it does not rule out the possibility of the NBA doing that much better following in the wake of a league leading Knicks team. There is absolutely no telling how much more growth the league would have seen had the Knicks landed a Carmelo Anthony type player, or just established a winning record over that time frame. Judging by what we actually can measure, we see that there is popular support and growth in leagues that have seen New York dominance in recent years (i.e. the NFL with the Giants 2008 Super Bowl victory and MLB with the Yankees 2009 World Series Championship).

In the end, as Optimist Prime aptly points out, “size does matter” and numbers don’t lie. Like it or not, New York matters.

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


The New York Influence Debate

March 7, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime.

New York… The Big Apple… The City That Never Sleeps. No matter what you call it, you are referring to a very special place.

It is a city that serves as THE preeminent cultural trendsetter since virtually the birth of this great nation. It is also a city with one of the richest sports histories in America. Since baseball was being played on the Polo Grounds, New York has been leading the way for the American sports scene. The Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Rangers, Islanders, and Knicks have kept that rich history alive. Sure, there have been lulls in the various teams’ relevance, like the Yankees of the 1980s or say… the last ten years for the Knicks. But overall, New York seems to find a way to always be at the forefront of championship contention.

It is often said that when teams from New York are good, that is a good thing for their respective sport. For instance, the Knicks were a complete non-factor for nearly a decade, but in the wake of the block buster Carmelo Anthony deal, they are back in a big way. So are good things in store for the NBA?

This prompts us here at the Sports Debates to tackle a very intriguing question Is a good team in New York REALLY good for the league as a whole. Does the success or failure of a New York team make no difference?

Loyal Homer believes that New York teams make no difference on a league’s health what so eve while Optimist Prime argues the better a team in New York is, the better the league is overall.

Gents, let’s see what New York’s got. Ponder the meaning behind Sinatra’s statement, “It’s up to you New York, New York!”

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


The New York Influence Debate… New York Good for Quantity and Quality

March 7, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

It’s not often that I find myself arguing in favor of New York sports teams.

Although I am quite fond of New York City itself, that opinion is derived more from its food, culture, and general vibe than whatever the sports teams are up to at that any in time. Although my wife is from New Jersey, my interaction with most of the New York sports teams has consisted of me antagonizing her regarding their various failures and crushing defeats. When I was assigned the task of arguing that a good New York team is important to a league’s overall health, I originally asked the TSD editorial board for a stipend to travel to New York to research this topic in-depth. Unfortunately, that was summarily rejected. Perhaps they were on to my plan of hitting every food spot I’d ever seen on the No Reservations shows shot in New York City. Whatever the cause, I was forced to research this article from my humble abode rather than the Big Apple. Nevertheless, I believe I have come up with some compelling arguments.

The first, and most obvious argument, is that size does matter. The New York metropolitan area has 19.1 million people in it. Basically, roughly 1 of every 16 Americans lives in and around New York City. Logic follows that if an adequate percentage of those fans become Knicks, Rangers, Giants fans (etc.), then that volume of fans will be healthy for the league’s overall health. Basically, if a big city’s team is good, that generally helps the league’s standing among the fans and media overall (see the Chicago Blackhawks for a prime example of a large city’s team increasing a sport’s overall profile).

New York City is America’s largest metropolitan area, so it seems like the most obvious example of this.

Another interesting argument that occurred to me is that the center of New York sports is, arguably Madison Square Garden (it’s close to Manhattan’s geographic center, at least). Madison Square Garden’s slogan is, “The World’s Most Famous Arena” – and it’s hard to argue that is not the case. The fame and history is borne out by the passion of the Knicks and Rangers fans who have filled the building to seating and noise capacity if either team is within shouting distance of a post-season berth or any post-season success.

Beyond statistical and arena angles, there is the more subtle angle that many New York teams are intimately connected to the past, present, and future of the leagues. The Rangers are an Original Six NHL franchise. The Giants played in the NFL’s “Greatest Game” and have won several league championships and Super Bowls combined. The Yankees are, well, the Yankees (you’ll enjoy this part, Babe Ruthless). Whatever you think of the Yanks, they are the most successful professional baseball (and, arguably, professional sports) franchise in American sports. They have more championships, more pennants, more money, and more fans than any other team. They fill stadiums when they play on the road because some fans love to love the Yankees, and some fans love to hate the Yankees. Even the Mets and Jets have reached notable status repeatedly in the last several years. Even the team that time forgot, the New York Islanders, have won four Stanley Cups. New York sports teams – love them or hate them – often represent the pinnacle of success in their respective sports.

