Idiot Sports Announcers Watch (v. 1.3)—Don't Call It a Comeback!

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin' my peers and puttin' suckas in fear ...
....
Shotgun blasts are heard
When I rip and kill, at will
The man of the hour, tower of power, I'll devour ...
....
Listen to the way I slay, your crew
Damage! [uhh!] Damage! [uhh!] Damage! [uhh!] Damage!
Destruction, terror, and mayhem
Pass me a sissy so suckas I'll slay him ....

—LL Cool J, "Mama Said Knock You Out"

This morning, I took Berkeley on our "long" walking route, about four miles total.  Along the way, we popped into the vet clinic for something like six vaccine booster shots—who knew dogs could get bird flu?  Of course, I also love the whole "bring in some poop" process—$22 to look at it, $4 to throw it away—not glamorous work, but it pays better than what some might argue is similar work at McDonalds.  About $160 later, Berk is officially the Superman of puppies.

On our walks, I listen to a variety of podcasts on my iPhone via Stitcher radio.  Most of the podcasts are for poker or sports topics, and this morning, I happened to load up the Dan Patrick sports talk radio highlights for this past Wednesday.  What I heard made my blood boil.

Patrick was interviewing Rich Eisen, a major figure and lead commentator for the NFL Network and NFL.com, official media arms for the league.  Patrick asked Eisen if he had to buy an NFL jersey for his young son, would he pick Michael Vick (Philadelphia Eagles star QB embroiled in a dog fighting scandal), Brett Favre (Minnesota Vikings star QB involved in a sexual harassment scandal), or Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers star QB enmeshed in two sexual assault scandals)?  Eisen stated that, because his wife was a dog lover who worked with the ASPCA, he definitely wouldn't buy a Vick jersey.

Then Eisen and Patrick went where they shouldn't have gone.  Patrick suggested that Vick, who is having a statistically remarkable season on the football field, should be a contender for the NFL's "Comeback Player of the Year", awarded each season to a player who has demonstrated perseverance in overcoming adversity (typically an injury).  Eisen emphatically stated that Vick already has Comeback Player of the Year "locked up".  If true, then the NFL has truly abandoned any pretense of caring about character over cash.

It's not just Eisen and Patrick drinking the Vick-comeback Kool-Aid.  This week's Sports Illustrated cover story also refers to Vick's "comeback" and "rebirth".  In fact, it seems many (if not most) major sports writers and broadcasters are firmly in the "bygones" camp in covering Vick, choosing to applaud Vick's athletic exploits with barely more than an apologetic "he deserves a second chance" nod to his criminal past.

ESPN columnist Rick Reilly suggests that, "in a backward way, Vick has been the best thing to happen to pit bulls" because he raised public awareness of pit bull fighting.  Well yes, by all means, let's give Vick a citizen of the year award for his efforts.  And while we're at it, let's give O.J. Simpson an award for raising public awareness of spousal abuse.  Reilly also suggests that we forgive Vick because he's "remade" himself into the "the most exciting athlete in American sports" by paying more attention to his diet, training more diligently, and working harder in practice.  Ya know, there are plenty of exciting athletes out there to applaud who seem to have learned those lessons without needing 18 months in federal prison for motivation.  Perhaps we could find two or three of them to hold up as paragons of virtue?

Another ESPN columnist, Bill Simmons, actually went further into absurdity in justifying his Vick worship.  Simmons actually repeated Reilly's "Vick did a favor for animal rights" nonsense, only he explicitly drew the comparison to O.J. Simpson and spousal abuse!  While we're at it, let's take a moment to recognize Tiger Woods for his strong work in support of traditional family values.

Simmons also suggested we are all "hypocrites" about animal cruelty because most of us enjoy eating meat.  I'll go Simmons one better.  Growing up on a farm, I've actually been a part of the meat industry on the production side.  I've castrated pigs, branded cattle, and been on a slaughterhouse "kill floor".  The difference between those in the meat industry and people like Vick is that the meat industry does not engage in animal cruelty for sport and gambling.  The purpose of the meat industry is to provide food, while the purpose of dog fighting is let a bunch of guys get their jollies watching two dogs tear each other to shreds in what are generally lengthy, bloody battles.  The meat industry minimizes the pain inflicted on animals (or at least does not cause gratuitous suffering to animals), while dog fighting thrives on maximizing brutality.  Michael Vick doesn't get off the moral hook for electrocuting dogs merely because many of us enjoy a good steak or pork chop.

Simmons also makes the absurd suggestion that Vick—animal torturer and felon—is a better person than LeBron James—basketball superstar who has never been so much as arrested—because "LeBron steadfastly refuses to admit his 'Decision' [to leave his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat] was ruinously handled from start to finish." Seriously?  You want to stake the credibility of your support for Vick on that argument?

Now, there is one point where Reilly, Simmons, Patrick, Eisen, and their ilk are absolutely correct—Vick has served his prison time, and if the NFL and the Eagles want Vick representing them, that's their business.  Even though many felons after prison find themselves shut out of lucrative employment opportunities, Vick is under no obligation to turn down millions of dollars if some team is willing to pay him for his services.  If Eagles fans and fantasy football enthusiasts want to root for or gush over Vick, that's their right. Heck, I even understand the sentiment for Vick's fans—"Vick may be a felon, but he's our felon".*

Here's the thing.  Just because Vick has served his time, and is saying and doing all the "right" things, doesn't change the fact of what he did.  Vick financed an illegal dog-fighting business, looking to profit off of the torture of animals as a form of entertainment and gambling.  Vick also wasn't merely a passive investor, he got his hands dirty—and literally bloody—by participating in the killing of several dogs.  Vick wasn't someone committing a youthful indiscretion, nor was he caught in an addiction beyond his control. So please, can we all stop the nonsense talk about how Vick has overcome "adversity"? Adversity is something that happens to someone beyond their control; adversity is not the consequence of a personal moral choice. Adversity is an injury, an illness, a family tragedy. Vick's serving time in federal prison was a well-deserved punishment, not adversity.

For those fans who can stomach Vick's past off-field conduct, Vick's current on-field performance is certainly exciting.  For sports journalists, Vick's resurrected career is an attention-grabbing topic for punditry.  For the NFL and the Eagles, Vick's athletic prowess is certainly lucrative.  Frankly, if the league is sufficiently bereft of dignity and talented, non-felonious stars, Vick's cornucopia of highlight reel plays might well make him worthy of being named league MVP.

But, please, don't call it a comeback.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As you make your year-end charitable contributions, please keep these worthy organizations in your thoughts, or look up your local chapters of these groups and donate your time, cash, or needed supplies, or even help an animal find a new, loving home.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
The Humane Society of the United States
The Animal Rescue League (ARL) (Iowa chapter)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Just a reminder, when someone is dismissive of criticisms of Vick because "all he did was kill some pit bulls", here are some examples of the breeds of dog Vick consigned to torture and death.

(Image source).

(Image source).

(Image source).

(Image source).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
*  There are plenty of sports teams at all levels of play fielding players of questionable moral character.  Coaches, fans, owners, and/or administrators alike all have to reach some decision on where to draw the moral line regarding whether they employ, coach, or root for a particular player.  Even my beloved Huskers are not immune.  In my mind, Tom Osborne's legacy will always be tainted by his decision in 1995 to reinstate Lawrence Phillips to the team after suspending him for physically assaulting his then-girlfriend.  Although Osborne likely had Phillips' best interests at heart, and the Huskers did not need Phillips (they had a pretty serviceable backup RB in Ahman Green), nonetheless the fact remains that the Huskers chose to keep a pretty unsavory character on the team on the way to a second consecutive national title.  And Husker fans cheered.

D-Bags O' the Day (v. 1.6)—The Patriots Steal Candy from Kiddies

The New England Patriots, once lovable losers, have dominated the NFL in d-baggery this past decade.  They started off with the infamous "Tuck Rule" game, but nobody really begrudged them sticking it to the Raiders.  We all just snickered as the league screwed over Al Davis yet again, and cheered as the plucky Patriots won a thrilling Super Bowl.  Little did we know what price we'd pay in tolerating years of annoying chatter about Belichik the Genius and Tom Terrific, the undefeated regular season, the mugging of the Colts in the 2004 AFC title game, spygate, and just an overwhelming amount of arrogant d-bag attitude from the team, its coaches, and their fans, not to mention an unprecedented amount of azz-kissing from announcers, commentators, and anyone remotely associated with the supposedly hard-hitting sports media.  Thankfully, a big dish of karma got served cold and literally upside the head when Eli Manning escaped a sack and threw a pass to David Tyree (who dat?) who made the greatest catch in Super Bowl history:



So why are the Patriots our D-Bags O' the Day?  I mean, how could they go above and beyond their usual level of d-baggery and get on our radar again?  Well, when a junior high school's students achieved a phenomenal participation rate in an NFL-sponsored fitness program, the schoolkids were promised a workout with Patriots team members.  Instead, the team sent over a communications intern who played some kickboxing workout tapes, and the kids also got a lecture from a dietician.  Seriously Patriots, you couldn't get three or four obscure starters to take a morning off to hang out for a couple of hours with some kids for whom it would be the highlight of their year?  Way to go all out to connect with your young fans!  At least the kids learned an important lesson—pro athletes in general, and Patriots players in particular, just don't give a flying pig about their fans.