I believe I have laid out a thorough, compelling case for the necessary relevance of New York sports teams in their respective leagues. And if I have not, please donate to my “Travel to NYC To Do More Research” fund (I’m working on a catchier name).

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


The High School to College Jump Debate… Righting the Ship

March 1, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

The NBA may be peaking in terms of popularity right now, but make no mistakes – it is an organization in very serious trouble.

The league has been hijacked by players, it is hemorrhaging money, and now the limited population of truly talented athletes in the league have all decided to migrate east, creating what is sure to be an extremely top-heavy NBA.

The league is enjoying a spike in popularity, but how long can that popularity be sustained? There are only so many superstars that are worth the media attention lavished on LeBron James and Dwayne Wade during this past off-season. Now that Carmelo Anthony has signed on with the Knicks, the only thing left for the talking heads in the sports world to talk about is, “Where will Chris Paul sign?

Things just aren’t like they used to be.

Comparisons to the “good ol’ days” often point to the fact that the league’s biggest stars from back in the day would have never teamed up to play on the same team. The notion that Magic would have taken his talents to Boston to team up with Byrd, or that Jordan would ever put on a Knicks uniform to share the same court with Ewing is just absurd. These were hyper-competitive athletes who wanted to share none of the glory.

There has clearly been a change in mentality between the stars of yesterday, and those of today. It has completely altered the climate of professional basketball.

That change has been the talent level of the B and C class talent.

Superstar talent may be comparable to the golden days, but supporting casts in the NBA are a shell of what they once were.

NBA Lite

Thanks to the miracle of NBA expansion, the league has officially reached its saturation point. The league has outgrown the boundaries that would have allowed it to remain competitive, and the limited pool of real NBA-worthy talent is not enough to stock the ocean that is the current NBA.

Talent is watered down to such a point now that the current NBA draft format (which is only two rounds to begin with) is completely irrelevant. With the exception of a small handful of lottery players, most of the draft class from each new season spends the first two to three years of their professional careers either in the D-league, or playing foreign ball. It is not until after some REAL development has taken place that a player (no matter how promising they might be) will actually get an opportunity to test their mettle in the big leagues.

Where in previous years a team might have three or four role players with genuine talent, the teams of today are lucky if they have one guy who can truly hold his own in helping to hoist the elite up.

So who can blame the athletes with REAL talent from wanting to team up?

Guys like LeBron James are no longer expected just to be great players, they are expected to act as mentors and trainers who must take on the responsibility of developing those players around them. They cannot focus solely on their game, because they have to make everyone else better.

The Cleveland Cavaliers and the Denver Nuggets are the perfect example of this fact. Before their superstar saviors came to town, they were the bottom-feeders of the league. While those superstar saviors were in town, they realized elevated levels of success, but nothing truly satisfying. Now that those superstar saviors are gone, they have sunk back into the depths of irrelevance.

They enjoyed a boost in winning percentages because they had a difference-maker on the court, but that boost was short-lived because those difference-makers didn’t want to have to do everything. While they want to be the best guy on the court, they don’t want to be the ONLY guy on the court. So they have sacrificed their shot at EXCLUSIVE glory so they can at least have a shot at glory.

Fixing the problem

The good news for NBA fans is that the upcoming CBA expiration provides the perfect opportunity to fix the league’s problems. Who would have thought that inspiration for that fix would come from the same organization blamed for the overhyped condition of sports in America today – ESPN?

Last weekend, analysts Jay Bilas and Hubert Davis, following one of their broadcasts, discussed a recommendation that was so well received that Michigan State’s head coach, Tom Izzo, has decided to propose it to the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

The recommendation was that the NBA should implement an ultimatum of sorts to prospective NBA draft entrants. For those who feel they are truly ready to make the immediate leap from high school into the pros, they deserve that opportunity. The one-year waiting period will be waived, and they can follow in the footsteps of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and several others who have gone on to superstardom.

For those who are not ready, though, they will have to commit to a THREE-year (as opposed to one) stint in college.