Now that the Patriots have stolen candy from kids, what's next?  Kicking puppies?  Or worse, stealing footballs from puppies?  Berkeley sure isn't taking any chances!

An Onside Kick for Poker

“Fortune favors the bold.”—Roman proverb

The day after another in a recent string of entertaining and memorable Super Bowls, the buzz in the sports world is all about New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton’s “gamble” to open the second half of the game with an unusual and daring onside kick. The Saints recovered the kick, and took advantage of the resulting great field position to score a touchdown and take the lead. Although the Indianapolis Colts would answer the Saints’ score with a touchdown drive of their own, the Saints had established the momentum that would carry them to the victory.

Of course, it wasn’t just that one play that carried the day. Several other key turning points in the game included:  unsuccessfully going for the touchdown on 4th and 1 late in the first half (but pinning the Colts deep, leading to a field goal and momentum to close the first half), successfully challenging an official’s ruling on a two point conversion play (risking a crucial timeout in the process), calling blitzes against Peyton Manning (who is one of the best QBs in the NFL against pressure), and a interception by Tracy Porter who jumped a receiver’s route as the Colts were driving for the tying touchdown late in the game (if he misses the pick, the Colts likely score and tie the game). Although many commentators refer to these critical plays as “gambles”, in fact they are better regarded as calculated aggression—high risk, high reward decisions that take the initiative and force their opponent to react to them.

Aggression, of course, is widely touted as a key to success in poker. In the past, I’ve been widely regarded as an aggressive player. As one of my poker buds put it, “It’s not the $15 preflop that I mind. It’s that I know it’s going to be another $50 on the flop.” But, after a string of bad sessions last summer and fall, I have to admit I started shying away from aggression. I dialed the c-bets way back, and started running scared from raises. I still generally played a marginally profitable game by relying on getting paid off on big hands, but I knew I was leaving a ton of money on the table. The nadir came in November when I lost a big pot in a 2/5 NLHE game at the Meadows ATM, failing to c-bet with AK on a whiffed flop and check-calling a bet, turning a pair and check-calling again because the turn completed a flush, then losing to a rivered runner-runner straight. As I shook my head at the weird conclusion to the hand, an older gent whose game I respect quietly said to me, “You never gave him a chance to fold.”

That short sentence was an onside kick to my poker ego. At some level, I knew I had been playing passive, scared poker. I knew I was folding way too often, giving up on hands to avoid big losses, and in the process giving away chips $15 to $50 at a time. But, I justified it to myself by thinking of my play as "tight", "cautious", or "prudent". Over the long haul, that is a recipe for losing a lot of money. So, after that old gent's gentle critique, I made it a point to begin dialing the aggression back up. Not necessarily to a maniac level—being overly aggressive can be devastating both in poker and in football. But I definitely wanted players to fear me again when they call a preflop raise.

Being aggressive is tough and risky, but it’s the difference between being a champion and finishing in the middle of the pack. Always give your opponent a chance to fold.

It's Not All About the Bracelet

“It’s all about the bracelet.”

It is almost a cliché now, how poker players at the WSOP routinely aver that they are playing for the bracelet, not for the money. Joe Cada and Darvin Moon repeated the “all about the bracelet” mantra at this past WSOP final table. A quick Google search brings up dozens of more examples, including notable name players like Jeff Madsen, Johnny Chan, Phil Hellmuth, Nick Schulman, and Phil Gordon. Two-time WSOP bracelet winner Howard Lederer probably states the bracelet party line as well as anyone:

"The WSOP is not just another tournament. And bracelets are not just another trophy. When a player dies, the first thing they report in their obituary is the number of bracelets won."

Reported by Michael Craig, FullTiltPoker.com (2/14/09).

Given this cult of the bracelet, the reaction this past week to news of T.J. Cloutier’s sale of two of his WSOP bracelets was predictable. Along with the usual snickering rumor-mongering about Cloutier’s supposed financial troubles (and legendary craps habit), the general reaction was astonishment. How near rock bottom must Cloutier’s situation be if he is resorting to such extreme measures as selling off these hallowed relics?

The Cloutier bracelet sale news occurred at the same time as the media hype leading up to the Super Bowl. So, for the past week, the sports media has treated us to a parade of former Super Bowl winners, wearing their gaudy Super Bowl rings, and waxing rhapsodic about how winning a Super Bowl ring fulfilled their ultimate dream. Sound familiar? What may also sound familiar, then, are the recurrent media reports of Super Bowl rings being pawned or auctioned off. This disposal of championship memorabilia isn’t even limited to poker bracelets or Super Bowl rings—the practice seems to encompass all of the major professional and college sports, as well as similar items like boxing belts, Olympic medals, and Heisman trophies. In fact, one online site is dedicated to the sale of championship rings, and offers rings from many major college teams (including my beloved Huskers), as well as from quite a number of Super Bowls and other professional sport championships.

Given the pervasive “all about the bracelet” or “all about the ring” mentality, it seems inconceivable to most fans that anyone would ever willingly part with a bracelet or ring except in dire circumstances. In fact, one prominent online broker asserts that most of his purchases occur because of “the three Ds”—death, drugs, and divorce—to which he now adds “the big E”—the economy. If the recurrent rumors are to be believed, in Cloutier’s case we might add the big G—gambling—to the mix. On the other hand, maybe it was all a publicity stunt, and Cloutier is sitting on a comfortable nest egg and laughing at the whole poker world.

Frankly, though, I could give a flying pig why Cloutier sold his bracelets. To me, the more interesting question is why we place such a high value on rings and bracelets in the first place. For players, the answer seems easy—the ring or bracelet reflects winning a title and being at the ultimate peak of one’s profession. The ring or bracelet also confers prestige, with success among the elite players being divided even more finely by the number of rings or bracelets, and in the case of poker, which bracelets (certain WSOP events carry more prestige). Finally, the ring or bracelet likely carries a certain economic benefit. In addition to the bonus money won by champions in most sports, or the prize money won by boxers and poker players, winning a ring or bracelet often translates into other economic opportunities—endorsements, appearance fees, book deals, and the like.

The thing is, all of those benefits from winning the ring or bracelet have nothing to do with the ring or bracelet itself. Instead, for a player, the ring or bracelet is just a symbol of achievement. Even if they pawn, sell, lose, or even give it away, their accomplishment still stands. They will still be introduced—or eulogized—as a “Super Bowl champion” or “four time WSOP bracelet winner.” So, when a player says, “I’m playing for a ring” or “All I care about is the bracelet”, what they are really saying is that they want all the things that come with winning. The actual ring or bracelet itself is rather beside the point. In fact, Phill Hellmuth, who is as famously obsessive about winning bracelets as anyone, has given away most of his bracelets to family and friends.

Since these rings and bracelets are really nothing more than commemorative baubles—a souped up version of a kid’s league trophy or ribbon—why do fans place such value on those items, caring so deeply that they are being sold, and in some cases, paying large sums of money to buy them? The collectors’ motives are fairly easy to guess. Although there might be the occasional shrewd investor who is simply looking to make a profit from a future resale, for the most part it seems most of these memorabilia purchasers buy these rings or bracelets to stroke their own egos and feel some of the reflected glory of an achievement they themselves will never personally experience. But, because they have money, they can get a ring or bracelet rather than settling for an autographed ball or framed team poster like the average fan. In a way, owning a ring or bracelet is just a variation on wearing a flashy Rolex or driving an exotic car—it’s the gauche byproduct of superfan syndrome and wealthy narcissism.

But if those who buy rings and bracelets are indulging their inner spoiled brat, the prize for epic tackiness goes to those who follow the reports of the sale of rings or bracelets with a sense of smugness. These are the people who righteously declare that they would never part with such an item if they had won it. These same people weigh in on comment boards, gleefully reveling in the tawdry details of another person’s financial woes. In a sense, the media coverage of sports memorabilia sales has a distinct tabloid feel, with sports fans lapping up every detail of a star player’s financial failings much like other folks follow the romantic breakups of their favorite actors and actresses. In the case of poker, the online discussion boards are fueled by rumors and speculation about which players are broke, almost as obsessively as the Hollywood tabloids speculate about which actors are secretly gay.* It’s schadenfreude on steroids.

If Cloutier in fact sold his bracelets because of financial problems, he wouldn’t be the first or last poker player to succumb to financial troubles, whether from gambling, drugs, bad investments, excessive partying, or even a bad run of luck. Likewise for other sports stars who sell off rings or other memorabilia. These folks may have won something most of us can only dream about, but off their chosen field of play, they are still just people with their own human weaknesses. Trading in gossip and cracking jokes at their expense isn’t funny, it’s ghoulish.