This is actually a brilliant proposal that would boost the level of play, not only for the NBA, but also for college basketball (although the benefits for the NCAA are irrelevant to the topic at hand today).

For starters, this would actually not be an unprecedented policy. In fact, it is exactly the same policy held by the MLB. Although the NFL does not offer an immediate entry into their ranks, they still require a three-year wait.

The greatest benefit that the NBA would realize is that it would no longer have to assume the responsibility of developing athletes who are SUPPOSED to be NBA-caliber talent. As evidenced by the current state of talent in the league, it is obvious that the league stinks at developing talent anyway. Why not let players grow-up in college, at someone else’s expense, so that when they DO join the professional ranks they do so as matured athletes who are ready to hit the ground running.

This elevation in entry-level talent coming into the league would help boost the level of competition across the board. Teams would be able to populate their rosters with a better class of athlete, and the support-starved stars of the game today will feel less pressure to take on the role of team savior.

The end result is that all of the teams in the league would get better. The depth of talent from the five starters to the pine-riders and the D-leaguers would make the game more competitive, and stars of the league might be more compelled to resume the competitive nature of their predecessors, staying put and striving for individual glory, rather than a shared piece of the ultimate prize.

This proposal, which is now being championed by one of the most respected coaches in basketball today, is one that will benefit the entire game of basketball. It will make the players better, and it will make the league better.

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


The Best Coach Without A Title Debate Verdict

February 25, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Bleacher Fan.

Right from the very beginning, Optimist Prime was well aware of the challenges he faced in this debate. He knew there are always long odds associated with pleading a case for any figure as the greatest in their respective field, let alone the greatest across all sports. Yet, he still made his case for Jerry Sloan as the greatest coach to never win a championship.

Ever the hopeless optimist, he made a valiant effort to support Sloan’s claim to the legacy of being the best coach without a ring. He cited a compelling case for the very best Utah Jazz teams that Sloan coached to Western Conference championships following the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 regular seasons. He explained that these excellent Jazz teams were among the very best in basketball and only failed to win a championship because they faced the Jordan Era Chicago Bulls, perhaps the greatest team in NBA history.

At first appearance it seems that Optimist Prime basically made a case for Sloan on the premise that playing second fiddle to the greatest of all time should count for something. But I think his argument means slightly more than that. It means that had Sloan’s Jazz teams of the late ‘90s played in a different time, there may very well have been no debate at all as they would have in all likelihood come away with at least one championship.

While I was not quite ready to jump on the Sloan bandwagon just yet, I kept finding myself returning to one statistic that Optimist Prime pointed out in his argument – that Sloan is one of three coaches to have at least 15 consecutive winning seasons. The only other two coaches to accomplish that feat are Phil Jackson and Pat Riley, and those fellas know a thing or two about great coaching, as evidenced by their championship hardware. That is some pretty elite company to keep and comparatively that accomplishment helps Sloan’s success transcend the NBA.

After reading Optimist Prime’s words a second time through, I began to think that maybe – just maybe – Sloan could indeed be the greatest coach without a championship… that is until I read Bleacher Fan’s argument.

I don’t normally like to gush about one of Bleacher Fan’s arguments, as his ego is already Shaq-sized. But his argument was honestly an unstoppable freight train of correctness. His case against Sloan didn’t just poke holes in Optimist Prime’s argument – it made Swiss cheese of it. It is not that Optimist Prime did anything wrong, either. He played the hand he was dealt in this debate as well as anyone could, but Bleacher Fan brought the pain with one relentless point rebuttal after another, ultimately earning him today’s win.

His assertion that there is something inherently wrong about walking away from a team mid-season is dead on. It speaks more of Sloan’s cowardice and defeated attitude than it does of adding to the legacy of being one of the best ever. His point that coaches in other sports have better career regular season winning percentages than Sloan (to say nothing of bettering his pedestrian .485 winning percentage in the playoffs) was certainly not lost on me. He put the nail in the coffin when he proved that Sloan wasn’t even the greatest coach in his own league without a title. By point out the fact that Don Nelson has far more NBA coaching wins in the NBA than Sloan, proving beyond a shadow of doubt that Sloan really doesn’t even belong in the “greatest ever” conversation.

Here’s to you Bleacher Fan. You are the victor for writing one of the most compelling arguments I have ever judged here on The Sports Debates.

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.