-------------------------------------------------
* Actually, speculating about what stars are gay is one topic Hollywood and poker have in common.

Brett Favre Is Still a Winner

The Saints-Vikings NFC Championship game yesterday, while not exactly a paragon of defense and ball security, was certainly action-packed and dramatic. A lot of postgame analysis and Monday morning quarterbacking is assigning blame for the Vikings’ loss on QB Brett Favre, primarily because of his interception in the final seconds of regulation which deprived the Vikings of a shot at a long (55 yd.) field goal to win. According to this line of argument, Favre’s INT led directly to the Saints’ win in overtime.

This argument oversimplifies matters greatly. Certainly Favre’s INT was a critical error, but it was hardly the only factor leading to the Vikings’ loss. The Vikings also had three fumbles, including two within the Saints’ 10 yard line. Immediately prior to the play, the Vikings had a 5 yard penalty for 12 men in the huddle, which is inexplicable given that the Vikings had called a timeout. Without that penalty, a simple run up the middle for 2 or 3 yards would have left the Vikings with a 47-48 yard field goal attempt; hardly a sure thing (particularly given the rampant postseason kicking woes around the league), but certainly makeable in a dome a decent percentage of the time. Once in overtime, the Vikings’ defense gave up enough yards to allow the winning field goal. So, there was certainly plenty of blame to go around, and maybe just a little credit for the efforts of a pretty talented Saints team.


What gets lost in the argument is the underlying question of whether the Vikings would even have made it to the NFC title game without Favre. Much as it pains me to admit as a Packers fan, Favre’s performance this season is arguably his best ever. Comparing his season stats for this past regular season to his years with the Packers, Favre had:

• His best QB rating (107.2; his usual range was 85-95)
• His fewest INTs (7, well below his usual range of 15-23)
• His best completion percentage
• His third most yards passing (4,202, only 211 yds. off his career high)
• Tied for his fourth most TDs (33, only 6 off his career high)

On top of his individual performance, Favre enabled the Vikings to win 12 games and get the No. 2 seed in the NFC, along with homefield advantage against the Cowboys. Can anyone seriously argue that the Vikings would have had as much team success with Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels at QB? The Vikings may not have had such a strong QB performance since the glory days of Fran Tarkenton several decades ago.

I’ll be the first to admit Favre is an egotistical diva. But these days, most star athletes fall in the same category. Favre’s repeated retirement/unretirement dance is tiresome, as is the constant sports announcer worshipping of his “gunslinger” approach to the game. But despite all his foibles and flaws, Favre came to play every game; he was the epitome of a competitor. In fact, many of his INTs or bonehead plays came more from trying too hard to win, to manufacture a play on the run, to will a pass to work. That will to do all he could for his team is what made Favre a winner. It’s what made the Packers a winning franchise again, and what won them another Super Bowl title (with a big assist from Reggie White). It’s what changed the Vikings this season from another middle of the pack team to a serious title contender stopped one excruciating play short of the Super Bowl.

So, all you Vikings fans, I understand how it feels to see your postseason dreams crushed by a Favre INT. But, when you signed up for the Favre Express, you knew you were riding a QB who would push the edge to win, usually with solid success, sometimes with spectacular plays, but also occasionally in a flaming disaster. You simply can’t have Brett Favre the winner without Brett Favre the ticking timebomb; without that edge—that will to win—you would only have another QB with a strong arm who could do everything but help his team win.

In other words, you would have Jeff George. And you already know how that experiment turned out.

English as a Second Language for Sports Announcers

While watching an entertaining weekend of football (a big high five to F-Train for his Jets knocking off the Electric Norvs), I was reminded repeatedly of how badly many sports announcers mangle the English language. Here are my two biggest sports announcing pet peeves du jour:

“There’s no question …” / “No question about it …”—Umm, if there’s no question about a point, if it is so obvious and so incontrovertible that there can be no debate on the issue, why oh why are you wasting my time with your nattering?

“Player X is out with a [body part].”—This formulation is pure verbal laziness. “Smith is out with a knee.” Actually, he has two knees. He’s out because he has (take your pick): a) a torn ACL, b) a knee strain, or c) a knee injury. See how that works? You report on a medical condition, not merely name a part of the anatomy. To illustrate the silliness of this formulation, imagine saying a player is “out with a head” or “out with a brain” when in fact he is “out with a concussion”.

Now we can only hope Joe Buck goes back to baseball where nobody listens to him …